Partnership vs Own Plane

TimRF79

TimRF79

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Dec 10, 2017
Messages
352
Location
Houston, TX
Display Name
Display name:
Tim
As some of you know in the other thread. I am debating to go from my BSV to a twin.
It just so happened that a Partnership for a Twinkie came up for sale 10min from my house.

Now I am debating, do I want to take a loss on the BSV, sell it fast, but then reduce my monthly cost by $500 and have access to a Twinkie or do I rather have my own plane?

Thoughts? Suggestions?
 
TimRF79 said:
As some of you know in the other thread. I am debating to go from my BSV to a twin.
It just so happened that a Partnership for a Twinkie came up for sale 10min from my house.

Now I am debating, do I want to take a loss on the BSV, sell it fast, but then reduce my monthly cost by $500 and have access to a Twinkie or do I rather have my own plane?

Thoughts? Suggestions?
Click to expand...
How many people in the partnership?
Personally, one or two others, I would consider it. Any more than that would require much more data.
 
Could be on the edge of too many. I’m in a partnership with 2 others on a PA24 and it works nicely.
 
dans2992 said:
Could be on the edge of too many. I’m in a partnership with 2 others on a PA24 and it works nicely.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree, but it really depends on the partners.

What are the rules about cross-countries? I take about a 3 week trip once or twice a year. Would that be possible? How about shorter overnight trips? Say 2 or 3 or 4 days a few time a year?
What is the usual availability when you might want it? Do you like to fly during week days? Or are you a weekend flyer? How about the other partners? Do they all like to fly on Sunday?

It would sure cut the cost of ownership, but is that what is most important to you?
 
The right partnership on a multi engine airplane can have its advantages over sole ownership.... especially when the expensive maintenance bills occur.
 
JOhnH said:
What are the rules about cross-countries? I take about a 3 week trip once or twice a year. Would that be possible? How about shorter overnight trips? Say 2 or 3 or 4 days a few time a year?
Click to expand...
Upon inquiry, this would not be a problem.
JOhnH said:
What is the usual availability when you might want it? Do you like to fly during week days? Or are you a weekend flyer? How about the other partners? Do they all like to fly on Sunday?
It would sure cut the cost of ownership, but is that what is most important to you?
Click to expand...
I mostly fly to stay current and longer trips.
Supposedly the plane does not get much use on the weekends either.

I can substitute the partnership with a club membership where i can rent a 172.
 
Granted, I'm biased since I sole-own, but my vote is stick with your current sole-owned. Not because of the partnership; I just don't find twinkies worth the squeeze over a single comanche. A 310, Seneca or Aztec otoh sure, I'd entertain a partnership for those.
 
It can work ,but do your homework on the group before jumping in.
 
I'm a huge fan of partnerships. A sole owner rarely flies an airplane enough hours per year. And splitting both the fixed costs and exposure to large Mx events is really helpful. Plus its just fun to have other enthusiastic people to share the plane thing with.

But as usual, its all about your specific circumstances. I will say that 4 to 5 active fliers is perhaps too much for one airplane? 2 to 3 seems perfect to me (and I've been in both 2 and 3 person partnerships).
 
If you can find a partner like I did, it’s a homerun. He a A&P!
But if he is in the hangar working on the plane, I am there as well. It’s not fair for him to do the work while I am off doing other things.

It works out great, costs, MX, upgrades are split even. We charge ourselves a dry rate to put into the engine reserve and put the fuel back at the level we took the plane at out of our own pocket.
 
I'm not a follower of forum cool speak, so I'm sure there are many more. Kinda hard to type out "Twin Comanche" or "Tri Pacer" for some people. o_O
 
I'm in a partnership in my BSV (5 total partners) and it's phenomenal. But it works because all of the partners like each other, have similar financial capabilities and have compatible usage profiles. IMHO, you need to know more about the other partners' true usage patterns before jumping in. You also need to know more about maintenance and upgrade philosophies. You're used to being the sole decision maker, now you're gonna have to share that power. Are the other guys on, generally, the same page as you in terms of fixing things and doing upgrades? You don't want to buy in then find out that a majority of the other partners have zero interest in maintaining or upgrading the airplane.

I own my TBone by myself. While it's damn nice to be the sole decision maker, it also means I'm the sole check-writer :)

Ultimately, the *right* partnership can be amazing. The wrong one can be absolutely awful.
 
Sounds like a deal, depending on total costs and airplane. If the plane availability works for your schedule a partnership is a great way to defray costs. I was in a 4 person partnership for a few years with a Dakota. I can count on one hand, and have a few fingers left, the number of times i *wanted* the plane for a trip and it was being used.

I think of it this way, a year is 8760 hours. If the plane accumulates 100hrs a year, thats about 1.1%. So it is literally available 98.9% of the time. Even if we cut that 8760 in half due to night time...its only ~2.3% utilization. Why not have a few friends help pay for those annuals, cylinders, GPS updates, etc...
 
ChemGuy said:
Sounds like a deal, depending on total costs and airplane. If the plane availability works for your schedule a partnership is a great way to defray costs. I was in a 4 person partnership for a few years with a Dakota. I can count on one hand, and have a few fingers left, the number of times i *wanted* the plane for a trip and it was being used.

I think of it this way, a year is 8760 hours. If the plane accumulates 100hrs a year, thats about 1.1%. So it is literally available 98.9% of the time. Even if we cut that 8760 in half due to night time...its only ~2.3% utilization. Why not have a few friends help pay for those annuals, cylinders, GPS updates, etc...
Click to expand...
Sounds good. But using myself as a template I can only fly on weekends, and mostly just mornings due to thunderstorms in the PM, so that’s down to 624 hours total and I fly 100 hours a year myself, so that’s 400 hours of flying so that’s 64% booked. And that doesn’t count mechanical down time.
 
ChemGuy said:
Sounds like a deal, depending on total costs and airplane. If the plane availability works for your schedule a partnership is a great way to defray costs. I was in a 4 person partnership for a few years with a Dakota. I can count on one hand, and have a few fingers left, the number of times i *wanted* the plane for a trip and it was being used.

I think of it this way, a year is 8760 hours. If the plane accumulates 100hrs a year, thats about 1.1%. So it is literally available 98.9% of the time. Even if we cut that 8760 in half due to night time...its only ~2.3% utilization. Why not have a few friends help pay for those annuals, cylinders, GPS updates, etc...
Click to expand...
How about when I (as one of your partners) take the plane from Florida to Catalina Island or Fairbanks Alaska. I might fly for 20 or 30 hours during a 3 week (500+hours) trip.
OTOH, such a partnership would be good for me because the other owners would be subsidizing me.
 
I'd rather be a solo owner of a single than a partner of anything.
 
dans2992 said:
That arrangement is better than you all having your own, and 7 rotting on the ramp....
Click to expand...
Absolutely! We have a well-maintained, updated aircraft that is flown regularly. And it’s very economical for all of us. It’s wonderful.
 
ChemGuy said:
Sounds like a deal, depending on total costs and airplane. If the plane availability works for your schedule a partnership is a great way to defray costs. I was in a 4 person partnership for a few years with a Dakota. I can count on one hand, and have a few fingers left, the number of times i *wanted* the plane for a trip and it was being used.

I think of it this way, a year is 8760 hours. If the plane accumulates 100 hrs a year, thats about 1.1%. So it is literally available 98.9% of the time. Even if we cut that 8760 in half due to night time...its only ~2.3% utilization. Why not have a few friends help pay for those annuals, cylinders, GPS updates, etc...
Click to expand...
Salty said:
Sounds good. But using myself as a template I can only fly on weekends, and mostly just mornings due to thunderstorms in the PM, so that’s down to 624 hours total and I fly 100 hours a year myself, so that’s 400 hours of flying so that’s 64% booked. And that doesn’t count mechanical down time.
Click to expand...

Yep, there are key times. Most people work approximately 8-5, M-F and sleep at night. Key days are typically weekends.

I was in a partnership on a SR22 for 4.5 years. Most of the time there was 4 of us, near the end three. I only remember a couple of times that there was a "real" conflict, i.e. two people wanted to go on a trip at the same time. The rest, and still not many, were "It's a nice day, maybe I'll go fly somewhere", only to find someone else had the plane on the trip. That was with an open calendar. We all knew the other three wanted to fly, so we if we wanted more than one weekend in a month we checked with the others first.

I had a similar experience with three people flying a Baron.

I'm planning on setting up another SR22 partnership. This time just 2 or 3 total as I'd like to fly a bit more frequently.
 
Salty said:
Sounds good. But using myself as a template I can only fly on weekends, and mostly just mornings due to thunderstorms in the PM, so that’s down to 624 hours total and I fly 100 hours a year myself, so that’s 400 hours of flying so that’s 64% booked. And that doesn’t count mechanical down time.
Click to expand...
Your lack of flexibility in scheduling is perfect for a partnership. Just find someone who can fly on the evenings and during the week and its a great way to lower costs and have minimal affect on use.

JOhnH said:
How about when I (as one of your partners) take the plane from Florida to Catalina Island or Fairbanks Alaska. I might fly for 20 or 30 hours during a 3 week (500+hours) trip.
OTOH, such a partnership would be good for me because the other owners would be subsidizing me.
Click to expand...

As long as everyone knows this going into the relationship I would be fine with it.


Like any deal the one where all parties walk away happy is the best deal. If you can find like minded people and come to an agreement on usage and stuff it works out great. If not then it sucks.

I bought a low cost experimental to have for local puttering. It was cheap to buy but its still going to cost me ~200/mo for fixed costs. And thats with a cheap ass hanger space. I just cant see spending 400-500-800+/mo for a light plane that gets used 1-2-3% of year. But thats me. Thats why i like partnerships and will seek one out or start one for a more capable traveling machine.
 
ChemGuy said:
Your lack of flexibility in scheduling is perfect for a partnership. Just find someone who can fly on the evenings and during the week and its a great way to lower costs and have minimal affect on use.
Click to expand...

You and everybody else is looking for those who have money and don't need to work.
 
Jamie Kirk said:
I'd rather be a solo owner of a single than a partner of anything.
Click to expand...
That could change. What if you outgrow that sweet Commander in a few years and want a SR-22 one day. Being a 1/2 partner in that could be just about right.
 
Sinistar said:
That could change. What if you outgrow that sweet Commander in a few years and want a SR-22 one day. Being a 1/2 partner in that could be just about right.
Click to expand...

Already happening, found a nice 115TC and trying to work a deal and have a buyer lined up for the 112. Still never considered the option of a partner. I am too particular, crazy schedule and not a fan of having to ask. It's why as soon as I started taking lessons I knew right away I did not want to rent, be part of a club or have partners.
 
ChemGuy said:
Sounds like a deal, depending on total costs and airplane. If the plane availability works for your schedule a partnership is a great way to defray costs. I was in a 4 person partnership for a few years with a Dakota. I can count on one hand, and have a few fingers left, the number of times i *wanted* the plane for a trip and it was being used.

I think of it this way, a year is 8760 hours. If the plane accumulates 100hrs a year, thats about 1.1%. So it is literally available 98.9% of the time. Even if we cut that 8760 in half due to night time...its only ~2.3% utilization. Why not have a few friends help pay for those annuals, cylinders, GPS updates, etc...
Click to expand...

Majorly flawed logic regarding usage vs availability. Ooofff! Two hours in the air could mean the airplane is gone for 48 hours or more. It could mean a lot of things, but straight tach hours dies not equal an analogous number of hours that the airplane is at the hangar or tie-down at home. ;)
 
8760 hours total in a year
2920 hours sleep (8/night) in a year
2080 hours work (8 1/2 hour work day)

That’s only 3760 left, of which ~1/2 are night time, so we’ll call it 1880 hours of pure flying time available in a year, completely discounting bad weather or airplane maintenance.

Only flying 100 hours in a year is still over 5% usage of total time available. And we never even subtracted commute time to work, yo get to the airplane, and myriad other things that take away from total possible flying time. ;)
 
Lachlan said:
8760 hours total in a year
2920 hours sleep (8/night) in a year
2080 hours work (8 1/2 hour work day)

That’s only 3760 left, of which ~1/2 are night time, so we’ll call it 1880 hours of pure flying time available in a year, completely discounting bad weather or airplane maintenance.

Only flying 100 hours in a year is still over 5% usage of total time available. And we never even subtracted commute time to work, yo get to the airplane, and myriad other things that take away from total possible flying time. ;)
Click to expand...
None of that offsets the simple fact that most airplanes sit in their home parking spot most of the time. Even planes owned with multiple partners, in most cases they sit most of the time.
 
Jamie Kirk said:
Already happening, found a nice 115TC and trying to work a deal and have a buyer lined up for the 112. Still never considered the option of a partner. I am too particular, crazy schedule and not a fan of having to ask. It's why as soon as I started taking lessons I knew right away I did not want to rent, be part of a club or have partners.
Click to expand...
Wow! That didn't take long.
 
mryan75 said:
Absolutely! We have a well-maintained, updated aircraft that is flown regularly. And it’s very economical for all of us. It’s wonderful.
Click to expand...
Shhh. Don't screw with all the "There will akways be scheduling problems" belief with a real example.

Some work others don't. I was once asked to do some recurrent training with a guy who owned a 1/16th share of a 182. The group had been around for years. The pilot said they never had a scheduling problem. I couldn't imagine how, but I learned a long time ago that my lack of imagination is irrelevant to how others get things done.
 
wayne said:
Yep, there are key times. Most people work approximately 8-5, M-F and sleep at night. Key days are typically weekends.

I was in a partnership on a SR22 for 4.5 years. Most of the time there was 4 of us, near the end three. I only remember a couple of times that there was a "real" conflict, i.e. two people wanted to go on a trip at the same time. The rest, and still not many, were "It's a nice day, maybe I'll go fly somewhere", only to find someone else had the plane on the trip. That was with an open calendar. We all knew the other three wanted to fly, so we if we wanted more than one weekend in a month we checked with the others first.

I had a similar experience with three people flying a Baron.

I'm planning on setting up another SR22 partnership. This time just 2 or 3 total as I'd like to fly a bit more frequently.
Click to expand...
is this a necro post?....or a new one? :D

I once was going to enter into a partnership when purchasing my Bo....but, decided against it. First, I'm a fix-it kinda guy. I do all my own maintenance. Not fast, but I do it. A partner won't have the patience for me to get to it (I'm in the middle of a two month annual). Also, the guy had the ability to out spend me....that could be good....cept he was also cheap like me. He wanted a new fancy glass panel....the $70K kind...I couldn't split that. I realized quickly that I was out spent and with little patience for waiting on me....that wasn't going to work or be fair. So, I'm a sole owner....and happy.
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
I once was going to enter into a partnership when purchasing my Bo....but, decided against it. First, I'm a fix-it kinda guy. I do all my own maintenance. Not fast, but I do it. A partner won't have the patience for me to get to it (I'm in the middle of a two month annual). Also, the guy had the ability to out spend me....that could be good....cept he was also cheap like me. He wanted a new fancy glass panel....the $70K kind...I couldn't split that. I realized quickly that I was out spent and with little patience for waiting on me....that wasn't going to work or be fair. So, I'm a sole owner....and happy.
Click to expand...
This is an excellent point. It perfectly illustrates that partnerships are not some magic one-size-fits-all solution for ownership. It only works if the partners and their wants and needs are a good fit for each other.

It also illustrates another point that tends to be missed in these conversations. One of the most common arguments against partnerships is not having unlimited availability. The perspective that if I'm the only owner, the plane is always waiting for me and only me. Here's a guy that's in the middle of a 2-month long DIY annual. That's two months with no availability. Being a sole owner does not guarantee unlimited availability. And its reasonable to argue that a similar plane owned by 3-4 people could have had an annual done in a shop for not much more cost to each owner and been back online much sooner.

Now there is the factor of enjoying the DIY work on the plane and that can't be disregarded. But the point remains that a plane owned by one person goes down for maintenance too and there are definitely cases where having more people involved as owners translates less burden on everyone in terms of time hassle and money involved in keeping the plane maintained.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
is this a necro post?....or a new one? :D

I once was going to enter into a partnership when purchasing my Bo....but, decided against it. First, I'm a fix-it kinda guy. I do all my own maintenance. Not fast, but I do it. A partner won't have the patience for me to get to it (I'm in the middle of a two month annual). Also, the guy had the ability to out spend me....that could be good....cept he was also cheap like me. He wanted a new fancy glass panel....the $70K kind...I couldn't split that. I realized quickly that I was out spent and with little patience for waiting on me....that wasn't going to work or be fair. So, I'm a sole owner....and happy.
Click to expand...

I've heard that it's bad having a partner that doesn't want to spend as much as you to upgrade a plane, and worst to have one that wants to spend more than you to upgrade the plane. :eek:

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top