[defcribed]

The significant difference being that Hertz is a profitable business, most flying schools exist on very narrow margins.

Also Hertz give nothing to driving other than the loan of vehicles. They do not nurse potential drivers through fifty - a hundred hours of tuition.

Poor comparison

Rob P

A flying school has moral rights over the activities of its customers and ex-customers because it is a marginal business?

There is definitely a funny aviation-specific attitude at play. I don't view the place I learned to fly as having 'nursed me through'. I view them as a business that I elected to spend some £7-8k with when I had choices (both of other flying schools and other uses for the money). I don't feel that I owe them anything nor do I feel honour-bound to ensure that my future conduct presents no threat to their bottom line.

[Rob P]

We feel differently.

No reason why we shouldn't. I was merely pointing out that you had made a very poor comparison with a vehicle rental company.

Rob P

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm flying a different (not-for-profit club) PA28-180 from EGTC at £50/month, £125.pa club membership, £130/hr.tacho, £15.60 landing, £19.20 approach

Why?

Temporary expediency. I'm not flying it for fun (much, it's a PA28 after all, unless you turned it into a C172 you couldn't make it much more boring) - it's the best IFR aeroplane I can get my hands on, at the most convenient airport to me which has approaches. Thus it's available when I need something for work trips and keeping my instrument flying current. Plus it keeps me in with a club who use me as an instructor occasionally.

I have a share in a much nicer airways AA5a, but somewhere that requires a 2-2½hr round trip by road, and has no approaches. I also have a share in something small, fast, aerobatic, and vastly cheaper to fly, near to my home that I fly for fun - but is VFR only.

Right now, it is making some strange sense, but the arrangements are likely to change later in the year.

G

[defcribed]

Eeek, didn't mean to kick the hornet's nest. I definately plan to stay with my school after my PPL for lots of really good reasons and I'm sure they have a view on these things. I look forward to that conversation with my Instructor. I'm definately not the quick buck type.... Thanks for the frank views.

Sorry @Wicksay, bit strong of me. I guess I'm trying to make the point that they're not 'your school', they're just a business you spend money with. They've no moral hold over you.

[JAFO]

@defcribed I did say that they were just my thoughts on it, that I could see the attraction and that the moral standpoint was down to the individual.

I am sure that if my attitude towards the club I rent from is an odd one then it is merely one of many attitudes, values and beliefs that I hold which would seem odd to others. I am long past worrying what others think of my thoughts and, hopefully, don't try to insist that others think the same things. I am also aware from long experience that I could very easily change my standpoint with seemingly very little provocation and hold an entirely opposite view a month from now.

[defcribed]

...you had made a very poor comparison with a vehicle rental company.

Not at all.

A car/aeroplane is rented to a customer and a particular use of it which is perfectly legal and (as far as we know) within the terms and conditions of the rental is somehow morally unacceptable?

The comparison stands. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned Hertz. Call it a hypothetical company that rents cars as well as providing chauffeur services and driver training.

[ArrowStraight]

He's flown so many different aircraft he doesn't know the difference between an Archer and a Warrior (which the two depicted are). It would also appear that he doesn't know that the FAA expressly forbid carrying out such flights with his FAA licence............

[Boxkite]

Wot, even as a commercial pilot and instructor?

[RisePilot]

...you had made a very poor comparison with a vehicle rental company.

Not at all.

A car/aeroplane is rented to a customer and a particular use of it which is perfectly legal and (as far as we know) within the terms and conditions of the rental is somehow morally unacceptable?

The comparison stands. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned Hertz. Call it a hypothetical company that rents cars as well as providing chauffeur services and driver training.

Another Flyer Forum "Curtain Twitcher" thread, but I must note that I agree with defcribed above.

[Flyin'Dutch']

...you had made a very poor comparison with a vehicle rental company.

Not at all.

A car/aeroplane is rented to a customer and a particular use of it which is perfectly legal and (as far as we know) within the terms and conditions of the rental is somehow morally unacceptable?

The comparison stands. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned Hertz. Call it a hypothetical company that rents cars as well as providing chauffeur services and driver training.

I think the comparison is that you rent a car from whoever and then use it as a taxi; I doubt that is allowed per the rental contract but I don't care enough to look it up.

[defcribed]

I think the comparison is that you rent a car from whoever and then use it as a taxi; I doubt that is allowed per the rental contract but I don't care enough to look it up.

I disagree. Cost-sharing, Wingly or otherwise, is neither a taxi service nor any other sort of business. The practicalities of it may sail too close to the wind for your liking, but that doesn't change the fact that legally it's still a private flight.

[Flyin'Dutch']

You are correct and I probably got the wrong end of the stick - I thought the discussion had evolved whether a renting outfit could get upset/refuse a rental if they knew that someone was going to do a wingly exercise with it.

[Rob P]

Well, I asked the question of those who know.

From the UK Pilot Manager of Wingly

I can happily confirm that this flight is most definitely not in contravention of the CAA’s cost-sharing regulations, nor those of Wingly which state all costs must be split equally by the flight’s occupants, or, by the number of available seats (in this case two). The latter meaning that the pilot must foot the bill for any empty seats. Please find the calculations proving this below.

I should also mention that as you can see from the flight’s description, the thirty-minute flight consists of two touch and goes and one full stop landing.

Starting with the landing and touch and go fees

Full stop landing - £17.00 + VAT - £17.00 + £3.40 = £20.40

2x Touch and goes - (£9.00 + VAT) x 2 - (£9.00 + £1. x 2 = £21.60

Total for touch and goes and full stop landing = £42.00

Moving on to the aircraft rental, this is charged at £190.00 p/h wet, thirty minutes obviously equating to £95.00

Thereby the total operating costs for the flight are £137, this equally £45.66 per person when split equally between the pilot and two passengers. Assuming two passengers, the pilot receives a total of £91.32. Allowing the pilot to fly at a rate two thirds cheaper than what they would have paid had they conducted the flight alone, all whilst introducing two people to the world of general aviation.

I believe you may have made an error in the fact that you have not factored in Wingly’s commission (15% + £10) and VAT at a rate of 20%. You are more than welcome to do this calculation to find out the per passenger cost!

I have tried to parse the first paragraph, but am struggling a bit

Rob P

[defcribed]

You are correct and I probably got the wrong end of the stick - I thought the discussion had evolved whether a renting outfit could get upset/refuse a rental if they knew that someone was going to do a wingly exercise with it.

Of course they can get upset and/or refuse. It's their aeroplane and they don't have to rent it to anyone they don't want to.

I argue that to do so would probably be bad for business. I'm not aware of any SEP rental outfits that are so inundated with business that they're in the position of being able to pick and choose their customers.

[stevelup]

Who the heck would do two touch and goes on a 30 minute 'experience' flight?!