VLJ air taxi operator starts at Farnborough
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VLJ air taxi operator starts at Farnborough
I read with interest that Blink are starting a VLJ operation on TAGs aoc this Spring. They are using the Cessna Citation Mustang and aim to have 30 flying by the end of the decade. Jetbird are looking to do the same out of Ireland with 100 Phenom 100s starting in 2009.
Are these little jets a serious alternative to the existing bizjet fleet or complementary to it? Are they going to successfully compete for existing business or open up a whole new market? What, if they succeed, will be the impact on current operators and the airways infrastructure?
Are these little jets a serious alternative to the existing bizjet fleet or complementary to it? Are they going to successfully compete for existing business or open up a whole new market? What, if they succeed, will be the impact on current operators and the airways infrastructure?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 579
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does seem strange, that TAG are interested in Blink, when we keep getting letters about slots, based aircraft operating hours, weekends, priority etc -
G-5 - welcome anytime, CJ1 subject to slots, subject to what type of day im having, subject to what colour socks i have on.... etc
But keeping to the thread i would not like to be an owner in a few years time on the promise of 300hrs per airframe when 300 are all vying for the same market??? no idea who is dreaming up all this supposed business, but all the same - interesting times especially re the pilot pool...
G-5 - welcome anytime, CJ1 subject to slots, subject to what type of day im having, subject to what colour socks i have on.... etc
But keeping to the thread i would not like to be an owner in a few years time on the promise of 300hrs per airframe when 300 are all vying for the same market??? no idea who is dreaming up all this supposed business, but all the same - interesting times especially re the pilot pool...
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Age: 38
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Farnborough has a yearly cap on the number movements and it does not have enough of them in order to deal with the current level of traffic. So why on earth would TAG want to use of more of those valuable movements on VLJ’s when they could be used for Gulfstream’s and Globals etc?!!!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Asia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blink won't be the first Mustang operator out of Farnborough..
LEA already have the first of their ten Mustangs, the first two will be based at Farnborough, and the launch party is at TAG Farnborough this Thursday!! 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetscream 32 hit the nail on the head...
This is an OEM's creation...Rather, Eclipse's creation with the rest of the OEMs calling their bluff and actually making a sensible business plan.
My predictions (you know what they say about them):
-Eclipse will never make money. It needs to produce 500 a/c per year to break even, claims an orderbook of 3000ish, and yet 1400 of those order belong to one client: Dayjet. Dayjet has a market for their services, but higher end than many think, and hence, a much smaller demographic. They will never take delivery of 1400 Eclipses. Not ever.
As such, Eclipse will probably go under, or arrange a partial or full buy-out. The new owners will restructure the company, throw the silly volume-driven business plan in the bin, and focus on more established markets, price levels etc. The Eclipse Concept Jet could be an answer for them at that point...
-Air-taxi will do fine. It already does-Remember? We have air-taxi. The sudden influx of hundreds of small jets will cause one thing and one thing alone: Yield pressure. Guess what that means in a market whose fares are already largely determined by that 80% of the fleet that belongs to private individuals and whose ultimate motive for chartering out their jet is deferring cost of ownership, not making a profit?
To make serious money an operator would need:
A. A pronounced technological edge (access to better aircraft than everybody else)...Dayjet thought they'd have that by placing 1400 orders for the wunderjet. Let's see where that takes them
B. Sheer numerical dominance. Flooding the market with so many of their own planes that they set their prices. Netjets thought they'd try this multi-billion dollar experiment....They still are.
C. Geographic niche. Being first to market and building up a sizable operation before anyone else gets there. But aviation is notorious for its low barriers to entry so that wouldn't last long either...
The money will be made by the OEMs, MROs, airports, and all the rest of the support infrastructure.
By the way, do throw in what the markets and the economy will be like in the next few years.
This is an OEM's creation...Rather, Eclipse's creation with the rest of the OEMs calling their bluff and actually making a sensible business plan.
My predictions (you know what they say about them):
-Eclipse will never make money. It needs to produce 500 a/c per year to break even, claims an orderbook of 3000ish, and yet 1400 of those order belong to one client: Dayjet. Dayjet has a market for their services, but higher end than many think, and hence, a much smaller demographic. They will never take delivery of 1400 Eclipses. Not ever.
As such, Eclipse will probably go under, or arrange a partial or full buy-out. The new owners will restructure the company, throw the silly volume-driven business plan in the bin, and focus on more established markets, price levels etc. The Eclipse Concept Jet could be an answer for them at that point...
-Air-taxi will do fine. It already does-Remember? We have air-taxi. The sudden influx of hundreds of small jets will cause one thing and one thing alone: Yield pressure. Guess what that means in a market whose fares are already largely determined by that 80% of the fleet that belongs to private individuals and whose ultimate motive for chartering out their jet is deferring cost of ownership, not making a profit?
To make serious money an operator would need:
A. A pronounced technological edge (access to better aircraft than everybody else)...Dayjet thought they'd have that by placing 1400 orders for the wunderjet. Let's see where that takes them
B. Sheer numerical dominance. Flooding the market with so many of their own planes that they set their prices. Netjets thought they'd try this multi-billion dollar experiment....They still are.
C. Geographic niche. Being first to market and building up a sizable operation before anyone else gets there. But aviation is notorious for its low barriers to entry so that wouldn't last long either...
The money will be made by the OEMs, MROs, airports, and all the rest of the support infrastructure.
By the way, do throw in what the markets and the economy will be like in the next few years.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VLJ eating FAB Slots
Though FAB is limited for its number of acft movements there is a push to increase its daily allocation.
One of the reasons for the VLJ interest is that these little Eclipses have a very quiet noise footprint, quieter than some pistons I'm told, and the local NIMBYs would not be able to use noise pollution as an argument against an increase in traffic if were for more VLJs, as opposed to BBJs.
Arguing that more of these 'quiet' little aircraft will be in and out of FAB might help the case for increasing the number of movement slots they get allocated.
One of the reasons for the VLJ interest is that these little Eclipses have a very quiet noise footprint, quieter than some pistons I'm told, and the local NIMBYs would not be able to use noise pollution as an argument against an increase in traffic if were for more VLJs, as opposed to BBJs.
Arguing that more of these 'quiet' little aircraft will be in and out of FAB might help the case for increasing the number of movement slots they get allocated.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 579
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Takeoff WAT,
Plausable but very unlikely - the been counters do not see value in VLJ's helping them getting a return on capital already stumped up for hangars, ATC
etc. not when the infrastructure is the same for a G5??
Still all good stuff...!
2 Mustang's to play with at LF yesterday - cant say i like the purple tho....!
Plausable but very unlikely - the been counters do not see value in VLJ's helping them getting a return on capital already stumped up for hangars, ATC
etc. not when the infrastructure is the same for a G5??
Still all good stuff...!
2 Mustang's to play with at LF yesterday - cant say i like the purple tho....!
Takeoff WAT: the 'extra allocation' applied for is for weekends only and still comes within the annual maximum; public enquiry finished; government incapable of making a decision.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hoylake
Age: 50
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that, whoever set up their web presence should have some questions to answer, doesn't show up in google for blink, blink airways, airlines etc... on the first few pages anyway!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is such an amazing idea. Imagine, being able to travel from one place to another in a private aircraft, if only I had been to Harvard I would have been able to come up with that. I'm so glad these revolutionary thinkers have joined our industry. It's almost like a Citationjet operation without the toilet.
Judging by the route map the aircraft is so much better than my CJ's, it can take 4 passengers London to Valencia.
Judging by the route map the aircraft is so much better than my CJ's, it can take 4 passengers London to Valencia.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: With all the other nuts
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't discussed this with TAG FAB but here's an idea.
TAG FAB have a limited number of movements per year and therefore a limited number of flights that they can make money off whether it be a VLJ or a BBJ. Because of the mix of aircraft, that money is a variable figure (a variable figure being a number that accountants hate the most).
However, if TAG FAB rent hangar/office space to a company for a fixed rate every year, do they care whether or not that company does 30 or 300 flights? No. Rent money (a constant figure that the accountants love) will be coming in regardless.
sispanys ria The VLJs won't always be going up to FL350 because they're too slow and get in the way of other aircraft. At the lower level, it makes it harder to get to Valencia doesn't it Phil? 
(I haven't been to Harvard either 
)
Cheers,
Chips
TAG FAB have a limited number of movements per year and therefore a limited number of flights that they can make money off whether it be a VLJ or a BBJ. Because of the mix of aircraft, that money is a variable figure (a variable figure being a number that accountants hate the most).
However, if TAG FAB rent hangar/office space to a company for a fixed rate every year, do they care whether or not that company does 30 or 300 flights? No. Rent money (a constant figure that the accountants love) will be coming in regardless.
sispanys ria The VLJs won't always be going up to FL350 because they're too slow and get in the way of other aircraft.
At the lower level, it makes it harder to get to Valencia doesn't it Phil? (I haven't been to Harvard either )Cheers,
Chips
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: WGS 84
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if you fly below FL300, you'd better use a turboprop, faster, sober (means cheaper), and roomier. You don't need to be that high to have the shaving foam spread all around your shirts due to unpressurized luggage compartment.
The pb with the mustang is it's need to be high to be efficient, and a quite reduced range if you do correct fuel calculation.
The pb with the mustang is it's need to be high to be efficient, and a quite reduced range if you do correct fuel calculation.
