I'm sorry... what?

[GRG55]

I’m well aware. My point is, I’ve never seen an instance where there is a real correlation between asset cost and hourly rate at a flight school. For just one example, the FBO I learned to fly at rented 2 year old 172SP airplanes at $5 more than the guy at the other end of the airport that rented the typical clapped out garbage you usually see. Who do you think got more business? The outfit with the nice planes or the other guy?

I probably have more inside information on flight schools than many posters here and all I can say is it is a strange business. The primary factor on hourly rates seems to be what the other rental options within an area are charging rather than actual costs.

I hear ya. Aviation seems to attract an abnormal number of "romantics". Perhaps that's where the old saw about making a $ million in aviation is best done by starting with $2 million, derives from.

Our Club was founded 94 years ago (no typo). Apparently we've learned a thing or two about running a Club and an FTU. We have a ton of detailed operating data and a pretty sophisticated economic model that we use to make our capital investments and to figure out what we have to do, and what we have to charge, to stay solvent over the long haul.

But I sense there's lots of people in this economic sector that have no clue what it takes to actually make an true economic proposition out of it. They don't get into the detail of ALL the costs, including consumables such as tires and batteries, and the fact the airframe will eventually have to be replaced. Presumably the fellow charging only $5.00 more is hoping to "make it up on volume", LOL. Calling it a "strange business" is probably being charitable.

My flying club has a couple of those "reimagined" 152s. The one with the GTN650 rents for $124/hr wet.

That's how much the G1000 WAAS 172 at my flying club rents for. We're right outside NYC, too. I don’t think you're getting a good deal.

That is pretty skinny for a G1000 172 wet. Frankly, I don't see how the numbers work.

Your 172 (180 hp) probably burns an average 9 gph. At $3.75 per gallon the hourly fuel cost alone is $34. By the time you add in insurance, hangar cost, consumables (oil/filters/brakes/tires/batteries/etc), annual inspections, other parts and maintenance, engine and propeller allowance, the Garmin G1000 subscription and a simple payback of the invested capital ($300,000?) I don't see how the Club makes that work, sustainably, at $124 per hour.

Unless the airplane is flying 1000 hours per year?

Our 172Ns fleet averages about that amount of time per plane each year, and our break even is currently $111.36 per hour.

I find it bizarre that they refurbed a 14K hour airframe. WTF?

My thought as well.

We fly our FTU 172s to 20,000 hours and then dispose of them. A 14k airframe is at the point where we won't make significant upgrade investments in it.

 

[steingar]

These are basically brand new airplanes. Stuck my head in one, smelled new. A brand new airplane costs well north of what they're asking. Had I the money I'd happily go this route. Yeah, the depreciation is likely to be nuts, but it'll be nuts on a new airplane too. Just gotta color outside the lines now and again.

 

[WWFeldman]

These are basically brand new airplanes. Stuck my head in one, smelled new. A brand new airplane costs well north of what they're asking. Had I the money I'd happily go this route. Yeah, the depreciation is likely to be nuts, but it'll be nuts on a new airplane too. Just gotta color outside the lines now and again.

14,000 hours is a lot of possible metal fatigue issues for over 100k. I'd rather spend that on a RV thats a year or two old with less than a 1000 TTAF.

 

[Salty]

Less than a year in the air. LOL

Martian years?

 

[exncsurfer]

wait, is this a real name: