By Tom Allibone 

With an ageing fleet spectacularly failing to attract young blood into aviation, isn’t it time to let go of the old and bring in the new?

For over 100 years Australia has enjoyed a rich and meritorious aviation history with many milestones notched up that draw the envy of nations far and wide. We have many ‘firsts’ under our belt and can be proud of the achievements that our relatively small aviation populace has been credited with. We are considered to be ‘leaders in our field’, and our progress in technology and procedures are viewed with admiration. And yet, when it comes to plain old common sense, there appears to be a distinct lack of it within certain circles of aviation. How to make one’s self unpopular in one sentence? Maybe I just did, but there comes a time where aircraft operators (General Aviation in particular, need to give themselves an uppercut and wake up to some basic commercial realities if they are to survive in an increasingly demanding and competitive market.

And let’s make no mistake, in GA it’s ALL about survival. Recent history has shown that unless single and twin engine aircraft operators have a solid fleet replacement policy, there is a high expectancy that operators will pay a heavy price and perhaps face the ultimate penalty of closure through excessive maintenance costs to keep an ageing fleet airbourne. Time and again I hear first hand accounts from operators of ageing single engine aircraft, whingeing that their Cessna, Piper, Beech or Mooney has just cost two to three times what the average 100 hourly should normally cost. Why are we so surprised? Despite the usual volatile knee-jerk reaction to the arrival of a maintenance bill, LAMEs cannot always be held to blame. They hold valuable licences that are readily revoked if their inspection fails to pick up signs of fatique, corrosion or general wear and tear in even the simplest of VFR aircraft. That, for the most part, is their job and, as a result, considerably more time is spent over and above the initial inspection (usually around 16 hours for a C152 or PA38) to ensure that an aircraft is safe to operate.

With so many ageing aircraft still in operation today, a LAME is often faced with the prospect of having to allow for areas of refurbishment or restoration in addition to routine maintenance simply to keep an aircraft operational. It is little wonder that the additional hours consumed, combined with the cost of maintenance at around $75 per hour plus GST, is causing operators’ budgets to blow out beyond prediction or control. The quick fix solution has been to pass on the excessive cost to the poor student pilot through an increase in the hourly hire rate, but all that achieves is to force students to take a hard look at the aircraft (and school) they are paying to fly in. Why should they pay a high price to fly unreliable museum pieces when down the road another school is operating brand new aircraft at a lower hourly rate?

Customers are like precious gold dust and they are far smarter than most give credit for, regardless of where they are sourced from. Why then, do operators continue to believe that by hanging onto their old aircraft they will eventually retire in an abundance of clover? Whilst we are ahead in so many other areas of aviation, we seem to be in a time warp when it comes to fleet operation at GA level. To understand where we are heading perhaps we need to take a closer look at what is going on in the world today.

As has been well documented, the long predicted airline and commercial pilot shortage is now at an acute stage. Elsewhere in the world; principally the UK, USA and even China, flying schools were quicker than we in Australia to react to this growing vacuum and expanded to facilitate students with improved facilities and new aircraft. With the exception of literally two or three forward thinking people in this country who have invested wisely to meet this demand, GA has been caught with its pants down when it comes to providing adequate facilities, quality aircraft and even suitably accredited courses for future generations of airline pilots, whether sourced domestically or internationally. Some might suggest that the door of opportunity has now closed, but given that the world shortage of pilots is likely to remain an issue for many years yet, the door is still ajar for those who are prepared to adopt an entirely new commercial approach to the operation of flying schools and the subsequent production of commercial pilots. And let’s not overlook the desperate shortage of good quality Flying Instructors too. They have become like hen’s teeth and those that pass through the industry are far more likely to choose to build their hours flying new, comfortable modern aircraft as opposed to making continual excuses to students about old, tired, grounded ones.

Gone are the days where a flying school owner (who was usually the CFI – great at flying, but not so great at business) could proudly beat their chest over ownership of a fleet of aircraft. Today the bean counters are the ones who need to be in control and they are the first to make the most critical yet obvious of observations: how many truck, car, boat, bus or even earth-moving equipment operators own their own vehicles or equipment today? Precious few, if any, as the majority lease their equipment and replace it every two or three years, thereby maintaining (at far reduced cost) a brand new fleet, and retaining a far superior competitive edge and the all-important custom without which, no-one survives anyway.

There was a time when replacing aircraft, particularly in the two-seat category, was smitten with problems due to the sheer lack of viable contenders to follow the American built Cessna, Piper and Beech workhorses but, with the variety of new aircraft entering the market; (and particularly those being built to an exceptional standard right here in Australia), there has never been a better time to cast aside the old crates and replace them with brand new leased or purchased, cost effective solutions. Even the cost and availability of spares sourced overseas for many of the older aircraft is now making ownership all the more harder to justify. We are almost through the first decade of the 21st century, and yet many GA aircraft operators still seem content to hide from reality by languishing in the memories of how life used to be in 70’s and 80’s. Well, time waits for no man.

Operators need to remind themselves that an aircraft being used for hire or reward is simply an asset to be used just like any other piece of capital equipment, to then be disposed of once its usefulness has expired, usually after three years, in the same manner as a fleet car or truck operator. What could eventually influence the issue are the suggestions already being discussed around the traps that, because of the level of defects caused through high usage and the general punishment that aircraft are exposed to in a training environment, CASA might consider introducing new laws preventing GA aircraft that are over ten years old from being used for private and commercial training. Whilst many would be in uproar over such a decision, from a commercial perspective it has a number of merits, particularly when viewed by Chief Pilots of international airlines looking earnestly at Australia as a place to train cadets. It would force operators to mentally and commercially adjust and prepare for the future with a creditable fleet replacement policy.

In essence, Australian GA operators have to start being smarter if they are to survive and thrive in the increasingly competitive global market of commercial pilot training during the next five to ten years. Even with the attractive and affordable finance packages available today, it might seem a bold if not frightening step to replace old with new but the reality of not providing for the future is guaranteed to be overwhelmingly more frightening. Any GA flying school operator who adopts the ostrich position and thinks that either hanging on to an old aircraft or replacing it with a slightly younger version makes sound commercial sense, is seriously kidding themselves. They are simply putting off what is almost certainly leading to commercial failure down the track.