Looks like Collings is planning on flying next year..

[whistlingdeath77]

First off before we all start talking about the bomber tour, let's all wait for the NTSB report and the dust walls, we still don't know what the FAA is going to do after the report is published and we all know that there will be lawsuits coming out this accident and if Collings is found guilty of anything then we all can kiss the ride programs goodbye and could destroy the Collings Foundation financially.

Really doesn’t sound like you know anything of what you’re talking about

[Combatmech]

Lets just take a step back and read the title of the thread. Collings is planning on flying neat year.

Hey, that is a great thing. 100% support operations like the one I work for and others like us.

As far as the results of a mishap report that wont be on paper for several more months.....speculation on that and or possible litigation, or continued operation of ride programs should be avoided. I realize this is a public forum and opinions will vary.

[phil65]

Thinking about the World War II weekend at Reading, what's the latest update with the Black Widow, seems like they haven't updated it lately...

Phil

[whistlingdeath77]

pop1

Lets just take a step back and read the title of the thread. Collings is planning on flying neat year.

Hey, that is a great thing. 100% support operations like the one I work for and others like us.

As far as the results of a mishap report that wont be on paper for several more months.....speculation on that and or possible litigation, or continued operation of ride programs should be avoided. I realize this is a public forum and opinions will vary.

Excellent post

[whistlingdeath77]

If a b-17 cannot be secured for the 2020 season, I wonder if the skyraider will be on the full tour this year? At least that can hold several people and some equipment

[phil65]

Maybe the Bailey B-17 will be available...

Phil

[whistlingdeath77]

Memphis Belle and ye old pub?????

[Warbird Kid]

Thinking about the World War II weekend at Reading, what's the latest update with the Black Widow, seems like they haven't updated it lately...

Phil

Latest update was in August. Looks like some progress to me.
http://www.maam.org/p61/p61_rest_latest.htm

[phil65]

Thanks Chris...

Phil

[pjpahs]

I don’t think that Collings offers flight experiences in their Skyraider. Cavanaugh in Addison Texas offers flights in their Skyraider.

[OD/NG]

Here is what I know about the Collings Foundation tour - obtained from a variety of sources:

1) The plan is to tour next year just like years past - no difference.

2) With the loss of "909", there is increased emphasis on getting the former EVG B-17 prepped and ready to go on tour. They would love to have it ready to fly next season, but it is not known if that will happen as there is still a lot of work to do and heavy financial expenses to enable that to happen. With the potential threat of multi-million dollar lawsuits looming, I'm sure Collings is not too keen on outlaying 800K to get the new B-17 up and going.

3) Even if there is no new B-17, the tour will proceed as scheduled.

4) The Collings Foundation still has legal authority to fly passengers for hire in their touring aircraft. The FAA, as of now, has not revoked their exemption to charge for "flight experiences". My take - the FAA will normally only make an emergency revocation if there was some kind of imminent, time critical safety reason to do so. Since the FAA hasn't taken action yet, I would assume they are good to go at least until the NTSB finishes their investigation and issues the final report.

5) The NTSB has publicaly stated that this investigation will take 12 to 18 months to issue the final report. Based on this, the earliest the final report could come out would be October 2, 2020 - exactly 1 year after the accident. We could infer from this that most of the tour next year would be safe. Assuming worst case scenario - that the FAA revokes Collings' Exemption - it wouldn't happen until then. Again, this may not even happen and it all may be a moot point. Depending on what the NTSB finds in their final report will probably dictate the FAA's stance on Collings' maintaining the ability to give rides to the public.

6) I don't think there is any chance whatsoever for another B-17, other than Collings owned/controlled, to join the tour. Mention was made of "Ye Olde Pub" and "Movie Memphis Belle", etc. Those aircraft are operating for different organizations, under different Exemptions, and are therefore competitive in nature. It is my belief that this is completely contradictory to the Collings business model of making money on tour. It would make no sense for Collings to introduce direct competition on their own tours. Collings has a specific way of doing business and making money and they don't like to share profits or do anything that would dilute their bottom line. I don't say that with any malice, derogatory intent or disrespect. Collings is extremely good at what they do and there is a reason they have been so successful and have been able to acquire vast resources to keep more warbirds in the air for all of us to enjoy. That reason does NOT include sharing profits with other groups/organizations. Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any time that a non-Collings owned/controlled warbird joined the tour in the past.

Regarding business models, does anyone know why the Collings Foundation rarely have ride aircraft make appearances at airshows? It's because there is virtually no money to be made for airshow appearances. It is a losing proposition, "break even" at best, and has a significant impact on their bottom line. Collings aircraft, from what I've been told, can make a significant more amount of money on tour rides than airshows. For a simple exercise, look at the Collings Foundation website and do the numbers for passenger prices x seats x aircraft x multiple flights/day x multiple days. Those numbers are staggering and add up pretty quickly into 6 figures for a weekend stop at a busy location. So, overall, tour stop rides are inherently profitable and airshow appearances are inherently unprofitable. If airshows were such a great money maker, the Exemption program to charge for passenger rides in warbirds wouldn't be necessary or exist.

In my opinion, I wouldn't think Collings would be against "leasing" a B-17 for their tour should the new aircraft not be ready. But, and this is a big but, there are no B-17's available to be leased. The only 2 "leasable" B-17's are already being leased by other groups/organizations. The only one that would remotely be available would be the Lyon Air Museum's. Even if Lyon agreed to lease their B-17, which I'm not convinced they would agree to, the aircraft still has major costs to return it to the air. The B-17 wing spar AD is the main reason why that aircraft hasn't flown in the last 7 or 8 years or so. So, with no B-17's available, I believe that Collings would tour without one and possibly add in other aircraft to join the tour to fill the void.

7) Skyraider - yes the Skyraider has joined the tour in the past, I believe West Coast only, for a portion of the tour about 2 or 3 years ago. I was told the reason that it was dropped was strictly profitability. There was not nearly the demand for that aircraft as there was for the other aircraft of theirs.

So, based on everything I know, from a variety of sources, it is my opinion that Collings is safe for most of the tour next year and if anything were to happen from the FAA, it probably wouldn't occur until the NTSB releases it's Final Report after October 2, 2020. Even then, the FAA could allow Collings to continue on, with only minor corrections/discrepencies rectified as recommended by the NTSB final report. Remember, even though the NTSB makes recommendations in their final report, the FAA is not obligated to act on any of them. It is completely within the FAA's purview to do whatever they want following an accident such as this. Because of the very public national exposure, and political overtones of the accident, the FAA could act in a manner that we completely don't expect - good or bad. Remember, politics trumps everything - even common sense!

Time will tell - my 2 cents.

[whistlingdeath77]

Here is what I know about the Collings Foundation tour - obtained from a variety of sources:

1) The plan is to tour next year just like years past - no difference.

2) With the loss of "909", there is increased emphasis on getting the former EVG B-17 prepped and ready to go on tour. They would love to have it ready to fly next season, but it is not known if that will happen as there is still a lot of work to do and heavy financial expenses to enable that to happen. With the potential threat of multi-million dollar lawsuits looming, I'm sure Collings is not too keen on outlaying 800K to get the new B-17 up and going.

3) Even if there is no new B-17, the tour will proceed as scheduled.

4) The Collings Foundation still has legal authority to fly passengers for hire in their touring aircraft. The FAA, as of now, has not revoked their exemption to charge for "flight experiences". My take - the FAA will normally only make an emergency revocation if there was some kind of imminent, time critical safety reason to do so. Since the FAA hasn't taken action yet, I would assume they are good to go at least until the NTSB finishes their investigation and issues the final report.

5) The NTSB has publicaly stated that this investigation will take 12 to 18 months to issue the final report. Based on this, the earliest the final report could come out would be October 2, 2020 - exactly 1 year after the accident. We could infer from this that most of the tour next year would be safe. Assuming worst case scenario - that the FAA revokes Collings' Exemption - it wouldn't happen until then. Again, this may not even happen and it all may be a moot point. Depending on what the NTSB finds in their final report will probably dictate the FAA's stance on Collings' maintaining the ability to give rides to the public.

6) I don't think there is any chance whatsoever for another B-17, other than Collings owned/controlled, to join the tour. Mention was made of "Ye Olde Pub" and "Movie Memphis Belle", etc. Those aircraft are operating for different organizations, under different Exemptions, and are therefore competitive in nature. It is my belief that this is completely contradictory to the Collings business model of making money on tour. It would make no sense for Collings to introduce direct competition on their own tours. Collings has a specific way of doing business and making money and they don't like to share profits or do anything that would dilute their bottom line. I don't say that with any malice, derogatory intent or disrespect. Collings is extremely good at what they do and there is a reason they have been so successful and have been able to acquire vast resources to keep more warbirds in the air for all of us to enjoy. That reason does NOT include sharing profits with other groups/organizations. Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any time that a non-Collings owned/controlled warbird joined the tour in the past.

Regarding business models, does anyone know why the Collings Foundation rarely have ride aircraft make appearances at airshows? It's because there is virtually no money to be made for airshow appearances. It is a losing proposition, "break even" at best, and has a significant impact on their bottom line. Collings aircraft, from what I've been told, can make a significant more amount of money on tour rides than airshows. For a simple exercise, look at the Collings Foundation website and do the numbers for passenger prices x seats x aircraft x multiple flights/day x multiple days. Those numbers are staggering and add up pretty quickly into 6 figures for a weekend stop at a busy location. So, overall, tour stop rides are inherently profitable and airshow appearances are inherently unprofitable. If airshows were such a great money maker, the Exemption program to charge for passenger rides in warbirds wouldn't be necessary or exist.

In my opinion, I wouldn't think Collings would be against "leasing" a B-17 for their tour should the new aircraft not be ready. But, and this is a big but, there are no B-17's available to be leased. The only 2 "leasable" B-17's are already being leased by other groups/organizations. The only one that would remotely be available would be the Lyon Air Museum's. Even if Lyon agreed to lease their B-17, which I'm not convinced they would agree to, the aircraft still has major costs to return it to the air. The B-17 wing spar AD is the main reason why that aircraft hasn't flown in the last 7 or 8 years or so. So, with no B-17's available, I believe that Collings would tour without one and possibly add in other aircraft to join the tour to fill the void.

7) Skyraider - yes the Skyraider has joined the tour in the past, I believe West Coast only, for a portion of the tour about 2 or 3 years ago. I was told the reason that it was dropped was strictly profitability. There was not nearly the demand for that aircraft as there was for the other aircraft of theirs.

So, based on everything I know, from a variety of sources, it is my opinion that Collings is safe for most of the tour next year and if anything were to happen from the FAA, it probably wouldn't occur until the NTSB releases it's Final Report after October 2, 2020. Even then, the FAA could allow Collings to continue on, with only minor corrections/discrepencies rectified as recommended by the NTSB final report. Remember, even though the NTSB makes recommendations in their final report, the FAA is not obligated to act on any of them. It is completely within the FAA's purview to do whatever they want following an accident such as this. Because of the very public national exposure, and political overtones of the accident, the FAA could act in a manner that we completely don't expect - good or bad. Remember, politics trumps everything - even common sense!

Time will tell - my 2 cents.

Thank you for you’re input on this matter. Unfortunately you’re wrong in many areas you have mentioned. The skyraider is based on the east coast and usually joins the tour in the north east part of the leg. As for thinking that other organizations will take profit away if a b-17 is leased and that it doesn’t happen....I believe in 2004-05 when b-17 aluminum overcast had its gear collapse another b-17 helped finish the tour. This has also happened with the liberty foundation when the Memphis Belle helped them out. Forgive me if I’m off a little on the info.

As far as them going to airshows and turning a profit etc I’ve never heard that as the reason. Collings likes to tour smaller airports so people get a great chance of seeing the planes. Plus if you do the airshows, you are at the mercy of the schedule of the airshow. Those planes may not get off the ramp due to performing acts all day. Giving you an extremely small window to fly all day to fly those 5 aircraft.

[Mark Allen M]

pop1

Lets just take a step back and read the title of the thread. Collings is planning on flying neat year.

Hey, that is a great thing. 100% support operations like the one I work for and others like us.

As far as the results of a mishap report that wont be on paper for several more months.....speculation on that and or possible litigation, or continued operation of ride programs should be avoided. I realize this is a public forum and opinions will vary.

Well said. I'm also a Collings Foundation supporter.

[OD/NG]

Thank you for you’re input on this matter. Unfortunately you’re wrong in many areas you have mentioned.

Please let me know where I'm wrong and let's have a discussion about it. I'm not saying I'm 100% correct and there is a chance I could be mistaken or have misinterpreted some pieces of information, but I believe that I am mostly correct. I'll be happy to be corrected by anybody, including you, if I got some of the above information wrong.

The skyraider is based on the east coast and usually joins the tour in the north east part of the leg.

I don't dispute that, but I don't remember the Skyraider selling flight experiences last year anywhere, including the East Coast. If I remember correctly, I believe the Skyraider was only on tour for paying passenger rides for a season or two. Can somebody please set the record straight on this?

As for thinking that other organizations will take profit away if a b-17 is leased and that it doesn’t happen....I believe in 2004-05 when b-17 aluminum overcast had its gear collapse another b-17 helped finish the tour. This has also happened with the liberty foundation when the Memphis Belle helped them out. Forgive me if I’m off a little on the info.

You have completely missed my point and misinterpreted what I said. I'm not denying that other organizations have had other aircraft help them out in the past. In fact, I have stated as much in the above paragraphs. What I am referring to is specifically the Collings Foundation - not the EAA or the Liberty Foundation as you so eloquently stated. I don't remember any time in the past when another organization's aircraft which was not either owned or controlled by the Collings Foundation was used on tour to help the Collings Foundation out. I am willing to be corrected if I am wrong here.

You are also missing the point on what I said about leasing a B-17. If the Collings Foundation had the opportunity to lease another B-17 and it made economic sense, I think they would. I even alluded to that above. I'm talking about another B-17, not under control of or leased by Collings, joining the Collings tour - not the scenario you wrote about here.

As far as them going to airshows and turning a profit etc I’ve never heard that as the reason. Collings likes to tour smaller airports so people get a great chance of seeing the planes. Plus if you do the airshows, you are at the mercy of the schedule of the airshow. Those planes may not get off the ramp due to performing acts all day. Giving you an extremely small window to fly all day to fly those 5 aircraft.

There are lots of mitigating circumstances that impact the bottom line when selling rides at airshows. I'm not saying that going to airshows is always unprofitable, but a lot of times it is. It can be a money-maker, provided one sells many rides. Unfortunately, having the ability to sell lots of rides is not always within the control of the organization providing rides.

Some examples of hard constraints which make it difficult to sell rides profitably at airshows:

1) It is against DOD policy to sell passenger rides at military DOD installations. That means that one can never sell a passenger flight experience at an Air Force, Navy, Marine, etc. airshow or flying event on a military DOD installation. If Collings or anyone else flies at a DOD installation, they are immediately at a huge financial disadvantage. To offset that loss of ride income, the organization selling the rides must increase their appearance fees substantially. In the vast majority of cases, the budget of military Open House Base airshows is not that great and they can't afford to cover the gap. Most of the time, the DOD would not be able to afford that huge increase in appearance fees for bombers/large aircraft. As a result, the vast majority of time those operators don't take their heavy aircraft to those Open Houses on base. Small fighters/trainers are a completely different story and not what I am talking about here. Ever wonder why you seldom see B-17's, or any other civilian owned heavy/large bombers/transport visit military airshows? It's because they can't sell rides there. It's not because they don't want to, but economically, most of the time, it is unrealistic given the required exorbitant appearance fee necessary to break even. I'm not saying it doesn't ever happen. For special anniversaries, celebrations, etc., it does happen, but that's because those military bases got extra funding to afford the increased appearance fees, despite the inability to sell passenger rides.

2) It is prohibited by the FAA for anyone to fly paying passenger flight experiences during waivered airspace. Waivered airspace for airshows, though site specific, usually start anywhere from 0800 to 1000 in the morning and go on to about 1600 to 1800 or so. The hours vary by location, but those are the times that are most common. That means that any organization wishing to sell and fly rides must do so either before or after the airshow window. So, that cuts out a majority of the time available to give rides. FAA rules dictate that rides must be flown only from sunrise to sunset. With a huge portion of the day already taken by the airshow, that cuts back dramatically the amount of time available to sell passenger rides. In addition to this, there is usually competition from other organizations selling rides - something the Collings Foundation tour aircraft don't have to deal with normally. Additionally, there is a real possiblity, especially on Sundays, of ride aircraft getting stuck in long cues of traffic jams of participating airshow aircraft either arriving or departing the airport. Traffic congestion is usually not a major issue for tour aircraft to contend with at airports that are not having an airshow or special events. I have several friends who fly B-17's on National tour with various groups. One told me that the most passenger flights he flew in one day on the B-17 was 13 flights. Another told me 10, another 12. If you consider that, at most, you will probably only be able to sell between 2 to 4 passenger rides at an airshow per day vs 12 to 13 on a "tour stop" at a non-airshow location, it's easy to see the numbers stack up against you. Let's do some public math that illustrates this point:

For an exercise, let's assume the following.

I believe that the Collings foundation charged $ 400 per person for a flight in the B-17. I believe it can carry 7 passengers. That means for one single flight, a B-17 brings in $ 2800 gross revenue, before expenses, per flight. Now extrapolate that further for the economics and profitability:

Assume the following happens for a money-making potential of flying passengers for just one day, across the spectrum of potential money-making appearances for a B-17:

Airshow, non-DOD installation
3 passenger flights
3 X $ 2800 =
$ 8400 gross revenue, before expenses

Airshow, military

0 passenger flights
0 x $ 2800 =

$ 0 gross revenue, before expenses

Tour stop, non-airshow

10 passenger flights
10 x $ 2800 =

$ 28,000 gross revenue, before expenses

Now, granted this is only a tiny sliver of the complete picture, and only for a single day, and a single aircraft. Most airshows are 2 day events, with some longer. The numbers get exponentially larger when you start talking about multiple aircraft on a scale such as the Collings Foundation tour. Negotiated appearance fees, hotel rooms, car rentals, VIP party/access, and other negotiated perks enter into the equation as well. Additionally, a huge host of expenses including fuel, insurance, parts, wear and tear, maintenance support, volunteer support, media support, advertising, and many other costs have to be subtracted from gross revenue to generate a net profit. But, based on the above exercise, it's very easy to see why participating in an airshow for a heavy bomber is not a winning economic strategy for any National Tour operator, whether it's the Collings Foundation or anyone else.

Collings likes to tour smaller airports so people get a great chance of seeing the planes.

3) While this is true, it is not the only reason. A lot of times the National Tour operators like to go to smaller airports because of an untapped market. All of the B-17 Tour Groups go through the major metropolitan areas with high population densities, so a lot of those are not necessarily as lucrative as they can be due to supply outpacing demand. But how many go to obscure places, away from heavily populated areas? Some do and some don't. There are some "goldmine" untapped potential markets out there that are not necessarily supported by large populated areas. These "rural areas" tend to be more patriotic and pro-military and thus more supportive of a National Tour stop. This is particularly true in rural areas where it may be a 3 hr or longer drive to either see an airshow with a W.W.II aircraft or have access to buy a ride on a W.W.II aircraft. Several of the National Tour operators, including the Collings Foundation, has great success going to small, not densely populated, rural areas that might have never seen a W.W.II aircraft for many, many years, much less have the opportunity to fly on one. I think this is a large part of why Collings stops at seemingly "small, unpopulated" airports and cities to tap into those markets that rarely see a W.W.II aircraft stop by.

By the way, just to set the record straight, I do support the Collings Foundation and everything they believe in. However, I do not and have not worked, volunteered or even been on any of their aircraft, much less flown on one. I completely support their mission and encourage everybody to do the same. I merely write this information here to let people have some insight into what is going on in the warbird industry, and my opinion and interpretation on what most likely is going on at Collings based on the information I have.

I think a lot of changes will happen as a result of the accident, but what those are and how they play out is a complete wildcard. I really hope that the FAA does not take away the ability of organizations to sell rides in W.W.II aircraft. Unfortunately, there is a real danger that could happen in the future. Please contact both your local Congress person and sign the petition to allow Collings to continue selling rides in their aircraft:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=F ... 11089-0096

[Combatmech]

Thanks for the great info OD/NG!!