The Benefit of fractional ownership???

[foxtrott-romeo-a-x]

Hi everybody,

are there some guys who can explain me the benefits of fractional ownership...esspecially in these times?

* Is it the avialability?

I have difficulties an finding the argument for frax ownership instead of chartering...

just read this article...and who is Pierre Parvaud.. The Fractional Market: AIN Online (http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/the-fractional-market-1/)

[733driver]

Well, of course there are a number of advantages to flying fractionally.

It depends on your needs and wheter or not there is a good reliable, safe, financially sound charter operator with good availability at your preferred airport. If so, and if you mostly do one or two day trips returning to your airport of departure, chartering may be better for you.

However, if you find the service and quality levels of charter companies inconsistent, availability challenging (especially in boom times), you frequently do longer multi stop trips etc, you may find fractional works better.

I know there are some excellent charter outfits out there. But not nearly at every major or regional airport. There are in fact only a couple or so in each country. A lot of the others are ok and some are a nightmare. Some operate ancient airplanes. Some use mostly freelance crew that work for different operators trying to use different sets of SOP etc. I have seen charter companies here in Germany operating 25 year old citations flown by an old freelance captain and a young frozen ATPL with 250 hours who had to self sponsor his quick n dirty type rating done on empty legs on the airplane.

With the fractionals you get guaranteed availability, a young fleet of aircraft and experienced and well trained pilots every time. And if something does go wrong, there is almost always a back up available quickly due to the number of aircraft and crews available.

Also, there are normally no additional positioning or overnight charges (they are included in the calculation) so that works well for those do multi sector/multi day trips.

Personally, from a safety point of view, I would certainly much rather fly in the back of a NetJets aircraft than a randomly chosen charter aircraft.

[Phil Brockwell]

733,

Do you want to go through your points individually, or do you want to retract them and admit that a forum full of people who know the industry is not the place to spout the Netjets marketing manual.

PB

[His dudeness]

Phil, as much as I agree with you usually, in some points - especially on the quality of some operations and crew training - methinks 733 has hit the nail on the head.

JAROPS and FCL was supposed to end these problems, but it hasn´t. I won´t put forward examples, but I guess you know what I mean.

The real struggle for good operators is to show how good they really are without having an emergency or the like. It is hard to do, and sometimes even impossible. In the end - quality will 'win', the problem is the next idiot getting up, thinking ' oh today I´ll make a fortune in aviation QUICKLY'.

[12Watt Tim]

What is the relevance of the age of the aircraft, 733? You sound like one of he new, clueless breed of 'Avinode-only' brokers!

Freelancers have to be line trained and checked to the same standard as everyone else. Everyone has to comply with EU-OPS, safety is good in most of the charter companies I know well.

As for 'only a couple' of good charter companies in each country, well I could name far more than that off the top of my head in this country, and I have never been a broker and am not in the charter business. I am sure there are others I don't know to be good but are. All of them have back-up available quickly, either in their own fleet or as a sub-charter. Several of them could teach the ground ops at Netjets a few lessons, from what I hear through handlers and airport ops where Netjets are considered a real nuisance (and indeed from Netjets crews). Ground ops are important for safety, that is why the Ops Manager is a post holder!

I suggest in future you don't go to a forum inhabited by people like Phil who are in the charter business and make a complete fool out of yourself by demonstrating your ignorance of that sector.

[12Watt Tim]

His Dudeness

You are saying that there are bad operators, which no-one denies. 733 was implying that it is difficult to find a good, reliable, safe operator, which at least in this country it is not at all!

[Phil Brockwell]

Hi Dudeness,

I'm not disagreeing that there are cr@p operators out there, I am disagreeing that it is the norm as opposed to the exception to the rule.

If I had tthe choice of flying on a jet that spends at least 3 nights a week at base, with it's engineers, as opposed to permanently tramping around the continent, I know which one I'd choose.

From the numerous ex-Frax passengers that I've carried recently, the only advantage they used t see was guarantreed availability and it's not worth the massive premium.

In the same way nobody "randomly" chooses Vodaphone over O2, nobody "Randomly" chooses to fly regularly with an operator.

733 obviously knows nothing of the market, apart from what he has been told at Indoc.


Phil

[His dudeness]

Just back from a wonderful bicycle trip in autumn sun...

I am disagreeing that it is the norm as opposed to the exception to the rule.

Point taken and I´d guess you´re right.
However, in Germany there is a lot of 'bad apples' around. I certainly tried my best to make my clients aware of what to look for.
According to the people I know in NetJets, they do have a good safety culture - which I think is always paying off in one way or the other.
Some operators do sink quite low, as one operator did, when he used my name on the flights confirmation because I was 'simulator current' - this client wanted people up front with a sim training a year. I was laid off about 4 months earlier and the guy that replaced me on said flight had a total time of 300 hrs and roughly 12 on type, and zilch on the sim. He wasn´t told and when the pax addressed him with my name the whole story unfolded...

Just one example of many...

If I had tthe choice of flying on a jet that spends at least 3 nights a week at base, with it's engineers, as opposed to permanently tramping around the continent, I know which one I'd choose.

Absolutely correct. Make this known to your clients and brokers and it might get you an advantage. Sadly, some clients and brokers are just looking for the cheapest price and nothing else.

From the numerous ex-Frax passengers that I've carried recently, the only advantage they used t see was guarantreed availability and it's not worth the massive premium.

I´m sure you have never let down a client, even if - on that particular flight - you´d spent some money instead of making it. I never did and it paid off IMO. Anyhow the marketing power a giant like NJ can throw in is making influence. I personally think that this will eventually will bite the frax guys in the back, since a lot of their promises are hard to fulfill.

To go back to topic, IMO if you have a good charter operator around then going frax does not make sense. Only exemption is if you do regularly one ways or monday to -friday back trips.

[733driver]

Well Phil, I have certainly been in this industry a few years and my indoc was many years ago and yes, they did paint a very rosy picture for us, which of course wasn't entirely factual.

I have not seen the NetJets "marketing manual" that you refer to and the views expressed here are mine and mine alone.

As a line trainer I have trained many new NetJets pilots from various backgrounds and I must say I was quite surprised at times about the low level of SOP compliance of some of the people that have previously worked for some of the companies that many of you would regard as good operators. There are other things such as a lack of understanding with regards to a/c performance, EU-OPS etc.

I am not saying bad operators are the norm. What I have said is that only a few are really good, most are ok but some are terrible. If you go through a broker it is difficult to say what you are getting.

12 Watt Tim, you ask what the relevance of the age of the aircraft is: Easy: Typically newer aircraft are equipped with a lot of things that reduce pilot workload and improve situational awareness thus increasing flight safety. I have yet to see a Citation 500 with Terrain display including vertical profile view, auto throttles, HUD, EVS etc etc. No, not all NetJets airplanes have all of that but there are no steam driven ones left in the fleet. And yes, I have flown steam driven airplanes and that was not unsafe. I just feel that the latest generation of business aircraft is even safer especially when flown by a well trained, professional crew.

So Tim, just how much of an in depths view of the quality of the charter market do you have then? Who are you to tell me to stay away from these forums? I have experienced crews from a number of companies that most would consider pretty good and have not been impressed. That was both in the classroom at FSI in FAB when I was surprised how little some of them new their aircraft and in the cockpit when conducting line training with new hires from some of those really good (on the surface) operators. Are you really suggesting what handlers have to say says much about the quality of our ground ops? Give me a brake. FBO's think we are a pain because our plan changes all the time. And different departments (like catering etc) contact them for the same flight. That's all. Nothing to do with flight safety. Talking of which, if you really believe that the fact that an operator operates under an EU-OPS AOC makes him a good, safe operator, I suspect it may be you who doesn't know what he is talking about. Yes, as you can tell I thought your post was quite offensive and I do expect an apology.

Phil, I will give you the point about the aircraft not returning to base every night. That does make maintenance more difficult and expensive and we do not always receive the same consistent level of service we would hope for.

I agree that an established charter operator can be an alternative to NetJets but I am not sure about going through a broker as I may not know what I am getting in terms of safety.

[Flintstone]

Using my powers of observation which are, of course, infinitely superior to those of the rest of you ;), can I just point out that the original question was .....are there some guys who can explain me the benefits of fractional ownership...esspecially in these times? and not "Is fractional viable and are Netjets Europe better than other operators?"

So, dragging this thread back on topic my answer would be that there are some people who say they can explain the benefits when in fact they are pitching their own (fractional) company, others who say they can explain the pitfalls when in fact they are pitching their own charter company and maybe, just maybe, someone somewhere who will lay out both for you with no hidden agenda.

Me? In a nutshell I don't think it works*, at least in Europe. Leaving aside the fractional companies that have gone bust over the last decade you have to ask why Netjets, with all their financial backing, took almost ten years to show a profit before plunging into the state they're in now. It'll be a while before the final figure on their balance sheet is in a colour other than red. Ooops, thread drift again. See what you made me do?

From a customer point of view it can work in terms of fleet variation and availabilty. Absolutely no reason whatsoever why you couldn't do as well if not better though with a sound charter operator.


* Pure 'fractional' operations only. Selling aircraft, that's another story.

[12Watt Tim]

733

You seriously think that newer aircraft are significantly safer because of the toys? Yes there is a difference to the pilot workload, but any good pilot will have the same good situational awareness in a clockwork cockpit he or she would have in the latest cockpit, and a bad pilot will have the same poor situational awareness. It will be for different reasons (in the old aircraft poor situational awareness generally results from either laziness or lack of capacity, in a new one from over-reliance on the machine) but that is irrelevant. Two crew should be sufficient to operate even the oldest flight deck safely. I know of no study that shows a statistically greater safety risk from well-maintained old aircraft. New cockpits are not safe simply because you assume they are, in fact such assumptions are often what leads to new safety issues with modern kit.

I know the charter market well enough, for example I could tell you that Phil runs a very sound operation. I didn't tell you not to come here, I suggested that you should not come here and make a fool of yourself by your ignorance - what I wished to leave to your own initiative but now it seems I need to spell out is that you are insulting regulars here, and that is not very polite.

Yes, FBOs think you are a pain because your plans change all the time. Also because you waste their time with pointless paperwork. Also ATC think you're a pain because things change so often, and you inform them of the slightest change, regardless of whether it is significant, wasting their time and generally making a nuisance. Along with the complaints of crews, in general it does not strike me that Netjets' ground ops are anything to boast about. I am sure they are sufficient, but I have worked with operators' ground ops who would beat them hands down. Netjets seems to be a very bureaucratic, box-ticking organisation, either with poor forward planning or tending to over complicate by making unnecessary changes, compared with the best charter companies I know. If they can get the safety-critical bit right how come they can't get the day-to-day bits efficient?

[south coast]

Some bold, sweeping statements made by dim Tim, how about backing any of that up with facts.

As Flintoff said, this is not a thread about knocking NJ or charter operators, it is about the pro's and I suppose also the con's of fractional ownership.

Seems a few just want to use it as another platform to bad mouth NJ with unsubstantiated claims, a bit sad really.

[733driver]

You know Tim, south cost is right. This is about factual information, not unsubstantiated off-slagging.

Very quickly on the "toys" as you call them. Some of them "TCAS, (E)GPWS) are considered so useful by authorities around the world that they are mandatory in most aircraft nowadays. Some may not be as useful as others but most do add value. I have said it before: Flying steam driven planes is not unsafe but it can not be a bad thing to have additional tools available as long as the organization and the individual make every effort not to loose basic piloting skills. I find it interesting that you refer to those tools as toys.

Listen, I don't even know Phil and his organization but I do respect him for his many posts on here that I find myself agreeing with a lot of times. I have most certainly not insulted him or anybody else on here as you incorrectly state.

Finally, if NetJets was as bad as you say, how come so many customers have signed up over the years? Surely they can't be all stupid. They have all made millions and often billions afterall.

Flintstone, you are right. The original question was about the fractional business in Europe in general and I have replied from a NetJets point of view. Given that there aren't very many other big players in this industry in Europe, I don"t think it matters much. I am sorry for the resulting slagging off match which was not my intention. I have not badmouthed any company in particular and I have not called anybody clueless.

I will leave it here as I know this is a difficult subject for a lot of people. Just to make it clear: We NetJetters are not perfect, neither as individuals nor as a company but we do a lot of things right. Especially from a safety point of view. Difficult to prove but if an operator performs a couple of hundred flights a day it's statistical chances of an accident over a certain period of time are of course higher than in an organization that only has 5 flights a day. So large companies don't get away with being unsafe for too long while small ones might take a while before they run out of luck. It's exactly like HD said, it is difficult to prove that you are safe. But it is the most important thing. And I am glad we have a good safety department with regular safety publications etc. Just some of the things that most small companies don"t have. Which does not mean they are bad at all. It just means that it can be very difficult for an outsider/customer to accurately judge the safety level of a small operation.

Weather or not fractionals work as a business model in the long term remains to be seen and I accept Flintsones opinion. I was just trying to point out that in my view there is something to be said for Fractionals especially when compared to going through a broker.

[pma 32dd]

Jet Republic remains tight-lipped on insolvency: AIN Online (http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/jet-republic-remains-tight-lipped-on-insolvency/?no_cache=1)

Slightly off thread but a good explanantion to the end of fractional JR

[No RYR for me]

Regarding JR it is alleged that it was mr JB himself who didnt pay his part of the investment and because of that his Austrian friends didnt send their money either.......:rolleyes:

[S.F.L.Y]

Since most managed/chartered aircraft are partially owned by banks you can basically say that without fractional/shared ownership there wouldn't be much aircraft available for charter :E

I always find quite funny when some people pretend others have nothing to say on this forum in regard to their extensive experience of the industry. It's usually when you start thinking like that that you go down. Fractional ownership, block hours or pure charter, it all depends of so many details that none can pretend to be able to make the comparison...