Is GA flying for transportation dead?

[N801BH]

Sam Walton flew himself around when the business was starting. The whole original concept of WalMart was giant stores in rural areas, not cities and suburbs.

The kids after Sam died, utilize aviation more like a typical Corporation does. AFAIK, they're not pilots.

.

Actually John Walton was my hangar mate till his tragic last flight... He started life as a crop duster and I am sure he could have flown a kitchen table if the power to weight ratio was even close. I don't think any of the rest of the clan even have a pilots license..

 

[Everskyward]

It occurred to me that Walmart maintains a fleet of GA aircraft to fly their people around. If GA is not cost effective, I am surprised that Walmart of all companies would use GA like they do. Hmmm.

I think it's somewhat easier for companies to justify GA as transportation because they are paying people for their time. They generally use their airplanes more than a private owner would, making the total hourly cost less. There are also different tax breaks. Since WalMart stores are not necessarily located near large cities it's probably a big time-saver.

 

[wabower]

Alice has a Lear 31. Bud's daughters had Challengers for a while, don't know now. They all sit in the back.

Actually John Walton was my hangar mate till his tragic last flight... He started life as a crop duster and I am sure he could have flown a kitchen table if the power to weight ratio was even close. I don't think any of the rest of the clan even have a pilots license..

 

[vintage cessna]

What if you immediately sold it after he gifted it to you and then invested the money in a bond fund?

Then he will eventually lose money, like all the other suckers rushing into bonds.

 

[denverpilot]

I think it's somewhat easier for companies to justify GA as transportation because they are paying people for their time.

I know of no one riding in a Corporate aircraft who's pay is hourly.

They're paid for business results. If getting those results means far-flung in-person meetings or the business operates in remote locations, GA wins.

If the business can be conducted from a central location, no GA.

 

[Everskyward]

I know of no one riding in a Corporate aircraft who's pay is hourly.

What difference does that make? Their time is still costing the company because they could be doing other things rather than sitting in an airline terminal or getting to a place with airline service. Also, many day trips would need to be overnights.

You also might be surprised who gets to ride on corporate aircraft. I was talking to someone the other day and found out she is an intern.

 

[denverpilot]

You also might be surprised who gets to ride on corporate aircraft. I was talking to someone the other day and found out she is an intern.

Must. Resist. Built-in. Joke...

 

[Everskyward]

Must. Resist. Built-in. Joke...

Don't worry, Bill Clinton wasn't aboard.

 

[wabower]

Are issuers defaulting on their obligations more frequently than in the past?

Then he will eventually lose money, like all the other suckers rushing into bonds.

 

[wabower]

In which case you may not know much about corporate aviation.

I know of no one riding in a Corporate aircraft who's pay is hourly.

 

[denverpilot]

In which case you may not know much about corporate aviation.

Probably true.

But seriously, most companies typically don't pay the help by the hour when they're sitting on the airplane -- even if they're paid hourly for their actual work elsewhere off the aircraft. Travel time is rarely hourly.

(I worked for one place that it was... and the techs prayed for commercial flight delays. It was comical.)

And I carefully said "riding"... not the pilots nor if the aircraft is big enough, required cabin crew.

 

[bflynn]

But seriously, most companies typically don't pay the help by the hour when they're sitting on the airplane -- even if they're paid hourly for their actual work elsewhere off the aircraft. Travel time is rarely hourly.

As an indepedent consultant, I used to charge hourly while I traveled. The catch was that I didn't charge travel expenses. Most of my customers looked at that and realized that they usually come out on top.

Now if I was willing to go back to that lifestyle again today, it would more than pay for the airplane...sigh...

 

[Alexb2000]

Probably true.

But seriously, most companies typically don't pay the help by the hour when they're sitting on the airplane -- even if they're paid hourly for their actual work elsewhere off the aircraft. Travel time is rarely hourly.

(I worked for one place that it was... and the techs prayed for commercial flight delays. It was comical.)

And I carefully said "riding"... not the pilots nor if the aircraft is big enough, required cabin crew.

Let me suggest a different way to look at it. Take any executives total compensation package. Let's say it $10M a year. Divide that by the hours available for work in a year 2000 (most work more I know). So $5000 per hour. Let's say four executives need to meet with a customer, every hour they travel is costing you $20K. If they can use GA, get there faster, be more places in a day, and be able to work while onboard. GA becomes a simple decision.

Time is the real challenge.

 

[Dr. O]

Dow is one of the most conservative corporations going and their ongoing review of programs and expenses continues to show that having their own fleet returns them more than it costs them... The daily Shuttle from Midland Michigan to Midland Texas is usually full... The collapse of the feeder airlines has made it even more difficult to use the commercial airlines for executive travel.. I don't expect the corporate plane to go away in the near future - and neither does Bombardier, etc..

 

[Everskyward]

But seriously, most companies typically don't pay the help by the hour when they're sitting on the airplane -- even if they're paid hourly for their actual work elsewhere off the aircraft. Travel time is rarely hourly.

You're not thinking about the loss of productivity. If someone takes 2 days to do a job they could do in one day the company potentially needs to hire another person to get the same amount of work done.

 

[Everskyward]

And I carefully said "riding"... not the pilots nor if the aircraft is big enough, required cabin crew.

It's more customary to pay the crew a salary or a daily rate than hourly. Totally different pay scheme than the airlines.

 

[seand]

Last minute notice, trip from Tampa to Valdosta, GA. 4 hours each way by car. 1.5 hours by C182. $2000/each and 3 connections by commercial air that gets you there the next morning. Car or commercial made it a multi-day trip. We could have had breakfast in Valdosta by GA same day. Trip cancelled. Can't use GA under travel policy.

We have a small competitor who occasionally flies to customers in the Bahamas to delivers spare parts. It can take us a few days to deliver our parts and the customers may be offline not producing power/water/or both. The hoops to do this are apparently daunting, but his customers pay more, and are happier.

Personally, I've flown trips that just couldn't have been done commercial unless you were willing to rent cars and drive around as much as fly. And by the time you add up the extra hotel days/cars I doubt GA was much more expensive plus I have tons of flexibility to come and go.

If time matters, GA matters.

 

[somorris]

Dow is one of the most conservative corporations going and their ongoing review of programs and expenses continues to show that having their own fleet returns them more than it costs them... The daily Shuttle from Midland Michigan to Midland Texas is usually full... The collapse of the feeder airlines has made it even more difficult to use the commercial airlines for executive travel.. I don't expect the corporate plane to go away in the near future - and neither does Bombardier, etc..

That is kind of my point in bringing up Walmart. Those who are doing a very good job of scrutinizing the P&L statements and maximizing the P side, are using GA for travel. It must make economic sense or they would not be doing that. I think that answers the original question, although I personally am not sure I fully understand the answer (and how to implement it!). Time is money!

 

[denverpilot]

You're not thinking about the loss of productivity. If someone takes 2 days to do a job they could do in one day the company potentially needs to hire another person to get the same amount of work done.

I think you guys were thinking I was arguing against the use of the jets... I'm not. It was just a comment that PAY isn't hourly for most of the folks riding the jets.

Totally agreed that TIME is what they're trying to save...

 

[denverpilot]

P.S. Keep in mind, the original article is about the personal utilization of GA... flying yourself...

 

[steingar]

The trip to see family is a slug by car. Fun by aircraft. The trip to take my buddy to see his mother is overnight by car, day trip by aircraft.

 

[Everskyward]

It was just a comment that PAY isn't hourly for most of the folks riding the jets.

How would you know that? And what does it matter?

Totally agreed that TIME is what they're trying to save...

True. To businesses, time is money. To myself, not so much so. Businesses can justify introducing employee pay into the cost-effectiveness computation. Individuals have a harder time doing that

 

[denverpilot]

How would you know that? And what does it matter?

Because you said it was about the hours.

True. To businesses, time is money. To myself, not so much so. Businesses can justify introducing employee pay into the cost-effectiveness computation. Individuals have a harder time doing that

I think businesses THINK that time is money... those same businesses aren't out purchasing videoconferencing systems to drop the travel altogether... so they're essentially lying.

(Adoption of videoconferencing is high, but not nearly as high as say... if even an airplane ride cost you millions lost while you flew. Beancounters aren't pushing it... it's usually championed by a younger exec crowd.

Having worked for a company that produces such gear, travel was virtually verboten for internal work, and mainly only used for customer visits... EXCEPT that people like to meet and see the execs in person... a strange human need, but the execs were constantly flying between sites to have in-person sessions, that were little more than meet and greet, and rarely contained any serious business purposes.

The few serious business purpose meetings weren't done ANYWHERE near the offices in a Public company, for fear that the information would leak... they were usually done over dinner at a fine restaurant or golf course.

One exec had an entire videoconferencing stage room installed in his basement. It made it look ilke he was sitting in one of the offices that had those huge room style systems installed. He flew a lot less than the others.

There's a certain social norm/lifestyle that says you have to meet in person still, and that was a significant detractor from videoconferencing sales. Internally, the systems on our desks were easier to dial than a cell phone. We used the heck out of the systems internally. We even had some managers complain when they'd book a room, and we'd all dial in from our desks.

Ironically, they would complain about it only when there were visiting execs to impress in that room. Otherwise, they'd cancel the room and we'd ALL take the conference call from our desks.

So the protocol was... "Out of town execs flew in on the jet today, everyone meet in the conference room." Or... "We'll have our usual video meeting at 3PM. No execs in from out of town today."

It was quite odd.

 

[Everskyward]

Because you said it was about the hours.

You don't think the hours and productivity of a salaried employee matter?

I think businesses THINK that time is money... those same businesses aren't out purchasing videoconferencing systems to drop the travel altogether... so they're essentially lying.

Videoconferencing probably works better in some industries than others. What makes you think it's only execs who travel by company airplane?

 

[Jay Honeck]

You don't think the hours and productivity of a salaried employee matter?


Videoconferencing probably works better in some industries than others. What makes you think it's only execs who travel by company airplane?

Videoconferencing has continued to improve and grow, decimating a lot of hotels that depended on conference business to survive.

Same thing with business travel. If you're a bean-counter (and who isn't in business nowadays?) video-conferencing is the future. It just makes too much sense.

 

[denverpilot]

You don't think the hours and productivity of a salaried employee matter?

Productivity, yes. Hours... that's the employee's decision.

Videoconferencing probably works better in some industries than others. What makes you think it's only execs who travel by company airplane?

I never said that.

We're missing something somewhere, because the whole thread is about J. Mac's silly article about folks flying themselves around for transportation, both business and non-business... and whether or not it was "dead". He didn't even bring up Corporate aviation, other than alluding to it in the sentence where he mentioned that someone else had paid his flying bills for 37 years. (Which as Wayne pointed out, wasn't true or even accurate.)

How we got down to "Who flies on company jets and why", I have no idea... nor do I care much. I suspect it falls under the same reason I fly, because they can.

Companies do both some really interesting stuff, and some really stupid stuff. Both probably include airplanes.

I'm not 100% buying into the whole "airplanes save time, and time is money" story for every single flight in the Corporate world, though... it's a mixture of that and lifestyle and whole bunch of other reasons... sometimes the airlines just don't go there, and a long car drive would suck...

At the end of the day, anyone you really know and trust... you could do a million dollars worth of business with, using a text message, these days. But... I suspect that text message would more likely be "Let's meet in X city for lunch and then grab 9 holes at Y." than "Done deal, I'll put my lawyers on it", more as a lifestyle choice than not.

 

[Everskyward]

Videoconferencing has continued to improve and grow, decimating a lot of hotels that depended on conference business to survive.

Same thing with business travel. If you're a bean-counter (and who isn't in business nowadays?) video-conferencing is the future. It just makes too much sense.

No doubt videoconferencing is a money-saver. However, just like people sometimes travel to visit their friends and family rather than using Skype, sometimes people prefer to do business face-to-face. Besides, there are some jobs you need to be present to do.

 

[somorris]

I agree videoconferencing is a good thing, but face-to-face just cannot be totally replaced. Plus, if you have something hands-on, you just have to be there.

 

[Everskyward]

Going back to the Wal-Mart example. If the people traveling are checking up on their stores it would be pretty hard to do by videoconferencing.

 

[denverpilot]

Going back to the Wal-Mart example. If the people traveling are checking up on their stores it would be pretty hard to do by videoconferencing.

Heh. You'd be surprised who's watching and from where in that particular case. Remember there's three cameras in employee areas to every one looking at customers...

I can't really say more on that one, but let's say that their system puts Vegas to shame.

 

[Everskyward]

Heh. You'd be surprised who's watching and from where in that particular case. Remember there's three cameras in employee areas to every one looking at customers...

I can't really say more on that one, but let's say that their system puts Vegas to shame.

I didn't mean that they would be there spying on employees. There are other things that can't be done remotely.

 

[somorris]

I'm an advocate of "management by walking around." Hard to do that if you're not there. There is just no satisfactory replacement for being there.

 

[wsuffa]

For me, it's more important to do a fax-face meeting. Phone calls just don't cut it. I learned that long ago when building my own consulting company. Still is far more effective than phone/video conference. You can get a lot more done & it still impresses customers.

 

[wabower]

Some organizations with which I am privy to aircraft use include:

A manufacturer of rotary brushes (streetweepers and runway snow removal) has plants in KS, OH, CA and Barrie, Ontario. Travel in the company jet is dominated by department heads, engineers, desigers, and vendor maintenance specialists who shuttle among the plants. Customers who are invited to visit the plants sometimes fly in the plane, as are lenders and other financial professionals.

A consulting toxicology firm in Little Rock responds by flying technicians and scientists to haz-mat accidents for all of the Class 1 railroads as well as nuclear power facilities, chemical plants, refineries, smelters, etc.

A local oil and gas operating company operates a fleet of turboprops that transports their staff of engineers and geologists throughout the many oilfieds where their properties are located.

A heavy equipment manufacturer operates several king airs that are dedicated to transporting maintenance and crews. The equipment is mobile, and breakdowns are random. Some are in remote locations, where access is limited to GA.

Lawyers must try cases in the courts in the jurisdictions in which they are filed. One of the most active courts in TX is in Marshall, where the judge is known for his "rocket docket" that quickly moves IP cases through the system. GA is the only practical method of moving staff, experts, other people to and from the small town.

A bridge contractor headquartered in east TX flies engineers and support staff throughout the US.

A chain of banks headquartered in east TX conducts regular board meetings for loan discussion/approval in numerous locations. Executives and support staff routinely fly to these meetings on the company plane to places like Eastland TX.

A company specializing in dam repairs requires transportation for numerous staff members to remote locations throughout the US.

Ain't no golf involved in any of this stuff.

 

[denverpilot]

Pretty interesting Wayne. Could employees of any of those firms utilize their own aircraft if they had them?

I've been careful to say execs do that stuff. I have not claimed that non-execs don't fly on Corporate aircraft.

Back to the original question of the article...

I'm of the belief that J. Mac missed the forest for the trees. Folks can't because companies no longer allow it, for the most part. Folks here have pointed out that even Cessna doesn't after their acquisition by Textron.

And of course, one particular annoying Chief Council opinion about passengers/co-workers.

 

[wabower]

Some companies are pro-GA, realize the value to the business and protect themselves against the risks. I don't know the percentages, but assume it hasn't changed much since I was a young buck when none of the big-eight accounting/consulting firms (my field at the time) allowed such use.

I used my own planes for business for so long that it would be very difficult to revert to any other method of travel. I obviously spent more money than if I had driven or schlepped on the smokers, but would have been away from home for most of a five-day week rather than part of three days. The guy who played the most golf was me, but at my home course rather than on the road.

I don't think of JMac's article as anything more than a perspective piece. Some of the points fall within the bounds of "a profound grasp of the obvious" but I haven't thought about how I might have written it differently, and frankly think the criticism is the typical teapot-tempest reaction to his stuff.

Pretty interesting Wayne. Could employees of any of those firms utilize their own aircraft if they had them?

I've been careful to say execs do that stuff. I have not claimed that non-execs don't fly on Corporate aircraft.

Back to the original question of the article...

I'm of the belief that J. Mac missed the forest for the trees. Folks can't because companies no longer allow it, for the most part. Folks here have pointed out that even Cessna doesn't after their acquisition by Textron.

And of course, one particular annoying Chief Council opinion about passengers/co-workers.

 

[Henning]

Man what are you flying?

I know Sport Pilots who can afford to fly on about $60k a year or less.

The thread is "flying for transportation" not recreation. Unless you transport very little, you aren't going to do it with a $60k income unless you are single or have a family willing to make a lot of sacrifices to fly.

First things first, if you need a plane for transportation, you'll need to own it and maintain to a high standard for dispatch reliability. You'll also need about 160kt plane to have it make any sense unless you live on an island because when you figure out time/distance/cost on various trips you'll find that a slower plane on trips short enough to use, by the time you figure the end times and costs the car wins, longer and airlines win. 160-210 kts is what it takes to have a practical "traveling machine" hence the proliferation of planes that operate in this speed range. You can operate these machines with a lower income level but dispatch reliability falls to nothing so it's no longer a transportation device if you have to wait 6 months to save up for a repair all the while paying fixed expenses.

 

[airguy]

For business use it's going to depend a great deal on what KIND of business. As was pointed out earlier phone calls and videoconferencing can take care of a lot of it - but some things just require being there in person. Maybe a quarter of my trips involve a face-to-face with a current or potential customer or 3rd-party engineering firm in an office building somewhere, the other three quarters I'm heading out to one of our fabrication shops for eyeballs-on work inspection or engineering changes - that kind of thing can't be done remotely.

There are other personnel in my company that can handle everything they do with phone and/or video, but in my position a personal presence is often required and GA is advantageous over airlines more often than not.

 

[FlyingDeacon]

Conversations like this are enjoyable but it's like someone who hunts, fishes, or plays golf trying to justify what they spend.

I don't hunt or play golf....I FLY!

 

[wabower]

Too many variables for these generalizations to be of any value. $60k buys a little more lifestyle in Manhatten, KS than in Manhattan, NY.

Ditto trip lengths and TAS. Very little actual block time difference in most trips due to cruise speed difference.

The thread is "flying for transportation" not recreation. Unless you transport very little, you aren't going to do it with a $60k income unless you are single or have a family willing to make a lot of sacrifices to fly.

First things first, if you need a plane for transportation, you'll need to own it and maintain to a high standard for dispatch reliability. You'll also need about 160kt plane to have it make any sense unless you live on an island because when you figure out time/distance/cost on various trips you'll find that a slower plane on trips short enough to use, by the time you figure the end times and costs the car wins, longer and airlines win. 160-210 kts is what it takes to have a practical "traveling machine" hence the proliferation of planes that operate in this speed range. You can operate these machines with a lower income level but dispatch reliability falls to nothing so it's no longer a transportation device if you have to wait 6 months to save up for a repair all the while paying fixed expenses.