whistlingdeath77 wrote:
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.
whistlingdeath77 wrote:
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?
whistlingdeath77 wrote:
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.
whistlingdeath77 wrote:
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 installation3 passenger flights
3 X $ 2800 =
$ 8400 gross revenue, before expensesAirshow, military0 passenger flights
0 x $ 2800 =
$ 0 gross revenue, before expensesTour stop, non-airshow10 passenger flights
10 x $ 2800 =
$ 28,000 gross revenue, before expensesNow, 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.
whistlingdeath77 wrote:
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
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
