A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pricing flight hours



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 5th 05, 05:33 PM
Mark Hansen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 5/5/2005 09:14, Dude wrote:

It sounds like your 182 is now playing the role of back up to the 182RG.
Also likely, it is a plane used by 172 users when they need more plane.

Also, it sounds like you have been treating the planes as individual units
up to now, and that no longer works for you.

Could you stop treating the planes as individual entities? Or could you
charge the other planes a "Backup Plane Support Tax"?

It seems this will be the cost of keeping the extra 182 around for
availibility reasons. Its going to need some funding from the other planes.
So instead of raising costs on just the 182, raise the costs on all the
planes a little bit.

This is going to be a big change for your club, but having a plane sitting
around under utilized costs money. It has to come from somewhere.



I agree. I think the members have joined a club that has 4 aircraft.
The fact that there are 4 aircraft is part of their agreement (similarly,
they were part of the decision in adding the fourth - at least in some way).

If the club decides that the 'cost' of having 4 airplanes is just
too much (and not worth the convenience of having the spare airplane)
then it may want to go back to having only 3. The membership may be
willing to pay a little more, in general, for the added benefit of
the fourth plane.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA
  #2  
Old May 5th 05, 06:57 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mark Hansen wrote:

On 5/5/2005 09:14, Dude wrote:



Could you stop treating the planes as individual entities? Or could you
charge the other planes a "Backup Plane Support Tax"?


[...]

This is going to be a big change for your club, but having a plane
sitting
around under utilized costs money. It has to come from somewhere.


In fact, this is one idea I've proposed.

However, it assumes that there's a cost to having that airplane sitting
around underutilized. The fixed costs are covered, so - if we're pricing
correctly - why should there be a cost to having that airplane sitting
around underutilized?

That's where I'm "stuck" now. If we can price each hour more accurately,
then the issue disappears.


[...]
The membership may be
willing to pay a little more, in general, for the added benefit of
the fourth plane.


That's a perspective I haven't yet included. Thanks. But still, I'd like
to eliminate the issue by more accurate pricing...if that's possible.

- Andrew

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 02:26 PM
Parachute fails to save SR-22 Capt.Doug Piloting 72 February 10th 05 05:14 AM
I am in The Killing Zone Marco Rispoli Piloting 68 June 14th 04 05:16 PM
Looking for Cessna Caravan pilots [email protected] Owning 9 April 1st 04 02:54 AM
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Piloting 25 September 11th 03 01:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.