Publishers
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2002
- Posts
- 1,736
Well in the real time example, you have a 10% figure relative to the hourly ops cost.
In my history from above, fuel costs were a relatively low number when combined with the maintenance capabilities we had you, your 2/3 's were low and the pilot cost high.
Today, fuel costs are up and a larger portion, insurance costs are a more significant %, maintenance depending on age of aircraft and type can be very costly, and the pilot costs less as a percentage due to the other factors. That is why the percentage game is not very effective in doing analysis all the time that is really comparative.
Now take the Challenger crew above. For the owner, they only fly 300 hours per year. The balance is charter. In terms of dollars, the owner is paying out the same money with or without charter. The question is whether the costs are spread over the 300 or the 438. Over the 438, his crew costs have dropped, plus, he is generating revenue on the aircraft - a double win.
It is this kind of calculation that people look at to determine what it would cost them versus going with Netjets. You can get whatever you want to get but in the real world, this challenger flies when the boss wants to go, where he wants to go, and there is no overtime, no fixed days off, no staff to do Jepps, no much of any work scope.
To try and translate this typical flight operation into a union organized public company is difficult at best. You want airline type benefits along with corporate type pay, and really are a charter company. I think your work rules more than the money are going to be detrimental to the future model.
In my history from above, fuel costs were a relatively low number when combined with the maintenance capabilities we had you, your 2/3 's were low and the pilot cost high.
Today, fuel costs are up and a larger portion, insurance costs are a more significant %, maintenance depending on age of aircraft and type can be very costly, and the pilot costs less as a percentage due to the other factors. That is why the percentage game is not very effective in doing analysis all the time that is really comparative.
Now take the Challenger crew above. For the owner, they only fly 300 hours per year. The balance is charter. In terms of dollars, the owner is paying out the same money with or without charter. The question is whether the costs are spread over the 300 or the 438. Over the 438, his crew costs have dropped, plus, he is generating revenue on the aircraft - a double win.
It is this kind of calculation that people look at to determine what it would cost them versus going with Netjets. You can get whatever you want to get but in the real world, this challenger flies when the boss wants to go, where he wants to go, and there is no overtime, no fixed days off, no staff to do Jepps, no much of any work scope.
To try and translate this typical flight operation into a union organized public company is difficult at best. You want airline type benefits along with corporate type pay, and really are a charter company. I think your work rules more than the money are going to be detrimental to the future model.
