Could a number of clubs get together and employ an EASA66 guy?
This happens with bizjets in some cases. A few get together and employ an A&P/IA.
Most maintenance is dead easy. Especially the 50hr checks. You need to get someone good and have a dual inspection by someone good. And pay them something otherwise the result will be predictable in the long run…
And where are You going to get ban EASA part 66 guy from? The only one I know is rammed out with work and he isn’t exactly young
From my perspective 172driver already mentioned the most important two drivers which are often forgotten when comparing hourly rates. One is the yearly membership and the other is additional hours that need to be worked or payed by the members. The issue here is that low yearly cost will drive hourly cost high which leads to lower utilization if the aircraft. Too high yearly cost on the other hand will kick out those members that 172driver mentioned, that just want to be members.
My old club therefore had a principal to calculate the yearly membership cost. It was all fixed cost of the club (hangar, rooms, depreciation, insurance, …) that is due, even if aircraft are flown 0 hours divided by the number of members. All the rest is calculated in the hourly rate with a small profit margin to allow for unforeseen stuff.
One other factor is whether clubs own or operate the airfield they are staying at. That can have a lot of implications, depending on how the mode of operation is.
Bathman wrote:
And where are You going to get ban EASA part 66 guy from? The only one I know is rammed out with work and he isn’t exactly young
That’s the thing exactly!
By paying the market rate, presumably. There is a lot of them around…
This is why N-reg owners stay N-reg. The politics of the two “ecosystems” are quite usefully different.
In which countries could a “club” have N-reg planes?
I am sure nowhere in Europe could a “club” or a “school” (yeah, loads of past threads arguing about what these mean) use an N-reg for paid training, especially not ab initio training. The CAA would shut you down immediately. But what is in effect a large syndicate can do it.
Peter wrote:
In which countries could a “club” have N-reg planes?
It’s reasonably common in French aeroclubs for rare or IFR aircraft, or around Paris: there’s a TB20 at Merville, and this month’s Info-Pilote featured a Globe Swift. Not used for basic training as far as I’m aware.
My aéroclub in France has tried various pricing changes over the years to encourage flying, including a 5% discount for paying in advance, not charging pre-PPL students for dual instruction, annual membership discount for under 21s, single month membership for holidaymakers in the summer, free flights taking aircraft for maintenance. The only one that has always been consistent is the <21 discount. Annual is currently €500 and hourly €110-€140 for various DRs and a PA28-180, helped by a mechanic member and based maintenance company. 70 members, about 1000 hours a year across 4 aircraft.
My syndicate in the UK is £900/year and £42/h for the 2 seat Piper and £80/h for the Wassmer and Robin. It illustrates the Pareto principle similar to 172driver: 20% of the members do 80% of the flying; I did 90% of the international flights last year. 30 members, about 400 hours a year across 3 aircraft.
Based on my experience club culture has just as much effect on hours flown as the costs: make it difficult to to take a plane overnight, or abroad, and the hours will drop.
Capitaine wrote:
20% of the members do 80% of the flying
Yes, and the cost of keeping an aircraft operational can be divided into fixed yearly cost and per hour cost. The only fair thing is to spread the fixed cost evenly between every member (within limits). This will keep the per hour renting fee down, while everyone contribute to keeping the planes operational. Why become a member if you are not willing to at least contribute to keeping an aircraft operational? The economy of a club is simple: Get as many flying hours flown as possible!
Capitaine wrote:
Based on my experience club culture has just as much effect on hours flown as the costs
My experience as well. But this very difficult stuff, and can change fast, depending on how people react and behave. Some are very “emotional” about everything, others are more practically oriented. IMO, limited availability of aircraft is the sign of a failed club, because it means the potential for flying more hours is large, and untapped. The result is high per hour cost and restrictions on flying. The solution: get more airplanes! It’s the only thing that will lower the cost per hour, because it’s the only thing that increases the availability (given the other things are handled reasonably). A mix of airplanes is also a good thing. The thrill of flying a C-172 soon weirs out, and people like to upgrade and extend, even if this is basically the only thing they do. Glass is better than steam to get (most) people flying a few hours more, the 20% couldn’t care less though. The last thing is important to remember. A cross country plane like an expensive Cirrus, is a waste of money, because it only affects the 20% who will fly the same hours with a much cheaper plane in any case.
Capitaine wrote:
Based on my experience club culture has just as much effect on hours flown as the costs: make it difficult to to take a plane overnight, or abroad, and the hours will drop.
For sure. I am one of the few pilots in my french aeroclub to fly abroad. I do at least one holiday abroad per year where the aeroplane is gone for a week or two where I will fly around 15-20hrs. I fly not less than 35-50hrs a year, sometimes more.
I have heard the odd mumble that one of our 2 identical Robins isnt there for someone to do their monthly 30-45 minute local flight, to which I counter that the aeroplane does more hours than average during the time I take it away on holiday. The very first time anyone suggests officially that I should not be allowed to go on holiday with an aeroclub aeroplane like this, then I will quit flying the aeroclub aeroplanes and buy my own.
Regards, SD..
What this thread demonstrates is that the idea of a “club” existing “solely for the benefit of its members” etc, while perhaps true in the sense of retaining profits within the organisation, doesn’t usually deliver a reduction in costs relative to just renting the same hardware from some “school” which utilises the said hardware for PPL training.
One has to aim for a surplus otherwise the project will sink…
And the other details e.g. the ability to take the plane away for a few days are pretty similar too.
In my club, We can take it full day if we fly 2h per day. It was mostly robin based, but they got a warrior last year, mostly for traveling, and this was is available for longer trip. Actually you can negotiate for any longer rents.
Since 3 4 months, flown hours have been raised up and the club account is better and better, which is a good sign. Along with more and more young pilot and wingly, it helps growing hours count, and it starts being difficult to find planes before 3 to 4 days.
We would need another plane to do some IFR training hours , there are very few around, and they are expensive. But that’s another story.
