Krip 2
"Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence "
Recommended Posts
normiss 622
Well we see how well that worked out in Zephyrhills.... 
mirage62 0
+1
Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little
QuoteHi Captain
When SDC opened next to Z-hills. BR and his partners offered a lot of freebee's to give the fun jumpers a real incentive to go there. I expect if BR moves to Deland he will undercut the existing DZ's prices or offer other incentives.
Tandem price wars? maybe
Cheaper lift tickets or extra altitude? Maybe
Remember back in the day when there was a gas station located across the street from ea other one station undercut the competion. then the competition undercut the other guy.
IMO The safety issue isn't worth saving a couple of bucks for the experience jumper and delands loyal customers.
But the tandems and AFFWhat do they know. Thats where the real money is. Both DZ's will have the USPA seal of approval as GMDZ's. and turbo's.
Politic's and bullies with deep pockets
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
What do they know. Thats where the real money is. Both DZ's will have the USPA seal of approval as GMDZ's. and turbo's. 
Hi Krip,
You are correct! The real battle would be "who gets the tandem and student business". The marketing skills of both operations will be put to the test here.
There is a certain amount of loyalty and familiarity that determines where many experienced skydivers frequent.
And listening to the skuttlebutt around DeLand, I think most will boycott any newbie on the field. Especially one as controversial as they are.
Everyone I know or talk to on the subject stands behind TK and Z-Hills on their situation.
You live more in the few minutes of skydiving than many people live in their lifetime
normiss 622
Yup. 
Krip 2
Hi Capt
In a competitive enviroment how long can a DZ offer $90 tandems, and low ball AFF $$ to steal customers before they go broke.
I suspect deep pockets can get some peeps from up north to haul the baggage. So if the koals don't want to work in that negative enviroment and the added safety risk . Someone will.
Just hope no one gets killed The other stuff is just money and ego. that can be replaced. A would be really 
The $90 is my WAG I pulled out of my butt so no rumor starting here.
The easiest solution would be to buy the empty hanger. But the deep pockets would just build their own hanger if there's room on the airport
One Jump Wonder
3331 108
http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/west-volusia/2011/02/08/deland-delays-sky-diving-decision.html
I Jumped with the guys who invented Skydiving.
I wonder if the outlying circumstances surrounding the opening of the new DZ can or will be brought into consideration.
The history behind FFE and Deland, FFE and Skydive City, the move from FFE to Skydive Deland as an aircraft supplier to Skydive City, and the static FFE has created over in Z-hills in the wake of that switch over should all be looked into.
I know that it's Billy's brother Joe who is standing up in front of the board looking for the approval, and that all of this 'scuttlebutt' might not be related, but the problem I see is that if there is a hint that the motivation for opening this new DZ is anything but an honest effort to open a new business in good-faith, then it should be denied.
So FEE and crew open a DZ across the field from Skydive Deland, and go to work to 'bury' them. They undercut their prices and do whatever it takes to steal their business and make them disappear. Now, the city has traded a 30-year tennant, contributor to the local economy and 'good neighbor' for the remaining FFE backed DZ which is unproven and born out of a desire for revenge. The city and the airport would have been better off just sticking with one DZ, the one that has proven itself for the last three decades.
Is there any sort of system for city residents or other airport tennants to comment/object/etc? If there is, I would hope that somebody down there steps up and brings everyone involved up to speed on the back story, and what might really be going on there.
The history behind FFE and Deland, FFE and Skydive City, the move from FFE to Skydive Deland as an aircraft supplier to Skydive City, and the static FFE has created over in Z-hills in the wake of that switch over should all be looked into.
I know that it's Billy's brother Joe who is standing up in front of the board looking for the approval, and that all of this 'scuttlebutt' might not be related, but the problem I see is that if there is a hint that the motivation for opening this new DZ is anything but an honest effort to open a new business in good-faith, then it should be denied.
So FEE and crew open a DZ across the field from Skydive Deland, and go to work to 'bury' them. They undercut their prices and do whatever it takes to steal their business and make them disappear. Now, the city has traded a 30-year tennant, contributor to the local economy and 'good neighbor' for the remaining FFE backed DZ which is unproven and born out of a desire for revenge. The city and the airport would have been better off just sticking with one DZ, the one that has proven itself for the last three decades.
Is there any sort of system for city residents or other airport tennants to comment/object/etc? If there is, I would hope that somebody down there steps up and brings everyone involved up to speed on the back story, and what might really be going on there.
http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/compliance_5190_6/media/5190_6b_chap8.pdf
***Chapter 8. Exclusive Rights
8.1. Introduction. This chapter describes the sponsor's federal obligations under Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights, which prohibits an airport sponsor from granting an exclusive right for the use of the airport, including granting an exclusive right to any person or entity providing or intending to provide aeronautical services to the public. In particular, the sponsor may not grant a special privilege or a monopoly to anyone providing aeronautical services on the airport or engaging in an aeronautical use. The intent of this restriction is to promote aeronautical activity and protect fair competition at federally obligated airports.
a. Conditions for Denial.
The assurance prohibiting the granting of an exclusive right does not penalize a sponsor for continuing an existing single provider when both of the following
conditions exist:
(1). It can be demonstrated that it would be unreasonably costly, burdensome, or impractical for
more than one entity to provide the service, and
(2). The sponsor would have to reduce the leased space that is currently being used for an aeronautical purpose by the existing provider in order to accommodate a second provider. In the case of denying additional providers, the sponsor must have adequate justification and documentation of the facts supporting its decision acceptable to the FAA.
Both conditions must be met. (See 49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)(4)(A and B)
b. Demonstrable Need. When the service provider has space in excess of its reasonable needs and the sponsor claims it is justified based on the service provider's future needs, the FAA may find the sponsor in violation of the exclusive rights prohibition if the service provider is banking land and/or facilities that it cannot put to gainful aeronautical use in a reasonable period of time and/or the vacant property controlled by the service provider denies a competitor from gaining
entry onto the airport.***
You'll have to wait to see what the FAA safety study says, and if it says there is no reason a second "SASO" can't be accommodated then it cost the City of Deland a lot of federal funding to say no.
***Chapter 8. Exclusive Rights
8.1. Introduction. This chapter describes the sponsor's federal obligations under Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights, which prohibits an airport sponsor from granting an exclusive right for the use of the airport, including granting an exclusive right to any person or entity providing or intending to provide aeronautical services to the public. In particular, the sponsor may not grant a special privilege or a monopoly to anyone providing aeronautical services on the airport or engaging in an aeronautical use. The intent of this restriction is to promote aeronautical activity and protect fair competition at federally obligated airports.
a. Conditions for Denial.
The assurance prohibiting the granting of an exclusive right does not penalize a sponsor for continuing an existing single provider when both of the following
conditions exist:
(1). It can be demonstrated that it would be unreasonably costly, burdensome, or impractical for
more than one entity to provide the service, and
(2). The sponsor would have to reduce the leased space that is currently being used for an aeronautical purpose by the existing provider in order to accommodate a second provider. In the case of denying additional providers, the sponsor must have adequate justification and documentation of the facts supporting its decision acceptable to the FAA.
Both conditions must be met. (See 49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)(4)(A and B)
b. Demonstrable Need. When the service provider has space in excess of its reasonable needs and the sponsor claims it is justified based on the service provider's future needs, the FAA may find the sponsor in violation of the exclusive rights prohibition if the service provider is banking land and/or facilities that it cannot put to gainful aeronautical use in a reasonable period of time and/or the vacant property controlled by the service provider denies a competitor from gaining
entry onto the airport.***
You'll have to wait to see what the FAA safety study says, and if it says there is no reason a second "SASO" can't be accommodated then it cost the City of Deland a lot of federal funding to say no.
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo
Hi Captain
![[:/]](//www.dropzone.com/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png "[:/]")
What do they know. Thats where the real money is. Both DZ's will have the USPA seal of approval as GMDZ's. and turbo's.
When SDC opened next to Z-hills. BR and his partners offered a lot of freebee's to give the fun jumpers a real incentive to go there. I expect if BR moves to Deland he will undercut the existing DZ's prices or offer other incentives.
Tandem price wars? maybe
Cheaper lift tickets or extra altitude? Maybe
Remember back in the day when there was a gas station located across the street from ea other one station undercut the competion. then the competition undercut the other guy.
IMO The safety issue isn't worth saving a couple of bucks for the experience jumper and delands loyal customers.
But the tandems and AFF
Politic's and bullies with deep pockets
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites