AVweb

« Back to Full Story

Redbird: Filling the Vacuum

  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article
  • Text size:

    • A
    • A
    • A

I’ve attended enough shows like Sun ‘n Fun and AirVenture to have to have inoculated myself against reading too much into trends and events that occur over the course of a week. And we’re but one day into Sun ‘n Fun, with another five to go. Nonetheless, as far as new developments are concerned, I think we’ve pretty much seen the lay of the land; we know what’s coming. So the rest of the week is mood sampling; plumbing the depths of mass opinion for that elusive thing we might as well call confidence. I’m not sure I’d know if I saw it and wouldn’t necessarily trust my judgment if I did, so I’m not a huge fan of journalistic throwaways like “the mood was upbeat.”

But there are a couple of things worth a comment. First, if there’s a current and consistent newsmaker in general aviation, it’s Redbird. Last summer, they announced a bold program to re-engine Skyhawks with diesel engines and last fall at the company’s annual Migration training project, they gave us a glimpse of a new game-dynamic-based training program to be used with Redbird’s line of moderately priced simulators. Here at Sun ‘n Fun, Redbird has painted in some of the details with the Flying Challenge and they showed off a new helicopter simulator (video) which I spent 30 minutes crashing on Monday, much to the amusement of Roger Sharp.   

I think what I’m seeing is that Redbird is rushing in to fill a giant vacuum. Cessna hasn’t been interested in flight training for five years, at least, and although other companies are doing credible components of training programs, none are as potentially vertically integrated as Redbird, from basic training materials, to simulators, to actually building airplanes. Of such stuff are empires made.

I’ve stood on the sidelines for two decades now and patiently given lip service to programs like Be-A-Pilot, Young Eagles, AOPA’s Mentor idea and endless youth outreach efforts, a couple of which are going on here this week. We all know none of these work to produce significant new pilot starts, nor are they likely to, probably for several reasons. One of those is that broad outreach efforts like these don’t really qualify the prospects but have tended to assume—wrongly—that any kid or person exposed to aviation will suddenly be seized with an unquenchable desire to become an aviator.

But here’s where the Flying Challenge may be different. It does qualify prospects, in a way, by potentially attracting those who are interested in competitive games, in things technical and in machines in general. Flying may actually be peripheral to the process and that’s okay because in the subgroup of people animated by such things, there may be a higher percentage of people who actually want to learn to fly. From what I’ve seen of Redbird’s TRACE technology, it’s bright and shiny enough to be intriguing, engaging and effective. When I was instructing primary students, I always felt that with the right resources, any reasonably able person could largely teach himself to fly, with the instructor intervening only as a problem solver and coach. With the outlines of TRACE more than faintly visible, you can see how that might work. I like where that's going.

Second, kudos to Bonnier for cross marketing the contest to its other audience interest areas—motorcycling, boating, outdoor sports. This follows that most basic idea of marketing—try to sell to people who have money. This just feels more potentially potent to me than watery “outreaches” to subgroups who may or may not be interested, but simply lack the wherewithal to do anything about it even if they are. That may very well mean that the 13-year-old girl who wins the challenge goes back to skateboarding after a moment of glory on the stage at AirVenture. The fact is, no one really knows how this will play out, but it’s the best idea I’ve seen lately and I can’t wait to see what develops.  

One large unmentionable object still bobs in the punch bowl. Once the would-be, exquisitely trained and prepared pilot has a fresh certificate, can he or she afford to stay in the game? Can even half the hes or shes afford this? Again, we just don’t know because we have no idea what kind of demographic this contest will draw from. Further, the industry hasn’t figured out how to make flying significantly less expensive than it is now. Yes, the Redhawk reverses the ever upward trend and at least offers some relief from escalating costs. But if it’s the difference between $169 and $139 per rental hour, is that enough?

Beats me. But I guess we’re about to find out. 

Join the conversation.
Read others' comments and add your own.

Comments (27)

I'm curious about what was said at the panel discussion at SnF tonight, being under 20 I am curious how the speakers think they are going to get other millennials willing to drop many thousands of dollars to learn about and participate in a recreational activity.

As for the outreach programs producing a passion for aviation like the long touted EAA's Young Eagles one should look at the truth. My dad pointed this out to me,1.8 million Young Eagles have been flown but yet the pilot population is still declining. So I agree, youth programs are only a drop in the bucket.

The Redbird challenge seems like combining xbox live with collegiate flight team events, add that with Redbird's take on flight training and the semi-affordable Redhawk, then they could be on to something.

Speaking of affordable, I would venture to say $139/hr is still quite steep. Someone commented on a previous thread that maybe if we don't like paying current rates, then leave the game. To which I say is the same attitude that helped us into this situation we are in, finding people willing to pay catastrophically expensive prices for flying has obviously become hard to do.

I realize flight schools need to make money and aviation has always been expensive, but I think if a true 4-place airplane like a Piper Archer were somehow $75/hr and took a full-time working person 3-5 weeks to learn to fly safely, and marketed well to all ages would be a step in the right direction for personal flying. Some numbers: 50 flight hours per year at a rate of $75/hr equates to around $3,750 for an annual cost (less obtaining the license) now compared to 50 hours at $150/hr which equals $7,500 annually. The $4k per year is an easier pill to swallow I would think, Of course I'm not including things like subscriptions, app updates, headsets, and other bits of necessary equipment.

Posted by: Joshua Waters | April 1, 2014 10:56 PM    Report this comment

The aircraft and avionics manufacturing industry is separating itself from the middle income pilot market simply by its disproportional high cost. It appears to me like more pilots fall into the category of "those who can not afford it" and are gradually and steadily increasing in numbers, their interest in aviation flying west. The recreationalist elitists may continue but their lot is not growing enough to cover the demand loss. My perception is that the industry's senseless unaffordable product pricing ignites an even greater pilot exodus and prevents much needed new pilot starts - in other words, the manufacturing industry is stomping stupidly on their market. The FAA's NextGen and now "the Colgan" congress is not much help, either. We need to increase the traffic count - this is not happening.

Flight schools, the pilot base or customer base makers, have been affected by the rising costs in fuel, maintenance, insurance, parts, new and used aircraft, avionics, additional database subscription costs, new equipment regulations. And sometimes not all additional costs being passed on to the clientele, as a result, the closing of over 2000 flight schools in the last 13 years. Those still in business run at higher flight training and rental pricing factors but threatened by a lower demand in turn causing additional price increases. The cycle is cruel.

Meanwhile, the tap dance continues. OEMs create a fanciful little world and show their wares with the illusion (read hype) that cost is not a factor and all is well. They just don't get it.

Posted by: Rafael Sierra | April 2, 2014 2:47 AM    Report this comment

Rafael,

I was the person who was told that my $8K to $10K budget is not enough to be able to afford to fly. So, I guess I am wrong about what I think is necessary for aviation to thrive.

If the aviation industry really only wants the $25K a year pilots, well, you can have them. Expect FBOs only at Class B and C airports, $100 landing fees, $2500 a year for data for avionics that will need to be replaced at $25K a pop every 10 years. $10K parachute repacks. And so on, and so on.

I feel like I'm the perfect target for who the industry should be focusing on. Young, professional, disposable income. And I'm told that I can't afford to fly. Go for a drive instead. Oh well.

Posted by: Joshua Levinson | April 2, 2014 10:02 AM    Report this comment

I feel compelled to add, my comments are not directed solely at the individual who said I couldn't afford to fly. I have spoken to a number of pilots, and I tell them I'd like to someday buy a Cessna 182, or maybe a Mooney M20J. At least half of the people I say that too, say "Why wouldn't you buy a 3-year-old Cirrus SR22?"

If the assumption is that all active pilots have $25K a year to spend, well, the market is going to shrink a lot more than it already has.

Posted by: Joshua Levinson | April 2, 2014 11:59 AM    Report this comment

Joshua, you can absolutely get involved with a budget of $8-10k. There are ways for you to get into the flying game. To safe money during training, study as hard as you can BEFORE you seek out a flight instructor. FAA handbooks (basically the holy books that all commercial variants have to live up to) are FREE! You can hit up forums online and/or talk to local pilots/CFIs for guidance BEFORE your first hour. You can also learn all your procedures in an airplane (albeit you'll have to have a make/model chosen to train in first) BEFORE you even start the engine. Once you get through your private pilot training, you can get into flying clubs or find a partnership to get into an airplane with to make the math work. Your budget will not allow you to support a C182 or a M20J. But it may allow you to support a C150/152. I know it's nothing dazzling, but it's not beyond approach. Don't get discouraged by what you've heard so far. If you really want to get into flying, there are ways.

Rafael, yes, cost is a factor, but I don't think avionics OEMs really care about you or me. They care about those people with real disposable income, not disposable income that really should go into paying a loan or bills. People with disposable income spend thousand dollar bills like you and I spend pennies. There's this illusion that somehow everyone in aviation makes about the same money and thus we're all victims of these high costs. This is flawed thinking. There's more money in aviation than most people see. The money is not coming from you and me getting our rocks off in 100LL low horsepower piston pumps. The money that these manufacturers are going after are those who fly into the flight levels. They have REAL disposable income. You don't see Garmin or Cessna or Piper or Bendix-King or Avidyne going out of business do you? Why not? It's because people with real money supports them. The landscape has changed for us folks with a tiny bit of disposable income. These big wigs are not concerned about our money. This is why Cessna can bill a brand new C172S at $415,000. There will always be people getting into flying. Those people are just going to be the really rich folks. Sad. But it's reality. And the more these alphabet groups fall into denial that cost is not a factor, the more we're all going to lose. Believe me, AOPA, EAA, NBAA are not really interested in the little guys.

Posted by: Amy Zucco | April 2, 2014 1:56 PM    Report this comment

I really hope I'm wrong, but could it be we are gradually returning to the flying situation of the 1930s when only the celebrities and very wealthy could afford to get in the air?

The post-WW2 boom was huge for GA, when a ton of aircraft came available (both new and surplus) and flight training was fueled mostly by the GI Bill. We've been riding that wave for a long, long time now. Even the late model 152s are worn out at this point. There was a little organic boost in GA during the 1980s due to real wages rising, but the overall taper has been slightly downward.

So come on GA, please prove me wrong. I just want to spend pleasant Sundays at small country airports putting around the pattern and watching other folks do the same.

Posted by: A Richie | April 2, 2014 2:29 PM    Report this comment

I fly a 182RG on ~$10,000/year. (My share) That includes annual, insurance, avgas and repairs. Three of us share the aircraft which is what makes it affordable. Even with three of us, the plane does not fly as much as it probably should. We have never had a scheduling problem. If one wants sole ownership, a 150 is probably in that budget range but if you want a plane to use for long trips, sharing is the most sensible and economical way to go. If one looks carefully and is patient, these arrangements can be found. In my case, I also needed an instrument rating but I fly in the east where that is essential anyway.

Posted by: Byron Work | April 2, 2014 2:47 PM    Report this comment

I forgot to add that my buy-in was less than the cost of a new SUV and my fuel burn on a per mile basis is about the same as my SUV.

Posted by: Byron Work | April 2, 2014 3:29 PM    Report this comment

Joshua Levinson: The cost of a PPL in 1970, in today's dollars, amounts to approximately $5,500. At present it costs about $10,000 - this extends to an 81% flight training cost increase. Likewise, during the same period, the average household income has increased only 16%, or from $47,000 to $54,000. The income-vs-cost inequality gap is getting wider - the problem is getting worse.

Those of us who remain end up flying less resulting in a greater loss in the traffic count and in turn a parallel decrease in demand for goods, services and equipment. The downward trend continues - I just don't understand why this is ignored by some despite the fact that it provokes an industry wide business decline and higher prices.

How long before the last call? It is anyone's guess - no chance of filling the vacuum as we are, I say. I suggest to you to keep on flying. Get creative and maximize your flying and aviation knowledge proficiency. Share expenses with other pilots and enjoy the ride.

Posted by: Rafael Sierra | April 2, 2014 3:43 PM    Report this comment

Without a large sea-change in how the industry is regulated, and an equally large change in liability laws and the general litigious nature of society, it is highly unlikely that aviation will ever be a "low cost" activity, irrespective of however many pilots there are. That said, I feel part of the issue related to growing the pilot base relates to the broad spectrum of "flying" activities, and failing to properly align individual flying goals and desires with available time and budgets.

While most are able to divine that renting beat-up 152s have "lower costs", while purchasing brand new fully-loaded Cirrus SR-22s have "higher costs", few looking into getting a pilots license are asked to think about what their "flying goals" are, and have different flying modalities presented relative to available budgets: Just flying locally for the fun of being in the air? Going on long weekend trips? Flying for an airline? Flying to ones property? While such goals will likely change over time, by having at least SOME goal in mind at the start of flight exploration allows people to better calibrate time and financial commitment, rather than simply hearing about "how expensive it is", and simply throwing their hands up and walking away.

Posted by: Avi Weiss | April 3, 2014 11:18 AM    Report this comment

Avi, who's walking away? Just like you, I want to stay and promote aviation - work on the solution, not bury my head in the sand and pretend happiness. The runaway costs of equipment and peripherals caused by regulations, market decline and new gadgetry are a limiting factor for new-starts and for the active pilot population - the ridiculously high cost of flying is a disincentive so there is less of everything. GA is dwindling; everyone is feeling the contraction and as the price increases the demand for flight services and product decreases furthermore. For me, the solution is to keep flying those virginal $50,000-$90,000 hull valued aircraft and bring to your attention my beliefs. Save GA!!!

Posted by: Rafael Sierra | April 3, 2014 3:29 PM    Report this comment

Right on, Rafael. And in the spirit of GA promotion, I would like to make a suggestion. My wife and I just finished a three hour experience in the Leonardo Da Vinci exhibit at the Blue Water Casino ( they won the bid) in Parker, Az.

We flew on to the 6000' runway at the Avi Suquilla airport and the hotel shuttle took us back. The 60 plus exact reproductions of his astounding inventions with numerous paintings incl. The Mona Lisa and the huge Last Dinner....er, Supper are wonderful. The works were done by master craftspersons to exact detail.

It is on display until the end of April and a great time to enjoy the Colorado river, too. So fire up those engines and get in the air for a cross-country you will not regret.

Posted by: Dave Miller | April 3, 2014 6:42 PM    Report this comment

"This follows the most basic idea of marketing - try to SELL to the people who have the money"! And that, like it or not, ladies and gents, IS the "bottom line" On the annual "disposable income" to fly; about $12K, more or less, on a national level. NOTE: This EXCLUDES Ultralights, gliders, remote models, 500+ flying club members sharing the cost of a vintage C-150, etc.

Posted by: Rod Beck | April 3, 2014 9:42 PM    Report this comment

Josh - BS. Don't give up. $25,000 is WAY enough money to fly for a year. WAY!! Look for flying clubs. I've been in three and just joined another. I've owned my own airplane, too. Couldn't fly it enough to justify the cost. Flying clubs are the way to go if you want well maintained aircraft, a reasonable buy-in cost (usually WELL under $5,000), the benefit of group aviation insurance and a group of like-minded pilots who enjoy aviation. And it sure is good to have 20 or 30 co-owners when it comes time to overhaul or reman that thing up front that makes the other thing go round and round!!! Both AOPA and landings.com have good lists of clubs. And if there's not one where you are, AOPA has some guidance on how to get one started.

And for all of those complaining about the cost of avionics, insurance, fuel, etc., stop whining. GA has NEVER been cheap. When a new 172 cost $10,000 (yes, that and less), the average good factory job paid about $2.50 an hour. There are lots of aircraft out there that are relatively cheap to own and operate if that's what you want to do. Short wing Pipers are one of the best values. And the Ercoupe's, too. Both are great ways to convert money into altitude without spending too much of the latter.

Posted by: Rodney Ghearing | April 4, 2014 9:08 AM    Report this comment

Rodney G; Why is it ONLY aviation (recreational) has this "entitlement" mentality - that SOMEONE or a fool hardy naive investor in the private sector should provide a "product" so the less financially deprived and unfortunate can fly? $25K annually for flying - about DOUBLE even with ownership! You make a great deal of CENT$. AND yes, clubs are and can be very "cost effective" - good point!

Posted by: Rod Beck | April 4, 2014 11:45 AM    Report this comment

Rodney,

I'm afraid you misread my comments. I was lamenting that people like you and the commenter on the previous article seem to think that $25K is a reasonable number. My point is that it is entirely *unreasonable*. I don't see how aviation can ever hope to be accessible and safe until $10K a year can let one fly 100 hours a year.

Posted by: Joshua Levinson | April 4, 2014 12:41 PM    Report this comment

"I've stood on the sidelines for two decades now and patiently given lip service to programs like Be-A-Pilot, Young Eagles, AOPA's Mentor idea and endless youth outreach efforts, a couple of which are going on here this week."

Paul, I agree with you. There just isn't a good return on the efforts from these programs. In an EAA chapter meeting I attended, there was a heated discussion supported by those who thought that the chapter should be offering Young Eagles flights only to those out of higher income families. Suggesting that those who can afford it now would be better prospects later. I left the meeting quite disappointed as my credence is that we just don't know who stays or goes and that at this early stage all should be considered or given the chance to experience flight. The programs should be enhanced as we are doing here in the Coachella Valley (KTRM). The response is good as we combine formal aeronautical education and the joy and experience of flight. See us on Facebook.com/cvyaep, we are on our third year now. Perhaps Redbird can add to the solution.

Posted by: Rafael Sierra | April 4, 2014 3:11 PM    Report this comment

TO ALL or anyone who's REALLY interested in "saving" GA. :START by SELLING" flying, the utility value of the light airplane - not every one NEEDS or owns a jet!, NOW. The "fun" (emotional) aspect ISN"T cutting it - cost/benefit - then WHY is the MAJOR beef about cost - simple - the benefit DOESN'T equal/justify the $$$! Getting "young people" interested in GA or aviation in general - HELLO - are THEY bringing in income to the industry - HELLO again - well intended and a noble and idealistic cause - BUT? This "business" NEEDS result$ NOW - not 20-60 years "down the runway"! The REALITY is to market to the BEST immediate buyer who CAN and is WILLING to pay the price of admission - learn to fly - but an airplane - maintain, fuel and store it - LIFE TIME (VALUE)CUSTOMER - the entire INDUSTRY wins! Are there ANY business types reading this like the Shark Tank judges, Marcus Lemonis, Donald Trump or Warren Buffet, who can see what's really going, or not going on, here?

Posted by: Rod Beck | April 4, 2014 4:58 PM    Report this comment

Rod,

I think you'd be hard-pressed to really convince a non-pilot that piston single aviation is really valuable from a utility perspective. Maybe for supplying villages in Alaska, but aside from that...

You can travel from airport to airport at twice the speed of driving, and as the crow flies rather than following roads. Except for the 30 minutes of pre-flight. And the drive to the airport. And the time spent refueling at your destination. For most people's 2-ish hour flight, actual time saved is pretty minimal. Then you're at an airport and need to deal with a taxi instead of having your own car.

Oh, and you can't fly if it's cloudy and too cold. Or too windy. Or if there's convection. Or when some 40 year old part wore out and it'll take 2 weeks to find a replacement in a scrapyard.

Oh, and you're renting, so you can't really stay more than overnight without hitting your daily minimums. So you'll buy a plane and spend $4000 a year on a hangar (double that if you're near a major city), $3000 for insurance, $3000 for an annual inspection, etc.

I think it's pretty clear that most of us are flying for the enjoyment and the challenge. There are certainly some very small number of people for whom flying is truly a function of utility, but I'd wager that it's under 10% of the piston single pilot crowd.

Posted by: Joshua Levinson | April 4, 2014 9:04 PM    Report this comment

Mr. Levinson: I suggest you do your homework; Tell that to the 25K+ "owner flown" single. light twins and turbine singles operating almost exclusively for business and the NBAA!.

Frankly, as a BUSINESS, if I were an FBO or flight school operator today (been there - done that), I would be going after the potential UTILITY (high volume) user - business AND recreational. The "low end" occasional recreational flyer, possibly like yourself, ISN'T or would be my BEST customer. Nothing personal - just good business - QUALITY not QUANITY - I rest my case!

And if your so inclined, kindly check out our no non-cent$ pro GA business site: get-aviation.com at your leisure.

Posted by: Rod Beck | April 4, 2014 9:37 PM    Report this comment

Joshua Levinson is correct.

Posted by: Rafael Sierra | April 5, 2014 12:45 AM    Report this comment

Flying has always been too expensive. The first time I decided it cost too much to fly, I was just out of school. I went to the local FBO and they quoted me about $2000 to get my private license. That sounded like more than I could ever afford, so I walked away and did other things. I realized later that I spent $3000 a year on motorcycles - so it turns out I could have afforded it if I'd made other choices.

I feel like a big reason private aviation is shrinking is it takes too long to learn to fly. Skydiving operations near me handle hundreds of jumpers a day and take in way more money than flight schools at the same airport (training time: 4 hours ground school + 25 jumps.) Dealers are selling as many $20000 Harley's as the factory can pump out.(training time: 1 week, or just jump on it and go) So, people have money - it's just a question of how they spend it. Redbird might have the best answer to the training problem - time will tell.

Rod is right, for FBOs or manufacturers to stay on business they have to make money. In any business you make money by selling to the people who can pay for it. The folks at your local car dealership or real estate office know that.

Posted by: Keith Johnson | April 5, 2014 10:13 AM    Report this comment

Keith; You mentioned real estate and cars; that's WHERE, coincidently I made my $$$ from 1979-2004 - now, semi-retired - doing GA aviation business consulting - for those whose priority is profitability over "passion" - and the reason I left GA as an occupation in 1978. Didn't care to drive a 30 year car, eat TV dinners, and live in a furnished room for the rest of my life!

Posted by: Rod Beck | April 5, 2014 10:55 AM    Report this comment

Here we go...finally some logic that makes sense, thank you Keith Johnson.

In a nutshell, in any business profit motive and making money is essential! Car dealerships know this, as well as the Harley dealership, the boat dealership, and the real estate office. Its called getting aggressive and putting value into the product, which we think "it's aviation, it sells itself" and we find this has never worked in any economic system.

Yes, aviation is expensive and it always has been expensive. It is the fact that the value for the money just isn't there for many people, therefore they have no NEED for the product. In reality, we need marketing and sales ability to draw high quality prospects that want to spend the money on flight training, airplanes, and products that go with it!

Posted by: Michael Dempsey | April 5, 2014 6:04 PM    Report this comment

I agree with Joshua Levinson.

The utility of these single pistons are limited. I see wide eyed students' excitement wither away as soon as we get into the weight and balance and performance topics. They quickly realize that they can't bring their family along with bags to a weekend destination. They still think it would be cool to do so, but then, they realize they need to fly with less than full tanks, requiring fuel stop(s). And when you talk to them about weather, you can see the defeat when they realize that no ice protection, no backup instrumentation, no backup electrical system, doesn't exactly spell "safe" in their minds. And when you try to sell the it is safe, you quickly realize that their comfort zones limit them to IFR under VMC in these single engine pistons.

So Joshua Levinson is correct when he says that utility is limited. Plus, the cost of flying to some of these destinations is much more expensive than just hopping on a commercial airliner or just drive it. Folks can boo this all they want, but face it, a single piston is not the same as a multi-engine jet in utility and capability.

Those who get into aviation are those who want to fly, not necessarily because they need to fly.

Posted by: Amy Zucco | April 7, 2014 9:28 AM    Report this comment

I agree with Joshua Levinson.

The utility of these single pistons are limited. I see wide eyed students' excitement wither away as soon as we get into the weight and balance and performance topics. They quickly realize that they can't bring their family along with bags to a weekend destination. They still think it would be cool to do so, but then, they realize they need to fly with less than full tanks, requiring fuel stop(s). And when you talk to them about weather, you can see the defeat when they realize that no ice protection, no backup instrumentation, no backup electrical system, doesn't exactly spell "safe" in their minds. And when you try to sell the it is safe, you quickly realize that their comfort zones limit them to IFR under VMC in these single engine pistons.

So Joshua Levinson is correct when he says that utility is limited. Plus, the cost of flying to some of these destinations is much more expensive than just hopping on a commercial airliner or just drive it. Folks can boo this all they want, but face it, a single piston is not the same as a multi-engine jet in utility and capability.

Those who get into aviation are those who want to fly, not necessarily because they need to fly.

Posted by: Amy Zucco | April 7, 2014 9:30 AM    Report this comment

To Amy, Rafael, and Josh: YES, the utility (need) value demand is limited - that said, as a "business person"" I'm interested in catering to the QUALITIY user/owner - and rest assured it would take 3000+?? (talk about a crowed ramp!) Ultralight owners to bring in the same gross income of just ONE "utility" A-36 owner to the "profit" motivated operator!

And on NEED - can you back that up or are you only bias by your own personal "want""? Further. The "want" wanes - that's WHY you have a 80%+ student drop out rate and a zillion airplanes out of annual - the mature student/customer today, be it recreational or business, has to justify a need, not want, do to the cost/benefit equation - a VALUE proposition.

Have ANY of you ever been on the "selling" side of the FBO/flight school counter - probably not? And as the judges say on Shark Tank; "I'm Out'!

Posted by: Rod Beck | April 7, 2014 8:28 PM    Report this comment

Add your comments

Log In

You must be logged in to comment

Forgot password?

Register

Enter your information below to begin your FREE registration

« Back to Full Story