Fatalities: Rentals vs Owned?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
Perhaps owners can only justify their investment by pride of ownership,
control of the equipment list, and having a particular aircraft cleaned
and
ready on demand. Perhaps renters can only justify their position in
terms
of freedom from most fixed costs and the flexibility of pay-as-you-go.
Perhaps neither can add safety as a primary justification--at least not
on
the basis of overall fleet statistics.

Perhaps.

Interestingly, in preparation for my response to the thread "Owner's
Poll", I took a look at my actual expense of owning an airplane. (This
is something I NEVER do, for fear of what I might see... ;-)

To my delight, I found that it's costing between $8K - $15K annually to
operate our aircraft. At our current rate of flying (around 200
hours/year), that works out to between $40 and $75 per hour for a
140-knot, 1460 pound load hauling SOB of a plane.

To say I'm happy with that would be an understatement -- I'm
darned-near ecstatic. Considering that the equivalent aircraft on our
field (the closest I can come is a 182) rents for over $100 per hour,
it's nice to see that renting is actually MORE expensive than owning,
at least for now. (This can change with one mishap or engine problem,
of course.)

Obviously that figure doesn't include acquisition costs and opportunity
costs -- but over time aircraft tend to appreciate in value, so I am
looking at our Pathfinder more as a long-term investment than as an
asset.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' with it...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

That's in keeping with what I've always heard--at something less than 100
hours per year, owning becomes more economical than renting in an average
year.

Peter