Plane for the mission

wabower said:
If it were true, all the 135's would own their own airplanes. Since only a sliver of a percentage do so, what does that tell you about the financial opportunity?
Click to expand...
I would say about 1/3 to 1/2 of ours are owned by the 135 but some of those are medical. All the newer airplanes are managed, though. It would be stupid to spend the money to buy a newer airplane and put it on charter and expect make money. There isn't enough money in it to cover the acquisition cost for one thing. At least that's how I see it.

It's also why it's strange to hear people talk about spending X amount less per hour flying their own airplane as opposed to renting. They conveniently forget the purchase price of the airplane.
 
I think you just hit on the single-most important aspect of all this airplane finance stuff, which is that people are conditioned to think that owning is cheaper than renting. It's true (or can be) in almost every other aspect of their economic decision-making, so they somehow correlate that knowledge to airplanes. It's not true, never has been and never will be, but that doesn't stop them from making the decision and later wondering what the hell happened.

Everskyward said:
It's also why it's strange to hear people talk about spending X amount less per hour flying their own airplane as opposed to renting. They conveniently forget the purchase price of the airplane.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
I think you just hit on the single-most important aspect of all this airplane finance stuff, which is that people are conditioned to think that owning is cheaper than renting. It's true (or can be) in almost every other aspect of their economic decision-making, so they somehow correlate that knowledge to airplanes. It's not true, never has been and never will be, but that doesn't stop them from making the decision and later wondering what the hell happened.
Click to expand...

This probably also depends on the crowd you talk to. You're absolutely correct - anyone who thinks they spend less by renting is fooling themselves.

The crowds I talk to are more realistic and know they're spending more - but own for other reasons. Usually, it has to do with availability and having the airplane that's exactly how they want it.
 
wabower said:
Why do you think you know about the owner's economics? Do you moonlight as his CPA?
Click to expand...

I know his costs, i know the income.

Why do you know?

Your flat out refusal to believe that putting you airplane to work can ever work is fine, but spreading false information that aviation is a 100% money looser for the aircraft owner doesn't help anyone.

We make money, the aircraft owner makes money and our customers get a service they value.
 
Skylane81E said:
We make money, the aircraft owner makes money and our customers get a service they value.
Click to expand...

I have tended to agree with this. If you're losing money on it, then chances are you have your business model set up wrong. Granted, your business model being set up wrong may include aviation, when it should instead include sledgehammers.

What is more likely is many people have their prices structured incorrectly, i.e. are optimistic about costs (and pass the savings onto the customer).

Or, when priced correctly, they don't have enough customers to make it work. If that's the case, then they're in the wrong business (see sledgehammers vs. airplanes).
 
That's always the case and always a perfectly good reason for spending the money. We make life-style decisions every day because we have the freedom to so and are capable of writing the check. Airplanes are just a line-item entry in the life-style P&L.

Ted DuPuis said:
This probably also depends on the crowd you talk to. You're absolutely correct - anyone who thinks they spend less by renting is fooling themselves.

The crowds I talk to are more realistic and know they're spending more - but own for other reasons. Usually, it has to do with availability and having the airplane that's exactly how they want it.
Click to expand...
 
OK, let's start at the top. What is his total laid-in cost for the plane? What is is actual or imputed cost of capital? How much does it fly per year? What is the annual budget?

Skylane81E said:
I know his costs, i know the income.

Why do you know?

Your flat out refusal to believe that putting you airplane to work can ever work is fine, but spreading false information that aviation is a 100% money looser for the aircraft owner doesn't help anyone.

We make money, the aircraft owner makes money and our customers get a service they value.
Click to expand...
 
If renting is less than owning could egg man consider something like flex jet?
 
No. The pricing model and types of aircraft offered are cost prohibitive.

Jeanie said:
If renting is less than owning could egg man consider something like flex jet?
Click to expand...
 
Jeanie said:
If renting is less than owning could egg man consider something like flex jet?
Click to expand...

No way. Fractional flying is by far the most expensive flying that there is bar none.

If this airplane is for business purposes, a talk with the accountants needs to be occurring with this purchase pre-planning phase. I would say a KA-200 or 300 would be the best aircraft for mission as described.
 
LearDriver said:
No way. Fractional flying is by far the most expensive flying that there is bar none.

If this airplane is for business purposes, a talk with the accountants needs to be occurring with this purchase pre-planning phase. I would say a KA-200 or 300 would be the best aircraft for mission as described.
Click to expand...

Oh the accountants and lawyers were in this discussion weeks ago. I've been looking at airplane porn for years gathering knowledge. It is just that we've spent a year now thinking we could save the money and live the airline life and are coming to the stark realization that our travel time is costing us WAY more than the cost of running a King Air.

Then factor in what this life schedule is doing to my family. SOLD.

Eggman
 
James_Dean said:
Oh the accountants and lawyers were in this discussion weeks ago. I've been looking at airplane porn for years gathering knowledge. It is just that we've spent a year now thinking we could save the money and live the airline life and are coming to the stark realization that our travel time is costing us WAY more than the cost of running a King Air.

Then factor in what this life schedule is doing to my family. SOLD.

Eggman
Click to expand...
Yup. Bypass the Seneca. KA 200 is a sweetie pie. But own it wholly. 135 will break the bank.

An alternative is to lease a PC12.

:)
 
Last edited:
It's obviously not the most expensive method, or the companies wouldn't exist. For limited usage and frequent one-way trips (such as to a vacation home) a frac share or card can be an attractive alternative to full ownership of an entire plane. Even so, they are big bucks compared to OP's stated budget.

LearDriver said:
No way. Fractional flying is by far the most expensive flying that there is bar none.
Click to expand...
 
bbchien said:
Yup. Bypass the Seneca. KA 200 is a sweetie pie. But own it wholly. 135 will break the bank.

An alternative is to lease a PC12.

:)
Click to expand...

Price a turbine on a beech KA 200 rebuild, see what one small rock can cost you. You FOD that turbine, you'll wish you had a lease agreement on a PC 12.

And yes I know the PT 6 is a reverse flow turbine and FOD damage is low, but it only takes once. I maintained the engines on the C-12 the Navy had for 12 years, and 1 a month average they were in for FOD inspections. Some we could blend, most went back to P&W for rebuild.
 
Last edited:
That's why Beech later changed the SOP to keep deice vanes and inertial bypass doors open during ground ops.
Tom-D said:
Price a turbine on a beech KA 200 rebuild, see what one small rock can cost you. You FOD that turbine, you'll wish you had a lease agreement on a PC 12.

And yes I know the PT 6 is a reverse flow turbine and FOD damage is low, but it only takes once. I maintained the engines on the C-12 the Navy had for 12 years, and 1 a month average they were in for FOD inspections. Some we could blend, most went back to P&W for rebuild.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
That's why Beech later changed the SOP to keep deice vanes and inertial bypass doors open during ground ops.
Click to expand...
and a nube screws that once and ca-ching.
 
FOD events of any significance are rare on any KA's other than the 350, but the vane deployment became standard anyway, other than in hot weather when the mechanism blocks the oil cooler. Compressor Blades are highly tolerant to filing out dents and dings.

Tom-D said:
and a nube screws that once and ca-ching.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
FOD events of any significance are rare on any KA's other than the 350, but the vane deployment became standard anyway, other than in hot weather when the mechanism blocks the oil cooler. Compressor Blades are highly tolerant to filing out dents and dings.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly the first row is less than 1/16th of an inch, and you are going to pay folks like this to do the inspections.
http://www.turbine-standard.com/pt6-service/

because these aircraft must be under an approved maintenance program.
 
Either manufacturer's program or approved AAIP is all you need. The compressor blades can have gaps big enough to throw a cat through them. I'll dig up some borescopes if you want to see them.

Tom-D said:
If I remember correctly the first row is less than 1/16th of an inch, and you are going to pay folks like this to do the inspections.
http://www.turbine-standard.com/pt6-service/

because these aircraft must be under an approved maintenance program.
Click to expand...
 
I'm also talking with a guy about a B100. I've gotten pretty well versed in the P&W vs. Garret issue, but would like to here more opinions.

Eggman
 
The only people I've ever heard say anything good about them are those who are trying to sell them. They're a 200 fuselage on a 90 wing, prop tips close to windows, etc. Charter operators like them for short legs, some box haulers like them for high-cube low-weight freighters. I wouldn't touch one with a stick.





James_Dean said:
I'm also talking with a guy about a B100. I've gotten pretty well versed in the P&W vs. Garret issue, but would like to here more opinions.

Eggman
Click to expand...
 
I'm just throwing this out there and don't know about them in detail, but have you considered looking into fractionals?
 
Danos said:
I'm just throwing this out there and don't know about them in detail, but have you considered looking into fractionals?
Click to expand...
I think he wants to be able to fly the airplane himself eventually, which the fractionals would not allow. Besides from all I've heard, they are not a good financial deal. Better to negotiate some kind of discounted block charter price if he wants to go that route.
 
Dry lease is the best method for both owner and user.

Everskyward said:
I think he wants to be able to fly the airplane himself eventually, which the fractionals would not allow. Besides from all I've heard, they are not a good financial deal. Better to negotiate some kind of discounted block charter price if he wants to go that route.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top