Blue Bird in Hot Water

[rookiepilot]

It's not the hours, it's the calendar time. When was the last major overhaul? And all the other stuff on the schedule, that private owners don't do?

A major on an O-200 shouldn't cost $20K. Especially if it's calendar timed-out and not hours timed-out. "All the other stuff," if it costs $20K, is putting a nice chunk of change in an AME's pocket, nothing more. And that still only brings you to $70K. Regardless, the point was that you don't need to buy $150K 172's to teach people to fly.

So your cheap flight school is only going to serve thin people?

Why not? When you're talking about being realistic with students up front in terms of hours to learn, why not be realistic about the fact that an obese pilot will likely have a reduced lifespan at the least, and a reduced flying career at the best, due to related health issues that will bring the end of your medical. Flying isn't for everyone, this is just another reason why.

So a quality AME can't make good money for their time and expertise, only "you"can?

Loving the logic....

[AirFrame]

Just did an overhaul on an O-200 with a reputable shop. It cost me $27000. That included a minor crank flange repair ($1000), 4 cylinders, 2 mags, removal, freight, reinstall, taxes. It adds up.

No disagreement here. My parents paid close to that overhauling the O-200 in their 150 as well. But that was an engine that was not only well beyond the calendar time, but also near (or maybe just over, I forget now) TBO as well. When I suggested there are 150's out there with low time engines, photofly said an overhaul would be necessary for calendar time expiry on the engine. Fine. But overhauling a low time O-200 that was "just overhauled" 300-400 hours ago probably won't be as expensive as overhauling a run-out engine.

So a quality AME can't make good money for their time and expertise, only "you"can?

Not my logic at all, but thanks for playing. I'm saying the AME will have less work to do on a relatively new engine than he/she will on a completely used up engine. Should the AME charge the same amount of money regardless of how much work there is to do?

Chasing the cheapest price, in anything, is rarely wise. I want the person overhauling my engine to be well paid; I want the person who took the trouble to set up an engine overhaul shop, to be well paid; I want my AME to be well paid. I recognize they do important work for me and I don't see that nickel-and-diming them is right.

I agree, chasing the cheapest price isn't wise. But at the same time, paying more than you need to just increases your costs, those costs get passed on to the students, and you're back to the question of why flight training is so expensive. Nowhere did I suggest nickel-and-diming an AME... I suggested that $70k to take a flying, AME-serviced Cessna 150 and turn it into a flight school airplane was excessive.

REGARDLESS, $30K for a used 150, $30K for an engine overhaul, and you're still half the cost you quoted for a 172, and you have an airplane with lower hourly costs as well. So why is it necessary to use 172's to train people to fly?

[photofly]

So why is it necessary to use 172's to train people to fly?

Breaking news ... a shit tonne of people don't actually want to learn to fly in a 1970's era C150.

You can run a cheap flight school with the cheapest smallest airplane you can find. And you can cheap-out putting them on the flight line. If you do that, there's a reasonable expectation you're cheaping out on your instructors, your maintenance, and your customer service too. And we end up with the headline story in this post. "Not paying more than you need" means exactly "paying the minimum possible". Which is, cheaping out.

Now It really does depend on what kind of flight school you want. But even a 1970's era C172, one small step up from a 150, is into six figures. If you want something modern and comfortable (and many people do) there's a lot of capital expenditure involved.

So why is it necessary to use 172's to train people to fly?

Let me reflect the question back to you. A lot of (successful) flight schools use C172s, DA20's, DA40's, and a variety of aircraft other than the (cheapest C150)? Why do you think that is?

[photofly]

double post

[iflyforpie]

Let me reflect the question back to you. A lot of (successful) flight schools use C172s, DA20's, DA40's, and a variety of aircraft other than the (cheapest C150)? Why do you think that is?

It’s based on utilization, availability, and fleet reliability.. not type.

There’s not a lot of Cessna 150s out there that don’t have over 10,000 hours on them. Same with 152s. That’s because they are mainly training aircraft. The DA20s are newer. The DA40s are newer. They are still making 172s. And there are plenty of cream-puff old 172s out there that were never flown commercially with less than 5000 hours.

If you could find a couple of Cessna 150s that are low time and in good shape, and your annual utilization is less than 400 hours a year, there’s no reason why you couldn’t run a successful flight school with them. If you’re talking about how costs balloon for a 150, just wait until you see how they do for a 172 or a Diamond which in typical European fashion has a ton of things that can break that don’t even exist on a light Cessna.

If you have people complaining about space in a 150, they definitely will in a Diamond DA20. I fit into a 150 easily at 6 2 and well north of 200 lbs.

[photofly]

You didn’t answer the question. At least if you did, I don’t understand your answer. According to you it’s easy to equip a flight school with cheap 150’s.

If C150 are available for cheap and everyone can fit in one and everyone loves them and they are the answer to flight training, why do FTU’s operate other types? Why do they bother with more expensive options?

. If you’re talking about how costs balloon for a 150, just wait until you see how they do for a 172 or a Diamond which in typical European fashion has a ton of things that can break that don’t even exist on a light Cessna

Well, yes. That’s my point. That’s why flight training is expensive. You’re the one advocating for rock bottom prices; I’m the one saying lots of people want to fly something else, and are prepared to pay for it.

[Bede]

Just did an overhaul on an O-200 with a reputable shop. It cost me $27000. That included a minor crank flange repair ($1000), 4 cylinders, 2 mags, removal, freight, reinstall, taxes. It adds up.

No disagreement here. My parents paid close to that overhauling the O-200 in their 150 as well. But that was an engine that was not only well beyond the calendar time, but also near (or maybe just over, I forget now) TBO as well. When I suggested there are 150's out there with low time engines, photofly said an overhaul would be necessary for calendar time expiry on the engine. Fine. But overhauling a low time O-200 that was "just overhauled" 300-400 hours ago probably won't be as expensive as overhauling a run-out engine.

My engine had close to 3000 hrs on it at overhaul. The only extra work my engine needed was the crank flange repair which was ~$1000 extra. Regardless of time, you will still need new cylinders. The mags had to be replaced because the last shop incorrectly seated the bearings resulting in unacceptable wear.

The sad thing is that my 3000 hr engine performed better (75 RPM greater static RPM, half the oil consumption) than the freshly overhauled one. We spent a bunch more money on better plugs, playing with harness, mags, etc trying to get the performance back to where it was. No luck. Prior to the overhaul, our 150 was the best performing 150 I have flown. After, it's an average anemic 150.

[Bede]

So why is it necessary to use 172's to train people to fly?

Let me reflect the question back to you. A lot of (successful) flight schools use C172s, DA20's, DA40's, and a variety of aircraft other than the (cheapest C150)? Why do you think that is?

That's very true. Flight training is expensive regardless of whether it's in a 150 or something new. If students have the money to spend $200/hr on a dual flight in a C150, they'll have $240/hr to spend on something nice. Sadly, there is no way to make flight training cheap enough for the everyman to afford it, so you may as well target the well-to-do. The nice plane will likely have less down time and therefore higher utilization. The problem is capitalizing a school with a modern fleet is difficult and hard to make a business case for considering the ROI.

[AirFrame]

Breaking news ... a shit tonne of people don't actually want to learn to fly in a 1970's era C150.

As opposed to a 1970's era 172? Breaking news - New students by and large haven't a clue what the difference is between any of the training planes. 150, 172, Katana, Cherokee, etc.

You can run a cheap flight school with the cheapest smallest airplane you can find. And you can cheap-out putting them on the flight line. If you do that, there's a reasonable expectation you're cheaping out on your instructors, your maintenance, and your customer service too. And we end up with the headline story in this post. "Not paying more than you need" means exactly "paying the minimum possible". Which is, cheaping out.

You seem to keep wanting to focus on "cheaping out" when all I suggested is that there are cheaper options. Using a 150 instead of a 172 isn't cheaping out. It's still a solid training airplane built by the same company and maintained by the same AME's. You'll still have the same instructors, same customer service, same maintenance. In fact, you'd have more money to spend on all of those if you didn't spend so much on a fleet of 172's at the outset.

But even a 1970's era C172, one small step up from a 150, is into six figures. If you want something modern and comfortable (and many people do) there's a lot of capital expenditure involved.

Yes, exactly my point. And I maintain that people who want to learn to fly can do it in a Honda Civic instead of a Honda Accord. A 172 is no more modern than a 150, and only marginally more comfortable.

Let me reflect the question back to you. A lot of (successful) flight schools use C172s, DA20's, DA40's, and a variety of aircraft other than the (cheapest C150)? Why do you think that is?

I could surmise a few reasons. First and foremost, that 150's aren't made anymore and 172's are. More affluent schools find they have a lot of revenue and want to turn it into brand new aircraft, and 172's are all they can get. The fleet they had (152's and 172's, likely) get sold to smaller schools (or sold off to private owners). DA20's make no sense really, except as an example of "something different".

[photofly]

Welll, I can tell you, there are (as I said) a shit tonne of people who want to learn to fly, but don’t want to learn to fly in a C150. Even a 70’s era 172 is a big step up in most people’s eyes. Perhaps not yours, but definitely the eyes of most people who are new students.

The reason flight schools use planes other than the smallest cheapest ones, is because there’s a solid demand for them.

Other than that, I’m not sure what this discussion is about any more...

More affluent schools find they have a lot of revenue and want to turn it into brand new aircraft

I guarantee you no flight school - no business, even - “finds It has a lot of” revenue - every dollar is hard won, and much needed. Nobody, ever, in the history of flight training, got to thinking, “gee, let’s put all this extra cash swishing around into a bunch of expensive airplanes.”

[lownslow]

So what if your flight school had a bunch of 152s with spiffy new paint and glass panels? Could you take over the world?

[AirFrame]

Welll, I can tell you, there are (as I said) a shit tonne of people who want to learn to fly, but don’t want to learn to fly in a C150. Even a 70’s era 172 is a big step up in most people’s eyes. Perhaps not yours, but definitely the eyes of most people who are new students.

I've talked to a dozen people who were keen to start their license this year and have been stymied by the Covid restrictions. Not one of them knew what a 172 or 150 was before they started looking at flight training. Every one of them thought a 150 sounded more attractive because of the (expected to be) lower rental cost.

The reason flight schools use planes other than the smallest cheapest ones, is because there’s a solid demand for them.

Meh. I've never seen a new student say "why can't we fly something bigger?" right off the bat. They're all ecstatic to be flying, period.

Maybe the more compelling reason is that it's easier to assemble a fleet of similar/identical 172's, as it's been shown to be more economical to move to the "pool of aircraft" model whereby you book a timeslot but not a specific aircraft ident. That way they can rotate whatever airplanes are airworthy into the booked timeslots to meet demand, and switching planes doesn't affect the training as much as they're all configured the same.

[photofly]

You don’t need to know what the airplane is called to look at one and know it’s not something you want to get into.

At first you argue that C150's are cheap and plentiful. Then you argue that FTU's fly other planes because they can assemble a fleet. Well, if C150's are cheap and plentiful then they can assemble a fleet of those too.

The reason FTUs use other airplanes is - I say again, and experience proves I’m right - there’s a demand for them.

[Bede]

Curious for those who have operated both. Is there any difference in maintenance cost? My experience says no, but my n=1. Basically, the only cheaper thing is the purchase price and fuel. Everything else is almost the same.

[Squaretail]

Curious for those who have operated both. Is there any difference in maintenance cost? My experience says no, but my n=1. Basically, the only cheaper thing is the purchase price and fuel. Everything else is almost the same.

Pretty much sums it up when the school I worked at had both. While I imagine in private ownership there's a bigger savings, between the 172 and the 150/152 there wasn't much. Insurance is the same for commercial use - especially flight training - hangarage and maintenance the same. We sold off the 152s because of under utilization. While a few were drawn to them for slightly cheaper time building, the performance and comfort advantage of the 172 was a big seller. Once anyone started renting the 172, they never went back to the 152. Fuel savings weren't much difference since in school use, and especially rental, the 152 get run at full throttle longer, and most PPL type renters hardly bother leaning.

[digits_]

Curious for those who have operated both. Is there any difference in maintenance cost? My experience says no, but my n=1. Basically, the only cheaper thing is the purchase price and fuel. Everything else is almost the same.

Pretty much sums it up when the school I worked at had both. While I imagine in private ownership there's a bigger savings, between the 172 and the 150/152 there wasn't much. Insurance is the same for commercial use - especially flight training - hangarage and maintenance the same. We sold off the 152s because of under utilization. While a few were drawn to them for slightly cheaper time building, the performance and comfort advantage of the 172 was a big seller. Once anyone started renting the 172, they never went back to the 152. Fuel savings weren't much difference since in school use, and especially rental, the 152 get run at full throttle longer, and most PPL type renters hardly bother leaning.

In Europe you could easily see a 20% difference in rental cost. This was at a couple of non profit flying club, so it should have been directly associated with the actual operating costs. Fuel price is a bigger issue over there of course. But generally you have a smaller engine as well, less wear and tear caused by pax (only 1 passenger max).

A lot of licensed pilots liked the 172 for travel trips, but the majority of students preferred the 152 for the lower cost. People that wanted newer stuff, mostly went to other companies offering near new diamonds or well maintained pipers that looked a bit nicer.

[Squaretail]

but the majority of students preferred the 152 for the lower cost.

Utilization plays a factor as well. After all, the less a machine gets used, the more expensive it costs hourly to run. It has somewhat of a snow balling effect. At the end of the day, the margins on the 172s were greater, and kept getting more so over the 152. YMMV. We could only charge 15/hr less for the 152 to be worthwhile. At the tie that meant 110/hr vs 125/hr, and I remember that difference shrinking towards the end of the 152s run. One should also note that the performance difference often made the 172 a preferable machine. Quicker to the practice area, slightly faster around the circuit, and definitely better rate of climb. Lots of high density altitude days during summer really made this noticeable. At least noticable enough for the customers who almost unanimously preferred the 172, and didn't flinch at the price difference.

[PilotDAR]

Totally selfishly, I wish FTUs would stop using C 150s - because at present, 37% of C 150M's in Canada are still commercially registered (TC checked for me a couple of weeks ago), so I can't move my 150M into owner maintenance [until fewer than 10% for the national fleet is commercially operated].

I agree that once a student has tasted the 172, they'll be less eager to go back to the 152. The slight differences between the 152 and 150 are hardly apparent to students, so nothing to make the 150 seem special either. I always held the opinion that back in the day, Cessna missed a market, making a larger, faster 157, as a 177 was to the 172. Such a plane would have a market now with owners who would like a little more room, larger doors, and a bot more speed, but still only need two seats. I guess that's the RV market now...

The thread has been well drifted, and probably the offending "Blue Bird" FTU is happy to have the topic drift away from disappointing business behaviour. Sure, there are slim margins in the flight training business, but you don't misrepresent, and rip off your clients...

[AirFrame]

You don’t need to know what the airplane is called to look at one and know it’s not something you want to get into.

I know a Cirrus looks a lot cooler and sexier than a 172, too. Why aren't schools full of them?

At first you argue that C150's are cheap and plentiful. Then you argue that FTU's fly other planes because they can assemble a fleet. Well, if C150's are cheap and plentiful then they can assemble a fleet of those too.

I suggested it was easier to buy a fleet of 172's that were similarly configured, but only because you could buy them all new. On the used market, configurations vary so buying a "fleet" of 150's will get you a mixed bag of instrument panels.

The reason FTUs use other airplanes is - I say again, and experience proves I’m right - there’s a demand for them.

Well, you're confusing a correlation with a causation, but okay. There's a demand for training that can be done in the 45 hour minimum, too, but schools aren't falling over themselves to offer that.

[Saultcollegeflight]

......and here I thought Sault College Aviation was the only one that takes 2 years to get your PPL