Not having a company airplane can be hazardous to the financial health of a business, because of opportunities lost and contacts missed. The “No Plane, No Gain” cliche has proved to be valid and easy to remember, both for public dissemination and as a tool to convince the reluctant CEOs.

Captivating slogans are a popular advertising method and motivational theme. Some would-be memorable phrases stay with us for generations, others drift away in the first breeze. And some are “recycled” into slightly modified form so that they can be adapted for a new use.

It was the latter case that was applied to the “No Plane, No Gain” slogan, recently resurrected by the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) in cooperation with the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA). Both of these organisations have an interest in promoting the wise use of business aircraft, whether it is to grow membership of companies operating such aircraft or in building and selling the aircraft.

The intent of No Plane, No Gain is to draw non-aviation people of influence to the concept that using an aircraft to conduct a company’s business creates more opportunities for growth. In other words, if your firm does not operate a plane, it will show less gain in the yearly sales numbers. Given the often poor image of corporate aviation in the press, which may characterise the company plane as a “royal barge”, used only for recreational outings by the overpaid top brass, the message certainly needs dissemination.

No Plane, No Gain, of course, is a play on words taken from the term “no pain, no gain”, as originally pushed by sports trainers to encourage athletes to continue their workout despite aching muscles and tiredness. Soreness is desirable, they claim, if you want to see gains in muscle mass and endurance. The secret is to achieve the right balance; avoid destructive overuse of the body, pushing it just enough to gain healthy benefits.

The original No Plane, No Gain campaign was started by NBAA and GAMA in 1993, during a slump in activity and was successfully used for several years. The formula was brought back in early 2009, after the infamous appearance before the US Congress of American automobile makers, who used corporate jet aircraft to travel from their Detroit headquarters to the US Capitol to seek federal loan funds. Such travel was portrayed by the press as a lavish perquisite, financed by the sacrifices of mismanaged workers. In fact, it was probably a logical way for the highly-compensated executives to keep a schedule for their meeting with the government committee in charge of bail-out monies. The crestfallen auto executives should have risen to the challenge and pointed out the worth of their time, which was too valuable to be wasted in airline terminal waiting rooms. Maybe sharing a ride would have looked better.

Making the Point

Does No Plane, No Gain make sense? Surveys and analyses have conclusively shown that companies using a corporate aircraft do show greater growth and profitability than non-flying firms. They will perform above the average of their peers, the only reason being according to NBAA and GAMA, their ability to respond quickly to corporate travel needs. Only a company-owned or leased aircraft can move key personnel to necessary sites, and most importantly bring them back again the same day.

The point being made is that the company plane is a necessity instead of a luxury. Businesses with no private aircraft will not do as well as those who fly, unless their activity is entirely local in nature. Even then, they limit their potential for growth.

Is this demonstrable? By looking at comparisons of similar companies with and without internal air support, the business aviation users stand out as above-average. To be sure, there must be a need to travel, and the use must be proper to benefit the company. In the opinion of flinty-eyed shareholders, like any asset, an idle aircraft is a tempting target for disposal and one that can be prone to misuse. To justify its cost, the airplane must be put to work and the work must be in the company’s best interest. To increase utilisation, sharing an aircraft to maximise return on investment is a popular concept.

The No Plane, No Gain message may be wasted on aviation people, who already have knowledge of, and belief in, such a concept. To reap the slogan’s potential, it has to be delivered to the unconvinced, to start the conversation and perhaps make the board of directors consider acquisition of an airplane. In NBAA/GAMA’s view, the purchase of a company plane should be no different than investing in over-the-road trucks or building a new production line. That it makes company growth possible should be the only criterion for consideration.