Help me convince employer to buy company airplane

E

evapilotaz

En-Route
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
2,623
Location
Gilbert AZ. VFR All Year Baby
Display Name
Display name:
Drone airspace abuser
I fly every couple of months to the head quarters office in San Diego. I'm stuck once again with a two hour flight delay. It seems to happen ever so often flying out of San Diego. So Lets dream a little. I convince the company to give me a $1,000,000 for airplane purchase budget. They pay all operating cost and maintenance. They pay for my ratings to fly it. I'm thinking complex, multi and instrument I would need and maybe commercial. Would I need type rating? The company also shuttles other employees between our Arizona office and San Diego office. Southwest must love my company. I could keep my current position and fly employees when needed.

I'm thinking 6 seats minum twin turbo. I'm thinking King Air.
The company can afford it. They have lots of money.

Ok back to reality.
 
Last edited:
There's a guy who commutes between CHD and SNA with a citation who seems to have this arrangement...
 
You don't need a type rating for a King Air 200. But you won't be able to buy one for $1.0 mil.
 
Position yourself to start the company aviation department. They care only about the bottom line, so show the numbers how it will save money and make money. Start with a King Air, hire some pilots, get some maintenance on contract, and go from there.
 
Go big or go home.

CF-104D 104633 N104 – Price $ 1,900,000.00
Build 1961, provided with enough spares for a long time, including engines and manuals. Seats and tips ejection systems in good condition.
Contact: Fuel Fresh Inc. Phone 1:(480) 345-6677, Fax: (480) 345-6699
Mark Shermann, PO BOX 51000 , Phoenix, AZ USA 85076.
More information here: http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Jet/1961/Lockheed/F104+Starfighter/2154270.html
In January 2016 it is no longer listed but still mentioned as located at Phoenix, it looks like the owner decided to keep the aircraft?

 
Just tell the bean counters how much ground you can cover in a short time at Mach 2+, times money right ;)
 
Cheaper for him to buy 6 coach Southwest seats every couple months and let you guys be a few hours late chilling in the terminal.
 
Yup...unless you have a CEO who's starting to think he hates riding on the airlines, it's going to be a straight dollar-for-dollar comparison for the bean counters.
 
Some companies run shuttles when there is a need for a number of employees to go back and forth between locations, but they are usually not flown by one of said employees with a job description besides pilot.
 
Ok it might not make financial sence but having a company plane would be cool. I'm not talking about a small company here. Their assets are 7+ billion
 
evapilotaz said:
Ok it might not make financial sence but having a company plane would be cool. I'm not talking about a small company here. Their assets are 7+ billion
Click to expand...
I work for a company like that. It's a nice wet dream you thought up, but lets face reality. First, they would only buy it if somebody on the executive level actually decided that they needed one. And it would still have to save the company money. Remember, public companies have to answer to a board and sharehholders. Every dollar wasted is taken right out of the pockets of the shareholders. And second, even if they did buy a plane, you would never get near the cockpit. For safety, liability, insurance, and a few other reasons, they would hire a professional pilot.
 
for liability, liability, liability, insurance, and a few other reasons like liability and insurance, they would hire a professional pilot.
Click to expand...

There... FTFY. -Skip
 
Better off in a Turbo Commander 690B. 5 year gear inspection is $15K, whereas King Air's is $40K. TPE331 engines have 5400hr TBO, PT6 only 3600hr. TPE331's cost $250K to overhaul, PT6 anywhere from $350K to 500K. TPE's burn 20-30% less fuel.

I have a nice Turbo Commander 690B for sale with Dash 10 engines, 10400TT and with over 4000hrs left on both engines. And the permanent wing spar. For $575K. No King Air comes close to that performance or value.

;)
 
Last edited:
It's a nice dream... but unless you're the boss and can make the bad financial decision yourself ;) it makes no sense. First of all, why have the company pay for you to get your ratings if they can find a professional pilot who has all those ALREADY and even more than you listed? Secondly, how does your salary compare to that of a corporate pilot? I'm going to guess more because aviation salaries are not good. So why would they pay more when they could have a professional pilot for less?

Now what you could do is buy a plane yourself. And try to persuade them to reimburse you the cost of the commercial ticket. You'll end up subsidizing your own work travel but at least you'll enjoy it.
 
There's also that whole issue with compensation for a private pilot. Pretty sure paying for all your training would be considered compensation, and as such not legal.

I'm based in San Diego and have a commercial ticket already though. You're welcome to tell them to hire me to fly you back and forth.
 
B200 King Air. Easy to fly, no type rating. Single pilot. Comfortable seating for 7, but room for more. Fast enough to get you where you need to be in decent time, but still affordable. I flew one for a construction company many moons ago. Loved it.
 
DeeG said:
B200 King Air. Easy to fly, no type rating. Single pilot. Comfortable seating for 7, but room for more. Fast enough to get you where you need to be in decent time, but still affordable. I flew one for a construction company many moons ago. Loved it.
Click to expand...
Personally, I cannot fathom flying a turboprop single pilot on a commercial level. While it certainly can be done safely, the odds are in your favor with a second (competent & qualified) pilot in the right seat.
 
Kritchlow said:
Personally, I cannot fathom flying a turboprop single pilot on a commercial level. While it certainly can be done safely, the odds are in your favor with a second (competent & qualified) pilot in the right seat.
Click to expand...
What does being a turboprop have to do with it? I flew single pilot in a King Air Part 135 for quite some time and didn't perceive it to be any more unsafe than flying a piston twin. Safer, actually .
 
Everskyward said:
What does being a turboprop have to do with it? I flew single pilot in a King Air Part 135 for quite some time and didn't perceive it to be any more unsafe than flying a piston twin. Safer, actually .
Click to expand...


Airline mentality would be my guess.

I agree, every hour I've flown as a working pilot has been PIC without a SIC, maybe if I was in a large transport category aircraft a second body might help, but for a plane built to be flown single pilot adding more crew doesn't always mean adding more saftey.
 
James331 said:
Airline mentality would be my guess.

I agree, every hour I've flown as a working pilot has been PIC without a SIC, maybe if I was in a large transport category aircraft a second body might help, but for a plane built to be flown single pilot adding more crew doesn't always mean adding more saftey.
Click to expand...
When I had my Citation, I preferred to fly it by myself. The co-pilot/babysitter was required for the first 50 hours and after about 20 I get bored with them being there, after 40 I quit calling either one of them. The wrong person in the right seat can cause more issues than they solve, especially if you are used to flying single pilot.
 
Everskyward said:
What does being a turboprop have to do with it? I flew single pilot in a King Air Part 135 for quite some time and didn't perceive it to be any more unsafe than flying a piston twin. Safer, actually .
Click to expand...
Because often times a more complex airplane will be going into busier areas with complex arrivals, and obviously things happen quicker.
Also things such as taxiing. A second set of eyes on the ramp looking out for the more expensive airplane. There are really numerous things, including higher expectations when you are in a larger, more complex airplane.
 
N747JB said:
The wrong person in the right seat can cause more issues than they solve, especially if you are used to flying single pilot.
Click to expand...
Agree with this. Unless you are trained to work as a crew the other person can be more of a distraction than a help.
 
Chortle. I always loved how little use Cessna and it's related companies get out of their flight department. They only dug out one of the Citations if there were a lot of people going to the same place (like when two lawyers, some executives, and a handful of financial guys came down to do the due diligence when they bought us). Since they keep all the planes in a central location, it's rare that you happen to have the right combination of people and aircraft that it ends up being effective.

It was also a firing offense to use GA other than one of the company planes on company business. Small aircraft are dangerous. We should know, we build them (and their engines and propellers).

Before our acquisition by Textron, our CEO was really interested in an Eclipse or some other light jet.
 
GRG55 said:
Conquest.

Like this:
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/anybody-want-to-buy-a-nice-310.89191/
Click to expand...

Well...when you own part of the company it is easier to get these things approved. It is also rather easy to justify a plane when you can use it +250 hrs/yr and many of those trips have stakeholders and c-suite types on the flights. I also pay personally for my training, the added insurance for me to be a named pilot, and for when I use the plane for non-business reasons. If you have the ability to do that an present to your board that you're not expecting them to foot the bill for your personal wishes it is easier to sell also on the business justification.

The OP is taking about a trip per month. I was flying the airlines three to four segments a week - every week. Try that for three years and get back to me on your QOL. I told my board that without a change I wasn't going to be able to travel as much and they would have to augment my time with another exec. That person would've cost more than the annual budget to run the conquest. Another example - My brother is our director of marketing and has weeks that he hits 6-10 retailers. Try and do that on the airlines.

I continue to be surprised that people think all these companies that operate airplanes can't legitimately justify the business expense. You are paying to leverage experience, savvy, and brain power of your top people. In many cases for midsized companies if you can close one extra deal a year you can pay the annual budget to run turboprop. Add a zero to the deal size and you can go up from there. You know how much extra value I can add sitting in my office vs. sitting in an airport lounge?
 
James_Dean said:
I continue to be surprised that people think all these companies that operate airplanes can't legitimately justify the business expense. You are paying to leverage experience, savvy, and brain power of your top people. In many cases for midsized companies if you can close one extra deal a year you can pay the annual budget to run turboprop. Add a zero to the deal size and you can go up from there. You know how much extra value I can add sitting in my office vs. sitting in an airport lounge?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here was doubting that it makes sense in some situations. The situation presented by the OP doesn't appear to be one of them though.
 
The average corporate aircraft mission used to be 300 miles with average two passengers. Not really a desperate need. Much of it is status. The money would be better spent on dividends for the stockholders and or wages for the unwashed masses who work for them. As for the " genius" types who run these large company's, many company's are monopalies and after 2007 ,many of their leaders should now be doing time.
 
N747JB said:
When I had my Citation, I preferred to fly it by myself. The co-pilot/babysitter was required for the first 50 hours and after about 20 I get bored with them being there, after 40 I quit calling either one of them. The wrong person in the right seat can cause more issues than they solve, especially if you are used to flying single pilot.
Click to expand...
Well, you need to be trained as a crew. When done correctly, with a high level of standardization, it really is a good and safe system.
 
Kritchlow said:
Because often times a more complex airplane will be going into busier areas with complex arrivals, and obviously things happen quicker.
Also things such as taxiing. A second set of eyes on the ramp looking out for the more expensive airplane. There are really numerous things, including higher expectations when you are in a larger, more complex airplane.
Click to expand...

Comparing the turbines I've flown, my 185 is more complex from a single pilot stand point, more engine controls to worry about, more temps to monitor, less idiot proof systems.

Frankly putting two pilots into a single pilot airplane is more about marketing "saftey" then actually being safe.
 
James331 said:
Comparing the turbines I've flown, my 185 is more complex from a single pilot stand point, more engine controls to worry about, more temps to monitor, less idiot proof systems.

Frankly putting two pilots into a single pilot airplane is more about marketing "saftey" then actually being safe.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't advocate putting two pilots in a 185.
That said, although there are certainly exceptions, a King Air is more likely to fly a complex arrival into IAD or LAX than a C185 is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top