To Glass or Not To Glass...

"Andrey Serbinenko" wrote in message
...
It is not the pure dollar cost that matters, but the effectiveness of
the money spent, i.e. cost vs. utility. It is especially true for
something requiring continuous money infusions like owning an airplane.

You would have to be doing a LOT of traveling, to places where you couldn't
fly your own airplane, AND renting airplanes at those destinations for your
scenario to have any relevance whatsoever. Like, on the order of one such
trip a week.

I'd be surprised if ANY of the 600,000+ certificated pilots in the US meet
that criteria, but if the number is non-zero, it can't be more than a
handful at most.

Otherwise, the question of owning is no different than the question of
engaging in any other hobby or owning any other property that cannot be used
while you're traveling. Do you worry about your inability to use your car,
or your house, or your bicycle, or your refrigerator, or your...?

[...]
Not that I'm trying to find a reason not to own, rather a sound
justification
to own.

The question of ownership comes down to just a handful of issues, none of
which have anything to do with the issue you present:

* Economics:
-- can you afford it?
-- would you spend more renting than owning?
* Non-economic benefits:
-- convenience
-- personal satisfaction
-- degree of control
* Non-economic drawbacks:
-- primarily, managing the ownership (maintenance, hangar/tiedown,
registration, etc.)

This is not an exclusive list...other issues do sometimes enter into the
picture (for example, wanting to regularly fly an airplane that simply
cannot be rented, like a seaplane). But the question of whether you can use
the airplane when you're not home or not is simply NOT a rational thing to
concern oneself with. Owning an airplane in no way creates any detrimental
situation with respect to that.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:


* Economics:
-- can you afford it?

This is important, obviously.



-- would you spend more renting than owning?

This isn't. The answer is always no, but the answer is also irrelavant
if the answer to the first question is yes.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Andrey Serbinenko" wrote in message
...
It is not the pure dollar cost that matters, but the effectiveness of the
money spent, i.e. cost vs. utility. It is especially true for something
requiring continuous money infusions like owning an airplane.

You would have to be doing a LOT of traveling, to places where you couldn't
fly your own airplane, AND renting airplanes at those destinations for your
scenario to have any relevance whatsoever. Like, on the order of one such
trip a week.

I'd be surprised if ANY of the 600,000+ certificated pilots in the US meet
that criteria, but if the number is non-zero, it can't be more than a
handful at most.

*Raising Hand...*

You've just described my world to a tee...

I'd love to own my own plane but I fly east of the Mississippi (if not all
the way to the east coast) from Phoenix every Thursday and return on Monday
for 34 of the 40 week NASCAR season. And, unlike a traveling salesman who
can reschedule a meeting, I *have* to get where I'm going or I don't work.
The relatively short turnaround each week means I don't have the time to
meander my way back and forth accross the country in a light single or light
twin. The "no work = no pay" issue means I don't have any extra time to sit
on the ground for any length of time so if I were to get trapped by Wx I'd
be seriously SOL.

I could fly myself to the races we do in Fontana, CA and Las Vegas, but my
schedule at these events is such that I need to be on the ground by 8am.
Yes, it would be doable even in a C172 ... but if I get hamstrung by the Wx
or a mechanical issue, my "employer" isn't going to be too happy. You don't
just call AccountTemps to replace someone in my work world. Too many last
second bailouts (read: more than one...) would probably get me fired.

One twist is that our travel is usually taken care of well in advance (at
least 6 mos or more) of the start of the race season. With almost three
full months left in this year, I'm already looking at next February and
March.

Now, if I lived in Charlotte or Asheville and could back up my own flying
with the ability to reach many of the tracks by car if last second Wx or
repairs popped up, I think (for me) owning would make much more sense.

We actually have several pilots on our crew including one guy who is based
up in Conneticut and flies himself to every event east of the Mississippi in
a Beech Duchess. It's sweet !!

Regards,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

the first partner saves you 50% of the costs. The third partner saves you
only an additional 17% of the total costs but blocks (theoretically) 33% of
availability.

Clever, but misleading. It could also be put that the first partner
saves you 50% of the costs and blocks (theoretically) 50% of the
schedule. The third partner saves you 33% of the costs, but only blocks
(theoretically) an additional 17% of the schedule.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

-- would you spend more renting than owning?

This isn't. The answer is always no, but the answer is also irrelavant if the answer to the first question is yes.

Wrong - this is quite relevant. I can afford many things but I don't
buy all the things I can afford. The non-economic benefits and costs
come into play as balancing act.

I suppose "if I can afford it AND NOT NOTICE", then the answer may be
irrelevant. But for most people I know who can afford an airplane, they
would notice.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
-- would you spend more renting than owning?

This isn't. The answer is always no, but the answer is also irrelavant if
the answer to the first question is yes.

That's not true. In some cases, the answer is "no" and in other cases the
answer is "yes".

For example, if you fly an airplane as much as a given airplane being rented
gets flown and the owner of the rented airplane isn't losing money, it's a
given that it would cost you less to own the airplane yourself than to rent
it.

The break-even is actually somewhere else, at a lower utilization, but the
above is trivially true and suffices as a counter-proof to your claim.

Pete

"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:bLPEg.1397$rT5.1320@fed1read01...
You would have to be doing a LOT of traveling, to places where you
couldn't fly your own airplane, AND renting airplanes at those
destinations for your scenario to have any relevance whatsoever. Like,
on the order of one such trip a week.
[...]

*Raising Hand...*

You've just described my world to a tee...

If you flew your theoretically owned airplane every other week (on a Tuesday
or Wednesday) for a couple of hours at a time, and did one decent
cross-country during the off-season, you'd fall squarely within the
description of a typical owner, at least a lower-usage one.

Furthermore, while some of your trips could not be made by an owned
airplane, I'd be willing to bet many could (perhaps even most). If that's
not true, then you really need to move somewhere closer to your work. My
description assumes that 100% of the trips cannot be made with your
airplane.

Finally, one key element of the analysis is that you have to be RENTING an
airplane and flying it when you are at your destination. Sounds to me as
though you are working, so it's not like your airplane would have gotten
flown during that time anyway.

Your schedule, as similar as it may sound to my description, really doesn't
fit the bill. You wouldn't have been flying your airplane during those
trips anyway, and you still have ample time to fly the airplane and still
meet a minimal annual usage to (barely ) justify owning an airplane.

Pete

but: the second partner brings not too much advantage, IMHO (and adds a
third opinion on every decision).

.... and a third pair of hands to accomplish every decision.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 00:16:35 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

The break-even is actually somewhere else, at a lower utilization, but the
above is trivially true and suffices as a counter-proof to your claim.

You're missing a factor. Rentals typically have a daily minimum. This
can add up for a vacation that lasts a week, two, or longer.

I'd just landed when another club member was getting ready to depart.
He's taking the family for a three (?) day trip to an island about an hour
away. Even if you ignore that our hourly rates are lower than rental rates
for the same aircraft, and ignore that we use tach time rather than hobbs
time, the daily minimum of a rental would have added at least a few
hundred to his vacation's cost.

And that's just for a three day trip.

Partnerships, clubs, ownerships, and fractionals can offer significant
savings over rentals when one uses airplanes for travel that involves
extended stays.

- Andrew
http://flyingclub.org/

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:bLPEg.1397$rT5.1320@fed1read01...
You would have to be doing a LOT of traveling, to places where you
couldn't fly your own airplane, AND renting airplanes at those
destinations for your scenario to have any relevance whatsoever. Like,
on the order of one such trip a week.
[...]

*Raising Hand...*

You've just described my world to a tee...

If you flew your theoretically owned airplane every other week (on a
Tuesday or Wednesday) for a couple of hours at a time, and did one decent
cross-country during the off-season, you'd fall squarely within the
description of a typical owner, at least a lower-usage one.

Interesting. As it happens, that's exactly the pattern my flying tends to
take.

Furthermore, while some of your trips could not be made by an owned
airplane, I'd be willing to bet many could (perhaps even most). If that's
not true, then you really need to move somewhere closer to your work. My
description assumes that 100% of the trips cannot be made with your
airplane.

As I said, there are a couple of race cities to which I could fly myself.
As for relocating, if I knew back in 2001 that I'd be able to count on
racing for as much work as I've actually gotten out of it, I'd probably have
moved back east. As it stands now, things are a little up in the air with a
new TV deal in place.

Finally, one key element of the analysis is that you have to be RENTING an
airplane and flying it when you are at your destination. Sounds to me as
though you are working, so it's not like your airplane would have gotten
flown during that time anyway.

Ah. I didn't interpret your point quite this way in your OP. I see your
point. Flying is not something I need to do when I'm on the road.

Your schedule, as similar as it may sound to my description, really
doesn't fit the bill. You wouldn't have been flying your airplane during
those trips anyway, and you still have ample time to fly the airplane and
still meet a minimal annual usage to (barely ) justify owning an
airplane.

Pete

I need to show this last paragraph to my "Secretary of the Treasury..." :O)

Jay