Co-Own A Plane! (Plane & Pilot Article)

AggieMike88

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
20,805
Location
Denton, TX
Display Name

Display name:
The original "I don't know it all" of aviation.
Thought this would be worth sharing with different folks. Especially the the lurkers (yes, you with the tin foil hat, we know who you are).

And I thought it might start a decent discussion or two.

=======================

Source: http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/air...m_medium=email&utm_campaign=PPeNewsFeb_022412
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Co-Own A Plane!
With aircraft ownership costs skyrocketing, finding a partner could keep you flying
By Marc C. Lee

Jessica Meredith co-owns a 1979 Citabria with three other pilots at Santa Monica Airport. Each owner pays $160 per month of fixed costs, $30 per hour for future engine maintenance, and their own fuel.

attachment.php
attachment.php


There was one specific moment when I knew I had made the right decision to join an aircraft partnership. We had just completed some major maintenance work on the airplane involving the starter, alternator and various parts of the electrical system. It had required some custom fabrication and many hours of work, and had kept the plane grounded for over a month. The bill for the work had just arrived in my mail. As I looked at the four-figure number on the invoice and felt the shot of adrenaline hit my heart, I breathed deep, remembered the number would be divided by eight, and calculated my small-by-comparison share. I knew the other seven guys felt exactly the same.

Owning an aircraft is expensive. If you've ever sat down with a spreadsheet and input all the costs that go into owning and flying an aircraft, you've realized that financing it all yourself is a ponderous burden. The big-ticket items of maintenance, insurance, storage (hangar) and, of course, the cost of unexpected "surprises" are enough to dissuade anybody with an average pocketbook from owning an aircraft.

Unlike a car—where you can run to the local Pep Boys and pick up any part on sale—aircraft require specially certificated parts installed by mechanics with unique training. They require specialized "care and feeding" because of their unique role in flying several miles high at speeds much faster than a car. Not to mention the regular inspections and highly specialized instrumentation, as well as highly refined (and expensive) fuel requirements. No, owning an airplane isn't for the timid.

But pilots were never meant to be renters. If you think about it, aviation is one of very few areas where renting is considered normal. Though it's possible, you don't usually rent your motorcycle; or your mountain bike, or horse, or race car or boat. Yet in aviation, most of us have to rely on an FBO with possibly tired airplanes and unknowable maintenance to provide us our flying fix. Owning an aircraft has become too expensive for most folks. And that's where partnerships save the day.


Types Of Co-Ownership
There are many flavors of partnerships: limited liability company (LLCs), simple partnerships, fractional ownership and flying clubs. The difference is in the individual responsibility of the members, the liability exposure of the group, insurance ramifications and tax implications. The structure of the partnership can be anything from an informal agreement between two or more pilots to a corporate arrangement with officers, yearly meetings and shareholder agreements. One of our great freedoms in this country is the ability to create aviation partnerships that fit our unique situations.

A better word for sharing the cost of owning an aircraft is "co-ownership." The word "partnership" is actually a formal designation of one type of co-ownership, and carries with it certain legal parameters. The term is usually used with a "for-profit" business relationship. It would be prudent to note that the legal, liability and tax variables for each type of co-ownership scenario is outside the scope of a magazine article and should be researched further—preferably with the advice of an attorney.

The simplest arrangement for pilots is the "co-ownership" scenario where there are two variants: tenancy in common and joint tenancy. The difference between the two relates mainly to whom the owner's interest goes after death. Co-ownerships aren't subject to tax because they aren't a business entity. If an accident were to occur with a co-owned aircraft, attorneys could go after each individual for damages.

An LLC provides some liability protection. In an LLC scenario, an aircraft is owned by the company, and each member owns a share of the corporation. State fees and a tax return are due, but individual members report their share of profits or losses on their own tax returns. There also are requirements for annual meetings, complete with minutes and documentation. Individual members are usually named as officers in the company. LLCs are governed by state laws, as well, and should be researched carefully.

For most pilots without deep pockets, the simple co-ownership works best. These usually consist of 10 or less members and share one or more aircraft. The simplest scenario is co-ownership of a single aircraft with somewhere between two and eight pilots. These partnerships are easy to understand and run, and plainly show the advantages of owning an aircraft with several people.

The Good
There are so many beneficial aspects of co-ownership that it amazes me how all pilots aren't clamoring for a share in something that flies. Those, like myself, who are in partnerships feel they're one of aviation's best-kept secrets. We thought we'd tell you a little about actual partnerships and how they work in the real world.

Jessica Meredith has only been a private pilot for several months. With the ink on her certificate still wet and about 80 hours in her logbook, she discovered a low-key co-ownership deal on a 1979 Citabria. "I had gotten the flying bug and couldn't stop," laughs Meredith. "I thought the Citabria would be a great airplane to improve my flying skills."

The airplane was owned by four individuals who hardly flew the airplane. "Most of them had other airplanes," Meredith says, "so the Citabria sat for long periods." One of the owners had left, so the group was looking for a new fourth partner. Meredith stepped right in. An elementary-school teacher and a high-school rowing coach in her working life, Meredith was attracted by the idea of flying a more challenging aircraft than what was available at the local FBOs. She also wanted the chance to learn more about the airplane and the low cost of flying within a partnership. "It was much less expensive than renting," she adds.

The group is very low-tech, like many successful partnerships. For scheduling the Citabria, "We just text each other," Meredith laughs. She likes to fly on weekdays, which is the opposite of when the other members fly, if they fly it at all. Meredith has discovered that most of the time she has the airplane to herself.

Meredith enjoys working on the airplane with the mechanic—she's the only partner who does. In doing so, she has discovered one of the hidden benefits of helping to turn the wrenches on a co-owned airplane: You get to know the airplane better than anybody else. Pilots who help with maintenance know the condition of each screw, the location of each leak and the condition of all the parts under the cowling. Meredith agrees there's no better education in aviation. "I love to work on the plane! I really get to know it better," she says.

Of course, cost is the biggest benefit. Any aircraft owner can cut their costs by 50% by adding just one co-owner. And the savings go on from there depending on the number of partners. In both Meredith's and my case, that means huge savings when big maintenance bills come.

Co-ownerships can be priced differently, still with many similarities. In Meredith's case, she paid a modest buy-in, pays her share of the fixed costs each month ($160) and then pays for her own fuel. Each member also pays a $30/hour engine reserve fee for future repairs and overhauls. My case is similar, except all of us pay a fixed per-hour cost of $80 that covers fuel, oil, engine fund, etc. Our group has eight equal members so our buy-in was less, though our airplane costs more. You can see that anything is possible, cost-wise.

AOPA did a recent study and posted some cost-of-ownership comparisons on their partnership website http://ap.aopa.org. Based on a brand-new $140,000 LSA, the cost of ownership for one person flying an average of 50 hours per year was $524 per hour after an initial outlay of $24,500. By comparison, owning the same airplane with four equal co-owners cost each member $164 per hour after a buy-in of $6,125. Increasing the airplane's hours flown each year to 75 brought the per-hour cost down to $121. Remember, that's for a brand-new, upper-tier LSA and not some student-hardened veteran sitting in the sun on an FBO's ramp.

Another enormous benefit is the ability to fly an airplane that would normally be out of reach or unavailable. In my case, it means co-owning an aerobatic biplane that's a hoot to fly for less money than I was paying to rent a 35-year old Skyhawk from an FBO. For Jessica Meredith, it means flying a challenging tailwheel aircraft with plenty of capability to urge her along in her piloting experience, for a fraction of the cost of renting.

The Bad
There are few, if any, negatives in co-ownerships. Nightmare scenarios are rare. One of the keys is choosing the right people. "My advice to anybody looking to get into a partnership is to talk first," says Meredith. Like a marriage, owning an aircraft will be a relationship that must withstand good and bad. Interview prospective members and be candid about your requirements and personalities. Decide upfront what type of pilots you're willing to own with, and stick to those requirements.

The biggest barrier to co-ownership for many pilots is availability. However, both in reality and on paper, that shouldn't be of any concern. AOPA's statistics show most pilots who fly recreationally fly between 50-100 hours per year. However, there are 8,766 hours in the year, so there's plenty to go around.

Experience also shows that availability is simply not an issue. There's a partnership at my home airport that flies a Cessna 172 with 10 members. The airplane flies an average of 80 hours per year. In my ownership situation, the airplane had flown only 32 hours the entire year before I joined. Since the group's inception, the aircraft has flown less than 100 hours most years. In Meredith's case, the airplane would sit for months without being flown. AOPA's numbers show a four-owner aircraft flies an average of 200-300 hours annually at best. That equates to 1.75 to 2.5 hours out of every 100 hours during the year.

Getting Started
AOPA has revamped their partnership site, creating what could arguably be called the best co-ownership resource available. It's called the AOPA Aircraft Partnership Program (http://ap.aopa.org), and it's free. You can list yourself as looking for a co-ownership situation, or as an owner looking for partners. It's a great place to start your search.

There's more to the co-ownership idea, with such details as partnership agreements, methods of scheduling, insurance concerns and more, so there's plenty to learn. But those of us who love to fly will find a way to do it. And if cost is a concern (as it is to most of us), then look no further than co-ownership.

Co-Ownership Considerations
Type Of Legal Entity: The type of entity you join—or create—will impact your liability exposure, taxes and fiduciary responsibility.

The limited liability company (LLC) has gained much popularity with aircraft-owner groups. Such an effort will cost more money and be slightly more complex to set up than a simple partnership, but the liability protection is well worth the added costs.

Selecting Owners: The compatibility of the owners is paramount. Such elements as piloting experience, mission profile and overall financial standing are important to discuss openly.

Termination Procedure: If a member doesn't work out, or if a member chooses to leave the group, there needs to be an exit strategy. Events such as a member's loss of medical, divorce, sudden illness, bankruptcy or even death need to be addressed. Can a member sell his/her shares or does the company purchase them? What type of advanced notice is required? What if the aircraft loses some of its value?

Management And Administration: The partnership must stipulate whether members will manage the finances, maintenance, book-keeping and membership duties for the group, or whether these tasks will be hired out. The group must decide who will be authorized to handle the financial side of the co-ownership, who can write checks and who will authorize expenses.

Insurance: Insuring larger groups has become more difficult in today's litigious society, and the typical limits of liability per occurrence and per accident are hardly adequate. Insurance pricing can vary wildly, so various sources should be looked at.

Maintenance: Many partnerships require the members to get their hands dirty, especially at annual time. This keeps maintenance costs at a minimum and imbues each pilot with intimate knowledge of the mechanical condition of the airplane. Some groups can afford to simply farm out the maintenance to a local facility.

Resolution Of Disputes And Problems: Establishing documented resolution procedures will help keep you out of court. Remember that as soon as you begin talking with an attorney and start dealing with the court system, costs will mount quickly. Consider how disagreements between co-owners will be resolved, and what procedures will be followed (such as mediation) before resorting to the legal system.

Aircraft Management: Issues such as scheduling and squawk procedures will need to be specified. Several free and paid options exist, from simple to feature-rich. You must decide whether the aircraft will be allowed to be used for instruction, and what the check-out requirements will be for new members, as well as currency requirements for existing members. Such details as weather minimums and how minor maintenance will be handled should all be addressed.​
 

Attachments

  • lead.jpg
    lead.jpg
    31.1 KB · Views: 422
  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    42.3 KB · Views: 420
I don't know why more pilots don't join or organize Co ownership arrangements. I have tried to start several in my area and have had zero interest.

What is not to like about flying 3 or 4 times the plane you can afford? :dunno: Take $25k time 4 partners and have a $10k reserve fund for unforseen repairs and you can buy a $90k airplane (or less) and have a serious flying machine at their disposal.

With the internet scheduling is not a problem, and keep tract of costs should be easy.
 
Last edited:
I don't know why more pilots don't join or organize Co ownership arrangements. I have tried to start several in my area and have had zero interest.

What is not to like about flying 3 or 4 times the plane you can afford? :dunno:

With the internet scheduling is not a problem, and keep tract of costs should be easy.

One reason I can give you is that the dry rates mentioned in the article are about the same as the wet rate I pay for a rental at 10hours per month. If I flew the rental less, it would cost less and I can go to ZERO immediately. I really don't see any appeal whatsoever to the arrangement in the article.

I can't agree on pizza toppings with another human much less finances, upgrades etc...
 
One reason I can give you is that the dry rates mentioned in the article are about the same as the wet rate I pay for a rental at 10hours per month. If I flew the rental less, it would cost less and I can go to ZERO immediately. I really don't see any appeal whatsoever to the arrangement in the article.

I can't agree on pizza toppings with another human much less finances, upgrades etc...

For what airplane?
 
I am about to sell my Cherokee and am considering an outright purchase of a plane vs a partnership. I fly at least 100 hours per year, which is a mix of weekend and weekday (work). Most of my flights are fairly spontaneous and I fear losing that flexibility. My budget is in the mid 40's and I can afford the maintenance and fuel (as well as hangar and insurance). One of my main reasons for selling is I want to start my IR training and my current panel is not adequate. I also would like something faster for some of the business travel I do. I cannot finance, so the acquisition costs are what is hamstringing me.
 
I like the idea of co-ownership. I believe it will work for me better than renting.
My typical mission is day or weekend family trips. I'm quite flexible and can change my plans if schedule conflict happens.
I never owned plane so joining co-ownership will help me learn all things involved in ownership from more experienced partners.
So far I wasn't able to find right partnership in my area. Either plane doesn't fit my mission or price isn't right or I do not fit experience requirements :(. But I keep looking.
 
One reason I can give you is that the dry rates mentioned in the article are about the same as the wet rate I pay for a rental at 10hours per month. If I flew the rental less, it would cost less and I can go to ZERO immediately. I really don't see any appeal whatsoever to the arrangement in the article.

I can't agree on pizza toppings with another human much less finances, upgrades etc...
Co-ownership can significantly reduce the cost of owning an airplane but in most cases it will actually increase the cost of operating the airplane somewhat. And for most folks, if you compare the total cost of owning and operating a specific airplane make/model, unless the plane gets flown at least 15, preferably 20 or more hours per month it will not be less expensive than renting.
 
I'm currently in a co-ownership with one other person. We do not pay a monthly amount currently. My partner is not really flying at the moment so in essence I have the plane all to myself. If it needs work I do it in concert with my A&P and we split the cost.

We are actively seeking a third partner. When we add someone we will have a monthly fee of $170 plus $100 to my partner for the hangar, which she owns.

In reading what was posted in the OP it said the AOPA thing was free. I would take exception with that as they wanted $10 a month if I go list my share for sale.
 
Last edited:
That AOPA tool is absolutely infuriating to register for. MUST opt-in to e-mails, and if not, can't register? Can't complete a registration to browse listings without completing a whole profile of budget/type/details of estimated usage/etc? Before registration, there is a map with pushpins of where supposed listings are, but clicking on them shows they're just placeholders for a "Get started today!" message, filled in near most zip codes.

Why is it so hard for me to simply log in with my AOPA information, and see all of the listings on a map, with no BS?
 
This would not be a $90k airplane then. :rolleyes:

No but I can hop in the Decathalon for about a 110/hr when I need it, no "monthly dues" and no dry rate. There's also a 172, a 172RG and an Arrow. You get most of the problems of renting and all the problems of ownership rolled into one and you have to work through those problems with 3 other humans. Not for me at all. I know of 5 partnerships, zero are still together and only 1 would describe their experience as a desirable situation. I couldn't care less about hull value, insurance, maintenance, and hangar space. My fuel spending was double all other costs combined for 2011. There's the problem.
 
Four of us just purchased an immaculate low-time 2007 Diamond DA40XL. We formed an LLC to own it. Our buy-in was $57K each, $298/mo. fixed and $22/hr dry. Assuming 100 hrs/yr each, total operating cost is $106/hr wet. We are looking for a 5th partner and when we find him/her those numbers will look like this: $46K buy-in, $238/mo fixed, $22/hr dry, making the total cost $99/hr wet.

Our airplane still has the "new" smell and we intend to keep it that way. It took us two years to find four guys to do this but it has been well worth the wait. We connected with one of our partners through the AOPA partnership site so we can attest that it works. We still have a listing up on the site and hope that we will soon find number 5.

All of us rented for years and while there may be some rental deals out there that are better than ours in terms of cost, the value of the ownership lifestyle is one that far exceeds the purely cost based considerations. So in the end each has to decide if this lifestyle is worth the cost and effort. In our case, the answer for all four of us (and our families) is a resounding, yes.
 
I bought into a 1974 Cessna 172M partnership a week after my private pilot checkride for $14.5k and it has turned out great. There are 4 of us and we each pay $150/month for fixed costs which includes a hangar and $80/hour wet based on tach time. These amounts have allowed our maintenance fund to grow to the point that it fully covered the engine overhaul we did last year.

In the 3.5 years I have been a partner, I have put 448.6 hobbs hours on the plane and payed $38,900 into the LLC. Putting the same amount of hours on a local rental 172 would have cost $58,341. Over the course of 3.5 years, being in a partnership has saved me $19,441 compared to renting. This is more than the $14.5k it cost me to buy in, so even if the plane disappeared today, I would still be ahead.

There are also significant non-financial benefits to compared to renting. There are only 4 of us who fly the plane, so I have a good idea of how it is being treated. Maintenance is completely under our control and if there is something we don't like about the plane, we get it fixed. There is no daily minimum for putting hours on the plane. Scheduling is easy and I can only think of one small conflict that came up in the last 3.5 years.

Ryan
 
For many people, I think that partnerships represent a good value. However, one must look at the specifics, as I've seen them go both ways.

You need to have partners whose schedule works with yours (specifically, it's difficult if you all want to use the plane the same weekend or all fly a lot), and who also want the same things out of an airplane. For example, I have some clients who are very happy with the plane they own together, however one of them is interested in spending money on upgrades that the other doesn't think are necessary. So, they either don't do the upgrades and get disgruntled, or else do the upgrades and the one person is out the cash (albeit half the cash) to do the work.

Do you both have the same operating philosophies? If you have one person who likes flying ROP and one LOP, can both accept equally when the engine needs work? If one isn't afraid of flying in ice or storms and the other is, can that person accept the dents and paint nicks in the nose from ice coming off the props?

That said, I think that for about 90% of pilots who fly <150 hours a year primarily for business and pleasure, a partnership of some sort is an excellent idea. It's just important that they pick their partners wisely.
 
No but I can hop in the Decathalon for about a 110/hr when I need it, no "monthly dues" and no dry rate. There's also a 172, a 172RG and an Arrow. You get most of the problems of renting and all the problems of ownership rolled into one and you have to work through those problems with 3 other humans. Not for me at all. I know of 5 partnerships, zero are still together and only 1 would describe their experience as a desirable situation. I couldn't care less about hull value, insurance, maintenance, and hangar space. My fuel spending was double all other costs combined for 2011. There's the problem.

One must be in a market where there is availability for that to work.

In my opinion partnership might work best in rural areas where there is no market for any rental. Or at best one 172 for rent on the line.

In the last 15 years that has been my situation. No club within 80 miles, and either no rentals or for two years out of that fifteen I had the typical FBO 172 leaseback and in that case with no competition it was pricey.

My future home is another example. A fairly decent airport - KCMX - with a small but active EAA chapter but no real FBO, and a small county population. Zero rentals and though the EAA guys apparently make noise every couple of years, no real interest in a club though some bull in a china shop kind of person could kick start it. Maybe. In this environment a partnership will be perfect, perhaps with someone already owning who wants to dish costs to others. But I'm wary of that arrangement - someone having to begin sharing their pride and joy might be hard to deal with.
 
Last edited:
In one breath that article touts the simplicity of a basic co-ownership with tenancy-in-common, both from a complexity and taxes point of view, in the next it strongly recommends an LLC with its associated complexity, filing, and tax implications in order to benefit from liability protection of the members in the event of an accident.

Which would you choose, and why? If you choose a simple co-ownership, it sounds like the individual owners names appear on the bill of sale and registration certificate and no specific legal entity is formed... True?
 
In one breath that article touts the simplicity of a basic co-ownership with tenancy-in-common, both from a complexity and taxes point of view, in the next it strongly recommends an LLC with its associated complexity, filing, and tax implications in order to benefit from liability protection of the members in the event of an accident.

Which would you choose, and why? If you choose a simple co-ownership, it sounds like the individual owners names appear on the bill of sale and registration certificate and no specific legal entity is formed... True?

My partnership is organized as an LLC. I was buying out one of the previous partners and it was already setup as an LLC. We pay something like $125 a year to the state corporation commission. No taxes or other paperwork are involved, but we are a fairly informal partnership. I don't even think my name is on any of the LLC paperwork.

Ryan
 
Especially the the lurkers...

Yes there are lurkers on this site. I am not a pilot nor a student pilot so I do not have much to contribute. But I have flown and want get a PPL...this site is a good way for me to keep up with what is going on.

Thanks for the article.
 
A big plus of a LLC is that you don't buy and sell the plane so it reduces the tax bite on ownership transfer.
 
Clubs can be good, too. I joined ours in 2000. Cost me $1200 for the membership. At the time the C-172N in the club was $50/hr wet. From the locals FBOs a comparable plane was $80/hr wet. 40 hours and that $1200 was covered. We have monthly dues (presently $75) to cover fixed costs like hangars and insurance and $15 of that is credited if you fly that month. That C-172N is now a bit over $80/hr wet, with still beats the heck out of the local FBOs. We have a C-182P and an Arrow, as well. Looking for another 172 to replace the one we sold last summer. 50 members and I've been aced out of flying exactly once in the years I've been a member. Sometimes I don't get the plane I had in mind, but if I'm just going sightseeing in the area it isn't important. And I can get the Arrow about anytime I want it as so few members fly it.

Check out clubs. They can also be a good option. If something breaks you call the maintenance officer for that plane and it gets fixed. At least, that's how it works for us.
 
I just bought 1/3rd of 1976 Cardinal 177B (fixed gear) for 9k. The plane has always been hangared, and it is in really good shape for a 37 year old plane with the original paint and interior. The avionics are original, and could stand to be replaced. The engine still has 700 hours before TBO, although techinically its run out based on the age of the engine. Lycoming recomends a 12 year TBO (I think it's 12 years, but I may have the total wrong), regardless of hours. I figure I can split 1/3 of an overhaul, pay for a 1/3 of the avionics, and still come out in pretty decent shape. I have been flying it and it flies great. The engine has plenty of power, but it hasn't been flown a lot the last few years. I am keeping my eyes open for signs of cam wear, etc. So far, I haven't had a single conflict trying to use the plane. I don't think my 2 partners have even flown it a single minute since I bought in. I don't have to fight to reserve the plane, and the costs are essentially the same as renting, so now I can actually count on being able to get the plane to take a trip somewhere, rather than just take little one or two hour sight seeing flights.

So far, any downsides are greatly outweighed by the benefit of splitting the costs. For what it's worth, the hangar is equiped with a kerosene heater, a ladder, and several other items that I can use. Thus, my 9k really bought me more than just the plane. Knock on wood, I am very happy with my purchase.
 
Last edited:
There are some things which are just not practical to do in a rental, which may sway the decision for non-economic reasons. The FBO won't want you to make a weekend trip to someplace 400 miles away, and take the plane out of their inventory for 60 hours while putting only 8 billable hours on the Hobbs. Some also don't like you to practice on grass strips, etc.

What I don't get is why, with all the planes owned by elderly guys who can't admit they'll never fly again, more aren't offered as partnership opportunities rather than being left tied down on the ramp to rot in the sun. For someone who can't bring himself to sell because he might get his medical back someday, you'd think this would make more sense than seeing the ol' bird decay. A partner might also be a PIC for experienced pilots who can't safely fly alone anymore.
 
What I don't get is why, with all the planes owned by elderly guys who can't admit they'll never fly again, more aren't offered as partnership opportunities rather than being left tied down on the ramp to rot in the sun.
I was lucky enought to find an elderly pilot who realized he wasn't safe to fly anymore, and, although he was sad to let the plane go, I think he was happy to see it go to someone who would appreciate it.
 
There are some things which are just not practical to do in a rental, which may sway the decision for non-economic reasons. The FBO won't want you to make a weekend trip to someplace 400 miles away, and take the plane out of their inventory for 60 hours while putting only 8 billable hours on the Hobbs. Some also don't like you to practice on grass strips, etc.

What I don't get is why, with all the planes owned by elderly guys who can't admit they'll never fly again, more aren't offered as partnership opportunities rather than being left tied down on the ramp to rot in the sun. For someone who can't bring himself to sell because he might get his medical back someday, you'd think this would make more sense than seeing the ol' bird decay. A partner might also be a PIC for experienced pilots who can't safely fly alone anymore.
To the first point, there are places that will let their "trip" planes out for a weekend as you describe, though probably not their 152 or 172 trainers. And some even let you go into grass strips!

As to your second point, I agree! Heck, even if they don't have a medical, they might have some great experience they can pass along as they right-seat in the plane! (Of course, there's always the possibility that it's bad experience, too!)
 
I wish we could hear from someone who co-owned a plane for a long time, and dealt with partners who wanted out.

It seems to me that co-owning a plane is kind of like a marriage. Hearing from someone who recently formed or joined a deal is kind of like hearing from a newlywed. How the story ends is just as important as how it starts.

Someone who has been in a deal for many years, and then has gotten out of a deal, or dealt with another co-owner who wanted out -- they'll have a story that I'd like to hear.
 
Last edited:
I wish we could hear from someone who co-owned a plane for a long time, and dealt with partners who wanted out.

BTDT. One partner wanted out after the crash, for predictable reasons. We was actually in arrears quite a bit, and insisted on simply using that as his buy-out. It was somewhat less than the de facto valuation, but he insisted and I acquiesced, hoping to pay him back when he re-joined.

It seems to me that co-owning a plane is kind of like a marriage. Hearing from someone who recently formed or joined a deal is kind of like hearing from a newlywed. How the story ends is just as important as how it starts.[/QUOT

Someone who has been in a deal for many years, and then has gotten out of a deal, or dealt with another co-owner who wanted out -- they'll have a story that I'd like to hear.

Mine wasn't bad, and I would hope to add another partner in the future. However, I won't do it if it isn't the right person. I would actually like someone who would fly the aircraft more, it isn't getting a hundred hours a year these days and it should. I'd give up some flights to reach that goal.

The biggest problem with rentals is if you want to do an extended trip it can be quite difficult, and understandably so. The rental agency looses all the revenue on the ship when it is away from its home base. Airplanes were made for trips. Most of the ships we fly were made to take us to places far away, not buzz about in the pattern.

All that said, I don't think my airplane has ever been away overnight without me.
 
I am in and like the idea of a flying club. We have 4 planes (2 172s,182Q, R182 and about 40 members. Kind of like belonging to four individual partnerships.
 
I'm in a LLC based 5 way partnership. We just had a partner sell his share last year. It took him a year or so to sell it, mostly because of the economy. We are currently in a rough patch with one partner not playing nicely but hopefully we will get past that. I can say that being in this partnership has given me the chance to fly a plane I could not afford on my own. It has also allowed me to make some trips that I don't think I could have done with a rental. I have a standing reservation to take it to Osh every year, sometimes with one of my partners and sometimes without. Last month I flew it down to the Abacos Island in the Bahamas for a week. We maintain the plane very well since each person only pays 20% of the bill. In the 4 years I've been in the partnership I can only think of 3 or 4 times that I wanted to go fly locally but could not because the plane was in use. I've never had a problem with booking it for a trip as I tend to know about them weeks in advance. We have had some last minute trips come up with various partners and they have not been a problem. ( the plane is on a trip to Ohio on that basis right now ) In general I'm a advocate of the partnership option as the plus outweigh the minuses
 
I'm in a club with 3 planes and 45 owners. The club has been established since 1956 and continues to be financially solid, and handles exiting members and selling/transferring shares very effectively.
 
I would have to agree on the club route. I was in a non-profit/no equity club for a couple years. I appreciate it even more now that its gone(I moved) after renting from FBO's.

$300 membership fee, $40/ month. Around $105/hr for an archer or 172sp and about $140/hr for a 182r.

No daily minimums, unless you are taking the plane for more than 4 days and even then it came out to less than an hour a day for a 2 week trip which you would probably use anyway. And the planes were kept in a hangar and included full service fuel. Over the 2 years I was in the club I was unable to get a plane to use one time because of a VFR pilot stuck somewhere waiting for better weather.
 
Last edited:
I forgot to mention that the $22/hr dry variable cost is tach time, not hobbs. The way we handle scheduling is that every week of the year (Tues-Mon) is assigned to each of us in rotation as "priority pilot" where the priority pilot has right of first refusal. In talking to other co-ownerships we have learned that schedule conflicts almost never occur. There is also no objection to any of us taking the plane for a one-hour trip and leaving it parked for a week at the destination. The holiday weeks like Christmas, Thanksgiving, spring break, etc. are equitably distributed among the owners.
 
Flying clubs/co-ownership never work out for me.

If you're trying to collect ratings or just go bore holes in the sky I can see it. Perhaps a short vacation planed well in advance also. However, if you actually use an airplane to go somewhere, you probably fly in part for the convenience and flexibility over commercial. This creates conflicts in a club or co-ownership scenario.

I guess it's just a different kind of flying.
 
I was in a non equity club for a few years. The club itself was perfect. Allowed me to fly a very nice Tiger for a lot cheaper than I could have rented for. It also allowed me to take it on extended trips without having to pay rental minimums. At the end, however, the crooked sole owner tried to steal people's money and I bolted.

One of the other members and I then purchased a twin together, and I have been quite happy with that arrangement. Since both of us came from the Crook's Lair, we were both a little gun shy about getting into a partnership. I knew going into the partnership that he may not be able to help pay for upgrades as much as I wanted, but we agreed to adjust the ownership percentage by the amount of extra money I put into it. It has worked out very well, and it has allowed us to use an airplane certainly cheaper than renting a similar aircraft. There actually are very few aircraft on the rental line that compare to a Twinkie, and certainly none nearby.
 
I've owned a number (20-some, IIRC) of airplanes as a co-owner, including several that lasted more than 20 years and one that has lasted more than 30 years. One deal included three planes and ended with a fatal accident, causing the remaining co-owners to liquidate the arrangement. The financial aspects worked out equitably, but we still miss our close friend who died in the crash. Having the right people as co-owners is the most important aspect of any deal, but you obviously can't predict how that will play out over the long term. A well-written JOA is therefore an essential part of any such deal, including the terms of dissolution and winding down. Every deal in life includes some tradeoffs, and I wouldn't hesitate to accept those involved with co-ownership if I had need for more airplane than i could afford.

I wish we could hear from someone who co-owned a plane for a long time, and dealt with partners who wanted out.

It seems to me that co-owning a plane is kind of like a marriage. Hearing from someone who recently formed or joined a deal is kind of like hearing from a newlywed. How the story ends is just as important as how it starts.

Someone who has been in a deal for many years, and then has gotten out of a deal, or dealt with another co-owner who wanted out -- they'll have a story that I'd like to hear.
 
I would have to agree on the club route. I was in a non-profit/no equity club for a couple years. I appreciate it even more now that its gone(I moved) after renting from FBO's.

$300 membership fee, $40/ month. Around $105/hr for an archer or 172sp and about $140/hr for a 182r.

No daily minimums, unless you are taking the plane for more than 4 days and even then it came out to less than an hour a day for a 2 week trip which you would probably use anyway. And the planes were kept in a hangar and included full service fuel. Over the 2 years I was in the club I was unable to get a plane to use one time because of a VFR pilot stuck somewhere waiting for better weather.

We had a great non-profit club here in DEN for years... then the for-profit club got them kicked off of KFTG because of a clause in the by-laws of the airport that said any club had to have a manned desk, and a telephone that was answered at least 6 hours a day.

Murphy's airplane is in one of the County hangars the 172RG lived in... I was shocked when I finally got out there to visit and realized I'd flown the old club's 172RG out of that hangar at least 30 flights or so in the mid-90's. The old office door is sealed up, but the hangar still looks the same after all these years... it just has Murphy's Cherokee in it now...
 
I bought into a 1974 Cessna 172M partnership a week after my private pilot checkride for $14.5k and it has turned out great. There are 4 of us and we each pay $150/month for fixed costs which includes a hangar and $80/hour wet based on tach time. These amounts have allowed our maintenance fund to grow to the point that it fully covered the engine overhaul we did last year.

In the 3.5 years I have been a partner, I have put 448.6 hobbs hours on the plane and payed $38,900 into the LLC. Putting the same amount of hours on a local rental 172 would have cost $58,341. Over the course of 3.5 years, being in a partnership has saved me $19,441 compared to renting. This is more than the $14.5k it cost me to buy in, so even if the plane disappeared today, I would still be ahead.

There are also significant non-financial benefits to compared to renting. There are only 4 of us who fly the plane, so I have a good idea of how it is being treated. Maintenance is completely under our control and if there is something we don't like about the plane, we get it fixed. There is no daily minimum for putting hours on the plane. Scheduling is easy and I can only think of one small conflict that came up in the last 3.5 years.

Ryan

WOW - this is EXACTLY my experience with a 172N out of Canton/Akron. I put fewer hours on and didn't track the $ as closely as you have, but with 4 partners it was a deal. Nice IFR plane, always available, taken care of well and we knew who was flying her. All in all it was a great experience. I've since owned my own plane which, while really rewarding is stupidly expensive (for a recreational flyer). I've heard the "two greatest days" saying a few times and disagree. I was sad to sell both of my beautiful planes, but selling my personally owned plane had a measurable impact on my cash flow, selling my partnership plane didn't change my financials in a measurable way. There is another partnership in my future ... a great way to enjoy the rewards of airplane ownership while controlling the costs.

Edit to add other comments.
1) We used the "priority week" method as well and it worked extremely well. We had somewhat varied flying times so there was little conflict. On your off-week, all it took was a call to the priority pilot to see if you could take the plane for a spin. We also regularly traded priority weeks if we wanted to schedule an extended trip. In my 2+ years, I only had 1 conflict that prevented me from flying when I wanted.
2) I moved and had to sell my share. We had a provision that the remaining partners had to approve of the new partner - they had veto rights. It took me about 9 months to sell, but the partners really liked the new guy. Depending on the market, the plane and the partners, this can be non-trivial and is something that should be considered fully when contemplating a partnership.
3) If you're an uptight control freak or are not a people person, a partnership might not be for you. If you can take a breath and appreciate what life has to offer when something doesn't go your way, a partnership can be a great way to enjoy flying - not only by saving money, but by including you more fully in the brotherhood (or sisterhood - two of our partners were women) of aviators.
 
Last edited:
We had a great non-profit club here in DEN for years... then the for-profit club got them kicked off of KFTG because of a clause in the by-laws of the airport that said any club had to have a manned desk, and a telephone that was answered at least 6 hours a day.
Curious. I'd be very interested to see the rules on that. I can't imagine that there aren't any "co-owned" airplanes at KFTG. Maybe it was just the way the "club" was set up?

Generally, it seems convenience and access tend to be based more on the nature of the members than the number. There's a 182 at KAPA that has 12 co-owners. Last time I spoke to one of them, the line was that they've never had a scheduling conflict. Apparently there are just enough in the group that rarely fly.

I was in a co-ownership group in a Comanche for a number of years. 3 "active" members but it was always available when I wanted to fly it. (I tend to do 3-4 long weekend trips a year)
 
Last edited:
There's a 182 at KAPA that has 12 co-owners. Last time I spoke to one of them, the line was that they've never had a scheduling conflict. Apparently there are just enough in the group that rarely fly.

When I was on the BOD of our equity-based club, it seemed that 20-30% of the pilots paying dues flew regularly / often. Sometimes those that rarely fly, but still pay their dues on time, are the best kinds of partners! :)
 
Back
Top