Tiara: The BBJ is actually in the same price category as a G-550 or the latest Global XRS. I've always argued that if a buyer of the Gulfstream or Global can't afford the BBJ then they probably can't really afford the Gulfstream or Global. The acquisition cost is within the same range and the real operating costs are also within range. The BBJ burns more fuel but in the real world has lower maintenance costs. With a fleet of thousands and thousands of 737s there are lots of secondary sources for parts. This compares to the G-V and Global fleet of only a few hundred of each. Gulfstream and Bombardier are do much more to control the access to parts so their prices are higher. Also figure that a BBJ operator that is knowledgable can get their maintenance performed for at least $10 - $20 an hour less than the Gulfstream and Global operator will be able to get. As for range comparisons between the BBJ, G-500/-550 and the Global Express the BBJ will lose but .... The BBJ brochure says that 6,200 nm is possible. This is still less than the 6,500 of the G-550. As all the various BBJ buyers have gone through their individual analysis it has come about that all but a couple (out of over 100) select the maximum 9 auxiliary tank package. The majority of the Middle East operators are going with enough to comfortably get to London or so (qbout 4 tanks). The rest of the buyers are going for 6-7 tsnks which gives range up to 5,700. I went thorugh this process with my client (out of northern Europe) and it came out that he did not have a city pair that was much past 5,000 nm. He was like everybody else - wanted more baggage space and freedom in the interior configuration (the 9 tank version forces some severe compromises on how the interior can be configured). It would be interesting to find out how many of the G-550s have made a trip where they used all their range capability. So in light of all the above points the BBJ buyer has grasped that operating costs for the BBJ is close enough to the others to be insignificant. The range difference is not an issue in the real world except for a few cases. in the US one issue that the BBJ does really lose on is a couple of airports that they are restricted out of. Teterboro, New Jersey is the prime VIP airport for the new York city crowd. Because of bull sh*t local politician pandering Teterboro can not have any operations by aircraft larger than the Gulfstreams and Globals. Because of that the BBJ have to use White Plains, Newark or Stewart. Aspen, Colorado doesn't allow parking in high season times because of a lack of ramp space; they can land and do a drop off/pick-up. Sun Valley, Idaho is another restricted airport - physical size and ramp weight rating. What they do place importance on is the space. Since you experienced the Falcon 2000 recently think about being in a G-550 for 12+ hours which is several inches narrower. Consider that the 2000 has 2 groupings long in the cabin (2 chairs & pull-out table) and the Gulfstream and Global only have one more grouping of length. The BBJ person finds this amount of space to be confining. The maximum width of the Gulfstream is 88". The Global is about 6 or 8 inches more than that. The Boeing is 140". As for length where the passengers are the Gulfstream and Global are about 300". This compares to the BBJ with around 800". All this space (there should be an attached representative floor plan) can be used for a bedroom with a queen size bed (compares to the owner using a couch that converts to a sort of flat sleeping surface). a master lavatory with a full stand-up shower and separate areas for working, lounging and eating. The BBJ owner may not be interested in flying with more people, although that is an option, but value having more space for each passenger. Also since the interior is individually commissioned each buyer can customize more like they would with a large yacht. The typical owner of a BBJ will be a private individual/privately held corporation or a public corporation that is run by the founder or someone that is clearly "in charge". There still is a negative image in a very public corporation that a BBJ is a Royal Barge for the CEO instead of an effective and cost effective alternative to the Gulfstream/Global offerings. I hope this helps you understand some of the overall thoughts in this segment of the market. Jeff Image Unavailable, Please Login
Art, Cost of operation is one of those numbers that depends on how the numbers folks want to deal with everything. Fuel and oil are the easy part. Then how about the insurance - hull and liability? The office rent for the flight crew at the FBO. The hangar rent. Flight crew salary and benefits. Maintenance reserves or for a new(er) aircraft that will have MSP for the engines and the airframe. Is the interior refurbishment and exterior paint to be on a 5 year cycle - better kep some money set aside for that. How are the crew costs on the road (hotel, rental car, per diem) and the passenger catering accounted for? Depending upon how the aircraft is bought or leased will also impact this. Are there cockpit mandates that will apply? I know some operators that basically look at the entire year's operating costs for the flight department and aircraft as a single number and make that the hourly "cost". When looking at the fractionals realize that they will typically have a massive operational structure that is being paid for at a profit. An individual operation for something like a small Citation is likely to be a full-time pilot/chief pilot/director of flight operations. The co-pilot may be a full time person or a contract pilot if the flight hours are low enough. The Director of Maintenance may be a part time person or your maintenance person that does most of the routine work themselves. Because of an individual owner a lot of the rest of the annual operation numbers may be assigned to the aircraft or taken directly by the person - not to the aircraft. Comparing operating numbers between operators is difficult unless someone can get the basis for what is and what is not included. There are also a bunch of "gold plated" operators out there with high cost basis - pay scales, lots of staff, no-limit road expenses for the crew, extravagent catering and the such to suit the owner. Jeff
Jeff: The actual operating costs I used are from Business Aviation's figures. 1k per hour isn't just fuel (although if fuel keeps rising, it might end up there), it does include Hanger, etc. I do know that Europe is quite a bit more costly than the USA, but you can operate one of these for about that. However, if you are using the full service, you can expect to pay quite a bit more. However, in that instance, I'd charter, and with careful shopping, I think that you can do quite a bit better than one of the fractionals, where they seem to charge about 4xs the operating costs. A good many people don't fully utillize their planes, and put them out on charter, so if you shop a bit (or find a service that will do that for you), you can save quite a bit. Art
Art, Rarely is fractional about saving money, or being the most cost efficient. Personally I have a hard time with fractional as being the best choice for a lot of the people but it is "convienent". I think I talked earlier about someone we were with a few years ago that had Net Jets fractions in a Citation X and a G-IV. He clearly understood that he paid a high price for not dealing with the logistics of a flight department, maintenance exposure and especially hire/fire of crews. He knew he was paying this spread for the convience. I agree that if people will work with charter operators and get into some guaranteed hour/usage agreements they are likely to come out ahead. Of course some of this will depend upon the type/class of aircraft desired and how competitive the market is where the person is negotiating. I suspect a Gulfstream in LA can be negotiated at lower rates than in an area where there are only 2 or 3 Gulfstreams. A lot of this comes down to the difference of the fractional companies in being the business to make a profit from these operations while most owners that charter are getting direct costs covered with some defraying of the fixed costs. Not really a good or bad situation just a difference of objective. Jeff
Jeff: Good post, mirrors my thoughts exactly. You can, if you are willing to make the effort, you can save quite a bit on fractionals, but then again, depending on the user's circumstances, they may not want to put out the effort to get the savings. I'm not there yet, probably will never be, had to earn my money by working long hours, and no matter how much I get, I can't see wasting it, but I can see how others could see this differently. Art
