BeechTalk - BT - Aircraft inventory levels are critically low.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Jan 2023, 14:46

Username Protected wrote:

see my comments in caps

The only reason why the bullet train in California was brought up for votes was for the "Government" in power at the time to make huge profits... ACTUALLY, IT WAS BROUGHT UP FOR VOTE BASED ON INACCURATE ASSUMPTIONS FOR SCOPE, COST, SCHEDULE, AND COST TO RIDE. IF THOSE ASSUMPTIONS HAD BEEN ACCURATE, IT WOULD HAVE MADE SENSE BUT THEY WERE BOGUS. All those people made a killing with real-estate and eminent domain. I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN TWO VERY LONG HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES (ABOUT 150 MILES EACH) AND EMINENT DOMAIN CAN BE USED CORRECTLY BUT SOMEONE WILL ALWAYS BE UPSET. The voted budget was blown over and over THE BUDGET WAS BOGUS, NOT SURE WHY THE ESTIMATORS, PROJECT MANAGERS, CONSULTANTS, AND ENGINEERS DON'T COME CLEAN ON THIS and those thieves got richer and richer. AS IN ALL EXPENSIVE ENDEAVORS, SOMEONE NEEDS TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT, WE SHOULD ASK THEM. With no possibility of this train ever be built. IT COULD BE BUILT BUT PROBABLY NEED TO SCRAP THE EXISTING PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM AND BRING IN SOME PROVEN PROFESSIONALS.
All the companies that are designing this are all on the take. AGAIN, WHERE IS THE OVERSIGHT, VOTERS SHOULD BE DEMANDING TO TALK TO THEM It is insane...

And the funny thing is that we mock the rest of the world for their tradition of political bribes.... When we made an art here in the US...

Yup, that about sums it up.

People are voting with their wallets. Those who can, buy private flights. The vast majority look for the cheapest ticket and try to put up with the trouble of riding along with the public.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Jan 2023, 17:01

Username Protected wrote:

OTOH, Cape Air may be required to do overhauls at TBO, but they have extended that TBO time on their Continental engines to something like 3200 hours. Although we don't know what this particular guy is paying for his 310 (so what is "exponentially more"?), I bet CA is pretty efficient with their maintenance costs. If parts are not available, they have the resources to get approval for alternates, and also probably a pretty good store of spares from retired airframes. Probably not directly comparable to charters -- who wants to charter / fractional in a 50 year old airplane?

There are more than a few charter ops running 50 year old 421s out there. When it's the right plane for the mission (typically 150-200 nm legs) why not?

The guys I talked to at Cape Air led me to believe they were spending far LESS per hour than a part 91 owner. A *lot* less.

It becomes obvious when you realize that CA is running through ten 100 hr inspections per year and the private owner is doing one and only one annual. They also have the buying power of 70 planes and are doing a significant amount of work in house.

If their 1000 hr/year maintenance bill is anything less than 5x a typical 150 hr/year maintenance bill, they're way ahead.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Jan 2023, 17:19

Username Protected wrote:

The only reason why the bullet train in California was brought up for votes was for the "Government" in power at the time to make huge profits... All those people made a killing with real-estate and eminent domain. The voted budget was blown over and over, and those thieves got richer and richer. With no possibility of this train ever be built.
All the companies that are designing this are all on the take. It is insane...
And the funny thing is that we mock the rest of the world for their tradition of political bribes.... When we made an art here in the US...

see my comments in caps

The only reason why the bullet train in California was brought up for votes was for the "Government" in power at the time to make huge profits... ACTUALLY, IT WAS BROUGHT UP FOR VOTE BASED ON INACCURATE ASSUMPTIONS FOR SCOPE, COST, SCHEDULE, AND COST TO RIDE. IF THOSE ASSUMPTIONS HAD BEEN ACCURATE, IT WOULD HAVE MADE SENSE BUT THEY WERE BOGUS. All those people made a killing with real-estate and eminent domain. I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN TWO VERY LONG HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES (ABOUT 150 MILES EACH) AND EMINENT DOMAIN CAN BE USED CORRECTLY BUT SOMEONE WILL ALWAYS BE UPSET. The voted budget was blown over and over THE BUDGET WAS BOGUS, NOT SURE WHY THE ESTIMATORS, PROJECT MANAGERS, CONSULTANTS, AND ENGINEERS DON'T COME CLEAN ON THIS and those thieves got richer and richer. AS IN ALL EXPENSIVE ENDEAVORS, SOMEONE NEEDS TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT, WE SHOULD ASK THEM. With no possibility of this train ever be built. IT COULD BE BUILT BUT PROBABLY NEED TO SCRAP THE EXISTING PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM AND BRING IN SOME PROVEN PROFESSIONALS.
All the companies that are designing this are all on the take. AGAIN, WHERE IS THE OVERSIGHT, VOTERS SHOULD BE DEMANDING TO TALK TO THEM It is insane...
And the funny thing is that we mock the rest of the world for their tradition of political bribes.... When we made an art here in the US...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Jan 2023, 18:23

High speed rail between SF and LA was a great idea.

It should have gone out to competitive bid.
Having the government run it was a mistake.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Jan 2023, 18:42

Username Protected wrote:

High speed rail between SF and LA was a great idea.

It should have gone out to competitive bid.
Having the government run it was a mistake.

There's a misconception in America that rail needs to make a profit to be worthwhile.

Thousands of people travel by car every day on I-5 between SF and LA.

How much profit does I-5 make?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Jan 2023, 18:52

Username Protected wrote:

High speed rail between SF and LA was a great idea.

It should have gone out to competitive bid.
Having the government run it was a mistake.

There's a misconception in America that rail needs to make a profit to be worthwhile.

Thousands of people travel by car every day on I-5 between SF and LA.

How much profit does I-5 make?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Jan 2023, 19:00

Username Protected wrote:

There's a misconception in America that rail needs to make a profit to be worthwhile.

Thousands of people travel by car every day on I-5 between SF and LA.

How much profit does I-5 make?

Jim I wasn’t talking about a toll road, just let competitive contractors build it. Then the state can operate and maintain it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Jan 2023, 19:27

Username Protected wrote:

High speed rail between SF and LA was a great idea.

It should have gone out to competitive bid.
Having the government run it was a mistake.

Competitive bidding isn't the problem. It is being competitively bid as the design team comes up with the right sized portion to bid. The problem is overall scope, right of way, and project management. All this being said, not sure how we got off subject of aircraft inventory levels?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Jan 2023, 20:45

Username Protected wrote:

High speed rail between SF and LA was a great idea.

It should have gone out to competitive bid.
Having the government run it was a mistake.

Competitive bidding isn't the problem. It is being competitively bid as the design team comes up with the right sized portion to bid. The problem is overall scope, right of way, and project management. All this being said, not sure how we got off subject of aircraft inventory levels?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jan 2023, 12:23

Username Protected wrote:

I don't know for whom paying $250,000 to fly 25 hours in a Phenom is a good deal. Seems like most of those people don't know any better. Calling a couple charter companies, even if they have to pick you up from somewhere else, isn't that big of a deal and would be far cheaper. You could hire a full time personal assistant for the difference in price.

They've been offering the card for awhile now, so presumably people buy it. Maybe people who have enough money they could care less about saving $100,000 and the only reason they don't own a share is they don't travel that much.

It's a better deal then buying an $8-9mm plane, taking a depreciation hit and paying interest on a loan, staffing it with pilots, paying for training and insurance, paying a management company, renting/buying a hangar - if you can find one (I know BZN is challenged), repositioning flights and maintenance flights, etc.

If you are flying less than 100 hours a year, some type of card or lease is more cost effective, if you are a non pilot. Do the math, I have and it's less cash out the door. I look at it like, when I lived in San Francisco many years ago. I had no reason to own a car, it cost too much to maintain and store for the little amount I needed to drive. I rented a car when I needed. If I wanted something nicer and didn't want to deal with a hassle of driving I hired a car service. More expensive for sure on per mile basis, but less than owning a car.

If you are a pilot and like the adventure and sometimes hassle, the way Mike C. is doing it with a Citation; I am all for it, that's why we're all here? The NetJets and FlexJets crowd see's private flying as luxury transportation. They are all smart enough to know what program they should be on based on how much they fly. 25-50 hours a year in the air, is lot of travel for some, including me. I think I only flew on the carriers ~25 hours last year (not including ground time).

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jan 2023, 12:23

Competitive bidding isn't the problem. It is being competitively bid as the design team comes up with the right sized portion to bid. The problem is overall scope, right of way, and project management. All this being said, not sure how we got off subject of aircraft inventory levels?[/quote]

By competitive bid I meant companies the size of Bectel that would design, buy the right of way, handle project management and construct it.

It wouldn’t be perfect, but a lot better than we got with all the thieves lining their pockets.[/quote]

The project delivery system you are referring to (by hiring someone like a Bechtel) is called Construction Management At Risk. I like that system but I doubt if anyone, even a Bechtel or Fluor would sign up for this, especially the right of way issues. My main point is the scope of work (including right of way issues) was never fully addressed up front. The press just isn't being honest.

https://www.latimes.com/local/californi ... story.html

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jan 2023, 12:28

Username Protected wrote:

How much profit does I-5 make?

Depends on how you define "profit".

There's no obvious direct revenue from I-5.

But there is tax on the gas, cars, tires, etc, that use I-5.

Then there is the economic impact and the extra taxes that generates related to efficient transportation that I-5 enables.

The problem with local airports is also one of trying to make them profitable in isolation of their economic impact to the community. No town council would advocate putting up a toll booth on main street, yet they do this on their airport all the time. They just don't get it.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jan 2023, 12:39

Username Protected wrote:

I don't know for whom paying $250,000 to fly 25 hours in a Phenom is a good deal. Seems like most of those people don't know any better. Calling a couple charter companies, even if they have to pick you up from somewhere else, isn't that big of a deal and would be far cheaper. You could hire a full time personal assistant for the difference in price.

They've been offering the card for awhile now, so presumably people buy it. Maybe people who have enough money they could care less about saving $100,000 and the only reason they don't own a share is they don't travel that much.

It's a better deal then buying an $8-9mm plane, taking a depreciation hit and paying interest on a loan, staffing it with pilots, paying for training and insurance, paying a management company, renting/buying a hangar - if you can find one (I know BZN is challenged), repositioning flights and maintenance flights, etc.

If you are flying less than 100 hours a year, some type of card or lease is more cost effective, if you are a non pilot. Do the math, I have and it's less cash out the door. I look at it like, when I lived in San Francisco many years ago. I had no reason to own a car, it cost too much to maintain and store for the little amount I needed to drive. I rented a car when I needed. If I wanted something nicer and didn't want to deal with a hassle of driving I hired a car service. More expensive for sure on per mile basis, but less than owning a car.

If you are a pilot and like the adventure and sometimes hassle, the way Mike C. is doing it with a Citation; I am all for it, that's why we're all here? The NetJets and FlexJets crowd see's private flying as luxury transportation. They are all smart enough to know what program they should be on based on how much they fly. 25-50 hours a year in the air, is lot of travel for some, including me. I think I only flew on the carriers ~25 hours last year (not including ground time).

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jan 2023, 13:24

Username Protected wrote:

This is a strawman argument. The obvious comparison is to charter not buying a plane.

Totally agree, you can charter for less. You can also go to the local gas station and get coffee for less than Starbucks. But Starbucks always has line?

Charter, lacks service consistency. You can find a good charter service, but then you run into things like:

1. The plane you want isn't available.
2. They don't have anything available on the dates you want.
3. There is a maintenance issue and they don't have backup or it's going to be 3-5 hour wait.
4. Have to pay for repositioning flights to get to you.
5. The plane is dirty.
6. Pilots sick and no backup.

For premium companies like NetJets and FlexJets, it's one phone call, with guaranteed service availability (per your contract), with the plane you contract with or better, and known rates from point to point. Starbucks vs. the local gas station, you pay 2-3x more, but you get exactly what you pay for and they will correct deficiencies. That is how the NetJets of world position themselves.

I think they all have their place depending on your travel needs and expectations. From my experience, people start with charters. Once they are committed to private air travel, but have some poor charter experiences, they start looking at fractionals for service consistency.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jan 2023, 14:51

As Michael's "AOG..." thread about his Citation reveals, we don't just buy an airplane, we buy into the ecosystem that surrounds that aircraft.

The market is usually efficiently priced. Older planes are less expensive to buy into, but usually, the ecosystem around it is slower, albeit cheaper.

If you're making schedules, then you need something with a high-dispatch rate and an ecosystem that can rapidly return AOG to flying status, anywhere you might happen to land.

Even more so if you're making revenue and you want predictable financial outlay for flight hours.

It is a continuum.

At one end, there's the "disposable" jet, at the other end, there's the "fresh from delivery and acceptance test" and all points between.

Same with charter and on-demand card services.