Free Frax Moneymaking Idea...

onthebeach

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
240
Total Time
10K+
OK, here's the pitch:

Biggest problem/hassle in managing frax pilot group time: scheduling required travel to/from the aircraft at beginning/end or hitch, to/from training, etc. Airlines are major hassle, plus limited number of airports with airline service for pilots living in the sticks.

Solution: Buy some Barons (58's or 55's, so long as they are known ice & w/wx radar) and hire some freight dogs to fly them...and/or qualify some of the young hungry guys who want overtime to fly them. Use the Barons as supplemental lift to ferry pilots to/from work and/or training. This would be most cost effective for those folks living in the sticks, least cost effective for those who reside in or very near major hubs. These same Barons could be sold as shares for those people who would go into frax, but are too, shall we say, "low end" to be able to afford shares in a turbine aircraft. Or, the frax operator could set up a multi-engine flight training academy as another way to offset costs.

A frax operator could do this, or some experienced piston fleet operator could develop the package and offer it as a turnkey contract to the frax operator.

This major money-making idea has been offered to you free of charge by our research department in Lowdown, AR. Thanks for your attention to our proposal.

P.S.: ...and no, I'm not looking for a Baron job.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Posts
401
Total Time
31 yrs
How much money would you save after paying for pilot salaries, maintenance, parts, insurance, fuel, registration costs, repositioning fees, and airport fees plus the acquisition cost of the aircraft? Not to mention you have to remember that that aircraft will not always be available because of scheduled / unscheduled maintenance downtime. Then you could only move say 2 crewmembers at a time at a slow pace and limited distance. Sounds good, but I don't think it would be feasable.
 

GVFlyer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Posts
1,461
Total Time
18K+
I've ridden in a NetJets KingAir that they use to get crews and staff around. They also have a Cessna 310, a 172 and another more recent Cessna recip twin.

GV
 

onthebeach

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
240
Total Time
10K+
Thanks GV, I wasn't aware this was being done by any frax operator, even on so small a scale. But the idea itself is scalable, i.e., it could be tried with a small fleet to start and if it worked well, then expand.

Another poster pointed out the considerable costs involved but I maintain that the aircraft could also be sold as shares, defraying a good deal of the capital outlay and operating expenses of the ferry operation, and opening up another "low end" segment to the frax operator.

And, if bought new (providing delivery positions are available, and/or Beech could ramp up production [note: I have no connection with Beechcraft or Raytheon]) the Barons would recoup considerable value upon resale at overhaul time, say, after approximately 18 months to 2 years of use, as the used aircraft market is very strong at this time.

Another way to procure a suitable fleet, which might work well is a joint venture with Colemill (I have no connection with them either) to purchase some low priced run-hard/put-away-wet freight Barons and have them reconditioned to produce an excellent and highly salable product for the ferry/frax shares fleet.

Another idea to crew the aircraft, which would be more cost effective yet, would be to qualify and use frax FOs who find themselves looking at increasingly longer times to upgrade. Only overtime and training pay would be additional expenses, the benefits package would be a sunk cost if existing frax employees were used. And, this approach could result in decreased underwriting expenses if it were sold as a way to allow FOs to increase their qualfications, i.e., PIC time, while waiting for upgrade.
 

Yank McCobb

Song and Dance Man
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Posts
538
Total Time
18000
The "limited number of airports available with airline service for pilots living in the sticks" is not really a player. The fractionals have started requiring pilots to live in an increasingly fewer select number of cities. They could not care any less about getting a pilot to and from "the sticks".

In today's increasingly competitive marketplace, I'm pretty sure the companies have considered every available option, including your idea. If it were a good, cost effective plan, it would be in use today.
 

Fracster

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
208
Total Time
Enough
I'm not saying that the Baron idea is a good one but if it was NetJets would be too fooking stupid to realize it.

With some of the most incompetent management personnel in aviation history they would be unable to capitalize on any descent idea.
Rumor has it the 400XP options will be turned down because the airplane isn't nearly as good as the Citation product Shamtulli got in a pissing contest with Cessna over. And for those aren't in the know Shamtulli got pissed at Cessna for selling to a rival frac so he cancelled his Cessna order and purchased from Raytheon. Because his ego is larger than life he forgot to read the specs on the 400XP where they mentioned the plane with full fuel can only 2 pax.

Shamtulli, Moisture, Mcghoo, Hart.....turly, truly incompetent.

And thanks to the FlexJet folks who got rid of Hart so that he could bless us with his presence.
 

onthebeach

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
240
Total Time
10K+
Is this the same "Hart" who deserves the credit for almost getting a union at RTA?
 

Hogprint

If you aint Cav...
Joined
Apr 16, 2002
Posts
695
Total Time
6000
GV,

I've talked to a couple of the King Air guys and gal out on the road and they said it was a decent gig. They get the chance to move to the G's after a couple of years I think.

NJA had/has a 310 that it was moving crews around the CMH area with. I don't think we move crews with it anymore. Maybe the lower management types shuffle around in it. It may have been a flying club bird also.
 

FamilyGuy

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Posts
581
Fracster said:
I'm not saying that the Baron idea is a good one but if it was NetJets would be too fooking stupid to realize it.

With some of the most incompetent management personnel in aviation history they would be unable to capitalize on any descent idea.
Fracster - we used to move crews on the 310 but the union asked that the company stop the practice. You can find more on the subject in this thread...

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=52882&page=4&pp=15

But from the tone of your note, it wont matter....the company is d@mned if it does and d@mned if it doesnt....probably a good microcosm of the whole negotiations....
 

El Chupacabra

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Posts
527
Total Time
14000
I am not riding in a piston airplane unless it has big round motors.... its bad enough I have to ride on an RJ.
 

rettofly

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2003
Posts
8,915
Total Time
10K +
Full Fuel....

Fracster said:
I'm not saying that the Baron idea is a good one but if it was NetJets would be too fooking stupid to realize it.

With some of the most incompetent management personnel in aviation history they would be unable to capitalize on any descent idea.
Rumor has it the 400XP options will be turned down because the airplane isn't nearly as good as the Citation product Shamtulli got in a pissing contest with Cessna over. And for those aren't in the know Shamtulli got pissed at Cessna for selling to a rival frac so he cancelled his Cessna order and purchased from Raytheon. Because his ego is larger than life he forgot to read the specs on the 400XP where they mentioned the plane with full fuel can only 2 pax.

Shamtulli, Moisture, Mcghoo, Hart.....turly, truly incompetent.

And thanks to the FlexJet folks who got rid of Hart so that he could bless us with his presence.
Need to nitpick one point: The ULTRAs in the NJ fleet will only take two pax with full fuel (maybe 2 1/2).
 

Hogprint

If you aint Cav...
Joined
Apr 16, 2002
Posts
695
Total Time
6000
One other difference is the Ultra can load a couple of Pro golf bags in the nose. The 400 has to strap 'em in a seat.
 

Guitar Guy

Charvel - San Dimas
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Posts
1,770
Total Time
Enough
Another difference is that the Ultra can get into and out of shorter runways. I have been told that the 400XP can't go directly to FL410 with a takeoff weight near MTOW.
 

CRAWDADDY

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Posts
264
Total Time
18,XXX
El Chupacabra said:
I am not riding in a piston airplane unless it has big round motors.... [/b]
I'll do it if Moisture will sit there and hold my hand.

BTW, still didn't get my strike ballot. WTF?
 

Just Peachy

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Posts
189
Total Time
28,000
Ultra...

Hogprint said:
One other difference is the Ultra can load a couple of Pro golf bags in the nose. The 400 has to strap 'em in a seat.
In the Ultra, with 4 pax in the normal seat config. and average fuel ( say about 3 to 4000 lbs) guess how many lbs of bags can be put in the nose?........



30 lbs..... shocking isn't it...
yup, the CG is out the front end.. another fine Cessna product.
 
Top