I can't understand the low pay

[Whirlwind]

So, what you are saying is the FBO and school has no profit built into solo rental? They do make a profit with solo rental. Again, I agree, there is nothing wrong with profit, just don't try to hide it with charging phony rates.

There is nothing phony about the rates they charge.

Yes, they make money on solo rentals, that income pays for the airplanes.

It isn't free to keep CFIs around the office, and if you use the income from the planes to pay for them, then the planes aren't making money.

Jason

 

[jarhead]

CFI'er,

Not sure what you mean by the statement of "Charging a phoney rate" What's phoney about it? Any business, should charge as much for their product or service as they can possibly get. The market place will determine what is excessive. Their is no law (nor should their be one) from a kid charging a thousand bucks an hour to mow lawns. I don't believe he'd get many customers, and that is what regulate prices. He'd have to reduce his rate to such a level, that he could attract a customer. Then, he's also have to be aware of what his competitor is charging. It's the American way! Capitalism, and the free market.

 

[A Squared]

CFIer,

Get over it. There is nothing dishonest, or hidden, or phony or unfair or exploitative about it. The owner of the school has a bunch of expenses which are related to running a flight school and which are above and beyond the expenses which would result from renting airplanes. There' the cost of supplying space for you to conduct lessons, there’s the electricity, heat and a/c for that space, there's the training supplies and resources such as computers, books and such, advertising costs. The administrative costs of doing payroll for the flight instructors. There's the social security tax, unemployment insurance, workman's compensation insurance, medical insurance and 401k (if you have that).

If you were an attorney working for a law firm, your hourly pay would be less that the firm billed your services to the client. If you were a doctor working for a clinic, your hourly pay would be less than the clinic billed the patient. If you were a janitor, working for a janitorial service, your hourly pay would be less than the rate the service billed it's customers. If you were an electrician working for a electrical repair company, your hourly rate would be less that the company billed the clients. If you were an engineer working for a consulting firm, your hourly pay would be less than the firm billed the clients. If you are a skilled employee of *any* type, working for *any* business which bills outside clients for your services, the company will charge more for your services than they pay you. If they don't, they don't stay in business. The fact that there may be other revenue sources like aircraft rental doesn't mean that the flight instruction (or any service) should be provided at a *cost* to the company and you should keep all the money billed. Why do you think that you should be different from every other employee in the free world?

You want to *keep* all the money which is charged for your instruction? Great, start your own business. Suddenly you’ll see where all that other money goes. You’ll suddenly realize how much of the social security tax your employer was paying. You’ll learn about self employment tax (schedule SE on your federal income tax return) You’ll realize very quickly that you aren’t keeping all the money you bill. If you’re successful with your instruction and business is good and you want to expand, as soon as you hire your first flight instructor, you’ll understand why businesses charge more for services than they pay their employees. I guarantee that you’ll do exactly the same.

As far as the your idea about cash vs credit;

>>>>>>>>"I think one trend might be in the works for aircraft rental, cash vs credit card. There is a gas station in the area that gives a $.05 credit per gallon for paying cash. Now this is a great idea. Maybe it will get us back to a cash society rather than a plastic society."

I don’t think that will work. I think that most credit card companies have a clause in their contracts with the businesses which forbids them adding to the price for a credit card sale. You see it occasionally, but it usually doesn’t last, eventually word gets back to the credit card company and the business gets a nasty letter from the credit card company.. You see, the credit card companies have a vested interest in the price to the consumer being the same whether it’s cash or credit card. They take steps to keep it that way.

 

[bigD]

You see it occasionally, but it usually doesn’t last, eventually word gets back to the credit card company and the business gets a nasty letter from the credit card company.

Around here, the FBO's must be ignoring their letters, because all but one have cash discounts for rental. Maybe by calling it a "cash discount" as opposed to a "credit card surcharge", they get around any clause in their contract?

 

[bigD]

But regarding the discussion about flight schools - there may be some bad ones out there that are screwing the CFI's to line the owner's pockets, but overall I tend to agree with A Squared.

My flight school charges $32 for instruction, but pays the instructors $12 per hour, plus a base monthly salary (the instructors are required to be there whether they have students on the schedule or not). While I don't actually know how much profit the owner is taking for herself, all I know is that she's at the school 6 days a week, and busts her @ss flying and managing the school. The school looks good, the planes look nice and are well equipped, and the instructors fly a lot because the school has a good reputation in the area. If she's getting rich off the school, it certainly doesn't seem like it to me. Whatever profit that's made seems to go back into the school and planes, which makes renters like me happy.

Now, that doesn't excuse the fact that the instructors there make jack squat. They fly a lot, but most of them are barely making ends meet. The prices for rental are low, with the quality of the planes being pretty high. She could easily charge another $5-10 per plane and her customer base would absorb it. I'd happily pay another 10 bucks per hour on the Duchess to see the CFI's make more money.

 

[A Squared]

>>>>>Maybe by calling it a "cash discount" as opposed to a "credit card surcharge", they get around any clause in their contract?

could be, I don't know all the ins and outs of the issue. Maybe by wording it that way they're getting around the agreement, or maybe the credit card companies just don't know. After all there's far too many businesses which use credit cards to be able to monitor them all. Something (or someone) would have to bring it to their attention.

 

[dmspilot00]

How about Part 141 flight school associated with a CC that charges $81+ for 20-year-old poorly maintained trainers, $22 for instruction, always adds a .5 hour ground instruction fee to every lesson regardless of whether ground briefings occurred or not, pays CFIs a starting wage of $7/hour, does not allow private pilots to fly solo, and the owner uses the profit to spend 85% of his time 1000 miles away in a vacation home in Florida? Yes, this is an actual school.

 

[jarhead]

To dmspilot00

Where's the problem?

First, it's the owners money (the profit) It's his to do with as he wants. He can spend it all at a casino, or give it all to a medical charity for the poor, or anything in between. It aint your money, its his! You spend your money as you see fit, do you not? And it seems you spend it at a place I never would, if you describe it accurately, and use the FBO, or are employed by it. That was your choice also, wasn't it? If the guy did not have any takers, the operation would fail, would it not? Vote with your feet if you find it so onerous. No one is holding a gun to your head, or any of the customers, or any of the employees. They all make a concious decision to work and play there of their own free will.

 

[dmspilot00]

I don't patronize it nor am I employed there, and I never said that I did.

I did say it is associated with a college, and so the students majoring in flight really do have no choice. They can't possibly know the things about the operation before they sign on. They either fly there or they don't get a degree, in either case they have poured money down the drain.

You don't see a problem with paying $7 to CFIs and charging $80 for illegally malmaintained airplanes? The owner is friends with a higher-up at the local FSDO, and is able to get away with things that he shouldn't.

I just thought I would share a story contrasting to the previous one, there is no need to cop an attitude with me.

 

[jarhead]

Illeagally maintained aircraft or aircraft that are not flightworthy, have no business being in the air. Period. We agree there. Get him shut down if that's the case.

As to your statement that college students have to use the aircraft or they won't graduate, I would simply say they should have checked it out with a little more scrutiny before they signed up and put their money down. Caveat Emptor......Buyer beware.
People get screwed in life all the time by simply not getting good references, checking into it, etc. I repeat, no one was forced to use any part of this operation. It was all done by free will.

If those aircraft do not have a valid airworthiness certificate, get 'em shut down. Then ALL the students will be forced to make a better decision.

Maybe they could band together, start an operation with all brand new airplanes, pay their instuctors $50.00 an hour, and charge $20.00 an hour for the aircraft (tic) You see the problem in economics here, right?