Will ths business model result in more Air Crew jobs?

[AA SLF]

PLease read the story at this LINK HEREhttp://money.cnn.com/2006/04/27/technology/business2_futureboy_airtaxi0427/

Seems to be a very hot topic here in the USA. Is there any applicability of this model to the UK and EU airspace?

[Consol]

Two words, SAFE-TY.

[Jetavia]

As far as I know two european operators plan to setup Eclipse operations Aviace in CH (112 aircraft) and Jetset Air in the UK (50 aircraft).

[swedish]

There is an airline just started in Moscow - Dexter, doing just this. I belive part of the money has or will come from the world bank

[Looooong haul]

Explaint to me why a B200 kingair never took off for this role (ie short haul air taxi) while it has a much bigger cabin and proven low cost to operate. The fact that it is a jet vs turboprop should make no difference. So now we have all these start ups with a non proven model that we all should get excited about... Put me in a B200 anyday as I know the durability of the thing but with these I will wait 5 years before trying :)

[High Wing Drifter]

AA SLF,

Yes, I have been convinced since I set-off down this wannabe route that it is simply inevitible that there will be more, smaller, flights from/to more location combinations. However, when I arrived at this conclusion I was thinking of fractional jets, loco short-haul and single engine IFR frieght.

Specifically regarding the VLJ and bizjet based air-taxi models. The upside is that I think pilots, within this new model, will need to be much more flexible in the range of duties they are willing to perform which adds the pilot back into the commercial equation makes him/her a differentiator again and hopefully puts the need for a union to bed.

The downside is that I am also convinced that salaries will have to reduce. I do think other incentives will be required such as bonuses for commercial performance, shares, etc.

I don't believe safety will be a significant issue other than there will probably be more accidents simply because there will be more sectors flown - the accident/sector ratio probably won't alter appreciably. I note the comment on turbulance in the article. To my thinking a VLJ will be less prone simply because it has less wing area. Consider too, on the saftey front, that a VLJ will have many more diversion options.

Explaint to me why a B200 kingair never took off for this role (ie short haul air taxi) while it has a much bigger cabin and proven low cost to operate.
Operational ceiling and speed! The slighly improved range of the B200 probably wouldn't be a siginificant differentiator for this application. Being fast and above the weather will.

Just my wannabe semi-uneducated musings on the subject :)

[RogerIrrelevant69]

Don't want to set this thread off on a tangent (as I think the Eclipse VLJ could well change the face of aviation and give many low hours guys that 1st all important break to the RHS in a jet into the bargain) but I'm scratching my head about that assumption from HWD:

"VLJ will be less prone [to turbulence] simply because it has less wing area"

My POF is rusty as hell but there is some old grey cell telling me it's not that simple. Does momentum (=mass x velocity) not play a more important role?
Just thinking of a jet fighter doing 400knots with a full payload versus a much lighter VLJ doing the same speed but with similar wing area. Which will get kicked around more by turbulence?

Just a thought, I'm probably wrong and definitely too lazy to look it up!

[Looooong haul]

Fast? Understand that the climb rate of the Eclipse when fully loaden makes the A340 a sprinter :p

Also short range does not need FL410....

[High Wing Drifter]

Just a thought, I'm probably wrong and definitely too lazy to look it up!
I'm not sure either, but it just rekindled a comment made by my PoF tutor. May I suggest we don't go down this road, I think the business model one is far more important, not to say interesting :D

[calypso]

hopefully puts the need for a union to bed.

The downside is that I am also convinced that salaries will have to reduce

That is alright then. Lower terms and conditions but at least we can get rid of those pesky unions ?????!!!!!

[High Wing Drifter]

It is a better base for something commercially able to stand on its own two feet - unlike much of the industry at the moment. My worry about becoming a pilot is the complete lack of influence I can have on the competetiveness of the organisation, because of that I have no control, stuck in an outdated seniority system. Consequently I will have little chance of being able to negotiate my own term as I can in my current line of business now - which I am comfortable with. I suspect that the new model will require the pilot to become more tightly integrated with the commercials. Assuming I am not a millions miles away on my other wild assumptions, it is possible that because the pilot will be the main interface between the bussiness and customer, those that are adept at this role will be on very nice T&Cs. Who knows?

I open to the possibility I simply don't understand the current system sufficiently to comment. But these are my impressions thus far.

[Best foot forward]

HWD

What would you sooner cross the Atlantic OCean in, in a force 9 gale, a row boat or an Ocean Liner. Short sector lengths mean low altitudes which is why turboprops will always be more cost effective on sector lengths of less than an hour. Their just not sexy enough.

Seniority is not outdated its just tried and true and works well, if you have the time in the company, the required experience and the ability then you should get the promotion.

Being able to negotiate one on one for terms and conditions is fine if your in a one man band. LArger businesses don't have the time or the resources to deal individually with 100 200 300 0r more individuals, collective barganing through a union serves both parties equally well. I assume your flight crew and not a lawyer, you might think you know all the is to know about employment law, but I bet even the HR department at your company only brush the surface with their knowledge, thats why specialist make large ammounts of dosh as consultants. Unless you have specialist skills that the company needs or the company is desperate, then go for the collective bargaining.

[RVR800]

Wouldnt the VLJ be faster and also most businessmen would prefer the Kudos of a jet over an old propellor driven thing.....

[High Wing Drifter]

Best Foot,
you might think you know all the is to know about employment law
I think I made my experience and knowledge position clear.
Being able to negotiate one on one for terms and conditions is fine if your in a one man band. LArger businesses don't have the time or the resources to deal individually with 100 200 300 0r more individuals
Within the context of air taxi I don't believe we should be thinking of large airlines. I think typically we will be talking of smaller business units. Even considering the large, what you say isn't strictly true according to my experience. I work for a global organisation of 80,000 employees and 15,000 in the UK. I used to work for the world's largest defence contractor. I have also worked for tiny organisations. It is true that a capable individual has more leverage in the smaller organisations, but in every case I have negotiated my own salary and position within the organisation. This is because I am being assessed as an individual and not just as a role. A line manager typically deals with <20 individuals. Calling the seniority system outdated was perhaps a little naive, I accept it maybe the best solution within larger airline constraints and philosophy.

[Pirate]

Surely, the business advantage of the little jet is that it gives jet kudos and performance, together with the ability to use airfields close to the customers' departure/destination points?

I do have a slight reservation in that the business model seems to be predicated on the US scenario where little aeroplane pilots seem to accept more modest remuneration than their European counterparts, so it may not translate economically across the Atlantic.

[potkettleblack]

I think it is a pretty sound business model for the US but am not sure it will transfer readily to Europe and the UK in particular. For a start the US has a much bigger population on which to draw. The UK has a much lower population as we all know and it will cost dearly to try and reach your target market. Look at why most airlines fail and principally no one knew who they were or what they are delivering ie: poor marketing.

Other reasons conspiring against air taxi are:

ATC/Airspace - to make a go of it you want to be able to get up and go when you want with minimum of fuss. Anyone who has flown in the US knows how user friendly the airspace is and there is no shortage of airports with 10,000ft runways and decent terminal areas which you can land on for free. Contrast that with the UK's airspace/airports and the need to file IFR flight plans and pay Eurocontrol for the priviledge. I can see the short notice being a real issue for filing flight plans and getting around flow controls etc. To make air taxi really work you want to be able to take off VFR and if necessary file IFR in the air or better still go VFR all the way if CAVOK and stay under busy airways and utilise smaller airports but I am pretty sure there is something somewhere that will stop you from doing this.

CAA/AOC - If you go for one of these new fangled light jets then there is the whole JAA certification issue to get around. Will the manufacturers be willing to pay for this when presumably they won't be selling that many units in the UK? Answer - probably not, so the operator might have to chip in. So that pushes you towards something established like the beech 1900 etc. Then there is the issue of an AOC which in itself is a relatively expensive and time consuming document to get approved. Yes you could try piggy backing off someone elses for a while but there is no such thing as a free lunch so expect a major share of any profit to be deducted.

I like the concept a lot however I can see just so many hurdles against it.

[klink]

Would you actually need two pilots to operate it as an airtaxi?
Not current on the FARs and Jars.

[Torquelink]

I would have thought that there must be dozens of old Citations out there for someone to test the business model before buying lots of new aircraft.

Also, I just don't see how you can provide out and back times at punter's requirement at any small airfield in, say, Europe without having the aircraft and crew hanging about for hours in whatever remote point the punter wanted to go to - either that or there'll be a lot of empty ferrying. Either way, having the aircraft/crew standing idle or empty ferrying must seriously add to costs. I realise that this might not apply at the operator's home base but I still think that getting fares down to equivalent of a business class fare - on a single punter basis - will be very difficult to do.

[20driver]

This has being debated to no end over here but I just cannot see the money working. The capital costs per seat are higher than a 737. The overhead, administrative insurance, labor cost etc per seat will be huge.
I see a big problem with utilization. The big advantage of small planes is avoiding the big airports but if you want to be a drop of the hat service that does not leave time to hang around for the next punter. It's not like hailing a shared cab at the side of the road. That up and down stuff burns time and money. If you are really going to keep people happy you are going to be doing a lot of single passenger flying and deadheading.
Somehow aviation can make the most rational man do silly things with money and this looks like the next one.
20driver

[major baker]

Ahhh, the Piaggio 180! My fantasy aircraft. High speed, comfy cabin and t'prop economics. With all the inconvenience of modern airline travel there must be some way to market alternative services to weary business travellers. I would have thought this aircraft is ideal. I've not actually flown one but imagine it has the attributes to supply this niche, moreso than the trusty old b200 (which I have flown) or the vlj which must burn more fuel per pax for not much more speed. The cabin lends itself to a business cabin.
I understand an operator in the US already operates a fleet of these, I wonder if there is a reason this has not alreadt been tried.

[Torquelink]

The Piaggio P180 - an aircraft that's never met with the success it deserves in my view. Developed at the same time as the Beech Starship only, unlike the Starship, it did everything it was supposd to do and more! I believe that Piaggio is now controlled by the Ferrari family - maybe they can give the programme some momentum. Of course, they'll all have to be painted red I suppose. It does burn less per seat - and has more seats that the VLJs - but the Eclipse 500 has a sticker price of $1.4m which is pretty hard to beat.

[calypso]

I wonder how do you think you will provide that extra value service over other pilots on the same company. Extra big smiles, super smooth landings, cracking jokes over the PA or pushing the limits on marginal weather so you are the only one that got in, pushing the payload limits to take those extra golf clubs, pushing the fuel limit to make it further,etc etc

I think it is really naive to think you have so much extra to give to justify extra pay over your, similarly keen and profesional, colleagues. Once you join the commercial flying fraternity you will see that nobody cares who flies the aircraft provided they are profesional, safe and turn up on time.

You will also be very grateful that there is a body to help you defend your decisions on the grounds of safety before commercial pressure.

As they say safety is no accident