Certain lobbying groups have been banging their PR drums lately, saying that politicians should stop picking on business ownership and use of corporate aircraft. In a way they are right, but they are also wrong. These same groups have been crying like stuck pigs about proposed security rules for aircraft with MGTOW over 12,500 pounds, saying these sorts of regulations just aren't needed.
I assiduously avoid "political" topics in my blog, but these two issues have me riled. Some individuals and businesses use so-called business aircraft in an intelligent way. Others are just plain stupid, they waste money for their own amusement, and they deserve to be called on the carpet to account for their behavior. And soon they might have to take off their shoes and be subjected to physical searches before they board business jets, like the unwashed masses who fly on the airlines. Not only am I not crying about this, I confess to just a wee bit of schadenfreude.
A few years ago, while my student was refueling a Cessna 172 at the self-serve pumps at Oakland, I noticed a Boeing Business Jet (a 737 in this case) taxi behind our Cessna and park in the FBO's "hot spot." The engines were shut down, the chocks installed, and the stairway wheeled into place and we witnessed ... wait for it ... one man in a suit deplane, get into a waiting limo and speed away. I don't know how much it costs per hour to operate a BBJ, but the carbon loading on that guy's carcass had to be unbelievably high. When a friend working at the FBO told me who the BBJ belonged to, I was glad I didn't have any of their stock in my retirement portfolio.
For comparison, a relative works for a company with two business aircraft in their fleet and they apply a formula to determine if using one of the corporate aircraft is cost effective. Part of that calculation involves the number of company personnel who must travel and whether or not a better deal can be had using a commercial airline and a rental car. If the trip comes on short notice, airline seats may come at a premium and the corporate aircraft may well be cheaper. Or they may need to fly to a location where regional airline service is expensive and the business aircraft might be a cheaper choice. If there is advance notice or only a couple of employees need to make the trip, they may well end up flying on a commercial carrier. When I heard about this approach, I was glad that I had some of that company's stock in my retirement portfolio.
Proposed security changes for aircraft with a maximum gross takeoff weight exceeding 12,500 pounds also has some groups up in arms. The problem is the additional cost of providing airline-style security requirements will increase costs and reduce profits for busness, charter and fractional operations. But the security geeks may indeed have valid concerns. A Cessna 172 can't do much damage if used as a weapon, but a Gulfstream or Hawker certainly could.
I don't travel on commercial airlines often, but as an independent flight instructor I've had to shoulder my own share of the national security burden. For several years now, flight instructors have been required to be border guards. Before giving instruction in an aircraft or simulator, we must determine if the training is for an initial pilot certificate or an additional rating. If the answer is yes, the prospective student must show us their passport or other proof that they are a US citizen. If they are a US citizen, we have to give them a logbook endorsement saying they have proven that they are a US citizen. If they are a foreign national, they have to register with the TSA and request permission to train. We get notification if their request is approved or denied. We have to photograph them and send the photo to the TSA. And we need to keep copies of all these records and any TSA-related endorsements we give for 5 years, even though the FAA requires all other endorsements to be kept for just 3 years.
And consider the periodic security checks that the TSA performs on flight schools. We have to prove that as instructors, we have undergone initial TSA security awareness training and annual recurrent security awareness training and that we have given ourselves the required logbook endorsements. Yes, that's right, this is the one time instructors actually give themselves an endorsement. So when I heard that people traveling on larger business jets might have to take off their shoes and undergo security screening, my reaction was "Boohoo!"
Claiming that any company's use of corporate aircraft is beyond reproach and dismissing out of hand any additional security for a larger aircraft is silly. But the worst part is the mindless repetition of these claims, a sadly successful strategy that seems to be the latest approach to swaying public opinion. It's not lying exactly, but it certainly is not telling the whole truth.
Will smaller airports feel the economic hurt as fewer corporate aircraft hours are flown? You bet. Will some corporate pilots lose their jobs as flight department staff are reduced or eliminated entirely? Will the cost of traveling on business jets increase if these security rules are implemented? Of course. This just in: We're all feeling the pain.
So forgive me if I don't shed too many tears for the downsizing or outright elimination of corporate aircraft flight departments. And if national security really is important, we all need to shoulder some of the burden. And if I could line up the lobbying groups, PR hacks and fat cats, and talk to them directly, the words first words that come to mind are
Why I otta ...
Disclaimer: No corporate officers, politicians, lobbyists or public relations professionals were harmed in the writing of this blog.
