older aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
older aircraft
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?
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?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: somewhere warm
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: los angeles
Age: 55
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hello
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.
of the charter person.
don't forget that mechanic,pilot,dispachers ect. working for the
same company.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: land
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
older aircraft
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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place.
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where the sun shines on the righteous
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
There are, of course, much more bragging rights if you fly a 3 months old aeroplane!
Older jets
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Age: 38
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: in a world of my own
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
older/newer
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.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Presgill City
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Google this name then you'll see the download.
NBAA Aircraft Charter Consumer Guide
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?