According to Boyer, AOPA originally did what he calls the psychographic analysis some ten years ago to determine why its pilot members fly. The pilots fell into five categories …

20% - ‘Be all you can be’
10% - ‘Auto pilots’ … little emotional reward; flying is “a job”
18% - The ‘experientials’ …those who fly for the experience
27% - The ‘evangelists’ … very emotional about flying and very active at the airport
25% - The ‘dreamers’ … they rent; don’t own; fly the least and aren’t active at the airport

The association recently redid the same survey, at which time the new “no monkey business” group surfaced. The latest results …

19% - ‘Be all you can be’
8% - ‘Auto pilots’
31% - ‘Experientials’
12% - ‘Evangelists’
11% - ‘Dreamers’
19% - the ‘no monkey business’ flyers … goal-oriented; “This is a means of transportation.”

In other words, the results show that, at a minimum, a fifth of GA pilots today see the aircraft as a tool, which falls in line with the growth of business aviation over the past 15 years. What may be a growing concern, however, is the significant drop in ‘evangelists’, those who Boyer calls the “poster children of GA” and the group that tends to be most active in airport issues.

Meanwhile, Boyer expresses concern in the continuing drop in the pilot population, which today he puts at less than 600,000 for the first time in 25 years. In response, AOPA has launched a “Let’s Go Flying” campaign to “cast a wider net” to attract newcomers to flying. Check it out at www.letsgoflying.com.

Thanks for reading. jfi

“We think we’re facing the need to form a partnership with smaller communities and their airports,” says Brown. “And when it comes to security, I think there’s an opportunity for a partnership there as well.”

Brown calls business aviation in the U.S. a “fairly mature market,” but reports that the industry segment is experiencing double-digit growth offshore. And, while the entry of very light jets into the market could in time have an impact, he says the movement is more of an evolution than a tsunami.

As part of the partnership, Brown calls on communities to use “good science” when considering restrictions to their airfields and cautions that putting restrictions on business aviation could be a detriment to their access to the air transportation network. He says there has been “way too much creativity” by some communities to hinder their airport operations, particularly in Connecticut, Florida, and California.

“As the carriers pull out of communities, there’s an opportunity for business aviation to fill the void,” says Brown.

He also advises airports that NBAA has a staff of some 85 technical support personnel who can aid communities when proposals for airfield restrictions arise, and he encourages airports to contact the association to see how the two segments can better work together in the future.

Thanks for reading. jfi

AIRPORT BUSINESS was originally launched as FBO magazine in 1986; in 1993, we added airport managers into the circulation mix and changed the name to reflect the change. Shortly after our launch we added the popular ‘Fuel Watch’ department, which tracks monthly retail fuel sales and prices for jet-A and avgas at airports across the U.S. The numbers come from Avcard, which tracks its credit card sales and then provides us with composite numbers for various markets. The department has been quite popular with fixed base operations, other airport-based businesses, and airport managers.

As we put together our August issue of AIRPORT BUSINESS we came across an issue we hadn’t encountered before. The numbers on avgas sales in U.S. markets has so deteriorated that Avcard was unable to provide us meaningful numbers for most of the markets.

Meanwhile, surfing the Web this morning, I found two stories that relate: one tells of an environmental group that is again pushing EPA to force aviation to get the lead out of 100LL avgas; the other tells of the decline in general aviation in Australia, where fuel prices and the loss of GA airports are serving as catalysts.

Reading the tea leaves, it’s not difficult to foresee change on the GA horizon. Defining the change is a bit tougher. Will we see a category of aircraft (pistons) begin to disappear? Or will new engines and alternative fuels provide new opportunity and new growth?

A bigger question may be: Will the declining numbers in avgas sales lead to the decision by oil companies to quit producing the product? Of all the products that an oil company extracts out of a barrel of oil, avgas is at the bottom of the opportunity list.

Thanks for reading. jfi

Good for him. He may not be Wyatt Earp, but DeCosta is taking the lead in seeing that guns don’t proliferate in his territory.

Of course, with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last week that reaffirmed an individual’s right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, it was expected that new legal battles would arise over gun ownership. It’s just nearly impossible to believe that the first significant battle would come at a U.S. airport, where the need for security has become inherent since 9/11.

Says DeCosta, “We have the legal grounds to take this stand, and we are also driven by my unwavering belief that guns have no place at airports.” While DeCosta cites the Georgia Code (Section 16-11-127) that includes a “public gathering exception,” Atlanta mayor Shirley Franklin is calling on Washington to resolve the issue. One suggestion: Mandate that any public facility receiving federal funding be declared a gun-free zone.

DeCosta also cites support from airport groups, AAAE and ACI-NA, and quotes AAAE president Chip Barclay who, in a letter of support, says that “any and all attempts to prohibit weapons from our nation’s airports are necessary and must be supported.”

This is not about gun ownership rights; it’s about sanity. We already have enough stress bouncing off the airport terminal walls these days without having to worry if half the folks hanging out pre-security are packing weapons – concealed, no less.

Writer Jay Bookman of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution may have said it best: “Like so much about the gun issue, this is more about symbolism than practical effect. But the symbolism in this case works against the gun lobby, which may find it has significantly overreached and chosen poor ground on which to fight.”

Thanks for reading. jfi

The IPS study takes the Air Transport Association (the airlines) and FAA’s current stance that business aviation needs to pay more for the operation of the air traffic control system. To some extent, the bizav groups have already accepted that notion, agreeing that an increase in the fuel excise tax is appropriate in an era of rising costs and the need to modernize ATC. Comments National Business Aviation Association president Ed Bolen, “This report is 30 pages of nothing but outrageous claims and the warmed-over rhetoric used by the nation’s big airlines. It is unfortunate that at a time when businesses are struggling and communities are losing air service, we see political screed masquerading as a policy report.”

The General Aviation Manufacturers Association, in a press release, adds, “In an effort to speed the modernization of the antiquated ATC system in the U.S., the general aviation industry has expressed to Congress its willingness to pay an even higher fuel tax. This commitment to ‘pony up for modernization’ was made despite the fact that the airlines refuse to pay any more taxes to improve the current ATC system. GA industry support has been nearly universal for the current FAA reauthorization proposal in the House and the Senate that would increase general aviation’s contribution by over 36 percent, or an additional $290 million, while the airlines will contribute no additional new money.”

The IPS study also charges that business aviation is a major polluter, offering the analogy that one bizjet trip eats as much fuel as one American does annually driving a car. IPS would also like to see heavy taxation of the industry, money to be used for airport infrastructure and mass transit.

Where the wheel comes off this axle for me is two-fold. One, IPS calls for a luxury tax on general aviation aircraft. Apparently, their study of history skipped over the luxury tax idea of some 20 years ago – a move that almost single-handedly destroyed non-airline aircraft manufacturing in this country. Two is the failure to acknowledge the important role business aviation plays in commerce for smaller communities. The latter is a key determinant in FAA’s ongoing mission of maintaining a system of airports, one not solely focused on commercial carriers.

At a time when our air transportation system is struggling and small communities are losing access to the system via the airlines, over-taxing the one segment that is holding its own seems at best inappropriate.

Thanks for reading. jfi

STG analyzed the number of one-way U.S. domestic passenger-trips by fare category and developed estimates of ridership on business aircraft (jets and turboprops). Premium airline traffic is defined as those passengers traveling on first class, discounted first class, business class, discounted business class, and full-fare coach tickets as reported by the U.S. Department of Transportation. “As a group, the number of premium trips has fallen from 20 percent of overall airline travel prior to 9/11 to less than 10 percent of airline travel,” comments STG managing director Gerald Bernstein. According to STG, some 16 million one-way trips are taken annually on business jets and turboprops. Just eight years ago, business aviation travel accounted for only 16 percent of the number of premium airline trips.

Of course, business aviation is rapidly becoming integrated into the global marketplace, which accounts for the strong order books at the general aviation manufacturers. Yet, in the U.S., bizjet owners more and more are shopping fuel price at fixed base operators and, according to one key source, are changing flight procedures to cut back on fuel usage. In fact, some 93 percent are changing flight procedures, while some 19 percent are cutting back on hours flown, according to one report.

For FBOs, the good news is that bizav remains a solid player. Their best customers haven’t thrown in the towel. The bad news is the impact on revenues and profits, which ultimately will impact how FBOs do business.

Should the U.S. Congress ever return to its responsibility of passing long-term aviation reauthorization, it might want to make sure it doesn’t overtax the one segment of aviation that continues to be stable.

Thanks for reading. jfi

In an attempt to gain Washington’s attention and help industry and federal officials to address the issue, AAAE on July 10 will host “The Energy Crisis and its Impact on Air Service: An Aviation Industry Summit.” Central to the agenda will be a need for central planning. Barclay says that the U.S. has institutions to assist other industries in crisis, evidenced earlier this year when the feds stepped in to alleviate the Wall Street financial crisis. The long-time AAAE president says that the marketplace will tell the airline industry what flights to keep – those that make money; the industry and the nation need to figure out how to connect the rest. “Government has the ability to step in,” he says. That said, Barclay says he doesn’t believe that a return to full government regulation of airline routes is the answer. Meanwhile, AAAE is putting together a task force to explore alternatives.

In New Orleans, attendees were told the grim projections that in short order the major U.S. airlines could cut routes as much as 30-40 percent. It’s the small communities that are taking the big hit.

In a side conversation after the press conference, Barclay said his reaction to the current situation is one of awe. And, while the airlines all agree that $100/barrel oil brings with it an unsustainable model for profit, the carriers seem to be taking the approach of waiting for their competitors to bleed to death.

To date, Barclay says some 100 communities have either lost air service altogether or are expected to by the end of the year. It’s a serious issue that needs to get on the Congressional radar. Getting legislators to understand the scope of the problem has quickly become a top priority.

Thanks for reading. jfi

That was before the recent onslaught of announcements by the major carriers regarding checked baggage. As someone who has always preferred to check my bags, this is not welcome news. Those luggage manufacturers that are now scrambling to redesign carry-on luggage have a new customer. Actually, they probably have thousands of new customers. We have been incentivized to trudge through security and the airport with our bags.

This is not good news for airports.

Consider the experience Disney Magical Express is having at Orlando International. According to the Orlando Sentinel, Disney handles some one million bags annually via its hotels under the program. Initially, Disney’s service provider, Bags, Inc., got the airlines to waive the luggage fees – but no longer. The Sentinel reports that customers now must call Bags, Inc. and pay the luggage fee up front. Longer term, it reports that the company is considering installing payment registers at airline check-in counters in each Disney hotel, so guests could pay their baggage fees directly. One challenge is a lack of standards; fees vary, as do airline policies.

At the end of the day it would appear more customer service is being dumped on airports. The baggage policies have the potential for jamming up already clogged screening lines. Will the result be a need for more space? For more up-front concessions and other services? For more screeners? If the latter, we know the feds aren’t going to step in and help on that score.

Must be time for Congress to pass the Airport Responsibility Act. Hey, it’s in the bag.

Thanks for reading. jfi

“I was up in Michigan three weeks ago and it’s a very depressed economy there, especially for the people that are involved in air charter for the automobile industry. There have been huge reductions in air charter activity.”

On the impact of soaring oil prices, Coyne says the NATA membership is seeing jet-A sales holding level; sales of 100LL avgas are down some 5 to 20 percent. “Quite frankly, I don’t know if the impact is more the recession or more the high fuel prices. In the parts of the country that aren’t in a recession right now, like Texas, the higher fuel prices haven’t had much of an effect. But in other places the high fuel prices are having a big effect.

“It’s affected a lot of piston operators; however, there’s kind of a silver lining because in some respects piston aircraft become more economical now than larger aircraft. So it’s not entirely a bad picture for the piston side.”

For FBOs, the challenge historically in economic downturns has been the ability to maintain profit margins. Coyne says 2008 is no different. “They’re really having a hard time maintaining margins. And, of course, their costs are going up as well. To heat a hangar this winter is going to cost twice as much as last winter. To fuel all the ramp vehicles is going to cost twice as much.

“You would think with a doubling of fuel prices the margins would double, but they haven’t. It’s much tougher to make money in the FBO business in 2008 than it was two or three years ago.”

For charter companies, significant activity reductions are being experienced in pockets – regions like Michigan, the New York region, and Florida. “The charter industry is experiencing an effect mostly from the recession,” says Coyne. “But all in all, I’m surprised that the industry is doing as well as it is.”

The traditional charter model continues to do reasonably well, he says. The per-seat, DayJet model utilizing very light jets is a work in progress, but Coyne thinks in time it will be a player. “These new efficient aircraft like VLJs are really catching the imagination of consumers who have never chartered before, especially for flights under 500-600 miles. I think there’s going to be big growth in that activity.”

Overall, comments Coyne, “I’m cautiously optimistic.”

Thanks for reading. jfi

Since 2001, DOT’s Office of Aviation Analysis (OAA) has administered the SCASDP. The objective of the audit, says the I.G., was to determine the effectiveness of SCASDP in helping small-hub and non-hub communities in achieving sustainable air service. To achieve this objective, the I.G. reviewed SCASDP grants to determine: 1) which grants succeeded and which ones failed; and, 2) whether certain project characteristics or project types lead to a greater likelihood of grant success.

The audit found that 70 percent of the grants reviewed failed to fully achieve their objectives. Specifically, 50 percent of the grants were unable to achieve any of the articulated grant objectives, 12.5 percent were voluntarily terminated prior to any substantive progress being achieved; and, 7.5 percent were unable to obtain or achieve all the grant objectives. The I.G. also found that grants targeting the introduction of new service rather than the expansion of existing service were more successful (50 percent versus 20 percent). Revenue guarantees for new service were more successful than for existing service (56 percent versus 33 percent) and marketing grants for new service were more successful than for existing service (40 percent versus 12 percent).

The I.G. also points out that communities may not be able to fully utilize the program due to ‘same project limitation’, which precludes a community from pursuing follow-on grants using grant strategies that have worked for them in the past. The lack of funding flexibility may negatively impact the effectiveness of the program, says the I.G.

Perhaps the most significant point of the audit is the I.G.’s assertion that communities which conduct in-depth market analysis and support their grants through substantive financial and non-financial support are more likely to succeed. Accordingly, the I.G. recommends that OAA give priority to those communities that include an in-depth market analysis with their grant application and involve substantive levels of financial and non-financial community participation. The I.G. notes a strong correlation between communities that had performed a market study and those who had successfully enhanced their existing air service.

Whether or not the SCASDP is continued is up for debate – that is, the debate that never seems to get off the ground in Congress regarding aviation funding. The Bush Administration opposes the program. The minor victories associated with the SCASDP suggest such a program can help small communities, but they should first study the Inspector General’s list of ‘lessons learned’ before applying.

Of course, considering the state of the U.S. airline industry, it may all be a moot point.

Thanks for reading. jfi