buy or rent a 2006 182

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

Also, I have seen many flight schools come and go over the years.

So...let's see: They're pricing it wrong?

Often a school's rental price structure has more to do with local
market forces than it has to do with costs and a proper return on capital
investment. Another factor is that great aviation folks are (way too
often) not great business people.

And that can make renting more expensive in other ways than direct costs
(i.e., losing the aircraft availability).

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
And that can make renting more expensive in other ways than direct costs
(i.e., losing the aircraft availability).

Then most of us just move on to the next flight school/FBO. A quick check
flight and you are on your way. (Of course, if you live in a small town your
choices may be somewhere between limited and nonexistent.)

Vaughn

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
And that can make renting more expensive in other ways than direct costs
(i.e., losing the aircraft availability).

Then most of us just move on to the next flight school/FBO. A quick
check flight and you are on your way. (Of course, if you live in a small
town your choices may be somewhere between limited and nonexistent.)


I used to (ten years ago) live in a medium size town (170,000) and there
was one FBO and one club. I recently moved from a small town (30,000), where
there was one FBO and one club with three aircraft.

The point is that renting has to be more expensive than buying (and using it
100+/- hours) as the costs are the same. That FBOs and clubs are
inefficient business people is only peripherally a factor.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 29 May 2007 11:14:14 -0700, xyzzy wrote:

If an owner can fly that much, every
month, consistently, month in and month out, then I'm very jealous of his
lifestyle.


Heh That's a good point.

That would be someone using it for business, not merely for pleasure
(outside some Hollyweird celebrity).

Matt Barrow wrote:

The point is that renting has to be more expensive than buying (and using it
100+/- hours) as the costs are the same. That FBOs and clubs are
inefficient business people is only peripherally a factor.

In the aggregate, you're probably right. Because of the higher
insurance and maintanence requirements, plus profit for the owner, it
probably costs more for a rental aircraft to fly 50 hours in a month
than it would cost an owner of the same plane time to fly 50 hours in
the same month. But who flies 50 hours a month?

For individual pilots who don't fly 50 hours a month, and are
therefore sharing those expenses with other pilots, renting is cheaper
for several reasons.

First, the airplane they are renting is flying more hours than an
individually owned airplane would, making the per-hour cost cheaper as
the fixed costs are spread out among more hours. The regular flying
also keeps the engine in better shape.

Second, the party renting the airplane can take tax write-offs most
individual owners can't (depreciation and maint expense), another way
of lowering the per-hour cost. This may even completely offset the
profit margin, which would make increased insurance and maintanence
the only extra cost of renting.

Third, the individual renter has little or no fixed costs. If an
individual renter doesn't fly in a specific month, he pays nothing (or
a nominal amount if club dues are involved).

I think you're making the mistake of making the wrong comparison.
You're comparing the aggregate costs to all renters with the cost to
an individual who flies the same number of hours as the rental
airplane flies in total. That's not a real comparison, hardly anyone
flies his owned airplane as much in a month as a rental plane flies,
month in and month out.

You have to compare what it costs one specific pilot to fly x hours a
month in a rental airplane with what it would cost the pilot to own
the same airplane type and fly it the same number of hours in a
month. And you can't use the peak month someone flies, average hours
per month over a long period is what makes sense, because everyone has
periods of inactivity for whatever reason. And unless the number of
hours is much higher than any of us can realistically fly, renting is
going to be cheaper on that comparison, which is the only one that
matters to the individual pilot.

Not to say that there aren't other, good reasons to own (flexibility,
availability, pride of ownership, etc). But renting is almost always
going to be cheaper.

"xyzzy" wrote in message
oups.com...

Matt Barrow wrote:

The point is that renting has to be more expensive than buying (and using
it
100+/- hours) as the costs are the same. That FBOs and clubs are
inefficient business people is only peripherally a factor.

In the aggregate, you're probably right. Because of the higher
insurance and maintanence requirements, plus profit for the owner, it
probably costs more for a rental aircraft to fly 50 hours in a month
than it would cost an owner of the same plane time to fly 50 hours in
the same month. But who flies 50 hours a month?

For individual pilots who don't fly 50 hours a month, and are
therefore sharing those expenses with other pilots, renting is cheaper
for several reasons.

First, the airplane they are renting is flying more hours than an
individually owned airplane would, making the per-hour cost cheaper as
the fixed costs are spread out among more hours. The regular flying
also keeps the engine in better shape.

Second, the party renting the airplane can take tax write-offs most
individual owners can't (depreciation and maint expense), another way
of lowering the per-hour cost. This may even completely offset the
profit margin, which would make increased insurance and maintanence
the only extra cost of renting.

Third, the individual renter has little or no fixed costs. If an
individual renter doesn't fly in a specific month, he pays nothing (or
a nominal amount if club dues are involved).

I think you're making the mistake of making the wrong comparison.
You're comparing the aggregate costs to all renters with the cost to
an individual who flies the same number of hours as the rental
airplane flies in total. That's not a real comparison, hardly anyone
flies his owned airplane as much in a month as a rental plane flies,
month in and month out.

You have to compare what it costs one specific pilot to fly x hours a
month in a rental airplane with what it would cost the pilot to own
the same airplane type and fly it the same number of hours in a
month. And you can't use the peak month someone flies, average hours
per month over a long period is what makes sense, because everyone has
periods of inactivity for whatever reason. And unless the number of
hours is much higher than any of us can realistically fly, renting is
going to be cheaper on that comparison, which is the only one that
matters to the individual pilot.

Not to say that there aren't other, good reasons to own (flexibility,
availability, pride of ownership, etc). But renting is almost always
going to be cheaper.

Assuming the rental fleet GETS USED enough.

Would you rent a car from Avis, Hertz, Enterprise rather than buy your own?
:~)

I had to rent an SUV from Enterprise for four days...cost me as much as five
weeks running my own...which was MUCH nicer.

Note to the anal retentive: I know the comparison is sorta "apples-bananas"
(Cliche avoidance).

BTW, the nicest rental aircraft I've seen lately is a 2006 T182. ANd, I keep
remembering what Jeff Foxowrthy said about buying a used rental car -- it's
like picking a hooker for a wife: you don't want to stick your key in THAT
ignition.

Matt Barrow wrote:
"xyzzy" wrote in message
oups.com...

Matt Barrow wrote:

The point is that renting has to be more expensive than buying (and using
it
100+/- hours) as the costs are the same. That FBOs and clubs are
inefficient business people is only peripherally a factor.

In the aggregate, you're probably right. Because of the higher
insurance and maintanence requirements, plus profit for the owner, it
probably costs more for a rental aircraft to fly 50 hours in a month
than it would cost an owner of the same plane time to fly 50 hours in
the same month. But who flies 50 hours a month?

For individual pilots who don't fly 50 hours a month, and are
therefore sharing those expenses with other pilots, renting is cheaper
for several reasons.

First, the airplane they are renting is flying more hours than an
individually owned airplane would, making the per-hour cost cheaper as
the fixed costs are spread out among more hours. The regular flying
also keeps the engine in better shape.

Second, the party renting the airplane can take tax write-offs most
individual owners can't (depreciation and maint expense), another way
of lowering the per-hour cost. This may even completely offset the
profit margin, which would make increased insurance and maintanence
the only extra cost of renting.

Third, the individual renter has little or no fixed costs. If an
individual renter doesn't fly in a specific month, he pays nothing (or
a nominal amount if club dues are involved).

I think you're making the mistake of making the wrong comparison.
You're comparing the aggregate costs to all renters with the cost to
an individual who flies the same number of hours as the rental
airplane flies in total. That's not a real comparison, hardly anyone
flies his owned airplane as much in a month as a rental plane flies,
month in and month out.

You have to compare what it costs one specific pilot to fly x hours a
month in a rental airplane with what it would cost the pilot to own
the same airplane type and fly it the same number of hours in a
month. And you can't use the peak month someone flies, average hours
per month over a long period is what makes sense, because everyone has
periods of inactivity for whatever reason. And unless the number of
hours is much higher than any of us can realistically fly, renting is
going to be cheaper on that comparison, which is the only one that
matters to the individual pilot.

Not to say that there aren't other, good reasons to own (flexibility,
availability, pride of ownership, etc). But renting is almost always
going to be cheaper.

Assuming the rental fleet GETS USED enough.

Would you rent a car from Avis, Hertz, Enterprise rather than buy your own?
:~)


If I drove as often as I fly, yes.

"xyzzy" wrote in message
oups.com...

Matt Barrow wrote:
"xyzzy" wrote in message
oups.com...

Matt Barrow wrote:

The point is that renting has to be more expensive than buying (and
using
it
100+/- hours) as the costs are the same. That FBOs and clubs are
inefficient business people is only peripherally a factor.

Assuming the rental fleet GETS USED enough.

Would you rent a car from Avis, Hertz, Enterprise rather than buy your
own?
:~)


If I drove as often as I fly, yes.

So we come back to the original question: At what point does buying become
more effective than renting?

We've seen a sh&tlo*d of 30-50 hour/year pilots giving their reasons for
renting, but Dan is NOT in that category.

It seems there's a lot of pilots with only slightly more flight hours than
MXMANIAC. :~(

Matt Barrow wrote:

It seems there's a lot of pilots with only slightly more flight hours than
MXMANIAC. :~(

Excellent point. The fact is, that those of us that own our own
planes do it because it is a part of our lives, not because it
makes sense based upon some numbers arranged on a piece of paper.

I drive a 1999 Ford Ranger... paid for and well maintained. My
insurance on that truck is $250 a year. I don't play golf, and
I don't have a boat or do a lot of other hobbies that consume
a lot of time or money. For that reason owning a plane is worth
it and within my budget.

We take a lot of weekend trips that would not be possible if all
you could do was drive a car to get there (who wants to drive 6
hours one way just for a weekend getaway!). Renting an airplane
for the whole weekend or a three day weekend is not always possible
or finacially feasable.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:

It seems there's a lot of pilots with only slightly more flight hours
than MXMANIAC. :~(
Excellent point. The fact is, that those of us that own our own
planes do it because it is a part of our lives, not because it
makes sense based upon some numbers arranged on a piece of paper.

I drive a 1999 Ford Ranger... paid for and well maintained. My
insurance on that truck is $250 a year. I don't play golf, and
I don't have a boat or do a lot of other hobbies that consume
a lot of time or money. For that reason owning a plane is worth
it and within my budget.

We take a lot of weekend trips that would not be possible if all
you could do was drive a car to get there (who wants to drive 6
hours one way just for a weekend getaway!). Renting an airplane
for the whole weekend or a three day weekend is not always possible
or finacially feasable.

Renting isn't feasible for over-night trips either, especially if you have a
lot of them.

The first year when we (wife & I) started our business, we rented. Had
massive problems with availability, and RON charges were sometimes more than
we made in profit some months.

Then too, my first buy was a T210 that was a real lemon.