VLJ Taxi flying

Boltonpilot

New Member
So there's been a good deal of talk about VLJs being ordered by the thousands to start a new idea of having people chartering a single seat on these jets instead of paying for the charter of the entire airplane. The people in favor of this idea who are buying the Ecplipse jets are saying that this will be the new way to fly on trips shorter than 800nm. Here's the thing: in order for that to work, the mass of the country's pop. would have to be in favor of flying on small planes, (only 6-8pax., not 30-90 as on the regionals) something that many people I know are not all that fond of. My girlfriend will take trips to Europe and has no problem getting on an A340 or a 767...but she is scared to death to get in a 172. Anyone else see a problem in this business strategy?
 
I might be wrong, but I'm a "naysayer"

They've largely re-invented the wheel. Sure the VLJ's are going to have more efficient engines, be simpler to operate and probably less expensive, but I've got a number of questions.

a. People freak out when they get on a 737 because it's 'a baby jet'. So I think, for the most part, that the leisure market will reject it.

b. They're not fast so the chances of a VLJ getting up into the mid-flight levels where the faster airliners are are slim to none, which cuts into the economic model of the jet. Going up into the 40's isn't going to cut it because those corporate guys are rollin' .82+ and having hundreds of jets cruising at 380 KTAS won't fly.

c. How is a VLJ any different than a re-engined re-marketed early lear jet with less payload capacity?

Here's something from Boyd Consulting Group which is a industry analyst that seems "understand"

The New Math Lives!
Cheap Transportation At $375 an hour

If the economics don't work, make it look like they do.

A $1 million plus Small Community Air Service Grant is about to get applied to a space-cadet program to provide intra-Dakota Region air taxi service, using three-passenger (plus pilot, we assume) aircraft equipped with a parachute - for the airplane, not the individual passengers.

The PR for this concept is impressive:

"...New technology innovations in the aerospace sector are facilitating the emergence of low-cost, point-to-point air services capable of serving both commercial centers and small communities alike throughout the United States and Canada.

...(the) mission is to position North Dakota and other participating Great Plains states on the cutting edge of this rapidly emerging public air travel revolution in order to create new jobs, spur new economic growth and development and enhance quality of life..."

In summary, the grand plan, called Point2Point, is touted as a low-cost solution to getting all those people who want to fly between rural points onto airplanes. At a price of just $375 per hour. And, wonders never cease: If you pre-pay $17,000, you can get it for just $350!

Let's do the math for this low-cost revolution.

Let's say for the that lawyer, doctor, or accountant needing to get from, say, Sioux City, Iowa, to Rapid City...

It's 354 miles.

The Cirrus aircraft used in this breakthrough airline system cruises, supposedly, at 200 mph.

Factor in a bit of taxi time, climb and descent, and we're looking at block time of, say, 2.0 hours.

Then about the same coming back, for a total of 4.0 hours.

That's a bargain-basement fare of just $1,500.

That ought to really enhance "quality of life" in the Dakotas. And, presumably, although it's not clear, if the passenger can find two other lawyers, doctors, or other discount-fare worshippers, both of whom want to go and come back at exactly the same time, the cost could be slashed to just $500 each. Even more if they want to cough up 17 Large in advance. Quite the travel budget.

Yessir, people are going to be lined up for this service. Including the Tooth Fairy and Elvis, no doubt.

Good Intentions. Really Questionable Assumptions. The hard fact - one that lots of entities and civic groups often refuse to accept - is that rural, point-to-point air service, whether it's scheduled, chartered, or hi-jacked by an angry Holstein, is very expensive. The basic economics of air transportation simply do not lend themselves to "low-cost, point-to-point" service in rural areas. Especially with 3-passenger airplanes.

The intentions are laudable, but this operation is in need of an industrial-strength dose of reality. Either now, or when the money runs out.

In the early 1990s, South Dakota got swan-songed by somebody into establishing a state-supported intra-regional airline. The "Wings of South Dakota" (no jive - that's what they really called it) got sold as a solution to the pressing need to meet all that demand that existed for air service within the state. Despite being operated by a reputable airline operator, the entire year's subsidy budget went 86 in about 90 days.

South Dakota found that , history and economic realities notwithstanding, there're always folks out there who'll tell people what they want to hear, how they want to hear it. And there's more than enough victims that are only too happy to hear it.

Low fares at just $375 an hour. Herb Kelleher take note, please - the entire Southwest model is at risk here.

(c) 2006, The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc. All Rights Reserved
 
I toured the eclipse factory not long ago and though the airplane itself is fairly neat and with close to 2500 orders already taken I think the air-taxi idea is probably not gonna cut it for many of the reason above. I do feel it will find a niche in the northeast somewhere but as for rural areas the economics aren't there.

I do think that these jets will make a nice replacement for the cessna 400 series of aircraft and would do well in the same role however the cost of acquiring the jet are quite a bit more. I can't remember the usefull load but with a max gross of around 6700 lbs theres no way your gonna get 6 people and gas on the thing and really go anywhere.

If what that article says is true then theres going to be allot of airplanes for sale fairly soon and some nice hanger space out at ABQ.

I wonder how it'd do as a freighter.........................................
 
Forget this...this was one of my favorite things.




The Eclipse 500 Mentor Process ? Why?
The Eclipse 500 mentor program is critical to the success of the Eclipse 500 Type Transition Training program. Many Eclipse 500 operators will require supervised operating experience dictated by FAR 61.63. Others will require mentoring because of a lack of jet piloting experience. In either case, the Eclipse pilot will benefit from the Eclipse 500 mentoring experience.

After completing all other phases of training and obtaining a type rating, a new Eclipse 500 pilot may require additional flight hours with an authorized Eclipse 500 Mentor Pilot. The Eclipse 500 Mentor Pilot will provide the final assessment of the pilot's readiness to safely fly solo in an Eclipse 500 jet.

The mentor will provide support for all phases of flight, as well as guidance when deemed necessary. The role of the mentor will be to ensure that the new Eclipse 500 pilot is able to meet the challenges of turbojet flight, initiate solutions and demonstrate the capability to act as Pilot-In-Command without intervention from the mentor.

Mentoring is one of the most important roles in the Eclipse initial training process. The mentor will aid the newly-rated pilot in gaining confidence in his or her ability to cope with and resolve a variety of situations which are normally encountered during aircraft operation.

This position is NOT an employee position with Eclipse Aviation. Mentor pilots will be independent contractors, trained by Eclipse and United Airlines at the mentor's expense. Mentor pilots will fly all Supervised Operating Experience (SOE) flights with Eclipse 500 operators including any mentoring required or desired beyond that.





Now...what that basically says is that if you pay for your own type in the eclipse 500 they'll let you fly with thier brand new jet pilots until thier ready. Also the minimums are at 5000TT and 1500+ Jet etc, etc.

Now who do they think is gonna buy a type so they can go flight instruct new jet pilots when that person has 5000TT already?
 
Boltonpilot said:
So there's been a good deal of talk about VLJs being ordered by the thousands to start a new idea of having people chartering a single seat on these jets instead of paying for the charter of the entire airplane. The people in favor of this idea who are buying the Ecplipse jets are saying that this will be the new way to fly on trips shorter than 800nm. Here's the thing: in order for that to work, the mass of the country's pop. would have to be in favor of flying on small planes, (only 6-8pax., not 30-90 as on the regionals) something that many people I know are not all that fond of. My girlfriend will take trips to Europe and has no problem getting on an A340 or a 767...but she is scared to death to get in a 172. Anyone else see a problem in this business strategy?

It's not a leisure market option - I used to be part of a charter outfit and the number of calls we got from people trying to beat a SouthWest fare to Tampa would make your eyes roll. VLJ's will NEVER get close to LCC fares - even if the LCC's double in price - so no leisure market there.

It's business travel - and a) no company is going to allow it's managers to fly VLJ's after they start falling out of the sky like confetti (their insurance won't let them) and b) I don't see the economics. It relies on a scale of traffic that even if it could EVER exist will cause a VLJ air taxi to burn cash for a LOT of years.

I like the idea - I don't see it working :-)
 
There was some talk about all this on an AE program about corperate jets and the future of corperate aviation. In this program they got into the VLJ talk, which, for the reasons listed above, I found the idea to be pretty rediculious. There were some CRAZY proposals too; they were talking about changing the ENTIRE ATC system that would essentially remove ALL controllers and replace it with a system where planes would "talk" to eachother--and that would provide instruction to pilots so that seperation/navigation could be handled. :confused:

--In other news, the U.S. will soon be sending people by the thousands to the moon to live in colonies :nana2: . :sarcasm:
 
Boltonpilot said:
There were some CRAZY proposals too; they were talking about changing the ENTIRE ATC system that would essentially remove ALL controllers and replace it with a system where planes would "talk" to eachother--and that would provide instruction to pilots so that seperation/navigation could be handled. :confused:

I've actually been involved in 'flying' simulators that simulated that environment (paycheck came from Lockheed I think). I believe is was run under NASA's SATS program. That has been in development for a while. Who knows if it will ever "take off" (pun intended).

~wheelsup
 
Look it's a business crowd they'll be servicing. And there will be two components to success. First is, can they deliver operationally? Big question there. Secondly, can they market this as a "new" kind of service? Convince enough business men to stop driving to ATL and CLT and standing in security lines etc. etc. They don't need to pull many of these people away from the airlines to fly a lot of these little jets. Marketing will be key and these companies plan to invest a lot in selling their concept.

The new VLJs are not rehashed Lear Jets. The economics put them in a new class. So now we just see if they can sell it.

I can't help but remember how we used to laugh at the Federal Expxress guys flying their Falcons around with a dozen or so boxes in back. I didn't know anyone who didn't "know" that would never work.
 
A commuter I used to work for had a contract for a GM shuttle. It would pick up people in Kalamazoo...fly to flint...pick up more people...fly to detroit...pick up more people.....fly to anderson, in....fly to kokomo, in. You got to where you were going...but had to sit thru numerous stops to get there.

Same thing here with the VLJs. Show up at an airport...and they'll guarantee to get you there within two or three legs. If you can get there with the same time frame as a connection thru a hub...while skipping security...it might have some potential. Time will tell.

Right now the VLJ industry has some big name players getting in.
 
Boltonpilot said:
There was some talk about all this on an AE program about corperate jets and the future of corperate aviation. In this program they got into the VLJ talk, which, for the reasons listed above, I found the idea to be pretty rediculious. There were some CRAZY proposals too; they were talking about changing the ENTIRE ATC system that would essentially remove ALL controllers and replace it with a system where planes would "talk" to eachother--and that would provide instruction to pilots so that seperation/navigation could be handled. :confused:

--In other news, the U.S. will soon be sending people by the thousands to the moon to live in colonies :nana2: . :sarcasm:


One proposal is to centralize all ATC centers to one location. One controller will handle a flight all the way across the country. No handoffs.
 
B767Driver said:
One proposal is to centralize all ATC centers to one location. One controller will handle a flight all the way across the country. No handoffs.

That's gonna be really good . . .

"No, not the MABNE intersection - MABNY! The Destination is Springfield, not . . . oh, nevermind. Leaving FL230 for 17,000 - I'll cancel in a moment.":)
 
flyover said:
The new VLJs are not rehashed Lear Jets. The economics put them in a new class. So now we just see if they can sell it.

I'm all ears. Apart from the marketing hype, how is this different?

New Beech Barons weren't flying off the shelves at $1.6 million, but a much more advanced "VLJ" with steeper minimum requirements, more expense and an ATC system that is going to laugh it's head off when a 380 KTAS jet files for an altitude above 25,000 feet are?

I can't help but remember how we used to laugh at the Federal Expxress guys flying their Falcons around with a dozen or so boxes in back. I didn't know anyone who didn't "know" that would never work.

Who is "we"? I only remember one person that thought Smith's idea wouldn't fly and that was the professor that graded his master's thesis.
 
Boltonpilot said:
There was some talk about all this on an AE program about corperate jets and the future of corperate aviation. In this program they got into the VLJ talk, which, for the reasons listed above, I found the idea to be pretty rediculious. There were some CRAZY proposals too; they were talking about changing the ENTIRE ATC system that would essentially remove ALL controllers and replace it with a system where planes would "talk" to eachother--and that would provide instruction to pilots so that seperation/navigation could be handled. :confused:

It's out there - I've seen a demo of it in real life, and I've read somewhere that UPS is using a similar system at their hub to allow their aircraft to idle descent all the way to the approach thus saving tons of fuel.

It's all very neat - how PRACTICAL it is has yet to be shown. SATS shows these neat little videos of Mom, Pop and the kids flying off in their SATS equipped plane - but they look a lot like the Mom and Pop who were strapping on their jet packs in the 50's, and I'm still waiting for mine....
 
flyover said:
The new VLJs are not rehashed Lear Jets. The economics put them in a new class. So now we just see if they can sell it.

We're all entitled to our opinions, but I don't believe the actual economics of the VLJ are going to be that earth shattering in the end. If this market existed it would already be serviced by props or old CJs or something with the same operating numbers of a VLJ - such aircraft exist, they just aren't bright shiny new and don't have a spiffy acronym.

Of course I could be over-estimating the intelligence of US business people - wouldn't be the first time.
 
Doug Taylor said:
I'm all ears. Apart from the marketing hype, how is this different?

New Beech Barons weren't flying off the shelves at $1.6 million, but a much more advanced "VLJ" with steeper minimum requirements, more expense and an ATC system that is going to laugh it's head off when a 380 KTAS jet files for an altitude above 25,000 feet are?

The route structure that I've seen proposed and the city-pairs would keep these things off the busy routes. They don't want to serve ATL to LGA. They want to serve PDK to (name some other obscure southeastern airport). You'll almost never know they are there.

As for marketing. The companies will initially identify city-pairs where they know there is a lot (remember for them "a lot" is a few) of demand but no non-stop service. They'll go to companies who have to move people between those city-pairs and offer non-stop jet service from a nearby satellite airport to a satellite airport closer to their actual destination for the same price they are paying to ride coach. They'll point out that their people will spend several hours less traveling per day, thus making them more productive. They'll realize the economics of their airplanes by having much higher utilization than a typical charter operation (mimicking the airlines). Then they will duplicate these efforts in more city-pairs depending greatly on the positive publicity and word of mouth generated by their initial customers. Soon they'll have business travelers talking about how they hate going places where they can't jump on a VLJ. Just like people came to say "I'm going to Fed Ex it to you" they hope people will be saying "Heck, I'll just VLJ over tomorrow, I can be in your office by 9AM, no problem."

At least that's the theory.

Who is "we"? I only remember one person that thought Smith's idea wouldn't fly and that was the professor that graded his master's thesis.

LOL. I won't even try to guess how old you were when Federal Express (no FedEx back then) was flying nothing but Falcons. All of the people I knew were trying to decide whether to take a shot with them, after all they were flying jets. (We didn't consider pay back then for entry level jobs, just quality of time logged.) The only speculation was how soon they would give it up and shut down. We would walk out on the ramp and watch a guy throw about a dozen boxes in the back of the Falcon. It didn't look good. Since you had to pay for your type rating, everyone I knew concluded that the company wouldn't last long enough to make it work. What little was being written about them in the "biz" news was pessimistic because it was an unproven concept that required almost desperate marketing to get people to try it. The rest is history. (Still not upset I didn't try to get on with them.)
 
flyover said:
They'll go to companies who have to move people between those city-pairs and offer non-stop jet service from a nearby satellite airport to a satellite airport closer to their actual destination for the same price they are paying to ride coach.

At least that's the theory.

And that's where it falls to the ground (as it were). They can't do it for the price of coach, I doubt they can do it for the price of first class, but even if they can name me one company that pays for first class tickets for their middle managers (and that's the customer,the CEO stays in the GV).

Maybe in the days of the dot com boom - and maybe if that repeats itself in some other area there will be enough companies to pay for this, but I doubt it. They'll burn cash so fast it'll make your eyes water.

P.S. and that assumes no accidents - as I've previously expounded, if they can't meet that barrier then it's REALLY all over.
 
I've had a lot of people get on my Brasilia and get off after a few minutes because it was too small........I would love to see them buy a ticket on eclipse express ........
 
I think the target market would be -

1. Companies that can not afford a jet and dont want a turboprop. Annual earnings of 50-150?

2. Guys making around $500+ yearly that dont want to take the airlines.

I think it'll work just not on the large scale that may be portrayed.
 
Back
Top