(one of) the problems with rental aircraft

T

tpowers

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Messages
39
Display Name
Display name:
tpowers
I am a fairly new pilot. I've earned my PPL a few months ago. Since then I've taken on some passengers; my dad, my girlfriend and her (adult) kids, and a few co-workers.

I'm not a wealthy person by any stretch so I doubt I'll be purchasing my own plane any time soon (if ever) so for the moment I'm confined to renting. Renting is pretty expensive (around $120/hr) so to make it affordable I'm always looking to bring some willing passengers along with me to help share the expenses.

The problem is that the rentals that are available to me are also used (in-fact primarily used) for flight training. They are mechanically sound and airworthy but they aren't pretty: Cracked plastic on the interior, cracks in plastic coverings on some of the superficial exterior (such as the base of the tail), a baggage door that tends to fly open on landing even if locked, inoperative backup attitude indicator, etc...

When people rent cars they expect that, along with being reliable and sound that it should have very few dents and scratches and that the interior is clean and free of damage. So when I bring passengers I can feel their hesitation and I kind of have to go through a routine of explaining the airworthiness of the aircraft and that the damage they see are akin to a missing or broken hubcap, ugly but not dangerous.

I'm wondering if this experience is par for the course for rental aircraft? Thoughts? Opinions?
 
Depends where you rent. Expect to pay more for a nicer aircraft. A 172 here in presentable condition will run you $154-180/hr.
 
My dealer has some very nice rentals, but they are $160. It would be worth it to me, nothing ruins flying more than the smell of fully aged BO.
 
Look in your area for clubs and co-ownership groups.

In the DFW area, for example, there are several that have well appointed and well kept aircraft at rates that are competitive to the rental fleet.
 
I look for the ugly, barely equipped aircraft. They are cheaper.

As long as they are airworthy.

I'll take a butt ugly 172 with torn upholstery and cracked plastic any day over the pretty 172 I preflighted yesterday, that had fuel dripping out of the right flap motor hole (no, I didn't fly it) and a big fuel stain on the asphalt just inside the right main gear.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Look in your area for clubs and co-ownership groups.

In the DFW area, for example, there are several that have well appointed and well kept aircraft at rates that are competitive to the rental fleet.
Click to expand...

Good idea however I did have a look around and so far haven't found any clubs or co-ownership here my area (southeast Washington state) except some which are about a two hour drive and roughly the same per hour cost. I will keep looking though.

As for myself I don't mind that it's an ugly plane I'm just trying to get some friends and co-workers flying with me to help share expenses.
 
Then you might start talking to various folks at your home 'drome that are in similar situations to you. Perhaps you could find another one or two pilots who are ready to kick in their share to purchase a nice aircraft.
 
The rental car analogy is probably about the opposite of what to expect with aircraft rentals.

With cars you get a nearly-new beater that has been driven like... like a rental.

With aircraft you get a (much) older aircraft that has been maintained to much much much higher standards (FAA standards).

Pretty much the reverse of car rentals.
 
I'd suggest just getting your name out at the airport. Maybe make business cards. Go to all the FBO's, flight schools, flying clubs, etc and explain that you are a pilot that is willing to share rental expenses. I'm sure there are people just like you that want to save money on rentals.
 
The flight school I am at is in the process of replacing all the interiors in their rental aircraft. The few that have been done look very good on the inside. When I talk to the guys doing the work they all state they hope the damn renters will respect the investment that has been made to clean up the planes, and leave them clean when done. They are not hopeful.
 
Wait...you take up friends and co works and expect them to pay for part of the rental? Hmm....I mean you're going to fly anyway so why make them pay? Without you the pilot they wouldn't be going up anyway. Now if this is a commercial operation and you are taking them somewhere cool but I never expect a passenger to pay part of my rental because I'm gonna fly whether they are in the seat or not. But thats just me.
 
Get yourself a used 172 and fix it up yourself.
 
You should stop making comparisons between General Aviation and the automotive world. It's not ever going to make sense or work out for you. Being able to get a private pilot's license, rent an airplane and go flying basically wherever the heck you want is a special privilege that, in most other places in the world, you wouldn't ever have the opportunity to do.

So there's no point in complaining about it. BTW, as pointed out, there are newer and nicer aircraft out there for rent but not for 120 bucks an hour.
 
Yup. The 172Ns I rent for myself range from $97-115 here and the 172SPs rent for $125-135 and $150 for the glass panel.

For my own flights and flights with other aviation folks, I rent the Ns, but for the my introduction-to-flying flights I've been taking my friends on who are new to small planes, I rent the S-models. They're still 10-years old but the have modern seat belts, nice looking panels and generally nicer interiors. Ironically, except for the glass, the Ns have 650s and 430s while the Ss have either a text-only GPS or the Bendix King that displays a map but not where I am, but for flying local sight-seeing flights, it's fine.

I figure it's worth a few extra bucks for those that may not be 100% comfortable with the concept of 40-year old aircraft :)
 
I had a conversation with the FBO about this issue. The rentals were all butt ugly and I told them that non-pilots pretty much based the safety of the aircraft on how they looked. I don't know if that conversaton had anything to do with it but all the planes started getting facelifts shortly there after.:yes:
 
My FBo just put in all new interior in the airplanes I rent. They fbo owner said they airplanes were starting to get ugly on the inside. He take prides in the airplanes he rents.

FYI the carpet and upholstery was done only but makes a world or difference.
 
Last edited:
i don't recall ever having a discussion with a passenger about the condition of an airplane i was renting and taking them up in - they were excited to be on the inside at an airport and going flying - never even thought about apologizing about what the old cherokees looked like.
 
Airplanes arnt cars.

It's amazing what the drooling masses will pay for a fancy paint job and some upholstery.

I'll take a well maintained and well exercised plane with shabby paint and baby chit green interior for $100hr less. ;)
 
This is one of the beauty's of renting LSA. They are new planes. I rent a remos that looks new and shiny for 100 an hour. My passengers love it.
 
My big problem with renting is scheduling and renters and unclear maintenance.

The aircraft's records are available but not always handy. And even if they are, who has time to review them before every flight to see the latest status of the plane? It just ends up not happening in my experience.

While aircraft systems are maintained to FAA standards, there are no standards for aesthetics and some outfits only fix what is reported as broken and don't upgrade or seek out problems.

In my experience, outfits that do a lot of lease-backs tend to fall into the latter category.
________________________________
My first airplane, bought in 1996, was an ugly-on-the-outside 1966 Cessna 172. I was a 24-year-old kid fresh out of college and I decided I'd rather own an ugly airplane for which I could control the maintenance and wouldn't have to "schedule". I didn't have a car payment and the airplane and insurance payments were less than a new car payment anyway. I learned a lot through ownership and it didn't break me.

My second airplane is pretty outside and also well-maintained. I bought it after a period of renting. I rented from an outfit that owned airworthy but worn out airplanes. There were significant failures regularly. I had a major failure (vacuum, alternator on an RG) on half the flights (four total) before deciding I'd once again had enough of renting.
________________________________

All that to say that not all rental outfits do more than the minimum. I'm like you in that if I see an airplane that is beat up on the outside and inside, I wonder about everything else. Yes there are standards, but at most airports there is only one or maybe two piston mechanic shops on the field. A lot is left to judgement of the inspector and things can, over time, become less rigorous sometimes. Few IAs would let a known problem slip by, but some don't actively seek problems that aren't squawked. They are out there. As an owner, I get to evaluate the level of rigor applied to inspection of my airplane. Since I am flying my family in it, I place a lot of value on having control of as much of that as possible.
 
Last edited:
tpowers said:
When people rent cars they expect that, along with being reliable and sound that it should have very few dents and scratches and that the interior is clean and free of damage.
Click to expand...

I don't know how long it was since you rented a car, but nowadays they just walk around and mark all the dents and scratches on the sign-off form. In Dollar they even put plastic markers on the "known" damage. What's worse, someone once rented me an Impala that had a rear wheel bearing on its last legs. Fortunately it didn't grenade while I was renting it.
 
Fly your guests at night- They won't notice the "gently used" condition of the aircraft paint, upholstory, and interior trim...lol!:D:D
 
simtech said:
Wait...you take up friends and co works and expect them to pay for part of the rental? Hmm....I mean you're going to fly anyway so why make them pay? Without you the pilot they wouldn't be going up anyway. Now if this is a commercial operation and you are taking them somewhere cool but I never expect a passenger to pay part of my rental because I'm gonna fly whether they are in the seat or not. But thats just me.
Click to expand...

Well with family obviously I pay for that all myself. I have gone on one flight with two co-workers who wanted to pay 100% of the costs but I told them I have to pay at least 1/3rd. I was going to go flying anyway but I certainly don't mind if my passengers are going to help share the expenses.
 
Silvaire said:
You should stop making comparisons between General Aviation and the automotive world. It's not ever going to make sense or work out for you. Being able to get a private pilot's license, rent an airplane and go flying basically wherever the heck you want is a special privilege that, in most other places in the world, you wouldn't ever have the opportunity to do.

So there's no point in complaining about it. BTW, as pointed out, there are newer and nicer aircraft out there for rent but not for 120 bucks an hour.
Click to expand...

Yeah I totally get that I was just explaining it from a passenger's point of view who's not a pilot and is making those airplane/automobile comparisons. For myself I don't mind at all that rental aircraft has broken plastic or anything else as long as it's airworthy. I'm just looking for advice on how to explain this to people who go flying with me
 
Timmer said:
Yup. The 172Ns I rent for myself range from $97-115 here and the 172SPs rent for $125-135 and $150 for the glass panel.

For my own flights and flights with other aviation folks, I rent the Ns, but for the my introduction-to-flying flights I've been taking my friends on who are new to small planes, I rent the S-models. They're still 10-years old but the have modern seat belts, nice looking panels and generally nicer interiors. Ironically, except for the glass, the Ns have 650s and 430s while the Ss have either a text-only GPS or the Bendix King that displays a map but not where I am, but for flying local sight-seeing flights, it's fine.

I figure it's worth a few extra bucks for those that may not be 100% comfortable with the concept of 40-year old aircraft :)
Click to expand...

That's a good point, thanks. I guess the takeaway here for me is to consider the comfort level of my passengers when deciding which aircraft to rent. Something that looks fine to me could look dubious to someone not used to flying.
 
Owad1971 said:
Fly your guests at night- They won't notice the "gently used" condition of the aircraft paint, upholstory, and interior trim...lol!:D:D
Click to expand...

Not to mention the smoother air, great idea!
 
Just get your own plane. You don't have to be a millionaire or even make 6-figures to be able to own something to buzz around in on weekends. Do some research into ownership, and have fun with it.
 
simtech said:
Wait...you take up friends and co works and expect them to pay for part of the rental? Hmm....I mean you're going to fly anyway so why make them pay? Without you the pilot they wouldn't be going up anyway. Now if this is a commercial operation and you are taking them somewhere cool but I never expect a passenger to pay part of my rental because I'm gonna fly whether they are in the seat or not. But thats just me.
Click to expand...

Stop. Just stop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top