Registration Number

It was a logical progression of the registering website names game.

For the record, I really wish this weren't happening, but I can see the dots that connected to create it. It would be interesting to see how to prohibit this, though.
A law that limits N-numbers to 100, unless an FAA specific exemption is granted?
-Then create fictitious accounts that get 100 each. Instead of 10k for one account, 100 for 100 accounts, only one of which is a real person.

A law that requires you to use the N-number w/in 2yrs?
- There are no limits (that I'm aware of) to prevent you from filing the paperwork to change your N-number every hour (or more frequently). With this person's ability to use bots, this would almost be laughably easy to implement.

This person is obviously not too worried about being fair, but rather about getting as many n-numbers as they can. So, I don't think the 'intent of the law' would suffice to deter this individual from continuing such behavior in the future. And with the enforcement of current rules, I'm not sure that fear of enforcement is a realistic deterrent either.
 
Well if no one buys from them, they eventually close up shop. Also what if the FAA runs out of numbers because they are all snatched up by these companies? Sounds like at that point the FAA would implement something to release a bunch.
 
guest user said:
It was a logical progression of the registering website names game.

For the record, I really wish this weren't happening, but I can see the dots that connected to create it. It would be interesting to see how to prohibit this, though.
A law that limits N-numbers to 100, unless an FAA specific exemption is granted?
-Then create fictitious accounts that get 100 each. Instead of 10k for one account, 100 for 100 accounts, only one of which is a real person.

A law that requires you to use the N-number w/in 2yrs?
- There are no limits (that I'm aware of) to prevent you from filing the paperwork to change your N-number every hour (or more frequently). With this person's ability to use bots, this would almost be laughably easy to implement.

This person is obviously not too worried about being fair, but rather about getting as many n-numbers as they can. So, I don't think the 'intent of the law' would suffice to deter this individual from continuing such behavior in the future. And with the enforcement of current rules, I'm not sure that fear of enforcement is a realistic deterrent either.
Click to expand...
 
EdFred said:
Also what if the FAA runs out of numbers because they are all snatched up by these companies? Sounds like at that point the FAA would implement something to release a bunch.
Click to expand...

I would expect the same thing to happen as happened to phone numbers and zip codes.
Just make them longer.

I'm presuming that the hardware limitations that required max 6 characters (N plus up to 5) is no longer a factor.

Or allow an N number to start with a letter (limit options as needed, of course). As of now it has to start with a number from 1 - 9. Even if you only allowed 9 letters in the first position, that would double the number of N-numbers allowed.
 
  • Write bot to collect all available N numbers
  • Profit!!
 
I don't really like the concept but I'm not too crazy about new laws, etc, to interfere with free enterprise either. If you want to put a stop to it petition the FAA to raise the price enough to make it prohibitively expensive for squatters. Of course then you'll have to cough up the same amount when you want one for your 'legitimate' use.

Nauga,
and his vanity tags
 
nauga said:
I don't really like the concept but I'm not too crazy about new laws, etc, to interfere with free enterprise either. If you want to put a stop to it petition the FAA to raise the price enough to make it prohibitively expensive for squatters. Of course then you'll have to cough up the same amount when you want one for your 'legitimate' use.
Click to expand...
I think it would be appropriate to charge a fee that's reasonable if you really want to use a number but too high to make stockpiling them economically viable. That could potentially be a relatively high fee though. For example, if Short N Numbers can sell 10% of its inventory each year for an average $10,000 per, then reservation would have to cost something approaching $1,000 to make it unprofitable.
 
Lindberg said:
I think it would be appropriate to charge a fee that's reasonable if you really want to use a number but too high to make stockpiling them economically viable. That could potentially be a relatively high fee though. For example, if Short N Numbers can sell 10% of its inventory each year for an average $10,000 per, then reservation would have to cost something approaching $1,000 to make it unprofitable.
Click to expand...

I like the idea of a sliding fee scale. Make it really cheap to reserve an N-number. Charge a bit more to reserve a dozen, quite a bit more to reserve quantities further into the double-digit range, and eye-wateringly expensive to reserve quantities that make squatting on numbers for resale attractive.
 
GaryM said:
I like the idea of a sliding fee scale. Make it really cheap to reserve an N-number. Charge a bit more to reserve a dozen, quite a bit more to reserve quantities further into the double-digit range, and eye-wateringly expensive to reserve quantities that make squatting on numbers for resale attractive.
Click to expand...

You get around this by creating fake accounts to order them. Creating fake accounts is not a problem, a human can do it in a few minutes, a bot a few seconds.

We're dealing with a company that already doesn't abide by the 'spirit of the law', they will absolutely get around this.
 
guest user said:
We're dealing with a company that already doesn't abide by the 'spirit of the law'...
Click to expand...
What law are you referring to? Seems to me the entrepreneurial spirit is very much in effect, and I'm not sure there's any law entitling anyone to what amounts to a specific vanity tag. I don't like it and could not get the N-number I wanted, but I'm not too bitter about it.

I think we need a law to limit the number of tacos anyone can buy at one time 'cause the tacqueria ran out of al pastor last week.

Nauga,
tagged
 
Last edited:
nauga said:
What law are you referring to? Seems to me the entrepreneurial spirit is very much in effect, and I'm not sure there's any law entitling anyone to what amounts to a specific vanity tag.

Nauga,
tagged
Click to expand...

You are correct. How about 'spirit of the program' ?
The program of being able to reserve an N-number is obviously designed for personal use / company use. It does not indicate being designed or intended for someone to scoop up a large amount for resale.

Now, as you point out, there is no law about it, so it falls into the 'ethics / morality / I don't approve' category. As such, it IS perfectly legal, whether I approve or like it.

That said, it does show a certain thought process. When I think entrepreneurial spirit, I do not think of someone trying to corner a market and then scalping the product. So, my expectations of the response to the existence of a law stands.
 
You don't see this for vanity plates on cars as you actually have to have a car to register for plates. Seems like n- numbers ought to be recycled if they're not attached to an airframe serial number within a certain time period.
 
I think if they had a large fee to reserve that N-number without being assigned to an aircraft S/N after a year, it would probably make the business model unprofitable. Call it $500. Having to shell out $1MM every year because you're holding onto 2,000 N-numbers would probably erase any revenue you gained from selling the handful of N-numbers on an annual basis.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I think if they had a large fee to reserve that N-number without being assigned to an aircraft S/N after a year, it would probably make the business model unprofitable. Call it $500. Having to shell out $1MM every year because you're holding onto 2,000 N-numbers would probably erase any revenue you gained from selling the handful of N-numbers on an annual basis.
Click to expand...

Allow me to take a devious stab at this one.

You create fake accounts. FakeAccount1 gets the registration to begin with. Once it is about to time out, FakeAccount1 'returns' it, but hey! look FakeAccount2 now reserved it. So you could bounce them between those two or even more accounts.
 
Large upfront fee with small annual renewal fee.
 
guest user said:
You are correct. How about 'spirit of the program' ?
Click to expand...
I've seen nothing to indicate the FAA did not intend for the program to be used this way. You know people resell FAA data and publications, right?
In the interest of full disclosure I will admit I worked for a few companies and led one department that reserved multiple N-numbers in far in advance, and may or may not have used them all.

Unethical? Immoral? Wow.

Nauga,
with amoral to this story
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Glad I got mine before they did. Not sure if I'll ever use it. Time will tell.
Click to expand...
you've got me curious...what did you reserve? How long have you been holding on to it?
 
guest user said:
Allow me to take a devious stab at this one.

You create fake accounts. FakeAccount1 gets the registration to begin with. Once it is about to time out, FakeAccount1 'returns' it, but hey! look FakeAccount2 now reserved it. So you could bounce them between those two or even more accounts.
Click to expand...

I understand that, as it sits, they could do that. I'm sure there are ways of thwarting the "fake accounts". Charge the $500 up front, then credit it back a portion when the N-number is registered to a S/N. Company will have fun spending the cash up front hoping they can flip it.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I understand that, as it sits, they could do that. I'm sure there are ways of thwarting the "fake accounts". Charge the $500 up front, then credit it back a portion when the N-number is registered to a S/N. Company will have fun spending the cash up front hoping they can flip it.
Click to expand...
Nah. The government shouldn't be managing deposits and crap like that. Plus, there's still a payoff. Just charge a large fee upfront, and keep the $10 a year renewal.

If you can't afford $500 for a new plane, you don't really need a vanity number. JMO
 
Jim K said:
you've got me curious...what did you reserve? How long have you been holding on to it?
Click to expand...
I have the N number that combines my initials (nice to have a first name that starts with N) and my birthday. I've had it for about 6 years. I missed the renewal once while we were living in Germany but nobody took it. There was someone who had it reserved before me but they let it lapse.
 
Lindberg said:
I think it would be appropriate to charge a fee that's reasonable if you really want to use a number but too high to make stockpiling them economically viable. That could potentially be a relatively high fee though. For example, if Short N Numbers can sell 10% of its inventory each year for an average $10,000 per, then reservation would have to cost something approaching $1,000 to make it unprofitable.
Click to expand...
Who is paying 10k for a number? Maybe a jet owner? Rare bird?
 
guest user said:
I would expect the same thing to happen as happened to phone numbers and zip codes.
Just make them longer.

I'm presuming that the hardware limitations that required max 6 characters (N plus up to 5) is no longer a factor.

Or allow an N number to start with a letter (limit options as needed, of course). As of now it has to start with a number from 1 - 9. Even if you only allowed 9 letters in the first position, that would double the number of N-numbers allowed.
Click to expand...

hardware limitation=transponder/adsb out?
 
I hate it too, but I've never been able to explain why in an intellectually satisfying way.

Isn't the "holding cost" of an unpainted/reserved N-number already 10 bucks/yr? I mean, you could ratchet that up I suppose, but then we'd want to know what the FAA does with the cash, and I doubt anyone would agree on the use of the funds. I'd rather people were denied vanity N numbers than to enrich ******** ASI's with pizza fridays at the local fsdo villainy hive.

Jet jocks definitely pay 10k for vanity N numbers, because that's only a tenth of a jet money unit, and invisible on any spreadsheet or audit.
 
Same thing happened with .com urls back when. Difference is, urls have an annual renewal fee. The FAA should charge an annual fee for N numbers that aren’t attached to an airframe. It would discourage this business practice. I believe Canada already does that where you can reserve a tail number but you have to pay annually to keep it until you actually use the number.
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
Same thing happened with .com urls back when. Difference is, urls have an annual renewal fee. The FAA should charge an annual fee for N numbers that aren’t attached to an airframe. It would discourage this business practice. I believe Canada already does that where you can reserve a tail number but you have to pay annually to keep it until you actually use the number.
Click to expand...
They do. It's $10
 
nauga said:
I've seen nothing to indicate the FAA did not intend for the program to be used this way. You know people resell FAA data and publications, right?
In the interest of full disclosure I will admit I worked for a few companies and led one department that reserved multiple N-numbers in far in advance, and may or may not have used them all.
Click to expand...

You are correct, people resell FAA data and publications. The difference? I can still go to the FAA and get those exact same publications. N-numbers, well I can no longer get them since you have now removed them from circulation. Not ... quite ... the same thing.

Ok, you reserved N-numbers far in advance. I presume it was with the expectation of possible use. I see no problem with that. This is not the same situation.

nauga said:
Unethical? Immoral? Wow.
Click to expand...
My point of saying
guest user said:
so it falls into the 'ethics / morality / I don't approve' category.
Click to expand...
was to point out that there are other grounds to object to this rather than strictly legal grounds.

OTOH, I doubt it would take much effort to argue that the behavior of taking a reasonably priced resource and making it more expensive with no value added whatsoever is not the most ethical thing to do.

But, that is presuming I am wanting to make that argument, which I am not. It was a general statement, nothing more.
 
Randomskylane said:
hardware limitation=transponder/adsb out?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but I believe some of the equipment ATC uses has some age to it, so it could be a limitation there.

Transponder/ADSB might be a software limit more than a hardware limit (maxRegistrationLength = 6) or something like that. A 5min software change, but surely a $500 upgrade fee.
 
Here's a novel idea, if you don't have an airplane to assign it to, you don't get an N number. Make a small exception for a number this is on an airplane owned by someone to be transferred with a one year grace period for the transfer to occur. One transfer every 3 or 5 years.

For me, if I had an airplane, a short number would be nice. But I'm not paying some schelp big bucks to get one.
 
schmookeeg said:
I hate it too, but I've never been able to explain why in an intellectually satisfying way.
Click to expand...
They're capturing a public resource at virtually no cost and reselling it for tremendous profit without providing any benefit to the public. If there's a market for N numbers, it should be realized by the FAA and benefit the taxpayers who created those resources, rather than whomever has the fastest finger.
 
PaulS said:
Here's a novel idea, if you don't have an airplane to assign it to, you don't get an N number.
Click to expand...
How does an Ex/AB builder prove they have an airplane? Can't get an airworthiness cert without an N-number, don't have an airplane without an airworthiness cert.

My airplane was several crates full of aluminum when I reserved my N-number. The one I wanted was already reserved but I'm OK with what I got.

Nauga,
N-mumblemumble
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top