Innovation at 350 Knots: New jet could rewrite the rules of commercial air travel.

Nusiness 2.0 ^ | Aug., 30, 2002 | Erick Schonfeld

[StolarStorm]

It won't be 1 buck a mile once the FAA, OSHA, EPA, IRS, UNIONS, LAWYERS get done with it. What engineers create, Lawyers and bureaucrats destroy.

[jjm2111]

LOL!

[StolarStorm]

They won't pay you very much. Express jets and the like typically pay about 20,000 a year. I also think that the cost won't be anywhere near a dollar a mile. Right now, I think the investors are being yanked a bit with fake estimates.

[Redleg Duke]

He didn't say "Democrat Cruise Missiles"!

[Ditto]

If they go the "sky taxi" or time-sharing (NetJet) route, the per person price would be huge...

Not according to the projections I have seen. They predict a cost per seat about the same a full-fair coach. Operating costs are around 60 cents per mile.

I can forsee even the company I work for that is very tight with travel dollars using this as a taxi service. We often send 3 or 4 people (engineers, marketing, sales) to a customer plant site. These places are often out of the way forcing several valuable employees to blow an entire day in airports waiting for flights, making connections at another ariport and then renting a car for sometimes a 100 mile drive to the final destination. With one of these puppies, they can skip the big airports and fly point to point to within a few miles of the final destination arriving in a few hours instead of facing an entire day of travel. The same could be said of vacation travlers. If say they wanted to go from NYC to Myrtle Beach for a few days of golf, they could be there in a couple of hours instead of blowing a day of their vacation at LaGuardia and Atlanta wating for the puddle jumper. Even if the cost is 50% higher than regular air fair, the time savings would be well worth it for millions of people.

[StolarStorm]

Operating cost aside (which I obviously don't buy), there is definitely a market for these things. However, the vast number of travelers aren't going to remote sites and thus this shouldn't destroy the primary model that the airlines work under. Perhaps it would make sense for the airlines to buy a number of these and use them for the smaller market areas and for some point to point travel.

I still don't see a big threat that corps are going to go into the airline business themselves in mass, but I can see the airlines using these jets to provide additional services.

[Ditto]

I still don't see a big threat that corps are going to go into the airline business themselves in mass, but I can see the airlines using these jets to provide additional services.

We'll see what happens. But keep in mind, they already have a billion dollars in orders. An outfit in Switzerland has over 100 on order that they intend to lease out across Europe. Another start-up in Florida has 50 on order which they plan to use to cater to the tourist industy --- from Disney to Key West in an hour anyone? I think they'll make a lot of money.

[HeadOn]

LOL. You hit the nail on the head with that one.

Here's a quote that's original with me: "Almost everything stupid we have to do can be traced back to lawyers or the tax code."

[Ditto]

I also think that the cost won't be anywhere near a dollar a mile. Right now, I think the investors are being yanked a bit with fake estimates.

Why do you "think" that? Is it just a hunch or do you have something to lead you to that conclusion? You know, people in the private sector can go to jail for 'fooling' investors. (But it is ok for politicians to do that ;`( It's really a serious charge.

[sawsalimb]

Another item that might be worth keeping in mind is the air cargo market. I don't think that FedEx is immediately at risk(and in fact,I'll bet that FedEx has at least one of these on order,for evaluation purposes,if nothing else),but I can see where a point-to-point hotshot service for small freight loads of high value items could be profitable.

[Ditto]

Something to think about.

[eno_]

Every rich individual that flys a twin or an upscale single prop will want one of these instead.

[sawsalimb]

You just got me to thinking about another possible market-the college kid market. Think about it:

A lot of pretty big schools are in pretty out of the way places. A good example would be Texas A&M University,in College Station,or Baylor,in Waco. Both towns are pretty good sized,but not big enough to have a full blown airport,so as the situation stands right now,someone attending college from out of state can't fly home without jumping through some hoops.

Given an aircraft that's cheap enough to operate,flying home for Christmas break and spring break might be a viable option. Or,just start a charter service to popular college kid destinations-Padre Island comes to mind,and maybe even a few of the state parks.

[x]

How many people can these things carry? I'm thinking that big aircraft allow you to make do with fewer, highly trained pilots. A fleet of smaller ones would require more pilots, hence higher labor costs, and the risk of less skilled pilots as companies try fill more positions and cut corners. Is this right? Also, with more planes in the air would the cost of keeping planes from hitting into each other increase? And are small planes more dangerous than large ones? Or more likely to be grounded by the weather?

It's not quite the same as the Model T, either. It's not like families would actually own one. It might well put some of the big airlines that are still running out of business if the price of a ticket is the same or lower for the new jet. If it's higher, you'll have that kind of class resentment that early, pre-Model T autos stimulated in those who couldn't afford them. Could it be that trains and busses would be more hurt?

[sawsalimb]

I doubt that air traffic control costs would rise very much. The projected use of these little jets is from one small airport to another small airport,with the whole idea being to bypass the big crowded hubs,at least to the extent possible.

A good example would be the town I live in-there's a fair sized general aviation field,but it isn't served by a major carrier. If I want to fly anywhere right now,I have to drive an hour to the nearest airport,catch a plane,and fly to DFW(I live just south of Austin). Then at DFW,I have to change planes to get on the one that's going closest to where I want to go. Then I have to go through the process in reverse to get back home.

If the model that the Eclipse people are hoping for works out,I'll be able to go to the local airport,hop on the small jet,and land a lot closer to where I want to go. Sounds like a plan to me.

[patriciaruth]

Fun read. Thanks!

[Leisler]

" What engineers create, Lawyers and bureaucrats destroy. "Well of course they do, they know nothing else, have 2nd homes and private schools they have to pay for. Other than using the power of the state, how else could they prosper, let alone survive? Do you suggest they do some low common work, Sir?

[Ditto]

How many people can these things carry?

It depends on the configuration but can take as much as 5 passengers + pilot.

Here are some shots of the 6-seat configuration.

It's not quite the same as the Model T, either. It's not like families would actually own one.

No it's not. At $800k each, it's not likely that it will be the Model T. Think of this thing as an air taxi. At 800k, small investors can afford to get into the air taxi business. There is a market for it but the cost of owning and operating small jets has just been too high in the past. The relatively low costs of this concept remove that barrier to entry.

As to pilots all I can say is that they will face the same FAA license rules that the airline pilots have. And for air space, there is plenty of room up there. The congestion comes from having 500-1000 flights a day trying to get in and out of the large hub airports. Too many planes trying to use the same amount of real-estate.