Can somebody explain how the Air Taxi business will succeed?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: in a van down by the river
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can somebody explain how the Air Taxi business will succeed?
I've been thinking about the air taxi business model....ok trying to come up with whatever the air taxi business model may be. OK, I understand that the customer can fly in a VLJ to their destination for apparently half the cost of charteing a jet (this is what I've read). To me it shouldn't be called air taxi, but simply "charter-lite". I mean are there going to be a bunch of Phenoms lined up at a certain spot at an airport and the customer will flag one down? Obviously not. There still is going to be some delay from the customer placing his "air taxi" call and actually getting in the jet and going. When you add in the required delays of flight planning, weight and balance calculations, some type of security screening, etc. you end up with a product that really isn't that cutting edge in my opinion. For those in the know, please explain to me how this thing is going to work and succeed (or would have worked if the financial crisis would have not occurred).
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 14 days away 14 at home
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only way they compete is on price. And since the cost per hour of a new VLJ is always he same or higher as an old CJ1 IMHO there will be no new market .. 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 51
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only way it may conceivably work in the future is when the cost base reduces to the saleable price of the product. At the moment the cost base is too high. In a few years time when 3 year old VLJ's are available at 30c to the dollar and captains are prepared to work for PA 31 pay and Luton provides 100 acres of overnight parking for £10 and the Holiday Inn Express can guarantee you a room for £20 (with late check out).....then it might produce a miniscule operating profit. You can probably understand why I am at the top of the list of sceptics.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: S England
Age: 54
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Particularly when EU Ops prevents single engine IFR for public transport. The sooner this rediculous and outdated rule disappears, the more chance air taxy can become viable. I believe that several US operaters use the Cirrus quite successfully in the Air Taxi role, but I stand to be corrected!
Last edited by Chicken Leg; 3rd Aug 2009 at 20:35.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me, the idea of flying SE at night over the Alps is not appealing. Maybe I“m just to old....
But BTT, the air taxi thing could work when there is enough demand and the cost side is under controle. Can“t see this in europe these days and with Eurocontrol“s willingness to cut and strangle anything that is not airline there is even less chance...the (bigger) airports don“t like the small airplanes either.
But BTT, the air taxi thing could work when there is enough demand and the cost side is under controle. Can“t see this in europe these days and with Eurocontrol“s willingness to cut and strangle anything that is not airline there is even less chance...the (bigger) airports don“t like the small airplanes either.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chicken leg,
Even if EU Ops allowed single crew Ops, IMHO the vast majority of passengers would insist on 2 crew Ops, as per the Kingair.
Given that the average cost of an FO is about £200 per day, it's not exactly going to bring down the costs significantly, just the payload.
At the end of the day, the VLJ's were fantastically designed for a specific market - owner flyers, not charter Ops.
PB
Even if EU Ops allowed single crew Ops, IMHO the vast majority of passengers would insist on 2 crew Ops, as per the Kingair.
Given that the average cost of an FO is about £200 per day, it's not exactly going to bring down the costs significantly, just the payload.
At the end of the day, the VLJ's were fantastically designed for a specific market - owner flyers, not charter Ops.
PB
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VLJ ops
It is a frightening equation: with European legislationa VLJ commercial operations have the overheads of an airline with an income stream of an air taxi........not conducive for spectacular year end profit bonuses for the staff.
It is a frightening equation: with European legislationa VLJ commercial operations have the overheads of an airline with an income stream of an air taxi........not conducive for spectacular year end profit bonuses for the staff.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phil, he was refering to single ENGINE, not pilot.
A PC12 is definately cheaper to be operated than a B200, still I would“nt like fly it commercially. (Fantastic aeroplane but single engine is single engine)
A PC12 is definately cheaper to be operated than a B200, still I would“nt like fly it commercially. (Fantastic aeroplane but single engine is single engine)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: S England
Age: 54
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the Dude said, I was indeed referring to single engine, but single pilot? Absolutely!
If single engine IFR was 'allowed', it wouldn't mean that you 'had' to fly over the alps at night! I don't see why a sensible rule change would necessitate good airmanship and planning being thrown out of the window. In the UK for example, two pax from say, Shoreham to Newcastle in a Cirrus with a single pilot could well be a viable concept. A modern, well equipped aircraft, easily flown with a suitably qualified and trained solo pilot; why not?
Standing by for the purist response!
PS. Phil I disagree. I believe just like every other market, there is a place for the price/cost leader. After all, there are plenty of air taxi companies operating old piston twins with a single pilot. Are they stastically safer than a new, modern single? (honest question, I don't know the answer to that!). They will certainly be less comfortable and louder and might well 'look' less safe (market perception etc).
PPS. I'm no expert on air taxi or charter, but I do have an understanding of business economics and marketing.
If single engine IFR was 'allowed', it wouldn't mean that you 'had' to fly over the alps at night! I don't see why a sensible rule change would necessitate good airmanship and planning being thrown out of the window. In the UK for example, two pax from say, Shoreham to Newcastle in a Cirrus with a single pilot could well be a viable concept. A modern, well equipped aircraft, easily flown with a suitably qualified and trained solo pilot; why not?
Standing by for the purist response!
PS. Phil I disagree. I believe just like every other market, there is a place for the price/cost leader. After all, there are plenty of air taxi companies operating old piston twins with a single pilot. Are they stastically safer than a new, modern single? (honest question, I don't know the answer to that!). They will certainly be less comfortable and louder and might well 'look' less safe (market perception etc).
PPS. I'm no expert on air taxi or charter, but I do have an understanding of business economics and marketing.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chicken Leg
The legislation needs to take into account the lowest common denominator, instead of considering the Cirrus well flown as you describe. Consider the bottom feeders who would use quite legitimately a 1970 PA28-140 with the minimum of kit on an almost TBO engine, flown by a newby 200hr CPL who's probably paying for the privilege launching into that lovely weather we had around the london TMA 10 days ago
The legislation needs to take into account the lowest common denominator, instead of considering the Cirrus well flown as you describe. Consider the bottom feeders who would use quite legitimately a 1970 PA28-140 with the minimum of kit on an almost TBO engine, flown by a newby 200hr CPL who's probably paying for the privilege launching into that lovely weather we had around the london TMA 10 days ago
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: S England
Age: 54
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But you can legislate for minimum criteria, be it a/c fit or pilot experience. Refitting your PA28 with Mode C/S, Autopilot, etc etc might not be economically viable even compaired to a newer, better fitted type.
I have to pick you up on your example of an 'almost TBO' engine. If the implication is that an almost TBO engine is less safe than one with hundreds of hours left, then the engine has been incorrectly lifed!
I have to pick you up on your example of an 'almost TBO' engine. If the implication is that an almost TBO engine is less safe than one with hundreds of hours left, then the engine has been incorrectly lifed!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chicken Leg
Yes they could legislate but that would then increase the cost of the charter somewhat. The charter industry is full of well presented golden oldies, my mate works for a certain London based Executive Aviation company and its no surprise that a large percentage of the charter work is done by a 20Yr old C550 and a B200 thats older than him - both bought and paid for with no lease payments to make, they are troublesome to keep online and indeed fly despite exemplorary maintenance - These are the cash cows in the operation and indeed have seen off the G1000 equipped moving map terrain avoiding mustangs.....
Thats all I meant by lowest common denominator, JAA wont/cant approve just one single engined type for air taxi - and if they set a min spec for kit people will just put it in the cheapest fastest oldest thing they can and have it on avinode within months.
Indeed!
Find an old 421 or 414 pilot and ask him if he'd rather fly a new gitso engined airframe or one thats approaching TBO, not all piston engines make TBO for a number of reasons, sometimes thay write themselves off towards the higher hours by needing top end work which is money that could go towards a new donk, sometimes when approaching TBO they need writing off and simply dont be!
PS mate wasn't trying to be contentious -just having a good guess as to how the industry would react to some new regs and leaping out and buying new equipment probably isn't how it would go
Yes they could legislate but that would then increase the cost of the charter somewhat. The charter industry is full of well presented golden oldies, my mate works for a certain London based Executive Aviation company and its no surprise that a large percentage of the charter work is done by a 20Yr old C550 and a B200 thats older than him - both bought and paid for with no lease payments to make, they are troublesome to keep online and indeed fly despite exemplorary maintenance - These are the cash cows in the operation and indeed have seen off the G1000 equipped moving map terrain avoiding mustangs.....
Thats all I meant by lowest common denominator, JAA wont/cant approve just one single engined type for air taxi - and if they set a min spec for kit people will just put it in the cheapest fastest oldest thing they can and have it on avinode within months.
I have to pick you up on your example of an 'almost TBO' engine. If the implication is that an almost TBO engine is less safe than one with hundreds of hours left, then the engine has been incorrectly lifed!
Find an old 421 or 414 pilot and ask him if he'd rather fly a new gitso engined airframe or one thats approaching TBO, not all piston engines make TBO for a number of reasons, sometimes thay write themselves off towards the higher hours by needing top end work which is money that could go towards a new donk, sometimes when approaching TBO they need writing off and simply dont be!
PS mate wasn't trying to be contentious -just having a good guess as to how the industry would react to some new regs and leaping out and buying new equipment probably isn't how it would go
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: From Despair To Nowhere
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...captains are prepared to work for PA 31 pay..."
I just spoke to an outfit whose jet captains are earning less than I did way back when a PA31 was the largest I flew. OK so that's largely because they're working less, but it is happening!
I just spoke to an outfit whose jet captains are earning less than I did way back when a PA31 was the largest I flew. OK so that's largely because they're working less, but it is happening!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: S England
Age: 54
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G-SPOT,
I agree to a point, but there are 'bottom feeders' in every industry. The type of people (I assume?), that would use Air Taxy, would generally expect a certain level of service and comfort - how would a standard (car) taxi operation get on if their business model was based on spending £200 on a battered old 1980's Cortina?
Also, with regard to legislation, am I not correct in thinking that Air Taxy pilots are generally required to have 700hrs + before they are insurable? Not strictly legislation I know, but market forces will also always play a part.
I think that my overal point is that there has to be legislation for minimum standards, but putting a blanket ban on a specific area of the industry goes too far the other way and actually restricts a fragile industry. It's no coincidence that the most business minded country on the planet, allow SE IFR.
PS. I didn't take your comments as contentious; it's an interesting debate. I'm am surprised though, that the consensus on this forum seems generally to agree with the existing no SE IFR rules.
I agree to a point, but there are 'bottom feeders' in every industry. The type of people (I assume?), that would use Air Taxy, would generally expect a certain level of service and comfort - how would a standard (car) taxi operation get on if their business model was based on spending £200 on a battered old 1980's Cortina?
Also, with regard to legislation, am I not correct in thinking that Air Taxy pilots are generally required to have 700hrs + before they are insurable? Not strictly legislation I know, but market forces will also always play a part.
I think that my overal point is that there has to be legislation for minimum standards, but putting a blanket ban on a specific area of the industry goes too far the other way and actually restricts a fragile industry. It's no coincidence that the most business minded country on the planet, allow SE IFR.
PS. I didn't take your comments as contentious; it's an interesting debate. I'm am surprised though, that the consensus on this forum seems generally to agree with the existing no SE IFR rules.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Where the wifi connects automatically
Age: 40
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are correct, 700 hours is required for single pilot public transport, as well as 10 sectors line training beforehand. So, thankfully, you don't have Oxford's finest launching off into the clag clutching a shiny new licence.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are correct, 700 hours is required for single pilot public transport, as well as 10 sectors line training beforehand. So, thankfully, you don't have Oxford's finest launching off into the clag clutching a shiny new licence.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In Exile...
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are correct, 700 hours is required for single pilot public transport, as well as 10 sectors line training beforehand. So, thankfully, you don't have Oxford's finest launching off into the clag clutching a shiny new licence.