Shoreham school closed down
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
From: Norfolk
Lets face it. Flying is too expensive in the U.K. There is little real need for us to have private aircraft to go long distances (as is often the case in the U.S). There are lots of exciting things to do with our time and money. We mostly invite someone into a run down portacabin with smelly toilets, ignore them, throw them into an old fashioned aircraft, give them average tuition, force them to wait around for their next lesson, and... and... and....
Until we can sort out this situation all flying schools are in the process of going bust it is just a matter of who can hold out longer than the club next door.
Perhaps a bit extreme but the description above is not too far from the truth.
Where does the blame lie, and more importantly how can it be changed?
Some outfits understand this (UH to name but one) and try and move the game on a bit but at ab initio level getting the quality of experience up whilst not pricing it out of reach of the majority is always going to be difficult.
So maybe:
Let the price rise, target the high income, high expectation, individuals with a MUCH better experience. Get the marketing, the environment, the service levels, right.
At the lower end of the market make it even cheaper, NPPL, self help, unlicenced airfields, experienced PPLS instructing (not guys who really dont want to be there).
Just a thought!
Until we can sort out this situation all flying schools are in the process of going bust it is just a matter of who can hold out longer than the club next door.
Perhaps a bit extreme but the description above is not too far from the truth.
Where does the blame lie, and more importantly how can it be changed?
Some outfits understand this (UH to name but one) and try and move the game on a bit but at ab initio level getting the quality of experience up whilst not pricing it out of reach of the majority is always going to be difficult.
So maybe:
Let the price rise, target the high income, high expectation, individuals with a MUCH better experience. Get the marketing, the environment, the service levels, right.
At the lower end of the market make it even cheaper, NPPL, self help, unlicenced airfields, experienced PPLS instructing (not guys who really dont want to be there).
Just a thought!
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Let the price rise, target the high income, high expectation, individuals with a MUCH better experience. Get the marketing, the environment, the service levels, right.
Except it isn't necessary to let prices rise. What is needed is a well run business, properly funded, and marketing its product to the customers you correctly describe. Nobody in the UK has yet done this - for a start it could be done only with modern composite planes and integrating GPS into navigation from early on.
BTW the owner (the person who put the money up) of ACE was a male. But he wasn't involved on a day to day basis.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
From: Earth
Can I make an absurd suggestion as to why a coastal airfield struggles to find enough punters to keep the flying schools going........
........if you consider the radius that they have to draw people in from, it is half that of a club situated in a non-coastal location.
Is this a fair argument?
........if you consider the radius that they have to draw people in from, it is half that of a club situated in a non-coastal location.
Is this a fair argument?
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
From: SE England
Very fair...and shoreham is a bit out in the sticks...except if you count Shoreham town which isn't realy massive or anywhere near the airport!
I think a large number of people in that area fly from Goodwood; which IMHO is a better GA airfield than Shoreham
I think a large number of people in that area fly from Goodwood; which IMHO is a better GA airfield than Shoreham
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Monocock/acw
Definitely this isn't the problem. There is huge wealth in Sussex, more than just about anywhere except London. Just over the airfield is a private estate with few houses below £1M. But almost nobody with more than 2p is being attracted into Shoreham.
No, it would be easy to draw in the "BMW Z4 owner" crowd which is presently piling into £600/year gyms just for a diversion. It would take a polished operation to do it, and that's never been done, especially not at Shoreham where there are and always have been far too many schools for anyone to do more than just hang in there.
And they all offer the same product. The nearest anybody got to doing anything other than the standard decrepit 1960s/70s metal was ACE, who got two brand new planes, but what did they get......... Cessnas!! A complete waste of £140k a piece, because this just buys you the same WW2 machine whcih doesn't attract a different sort of customer.
THAT is the real problem - the airport's policy of permitting too many schools to set up. At any normal GA location, one needs just three schools: fixed wing, aeros, rotary. Plus perhaps a strictly commercial one operating twins. Anything more is just going to make sure everybody gets driven into the ground.
The other factors, e.g. the types of individuals and their behaviour which are more directly responsible for some of the higher profile failures, is only the straw which breaks the camels' back.
Definitely this isn't the problem. There is huge wealth in Sussex, more than just about anywhere except London. Just over the airfield is a private estate with few houses below £1M. But almost nobody with more than 2p is being attracted into Shoreham.
No, it would be easy to draw in the "BMW Z4 owner" crowd which is presently piling into £600/year gyms just for a diversion. It would take a polished operation to do it, and that's never been done, especially not at Shoreham where there are and always have been far too many schools for anyone to do more than just hang in there.
And they all offer the same product. The nearest anybody got to doing anything other than the standard decrepit 1960s/70s metal was ACE, who got two brand new planes, but what did they get......... Cessnas!! A complete waste of £140k a piece, because this just buys you the same WW2 machine whcih doesn't attract a different sort of customer.
THAT is the real problem - the airport's policy of permitting too many schools to set up. At any normal GA location, one needs just three schools: fixed wing, aeros, rotary. Plus perhaps a strictly commercial one operating twins. Anything more is just going to make sure everybody gets driven into the ground.
The other factors, e.g. the types of individuals and their behaviour which are more directly responsible for some of the higher profile failures, is only the straw which breaks the camels' back.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
From: Earth
IO540
I take your point and agree wholeheartedly.
When you said
do you really think these are unsuitable for training? I would disagree and say that 2 new 172's would be perfect for the job in terms of handling, running costs and strength.
What would you suggest a new school would buy? Just interested.
I take your point and agree wholeheartedly.
When you said
but what did they get......... Cessnas!! A complete waste of £140k a piece
What would you suggest a new school would buy? Just interested.
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
From: SE England
IO540...being a sussex resident i am aware 
However; as a GA airfield Shoreham isn't really as attractive...i mean; sitting at the terminal building having a coffee on the tarmac or sitting on the benches at Goodwood having a bacon sarnie watching all the action? To me it hasn't really got the same appeal.
Goodwood has this 'thing' (atmosphere? sorry cant think of the word!) which shoreham just doesnt have.
I have to say i agree with the too many flying schools comment!
Shoreham is sort of a GA airfield trying to be commerical i guess?
There have been a couple of Cabair guys down at goodwood recently in jacket and tie (on more than one occasion)...anyone know anything?
However; as a GA airfield Shoreham isn't really as attractive...i mean; sitting at the terminal building having a coffee on the tarmac or sitting on the benches at Goodwood having a bacon sarnie watching all the action? To me it hasn't really got the same appeal. Goodwood has this 'thing' (atmosphere? sorry cant think of the word!) which shoreham just doesnt have.
I have to say i agree with the too many flying schools comment!
Shoreham is sort of a GA airfield trying to be commerical i guess?
There have been a couple of Cabair guys down at goodwood recently in jacket and tie (on more than one occasion)...anyone know anything?
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Monocock
Without a doubt a C172 is fine for PPL training. For some strange reason nobody has yet come up with a plane which is as robust and widespread (although obviously the latter bit is a circular argument!)
A completely separate matter is what sort of plane is needed to draw in discerning clients (or whatever you want to call them). It is not a Cessna. Something sexy, like a modern composite e.g. a DA40, would do it. But a DA40 isn't as solid as a C172. So it's a catch-22 for a new school: get the old proven iron (and get the same customers who for the most part can' t afford to fly, and who are quite happy with the decrepit state of GA) or get something new (and assuming slick marketing get some wealthier customers but also get some teething troubles, especially if you go for the diesel version).
No easy solution.
Ultimately one is up against the PPL syllabus which is going to make any "modern" punter fall over laughing. The slide rule... the customer probably drove up in a car with GPS in it!
I do see both sides of the argument so let's not go into that again, but the whole PPL training setup ensures that very little can be done to improve matters.
Without a doubt a C172 is fine for PPL training. For some strange reason nobody has yet come up with a plane which is as robust and widespread (although obviously the latter bit is a circular argument!)
A completely separate matter is what sort of plane is needed to draw in discerning clients (or whatever you want to call them). It is not a Cessna. Something sexy, like a modern composite e.g. a DA40, would do it. But a DA40 isn't as solid as a C172. So it's a catch-22 for a new school: get the old proven iron (and get the same customers who for the most part can' t afford to fly, and who are quite happy with the decrepit state of GA) or get something new (and assuming slick marketing get some wealthier customers but also get some teething troubles, especially if you go for the diesel version).
No easy solution.
Ultimately one is up against the PPL syllabus which is going to make any "modern" punter fall over laughing. The slide rule... the customer probably drove up in a car with GPS in it!
I do see both sides of the argument so let's not go into that again, but the whole PPL training setup ensures that very little can be done to improve matters.
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
From: Kent
Hi IO540,
I think we will have to agree to differ on the subject of the target customer base. I really don't think that this discerning, moneyed, new to GA customer exists in sufficient numbers. Most of us arrive, starry eyed, just wanting to fly. And with no greater expectations than to fly that curious, old fashioned, high wing thing called a Cessna 152
.
Another way of putting it is, if our training fleet were to miraculously change overnight into new a/c such as DA40s, all running at current costs, I really don't think the customer base would expand that much.
Now on the other hand... if the fleet were to miraculously change into diesel powered C172s and PA28s, costing £50 ph to rent, and £65 ph to learn on. Different ball game. Punters would come flooding in. Those are the sort of costs you get in the States with their low fuel charges. The club I belonged to was less of a club and more like an aviation version of the BSM. Wannabees were pouring in though the door - even after 9/11.
I think the reasons for the problems at Shoreham are simple. GA in the UK is way too expensive, and the customer base can't justify large numbers of flying schools, particularly if co-located on one airfield.
Cheers.
KC
I think we will have to agree to differ on the subject of the target customer base. I really don't think that this discerning, moneyed, new to GA customer exists in sufficient numbers. Most of us arrive, starry eyed, just wanting to fly. And with no greater expectations than to fly that curious, old fashioned, high wing thing called a Cessna 152
.Another way of putting it is, if our training fleet were to miraculously change overnight into new a/c such as DA40s, all running at current costs, I really don't think the customer base would expand that much.
Now on the other hand... if the fleet were to miraculously change into diesel powered C172s and PA28s, costing £50 ph to rent, and £65 ph to learn on. Different ball game. Punters would come flooding in. Those are the sort of costs you get in the States with their low fuel charges. The club I belonged to was less of a club and more like an aviation version of the BSM. Wannabees were pouring in though the door - even after 9/11.
I think the reasons for the problems at Shoreham are simple. GA in the UK is way too expensive, and the customer base can't justify large numbers of flying schools, particularly if co-located on one airfield.
Cheers.
KC
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
From: Sussex
Takeabreak,
To take some of your points from someone who had inside information on both sides of the fence...
I agree that EGKA has a large number of schools go bust. However, premier going bust was a result of the owner nicking everyone's money a going to Spain, harldy the fault of the airport is it? Stanair (Ace's first trading name) went under becasue the CFI spent lot's of cash on "looking after" his underage students. Flying Matters (new ACE), was closed (may not be bust yet, but they can't run a flying school from home can they!) becasue it should never have been opened in the first place! needless to say they had 3 aircraft and only one full time instructor who left plus a few part time instructors, plus a LOT of instructors who came and left (how bad must u be if instructors leave becasue of working conditions!).
Another issue you raised was the unreasonableness of the airport management. When Stanair was closed the debt to the airport was at least £36,000. Now I believe one of the nice cessnas was sold to pay some of this debt I don't know the specifics. I don't know what was owed to the airport in terms of rent this time (I got barred from the school for speaking my mind by then!) but I know two aircraft has a combined debt to the airport of just under £10k. The owners of the Cessna have had to pay a considerable sum to get these aircraft released. After giving them such a stay of execution this time, why should they be given another stay this time around?
As for who paid for the holiday, well takeabreak, the only person to suggest that the holiday was paid for by the company was you! Whoever paid for the holiday, ths issues are 1) money could've been better spent to keep the business going and 2) the business was clearly knackered, maybe going off on a jolly to oz was a bit of a silly thing to do. They were closed down less than a week after the return and they must have been given enough notice of their eviction! Whether or not miss x is ill or not she would've been given more than enough time to sort things out. It's not a case of 10 minutes notice, this will have been ongoing for months!
I don't know which members of staff you have been speaking to but none that I know, which includes all the ops staff and 2 of the 3 instructors has heard from anyone!! lots are owed money. I personally believe that the owner is fine and hidden away somewhere, hopefully never to be seen again.
So Takeabreak, everything you say is utter rubbish (BRL et al, PM me if you want any assurance about anything said I can provide contacts with several people at EGKA who will support the direct things I've said). The business was run awfully, I don't believe malicously, just badly. The owner, lived in a Walter Mitty world and believed she was untouchable. The other owner (the original owners mum!) was so biased and wore such big blinkers that she may as well have not been there - again leaving an 84 year old husband in the early stages of dementia to go on holiday to oz for several weeks is also questionable!
Now excuse me for the diatribe, someone here may possibly thing that I have a personal gripe here! I certainly do, no need to go into detail here but the outcome of this included me being slagged off and accused of a number of things that I didn't do. Fortunatly, the general population of the airport didn't believe a word of it and after everything that has happened I feel vindicated! One example was one of the young guys on the ops desk (only 16 and sorted so much of the mess out!) was scared to go to one of the restaurants becasue he had been convinced that I was going to kick the living sh1t out of him. Fortunatly we're buddies again you'll all be glad to know!
So yes, I have issues here and I personally am delighted with the outcome! I just hope the lying miss x informs the CAA of her medical issues...
To take some of your points from someone who had inside information on both sides of the fence...
I agree that EGKA has a large number of schools go bust. However, premier going bust was a result of the owner nicking everyone's money a going to Spain, harldy the fault of the airport is it? Stanair (Ace's first trading name) went under becasue the CFI spent lot's of cash on "looking after" his underage students. Flying Matters (new ACE), was closed (may not be bust yet, but they can't run a flying school from home can they!) becasue it should never have been opened in the first place! needless to say they had 3 aircraft and only one full time instructor who left plus a few part time instructors, plus a LOT of instructors who came and left (how bad must u be if instructors leave becasue of working conditions!).
Another issue you raised was the unreasonableness of the airport management. When Stanair was closed the debt to the airport was at least £36,000. Now I believe one of the nice cessnas was sold to pay some of this debt I don't know the specifics. I don't know what was owed to the airport in terms of rent this time (I got barred from the school for speaking my mind by then!) but I know two aircraft has a combined debt to the airport of just under £10k. The owners of the Cessna have had to pay a considerable sum to get these aircraft released. After giving them such a stay of execution this time, why should they be given another stay this time around?
As for who paid for the holiday, well takeabreak, the only person to suggest that the holiday was paid for by the company was you! Whoever paid for the holiday, ths issues are 1) money could've been better spent to keep the business going and 2) the business was clearly knackered, maybe going off on a jolly to oz was a bit of a silly thing to do. They were closed down less than a week after the return and they must have been given enough notice of their eviction! Whether or not miss x is ill or not she would've been given more than enough time to sort things out. It's not a case of 10 minutes notice, this will have been ongoing for months!
I don't know which members of staff you have been speaking to but none that I know, which includes all the ops staff and 2 of the 3 instructors has heard from anyone!! lots are owed money. I personally believe that the owner is fine and hidden away somewhere, hopefully never to be seen again.
So Takeabreak, everything you say is utter rubbish (BRL et al, PM me if you want any assurance about anything said I can provide contacts with several people at EGKA who will support the direct things I've said). The business was run awfully, I don't believe malicously, just badly. The owner, lived in a Walter Mitty world and believed she was untouchable. The other owner (the original owners mum!) was so biased and wore such big blinkers that she may as well have not been there - again leaving an 84 year old husband in the early stages of dementia to go on holiday to oz for several weeks is also questionable!
Now excuse me for the diatribe, someone here may possibly thing that I have a personal gripe here! I certainly do, no need to go into detail here but the outcome of this included me being slagged off and accused of a number of things that I didn't do. Fortunatly, the general population of the airport didn't believe a word of it and after everything that has happened I feel vindicated! One example was one of the young guys on the ops desk (only 16 and sorted so much of the mess out!) was scared to go to one of the restaurants becasue he had been convinced that I was going to kick the living sh1t out of him. Fortunatly we're buddies again you'll all be glad to know!
So yes, I have issues here and I personally am delighted with the outcome! I just hope the lying miss x informs the CAA of her medical issues...
Last edited by MikeJeff; 5th September 2004 at 23:05.
Peoples' Champion!
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
From: UK
Blimey! Under-age sex allegations, unrequited love and a genuine punch-up of our very own here on Private Flying! It’s better than Eastenders.
But the real cliff-hanger is this:
What’s become of the Goldfish?
BH
But the real cliff-hanger is this:
What’s become of the Goldfish?
BH
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
From: TL487591
Nothing of this sort ever happens at Cranfield 
All our complaints relate to over-large circuits and the lack of a social scene.
I must visit Shoreham more often.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs, it is a shame that they seem to be being fought in this pseudo-anonymous forum.
2D
All our complaints relate to over-large circuits and the lack of a social scene.
I must visit Shoreham more often.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs, it is a shame that they seem to be being fought in this pseudo-anonymous forum.
2D
Last edited by 2Donkeys; 6th September 2004 at 19:05.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
nah, I am really enjoying this! It way to quiet on our little farm strip.
More, more gimme more. How about some death threats or a good old fashioned pistols at dawn just to keep thing moving along!
Not had this much fun reading since "the" Sywell thread!
More, more gimme more. How about some death threats or a good old fashioned pistols at dawn just to keep thing moving along!
Not had this much fun reading since "the" Sywell thread!
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
From: sussex
Bob (the goldfish...let us please use his name and not attach labels like THE GOLDFISH)
Bob is not without scandal:
Bob has been suspended from further activities due to an unfortunate incident on an internet chatroom, where he was caught licking his finger and doing rude things...or was THAT Eastenders..I am sooo confused.
Who IS Takeabreak..is it Christine or is it Richard?
Is Bob a pervy?
Has Mike got friends?
Find out soon....
Bob is not without scandal:
Bob has been suspended from further activities due to an unfortunate incident on an internet chatroom, where he was caught licking his finger and doing rude things...or was THAT Eastenders..I am sooo confused.
Who IS Takeabreak..is it Christine or is it Richard?
Is Bob a pervy?
Has Mike got friends?
Find out soon....
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
From: Io
Bose-X what about an air duel? Open cockpit two seaters and passengers armed with ink filled balloons. Held in the overhead at Shoreham on a busy Saturday morning. Could charge spectators and make a packet.
I'm in...
I'm in...
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,068
Likes: 0
From: Brighton. UK. (Via Liverpool).
Right, breakfast sorted (on nights 'till wed, just got up) and read all this. I think Mike and Takeabreak have made their points and should, if they want to continue this do so via PM, not, on this forum as pointed out by many others, and indeed as takeabreak pointed out.
There will be some home truths about what has been written so there will always be the inevitable round-and-round we go like what we have seen above.
I really don't want to lock this thread, but I will if there are any more posts that just go around and around as I believe, things like this should not be displayed in a public forum.
I am off to work soon and I hope to return to this thread in the morning without any more input like what we have seen over the last day or so.
There will be some home truths about what has been written so there will always be the inevitable round-and-round we go like what we have seen above.
I really don't want to lock this thread, but I will if there are any more posts that just go around and around as I believe, things like this should not be displayed in a public forum.
I am off to work soon and I hope to return to this thread in the morning without any more input like what we have seen over the last day or so.
