Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Is XOJet killing your business?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
O

OCR

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Posts
23
Is anyone else being asked to quote one way pricing on jets at ridiculously low prices to compete with XOJet? Their new one way pricing, which covers many coast to coast city pairs, is being advertised at $19K, inclusive of ground transportation, basic catering, and flight phone charges.

Doing the math, if the average coast to coast flight is five hours, and they have to reposition for an average of 30 minutes, that is 5.5 hours of flying. Subtract $1,000 for catering/ground/flight phone, and subtract another $1500 to cover overnight fees while they await their next leg, and they are likely netting about $16,500 for 5.5 hours of flying, which comes out to $3,000 per hour for a Citation X or Challenger 300.

Considering that they just bought these planes, and they own many of them outright, how can they possibly cover the cost of capital, property taxes, crew expenses, overhead, and marketing, and work for such a low hourly rate? Just the variable DOCs have got to be close to $2,000 per hour. This margin doesn't even cover the cost of pilots.

It seems like this is a desperation move that is the end result of a bad business plan that got even worse as the economy turned. Unfortunately, our charter clients now expect us to match these prices. Is anyone else dealing with this? If so, what are you doing to respond?
 
Well, they do claim on the fractional board that they are very busy and are seeing no slow down. I suppose for them that doing this, flying at a loss, is better than doing no flying at all. Many small businesses start this way by giving their product away and hoping people will return, but instead paying much more for the same product.
With the tremendous amount of debt with the aircraft orders and few new "fractional" owners in this economy, they have to show the investors that they are staying busy. They can then release to the press that they are "increasing marketshare" by adding to their "1,500 clients and growing" spin. I wonder what the true fractional owners that they do have think about these hourly rates.
 
Those rates "start at" $19,000. I don't believe that a west bound transcon can be had for that price...but I haven't seen any of our quotes. Please provide specific city pairs that have been quoted at that price.
 
Last edited:
Like T-Bone said, Those rates are for very restrictive city pairs, and the 19k is the lowest of all city pairs and those pairs probably often do not require reposition legs. Like VNY-TEB; In this market, It's likely we can cover that trip with no reposition.

As pilots, we certainly don't want to see anyones business "killed." However, don't kid yourself. This type of promotion is designed to gain market share. We feel confident that customers will appreciate our brand of service, and will continue to request us after this promotion ends.

Also, we are certainly NOT desperate. We are doing very well at maintaing cash flow in this difficult economy. I'm certainly not saying we are loosing money, but even if we are, loosing a little money in this economy is not what kills companies. Shutting off cash flow is.
 
XO's website shows all city pairs at a flat $19K, in either direction. It includes the lesser traveled destinations, like San Diego, Boston, and Phoenix. Whether they are really honoring these prices on every request is another question. At face value though, it appears their web site would indicate they are.

If these airplanes cost approximately $20M, just the interest at 5% is $1M/year, or $83K per month. Add the cost of pilots, dispatchers, mechanics, and property taxes, and the fixed overhead per plane is easily approaching $200K per month.

If the gross margin per hour is even $1300 (and that is being generous), they would have to fly each airplane more than 150 hours per month just to break even. Keep in mind that I haven't even mentioned the cost of office space, utilities, management salaries, marketing, insurance, and other overhead.

There is a reason that companies like Sentient, Marquis, Flexjet, and Citation Shares all charge between $8,000-$10,000 per hour in their card programs for a super-mid size jet like the Citation X or Challenger 300. Even at those prices, companies were not making substantial profits. Now imagine what happens to profits when hourly rates drop down to the $3500 range per hour. It's downright disastrous.

Why should we all worry about this? Here's one good reason. Pilot salaries have always in part been based on how much gross profit these fractionals and charter companies can earn from our services. As the margins diminish, the amount they are willing to pay us diminishes with it. Add to that the fact that there are so many furloughed pilots looking for work, and you can see where this is going to lead to.

So I maintain that while XO may have found a way to fly their planes in the short run, the damage they are doing to the industry, and to the pilots, will continue long past the days of these "introductory prices".
 
probly what happens is by going really cheap and operating at aloss means that you have X amount of money to operate for fixed period of time. Similar to what places like Independence Air did. Operate the same thing as the competition hoping they will fold, then you get their market and bump your prices back up.

The gamble is what happens when your competition DONT fold. Then you have a little plane selling party and try again.

Did the furloughed XO guys get called back yet T-Bone?
 
Airfare wars are nothing new in the flying world, so why should it be new in the Fractional business? It is all about grabbing market share from the other guy and if it works for XO jet then so be it.

The danger in all of this is the "race to the bottom" of the price scale. I doubt that XO Jet would be operating these routes at a loss, but nothing is ever certain in flying. If it keeps them busy an grabs market share from the "weaker" competetors, then it works for them.

FYI...I have had an application with them for over a year, but havent heard anything yet, but I keep updating.
 
I don't know that XO, or anyone needs to grab market share at this time, but rather, survive. If there are fewer operators at the other side of the recession, it means greater market share for those who remain.

Too many operators are selling trips for less than cost, for the cash flow. That may aid to survival, but it also educates clientelle. Look at the airlines. Who expects to pay more than $200 to go anywhere domestic?

This is a scary time to be in the charter business. The phone doesn't ring, then any quotes get beat up to where nothing is profittable. It all has to turn soon, or I'll be living under a bridge, and I live in a cold climate.
 
I understand, I wasnt disparaging the charter business or anyone else. You are right, its about survival.

Ive NEVER seen it this bad...and I feel for you with how slow business has been. I wish for the success of all parts of aviation: fractional, charter, cargo, etc.

You might have alot of company underneath that bridge if things dont get better..including me!
 
OCR said:
XO's website shows all city pairs at a flat $19K, in either direction. It includes the lesser traveled destinations, like San Diego, Boston, and Phoenix. Whether they are really honoring these prices on every request is another question. At face value though, it appears their web site would indicate they are.
Click to expand...
OCR,

That's not what it says at all. Next time post the whole sentence, try to slow down, be less emotional, and read! There is a very big difference between 4000 and 9.

"Fly the market share leader in transcontinental charter. Choose from over 4,000 airport pairs serving nine major metro areas and fly for as little as $19K one-way."
Preferred airports at which the $19,000 rate is available include: Teterboro (New York), Northeast Philadelphia (Philadelphia), Bedford (Boston), Manassas (Washington, D.C.), Van Nuys (Los Angeles), Henderson (Las Vegas), Oakland (San Francisco), Carlsbad (San Diego), and Deer Valley (Phoenix/Scottsdale).
Subject to availability. Other restrictions apply.

I understand the charter market is extremely poor and business is hard to come by for many operators. However, blaming a single operator who is currently crewing a grand total of 17 airframes domestically for killing your business is simply ridiculous. If your company is not competing well in the marketplace, you might consider a closer examination as to why. I'm sure you don't like this marketing campaign. It makes it hard on the competition, and that is precisely what it was intended to do.

As for your comments regarding XOJETs effect on pilots salaries, I'll just say our pilot pay package has been posted on this website several times. I believe it is very respectable, and would be shocked to learn if your charter outfit is even in our ballpark. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I wish you and your company good luck in these difficult times.

X
 
Last edited:
NO - But XO may be killing their own business ...

When you deeply discount your product in a down time, just to keep cash flow alive, it is VERY DARN DIFFICULT to raise your pricing back to normally supportative levels when conditions improve.

Your customers (particularly new customers who were lured in by an unrealistically low price) will really have a hard time accepting steeply increasing pricing. They (the customers) will believe they are being gauged. I've seen it happen in several industries.

Good luck to all!

TransMach
 
X-Rated,

I have re-read my post several times now, and I'm quite confident that nothing I stated was based on emotion or anything of the sort. I even disclosed that while the city pairs on the XO web site indicate the $19K pricing is available for those pairs, that whether clients are actually receiving those prices is unknown to me.

Yes, this is a pricing war, and XO has taken a bold lead in the war. However, I do not believe that this is a sign of strength on their part. I think it is a desperation move based on the fact that they committed to so many airplanes when the market was strong that they now have to do something with them while they try and figure out how to get out of the mess they are in. If you really think they are not losing substantial amounts of money on this venture, why not ask Dave and Paul directly and see how they respond?

There are many companies that are not responding to the price wars that companies like XO are fighting. These would include EJM and Jet Aviation, who have simply accepted that their charter fleet will be flying less. This does not make them weaker competitors in my opinion, just smarter ones. Because both of them have plenty of cash to wait this out and don't need to resort to acts of desperation just to keep their planes flying.

And no, XO is not the only company fighting this price war. There are a number of companies now flying point to point at hourly rates that are below what we all used to charge for round trips. One of them is rumored to have just had several planes repossessed by the bank. These stories will just go down in the history books of more companies that thought they could make money by buying airplanes to charter out. It's not the first time we have seen this business model fail, and I'm sure it will not be the last.

Finally, without a doubt, pilot salaries have been falling. Gulfstream pilots who used to make over $120K a year are now fighting over jobs that pay $75K, and for every one that gets hired, there are five more still looking and not finding anything. XO is certainly not single handedly responsible for this, but the industry in general is being forced to reconsider how much they pay pilots based on the reduced profit margins they are being forced to accept in the current market.
 
Last edited:
It is not my intent for any of these comments to be of a personal nature, nor to in any way suggest that the fine people who work hard at XO are in any way doing something wrong. I'm glad to see that they are employing as many pilots as they are. The last thing we need are any more pink slips in this industry.

Our industry is going through some difficult times. XO is certainly not the only nor the main reason for this. Our industry has been hard hit by many issues, including bad press from Washington, a really tough economy, and a perception that our service is unnecessarily luxurious at a time when people are scaling back and spending less.

Our industry is reacting by lowering prices - a very natural thing to expect to happen as demand softens. The problem is when the prices drop so low that they are being offered at below their true, fully burdened cost, which forces other operators to operate at a loss to compete, or to drastically reduce their flying. While this may serve as a short term strategy, I believe in the long term it hurts all of us.

I was not a big fan of JetDirect either. The concept of one company gobbling up so many management contracts seemed to be generally bad for the industry, and for the many regional operators that work hard to do a good job servicing local clients. As we watch JetDirect crater, we should all learn a lesson on what happens when a lot of money is thrown at a business plan that is not sound.

I just hope that the economy turns around before it gets to the point where the industry sustains so much damage that it can not fully recover.
 
OCR said:
There are many companies that are not responding to the price wars that companies like XO are fighting. These would include EJM and Jet Aviation, who have simply accepted that their charter fleet will be flying less. This does not make them weaker competitors in my opinion, just smarter ones. Because both of them have plenty of cash to wait this out and don't need to resort to acts of desperation just to keep their planes flying.
Click to expand...

OCR,

I don't understand your "logic." How in the world is it "smarter" to keep the airplanes in the hangar and loose money by the truckload?

I'll use your numbers from your earlier post to illustrate a point since I have no idea what the real numbers are. You say an average transcon in the X is about 5 hours, and the DOC is about $2000 per hour. So according to your numbers, the direct cost to fly the airplane is about 10,000 dollars for a typical transcon. That leaves $9000 per leg to offset other fixed costs including that 83,000 dollar aircraft payment you mentioned. If we do 10 roundtrips (which is realistic since we will average very near 100 hours per crewed aircraft this month) at this bargain "loss leader" fare, we will have not only covered direct operating cost, but also generated an additional $180,000 to cover fixed costs. Your numbers say those are about $200K. Since this is our very lowest fare, according to your numbers, we have a legitimate shot of breaking even or making a small profit in a terrible economy.

You say EJM and Jet Aviation is smarter to leave their aircraft sitting in the hangar, but they have the same fixed costs we do. So, if we're breaking even or almost breaking even, and they're loosing two hundred thousand dollars per month per airplane, I think I would prefer to remain as dumb as rock in your estimation.


OCR said:
Finally, without a doubt, pilot salaries have been falling. Gulfstream pilots who used to make over $120K a year are now fighting over jobs that pay $75K, and for every one that gets hired, there are five more still looking and not finding anything. XO is certainly not single handedly responsible for this, but the industry in general is being forced to reconsider how much they pay pilots based on the reduced profit margins they are being forced to accept in the current market.
Click to expand...

Again back to the above example, who has the better profit margin if XO is breaking even, and EJM and Jet Aviation loosing 200K per month per airplane?

You're right, XOJET is not responsible for the recession, or the current state of business aviation. We're just doing better than some at surviving it. Again, our pilots are among the best paid in the industry, so stop putting that falling salary crap on us. It has nothing to do with us! The industry is in free fall and we are holding our own. I hope your company can do the same.

X.
 
Last edited:
X-rated said:
OCR,

I don't understand your "logic." How in the world is it "smarter" to keep the airplanes in the hangar and loose money by the truckload?

I'll use your numbers from your earlier post to illustrate a point since I have no idea what the real numbers are. You say an average transcon in the X is about 5 hours, and the DOC is about $2000 per hour. So according to your numbers, the direct cost to fly the airplane is about 10,000 dollars for a typical transcon. That leaves $9000 per leg to offset other fixed costs including that 83,000 dollar aircraft payment you mentioned. If we do 10 roundtrips (which is realistic since we will average very near 100 hours per crewed aircraft this month) at this bargain "loss leader" fare, we will have not only covered direct operating cost, but also generated an additional $180,000 to cover fixed costs. Your numbers say those are about $200K. Since this is our very lowest fare, according to your numbers, we have a legitimate shot of breaking even or making a small profit in a terrible economy.

You say EJM and Jet Aviation is smarter to leave their aircraft sitting in the hangar, but they have the same fixed costs we do. So, if we're breaking even or almost breaking even, and they're loosing two hundred thousand dollars per month per airplane, I think I would prefer to remain as dumb as rock in your estimation.




Again back to the above example, who has the better profit margin if XO is breaking even, and EJM and Jet Aviation loosing 200K per month per airplane?
You're right, XOJET is not responsible for the recession, or the current state of business aviation. We're just doing better than some at surviving it. Again, our pilots are among the best paid in the industry, so stop putting that falling salary crap on us. It has nothing to do with us! The industry is in free fall and we are holding our own. I hope your company can do the same.

X.
Click to expand...

Uh, neither EJM or Jet Aviation own the aircraft they utilize for charter revenue. The planes are owned by other entities. Therefore your argument about losing $200k per plane are moot. Very few charter companies actually own/lease (in the traditional sense) the aircraft they fly in revenue service. It has been proven time and again that charter demand does not produce enough revenue on an annual basis to support the debt load on a typical business aircraft. Just thought I'd point that out.
 
I do know for a fact that EJM is chartering similar flights for quite a bit less than what XO is advertising.
 
Last edited:
rice said:
Uh, neither EJM or Jet Aviation own the aircraft they utilize for charter revenue. The planes are owned by other entities. Therefore your argument about losing $200k per plane are moot. Very few charter companies actually own/lease (in the traditional sense) the aircraft they fly in revenue service. It has been proven time and again that charter demand does not produce enough revenue on an annual basis to support the debt load on a typical business aircraft. Just thought I'd point that out.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. Noted.

However, whether EJM/Jet Aviation, or their owners are loosing that money, someone is. Allowing a 20+ million dollar asset to sit idle costs someone big time. I have no fight with either of those companies. I was just using the example and data OCR provided to prove a point. No harm intended.

X
 
Rice – your point is right on. EJM and Jet Aviation manage other people’s airplanes, so they do not incur the capital costs associated with owning them. This is the biggest difference between their business model and XOJet. As you stated, charter revenue has never provided enough profit to cover the cost of aircraft ownership, which is why the XO business model is not solid. The numbers looked better before the economy turned, but still not good enough to justify the business model.

X-Rated, I think I might consider the analysis of my numbers slightly differently. The $83K per month capital cost is fixed regardless of whether they fly the planes or ground them, so unless they sell the airplanes or default on the loans, the $83K is a sunk cost. The decision to keep flying or ground the airplanes (temporarily, at least) is based on whether the variable costs required to keep the planes flying are less than the profits obtained by flying. So, let’s look at what costs would not be incurred if they temporarily stopped flying the planes:

1) Pilots – you don’t need pilots if your planes don’t fly. From what I can gather from various postings, your planes average about 4 pilots per plane. I’m not sure exactly how many pilots are paid PIC salaries versus SIC, so I’ll make an assumption that the average salary is about $90K. Add 30% to cover payroll taxes, health benefits, vacation and sick time, plus $20K for recurrent Citation X training, and this equates to $137,000 per pilot, or $548,000 for four pilots.
2) Crew overnights – if the planes are not flying, pilots are not incurring expenses on hotels, meals, etc.
3) Mechanics – hard to quantify, but clearly planes that do not fly need far fewer mechanics.
4) Dispatchers, charter sales reps – Another expense that would not be required if the planes were temporarily grounded.

As you can see, the biggest expense associated with keeping the planes flying is the pilots.

Now, regarding revenues. You state that the average flight is five hours, so at $2,000 per hour in DOC, that leaves $9,000 to cover expenses. Not quite. First of all, I’m estimating conservatively that each flight averages at least one hour in reposition. That would be conservative, since that means only 30 minutes of repositioning on each side of a live leg. Let's even make the assumption that this hour of reposition cost is enough to cover the occasional mechanical where you have to move another plane to recover. So, deduct $2,000 for reposition costs. Deduct another $1,000 to cover ground transportation at both ends, flight phone charges, and standard catering, all included at the $19K price. Then deduct an average of $1,000 per night in crew expenses, and the net amount is $5,000 per trans-con leg. Now, you say you are doing close to 100 hours per month, so that is about 18 legs per month after deducting reposition time. 18 legs at $5,000 per leg is $90,000/month in gross profit.

So if we start with $90,000/month in gross profit, and subtract $46,000 per month for pilot salaries, and $21,000 for crew overnights (30 nights at $700/night), and you are left with $23,000 to cover all remaining expenses associated with mechanics, dispatchers, and charter sales. If the capital costs are $83K/month, we are $60,000 negative before we even begin to cover any of these additional costs. And, we still have not factored in company overhead, management expense, sales and marketing, property taxes, insurance, and other overhead expenses. Also not factored in is the depreciation per hour that these planes are incurring as a result of flying these hours, which will ultimately catch up with the company when they attempt to resell them.

Any way we look at this, it is perfectly clear to anyone who is familiar with aviation expenses that this business model is a disaster. Sorry to be so negative, but better to be realistic than to bury our heads in the sand and hope that things all work out. Doing so will just put us in the same situation that the pilots who work for JetDirect are facing – working for free since their paychecks have been bouncing for the past two pay periods.

XOJet will only survive for as long as the investors want to keep pouring in millions of dollars in cash to keep things running. Again, as learned from JetDirect, all investors reach a point where they simply say enough is enough, and they decide to cut their losses before it depletes their entire net worth.

For those of you who are working there and are satisfied with your jobs, by all means keep hanging on and cross your fingers and hope that something works out. Just always have a backup plan, so you are not surprised if it comes to an abrupt end.
 
OCR said:
XOJet will only survive for as long as the investors want to keep pouring in millions of dollars in cash to keep things running. Again, as learned from JetDirect, all investors reach a point where they simply say enough is enough, and they decide to cut their losses before it depletes their entire net worth.

For those of you who are working there and are satisfied with your jobs, by all means keep hanging on and cross your fingers and hope that something works out. Just always have a backup plan, so you are not surprised if it comes to an abrupt end.
Click to expand...

Never Mind. We'll see how things turn out. In the mean time, I wish your company the best of luck.

X
 
Last edited:
I do know twice we have had XOJet under bid our LR 60 using a X instead. But the one who is killing us is Seagrave who has underbid our LR 60 and 55 with their Hawker 1000 many many times.
From what I hear Seagrave has just stopped paying for their planes which are starting to get repo now.
So yes it is bad but I am hopeful that we are at the bottom of this recession and thinks will start moving upward.
 
Great comments from everyone! Bottom line: any business can operate at a loss in the short term. But someday--the short term will end!
 
Do you honestly expect anyone from XO to agree with you? They're not calling the shots, just being good worker bees like the rest of us.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom