Why is it that...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks Fokkerjet, that's what I needed to hear. Can you give me an idea of either the number of total hours flown by all aircraft, or the average number of hours flown by each pilot. I'd like to get some sense of how much time each pilot spends flying, training, and what kind of free time each one has.
BTW, how has your experience with the GVs been going lately? The last time we chatted it wasn't going very good.
P.S. I need to repeat that I don't have any jobs to offer at this time, and won't have for some time. I'm still getting resumes and e-mail requests for jobs. I've even heard from a head hunter. When I have anything to offer I'll be sure and post it here.
------------------
Safe flying to you...
[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 19 June 2001).]
BTW, how has your experience with the GVs been going lately? The last time we chatted it wasn't going very good.
P.S. I need to repeat that I don't have any jobs to offer at this time, and won't have for some time. I'm still getting resumes and e-mail requests for jobs. I've even heard from a head hunter. When I have anything to offer I'll be sure and post it here.
------------------
Safe flying to you...
[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 19 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry to just jump in here, but I have always flown more than one type of aircraft in every job I have had for the last 20 years.
Corporate flight department from 1977 to 1986: Company owned a Westwind 2, Jet Commander, DC-3 and a Bell 222. I was the chief pilot and was current on the Westwind, Jet Commander and the DC-3. The Bell 222 pilot was current on the 222 and the Westwind.
United States Marshal Service 1988 to 1998: The USMS operates B-727s and Sabreliner 80s. I was a line captain on the B-727 and the Sabreliner (75% on the 72). We attended recurrency training on both airplanes every year.
Corporate flying 1998 to current: We operate a Sabreliner 65 and will soon start operating a New Falcon 900EX. All pilots will be current in both aircraft.
I really feel based on my experience that pilots can stay current and safe on two different types of airplanes. I also agree that 3 crew members per aircraft is best.
Corporate flight department from 1977 to 1986: Company owned a Westwind 2, Jet Commander, DC-3 and a Bell 222. I was the chief pilot and was current on the Westwind, Jet Commander and the DC-3. The Bell 222 pilot was current on the 222 and the Westwind.
United States Marshal Service 1988 to 1998: The USMS operates B-727s and Sabreliner 80s. I was a line captain on the B-727 and the Sabreliner (75% on the 72). We attended recurrency training on both airplanes every year.
Corporate flying 1998 to current: We operate a Sabreliner 65 and will soon start operating a New Falcon 900EX. All pilots will be current in both aircraft.
I really feel based on my experience that pilots can stay current and safe on two different types of airplanes. I also agree that 3 crew members per aircraft is best.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks con-pilot. I like the idea of 3 crews (6 pilots) for these 2 aircraft, with all pilots being dual rated. 3 crew members per aircraft would cover nicely things like sick leave, vacations, long trips requiring a relief pilot, being on-call (and not being on-call) for both the GV and the 757.
However, with 6 pilots rated on the 757, no one would get a great deal of time on it (240 hours per year / 3 crew = 80 hours per year per pilot). That might be an issue. You could have only 3 pilots (or perhaps 4) for the 757 and thus dual rated. It seems to me that might keep those pilots more current on the 757 because they'd fly more hours on it. But that could create another issue, there being 2 tiers of pilots. I'm not sure I like that idea.
------------------
Safe flying to you...
However, with 6 pilots rated on the 757, no one would get a great deal of time on it (240 hours per year / 3 crew = 80 hours per year per pilot). That might be an issue. You could have only 3 pilots (or perhaps 4) for the 757 and thus dual rated. It seems to me that might keep those pilots more current on the 757 because they'd fly more hours on it. But that could create another issue, there being 2 tiers of pilots. I'm not sure I like that idea.
------------------
Safe flying to you...
Guest
Posts: n/a
You could try having 1 crew per aircraft and having some pilots on a retainer such as retired airline pilots. This would allow flexibility not to have a 3rd pilot on full slary , yet he would still be available for flight when needed. This would allow to cover sickleaves etc quite efficiently and will cost a fraction of having a person on full salary.
JJ
JJ
Guest
Posts: n/a
FlightSafety--
Don't forget that pilots like to ah....fly. 80 hours per year would be very boring. I was offered a position years ago with Mobil Oil but turned it down when I found out there was not much flying available, stayed with SIA instead.
Don't forget that pilots like to ah....fly. 80 hours per year would be very boring. I was offered a position years ago with Mobil Oil but turned it down when I found out there was not much flying available, stayed with SIA instead.
Guest
Posts: n/a
411A, I was thinking about something you put in an earlier post, and that was to have 5 pilots total (instead of 6). I agree with you about hours, as I'd like to see the pilots get about 300-400 hours each per year.
I'd like to see the 757 pilots get at least 120 hours per year each on that aircraft, as I'd feel safer knowing that they were not only current in their training, but current in their experience. Consequently I might have to limit the number of pilots who are dual qualified for that reason. I'll just have to think about the 757 pilot situation further, as I think that aircraft will only fly about 20 hours a month.
You know I'm glad I'm taking the time now to work through the pilot issues, because it's gotten a little more involved than I expected, but I really want a very satisfactory arrangement for all concerned and it's been worth the effort.
On the GV, I like the parameters of the aircraft and feel that it's exactly what I need. However Rolls-Royce and Gulfstream are going to have to get their act together on this aircraft, or I'm going to have to make another choice. I'm not going to put up with the maintenance problems it's currently having.
I honestly don't understand the management at Gulfstream. If I owned Gulfstream, I'd have the engineers all over the issues with this aircraft. There are a lot reasons to take care of these problems now, but one main reason is the impact on future sales of the GVSP if these issues are not corrected soon. Gulfstream also has a direct competitor in the GLEX that they're going to lose market share to, if they don't deal with these problems. If I owned Gulfstream, solving the GV problems would be the number one priority, but they're distracted right now with the development of the GVSP, the development of an enhanced GIVSP, the acquisition of Galaxy Aerospace, and the market exploration of a supersonic jet. It's hard to have a future if you can't take care of the present, but I digress.
------------------
Safe flying to you...
[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 21 June 2001).]
I'd like to see the 757 pilots get at least 120 hours per year each on that aircraft, as I'd feel safer knowing that they were not only current in their training, but current in their experience. Consequently I might have to limit the number of pilots who are dual qualified for that reason. I'll just have to think about the 757 pilot situation further, as I think that aircraft will only fly about 20 hours a month.
You know I'm glad I'm taking the time now to work through the pilot issues, because it's gotten a little more involved than I expected, but I really want a very satisfactory arrangement for all concerned and it's been worth the effort.
On the GV, I like the parameters of the aircraft and feel that it's exactly what I need. However Rolls-Royce and Gulfstream are going to have to get their act together on this aircraft, or I'm going to have to make another choice. I'm not going to put up with the maintenance problems it's currently having.
I honestly don't understand the management at Gulfstream. If I owned Gulfstream, I'd have the engineers all over the issues with this aircraft. There are a lot reasons to take care of these problems now, but one main reason is the impact on future sales of the GVSP if these issues are not corrected soon. Gulfstream also has a direct competitor in the GLEX that they're going to lose market share to, if they don't deal with these problems. If I owned Gulfstream, solving the GV problems would be the number one priority, but they're distracted right now with the development of the GVSP, the development of an enhanced GIVSP, the acquisition of Galaxy Aerospace, and the market exploration of a supersonic jet. It's hard to have a future if you can't take care of the present, but I digress.
------------------
Safe flying to you...
[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 21 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flight Safety.
I believe each aircraft is budgeted for a couple thousand hours per year, and as a pilot, last year I flew 490 hours. Training, which included going through GV initial, totaled about 30 days. Recurrents are usually 4 or 5 days each, once per year on each aircraft, plus travel.
Scheduling, you will find, is the biggest headache you will have. By dual qualifing everyone, you will never have a shortage of pilots when a GV or B757 trip suddenly appears. Grab two pilots and go, so to speak.
As far as the GV issues, Gulfstream is working on fixes and it's the GVsp. The engine issue is with all aircraft models with BR710 engines. Gulfstream just told me last week that the engine issue will be fixed soon and a program is underway to replace the fans.
Why are you looking at the 757? Have you looked into, say 2 BBJ's that could take the place of a GV and 757? (I might know of two coming up for sale soon)
[This message has been edited by fokkerjet (edited 21 June 2001).]
I believe each aircraft is budgeted for a couple thousand hours per year, and as a pilot, last year I flew 490 hours. Training, which included going through GV initial, totaled about 30 days. Recurrents are usually 4 or 5 days each, once per year on each aircraft, plus travel.
Scheduling, you will find, is the biggest headache you will have. By dual qualifing everyone, you will never have a shortage of pilots when a GV or B757 trip suddenly appears. Grab two pilots and go, so to speak.
As far as the GV issues, Gulfstream is working on fixes and it's the GVsp. The engine issue is with all aircraft models with BR710 engines. Gulfstream just told me last week that the engine issue will be fixed soon and a program is underway to replace the fans.
Why are you looking at the 757? Have you looked into, say 2 BBJ's that could take the place of a GV and 757? (I might know of two coming up for sale soon)
[This message has been edited by fokkerjet (edited 21 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
mutt, one problem with the fractional ownership airplane. You really don't own the airplane. The person that bought the share of the airplane cannot select the crew and they can't leave any personal belongings on the aircraft.
Therefore people that can afford to buy 75s or that class aircraft don't care if they only fly 200 to 300 hrs a year. You are 100% right that it makes more money sense. However, in the US the average corporate yearly flying time average per aircraft is around 300hr per year.
I realize that compaired to some some other type of aircraft operations 300hrs a year is not that much, I should know because for ten years I averaged 970hr a year. Damn near killed me. Now I fly around 250hr a year and LOVE it!
Anyway, mutt miss you in chat and hope someday to share a beer with you.
By the way the new 900 is GREAT!!!!!!
Therefore people that can afford to buy 75s or that class aircraft don't care if they only fly 200 to 300 hrs a year. You are 100% right that it makes more money sense. However, in the US the average corporate yearly flying time average per aircraft is around 300hr per year.
I realize that compaired to some some other type of aircraft operations 300hrs a year is not that much, I should know because for ten years I averaged 970hr a year. Damn near killed me. Now I fly around 250hr a year and LOVE it!
Anyway, mutt miss you in chat and hope someday to share a beer with you.
By the way the new 900 is GREAT!!!!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks fokkerjet. I'm also considering a BBJ, but like the available room in a 752 better. I'd still like a GV because it costs less to operate and you can get it into smaller airports than the BBJ. Plus it has speed and range.
Both aircraft will be work planes. The GV will be used for small groups while the 752 will be used for 20-40 (or perhaps 50) person sized groups. The frequency need for groups that large is not great, but it's the ultimate "conference call" when a larger group of people need to get together for a project. I want the aircraft fitted out for work with satcom, phone, internet, fax, conference areas, rest areas, etc. I just think a 752 is better sized for groups this large to work in, especially when you consider you'll be in the aircraft for half a day or more. I also want a very productive work environment in the aircraft while they're all together.
Con-pilot is right about direct ownership vs fractional. This aircraft will meet a special need and it needs to be outfitted in a specific way. I also want direct control over how it's being used. In summary I don't want a shuttle for a group this large, I want an office for a group this large.
I'd like a new airframe, but a used airframe (like mid-life for example) might be more cost effective, even though there are a lot of issues with purchasing an older airframe. The 752 can also fly into just about any airport that the BBJ can fly into.
------------------
Safe flying to you...
[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 23 June 2001).]
Both aircraft will be work planes. The GV will be used for small groups while the 752 will be used for 20-40 (or perhaps 50) person sized groups. The frequency need for groups that large is not great, but it's the ultimate "conference call" when a larger group of people need to get together for a project. I want the aircraft fitted out for work with satcom, phone, internet, fax, conference areas, rest areas, etc. I just think a 752 is better sized for groups this large to work in, especially when you consider you'll be in the aircraft for half a day or more. I also want a very productive work environment in the aircraft while they're all together.
Con-pilot is right about direct ownership vs fractional. This aircraft will meet a special need and it needs to be outfitted in a specific way. I also want direct control over how it's being used. In summary I don't want a shuttle for a group this large, I want an office for a group this large.
I'd like a new airframe, but a used airframe (like mid-life for example) might be more cost effective, even though there are a lot of issues with purchasing an older airframe. The 752 can also fly into just about any airport that the BBJ can fly into.
------------------
Safe flying to you...
[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 23 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hey Con-Pilot,
I guess that I’m a terrible skeptic, I think that it comes with living in this part of the world, but I get very weary of people who talk about operating 2 large corporate aircraft and who don’t really have an idea about how to operate them. I was therefore wondering what sort of planning actually went into the aircraft acquisition.
Glad to hear that you are enjoying the 900, why are you keeping both aircraft?
I more or less gave up on chat when we started employing Asian flight attendants again.
Looking forward to that beer someday.
Mutt.
I guess that I’m a terrible skeptic, I think that it comes with living in this part of the world, but I get very weary of people who talk about operating 2 large corporate aircraft and who don’t really have an idea about how to operate them. I was therefore wondering what sort of planning actually went into the aircraft acquisition.
Glad to hear that you are enjoying the 900, why are you keeping both aircraft?
I more or less gave up on chat when we started employing Asian flight attendants again.
Looking forward to that beer someday.
Mutt.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My thanks to everyone for responding to the questions regarding the creation of an environment that pilots would enjoy working in. I really appreciate your help.
FWIW, the average break even point between fractional and direct ownership is about 300-350 hours per year. Above this rate and direct ownership is more cost effective. Below this rate, fractional is more cost effective. So 240 hours expected annual utilization is not that far off in costs for the Boeing (either Boeing).
[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 24 June 2001).]
FWIW, the average break even point between fractional and direct ownership is about 300-350 hours per year. Above this rate and direct ownership is more cost effective. Below this rate, fractional is more cost effective. So 240 hours expected annual utilization is not that far off in costs for the Boeing (either Boeing).
[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 24 June 2001).]
