Ace. .You get that.
I might take issue with some of the others on this utilisation and luxury rate thing, If I may.
The "1000" hrs thing is more likely to be an attempt to make the rate more palatable than a reflection of reality.. .That is having worked out your sums for the year what "number" do you divide this by, to get the hrly rate. For convenience lets call it 'X'.
For Ad Hoc ops 'X' has to be = the number of sorties
possible per day * the return trip time.. .In Perth and Darwin, for example this may produce 600 hrs and in Melbourne only 300 due to the nature of the business and relative trip distances. . .Sitting on the ground all day for a 1200nm round trip, is quite different from doing the same for 400nm seems obvious to me.. .So the rate for these areas should be quite different, sadly it does not appear to be so or fully grasped.. .Be very careful in the research, preparation and data on which you calculate 'X'. There be monsters here
For Mining FIFO Ops with some Ad Hoc the number might be higher but only if it possible to get very tightly knit contracts. The problem usually being that they all want to crew change at the same time. Financial incentives are often the only way to mitigate this, but this further dilutes the revenue, back towards square one.
The temptation is then to try to fill the holes up with RPT or somesuch, but that commits you to fly, win lose or draw and again they all want to go in the am and return in the pm, back towards square one again.
Unless of course you have a relatively captive audience or market and go full LCRPT RPT. . .Then it is possible to schedule towards 1000hrs
provided the traffic is there or can be developed.. .But there are still the realities of the paek and quiet times. And so on. But NOW we are getting away from square one, where maybe 'X' = 600.
Starting to sound familiar.
So unless you fit the last LCRPT scenario you are being very brave using 'X' =1000
Outside of perhaps Syd and Mel realistic X = 600. 1000 is fairly precarious, the balance representing premium income/profit you deserve for excellent management and promotion.
Re "luxury" rates.. .The use of that language suggests that GA charter ops, FIFO or not, can produce 'passenger mile costs' = to Hi Cap airlines and is the major causal reason for the state of the GA industry today.
This never is or ever was possible in any way even in anybodies wildest dreams unless maybe you resort to the use of some of the junk that is flying around at the moment and that can hardly justify the use of the word "luxury".
Low capacity aircraf RPT and by its nature Ad Hoc charter IS and HAS to be a more expensive method of transport than that available by RPT (see discussion re 'X' above).. .You think twice before you catch a cab unless there is no bus service or your own car is not available or appropriate, do you.? Cabs are in this context a "luxury".
The move to call this business "Air Taxi" in regulatory terms is a very old and reheated concept, it never ever was anything else but. The use of the word airline in an Air Taxi operators name is and alays was seriously misleading.
As long as the industry persists in trying to make the punishment fit the crime, by applying increasingly older and inapproriate aircraft to the market in attempts to match Hi Capacity B747 pax mile costs they will continue to sink into well deserved obscurity.