90% of customers just want the cheapest hourly rate, because it's an easy metric. But teaching people to fly isn't cheap, and if you're trying to quote the cheapest hourly rate, the things that suffer first are maintenance, and what you pay your instructors.
I think the issue is that everyone quotes a different average number of hours, and a total, which makes it harder to even compare schools to start with. Is this school that quotes 80 hour average a more thorough school than one that quotes a 60 hour average, or are they fleecing you?
Next, look at the cost of airplanes. A 2008 DA40 costs more than CAD$300k. You can't get a DA20C1 for less than $160k. A 1970's era 172 in decent condition is more than $100k. And the people who put up the capital to set up the operation want (and are entitled to) a return, also.
So start a flying school with Cessna 150's. There are a crapload available, in excellent condition, for ~$30K a piece.
There's no reason someone flying full-time, as at one of these foreign-student-mill schools, can't get a PPL in 45 hours. Fly every second day, with the same instructor, and you won't have a problem with skills retention on the part of the student or memory of where the student is in their training on the part of the instructor.
AirFrame wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:44 am
So start a flying school with Cessna 150's. There are a crapload available, in excellent condition, for ~$30K a piece.
Find me one, anywhere. Just one. Then price importing it, overhauling the time-expired engine and the other inspection and repairs necessary to put it on a commercial maintenance schedule. You will not get change from CAD$100k.
Is this school that quotes 80 hour average a more thorough school than one that quotes a 60 hour average, or are they fleecing you?
There is not a single flight school in the entire country that “quotes” for anything other than the bare are minimum hours.
---------- ADS -----------
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
How many flight schools actually keep track of their own average time to completion? If everyone says the average is 55-65, how is it the real average is 71?
---------- ADS -----------
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
You might be onto something there. It may be a crime to repaint the interiors of your training fleet with the most hideous shade available, but can you imagine how much ad space there is inside a little airplane? I mean you could have ads on every second page of the checklist, the inside of the hood, the foggles, sunvisors... wait no, you charge extra for the plane with sunvisors, then you plaster ads on them. Having a pay toilet at the school would be a gold mine. Charge for barf bags. Go all the way. Ground school and briefings with commercial breaks.
---------- ADS -----------
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
There is not a single flight school in the entire country that “quotes” for anything other than the bare are minimum hours.
I think that is a bit unfair. I looked at several school websites in my area and they all clearly stated that the average person did not complete
the PPL in the TC minimum time and quoted 55 to 65 hours as a realistic time to complete training.
I think I've only ever run into one fellow who was quoting the minimum like there were no other variables. Most schools and instructors I have met have been realistic in describing training times.
To be fair, no other business quotes other than minimum costs either, and I have yet to meet a contractor who has met the minimum quoted cost.
---------- ADS -----------
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
You might be onto something there. It may be a crime to repaint the interiors of your training fleet with the most hideous shade available, but can you imagine how much ad space there is inside a little airplane? I mean you could have ads on every second page of the checklist, the inside of the hood, the foggles, sunvisors... wait no, you charge extra for the plane with sunvisors, then you plaster ads on them. Having a pay toilet at the school would be a gold mine. Charge for barf bags. Go all the way. Ground school and briefings with commercial breaks.
Winner right here.
On that note --
My favourite posters here are those that say one should focus on the safety briefing before a commercial takeoff, and they are mentally rehearsing how to exit in an emergency.
I'd love to, except for the incessant -- and loud -- video ads playing during the entire taxi, that can't be muted.
Let's do that on training 172's, too, while teaching students how to safely focus.
photofly wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:10 am
There is not a single flight school in the entire country that “quotes” for anything other than the bare are minimum hours.
There is at least one. We quote for our average completion time of 67 hours. Maybe why we are called “too expensive.” Quoting the bare minimum is a bit disingenuous if almost nobody achieves that.
Damn rights. Because lets be straight here, if you could offer this service, and cut the base rental rate to half of what the current market value is, you'd have students lining up for it. I'd go as far to say that they would crawl backwards naked over broken glass for that kind of deal.
---------- ADS -----------
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
photofly wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:10 am
There is not a single flight school in the entire country that “quotes” for anything other than the bare are minimum hours.
There is at least one. We quote for our average completion time of 67 hours. Maybe why we are called “too expensive.” Quoting the bare minimum is a bit disingenuous if almost nobody achieves that.
Cheers to you. The flight training experience starts with honesty imo.
photofly wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:52 pm
Average time to PPL in Canada is 71.8 hours. That means about half take longer. Maybe he was in the longer half?
The fact 71.8 is average is scary, they should have a max hours if you don’t get it by X hours it’s probably not for you
what a stupid idea. It'll take a lot longer if you can't fly every week.
what a stupid idea. It'll take a lot longer if you can't fly every week.
Indeed, or even every month. There are a multitude of reasonable reasons a pilot may have an enormous amount of time to complete a license. Most of which of course have nothing to do with the school in question. Without a detailed breakdown of someone's training its really hard to lay blame regarding an extended training regime. To paraphrase Tolstoy, pilots are always trained quickly in the same way, each pilot that takes long to train, does so in their own unique way.
---------- ADS -----------
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
photofly wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:10 amFind me one, anywhere. Just one. Then price importing it, overhauling the time-expired engine and the other inspection and repairs necessary to put it on a commercial maintenance schedule. You will not get change from CAD$100k.
Oh, be serious... I've seen 4 for sale in the last month for $30K or less, all in Canada, all with low (not zero) time engines, and none of which would need $70K of work to put on-line. The only reason people are training in 172's now, is that half the students and half the instructors are too fat to fly together in 150's.
photofly wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:10 amFind me one, anywhere. Just one. Then price importing it, overhauling the time-expired engine and the other inspection and repairs necessary to put it on a commercial maintenance schedule. You will not get change from CAD$100k.
Oh, be serious... I've seen 4 for sale in the last month for $30K or less, all in Canada, all with low (not zero) time engines,
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?
The only reason people are training in 172's now, is that half the students and half the instructors are too fat to fly together in 150's.
So your cheap flight school is only going to serve thin people?
---------- ADS -----------
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
photofly wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 9:00 amIt'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.
AirFrame wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 8:02 am
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.
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.
AirFrame wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 8:02 am 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.
We will agree to disagree about the cost of engine overhauls. My experience matches Bede’s though.
Leaving aside the customer service issues of telling someone who doesn’t fit comfortably in a 150 (me) that I’m obese (I’m not), that I can expect at best a reduced lifespan (not true) and that flying isn’t for me (the jury is still out), You seem to be saying... what? That there’s no reason why flight training shouldn’t be much cheaper than it is?
---------- ADS -----------
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Leaving aside the customer service issues of telling someone who doesn’t fit comfortably in a 150 (me) that I’m obese (I’m not), that I can expect at best a reduced lifespan (not true) and that flying isn’t for me (the jury is still out), You seem to be saying... what? That there’s no reason why flight training shouldn’t be much cheaper than it is?
Comfort has a cost, which I'm sure you'll agree with. Not entirely sure why you don't think a Cessna 150 or 152 would be a good flying school alternative if it can be offered for a lower cost?
A lot of flying schools seem to fish overseas for students. Statistically, a lot of Asian people would fit in a 150/152. They are also quite common in different European countries. Actually, I do know of a Canadian flying school that operates them succesfully.
Even when flying a 172, you'll meet people who just won't safely fit.
---------- ADS -----------
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Leaving aside the customer service issues of telling someone who doesn’t fit comfortably in a 150 (me) that I’m obese (I’m not), that I can expect at best a reduced lifespan (not true) and that flying isn’t for me (the jury is still out), You seem to be saying... what? That there’s no reason why flight training shouldn’t be much cheaper than it is?
Comfort has a cost, which I'm sure you'll agree with. Not entirely sure why you don't think a Cessna 150 or 152 would be a good flying school alternative if it can be offered for a lower cost?
Comfort does have a cost, and I agree that a C150 is a fine training plane. I don't think I said otherwise. Quality also has a price, as does good service.
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.
Likewise a flight instructor and a flight school do important things. The people deserve to feel valued, respected, and remunerated. I don't think I want a flight instructor who's only being paid $20 per hour, nor do I really want to fly in an airplane maintained by a trainee on $12 per hour. I don't see that kind of outfit can deliver good results. If the culture is cheap, that permeates everything. I don't think an outfit that buys a fleet of C150's for CAD$25k each and does cheap overhauls on the engines is going to be able to deliver good quality training.
And I think customers who chase cheap flight training end up where the students listed in the story at the top of this thread are.
---------- ADS -----------
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
