All great comments however my perspectives are not relevant or relative to what has been or is currently rather what could and should be a new innovative model that expands the market of private aviation users. To reference what is or has been doesn’t adress what could or should be when we apply innovative thinking to existing problems everyone is facing.

make sense?

I love your thinking here. The proposition that BizAv is not in essence thinking outside the box, strikes home with the work I am doing. However, it also has to do with shifting those observing BizAv. Overall this all takes me to where my focus lies – in educating aviators on business and business people on aviation.

During my recent MBA specializing in Applied Aviation Management, I focused myself focusing on BizAv at every opportunity. It is my conclusion that the weakest point is the relations between the aviators and non-aviators. I don’t make that conclusion lightly but after 30 years in aviation and 13,000 hours of piloting. More specific to Jay’s point is the fact that aviation is costly. To that, I ask you to concentrate on the value, as to which Mike was referring. The trouble here is that it is not typically so done and therefore there are not standards with which to fairly make comparisons, as is commonly done with a P & L statement. This is more of a ‘V’alue and ‘C’ost statement idea.

The value of the use of air travel is like the value of modern technology and office facilities for businesses. Could we operate in doublewide trailers, F-150 pickups and snail-mail; sure, but how effective and efficient is that? It’s the, “you have to spend money to make money” idea. Airplanes help you ‘make money’. They are a tool. They should be thought of in that light. To think of them as a cost center, threatens training, security, and safety; three things that should only be ‘tops’ in aviation. This is in fact what is wrong with the airlines right now; they have slim ‘margins’. They need to raise prices and minimize overspending. Don’t be too quick to say “cut salaries” before you recall what the Calgon crew was making. Also, think about why charter operators fall into a low safety statistics range – they are often times trying to ‘run on the cheap’.

Feel free to find me on LinkedIn. Jeff

General (private) aviation is not likely to ever be on par with the airlines on a per seat basis. To do so would require a monumental investment of money and co-operation into a logistical system that tracks available seats on a departure/destination/demand basis. Even then, if you have reached that point, because of the regulatory environment, you are no longer “Private” aviation but a “Commercial” operation using different equipment.

Let’s face it, (as you yourself stated at one point you could not justify) using private aviation is expensive. Private aviation is perceived to be “out of reach” to Joe Q. Public unless we, as and industry, can show its ultimate “value” outweigh its cost. That cost has to be more then a dollar to dollar comparison.

Logistics (empty repositioning legs…NetJets can’t even solve that efficiently) and wanting to keep a plane available for use at a moments notice make this sort of strategy a non-starter.

The vast majority of pilots and airplane owners would never dream of making their most priced possessions, their planes accessible to the general public.

I agree with you about communication, about translating aviation terms into layman’s terms but I also believe that we need to change our approach dramatically and welcome the general public to all the joys of aviation and by that I do not mean commercial aviation!