How to rent out my airplane

Curious about the "Terrible - Especially with two Doctors" comment. I am
conteplating a partnership in a '75 Mooney M20C with a Doctor. Please
elaborate. Thanks !!

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
Student Aircraft Purchaser

WARREN1157 wrote:

Just my $0.02.


1969 Aero Commander 100, cheap airplane only owner - Best

1963 182, Started 4 partners, bought them out - Bad. After I bought them out -
Better

1963 Mooney, 1 other partner - Better

1980 172 five person club - Terrible - Especially with two Doctors

Sole ownership of an older clean airplane is the best for Me without a close
second.

Just my 2¢ worth

Curious about the "Terrible - Especially with two Doctors" comment. I am
conteplating a partnership in a '75 Mooney M20C with a Doctor. Please
elaborate. Thanks !!

A doctor as a partner couldn't be better. He has the disposable income
to pay his share of the expenses but doesn't have the free time to fly.
What more could you ask for ?
---
Ken Reed
http:///www.dentalzzz.com

"Dude" wrote in message ...

If you want complexity, read the ourplane contract.

Sure 'nuff.

Or, try to figure out how to untangle yourself from a partnership with a
lunatic without outright walking away from your share of the plane.

Well, if you have a good partnership agreement there may be options.
You can't plan for every possibility but you can plan for some. In a
2-way partnership you have no choice, but in my 5-way there is a
provision for 4 people to force a buyout of 1, or 3 people to force a
buyout of 2.

Leasebacks are actually pretty simple. The main rule is that if you cannot
afford to own the plane without the leaseback, then you shouldn't go there.
That way, anytime it seems you are going the wrong direction, you can pull
out. It may take several tries to find the right FBO.

In this sense I guess I would agree.

I think the biggest factor in the fractionals is the same as for
bizjets- it's both cheaper and *better* than outright ownership.

I still can't see how its really cheaper than a partnership. It has
benefits that a partnership does not, but I don't see the extra cost being
worth it.

Cheaper than sole-ownership. Partnerships are definitely cheaper.

Ever look at how much one of those programs actually
costs when you're done with it? A small slice of an SR-22 could buy
and own a whole used 182. Not the same plane to be sure but puts it in
some perspective.

It costs more than that, the total cost seems pretty well disguised in these
deals to me, and geting out is toughter than selling your plane at a loss.
That is the bad thing about a partnership. When you figure out one of the
partners is a loon, you will have a hard time selling your share.

In agreements I've seen, you put a fuse on this so that if you can't
sell the share within XX days of advertising it then either he has to
buy it or the whole plane has to be put up for sale.

So, you think that the partners would not want to be in the deal if the FBO
had carte blanche to fix just about anything? And the FBO would not want to
be in the deal if they could get stuck with a big bill on a fixed price
budget? That is a tough nut. I see the fixed time as the main bugaboo in
the present fractionals. The contracts I read seem to leave the owners in a
lurch at the end.

If the FBO doesn't provide a blanket guarantee of an airworthy and
complete airplane as purchased, then we're right back to what in my
experience is the leading cause of partnership disagreement: how to
maintain the bird when something goes downhill. No investor would fund
a plan where the FBO is liable for maintenance overages on a used
plane, it just doesn't make sense. You might as well buy the plane and
make better margins renting it out.

Then there's the buyout issue. I agree with you that the current
arrangement makes it look deceptively cheap to own an SR-22. Well, for
four years, anyway. Then they turn the bird over to you and say, "hey
guys, good luck, SEEYA!" I suspect when some of these contracts run
out there will be some guys crying about being left upside down with a
seriously-depreciated plane. Though to be fair this isn't that
different from being in a partnership.

place farther away than you want to fly to yourself. If someone can
build a really broad network this could become a huge selling point,
as it has for places like Moorings who've been doing this kind of
thing with sailboats for decades.

There is a limited market to me -Those that would really like the wide
network. None of my jobs ever would have let me do that, and I try not to go
commercial except overseas or skiing. Sailing is a lot different to me, but
you could be right.

You think the market's smaller because you're not in it, I think it's
bigger because I am. Go figger.

It's worth noting that the sailboat leaseback programs have been
around for a long time, and are still regarded with widespread
suspicion. After 4-5 years in a charter fleet a lot of the boats come
out looking ten years older than they are owing to the constant use.
Owners can plan on dramatically higher maintenance costs than they
would if they just owned it. My personal theory is that the programs
last because the supply of suckers is self-renewing. They're similar
to fractionals/leasebacks in some ways but not in others, the analogy
isn't perfect.

Best,
-cwk.

You don't want to do that.

Without carrying insurance that covers rental use, you would would not be
covered for liability.

Even if the renter carries liability insurance for non-owned aircraft, if
he/she crashes and someone sues YOU, your insurance carrier will deny the
claim if the rental use is not covered.

The cost of insurance will depend mostly on the type and value of the
aircraft. Plan to spend between 10% and 6% of the hull value of the
aircraft annually, plus another $1500 to $2500 for liability coverage. So,
let's say you have a $50,000 Cessna 172. IF (and that's a big IF) you can
get insurance for rental use, you'll pay around $4000 for hull damage and
probably $2000 for liability coverage.

Many insurance companies give better rates for fleets so you'll probably get
a better rate by putting the aircraft on lease with an FBO.

J. Howard
Aviation Insurance Underwriter

"Murphy" wrote in message
...
I am thinking of buying an airplane....I want to rent it when it is not
in
use to recoup some of the cost of buying the plane. How hard is it to do
this? What are the insurance costs? How often do I need to get it
checked
out by an aviation mechanic? How much is the maintenece? Do I have to go
through an FBO? Or can I just place a classified ad....eg. "plane for
rent...$50 an hour".

As for insurance, you could insure it just for yourself to fly, and then
require your renters to carry renter/borrower insurance for the full hull
value.

THat was kind of what I was thinking.... Thanks.

Jon

Ken Reed wrote:
Curious about the "Terrible - Especially with two Doctors" comment. I
am conteplating a partnership in a '75 Mooney M20C with a Doctor.
Please elaborate. Thanks !!


A doctor as a partner couldn't be better. He has the disposable income
to pay his share of the expenses but doesn't have the free time to fly.
What more could you ask for ?
---
Ken Reed
http:///www.dentalzzz.com

Curious about the "Terrible - Especially with two Doctors" comment. I
am conteplating a partnership in a '75 Mooney M20C with a Doctor.
Please elaborate. Thanks !!


A doctor as a partner couldn't be better. He has the disposable income
to pay his share of the expenses but doesn't have the free time to fly.
What more could you ask for ?

Well, you could ask for a partner with similar ideas about how to use and
maintain the aircraft. Most of the decisions you have to make with your partner
will be related to maintenance, most of the rest are related to upgrades. If one
partner has lots of cash and wants to pay overtime rates to have the plane fixed
-now-, and the other partner wants to wait and ferry the airplane to another
airport with lower labor rates at his convenience, there's going to be conflict.

All that has nothing to do with whether the partner is a doctor, of course, that
part is just ignorant doctor-bashing.

"Howard" wrote in message ...
Many insurance companies give better rates for fleets so you'll probably get
a better rate by putting the aircraft on lease with an FBO.

A friend of mine tried this and found that no one would write a policy
for him will less than 3 planes. I"m not sure what agent he used. Most
of the FBOs around here have it worked out where the owner can
purchase the insurance with the FBO and the owner gets the discount of
a fleet but is the "owner" of the policy.

-Robert

Actually, the FBO is the named insured under the policy. The aircraft owner
would be named as an aircraft lessor on the policy and granted addtional
insured status. The FBO, being the named insured, still have total control
over the insurance. The lessor has no authority to amend the coverage on
his aircraft except to take the aircraft off lease and purchase his own
coverage elsewhere.

J. Howard

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
m...
"Howard" wrote in message
...
Many insurance companies give better rates for fleets so you'll probably
get
a better rate by putting the aircraft on lease with an FBO.

A friend of mine tried this and found that no one would write a policy
for him will less than 3 planes. I"m not sure what agent he used. Most
of the FBOs around here have it worked out where the owner can
purchase the insurance with the FBO and the owner gets the discount of
a fleet but is the "owner" of the policy.

-Robert