NJA Contract Rumor

[OPECJet]

The variable that you neglected to mention is state of the economy. Im in agreement that in a relatively stagnant economy there will be no growth here. It's reasonable to assume that the US private sector will find its path to more prosperous times. It usually has in my lifetime.

This makes sense reading:

When the economy improves significantly, charter prices will rise quite a lot, giving NJA a better chance of selling shares. Might need a different occupant in the White House though.

This.

My question, have we reached a new "norm" in the economy? If so, we're losing and will continue to lose as long as Bridgeway's only selling point is recovery time. Also, when / if the economy begins to improve and charter prices increase, do you not think NJA will also increase the cost of ownership?

 

[imacdog]

I swear...pilots sleep with a night light on....are you guys really scared of the dark?

There is not a boogeyman behind every piece of news.

Aviation has a way of making worst case scenarios often come true.

 

[NJAowner]

Bridgeway's only selling point is recovery time

And this, like many other "selling points" of yesteryear, "ain't what it used to be". I think the big selling points now are "(1) We are a Berkshire Hathaway company, and (2) We are a Berkshire Hathaway company".

 

[nordo_2]

Bridgeway's only selling point is recovery time

And this, like many other "selling points" of yesteryear, "ain't what it used to be". I think the big selling points now are "(1) We are a Berkshire Hathaway company, and (2) We are a Berkshire Hathaway company".

Ouch.

 

[sshrae]

Bridgeway's only selling point is recovery time

And this, like many other "selling points" of yesteryear, "ain't what it used to be". I think the big selling points now are "(1) We are a Berkshire Hathaway company, and (2) We are a Berkshire Hathaway company".

Why not try private aircraft ownership. If you fly a lot it is way more cost effective and you will have the same crew for every trip. My current employer looked at fracs a while back and went with his own instead and has never looked back. He gets great service, an incredibly reliable airplane because it does not fly all day every day like some frac planes do. We have not missed a trip yet do to unscheduled maintenance. Plus there are some great deals on airplanes right now, not to mention the bush tax cuts will offset some of the initial cost (while they last).
Good luck, there are alternatives out there.

 

[NJAowner]

I have looked at it and (1) it is not cost effective for our flying needs, and (2) it is not an effective use of my time to spend time monitoring the flight department - better to spend that time on revenue generating ideas for my companies.

 

[BoilerUP]

(2) it is not an effective use of my time to spend time monitoring the flight department - better to spend that time on revenue generating ideas for my companies.

Hire the right people to manage and fly your aircraft and, as owner, you shouldn't need to spend much time 'monitoring the flight department'.

 

[GooseHZ]

Someone please hijack this chest thumping contest.....

 

[sshrae]

Exactly

 

[VGerect]

Hire the right people to manage and fly your aircraft and, as owner, you shouldn't need to spend much time 'monitoring the flight department'.

I agree completely, if I don't keep costs under control and the boss decides to get rid of the aircraft, I become unemployed. It's in everyone's best interest to run an efficient flight department these days.

 

[NJAowner]

To be "well run" no division, department or subsidiary completely runs itself and does not not need guidance, oversight and interaction. Time is needed to hire and oversee the head of the flight department, review and approve budgets and make strategic decisions. This does not mean I would need to be involved in the decisions of where to buy fuel. And from the strategic decision standpoint, it would be the extremely rare flight department head (or head of any division) who would say the best strategic decision is to eliminate his department. Even if all of this would take 50 hours per year, on average that is about 49 hours more than I spend on issues relative to my fractional shares (other than reading this board for entertainment purposes as it is really a fractional pilot reality show).

 

[BoilerUP]

Yes, just like any other department/division within a company a flight department needs 'oversight'. That doesn't mean it has to be a headache or time sink.

An effective aviation department manager makes the ownership and travel experience as transparent as possible for management/owners, so that they can continue seeking the opportunities that allow the flight department to exist in the first place.

In the 4+ years I've managed our flight department, I probably spend less than 2 hours annually in the CEO's office discussing department matters. I shoot him emails keeping him in the loop on issues that arise, typically getting a reply that says 'Thanks'.

Obviously everyone's travel needs are different, with different values placed on different benefits. In 2007 we ran a pro forma on a quarter share of an Ultra ($2.2M share price for an out-of-production airframe!) and found for the cost of 200 hours at NJA we could operate our Citation II in-house for 375hrs. Obviously there are intangibles of fractional ownership, but the financial premium for those wasn't worth it given the way (and how much) our company operated the plane.

You know all this NJAowner, so I'm probably preaching to the choir. I'm not trying to sway you one way or the other, but simply want to make the point that while operating an in-house department requires time & effort at startup and for recurring oversight, it most certainly doesn't HAVE to be time consuming for the HMFIC...assuming one has a competent person running the department.

 

[acaTerry]

Disregard

 

[Rubber Ducky]

Better opportunity problem

Yes, just like any other department/division within a company a flight department needs 'oversight'. That doesn't mean it has to be a headache or time sink.

An effective aviation department manager makes the ownership and travel experience as transparent as possible for management/owners, so that they can continue seeking the opportunities that allow the flight department to exist in the first place.

In the 4+ years I've managed our flight department, I probably spend less than 2 hours annually in the CEO's office discussing department matters. I shoot him emails keeping him in the loop on issues that arise, typically getting a reply that says 'Thanks'.

Obviously everyone's travel needs are different, with different values placed on different benefits. In 2007 we ran a pro forma on a quarter share of an Ultra ($2.2M share price for an out-of-production airframe!) and found for the cost of 200 hours at NJA we could operate our Citation II in-house for 375hrs. Obviously there are intangibles of fractional ownership, but the financial premium for those wasn't worth it given the way (and how much) our company operated the plane.

You know all this NJAowner, so I'm probably preaching to the choir. I'm not trying to sway you one way or the other, but simply want to make the point that while operating an in-house department requires time & effort at startup and for recurring oversight, it most certainly doesn't HAVE to be time consuming for the HMFIC...assuming one has a competent person running the department.

Hiring a competent CP to run your flight department is possible and you might receive one or two emails per year, to which you might reply "thanks" until the third email says "I'm leaving for a better opportunity". At that moment you'll wish you opted for Fractional.

 

[gret]

Hiring a competent CP to run your flight department is possible and you might receive one or two emails per year, to which you might reply "thanks" until the third email says "I'm leaving for a better opportunity". At that moment you'll wish you opted for Fractional.

Couldn't you just just another flight department manager? If the CFO or head of human resources decides to pursue another opportunity, you just hire a replacement. You don't outsource the function and most CEOs won't give up the flying barge.

Question...besides a small or privately owned company...how many flight departments report directly to the CEO? My recollection has been none. The CEO doesn't want to screw with it and most other senior executives don't want it because it is a thankless job with no upside and a lot of headaches with the great possibility of disappointing people.