Corporate Jet Models

Business aircraft models

Players are drawn back to Macau by private jets and performances. WebSite Firewall Sucuri - Access Refused When you are the website owners (or maintain this website), please put your Internet Protocol address on the white list, or if you think this section is an bug, please open a technical assistance pass and make sure you enter the section detail (see below) so that we can help you troubleshoot.

Log details: Blocking reason: Access from your country has been deactivated by the Admin.

The 5 most important causes for private jet sharing are a failed business model.

There is no functioning commercial jet share mode. In fact, there has never been a single example that a privately owned jet-sharing firm is promising or can live without raising a lot of investment in it. Nevertheless, there are many instances of this unfortunate one. DayJet, BlackJet, Indigo, GreenJets, POGO, ShareAJet Exchange, Jet-It-Together, Airpooler, Gotham Air, Club Airways, Beacon, Perfect Jet Travel, Freshjets, JumpJet, SATSair, etc. are just a few of the many outages the corporate airline community experiences.

Now, some of the latest actors in the field, such as Jetsmarter and Surf Air, are showing serious symptoms of slack. JetSmarter is currently the best-known jet share operating privately. Jetsmarter, like many of its forerunners, has called itself the new "Uber for Privatjets". Managed by CEO and founder Sergey Petrossov, a respected businessman and Forbes award winner for the Top 30 Under 30 in consumer technology and Sun-Sentinel's South Florida Top Working Professional, the firm is the world's leading provider of consumer technology solutions.

Petrusov has brought portable applications technologies into the realm of beam splitting, hoping to succeed where so many others have not. After all, investment funds will run out and Jetsmarter will suffer the same destiny as BlackJet and everyone else. Why do all this raise the question of why does investment remain in a strategy that has the poorest possible record of success?

The advantages of privately operated air services are greater effectiveness, safety, reliability, versatility, comfort, ease and, of course, personal space.

So when a privately held jet-sharing operator is offering all these advantages at the cost of a corporate airfare, one asks oneself how this could be possible. Actually, the word "private jet" is used to describe the flying environment, not for a particular jet or mode. It differs from the concept of "business jet" or "corporate jet", which relates to a particular category of aeroplane.

This means that any jet can be a'private jet' as long as there are no other external entities on the ship, whether it is a small Cessna Mustang or a Boeing 757. Nevertheless, clients expect at least an appearance of an adventure and services in privacy jet fashion. Whilst it is evident that many of the advantages are eliminated with the privately owned jet share technology paradigm, the issue of face-to-face services is also a problem for operators.

Do not underestimate the manpower needed to deliver the high levels of individual attention that conventional privately chartered aircraft operators deliver to such a large group. That' s why we never see jet share firms brag about extending memberships; they certainly are low. Configuring the cabins of a commercial jet is not geared towards economic efficiency, but towards convenience.

On the other side, airliners are designed for maximal economy. Airline companies and airliner producers are specialists in this field. A number of models, such as the Embraer 135, cover both market segments. ERJ-135's Legacy 650 version is designed for 12 or 13 passenger.

In this sense, how can a jet-sharing firm say it can provide a personal jet-style event for the cost of an aircraft passenger cabin chair when carriers carry three equal numbers of people in the same aircraft? My guess is that many an investor is drawn into this approach and then wheyed on to extra invested money, arguing that the firm will eventually reach profit by achieving mission-critical mass.

Crucial measure relates to the amount of space a business needs to achieve in order to be efficient and competitive in the marketplace. That is also the magnitude that a business must achieve in order to ensure continued profitable and efficient operations. One of the main problems with this notion is that the point at which the per-seat subscription becomes feasible is much higher than what the industry will carry.

Specifically, if a jet-sharing carrier ever charges a subscription or air fare even remotely equivalent to what is necessary to be self-sustaining, the markets for such a facility would immediately run out. Consequently, jet share firms are compelled to set costs too low to ensure a steady stream of new members.

In addition to pricing, there are two other central issues with the jet swimming approach that are preventing the theoretical knowledge of missioncritical mass from paying off in this particular area. It is the growing speed that is the crucial determinant of the survival of any system. When it comes to the idea of privately owned jet shares, growing numbers are generated by increasing demands, and increasing demands can only be met by increasing membership.

Requests, however, depend on the route serviced, as we see it in civil air transport. How does a Jetsmarter business get access to new market places and win new members? Because Jetsmarter offers regular services between New York and South Florida, for example, a New York resident who often goes to Miami is likely to consider becoming a member.

But for a business like Jetsmarter, the challenge is that all these important services are already in place and customer demands are depleted. Consequently, the business is compelled to look for new members in smaller towns in order to sustain the required rates of increase. In the end, there is simply not enough buoyancy to cope with the necessary increase to keep these systems above water.

In fact, some jet share firms have gone so far as to make jet travel available to the people. In order to put this into context, there are less than 30,000 corporate jet aircraft worldwide, of which only about 5,000 are available for charters.

It is a dilemma that is undoubtedly ignored when trying to copy the Uber aircraft models in personal air travel. Uber's expansion is only restricted to the number of individuals with a smart phone, as anyone with a respectable automobile can provide a boost to the mobile phone industry without significant obstacles.

On the other side, privately owned air transport is a small and small business with very small capacities. In the past, the available elevator was reserved only for wealthy households (HNWIs) and companies, a small group. In particular, the commercial jet fleet available for charters is even smaller and heavily deregulated. Indeed, the compliance procedure (obtaining FAA approval to provide an aeroplane for rent ) alone is long and expensive, usually taking weeks or even years.

Briefly, the provision of corporate jets, pilot, relief and regulatory staff is inadequate and inflexible to handle the rates of increase a corporation like Jetsmarter needs to keep the system up and running.

Auch interessant

Mehr zum Thema