Plane Conversations

In a May 12 USDOT press release DOT Secretary Ray LaHood announced the members of the  Future of Aviation Advisors Committee.

Quoting from the press release: The Future of Aviation Advisory Committee was formally established in March to provide information, advice, and recommendations to the Secretary on ensuring the competitiveness of the U.S. aviation industry and its capability to address the evolving transportation needs, challenges and opportunities of the U.S. and global economy.

“Aviation is essential to our nation’s economy and our ability to compete in international commerce,” Secretary LaHood said.  “This committee, which represents a broad cross-section of the aviation community, will begin the important conversation about how to ensure the industry remains vital and competitive.”

The committee will focus principally on five issue areas:  ensuring aviation safety, ensuring a world-class aviation workforce, balancing the industry’s competitiveness and viability, securing stable funding for aviation systems, and addressing environmental challenges and solutions.

The advisory committee grew out of a forum last November hosted by Secretary LaHood on the future of the U.S. aviation industry, during which he urged attendees to nominate potential committee members. The members selected represent airlines, airports, labor, manufacturers, environment, finance, academia, consumer interests, and general aviation stakeholders.  The committee will meet at least four times over the next year, after which it will issue its recommendations to the Secretary.

You can go to the link above to see the rest of the press release and get the full list of the names of the members to the committee. Here is the basic rundown of the committee members by who they represent:

• Academia: 2
• Airport Management: 3
• Government: 1
• Airlines: 4
• Airline Unions: 3
• Airline Manufacturers: 2
• Investment Banking / Analyst: 2
• Consultant Consumers Union: 1
• General Aviation Manufacturers: 1
• General Aviation Operators and Small Business: 0
• General Aviation Associations: 0

In the press release, they mention that general aviation stakeholders are represented. The only General Aviation Stakeholder I can find in this group is Jack Pelton, CEO of Cessna.

What about the rest of GA including any of the associations like AOPA with 500,000 members or NATA or NBAA, or any air charter company, or small aircaft maintenance company?

Airlines and their Unions get 7 committee members and if you add up the rest most are tied to or affiliated to the airlines. General Aviation which represents 1.3 million jobs in this country doesn’t seem to have much of a voice in this administration and their committee.

Rob Mark in his May 17 Jetwhine Blog post says it better than I could ever say it. We ought to be Mad as Hell and we should not take it anymore. Thanks, Rob, for bringing this to our attention.

What do you say about it?

Click on pen to

Do you agree or disagree with his position?

Congressman James Oberstar, Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, offers an opposition viewpoint to the merger of Continental and United. His opinion is published in USA Today Op/ Ed section and can be found in its entirety at

 http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-05-14-editorial14_ST1_N.htm

While I agree with Congressman Oberstar on many issues relating to our industry, especially holding the FAA accountable and his support of General Aviation through the GA Caucus, I disagree with his position on the proposed merger.

The following is an excerpt of his piece in USA today:

This (the merger) is the very antithesis of the structure I voted for when Congress deregulated the industry in 1978. Deregulation promised robust competition and innovation — not market domination by a few powerful carriers.

Beyond encouraging future mergers, the proposed United-Continental merger itself presents problems. The two carriers’ networks overlap on 13 routes between some of America’s largest markets. The two carriers also compete in a number of international markets.

The Justice Department has already expressed its concerns over a reduction in competition between United and Continental. Last year, the two airlines applied for antitrust immunity to collaborate on international service. The department said granting immunity would reduce competition and raise fares in markets where United and Continental claim big shares. As a result, the Transportation Department removed several foreign markets from the immunity.

If antitrust immunity in these markets is unacceptable, how can we now accept a merger that would have the same effect of reducing competition on important domestic and international routes?

The Justice Department should demonstrate that same degree of caution now and put an end to this merger madness.

The problem with his position is that the airlines through this “robust competition” over the past 32 years have not offered better service and done very little to innovate. They have offered lower fares and consequently have been doomed to aggregated losses as an industry since deregulation.

The investors (stockholders) in the airlines have taken a beating and I have to wonder why anyone would ever buy stock in an airline in a long-term hold position. Robert Crandall, former CEO of American, says don’t buy stock in airlines, they are a bad deal. For the airline industry to survive something has to give on the profit (or lack thereof) problem 

It seems that the Congressman and many others in DC consider the airlines much like a utility that needs regulation to keep them from monopolizing markets and raising fares. That is contrary to the position of deregulation that should allow the market to work it out.

The other assumption that many are making, that I believe to be flawed in its logic, is that the consumer has no other choice, so we have to keep the airlines in check. Travel by airlines is not like a utility such as electrical power where we don’t have a choice. The traveling public can drive, take trains in some cases and also fly in private aircraft. Or they can choose not to travel it all. Our nation is blessed with a multi-faceted transportation system.  

I continue to believe that the airlines should be allowed to work this out in a free market way and let the traveling public determine the airlines success by choosing to or not to buy seats at whatever price the airlines think they can charge.

What do you think?

Click on pen to

Part 3 of Chris Findley’s “Can General Aviation “Tip” Again?”

 From Browsing to Engaging

I was browsing through my web site analytics the other day.  This is a program that records hits on the site, what pages are most popular, what files are downloaded, and how long the average visitor spends on the site.  One of the things that I examine is how to increase hits on the site and interest in the services I provide.   Any business wants to do these things; that’s ostensibly why they have a web page in the first place.   As a flight instructor and aviation enthusiast, it made me consider the industry itself.  What is it about aviation that is eminently interesting to many people, yet so few take advantage of what it offers?   Why do some browse, but never engage?

General Aviation is facing a crucial time of decision.  Airline travelers are increasingly frustrated with higher fees, more hassle and less service with no other viable options.  The corporate sector has seen major hits in the last two years with many companies reducing or eliminating their flight departments.  And in the world of flight training, flight schools and instructors struggle to attract new business and retain them.  Are there signs of hope?  You bet.  There are some great initiatives on the horizon.  The question is how can the various sectors of the Aviation Industry position themselves in a way to facilitate a “Tip” in their direction?

The Tipping Point

In his best-selling book The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell observes three things that seem to contribute to the “tipping” of an idea, product, or epidemic.  The first is the Law of the Few.   Most trends are brought about by a relatively small number of very influential and well-connected people.  That does not necessarily mean “powerful” or “high profile” people, just influential. His second major premise is that the message has to be memorable or “sticky”.  We have to consider the content and presentation of the message we hope to spread.  Some of the largest trends have occurred because of relatively small adjustments to the message.   

His final premise is that the context of the people receiving that message matters.  He says, “Epidemics are sensitive to the conditions and circumstances of the times and places in which they occur.”¹ What can we discern about the situation of the people who hope to reach with the Aviation message?  This point will inform and govern the type of message sent (stickiness) and the types of people that connect with the recipients (Law of the Few).

“Dangerous and Expensive”  The Psychological/Statistical Context

One way to examine the context is to look at public perception.  Common complaints we hear about Aviation in general and flight training in particular is that it is dangerous and expensive. These form part of the context in which the message is heard.  The ongoing debate of GA safety really depends on how you examine your statistics.  Gregg Easterbrook once quipped, “Torture numbers, and they’ll confess to anything.”

If we look at raw numbers we find that 37,261 people died in automobile accidents in 2008.  In that same year, 486 people died in general aviation aircraft accidents.² Of course this comparison does not account for probability based on the number of cars versus the number of aircraft operations. Some comparisons are made on the basis of passenger-miles.  One analysis of this data concluded that small general aviation planes are about 10-20 times as deadly as a car.³ The problem is that the passenger-mile number is more useful for examining revenue than safety.   The Aircraft Owners and Pilot’s Association notes that the risk drops to 1/10 of the accident rate of automobiles if one looks at accidents per vehicle-mile which is probably a more accurate comparison since it relates to the aircraft itself.  But it is nonetheless sobering to point out that 115 people die every day in automobile accidents, which means that every 4.2 days automobile deaths equal the yearly number of deaths in GA planes.⁴

But I wonder if the numbers on this point really matter.

We need to understand the context for flying is psychological not statistical.   We are not going to argue anyone into flying.  If someone is convinced that general aviation aircraft are unsafe, that is an emotional decision.  Presenting the best, most positive statistic will not make them want to get in your plane.  We are not going to win that argument with numbers.  Our context needs to focus instead on those who are predisposed to flying.  For them, you could give them the worst statistic and it would not matter.   They are going to fly.  So Context Lesson #1 is, “There are people who will fly and those who won’t.  Learn your audience and focus your message.”

What about expense?  Many people claim that flying is simply too expensive.  It is true that flying is not a “cheap” hobby.   But that point is valid only if you’re comparing one “cheap” hobby to another.  It simply is not helpful or accurate to measure the cost of flying against running, tennis, or fishing.  If we’re going to talk about the expense of aviation then we have to measure it against similarly-priced hobbies.   For instance you can train for your pilot’s license for less than you can purchase a new boat or motorcycle.

Motorcycle riding, like flying, is an “expensive” hobby which is considered by many people to involve a higher degree of risk than other activities.   In 2008, the average price of a new motorcycle was over $12,000.⁵ Despite the downward turn in the economy, over 350,000 street-ready motorcycles were sold in 2009.  Similar trends exist in other recreational areas such as Jet Skis and Bass Boats, and even golf.   An avid golfer spends close to $5,000 per year on his hobby.⁶

Context Lesson #2 is, “People are spending money on expensive items, even in a down economy.” We can and should look at ways to bring the cost of our services down to make them more accessible to more people.  I think the Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) category is exciting partially for this reason.  However, if we continue to focus our attention on the fact that it is difficult for a family making $35,000/year to fly, then we will miss other opportunities right in front of us.  We do not need to be apologetic for the cost of our services, but realize we have a quality product that simply happens to come at a certain price.  We need to realize we are competing not with running, tennis, and fishing, but with motorcycles, jet-skis, bass boats, and golf pro-shops.   Consumers are spending on high-involvement products and services, even in a down economy.

Community more than Customers

The last major point in Gladwell’s “Power of Context” chapter illustrates the influence of groups in tipping an idea.  He says, “Small close-knit groups have the power to magnify the epidemic potential of a message or idea.”⁷ He cites the tipping of the bestselling book The Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood to the emergence of small sharing groups that connected to the book’s message.   He also cites the growth of religious groups, particularly the Methodist movement under John Wesley, which was entirely small-group driven.  From the industrial and business side he closely examines Gore Associates (maker of the Gore-Tex fabric) that keeps titles to a minimum, has replaced “bosses” with “mentors”, and keeps the size of their plants to 150 employees.  They discovered that cohesiveness and community spur productivity and satisfaction.

But how might this context point impact flight training and corporate aviation?  Because people are not satisfied when they are simply doing something, but when they are a part of something.  If we want to “tip” aviation, we should foster the idea, the reality, of the aviation community.  Help them participate in  the aviation community that we see organizing fly-in breakfast events, giving rides to kids to encourage an awareness of flight, volunteering to fly food and supplies into Haiti, and examining innovative ways to grow their business and serve their customers.

It is this community that we need to be actively trying to develop and invite more pilots to experience.  One of the great ways that this can be done now is through the use of social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc.)  Social Media is revolutionizing the way we communicate and network.  We can create communities and connect people on a frequent basis and these are great tools for organizing.  Creating forums for new or aspiring pilots, quality blogs for sharing information, and even utilizing webinar based technology (as I am working toward at www.myflightcoach.com) in training.  There is a lot we can do to connect people using technology.

Context Lesson #3 is “Build the Aviation Community.” This is more than simply networking.  I believe the tipping of aviation can be facilitated by learning from Gladwell’s diverse examples of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood, the Methodist movement, and Gore-Tex.  You look for ways to add value to people.   You search out ways to add meaning to their lives.  You look to develop a community instead of simply a customer.  Therefore, you and I are able to create and influence the context for their experience in aviation.

Conclusion

Aviation is not likely to “tip” in the same manner it has before.  A new revival in aviation will most likely look a lot different than the it did in its glory days (whether you’re talking about the ‘30’s, 50’s or even the 80’s).  I believe this transformation can only work by being authentic and responsive to the present times.  May we all work to make it happen by learning from the Law of the Few, the Stickiness Factor, and the Context and tirelessly striving toward a new “Tipping Point” in General Aviation.

Click on pen to

There has been a lot of press lately about the airlines continuing to add fees for everything they can think of.

I don’t know what these guys are thinking when they do this.  

An article on CNN’s site quoting airline consultant Robert Mann, says the following about their thinking:

 Airline consultant Robert Mann of R.W. Mann & Co. expects the carry-on and possible toilet fee to remain firmly in the realm of the aggressive discount carriers, who capitalize on “an infinite demand for very low fares.”

“A lot of people will put up with a lot of inconvenience and crazy fees in order to think they got a low fare,” Mann said.

Can they not just figure out how to charge a price and make money to cover it? Are they trying to modify our traveling behavior through a pricing scheme?  

There is now proposed legislation requiring the airlines to disclose their add on fees to the customer in a way that you would really know what you are paying prior to travel.

So should we require McDonalds to tell you how much they are charging for the special sauce when you buy the Big Mac? Or can we be content that we either think the Big Mac is worth it at the price, or we don’t buy it.

Every time the airlines irritate the consumer with their pricing schemes or bad schedules or whatever the irritant of the day is, the government tries to legislate some way to make them behave.

Most of the airlines you fly on have their flight attendants thank you for choosing them.  It goes something like this: “Thanks for flying with us today; we know you have a choice and we are glad you chose us”.

Our friend Dan Robles who posts frequently on Plane Conversations writes the following about the airlines pricing schemes in a recent post on his site:

Steven Frishling (www.flyingwithfish.com) predicts that there will be a schism in the industry, some airlines will take on the race to the bottom with ancillary fees and others will realize that every angry customer is an opportunity to migrate to a superior travel experience.

Charging is obnoxious – every hit hurts. In fact, Expedia makes the majority of their fees off everything except airlines, why can’t airlines?

Steven suggests that the opposite of bundling – integrating hotels, taxis, sponsors, etc even using frequent flyer miles – is a the best way to improve the experience of flying.  Airlines should provide targeted portals, build sponsored content, attract sponsor revenue, supply hotlinks, etc. All of these are clever ways to derive revenue without alienating passengers.

All this “cost-saving” of ancillary pricing can quickly become a huge liability as competitors come along with comparable prices and superior service. Social media is proving to be an excellent tool for reaching out to passengers and understanding the needs. This allows them to package features smartly, unbundle fees in a way that adds value to the experience, not by squandering trust and respect at every opportunity.

Ultimately, the market will take care of this anti-social behavior of the airlines.  Maybe some airlines will succeed by attracting that “infinite demand for very low fares,” but I have to believe that most of us do not want the confusion, inconvenience and trickery of it all.  

We do have a choice as to who we fly with. We even have a choice to not fly at all. What about the choice to fly in a private aircraft?  Can we offer these consumers a better choice at a price they can live with?

If the airlines aren’t going to do what Steve Frishling suggests, then why don’t we?

Click on pen to

Of the many fun reasons to pilot new Embraer Executive Jets, one of the best is St. Martin.  Located in the Lesser Antilles island chain, the French/Dutch Island of St. Martin (or St. Maarten) is a convenient stop when ferrying aircraft out of South America.  The clear, blue Caribbean Sea is the perfect backdrop for this European tropical oasis. 

Located on the more raucous, Dutch side of the island; Princess Juliana International Airport is famous for its runway which begins just a few steps from the Caribbean.   Tourists like to hold onto the airport fence when jumbo jets depart, letting go at full throttle up for a brief flight of their own backwards into the surf.  And the Dutch brew Heineken…here it is half the price of your neighborhood package store.  On the opposite, French side of the island, are restaurants and hideaways well known for French cuisine and quiet honeymoons.   But here on the Dutch side, casinos and lively night life are the norm.

After a long day including three technical stops; the ground crew of Arrindell Aviation Services, www.arrindellaviation.net  is a welcome sight.  Henke is there to meet us with a very short ride in a gleaming white van over to the Sonesta Maho Beach Resort.

At the Sonesta, we all enjoy a quick clean-up prior to falling into a chair at Cheri’s Café just across the road.  Cheri’s is “island chintzy” but is just what we’re looking for with smooth tropical drinks in a very casual island setting.  The local band preys upon the tourists who take a willing part in the evenings shenanigans.

If you are lucky enough to arrive before sunset, I recommend you watch the water, airplanes and the sunset from the Sunset Beach Bar.  Just a short walk from the Sonesta Maho Beach Resort, the Sunset Beach Bar offers just the right elixir to rub off a full day of flying.  www.sunsetbeachbar.com

Click on pen to

Part 2 of Chris Findley’s “Can General Aviation “Tip” Again?”

While waiting for my kids at their bus stop, a light-plane flew over.  From where I sat in our van, it looked like a Cessna 172.  I found myself wishing it was me zooming overhead.  I looked around at the other parents waiting in the parking lot and I wondered what their impressions and thoughts were of the Cessna –assuming they even paid attention to it.

Malcolm Gladwell’s bestseller, The Tipping Point, begins with the observation that most trends and epidemics are not caused by a large number of people.  Rather, they are often the result of a few influential and motivated people.  Some of these people are able to have a large influence because of their connections to others or by their ability to influence those around them.  But contrary to conventional wisdom, most trends start with a few.  He aptly calls this the “Law of the Few”.

Gladwell’s second major point in The Tipping Point is “The Stickiness Factor”.   He says, “The specific quality that a message needs to be successful is the quality of ‘stickiness’.  Is the message memorable?  Is it so memorable, in fact, that it can create change, that it can spur someone to action?”¹

Where’s the Beef?

I believe one of the most difficult things to overcome in General Aviation (GA) is the lack of self-reflection on what GA’s message actually is.  I’m not speaking of a particular business’s message.  They will determine that based on their own services and market.  Rather, I’m asking what is the message that we, as an industry, wish to promote?   When someone, waiting for their kids hears a small plane fly over, what do we want them to think?

Other industries have asked these questions.  Remember the “Beef: It’s what’s for dinner!” campaign?  It was launched in 1992 by the Cattleman’s Beef Board.  They recognized a problem–the negative image and growing public concern over the consumption of red meat.  They developed a plan and a message and as an industry, sought to change public perception.  Was it successful?  The “It’s what’s for dinner campaign” is one of the most recognizable taglines in history and is recognized by 88% of Americans.²

Therefore, I believe one of the first things we must do if we want to positively move public opinion to a more favorable position on GA, we have to think critically about what we want people to take away from their contact with General Aviation.

Considering the Message

The AOPA’s “General Aviation Serves America” campaign is a great campaign aimed at raising awareness of the ways General Aviation is an integral part of American communities.  The campaign, which makes use of the Law of the Few by involving well-known actors Harrison Ford and Morgan Freeman and others, is primarily aimed at raising awareness of how regulatory changes and legislation will negatively affect GA.

While this message is needed, I think there are a couple of ways to improve it.  First, I think it is a “circle the wagons” message that is more effective with the flying public than the non-flying public.  The people most likely to have this message “stick” with them are pilots and those in the aviation community who are already concerned about increased regulation and user fees.

Secondly, it seems limited in scope.  These ads don’t seem to make anyone want to do anything.  These ads don’t invite one to participate in General Aviation.  I think that message is crucial to the re-awakening many of us long for.

I am a proud AOPA member and I think they do a phenomenal job of advocating for General Aviation.  My task here is not to be nit-picky or critical, but to think of how to craft a GA message that is truly for the masses, that is both broad and “sticky” without being defensive.  I believe this can come in two distinct ways: telling a practical story and engaging in invitation more than information.

Tell a Practical and Real Story

Within the last couple of months we’ve seen the best and the worst in GA.  The tragic suicide flight of Joe Stack into the IRS office building in Austin, TX certainly brought general aviation to the forefront of the public.  Public concern began to swell again about the light-plane fleet and public safety.  The negative comments directed at lightplanes are as silly as criticizing Ryder panel-vans since that is what Timothy McVeigh used to blow up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.  But nonetheless, the image of GA is further marred.

But also in the last couple of months we have seen GA rise to the forefront of the relief efforts in Haiti.  Did you know a full 40% of the relief flights into Haiti are General Aviation aircraft?  Have you heard of the generosity of businesses that have given permission for their mulit-million-dollar aircraft to be used for relief operations?  Have you heard some of the stories of pilots landing on unimproved dirt roads in an effort to get supplies and help to a nation in need?

That’s the story we need to be telling.  Why?  Because, people respond to messages that show specific practical benefits that engage them on an emotional level.  We’re not just telling them that GA is important and serves a purpose, we’re dramatically showing them exactly how.  So the first message I think we can deliver is that, as an industry General Aviation, truly does serve America (and the world) and here’s an amazing, specific way.  What if we created a campaign, a message, around this?  Or perhaps the GA Serves America Campaign could pick this up?

How about a tagline of: “General Aviation: Changing the world one flight at a time.”

Invitation

We need Aviation Evangelists. What if we took a Harrison Ford spot and crafted a messag such as this:

“Hi, I’m Harrison Ford.  I’ve had the privilege of playing a number of roles over my 40 year career in the movies.  Acting is a passion for me and I love it.  But I have another passion that I’d like to share with you –my passion for aviation.  For the last 20 years, I’ve been a licensed pilot.  Like many people, I’d always had the dream of flying, but it wasn’t until I started lessons that I discovered the freedom and joy of flight for myself.  You can know that too.  There are over a 250,000 pilots, just like you, who come from all walks of life.  They are businessmen and women, construction workers, doctors and teachers. There is no one pilot “type”—just someone who is realizing their dream of flight.   Flying is not out of your reach, it’s as close as your local airport.  Call one of your local flight schools, listed below, and see for yourself.  It’s one adventure you don’t want to miss.”

How about a tagline of: General Aviation: Live the Adventure!

As the ad mentions, it could be run by groups like the AOPA or NAFI nationally or regionally, and sponsored by local flight schools who could have their contact information added to it.

Other celebrity pilots and potential spokesmen might be: Clint Eastwood, Dennis Quaid, Kurt Russell, Alan Jackson, Sydney Pollack, Arnold Palmer, Tim McGraw, and former President George Bush, Sr.

Stickiness Revisited

Developing a sticky message necessitates our development of a message worthy of remembering.  For those of us already passionate about aviation, it’s easy, it’s stuck.  We know the joy, thrill, and adventure of flying.   But there are many others for whom this is not the case.

You and I can do this now.  We can be a part of getting this message out.  We can tell the practical stories.  We can be Aviation evangelists and find others to join us (maybe even a few well-known names).

As we do this, perhaps a new message about GA will permeate our society.  Perhaps in the near future, when a small plane flies over people will think about how awesome those small planes are and how they really do serve a unique role.

And perhaps they’ll say to themselves, “I bet I can do that…where’s that Flight School’s webpage?”

http://thehangar.wordpress.com

Click on pen to

The following are excerpts from a March 9 Chicago Tribune article by Jon Hilkevitch.  

Passengers on U.S. airlines will pay relatively small increases in airfares over the next 20 years, but they should expect more flights crowding the nation’s busiest airports, including O’Hare International, the Federal Aviation Administration said Tuesday.

Travelers hoping to stretch out across an empty seat next to them will likely be out of luck. And, sorry, the small regional jets that are so unpopular among a significant segment of passengers are here to stay, although the commuter airlines will begin retiring their 50-seat jets in favor of somewhat larger aircraft.

The FAA now says it will take until 2023 to hit the 1 billion mark, indicating modest annual growth from the 704 million passengers carried in 2009 by U.S. airlines, on both domestic and international flights. Total passengers will rise to 1.21 billion by 2030, the agency said.

Coming off 2009, when U.S. airlines lost $8.1 billion, the total number of commercial flights is forecast to decrease 2.7 percent this year, the FAA said.  Flight volumes will then grow at an average annual rate of 1.5 percent by 2030, the FAA said.

Jetliners, which are nearly full on most flights today as the carriers try to prop up airfares, will stay that way, leveling out at 82 percent of all seats occupied on flights over the next 20 years, the FAA said.

While most passengers will continue to fly on the big, mainline airlines, that segment of the industry will grow the slowest over the forecast period, officials said. The biggest percentage gains will occur on international flights, followed by regional commuter airlines that operate smaller aircraft. Those regional airlines bucked the negative industry trend by turning a profit in 2009, FAA officials noted.

Twenty-nine large hub airports, including O’Hare and Midway, are projected to handle the bulk of the increased flights, growing at an average of 3 percent a year in landings and takeoffs through 2030, the FAA said.  It means that to prevent aviation gridlock, the FAA must complete its ambitious transformation of the nation’s air-traffic system, dubbed NextGen, to a satellite-based system that replaces the current ground-based radar.

So what does all of this mean for Private/ Business Aviation?

The airlines are going to crowd more people on aircraft by constraining supply in an effort to raise prices; they are going to use more regional airliners; they are going to focus more on the 29 major airports in the U.S., and focus more on international flights.  This looks like mass transit to me.

None of these trends provide better solutions for business travelers in small and mid size markets.

What it does spell is more delays, crowded flights, less tolerance on bad weather days at crowded hubs (I am feeling that right now sitting at ATL on a busy travel day and bad weather).

In all of this I see opportunity like never before for the general aviation and business aviation sectors to step up to fill the voids and ease the pain.  There are 5500 airports and the airlines are going to focus growth on the top 29? They only fly to around 500 airports in total so that leaves a lot of room for private aviation to provide point-to-point solutions between the rest of the nation’s airports.  

Air travel is supposed to be about time efficiency and if the FAA is correct in their forecast, the time to travel by air mass-transit is going to slow down even more, which widens the gap in time gained by flying private and helps close the gap in costs when you value your time.

Click on pen to

In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Scott McCartney talked about security taking longer than the flight.

Ever since the December 25 bombing attempt, travelers heading to the United States have had to face much tighter security.  The federal government issued new rules which made inbound travelers have to go through a number of screening processes which include some pretty intrusive searches.  And the crazy thing is people adjust.  We have all become indoctrinated to this.  We don’t like it, but we just have to do it.  

I know this because I flew from Brisbane, Australia to Los Angeles a week after the attempted bombing.  I was told that I would have to be at the airport three hours prior to my flight.  I went through a number of searches, pat-downs, emptying out of personal belongings and carry-on luggage.  I removed my shoes about four times.  My teenaged son, who happened to be walking ahead of me alone, with his hands in his pockets, wearing a hoodie over his head, was approached by security to have an explosives test.

The article says:  “If you’re coming inbound to the U.S., it’s going to be a tough summer unless we get some creative change in the security rules,” said Steve Lott, a spokesman for the International Air Transport Association, a Geneva-based group that represents airlines around the world.

Airports, airlines and government agencies around the world have hired more screeners to perform the “enhanced” security that the U.S. now requires for any flight headed to or flying over the 50 states.

Airline officials said that government agencies and airports in North America, Europe and Asia have promised that they will staff up enough to prevent long lines and delays as travel picks up this spring and summer. “All we’ve got at this point is their word and we hope their word is good,” said an official at a U.S. airline. “It’s a concern.”

This affects not only those traveling to the US from overseas, but also domestic flights around the country.  So, what’s the alternative to removing your shoes and standing in long security lines?  You could always get a bunch of buddies, or other business travelers heading your way, to charter a private aircraft.  You’d be surprised at the price of dividing a charter flight by six or eight.  And you’d love the fact that you can drive to the FBO, grab a coffee and board the plane from the ramp 15 minutes before wheels up.  And I haven’t even started on the luxury of the experience yet.

Click on pen to

With the dawn of industrialization came mass production, and mass production lead to mass marketing.  Mass marketing lead to the growth of mass media including Newspaper, Radio and TV.

Everything was driven by costs and profit and pushing stuff out to the consumer who also happened to be part of the mass of producers and marketers.  If you make it cheap enough and market it to the masses, they will consume it.

With everything geared towards the masses, mass transit developed in the cities to move people to and from their jobs as workers in the large corporate factories that mass produced.

Mass transit started with the rail system and then added buses and eventually the airlines developed into the mass transit system of the air.

Mass transit is all about price and when price is the driving factor, the needs of individuals are sacrificed for the needs of the masses. Load everyone up like cattle, route them through the hubs, off load and reload on to the next flight that gets you somewhere near your destination, maybe not so quickly or in the most comfortable or sociable environment, but do it cheaply.  It feels more and more like riding the metro rail?

So the airlines developed terms for describing productivity and efficiency that sound much like production manufacturing terms:

• CASM: Cost per available seat mile.  A seat mile is one seat covering one mile.
• RASM: Revenue per available seat mile. The amount of revenue generated for every seat available covering a mile.
• RPM: Revenue per passenger mile.  The revenue generated per passenger flown flying one mile.

All of this sounds like mass production.  Are airlines in the business of providing transportation to the flying public or are they in the business of producing ASM’s and selling them at a profit generating RASM?

Is there a point where driving the CASM down to make a profit overrides best safety practices?  That is a question being asked in the Frontline Documentary entitled “Cheap Flights”.  I will leave that answer up to the safety experts for now.

Does the public merely want to get from origin to destination and back again for the lowest possible cost?

Will the public pay for something better than mass transit delivered at the lowest cost?

In the economy of the future, people will be more aware of the value of their time and they will have the tools to quantify its value.  They will also value the experience of travel and quantify that experience in a social cost or benefit.

Just as people are longing for the personal touch and experience of buying their food at the farmers’ market versus buying mass produced food, they will long for and seek out solutions to every facet of their lives, including travel that gives back quality, experience and relationships.

And let’s not forget that people want their time back, spending it how they choose, and not how the systems of mass production forces them to spend it.

Click on pen to