Personal Jets (VLJ's)

[Airdale]

How about some aviation talk?

What are your thoughts on VLJ's and the impact they will have on
1.) Safety (both in the sky and on the ground)
2.) Insurance
3.) Flight Training
4.) Where will their place be in the market of GA?


Honestly, I'm not really sold on VLJ's. Even with technology as advanced as it has become, I think the speed and power that come with them will be dangerous for those pilots who they are targeted at. ATP plans on staffing their fleet with quite a few of the Diamond jets. While its a step in the future, I can't imagine what this will do to the cost of flight training in the D-Jets.

We all know that flying is much much more then just navigating and pushing buttons. I'm instantly reminded of the corporate jet that crashed out west (article was in an AOPA magazine "You can't move a mountain".) Where standard DP's were not followed. Will these faster jets, with longer range and heigher ceilings claim more lives?

 

[Cessnaflyer]

Don't know why it would change much it's just different types of jets coming to the market. There have been single pilot jets for awhile in that price range already and now there are just going to be more at that price range that are new.

 

[Murdoughnut]

I hate to say it, but I think fuel costs will all but wipe out GA alltogether in the next decade, including the VLJ market.

 

[Brand X]

Glad I fly mainly at night and won't have to deal with the speedbumps they will inevitably become. All they are going to do is clog up the upper airway ATC structure.

 

[bike21]

It will be interesting to see for sure. I think the ultimate role for the VLJ will fall somewhere between the naysayers and the CEOs hedging their bets these things will go big. I disagree with the contention the SATS program about how VLJs will pave the road for basically 'Joe Six Pack' to have a jet available. I am unsure if there will ever be enough automation to handle every situation that could arise. Pilots are airman, machines cannot replace us.

Ok, so that was a bit of a tangent on the way far future...immediate? They just might work for regional flying (not regional airlines). I am keeping a close eye on the DayJet and other start ups coming online. If the companies can make these things affordable the business folk might say 'lata!' to the airlines.

 

[Sprint100]

What are your thoughts on VLJ's and the impact they will have on
1.) Safety (both in the sky and on the ground)
2.) Insurance
3.) Flight Training
4.) Where will their place be in the market of GA?

1) From what I've seen they seem to be geared towards that weekend warrior that flies solo IFR. I think they will be just as safe as flying a 182 or Mooney since aerodynamic diffuculties the weekend warrior will face are being addressed.
2) I think that will rise only so insurance companies can profit as usual.
3) Training shouldn't differ too much considering the people they market to.
4) I think Air Taxi's will be their mainstay. There are too many wanna-be stars or wanna-be business execs out here in L.A. especially. Even the weekend warrior that likes expensive toys will live for these things.

To sum it up, I think the outlook is very good.

 

[Airdale]

1) From what I've seen they seem to be geared towards that weekend warrior that flies solo IFR. I think they will be just as safe as flying a 182 or Mooney since aerodynamic diffuculties the weekend warrior will face are being addressed.
2) I think that will rise only so insurance companies can profit as usual.
3) Training shouldn't differ too much considering the people they market to.
4) I think Air Taxi's will be their mainstay. There are too many wanna-be stars or wanna-be business execs out here in L.A. especially. Even the weekend warrior that likes expensive toys will live for these things.

To sum it up, I think the outlook is very good.

Ah...my feelings are that if joe shmoe weekend warrior can't handle a 182 or a Warrior, there's no way he's going to handle a light Jet. If anything, these jets will have more aerodynamic issues then light GA aircraft. Jets require more planning, more thinking ahead. You just can't slow them down and bring'em down like you can a prop. Guys that are flying warriors and can't figure out how to enter patterns or make proper radio calls, are going to plunder.

I thikn VLJ's are good in some aspects, but very bad in others. Look at the guy (can't remember his name) that was a baseball player and flew a Cirrus into a building. This was a Cirrus. Imagine it was a VLJ. You'll have more of that sort of thing.

 

[Bogey]

1.) Safety (both in the sky and on the ground)
2.) Insurance
3.) Flight Training
4.) Where will their place be in the market of GA?

1. Anybody can be unsafe in any aircraft. Its still a matter of experience with higher performance aircraft and ADM. If they let just anyone fly them, me for instance, well....look out below! As long as the insurance companies...(see #2)
2. dont allow inexperienced pilots to just jump in and go. I would hope that they require an adequate amount of time and (see #3)
3. require courses/training from places like Flight Safety and ATP specific to VLJ's on an annual or 6 month basis. These things are fast and nimble, and its always best to stay on your game anyways.
4. I think theyll have a little niche between light performance twins and business jets. Sometimes King Airs and small jets are just too much aircraft for the "typical mission." Like said earlier...air taxis, wanna be jet-setters, people with goofy money, etc. Operational costs will probably be lower than the big turboprops and business jets, but theyll still be out of reach of "general" aviation (except the aforementioned groups).

I'd love to have one someday. They get my prop spinnin at least....

 

[Sprint100]

Ah...my feelings are that if joe shmoe weekend warrior can't handle a 182 or a Warrior, there's no way he's going to handle a light Jet. If anything, these jets will have more aerodynamic issues then light GA aircraft. Jets require more planning, more thinking ahead. You just can't slow them down and bring'em down like you can a prop. Guys that are flying warriors and can't figure out how to enter patterns or make proper radio calls, are going to plunder.

I thikn VLJ's are good in some aspects, but very bad in others. Look at the guy (can't remember his name) that was a baseball player and flew a Cirrus into a building. This was a Cirrus. Imagine it was a VLJ. You'll have more of that sort of thing.

I know where your coming from, but from my understanding guys won't be able to jump from 40hour 172 wonder to a VLJ. Those things have a lot of technology that makes every aspect of flying easier.
In reference to comparing a VLJ to a Cirrus, from what was in the cockpit during that accident neither him or the instructor would have been flying a VLJ. Trying to make that turn in that corridor was a mixture of mistakes and ignorance on many levels. Seasoned pilots make mistakes and ignorant moves too.
Hopefully, you'll have to get specific training to fly that but like any activity, or plane in this instance, it is as safe as you make it. Because, any pilot can do some stupid things in any plane, but hopefully guys can respect VLJs enough to stay away if they can't handle it.

 

[killbilly]

I hate to say it, but I think fuel costs will all but wipe out GA alltogether in the next decade, including the VLJ market.

I thought about this at length - it's an economic problem.

There is a segment of the population, albeit small, which can afford...everything. Including asinine fuel prices. And some of them carry a level of importance that they need the speed and convenience offered by something as prohibitively expensive as a jet.

Those people (who can and will spend this money) are who the VLJs are targeted to.

The question, in my humble opinion, that we really, really need to be asking is not whether or not VLJs will make it. The question will be WHICH VLJ will dominate in that market segment. There are also some tremendous opportunities, I believe, in a services sector around that market, but that's just with a bit of armchair research - nothing definitive.

I don't think it will kill GA, because GA is where the pilots to fly the darn things are going to come from.

 

[Murdoughnut]

I thought about this at length - it's an economic problem.

There is a segment of the population, albeit small, which can afford...everything. Including asinine fuel prices. And some of them carry a level of importance that they need the speed and convenience offered by something as prohibitively expensive as a jet.

Those people (who can and will spend this money) are who the VLJs are targeted to.

The question, in my humble opinion, that we really, really need to be asking is not whether or not VLJs will make it. The question will be WHICH VLJ will dominate in that market segment. There are also some tremendous opportunities, I believe, in a services sector around that market, but that's just with a bit of armchair research - nothing definitive.

I don't think it will kill GA, because GA is where the pilots to fly the darn things are going to come from.

I certainly agree that higher end GA will be better off for the reasons you cited. My problem with lower end GA is that the people who buy a single engine cessna for business or pleasure aren't so wealthy that they can't take into consideration these things. Back when the auto/aero fuel spread wasn't as distinct, I think it was easier to rationalize using a plane for short business trips. Now less business requires travel, and Cessna has essentially priced itself out of the leisure market.

Speaking more to Cessna's business model, I think it's flawed for that reason. Don't get me wrong - it's nice - but who needs a 160hp single engine aircraft that has better technology than many airliners? I once listened to an a/c appraiser speak and he said the most important thing in buying an a/c was to buy what you need - no more. They've convinced flight schools to buy these a/c, but with the rising cost of training, many students would prefer to save $30-40 per hour and fly something a few years older - especially those who are looking to fly for fun. The flight school I went to couldn't rent their new 172 and 182 because folks kept going with the older models that flew great.

I guess the problem is that, if you're able to afford an a/c, you've probably been flying awhile, and you haven't fell into the "glass is the only way to go" mentality common in the flying magazines. Sure, it's awesome - but for 1/8 of the price, you can buy an older model a/c that will get you from A to B just as efficiently. A quarter million dollars for something that, when you take into consideration pre-flight, runup, etc., doesn't get you there that much quicker, seems a bit excessive. Time will tell I guess.

 

[flyover]

Will these faster jets, with longer range and heigher ceilings claim more lives?

You may have a misunderstanding about VLJs. They are slower, with less range and will be operating at lower altitudes. They have straight wings and low approach speeds. They should be much easier to handle than a piston twin.

 

[killbilly]

Now less business requires travel, and Cessna has essentially priced itself out of the leisure market.

I disagree - and you and I are both civilians so tell me what you think about this...I think the business travel is still alive and well, but the dollars being spent on airline tickets are being used more efficiently. You've got fewer field engineers (at least, in the IT and telecom sectors) hopping on airplanes and more sales and accounts people - and they're taking shorter trips with quick turnarounds - you still need to handshake a deal, y'know?

Speaking more to Cessna's business model, I think it's flawed for that reason. Don't get me wrong - it's nice - but who needs a 160hp single engine aircraft that has better technology than many airliners? I once listened to an a/c appraiser speak and he said the most important thing in buying an a/c was to buy what you need - no more. They've convinced flight schools to buy these a/c, but with the rising cost of training, many students would prefer to save $30-40 per hour and fly something a few years older - especially those who are looking to fly for fun. The flight school I went to couldn't rent their new 172 and 182 because folks kept going with the older models that flew great.

I've been giving this some thought, too, and what I had to conclude was that Cessna are not morons - they can't be. Taking that into consideration, I had to start asking myself why the commitment to glass and the training push. I think they're taking the longer view.

As airframes get old and aircraft are retired (and we're talking decades here) those replacement airframes are going to be glass-cockpit aircraft. Although more expensive right now, the costs are going to come down some as glass gains market share. It's cheaper to update software than it is to replace a gauge - and eventually, the total cost of owning a glass aircraft SHOULD decrease because the avionics will require less costly maintenance. Now - this will mean one of two things:

1) Costs to owners MAY decrease over time - this is unlikely
2) Costs to owners LIKELY will flatten out or increase very grandually with inflation.
3) Cessna's (and Garmin's and Avidyne's, for that matter) MARGINS will increase drastically as a result of the changeover.

It is choice 3 which is more compelling - to me, that says Cessna has decided to do more with less. It takes a lot of planning and a very long view to make a move like that. Like I said, they're not dumb. I think this is what they're planning.

Getting back to the VLJ area - if everyone starts 'standardizing' on glass systems and using more automation, like FADEC, I think you're going to see a flattening in the learning curve. If you master a G1000-equipped 172, it shouldn't be THAT much harder to go to a G1000-equipped 182.

I am not a pilot, so I cannot speak to the physical handling characteristics and skills required to make that transition, but it seems obvious to me that if you're essentially using the same avionics suite, you're having to learn less. That's smart, from a business perspective.

I'd like to fly freight some day, so I'm avoiding glass for the time being, but there was absolutely no denying the sense of security I got from having TCAS and the fuel-range-graphic thingy on the displays as a 'student' on a discovery flight around Christmas.

I guess the problem is that, if you're able to afford an a/c, you've probably been flying awhile, and you haven't fell into the "glass is the only way to go" mentality common in the flying magazines. Sure, it's awesome - but for 1/8 of the price, you can buy an older model a/c that will get you from A to B just as efficiently. A quarter million dollars for something that, when you take into consideration pre-flight, runup, etc., doesn't get you there that much quicker, seems a bit excessive. Time will tell I guess.

I agree with you personally, but again - if that was the case, we'd all be driving fuel-efficient hatchbacks or station wagons, right? Get what I'm saying? Everyone wants to sell to people with money. Lots of it. They're called qualified prospects for a reason.

 

[scramjet]

If the VLJs had been introduced in the early 90s, they would have had a bigger impact (of the non hole in the ground kind :crazy. Their economics are actually pretty good, siginificantly cheaper then many other GA jets, but as someone else already said, the fuel prices aren't going to go anywhere but up for the forseeable future.

 

[Murdoughnut]

I disagree - and you and I are both civilians so tell me what you think about this...I think the business travel is still alive and well, but the dollars being spent on airline tickets are being used more efficiently. You've got fewer field engineers (at least, in the IT and telecom sectors) hopping on airplanes and more sales and accounts people - and they're taking shorter trips with quick turnarounds - you still need to handshake a deal, y'know?



I've been giving this some thought, too, and what I had to conclude was that Cessna are not morons - they can't be. Taking that into consideration, I had to start asking myself why the commitment to glass and the training push. I think they're taking the longer view.

As airframes get old and aircraft are retired (and we're talking decades here) those replacement airframes are going to be glass-cockpit aircraft. Although more expensive right now, the costs are going to come down some as glass gains market share. It's cheaper to update software than it is to replace a gauge - and eventually, the total cost of owning a glass aircraft SHOULD decrease because the avionics will require less costly maintenance. Now - this will mean one of two things:

1) Costs to owners MAY decrease over time - this is unlikely
2) Costs to owners LIKELY will flatten out or increase very grandually with inflation.
3) Cessna's (and Garmin's and Avidyne's, for that matter) MARGINS will increase drastically as a result of the changeover.

It is choice 3 which is more compelling - to me, that says Cessna has decided to do more with less. It takes a lot of planning and a very long view to make a move like that. Like I said, they're not dumb. I think this is what they're planning.

Getting back to the VLJ area - if everyone starts 'standardizing' on glass systems and using more automation, like FADEC, I think you're going to see a flattening in the learning curve. If you master a G1000-equipped 172, it shouldn't be THAT much harder to go to a G1000-equipped 182.

I am not a pilot, so I cannot speak to the physical handling characteristics and skills required to make that transition, but it seems obvious to me that if you're essentially using the same avionics suite, you're having to learn less. That's smart, from a business perspective.

I'd like to fly freight some day, so I'm avoiding glass for the time being, but there was absolutely no denying the sense of security I got from having TCAS and the fuel-range-graphic thingy on the displays as a 'student' on a discovery flight around Christmas.



I agree with you personally, but again - if that was the case, we'd all be driving fuel-efficient hatchbacks or station wagons, right? Get what I'm saying? Everyone wants to sell to people with money. Lots of it. They're called qualified prospects for a reason.

You make some good points - I think a lot of where I'm coming from is the belief that salaries in this country are pushing the middle class closer to lower class, and making these two groups very distinct from the upper class. That is, I think the upper-middle class in this country are getting hit hard (the $100k-200k annual household income group). Salaries are not keeping pace with inflation, and the cost of retirement/medical care is sky rocketing.

I think the tax structure continues to hurt them as well. They pay less in taxes than the upper class, but have a disproportionately lower amount of disposable income - so in a way, they actually pay the most in taxes in terms of the value of their money, as opposed to amount (if that makes sense).

Anyways, my point is that the upper class can afford VLJ's, business jets, etc. Single engine Cessna's were always the ride of choice for those who wanted the convenience that comes with taking a Cessna somewhere less than 300-400 miles, but couldn't afford the luxury of a twin, turboprob, etc. that was more comfortable for longer trips. I just don't understand - why spend $250k on an aircraft that, if the winds just right, will get you there in more time than it would take to drive? I hope I'm wrong, but I think the market would best be served by a $50k-$100k aircraft with factory auto-fuel STP, and easy to tear down features (for the sake of annual inspections).

As for traveling, it's hard to say - so many of our accounts are handled online or via conference call from beginning to end. Naturally we want the in-person effect for the bigger ones, but I'd be interested to see some data on business travel.

 

[surreal1221]

This is just what we need.

Rich people. Who, even now flying single or twin engine pistons, can't enter a traffic pattern to save their life, can't make radio calls, and can't get the hell off of the runway.

Now, it'll be Rich people. Who, get to do all of the above in a jet. . .zooming along, VFR at 250kts.

I can't wait. . .

 

[Sprint100]

This is just what we need.

Rich people. Who, even now flying single or twin engine pistons, can't enter a traffic pattern to save their life, can't make radio calls, and can't get the hell off of the runway.

Now, it'll be Rich people. Who, get to do all of the above in a jet. . .zooming along, VFR at 250kts.

I can't wait. . .

That isn't a fair assumption. I see the sarcasm tag so I am not jumping on you at all. But seriously, do you have insight into the training or experience required to fly a privately owned VLJ for a GA'er, because I am very curious to find this all out.

 

[killbilly]

Salaries are not keeping pace with inflation, and the cost of retirement/medical care is sky rocketing.

Yeah. I just got a major salary bump. It's not nearly as much as it looks on paper for many of the reasons above.

I think the tax structure continues to hurt them as well. They pay less in taxes than the upper class, but have a disproportionately lower amount of disposable income - so in a way, they actually pay the most in taxes in terms of the value of their money, as opposed to amount (if that makes sense).

Have we really gotten to a regressive taxation setup in this country? Really? I'm asking because I never thought in a million years that we'd get there. Again.

Anyways, my point is that the upper class can afford VLJ's, business jets, etc. Single engine Cessna's were always the ride of choice for those who wanted the convenience that comes with taking a Cessna somewhere less than 300-400 miles, but couldn't afford the luxury of a twin, turboprob, etc. that was more comfortable for longer trips. I just don't understand - why spend $250k on an aircraft that, if the winds just right, will get you there in more time than it would take to drive? I hope I'm wrong, but I think the market would best be served by a $50k-$100k aircraft with factory auto-fuel STP, and easy to tear down features (for the sake of annual inspections).

Here's where I think the distinction is and I don't know this for sure....

But I would wager that it costs Cessna roughly the same amount of money to build a 172 as it does/would to build this new LSA that they're talking about. Where are the major differences between the two? As near as I can tell, it's in components not made by Cessna.

Cessna makes a hell of a lot more money on a $250K airplane than it does on a $100K airplane, all other things being equal. They're taking the long view on protecting margins, as far as I can see it. The minute, and I mean the very minute they believe they can sew up the LSA category without getting eaten alive by low-baller Bob's Airplane Co. LSA kits they'll do it.

Even the Mustang isn't a VLJ - more of an LJ, really. And priced accordingly.

Where I really think VLJs will shine is in fractional partnerships of medium-sized companies - three or four $40-50M companies - maybe a $150M-$350M company requiring a certain degree of executive presence.

A lot of the naysayers are looking at the VLJ market as the new Leisure Doctor Killer...but I think what it's really going to do is make corporate flight more accessible to smaller, leaner corporations who may have a need and not the financial wherewithal to have a share in a Hawker or a G450, y'know?

And I've got a hunch that three or four major golfers will chip in together on one or two of these before long.

 

[surreal1221]

do you have insight into the training or experience required to fly a privately owned VLJ for a GA'er, because I am very curious to find this all out.

No, and it was said in jest.

I fly in a higher than average GA airport. So I'm very disgruntled at the 50+ year old guys who fly around as if they own the whole sky. Hence my anger and discontent, with a slight amount of sarcasm.

I just have a feeling, that no matter how tough training standards are set, or how high insurance companies make it cost - these guys will still be the "the sky is mine" type. No calls, incorrect entry into the pattern, and slow as grandma clearing. Now though, they will be doing it at extremely high speeds.

I see nothing but trouble, increased costs, and decreased safety.

 

[Champcar]

Anyone think its possible that Center will leave these jets in the mid to lower flight levels cause they dont want them getting in the way of airline travel?

Yeah they can climp up to FL42 but they still have to putts their way through the 30's