![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |