gemini

I intentionally omitted the tandem direct costs because there were to many numbers in the discussion already, but you are absolutely correct. What I really wanted to show that there can be a profit in a fun jump if managed correctly. Blue skies, Jim

You hit the nail on the head! A lot is like smoke and mirrors, but the rest is just bad management and that includes bad decisions all across the board...from employee management, facilities, location, business planning, banking, insurance, aircraft management, cash planning, etc. Blue skies, Jim

Let me check...well Iraq's borders looks like they did before, umhhh...Afghanistan's borders look like they did before, ummhhh Georgia's borders look like...wait they're different! Two provinces are no longer there and, well bless my sole, they're occupied by Russians...heavens we did that? Oh yes you can say the US created Georgia, but then you might have to say the US created the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and all the Stans too. Blue skies, Jim

Boy are you off base! If I was doing it for tax purposes it would be a loss due to non-cash depreciation expenese. That varies based on volume of operations. For example, larger facility generates more repair and maintainance expense, more electric, more advertising expense generates more telephone expense, more traffic means more parking, road issues, etc. None of which directly put one jumper in the air. Again we are talking about the money lost on fun jumpers. I am telling you you can make money on fun jumpers and you can make a lot if you have the volume. If your overhead expenses are out of line with your sales (jump revenue) that is an entirely different matter as I have discussed. I wish! And that would make you right somehow? Blue skies, Jim

At my dropzone the jumper pays $23 per jump. A full plane of 23 jumpers costs $11 per slot, fuel at $5 per gallon is around $5.43 per jumper per load, pilot get $0.65 per jumper per load. This returns a gross margin to the DZ of $5.92 per jumper per jump or 25.7% from which the DZ pays overhead expenses. The breakeven load is $18 jumpers at $5 per gallon fuel. A DZO has to have the discipline to not fly fewer than the breakeven humber of jumpers on any fun jump load, or to mix tandems, students and fun jumpers on each load. If a DZO makes a decision to fly at a loss, that doesn't have anything to do with the profitability of his service segment. It is a bad business decision that he made. Do it enough and he is out of business. Again guys you gross $200 for one tandem one time. And at 100 jumps per year you net $592 per the fun jumper. If you have enough tandems to fly every load, all day full and would have to bump a tandem to fly a fun jumper that is a different story. But if I have a plane with an empty seat, I'm putting a fun jumper in it and keeping his $5.92. If I have a plane sitting with no tandems, I'm putting at least 18 jumpers in it, breaking even on the load, and keeping the DZ alive and active. And all the fancy shit, everyone pays for that including the tandems because it is overhead! Ask yourself who it is really for - Fun jumpers who jumped for years without fancy shit, or the tandems, their families and guests who are at the DZ all day waiting? And don't forget some of the fancy shit is there not because the customers demanded it, it is there because the DZO wanted it because some other DZ had it and his DZ is just as good as theirs. Again, maybe a bad business decision by the DZO to invest so heavily in infrastructure that is not needed. It's just another part of the marketing plan to get the tandems in and keep them on the DZ to spend money. If a fun jumper spends a little while he is there, so be it, but most are out of there at the end of the jump day. Don't get me wrong, I love a DZ with a good bar like the Bombshelter in Perris, but my DZ doesn't have one and I still go there! Blue skies, Jim

And you my friend are buying a load from a DZO! I have current first hand experience with the DZ financials and everything I've told you for a turbine DZ is the truth. I will give you the Cessna DZ's though because they don't have the volume they need. Since you say you have 30 years experience and could not make a profit with fun jumpers then I have to assume that you either were being overcharged for aircraft, weren't including all your cash receipts, or had a crappy accountant/accounting system. Let me restate so you can understand: In today's business climate, a DZO cannot afford to give up 2/3's of his business to only do tandems. Why? Because the tandems who would become students have no incentive to stay at that DZ. They see no other activity, but tandems; there is nothing else going on, and in the long-term that DZ will go belly up if a local competitor offers "full-service" to everyone. Remember without fun jumpers there are no parties, no load organizing, no mentors, no SCR's, etc. Blue skies, Jim

I call bullshit again! We've discussed this before. The dz gets $200 for a tandem in a year and $1000+ from the fun jumper over the year. Even at a lower profit margin on the fun jumps he makes more money off the fun jumper over a year than any tandem. If he doesn't, he isn't a very good businessman. DZ's traditionally get 1/3 of their total revenue from tandems, 1/3 from students, and 1/3 from fun jumpers. Who would give up 2/3's of their revenue to only do fun jumpers. OK back on topic: Some DZ's charge cash vs credit card jump prices to recover the cc fees. Blue skies, Jim

Haven't spent much time in Houston have you Billy! Only hills are the freeway overpasses. Blue skies, Jim

Carol & Lee: Many thanks for hosting the 36-ways last weekend. Even with the weather delays, we all had a great time and did some really fun, challenging jumps with Larry Henderson at the helm. I think the change will be extremely good for SDD and I look forward to visiting for many more years. Blues, Jim Alkek

Here's the formation diagram. I only have slots for the Texas E Plane. Blue skies, Jim

No Joe is safe, but I don't see you anymore! ;) Blue skies, Jim

WELLINGTON (Reuters) - A New Zealand court has allowed a parade of topless porn stars on motor bikes to proceed on the main street of the country's biggest city, local media said Tuesday. Auckland City Council had sought a court injunction to stop the "Boobs on Bikes" parade, scheduled for Wednesday, saying it breached a bylaw banning offensive public events. But Judge Nicola Mathers said while opponents may find the parade offensive or tasteless, the fact that 80,000 people had gathered for a similar event last year meant a significant number of people did not agree with the critics, New Zealand Press Association said. The parade on Queens St., featuring leather-clad local and international porn stars, is part of an "Erotica Expo" organized by self-styled "porn king" Steve Crow. Blue skies, Jim

2008 Estimated population: 20,600,856 people Australia Medal Count Gold 11 Silver 13 Bronze 14 Total 38 Australia Athletes » Blue skies, Jim

Prices at warring gas stations drop below $3 From Staff Reports Published: 08.13.08 A gas price war is heating up in northwest Houston, bringing out bargain-shopping drivers by the dozens. A Chevron gas station and a Shell gas station on opposite sides of the intersection of FM 529 and N. Eldridge have been steadily dropping gas prices in a business competition. At last check just after 4 p.m., gas was selling at the Shell station for $2.79 a gallon. The price at the Chevron station was $2.78. By 4:30 p.m., Shell dropped their price to $2.69 and Chevron was at $2.72. Shortly before 6 p.m., the prices had dropped to $2.38 at Chevron and $2.39 at Shell. Close to 6:30 p.m., prices were down to $2.33 and $2.32. Drivers have lined up around the stations, hoping to get in on the bargain fill-up. Traffic is slowing down in the area. The northbound lanes of Eldridge are backed up nearly two miles to Tanner. Westbound lanes of FM 529 are slow from Fairview, a little over a mile. The store owners are actually losing money on the gas, but they're hoping to bring customers in to the stores to help make up the difference. This story came from HCN’s partners at ABC13.com. Blue skies, Jim

It should be soon. We had a minor slotting issue and did some minor changes this week. Tim is redrawing the formation with the slot changes. Each Captain will probably be sending them out. Blue skies, Jim

I receved email from the USPA and a judge in the Gulf Coast Region stating that a judge does not have to be present to rule on a state record, but it is up to each individual judge. "CERTIFICATION: We, the undersigned, certify the record performance aforementioned above. The attempt was made in accordance with the regulations of the USPA Skydiver’s Competition Manual. Photographic evidence, where appropriate, of the record was provided and verified." I would line up my judge first making sure he/she agrees to judge remotely since the record has to be submitted to the USPA within seven days of the attempt. Hope this helps. Blue skies, Jim

Unofficial Records were updated 8/20/08 at http://www.texasstaterecord.com/Unofficial_Records.htm. Thanks everyone. Please keep posing your changes as they occur. Yes John I did have a plane! Blues, Jim Blue skies, Jim

From the current USPA website: State Record Procedures Complete and submit the “Request for Certification of State Record” form. Each record must be certified by at least one regional (or higher-rated) judge, rated in the discipline concerned, plus at least one of the following (all those certifying the record may be participants in the record): a. Safety & Training Advisor b. USPA board member c. USPA staff member d. Regional (or higher-rated) judge Initial notification of record must be sent to USPA within 72 hours of the record being set and can be transmitted by e-mail fax: (540) 604-9741. The completed “Request for Certification of State Record” form, along with the required fees*, must be received by USPA within seven days of the successful record. * The record fee is $35 and includes one official certificate. Additional certificates may be purchased for $5 each (minimum of four certificates). Blue skies, Jim

Unofficial Records were updated at http://www.texasstaterecord.com/Unofficial_Records.htm. Thanks everyone. Please keep posing your changes as they occur. Blues, Jim

At first I thought that was the funniest generalization I had heard in years! Then I reread it. There are a lot of Texicans who are staunch Democrats and would really be insulted by your comment. Blue skies, Jim

Ummhhh....they don't care, or maybe they get paid for each child in some states? Blue skies, Jim

As of this morning, Fox News is reporting a quote from the Russian PM that states the Georgian Republic no longer exists. Blue skies, Jim

Foreign Policy Research Institute Over 50 Years of Ideas in Service to Our Nation www.fpri.org RUSSIA RESURGENT: AN INITIAL LOOK AT RUSSIAN MILITARY PERFORMANCE IN GEORGIA by Felix K. Chang August 13, 2008 Felix K. Chang was a senior planner and an intelligence officer in the U.S. Department of Defense. He is currently a partner at CVP Ventures and a senior fellow at FPRI. His publications and ongoing research concentrate on military, economic, and energy security issues in Asia as well as financial industry trends around the world. RUSSIA RESURGENT: AN INITIAL LOOK AT RUSSIAN MILITARY PERFORMANCE IN GEORGIA by Felix K. Chang It is no surprise that tensions between Russia and Georgia have mounted. On August 3 Moscow warned of the growing danger of a "large-scale military conflict" between Georgia and its separatist province of South Ossetia ; that warning drew a reply from Washington two days later urging Moscow to refrain from provocative actions in the region.[1] As the conflict unfolded during the night of August 7 with a Georgian military offensive into South Ossetia, it soon appeared that Tbilisi miscalculated the Russian response. By the morning of August 8, Russian forces were streaming into Georgia . While news reports from the frontlines remain preliminary and incomplete, the scale and speed of Russia 's military operations between August 8 and 12 do shed some light on Russian military capabilities and operational readiness and raise new questions regarding the events leading to the conflict. RUSSIAN GROUND FORCES Within hours of the overnight Georgian offensive beginning August 7, an estimated 6,000 to 10,000 Russian troops were on the main highway leading into Georgia . By 1:00 pm on August 8, witnesses reported roads filled with hundreds of tanks, armored personnel carriers, towed artillery, and truck-mounted rocket launchers already travelling into the Roki Tunnel, which passes through the mountainous area that separates Russia and Georgia.[2] From the number of troops and types of equipment, and given the units of the 58th Army based nearby, it is clear that Russia deployed the equivalent of a motor rifle division. For such a force to move from bivouac into the field, Russian army commanders would have needed time to coordinate the mobilization--distributing ammunition and supplies, establishing the right of way on the only highway to Georgia , and sorting out the proper ordering of the advancing column so that it could combat any resistance it may encounter. In addition, Russian media reported on Saturday that elements of the 76th Air Assault Division based in the Leningrad Military District had already been airlifted into the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali. Elements of the 96th Airborne Division and 45th Intelligence Regiment based in the Moscow Military District were slated to follow soon thereafter. These may have constituted the "battalion task forces" that General Vladimir Boldyrev, commander of Russian Ground Forces, said captured the capital city early on that same day. These elite formations, which represent part of Russia 's strategic reserve, are likely to have units on constant alert for rapid deployments. Still, to fully equip, embark, transport, and coordinate the arrival and integration of these troops into combat operations alongside the 58th Army units moving overland is a notable demonstration of not only long-range airlift capability involving over 100 airlift sorties, but also improved command and staff arrangements, which proved so difficult for the Russia's army in the 1990s.[3] Surely with rising tensions, Russian army commanders likely had contingency plans in place for such an operation. Even so, it remains remarkable that such sizable forces could have been orchestrated and arrayed in under half a day, even if decision-making in Moscow was instantaneous, especially if the actual timing of the Georgian offensive was unknown to Russian leaders. For by the early afternoon on August 8, Russian mechanized infantry responding to the Georgian provocation were already battling in Tskhinvali, about 40 km from Russia but less than 5 km from where Georgia's offensive began.[4] Certainly, most of the Russian ground units that participated in the incursion into Georgia must have been placed on a higher state of readiness and their commands coordinated earlier last week to achieve such a fast and smoothly executed response. RUSSIAN AIR FORCES Russia operates a number of air bases near Georgia . Many of these supported military operations in Chechnya between 1994-2000, when separatists in that province sought autonomy from Russia . Clearly, the Russian military has also improved its air-ground coordination since its poorly managed Chechen campaigns. In Georgia , the Russian air force appeared to have provided effective close air support to the army units advancing into South Ossetia . News reports indicated that Georgian defenses blocking the Russian advance were struck from the air.[5] Given the fast tempo of the action, only good coordination between air and ground units would have ensured such support. With over 300 combat aircraft--including Su-24, Su-25, and Su-27 fighters and Tu-22 bombers--reportedly participating in the operation, Russia clearly had little problem achieving air superiority over Georgia , which could field only eight Su-25 fighters. Given that many of its jets were probably on alert, the Russian air force could quickly take to the sky. Just as important, it likely possessed excellent intelligence on key Georgian military sites, which is unsurprising since Russian troops had been stationed in Georgia until 2007 and its peacekeepers have been present in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another breakaway Georgian province. So far, four Russian and one Georgian aircraft are confirmed to have been destroyed, though each side has claimed higher numbers. It appears that all the losses have been due to ground-based air defenses, mainly surface-to-air missiles. While the Su-25 losses on both sides are readily understandable given their role in close air support, the Russian loss of a Tu-22M3 bomber, which normally operates at high altitude, remains unexplained.[6] As a whole, the intensity of Russia 's air operations should also be noted. From a cold start, the Russian air force activated a broad array of combat units and maintained a high operational tempo for over four days. It would have required foresight to stock the needed bases with sufficient stores of fuel and ammunition. In July 2007, Russia may have had the chance to prepare for such an action during a large- scale training maneuver simulating the defense of Russia's southern border called Exercise Caucasian Border 2007 that featured more than 400 air sorties. If nothing else, Russian air units demonstrated that they were well prepared for this sort of contingency and performed their duties with greater skill and coordination than had been seen in the 1990s. RUSSIAN NAVAL FORCES Possibly the most striking performance may have been that of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, whose capabilities have not been highly regarded. On Saturday, Georgian sources announced that Russian warships had begun to blockade its coast. The presence of the ships was seemingly confirmed by Russian-backed Abkhaz authorities, who claimed that the ships had deflected a Georgian attempt to close off the coastline of Abkhazia. In the meantime, Russian media reported that the Moskva, a Slava-class cruiser, and the Smetlivy, a Kashin-class destroyer, as well as a small number of supply and logistics ships had sailed from Sevastopol and arrived in the region on Sunday to "provide aid to refugees" and not to "blockade the Georgian coast." The reports concluded that after "several maneuvers" as part of an anti-terror exercise, the ships sailed onto Novorossiysk.[7] Though not confirmed by Georgian sources, the Russian Navy informed media outlets that four Georgian fast-attack craft had crossed the border of the established security zone and threatened the Russian flotilla. In response, after firing warning shots, the Russian warships sank one of the craft with gunfire. Another unconfirmed claim was made by Georgia that the Russian navy landed troops into Abkhazia over the weekend. If true, these troops probably sailed aboard the three "large landing craft," which Russian news reported had sailed from Novorossiysk , where ground troops are known to be based nearby. The "large landing craft" were either the three Alligator-class or three Ropucha-class LSTs based with the Black Sea Fleet. But even if accurate, these ships could not have lifted more than 900 troops at one time, far fewer than the Georgian claim.[8] While the claims of a naval clash and a troop landing remains unclear, the speed with which the Russian vessels based at Sevastopol must have put to sea is not. Since the Moskva and Smetlivy were accompanying much slower supply and logistics ships, whose maximum speed range between 12 and 16 knots, the flotilla would have taken 25 hours to transit the 400 nm between Sevastopol and the Georgian coast. For the ships to have arrived on Saturday, they would have to have sailed on Friday, just hours after Georgian troops crossed into South Ossetia . Thus, the Russian vessels must have been on alert with their crews aboard and the supply ships already loaded with whatever humanitarian aid they were intended to transport. Otherwise, the Black Sea Fleet would have required at least a full day, if not longer, to get its ships underway, so that naval commanders could plan the mission, crews could be recalled, and appropriate supplies could be found and loaded onto the ships. In addition, the ease with which those supplies were offloaded at their destination implies further coordination as to who would receive them and how they would be distributed. For the Black Sea Fleet, its ability to respond as quickly as it did shows that it had not only been held at a high state of operational readiness, but also made substantial preparations for the action. OPERATIONAL AXES Russian forces eventually advanced across two fronts. In South Ossetia , Russian troops took Tskhinvali and then crossed into undisputed Georgian territory to cut the main highway and rail line west of Gori. A second front was opened when Russian mechanized infantry passed through the UN security zone and entered undisputed Georgian territory from Abkhazia. At least 2,000 troops occupied Zugdidi, a Georgian town 10 km from the border and a sector headquarters of the UN peacekeeping force. The Russian column continued another 30 km to Senaki, where it captured a Georgian military base and airfield, severing the main highway and rail line at a second location and effectively controlling all heavy traffic movement across Georgia . It is reasonable to assume that at least some of the 9,000 troops and 350 armored vehicles the Russian military had stationed in Abkhazia as peacekeepers participated in the advance. Meanwhile, Abkhaz separatists subdued Georgian positions in the Kodori Valley and Russian air power destroyed key military facilities in Tbilisi and port of Poti. [9] No doubt Russia 's military action in Georgia will prompt many countries to view Moscow in a sharper light, from the capitals of Europe to Beijing and Tokyo . However the world eventually interprets Russia 's intervention in Georgia 's civil conflict--whether as a "humanitarian effort" as Moscow portrays or as a "full scale invasion" as Tbilisi portrays-- it does demonstrate the Russian military's renewed ability to prosecute a relatively complex, high-intensity combined arms operation. Still, the evidently high state of readiness of such a broad array of Russian military units across all three services raises more questions about Moscow 's intentions and planning prior to the outbreak of hostilities. ---------------------------------------------------------- Notes [1] Jim Mannion, "US military surprised by speed, timing of Russia military action," Agence France-Presse, August 11, 2008; Gonzalo R. Gallegos, U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing, August 5, 2008, at www.state.gov. [2] " Russia 's Troops to Liberate Tskhinvali," Kommersant, August 8, 2008. [3] "Russian Paratroopers in Abkhazia," InfoRos, August 11, 2008; "Paratroopers from Pskov , Ivanovo Brought in to Tskhinvali," Kommersant, August 9, 2008; " Russia : Paratroopers in breakaway capital," CNN, August 9, 2008. [4] "Russian armored vehicles approaching Tskhinvali," Interfax, August 8, 2008; " Russia 's Armored Vehicles Entered Tskhinvali," Kommersant, August 8, 2008. [5] " Russia 's Warplanes Bombed Out Georgia's Artillery near Gori," Kommersant, August 9, 2008; "Aircraft striking Georgian positions in S. Ossetia ," Interfax, August 8, 2008. [6] "Georgian strike fighter shot down in S. Ossetia ," Interfax, August 11, 2008; David A. Fulghum and Douglas Barrie, "Georgia Strikes Back with Air Defenses," Aviation Week, August 11, 2008. [7] "Russian Navy carries out Black Sea anti-terror exercise," RIA Novosti, August 11, 2008; "Russian Navy ships approach Georgia's sea border," RIA Novosti, August 10, 2008; "Georgians to Leave South Ossetia as Focus Shifts to Black Sea," Deutsche Welle, August 10, 2008. [8] "Georgian Military Boats Attacked Russian Warships," InfoRos, August 11, 2008; Marc Champion, Andrew Osborn, John D. McKinnon, "Russia Widens Attacks on Georgia ," Wall Street Journal, August 11, 2008; Ron Popeski, "Russian navy sinks Georgian boat: Defence ministry," Reuters, August 10, 2008. [9] "Forcing Georgians Out of Kodori Valley," InfoRos, August 12, 2008; Christopher Torchia and David Nowak, " Russia opens new front, drives deeper into Georgia ," Associated Press, August 10, 2008. ---------------------------------------------------------- Copyright Foreign Policy Research Institute (http://www.fpri.org/). You may forward this essay as you like provided that it is sent in its entirety and attributed to FPRI. , provided that you send it in its entirety. Contact FPRI for permission to repost it at another website. If you receive this as a forward and would like to be added to our mailing list, send an email to [email protected], including your name, address, and any affiliation. For further information or to inquire about membership in FPRI, please contact Alan Luxenberg, [email protected] or (215) 732-3774 x105. If you would like to be removed from our distribution list, please type "Remove" in the subject line of an email to [email protected]. ---------------------------------------------------------- FPRI, 1528 Walnut Street, Suite 610 , Philadelphia , PA 19102 . For information, contact Alan Luxenberg at 215-732-3774, ext. 105 or email [email protected] or visit us at www.fpri.org Blue skies, Jim

Yep Ted Poe. Creative sentences was what he was known for locally. Like making shoplifters wear signs and walk in front of a store for days on end....the sign said "I stole from this store." Blue skies, Jim

Amen! Blue skies, Jim