member survey/audit

31
Member Survey/Audit Prepared by Schwartz Consulting Partners for: The Pinellas Pilot’s Association March, 2008

Upload: flynn-bridges

Post on 03-Jan-2016

37 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Member Survey/Audit. Prepared by Schwartz Consulting Partners for: The Pinellas Pilot’s Association March, 2008. Background. January 2008 : Accident involving PPA member owned aircraft (N7100Q) led to inquiry regarding acquisition of new member owned aircraft - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Member Survey/Audit

Member Survey/Audit

Prepared by Schwartz Consulting Partners for:

The Pinellas Pilot’s Association

March, 2008

Page 2: Member Survey/Audit

Background

• January 2008: Accident involving PPA member owned aircraft (N7100Q) led to inquiry regarding acquisition of new member owned aircraft

• February 2008: Schwartz Consulting Partners, Inc. agrees conduct an internal audit on behalf of the PPA utilizing an online survey research tool– Survey 34 questions in length– User IDs utilized to ensure data security– Blind study with results completely anonymous

• March 2008: Survey results tabulated and presented to PPA members and leadership

Page 3: Member Survey/Audit

Reason for joining the PPA

– “Affordable flying, primarily for trips”– “Was looking for a way to fly at a price lower than single ownership or

renting”– “Friends belonged, superbly maintained airplane, reasonable costs”– “To facilitate obtaining my private license. It seemed to be the economical

way to go”– “Inexpensive way to fly, especially for weekend trips. The only way to fly to

the Bahamas”– “To be able to fly at a reasonable cost”– “To fly”– “To keep single engine current and to be able to take my family on some

trips”– “Excellent aircraft, inexpensive, obtain PPC and additional ratings”– “To learn to fly at cheaper rates and then to have a plane that is affordable”– “In order to stay current flying light aircraft”– “A great way to fly economically and make friends as well”– “To fly, safely and cost effectively”– “Lower rental costs and familiarity with same aircraft”

Why did you originally decide to join the Pinellas Pilot’s Association?

11 out of 14 members surveyed mentioned costs as a factor motivating their decision to join the PPA

Page 4: Member Survey/Audit

Expected Duration of Membership

How long do you expect to maintain your membership in the PPA?

1

0

1

12

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Less than a year 1-2 years 3-4 years 5 or more years

85.7% of members intend to maintain their membership in the PPA for 5 or more years

Page 5: Member Survey/Audit

Average Monthly Flight Time

How many hours (per month) did you typically fly the club’s aircraft before the accident?

2.87

2.43

3.04

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Monthly Average Late Spring/Summer Fall/Winter/Early Spring

When omitting outlying member (average 10 hours per month for each period) mean flight times

decrease to 2.32, 1.85, and 2.50 hours respectively

Page 6: Member Survey/Audit

Barriers to Additional Flight Time

What, if anything, is preventing you from flying more hours than you otherwise would like to fly per month? (select all that apply)

42.9%

28.6%

42.9%

14.3%

21.4%

35.7%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Weather AircraftAvailability

Time Money Nothing Other

Other Reasons Provided:

-“Work”

-“I fly for a living and thus am current”

-“License”

-“I just joined the PPA”

-“Roomier aircraft (cockpit/cabin)”

“Weather” and “Time” were the two most commonly cited reasons for not flying more often

Page 7: Member Survey/Audit

Factors Limiting Club Size

Which of the following do you believe should be factors limiting the size of the club?

14.3%

21.4%

92.9%

0.0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Number of Members Number of Aircraft Number of Membersper Aircraft

Should be No Limits

Preferred Limits (Average):

- Number of Members: 17.5

- Number of Aircraft: 1.3

- Members p/Aircraft: 15.5

Nearly all members favored instituting a limit on the number of members per aircraft, with a reported

average preference of 15.5 members per a/c

Page 8: Member Survey/Audit

Acceptance of Student Pilots

Should the PPA continue to accept student pilots (primary – PPL) as members?

64.30%

0.00%

35.70%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

Yes No Maybe

Nearly two-thirds of members support continuing to allow student pilots to join the

PPA

Page 9: Member Survey/Audit

Acceptance of Student Pilots – Maybe Verbatims

• Reasons given for “maybe” responses to the question of whether or not to continue to admit student pilot members to the club:– Not sure what impact [a student] has on the licensed pilots*– Limit student pilots to take away some of the burden on the

instructors to fly more than they would like*– “If it saves on insurance costs, I would say no. Also, if we get a

higher performance aircraft I would also say no. Plus then we could make ‘flying references’ a requirement for entry”

– “No I’m unsure”– “Students will typically want to use the plane for a couple of

hours every Saturday which will prevent weekend trips for others”

* = Response paraphrased to conceal the identity of the respondent

Page 10: Member Survey/Audit

Secondary Aircraft Usage

If the PPA were to purchase a secondary, two-place aircraft (such as a Cessna 150/152) which of the following would apply to your expected use of that aircraft?

50.0%

42.9%

21.4%

14.3%

21.4%

50.0%

28.6%

21.4%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Training Keep skillsfresh

Save money With apassenger

Only ifprimary

checked out

To free upprimary a/c

Would askprimarypilot toswitch

Wouldnever flythe a/c

About 1 in 5 members responded that they would never fly the two-place aircraft – half indicated

that they would use it for training purposes

Page 11: Member Survey/Audit

Relative Usage – Primary/Secondary AircraftIf the PPA were to purchase both a primary (four-place or more) and secondary (two-place) aircraft, what percentage of your monthly flight time do you believe

would be spent flying each aircraft? (provide two numbers that add to 100)?

75.7%

24.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Primary Aircraft Secondary Aircraft

Max: 100%

Max: 80%

Min: 20%

Min: 0%

Lines imposed on graph represent range of responses provided – values are mean

percentages

Page 12: Member Survey/Audit

Maximum Fixed Monthly CostsEach member currently pays $100 per month in fixed costs. What is the maximum amount per month you would be willing to pay to cover these costs in the future?

$133.57

$169.64

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

One aircraft Two aircraft

Max: $150

Max: $250

Min: $100 Min: $100

Members were willing to pay, on average, $36 per month more for the inclusion of a second aircraft

Page 13: Member Survey/Audit

Maximum Hourly Usage Costs

$76.79

$45.36

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

$100

Primary Aircraft Secondary Aircraft

We paid $62.50 per hour (wet) for flight time in N7100Q. What is the maximum amount you would be willing to pay per hour for a primary and secondary aircraft?

When removing “$0.00” responses from secondary aircraft, average increases to $57.72

Max: $90 Max: $90

Min: $65

Max: $0

Page 14: Member Survey/Audit

Primary Aircraft - Descriptives

14.3%

14.3%

71.4%

Yes

No

Maybe

28.6%

7.1%64.3%

Yes

No

Maybe

0.0%

92.9%

7.1%

Yes

No

Maybe

Should the aircraft be…High Performance? Complex?

Multi-Engine? Carbureted/Fuel Injected?7.1%

28.6%

64.3%

Carburated

Fuel Injected

Either

Page 15: Member Survey/Audit

Primary Aircraft SeatingHow many seats should the primary aircraft have?

0.0%

85.7%

0.0%

14.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2 4 6+ No Preference

Nearly 86% of members preferred a 4 seat aircraft – the remaining 14% indicated no preference

Page 16: Member Survey/Audit

High Wing vs. Low WingDo you have a preference between ‘high wing’ or ‘low wing’ aircraft?

57.1%

0.0%

42.9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

High Wing Low Wing No Preference

No members indicated a preference for low wing aircraft

Reasons for High Wing preference

-”Greater visibility for traffic avoidance”

-”Keep you out of the sun and out of the rain”

-”Line of site and keeping cool in the summer”

-”More experience in high wing, better visibility”

-”More familiar with high wing, better for passenger sight seeing”

-”Safer to land and easier to control”

-”That’s just what I’m used to – easier to preflight”

Page 17: Member Survey/Audit

Preferred Make/Model

• “A 172 is most practical, but a Cirrus SR22 would be a good addition if affordable for its increased speed and service ceiling”

• “Anything that is supposed to fly carrying 3-6 people is fine by me. The engine would be 180hp or greater if possible”

• “C-172, 172XP, 182 – Again, most of my experience is in these types of aircraft and I am impressed with their safety record”

• “Anything with some shoulder and elbow room – 172s are too cramped”

• “C-182/C-172XP or SP”• “Cessna 172 – I was happy with the

aircraft we had, would like to see it replaced with something similar”

• “No”

• “Cessna 172, 172XP, 177, 182 – I think we can get a good deal and I like the way they fly. Plenty of parts and people to work on them”

• “Cessna 172, it’s the aircraft that everyone in the club signed up for. Everyone seems happy with 7100Q”

• “Cessna 172/177/182 – More familiar with Cessna high wing”

• “Cessna because I am used to flying it”• “Cessna Cardinal, 182, 210, possibly a

Mooney”• “I think that a C172SP with good

instrumentation would be great for all, especially the pilots working on instrument ratings. The Piper Archer is also a very reliable airplane with good performance”

• “No particular preference “

Do you have a preference between ‘high wing’ or ‘low wing’ aircraft?

Page 18: Member Survey/Audit

Oldest Aircraft to be Considered

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

7.1% 7.1%

57.1%

14.3% 14.3%

0.0%0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

< 5 5 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25 26 to 30 31 to 35 36 to 40 > 40

What is the oldest aircraft the club should consider when looking at primary aircraft? In other words, what is the maximum age that the club should even consider looking at?

Computed average age: 29.1 years

Page 19: Member Survey/Audit

Target/Oldest Engine AgeIn terms of engine hours, hold old of an engine should the PPA target? Please

provide both an ideal/target age that you would prefer, and the oldest engine you think the club should consider. Assume overhaul would be required after 2000 hours

360.7

1,150.0

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Target Engine Age Oldest Engine Age

Max: 1000

Max: 2000

Min: 0

Min: 500

Values represent average age of the engine in hours based on a 2000 hour overhaul

Page 20: Member Survey/Audit

Lowest Exterior/Interior Condition Acceptable

5.6 5.6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Exterior Interior

If you were to rate an aircraft's exterior on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being very poor, and 10 being excellent - what would be the lowest acceptable exterior/interior rating

you would be willing to accept for a primary aircraft?

The average lowest acceptable condition (on a 10 point scale) were identical for both exterior and interior conditions

Max: 7 Max: 7

Min: 3

Min: 4

Page 21: Member Survey/Audit

Maximum/Minimum Price Range – Primary A/C

80,500

47,308

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

$100,000

Maximum Minimum

What price range should we consider for the purchase of a new primary aircraft (assuming that this rate will affect loan payments and insurance costs)?

Max: $100,000

Min: $62,000Max: $55,000

Min: $40,000

Members largely in agreement on minimum price, as indicated by narrow range of responses

Page 22: Member Survey/Audit

Upfront CostsHow much would you be willing to be assessed up front by the club for a new, primary

aircraft? This would serve to lower monthly dues and increase the share price.

1,550.0

2,004.0

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

$4,500

$5,000

For One Aircraft For Two Aircraft

Max: $3000

Min: $0

Max: $5000

Min: $0

Considerable differences exist across the membership with regards to the amount each member is willing to pay up front to defer costs

Page 23: Member Survey/Audit

Guarantors

21.4%

28.6%

50.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Yes No Maybe

Would you be willing to be a guarantor of the loan?

Nearly three-quarters of the membership indicated that they would at least consider being a guarantor of the loan

Page 24: Member Survey/Audit

Optional Equipment – COM Radios

3.25 3.23

2.001.90

1.70

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Dual COM, OneAnalog, One

Digital

Dual COM, BothDigital

Single COM,Digital

Dual COM, BothAnalog

Single COM,Analog

[Scaled 1 to 4: 4 = Should be Required; 1 = Do not want this in the a/c]

Strong preference for two COM radios, although members equally satisfied with either one or both being digital

Page 25: Member Survey/Audit

Optional Equipment – NAV Radios[Scaled 1 to 4: 4 = Should be Required; 1 = Do not want this in the a/c]

3.46

3.27

2.30

1.901.82

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Dual VOR, OneILS

Dual VOR, BothILS

Single VOR, w/ILS Dual VOR, No ILS Single VOR, NoILS

Dual VORs preferred – members slightly prefer only one having ILS capability, however

Page 26: Member Survey/Audit

Optional Equipment – Other NAV Equipment[Scaled 1 to 4: 4 = Should be Required; 1 = Do not want this in the a/c]

3.83

3.623.46 3.42

3.23

2.832.75

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

MarkerBeacons

DME VFR GPS Transponder,Analog

Transponder,Digital

IFR GPS ADF

Members preferred an analog transponder over a digital one; Weak preference for IFR GPS and ADF

Page 27: Member Survey/Audit

Optional Equipment – Weather/Auto-Pilot/MFD

3.38

3.15

2.82 2.77

2.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Auto Pilot -Heading Only

Auto Pilot -Heading &Altitude

In CockpitWeather

Storm Scope MFD (GlassPanel)

[Scaled 1 to 4: 4 = Should be Required; 1 = Do not want this in the a/c]

Members preferred single axis auto pilot capabilities over dual axis auto

pilot

Page 28: Member Survey/Audit

Optional Equipment – Engine Instrumentation[Scaled 1 to 4: 4 = Should be Required; 1 = Do not want this in the a/c]

3.15 3.08 3.08 3.083.00

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Engine Mng -Digital (CHT/EGT)

Engine Mng -Analog

(CHT/EGT)

Fuel Flow -Analog

Fuel Flow - Digital Engine Lean Help

Comparable preferences across each of the engine instruments

Page 29: Member Survey/Audit

Optional Equipment – Intercom/Misc. Equipment

[Scaled 1 to 4: 4 = Should be Required; 1 = Do not want this in the a/c]

3.62 3.623.54 3.54

3.42

3.00

2.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Four PlaceIntercom

ELT w/496mhz

StandbyVacuum

Sunshields StandyStatic Port

TCAS Two PlaceIntercom

Definite preference for four place intercom over two place system

Page 30: Member Survey/Audit

Final Thoughts/Input

• “152s and 172s are too cramped – prefer an aircraft with easier entry and exit, and more cabin space. Don’t want complex aircraft. Keep it simple”

• “Get an aircraft equipped similar to 00Q”

• “I think if we decide to purchase 2 aircraft, they should both be 4-place – just gives you many more options for not a lot of money”

• “I think we should continue with one aircraft first, before considering a second aircraft”

• I think with regards to cost or upfront money, it depends on the aircraft. If we find a great bird at a little higher cost then I might put in more money. I do want to keep hourly costs to a minimum”

• “If we can afford 2 4-seaters I think that would make everyone happy”

• “Thank you”• “The PPA is a very unique

organization and should remain so for a very very long time. I would like to see the PPA grow to multiple A/C so even more pilots could enjoy inexpensive flight”

• We might consider utilizing PayPal for monthly dues – that way those of us who earn miles might be able to charge our monthly fees on our credit cards. I would be willing to pay a small fee for this”

• When legal matters are resolved and money is available, enlist all resources local and distant to locate and purchase a replacement aircraft

Page 31: Member Survey/Audit

Schwartz Consulting Partners, Inc.5027 West Laurel StreetTampa, Florida 33607

T: 813.207.0332 F: 813.207.0717

www.schwartzconsulting.com