older aircraft

[hawker750]

We have recently noticed more and more brokers asking for the year of manufacture of the aircraft as their client will not travel in an aircraft over a certain age. I find this rather unenlightened, the age of the aircraft has little revelance to safety and reliability. Our Hawkers of 80's vintage enjoy virtually a 100% dispatch reliability. I feel that this ageism has been instigated by NetJets as a marketing ploy and the rest of the industry should fight against it.
To day we were turned down by another operator for a sub charter as our aircraft was too old. When asked why they needed a sub the answer was "We have gone Tech"!!!

Need I say more?

[newcomer]

Age is an issue, the more money you have the picker you can be. Why travel in a 1990 BMW when you can have a 2008 BMW, they both are just as safe the other. From what I understand Netjets dont do charters so maybe you should blame people like EBJ, LEA and some other guys who have some newer models, maybe not Hawkers but Excels and CJs.

[Flintstone]

Netjets dont do charters

That's debateable as they slipped from 'proper' fractional to cards which are arguably pre-paid charter. That aside they certainly DO charter aircraft from third parties which is what hawker750 is referring to.

[Monkey Boy]

It's a prestige thing - not many people complained about the age of Concorde when she was in service did they?

[hawker4000jet]

i think they should look more close at the PIC and FO total time,time in type,ect. more than aircraft year. and this is a big part of the job
of the charter person.
don't forget that mechanic,pilot,dispachers ect. working for the
same company.

[joehunt]

If the customer requests a 2008 model aircraft and they want to be part of the "test flight program" then so be it. I certainly know what I would prefer to strap my backside to and that is a tried and tested model or type.

Take the upper end of the technology ladder. Good point about about the Concord. The Russian Soyuz launch vehicle is a tried and tested vehicle and safe. How many has the space shuttle killed?

As for Netjets drivel, well a company that spouts out of all it's orifice's that "we have the best pilots" and believes it then nothing that comes after would be surprising, would it?

[hawker750]

I am glad I have some supporters. I think the intelligent charterer does not care too much about the age of aircraft (obviously up to a point) He is more concerned with operation and reliability. It is the people who know little about the industry who bother with it. It is these people we should target and point out that getting to detination on time is surely more important that saying old is no good Tried and tested technology can be more reliable than new.

[Bus_Bar]

the age of the aircraft is largely irrelevant. Governed and audited maintenance programs are thorough enough, providing they are adhered to. As far as the client is concerned, they only raise comments if the interior is looking old and tired. Put a new interior in a 1979 Hawker 700 and the client will say nowt.

I happily use Hawker 750's aircraft and will continue to do so.

We find more and more we are asked about age of aircraft; from our US clients in the main. It seems as though many think an aircraft 10 yrs.> is more likely to fall out the sky. Crew hours and experience I consider more relevant; 2000 hours on type between a flight crew is more important than if the aircraft was built within the last 10 years. If the mx. programme is adhered to, where's the rub?

[hawker750]

Thanks BUS BAR

[spaniel]

Having flown many variants of the HS125, both old (but very well maintained) and brand-spankers, there seems little difference between dispatch rates. But we should remember that many of our 'passengers' dont even know what type of aircraft they are climbing aboard!! Or where they are going, for that rate!

There are, of course, much more bragging rights if you fly a 3 months old aeroplane!

[hawker750]

Yes they can brag about the 6 star hotel you were put up in at the operator's expense when the 3 month old aircraft went tech with "teething problems"

[Miles Magister]

H750,

I would not blame Netjets as the brokers were asking these questions long before Netjets were a player in Europe. It is really the big corporations whose lawyers associate new aircraft with being safer just the same way they associate pilots with lots of hours as being safer and some insist on minimum insurance levels. It is only those of us on the inside who know that some of the older aircraft are actually much nicer in many ways. It is just difficult to get this accross, you just have to doff your cap and play their game if you want their money.

[Richard101]

I think the age of the aircraft is largely relevant and that most brokers couldn’t tell the difference between a challenger 600 and a 601/604/605 anyway.

It’s the age of the interior that is important, interiors are much more easily worn than the aircraft themselves and brokers, I hope, want to know their passenger are traveling in comfort (visual and physical comfort) and with all the modern amenities that they come to expect.

[Monkey Boy]

Richard101 - for the record most brokers CAN tell the difference between the aircraft types, if they can't then they shouldn't be doing the job! I think you've missed the point a little. Brokers are not the ones questioning the age of the aircraft, it's the clients they're acting on behalf of. If the client wants a new aircraft, then that's what you have to offer.

The interior of the aircraft isn't such a big deal. Sure, you'll want to avoid anything that's too shabby, but I certainly wouldn't say you can judge how good an aircraft is by how new the seats look, that's not logical, it's like polishing a turd - might look nicer, but it's still a turd underneath!

[Privatejetbroker]

being both a geek and a broker i take offence at the suggestion that i wouldnt be able to tell the difference between a 601 , 605 or 604 or 850

[hawker750]

The main problem with the charter market, both in the UK and in the US is that the paying client is unwilling to pay the proper rate for the job. The finance/depreciation costs on a $15M new aircraft against a good $5M used one is obviously 3 times. This finance cost is the biggest single hourly cost. Based on 600 hours a year utilisation the new aircaraft comes out at £1,350 per flying hour, the used £450 per hour. Sure, the new aircraft is going to be cheaper to maintain and be generally more efficient so knock off £200/Hr for the new aircraft. Are the clients willing to pay an extra £700Hr to charter a new aircraft? Some of the brokers here may be able to answer that one. I think not. Consequently no charter operator can afford to operate new equipment unless there is a hedge fund, sugar daddy, fractional scheme or rich individual underwriting the asset. Usely these people are in it for the wrong reasons, come into the market for a few years and leave when they find out that it is rather hard work and not the glitzy industry they thought it was when they were chartering instead of owning. These people do not put the true cost of owning an aircarft into the equation when putting their aircarft into the market. Therefor it is not a true market. I would love to buy a new aircraft but the market will not allow me to do it.

[PLovett]

hawker750

You have very neatly described the scummy end of general aviation in Australia where the clients have been subsidised to go flying for years.:{

No operator can factor in depreciation into their charter quotes because "Bloggs Aviation" down the road is cutting costs in a desperate attempt to keep the cash flow going. What is going to happen when the tired old equipment that was never designed to go so long finally wears out doesn't bare thinking about.:ugh:

[hawker750]

PLovett
Your are correct, what the true charter companies have to do is re-equip with 15 year old equipment when our 30 year old equipment becomes too uneconomic to maintaintain. What I mean by "true charter companies" is those who are in business to try and make a profit from air charter as opposed to companies that attempt it, either a tax efficient vehicle, a play thing, or a means of subsidising the cost of owning a corporate plane.
One simple way of achieving this would be for the authorities not to allow an operator to mix private with public transport operations. It is just too convenient to say "Oh it was a private operation" when the crew did a 20 hour day or the runway just happens to be a tad short for for public transport. That crew who did the 20 hour day is tomorrows well rested public transport crew! No wonder that certain sections of our Industry have less than a bleamish free reputation. I think that applies to most countries. A few examples: The Challenger at Teterborough. Public Transport, but no one knew who the operator was! The G3 that crashed on the approach going to pick up G. Bush Snr. I think the combined age of the crew was over 130!

[hawkerjet]

I have read a Charter Guide to Chartering aircraft put out by NBAA. Since I've had a couple more glasses wine than I should have I cut and pasted the sites name. Just Google it and you'll see a downloadable version that will answer quite a few questions raised here about older aircraft, chartering aircraft, pilot training etc..... By the way H750, I'll be taking delivery of SN HA001 in a couple weeks. The very first 750.

Google this name then you'll see the download.

NBAA Aircraft Charter Consumer Guide

[hawker750]

H750
Good luck with it, I wish I could have one! It solves the baggage problem and I bet the range is good enough for 95% of all hawker flights. Shame no winglets. Is it charter or private?

[No RYR for me]

I think there is a contradiction in your own reasoning:

We have recently noticed more and more brokers asking for the year of manufacture of the aircraft as their client will not travel in an aircraft over a certain age. which implies they are willing to pay more

Are the clients willing to pay an extra £700Hr to charter a new aircraft? Some of the brokers here may be able to answer that one. I think not.

The answer: some who are in the know will want a good operated, new aircraft with full time, properly rated pilots. Other think about price only becuase they ASSUME all planes are equal. Once they know the difference and prefer not to be a statistic they are generally willing to pay more. It is down to the brokers and operators to educate the passengers, :8

[hawker750]

No contradiction
We have a good operation with aircraft and properly trained, experienced and current crew. I agree that most passengers will pay a small premium to go in a new aircraft but will not pay 1/3 more than the going rate to do so. That is the amount operators of new aircraft should be charging but they simply do not. Do not imply that "statistics" go with older aircraft, that is unintelligent NET JET speak. The statistics are with the poor operators not the good operators of older aircraft.

[No RYR for me]

Why so negative on NetJets I think you have to look inside instead of trying to find a bad guy outside. ;)

If you cannot get your pax to pay more for a better operation you either have a problem in communicating that your have "a good operation with aircraft and properly trained, experienced and current crew" or your passengers do not perceive your product to be of the quality you say it is. In the end everybody pays what they think a product is worth :ok:

[hawker750]

I am negative on Net Jets because they wrongly tell clients that older aircraft are less safe than newer ones. They have obviously been successful in brain washing you on this matter.

Do not worry about my operation we are busy enough and the last thing we need is a bad guy in the camp

[KentishRoman]

I've just quoted a chap for a 4 1/2 hour flight in an older 125-700 and an 8 year old 125-800.

Price diff is coming up at about £7k between the two. Punter wants the new aircraft for the older ones cost. We seem to be at a complete impasse at the moment. I'm very happy to sell him the older machine and am very confident in that product but he has certainly been brainwashed into the 'newer is better' mindset. Trouble is he's not prepared to pay the premium for it.

Then again, i guess we all get punters with beer pocket and Champagne taste?

[hawker750]

Kentish
Your scenario is exactly why I started this thread. Your client has probably had the Net Jets indoctrination course. I hope you can sell to your client on the merits and history of the operator as opposed to whether the taps are gold plated or not. Do not forget that Net Jets are a pretty inexperienced operator in Europe.... Good Luck

[No RYR for me]

Do not forget that Net Jets are a pretty inexperienced operator in Europe.... Hahaha I think it is an anti NetJets thing more than anything with you. They have been in the business since 1960 something in the US and 12 years in Europe. They operate 650+ aircraft of which 130+ in Europe.... Yep very inexperienced :rolleyes:

[hawker750]

Yep, As I said inexperineced in Europe. 12 years is pretty inexperienced in my book

[No RYR for me]

and doing 62.000 flights a year make them VERY inexperienced too.... :hmm:

ps That is more experience in one year than 99% of the operators make in a life time But hey I think you fully agree with yourselves and will agree with yourselves only :zzz:

[John Miller]

It's pleasant to experience a flight occasionally where flying in a 'new' jet is not an issue. Took a Part 91 Lockheed Jetstar ride to Cape Town two weeks ago - never come across such an enthusiastic crew - like they were in a candy store with all the switchery. I spent the flight down in the jump seat and the return flight next day in the back - one of the nicest business jet flights I've been in - I rarely come across such enthusiasm amongst crew and owner. The only snag was a jammed cabin window blind.

It was sobering to see 1700 + lbs ph per engine on initial climb mind. I guess for US$1.4m compared to a 601, there's plenty in the kitty for fuel though.

[The Oxygen Boys]

I am pleased the broker bashing has gone from the thread... Well done Monkey Boy for saying something sensible...

FYI Hawker 750, I have just booked your Hawker 800 for a flight where the "client" isn't concerned by the age of the aircraft. I have also had the pleasure of attending as passenger on one of your flights from AGP and I don't recall complaining about the age on that occasion either :)

Fact is that brokers do have to adhere to clients criteria, if there is no specific age restriction placed by the client, a decent broker should offer an airline that will keep the client happy and do a good job for the client (and therefore by default, for the broker). That could mean offering a new aircraft and an older aircraft and then the client can decide between a Hawker 800 or a CXL or LR60 or whatever...

[Smeagel]

hawker750.

I apologise for No RYR's smug, self serving attitude. I can honestly say they're not all like him, only the ones who wouldn't know a 'proper' corporate flight department or GA company if it bit them in the @rse.

No RYR. It's ok having all those flights and claiming they add to the company's overall level of experience but it doesn't count if the Ops staff keep getting fired or leaving. They tend to take the experience with them. Are they running with more than one Russian speaker in the entire company now?

[hawker750]

O2
No broker bashing from my end, think you guys do a good job, saves me a lot of hassle. The point I was making and I think this thread is about done is that it is the operation that is more important than age of aircraft, and when certain interested parties do not like this fact they are less than truthfull to the end user. My initial thread was that I would love to buy a new aircraft but the end user is unwilling to pay the huge extra cost. Net Jets is not a true market example as most of their assets have been transferred to the "owners" who are taking the huge hit on depreciation and suddenly finthat it is not so easy after all to sell their share without taking a massive hit.
Would be interesting to hear from a Net Jet sharer on this web who has sold a share and find out what the loss was.

[Smeagel]

Well there's another can of worms. NJE shares and those who opt out. Of course the company protect the information on how many people do this but there are enough to keep a very sizeable sales department turning over and you wouldn't have THAT if everything were hunky-dory now would you?

In answer to your question an ex-owner told me he opted out at a cost to him of approximately £100,000.

[hawker750]

Smeagel
That £100,000 is on what? I suspect chartering is always better value for money than a fractional ownership when one puts ALL the costs into the equation. The fractionals are very quiet about the depreciation aspect of their schemes, happy just to say that the share is an "Asset". Would be nice if the fractionals made public the average hit the client takes. It should be all about transparency. When somebody charters my aircraft I give them the total price and that is exactly what they pay, not some extra costs in the future.
Any way got to go, have to fly tomorrow and I just want to polish the plane before I go home!

[Smeagel]

That £100,000 was the difference between what he bought his shares for and what the company paid him back when he opted out. More than one share but even so, hell of a loss.

[spaniel]

Assumption: Chartering/renting a Bizjet is like a really, really, really upmarket version of hiring a car.


I can go to my local hire car company and get a 4 year old Ford Focus LX(80000 miles, a couple of minor dents) that will get me there and back, or,...... I can ring AVIS or Hertz and get them to deliver a 3 month old Ford Focus Zetec with 3000 miles and shiny paintwork to my door step. It will cost about 25% more but if I have a problem theres lots of AVIS offices around and they will fetch me a new one. Now, if someone else is paying (or if the cost is going against tax) I would be silly not to get the better one. If I was paying for it myself to go to a stag do for the weekend, I would save my pennies and use the local firm.

Could it be said that the old 700 is the 'local firm' and Netjets is AVIS??

Discuss.........;)

[hawker750]

Spaniel
Think you are missing the point somewhat. If you rent from Avis you are not asked to buy part of the car before you are allowed to rent it are you?

[H.Finn]

If I'm not wrong NJE claims that their passengers never travel on airplanes more than 5 years old. Now this is obvious BS, they only recently got rid of the Citation VIIs, which were way older than that, and still operate number of Hawker 800XP's, the newest of which must be much older than five years. Not to guess the age of their Falcon 900B's...

[Flintstone]

If you want to pick holes in NJE take a look at their advertising. Remember "Two captains on every aircraft"? :O

A passenger approached me last week and asked if it was really true that (as he had read) their pilots had a minimum of 3000 hours.

Advertising Standards Authority anyone?

[doubleu-anker]

As for 2 Captains on board every flight, this may not be as conducive to safety as it would first appear, statistically.

If one cares to go back and delve into accident/incident statistics over the years, some of the biggest f*****s have been when 2 Captains were flying together.

"Gradient" comes to mind.

[JJflyer]

Definately not a good idea. Unless ofcourse the are good friends a bit different then. Still there is only one "Commander" onboard meaning that one bears the responsibility. It must be clear all times who the person in charge is.

Just a comment reading some of the posts here. It is strange how some of the NJE pilots feel that they are something special. I am sure that there are a lot of good things in the company but there is no company in the world that does not have some downsides in them.
Some time ago on a layover I sat at the bar with many NJE crews in the same hotel and naturally the bar. Well so happens that I knew one of them a nice guy. Professional to the core etc. You have no idea how many times I was asked when I would be applying to NJE. The surprise in their face when I told them that I was not interested in the least. I've heard the stories from inside and as it is many of my friends fly there. It is not for me, thats for sure.

[doubleu-anker]

"It is strange how some of the NJE pilots feel that they are something special."

The Netjets indoctrination/brainwashing/programing has a lot, if not all, to do with it.

[JJflyer]

It is funny you should mention that. It seems that it really is the case. Their indoc program seems to work on certain types of individuals and then again it does not work on others. As such the ones that can walk without blinds on their eyes and in euphoria on how great everything is, have a pretty good grasp of reality in general.

One of the people working with NJE whom I know is in heaven. Good for him. He sees nothing wrong and everything is just soooooo wonderful. It is a bit difficult to relate to that. Another just hated everything with NJE and ended up leaving. Well better happy somewhere else than miserable with the present job. I dont think though that NJE is totally bad. It is just like any other job. Has good and bad things. Good pilots and bad pilots and people that have sneaked through the system. Again a friend of mine flying with the company has managed to put it fairly well into perspective and provided me with a good view on what is actually working well and what does not. He likes some things and some he does not. Not a retirement job he says. I guess he would be one that the indoc or propaganda didnt quite work.

[His dudeness]

....I yet have to come across the "snobby" NetJets pilot. Most I meet are nice guys actually.

I was very NetJets sceptic, as they seem to swamp the market. Actually they have done something good to the market with all their advertising. And beyond any doubt they raised standards in executive aviation.

As for brokers, most of them advertise that they save cost and hassle to the client. They often do, however a lot of them just use the price as main agruement. Next thing they complain about is catering, aircraft age and maybe crewing/crew training standards. An airplane can make a certain amount of money an hours and the costs are given within cetain bounderies...
Now can 2 operators be very different in price when operating 2 similar airplanes out of the same airfield? Major point: crew. Had the situation when the CJ2 was new on the market, we operated the first in Europe and a contender had the second one just weeks after us. We had only employed pilots, they went trough FSI initial. The other operator had only freelancers and none of them was at FSI, they all did their rating on the airplane.
Guess who was cheaper? Guess who was sold by the brokers way more often?

At the end its the operators choice which way to go, but I´m convinced that a considerable part of NetJets success IS standards. Doesn´t mean they don´t make mistakes, given the sheer amount of flights they do every day, therer is little you hear about them in that respect. If I´d be rich, I would not worry about 500€/hr, I´d worry about qualification, experience,trainig and maintenance standards. Probably thats why I´m not rich... :ugh:

I see FSI twice a year now that I fly coorperate, but my superiors whilst spending a lot of money on us guys in the front office, do use ANY available charter possibility when our airplane is booked out or in maintenance.
Does that make sense? Not to me, but I´m just the driver...

And that is one part of the dilemma in executive, to many without any knowledge of the subject involved in the booking.

But then, think about calling a taxi: IF you can get a new Merc instead of an used Vauxhall for the same price, what would you take?

[hawker750]

2 Captains
Absolutely correct that 2 Captains not as good as proper well trained Captain and Co-Pilot. Only worse than 2 CAptains is 2 training Captains.
Well known accident about the G3 picking up George Busg Snr with 2 Captains (one about 68 and the other a youngster at about 63) Flew an ILS with the VOR tuned and followed the speed bug as a glideslope right into the ground. There last comment was something like "something does not look right!"

[SussexBroker]

On a slightly separate, yet kinda connected...

I was at BQH a few weeks back and was stood by the main desk seeing off a flight. It is true I couldn't hear everything that was said but it went a lil somethin' like this....

There was a NetJet's captain stood waiting for what I thought were passengers by the main desk, then another Captain introduced himself to the awaiting crew member and said "Good morning, I am 'Capt Whatever' so we're together for the Chambery flight this morning".

Small point and naturally both Captains would have been extremely qualified and both professional, but I thought it was interesting that these two guys had seemingly never flown together from what I could gather, they were both Captains and travelling to a fairly tricky airport. I understand that when you fly with major airlines (BA, etc etc etc) the Captains probably have never flown together either but I bet NetJets don't advertise that in their sales pitch :)

Not really on the same theme but thought it was interesting nevertheless.

[Birdee]

As a broker it is frustrating when clients won't charter anything less than 5years old, especially when the quibble about price so much aswell! We all know that there is not a direct correlation between age of an aircraft and safety and all we can do is try to educate the client. Although, they are sometimes like dogs with bones (excuse the bad analogy) and they get it between their teeth and won't let go. We do try our best though!!

Monkeyboy I agree with what you are saying, a good broker should know the aircraft that they are chartering, however after many years in this industry I have never sold a Challenger 604 because it has winglets or slightly different wings and tail/engine midifications etc....all the client wants to know is that it is safe, cost effective and comfortable and the job of a broker is to find the most suitable aircraft at the best price and advise them of the pro's and con's of different aircraft to best suit their needs. Knowing all the ins and out may make you a good spotter, not necessarily a good broker.

[doubleu-anker]

If we can get smeagle wound up enough, we might get some more input and his slant on this.

[Monkey Boy]

Knowing all the ins and out may make you a good spotter, not necessarily a good broker.

Well, I prefer to think of it as product knowledge rather than spotting, there's a huge difference between the two.

[Birdee]

LOL! Hit a nerve there didn't I :-)

[redsnail]

SB, I am not sure why you're so intrigued by this. I just counted the captains on our fleet and we have about 110. I haven't counted the number of FOs, safe to say it's probably around the 90 or so mark. I think we have just under 30 aircraft alone on the Hawker 800 XPC fleet.

I haven't flown with every FO, nor every captain. I'm pretty confident to say that both would have done the sim recurrent (or initial) on Chambery and both would have reviewed the airport in Part C.

Our SOPs are pretty reasonable (on our fleet - I can't speak for others) and they're robust enough to deal with the situation you just described. :ok: