You only gets what you pay's for !

[A and C]

As the director of a company that leases aircraft I have become increasingly aware of the business practices in this business that result in my company being undercut on price.

I was appalled at the reports on this forum of a company that did not have any insurance for the pilot renting the aircraft, presumably the only insurance on these aircraft was third party. Following an accident this resulted in an injured pilot being presented with an invoice for the value of the aircraft while still in his hospital bed.

Another issue is maintenance........ I know of a number of Cessna operators that are putting off doing the SID's checks that are due on flight time or calendar life by ignoring the small print in the documents and quoting the end date by which Cessna say the aircraft should be fully compliant.

What the insurance implications of skimping on maintenance are I'm not sure but I could not send a customer flying in an aircraft that I did not know was maintained to the correct standard.

It is very irritating to be undercut on price by people who deliberately break the rules and very hard to explain to a customer who thinks that all aircraft are maintained to the same standard because of EASA/CAA oversight.

What I am trying to say is that there is a minimum price that a sustainable reputable aviation company can operate and some on this forum think that this price is a rip off because they see other seemingly much better deals, but as with all things the devil is in the detail and trying to save a few quid in the short term may well cost you a lot.

[flybymike]

I agree with your sentiments completely, and would rather pay extra for the extra peace of mind.

[mr_rodge]

Me too, and I'm still a novice on a scale of things.

There is another side of the fence however... 3 years ago I got 'pally' with a CFI and part owner at a certain club and we got talking hire rates. They were extortionate (hire rates then exceeded what I pay now), and the CFI actually laughed and admitted that they ripped off students and low houred pilots, the planes in question were appalling.

They also charged astronomical rates for fuel. When I questioned it, they said it was 'because they can' and said that they wouldn't alter prices to be more in-line with the 'going rates' unless bookings started to tail off.

Supply and demand I guess...

[Cows getting bigger]

I would happily show my customers the operating costs of my aircraft etc and hence my profit margin.

A and C is right - there is managing costs and there is being downright disingenuous.

[maxred]

What I am trying to say is that there is a minimum price that a sustainable reputable aviation company can operate and some on this forum think that this price is a rip off because they see other seemingly much better deals, but as with all things the devil is in the detail and trying to save a few quid in the short term may well cost you a lot

Flight Training from £39

Mmmmmm.....Things like this?

[cockney steve]

OTOH, there is a strong argument that the Cessna SIDS are gold-plating in a deliberate effort to get rid of a lot of elerly aircraft.....rather like the British government gave a huge (on paper!) cash incentive to owners of perfectly usable older cars, to scrap them in favour of a relatively short-life "economical" and "low pollution" new replacement.

I have followed the ridiculous seat-belt farce,as a prime example of a huge con and rip-off.

So, yes, some wiggle-room is available without unduly compromising safety (C of A - V- Permit machines? ) but there is a sensible minimum, beyond which one should ask "fi it sounds too good to be true, perhaps it is? "

[cockney steve]

Just looked at the Groupon reference by Maxred....£200 / hour for instruction ...OK a trial lesson (jolly!)
or £80 / hour in (or should that be "on" ) a sim....(could be anything from a PC with yoke and pedals, to a full-movement total-immersion jobbie )

So, not particularly cheap, even as a bulk-discounted "come-on".

[A and C]

Cockney Steve

Being now well into the second Cessna 152 SID's check I find myself thinking that the program is not such a bad thing but the introduction could have been a bit more user friendly and introduced more slowly.

I have always maintained my aircraft to a reasonable standard and for me parts of the SID's were a compleat waist of time however there are some things that had gone unnoticed that needed looking at, these have mainly been reliability issues....... I have not found anything that would have resulted in a safety critical situation within the next 1000 hours.

What it has done is given me an aircraft that all my customers say flys much better, I would guess because the control rigging is now perfect and a large number of control pulleys are new giving a very low friction control curcuit. From my point of view it has given me an aircraft that I have not touched all summer apart from scheduled maintenance.

What is clear is that aircraft that have had no corrosion control program and live outside will be very expensive to put through the SID's and I have no doubt that these are the aircraft that Cessna want to take out of the air.

I now know that will have two aircraft that will be reliable for the next few years and that can operate reliably at a reasonable cost and are so insured that whatever happens I will recover my investment and should a pilot be unfortunate enough to wreck one of them he will not have me presenting him with a bill for more than the £500 insurance excess.

It remains to be seen if anyone manages to continue operating under insured old wrecks after the SID's deadline next year, personally I think it will be much harder to do so but on the whole the SID's will have been worth doing in terms of future reliability, safety and customer satisfaction.

[maxred]

One of the bug bears of today is that, as with everything, aviation has become a lot more expensive. I am not talking about the guys who cobble a couple of bits of string together, tie some cardboard, and go flying. I am taliking about school student training aircraft, and owner operated who wish to take 4 people on a longish trip (CAA/EASA, FAR91 etc).

My aeroplane costs around 250.00 per hour to operate. Therfore, if done correctly, then a flying lesson, with qualified instructor, should come in around the 190-230 mark.

I was aware that the link I posted, because it happened to be in my inbox this morning, was not, THAT, cheap, but the issue is the race to the bottom (a new UK wide trait), falsifies the overall market place. Whether we like it or not, there are base costs which must be covered, and going back to the OP, the inference is that some people, in an effort to attract business, by offering cheaper deals, ruin, ultimately the market. Is is self defeating, but everyone gets caught in the downward spiral.

[A and C]

Maxred

I think you are correct about the race to the bottom, in this case it has been accelerated by the need of some operators to get as much money out of aircraft that they know will be scrapped when the SID's deadline hits them.

Right now is not a good time to be in the market, that is one of the reasons that I pulled the aircraft off line early for the SID's checks. I don't want to use valuable flying hours trying to compeat with undermaintaned aircraft that are being offered at knock down prices by owners trying to squeez the last few quid out of the aircraft.

The plan is to be fully back in business with good aircraft just as the SID's deadline hits those who have been putting off the work and forces their aircraft onto the scrap heap.

[Pilot.Lyons]

What is really wearing me down is the way that the uk is going... Save money everywhere they can, sell up to foreign buyers etc

Im a driving instructor and now the driving standards agency are trying to sell the test centres (to maximise profits) and send examiner to local halfords or colleges to run tests from there!
When will this stupid attitude ever stop?
I for one struggle to earn a living and feed my two children as it is so for me to fly once a month (for an hour) i am very lucky! I don't even smoke or drink and I'm lucky if i can fly... I just hope flying doesn't go up much further in cost or ill be on the pilot scrap heap

[A and C]

PL

It's short term thinking and making a quick buck for the shareholders and get a big bonus that is the name of the UK management game.

These people improve one company and move on just ahead of the disaster that they have created just to do the same at another company. Any form of long term planning is just not on the radar.

I'm not sure what can be done to stop it as it is a very good money maker for those who can do it !

[Treadstone1]

For a flying school the price of good maintenance is only the beginning.

Extortionate operating and landing fees piled on by fat cat land owners such as Peel holdings.

The people who want to fly and those who want to continue to fly need to take a reality check, these things have to be done.

The majority of flying schools are on the bones of their arse, piled into the ground by EASA regulations that are in place for one reason and one reason alone, that is to get rid of GA...period, stand by for the legislation for the 100 hours groundschool...15-20% of classroom work at £15-£20/hour. another £400 on the over all price of a PPL/LAPL! For what?

A and C is bang on...There is only one way to operate and that is the correct way. £70 a month and £70/hr wet for a PA28 do the maths..unworkable.

[Bob Upanddown]

What is clear is that aircraft that have had no corrosion control program and live outside will be very expensive to put through the SID's and I have no doubt that these are the aircraft that Cessna want to take out of the air.

Maybe, but don't condemn aircraft just because they live outside.
Who needs a corrosion control program?? A good engineer giving an aircraft a good, proper, annual and then a good treatment of ACF50 will keep these aircraft going.
Corrosion control program on a Cessna 150? You sound as if you have been brain-washed by the EASA drones...... It's a basic 2 seat aircraft for goodness sake, not a PC12NG.

Get what you pay for? Well I see plenty of hour-builders queuing up to fly tatty aircraft for half of what the good schools are charging. And it's strange how the engine oil on these tatty aircraft is black immediately after an annual inspection???

[A and C]

Bobupanddown

A good engineer going over the aircraft with ACF50 or some of the other products on the market is part of a corrosion control program. This type of program just assures that the work is done in a logical and controlled way so nothing gets missed.

It is clear that leaving an aircraft outside will result in bigger corrosion issues than one that is kept in a hangar, those who are doing the SID's checks are finding this to be fact.

Quote..... I see plenty of hours builders queuing up to fly tatty aircraft


No doubt you do but do they have any idea about the state of the aircraft, they are blissfully ignorant of the state of the aircraft and only see the cheap hours rather than the risk, that notchy feel of the elevator may not worry your aspiring young airline pilot because he has not the experience to know that it is a badly frayed control cable that is about to fail. The fact of the matter is that the cable should have been changed years back when just one strand in the cable had been broken. ( this is an Incident that I have seen and disaster was averted by a new engineer who picked up the problem )

Two or three years back I was about to do a deal with a flying club on a lease and was pipped at the post on price by another operator...... Weeks later I got a view of the aircraft that the club had leased in, it was clear that the old dog had seen very little maintenance and from the evidence of some of the screws in the inspection panels that critical systems had not seen inspection and lubrication for years.

All I want to see in this business is aircraft that are maintained to a safe standard and not to have to compete with people who send their customers flying in aircraft that have not been maintained to a safe standard.

[Bob Upanddown]

All I want to see in this business is aircraft that are maintained to a safe standard and not to have to compete with people who send their customers flying in aircraft that have not been maintained to a safe standard.

Agree 100%.

I contend, however, that a good engineer is better that any written program.

It is a fact that the tatty aircraft are not going to good engineers.......

[A and C]

It matters not what is written in any program if you employ an idiot to carry out the work.

If you have a good engineer then the chances are the inspection will be good, having program to give structure to the work assists the engineer in that the program has been produced with the manufactures knowlage of the fleet wide problems.

The other advantage is that if your engineer moves on the next guy knows exactly what is required next in a rolling set of inspections.

[Bob Upanddown]

I don't want to appear to be arguing with you but I don't believe any of the SIDs issued by Cessna on the 100 series are driven by experience.
They are the result of assessing where they think there may be failures. If Cessna are so good, why did the 162 need a major mod in the early ones?
How many fatal accidents in light aircraft are caused by structural failure due to corrosion?
Prorgrams and SIDs written by the manufacturers for those old aircraft are simply product liability CYA actions. No-one expected aircraft to last this long and the prospect of liability on a 50 year old aircraft must cause them sleepless nights.

[maxred]

You are probably aware that I have been less than complimentary regarding the UK maintenance scene, simply because I have been at the arse end of several of all the poor/rubbish/con artist maintenance outfits, UK wide.

I am now blissfully content with my aeroplane being looked after lovingly and professionally, in Ireland.

When I looked into the issues, and with advice from a really good outfit, there are a number of problems.
1. Lack of skill and knowledge, particularly as the aircraft gets older, on the part of mechs.
2. A small pool, with a large number of maintenance outfits, all competing for business, a pool that is shrinking.
3. A significant shift of pilots to LAA/Permit.
4. An ever increasing bureaucratic burden, where ultimately, the pilot has to pay.
5. A severe lack of any understanding in Customer Service.
6. Outfits, with an increasing operating cost base, facing an inability to pay a decent salary to get real experience on the mech front, therefore caught in a downward spiral - poor work, decreasing income, inability to attract talent, etc etc.

Now, I know there will be exceptions, but that is my take on the scene, and the more owner/pilots, look around for the ever cheaper deals, the worse the situation will become.

It is a serious issue..

[A and C]

Bob

The Cessna 162 is a clean sheet design and has little to do with the 150-152, they may have solved a number of the issues with the 150-152 aircraft byr created other problems in the process, the 163 is a design driven by revolution rather that evaluation.

Returning to the SID's it is clear that Cessna are targeting areas on the aircraft that need attention, I agree that good maintenance should have picked up on most of these issues. I agree that there is more than a hint of CYA about it however as the type certificate holder you have a duty to allow for the continuing airworthiness of the type and I have to ask what would you do if you were in Cessna's position, you are faced with an aging fleet of undermaintaned aircraft and the risk of ending up in court because someone failed to properly inspect an aircraft that left your factory thirty years back ?

Cessna have chosen to tighten up the maintenance manual with a bunch of aging aircraft checks, the really stupid thing about the whole SID's program from Cessna's point of view is that the price of Cessna parts is so high that they are driving people to the PMA parts suppliers and not making the money that they should from the work generated by the SID's checks.

maxred

I agree with you on most points, the maintenance company I am involved with has the reputation for being expensive but doing the job properly, it is strange that more than a few people will be quite happy to tell you that the price we charge for maintenance is too high when the bill is to be paid from their pocket but when the same person has an accident they insist that we do the repair because they know the job will be done well and the insurance company will pay !

It has also become clear that the burden of the EASA paperwork has resulted in increased cost or a fall in the standard of maintenance oversight, those company's who have employed a quality manager to do the extra paperwork have had to increase costs to he customer, those who have not have the certifying staff spending more time in the office doing paperwork and less time on the hangar floor providing hour by hour oversight of the work being carried out.

It is still a wonder to me that the industry survives at all in the south of the UK the labour rate is IRO £60/hour, go to a mid range motor main agent and the rate is IOR £90/ hour and they have no EASA regulation to pay for.