chuckakers

The size of the fire doesn't matter much when you're rolling around in it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Based on the acting and writing in that trailer, I'd say this thing could be as big as that box office smash "Cutaway". Just callin' 'em as I see 'em.

no sir beck failed and you failed, i've never listened to stern. Your argument is is pointless, beck is a "serious" news reporter now who is listened to by a bunch of morons. he catapulted himself to fame by giving low blows to his competitors as in this case were he called his competitor's wife and mocked her miscarriage. You apparently haven't listened to Beck, either. He is not a "news reporter" as you call him. He is a commentator and entertainer. By the way, Beck admits to being a first-class A-hole back when he was a drinker. I doubt any of the stuff listed in that blog are going on today. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

and TK says: Why would any businessman want to increase his negative sales as being part of his business plan? There may be some money to be made from the ancillary stuff ( t-shirts, video's, etc ) but if TK says that it is a money losing proposition, I gotta go with him on this one. And he does seem to be a rather successfull dz operator. JerryBaumchen Yes, TK does run a successful drop zone. And so do many DZO's that have used online couponing. And the ones I've talked to plan to continue. Apparently it's better than a net zero for them or I doubt they would be going back for more. As I said to TK, if the DZ is running at capacity or nearly so, these programs won't do much for them because the DZ would only be replacing high gross tandems with low gross ones. However, if there is extra capacity - and nearly every DZ has some - taking slim profits on a controlled basis can be used to spur traffic, promote the DZ, and keep staff paychecks up. I have seen the results for myself and I can tell you the cheap tandems seldom walk in alone and often come with several full price customers. That fact changes the math entirely, and the DZO's using the program seem to understand that. When a cheap tandem walks in with 2 or 3 full priced tandems and some or all them buy a video package, T-shirt, etc., it makes selling one cheapie a pretty smart move. Either that or retailers have been using price point marketing incorrectoly all these years. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

TK, you and I part ways on this one. There's a lot more going on than simply doing low or no-profit tandems - if you choose to see and capitalize on it. Seeing only the immediate is selling yourself short as a businessman. As a former DZO and current vidiot at a Twin Otter DZ that has done one round of Groupon tandem sales, I've had the advantage of seeing what it does to the overall picture at the DZ. I've also quizzed these folks and carefully observed the results of the program in total, not just how many additional tandems are being done. Here's what I've learned. Cheap tandems tend to buy the (profitable) video package at a noticeably higher rate than full price buyers. Same goes with t-shirts and (presumably) other merchandise offered at the DZ - all of which have healthy profit margins. Cheap tandems almost always bring at least one person with them, most of whom are buying a full price tandem. Often several people are with them. The cheapo tandem buyer turns into a recruiter because they don't want to come out alone. And of course with more customers comes more video and merchandise sales. Cheap tandems increase overall volume, and that makes for happy staffers (maybe not a problem in Z-Hills, but most DZ's don't have the luxury of operating in a high traffic tourist area). I watched this summer as TI's and vidiots increased their paychecks by 30% or more. Cheap tandems dramatically increase weekday business, as the weekend schedule fills up further out on the calendar, forcing some of the volume to shift to weekdays. Again, this may not be an issue at Z-Hills, but at the vast majority of DZ's the plane sits idle for much of the week. Cheap tandems take advantage of the old adage "charge a dollar for the first jump and a thousand for the second and you'll have more skydivers". Obviously not possible to that degree, but the point is the same. Customers that don't make a first jump will never make a second, a 100th, or a 5,000th. Yesterday alone I spoke to a group of 3 and another group of 2 that are seriously considering (I can usually tell the difference) entering the student program. In the case of the group of 3, only one bought a cheap tandem. In the case of the group of 2, both were cheapies, but both also bought the (profitable) video package. Next, you are way off when you say you have a problem with Groupon making money at your expense, because they aren't. They - like all the online couponing companies - provide a service you can't provide for yourself. Have you considered what it would cost your business to perform a marketing stunt that would result in selling 1,400 tandems in 24 hours (as my home DZ did with the program)? I'd bet it would cost a bundle, and would come with no gurantee on a return on that cost. Additionally, with the exception of any set-up fees they may have, the coupon company only make a buck when you do. They - not you - spent the money to find your customer. You are simply paying a commission for that, not unlike the ol' "bring a tandem, get a free jump" deal offered to experienced jumpers at many DZ's. You also mention "ripping people off" when speaking about cheap tandems that may never actually make their jump, thus skewing the numbers to the DZ's advantage. With that statement (and including the caveat that you have a conscience) you are saying you believe selling someone a product they might not use is stealing from them. Nothing could be further from the truth. No where in the cheap tandem deal is there a bait and switch, a misrepresentation, or other issues that would cause someone "with a conscience" to feel they are ripping off the buyer. The expiration date of the certificate and restrictions (age, weight, etc.) are clearly stated up front, and no one is forcing the buyer to make a purchase. Using your logic, if I buy something with an expiration date of my own free will and choose not to use it before it expires, I have somehow been cheated. Does a concert promoter owe me my money back if I buy tickets and don't go to the show? That's essentially your argument. If I use a particular car wash because they offer a second wash free, but I don't use it before it expires, have I been ripped off? TK, Simply knowing there will be a percentage of cheap tandems that never show up at the DZ does NOT mean DZO's who use the program are knowingly ripping people off. The buyer made their purchase choice freely, and they alone choose to redeem it or not. That's simply free market capitalism at work. If your plane is full all day every day with full or nearly price tandems, this program may not be for you. However, the program seems to do one thing very well, and that's increase volume across the board. Rather than seeing the program as filling your already full plane with low or no profit tandems, why not see it as a way to add to your aircraft fleet by adding to your overall volume? After all, the airplane could care less what kind of customer gets onboard. It makes money on lift tickets alone, and the real money in this business is made building equity in expensive planes. Do the math. If, after considering everything - the evil no-redemption rate, the increase in video and merchandise sales and purchase ratios, the increase in full-price business generated by the cheapies, the (assumed) increase in new experienced skydivers created by the increase in first-timers, the increase in staff paychecks, and the increased profitability of efficiency gains made by spreading fixed aircraft costs over more loads (which is very real) - I see the program as pretty darned smart for the average DZO. If you can't get past feeling like you're ripping off the guy who chooses not to redeem the certificate and feeling like the coupon company is somehow ripping you off for taking a cut for their services, you probably won't crunch the numbers any further. But unless your business model is a hell of a lot different than most DZ's, I feel pretty confident your bottom line would improve using one of these programs to the extent necessary to maximize what you are already doing. If your bottom line is better, you can do more to further the sport - and that is good for all of us. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Chuck's gear shop is offering Nova main canopies 2 for 1 plastic reserve ripcords for $3 (while supplies last) blast handles 70% off and just in time for Christmas.... Tom Piras signature Cypres AAD's (no batteries needed) just $599 Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

[replyast] ...and of the reaming 50% of revenue they take at le 50%. Thus a DZ which normally sells tandem skydives at full price for $200 each would have to be willing to sell them for $50 or less each.[/url] I question the accuracy of your statement. If I understand your post correctly, you believe that Groupon takes 50% or more of the eventual selling price, making a $200 tandem at half the normal selling price net the DZ just $50. I doubt very much that Groupon (or other coupon companies) take 50%, because many DZ's have indeed been doing 1/2 price (or close) pricing, and that would be a big net loss to their business. Skydive Houston did a $99 Groupon deal recently and it was a big success as far as creating tandem volume. Using your numbers, the DZ took in only $49.50 or less for each one. Looking at typical costs (in Texas) - $30 for the TI, $44 for the lift tickets, $10 for the packer, $5 for equipment wear and tear - that's $89. I doubt any DZO is going to lose 40 bucks per tandem to boost volume. Gotta sell a lot of t-shirts to make that back. The only other caveat that one might mention is the non-redemption rate, which of course skews the numbers to the DZ's advantage. However, even that doesn't work. A DZ would have to have a 50% non-redemption rate just to make up the loss it would be taking on each sale by your calculations. DZO's do gamble (I know, I've been one). But I doubt too many would take those kind of odds just to break even. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

That flat area was for the CamEye II. The HypEye D Pro is mounted just below that area due to the larger base of the HypEye compared to the CamEye. Also, with the thickness of the Rawa helmet, we usually secure the HypEye D Pro with small zip-ties through two small holes on either side of each cable, near the base. I can send a photo later today. Mike Chuting Star to the rescue. Nice job guys! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

huh? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Not sure history would back up your "so many people went in" comment. I don't remember an epidemic of drop zone dents from pull-out users - SST or otherwise - in my years in the sport. Everyone I've ever known that used a pud knew how to use it and how to deal with problems, whatever that meant to them. Fact or folklore - show me the numbers and I'm in. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You could say that to a friend of mine who had been junping for 30 years before he nearly went in feeling for his floating pull out that was pretty much 'in tow proof'. He switched to BOC and bought an AAD Ah yes, the floating pud (a term many won't remember). Most folks I know who jump them learn how to reach to the center of the rig to recover it. Not a big deal if you can. This stiff ol' man would be into his reserve. Of course I'd hum it a bit first, but that's another story. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

They work just fine and are pretty much "in-tow" proof. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I suggest you watch less youtube. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Think about that. +1 "Hey, hold my beer while I try this thing I saw on youtube!" Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

If the unit isn't turned on, it can't save your life if needed either. Blue Skies Forever, Tom Piras World Champion

And if they can come up with one comment that was made during their employment that show a potential for discrimination, they have a case (winnable or not is debatable, but courts will hear them), regardless if they have been given a reason for their termination or not. Look, I'm just telling it as it is in real life when managing people and working for a company that can be a target for suits. If an ex-employee wants to find something an employer said earlier in their employment, they can sue whether you give them a reason for termination or not. I too am talking "real life". I live in Texas - a right to work state - and have been an employer, employee, contractor, and contractee for 20 years in this state. I've also been a person who has had an unenforcable "non-compete" agreement waved in my face by a multi-billion dollar media giant. They also thought they knew Texas law. Funny, they backed off after a call to the state. Unhappy ex-employees happen. Lawsuits happen. But I assure you, anything you say and any reasons you give when firing someone that is of the lawsuit mentality will just be turned against you in court. Don't hand 'em ammo when the law doesn't require you to. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

AZ is a right to work state. Yet, to fire someone, you still need to cover your ass since some statute are federal. No you don't. That's my point. If an employer states why a person is being fired (supposedly covering their ass), they open up a can of worms. Tell a guy he's fired because he keeps showing up late and he'll get a lawyer and claim it's a "condition" that he can't help. Tell him he's being let go because no one can stand the way he smells, and you'll get sued for discriminating against people with a sweating problem. The beauty of a right to work state is that all that crap can be avoided by NOT telling an employee why they are being canned. It's simple. In a right to work state, tell the person they are terminated and show them to the door. Giving them a reason just gives them a starting point and ammo for a lawsuit. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You may not understand "right to work" states. The point is that the employer DOESN"T NEED a reason to fire a person in a right to work state. In fact, to steer clear of lawsuits, it might be best if the employer not give a reason for termination since none is rerquired. "Your services are no longer required" is all the employer needs to say. Besides, you don't "fire" a contractor. You choose not to conduct future business with them. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Rainbow Sabre 1? Sounds like a recipe for a "spankin"! Sorry, I had to do it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I don't disagree with your point, but my point was specifically about flying skills that are clearly inadequate. It stands to reason that a new instructor won't be AS good as one with lots of experience. I'm referring to people (that I actually know) that have trouble with simple RW and yet hold AFF ratings. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Advertise topless packers. Just don't mention your packers are guys. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You're right, I haven't. I have seen a lot of grumpy old instructor complaining about how the new guys suck, completely forgetting how badly they sucked when they were new. _Am Not so. There was a time when new AFF instructors (JM's back in the day) DIDN'T suck. But hey, we have AAD's, so what the hell. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You obviously haven't seen some of the piss poor skydivers that have been pushed through the course in the past decade or more. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

If you can produce the bodies, I'd bet Boyd and Alkek would bring out a turbine. Pretty sure there's a Skyvan or two in their hangar. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Actually it is that simple. The best get hurt too. It should serve as a reminder. Keep healing, Shannon. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX