Help me hire a private jet or charter plane?

kimberlyanne546 said:
I was trying to figure out why he would not do this. My guess is the dog issue.

They have one tiny dog (miniature french bulldog) and that is very comfy sitting in a purse / kennel.

The other dog I think hates being crated and is a labradoodle. Tallish but probably less than 20 pounds.

That is my only guess on why they would want a private plane.

Preliminary results:

Called FBO I have been to out of SFO. They gave me two charter company phone numbers. First one is going to email me back with prices. Second one asked "how many people" and when I told them they basically said "we are too big."

I said "how much" and they said the Gulf Stream starts at $15,000 per hour. Then I said "this is Christmas" and he said we're talking closer to $19,000 - $24,000 per hour with crew and everything since we're competing with ownership. Each plane owned one fourth by somebody.
Click to expand...

Jet Suite flys those little phenom 100's 4 seaters....they seem pretty cheap, certainly cheaper than a gulfstream. Ill fly them in a 59 travel air for $15,000!
 
Up to a point, and only as long as the charter plane is available. After that, they get their own, but the cost spread is not as great as they think when they buy their plane.

Everskyward said:
I agree that it's a cutthroat business but some companies simply don't want to deal with having their own flight department. It's easier to outsource even if it costs more.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Up to a point, and only as long as the charter plane is available. After that, they get their own, but the cost spread is not as great as they think when they buy their plane.
Click to expand...
What I meant was that some companies don't want the hassle of having their own flight department and would rather pay the fees to have their airplane managed.
 
No question about that. But they often find that replacing a whiny-ass flight department with a whiny-ass and more expensive management company isn't the answer they were hoping to find. ANFL, and totally dependent on the cast of characters.
Everskyward said:
What I meant was that some companies don't want the hassle of having their own flight department and would rather pay the fees to have their airplane managed.
Click to expand...
 
It's my understanding that it is near impossible to make any money in the jet charter business AND own the airplane. Not all 135 operators over-promise and obfuscate, but some do. Bad apples in every bunch and all that. . .

It sure seems, however, that charter brokers are popping up all over the place and creating a nice spread for themselves between "retail and wholesale" pricing.

Wayne (and other in the biz), what would you guess is the margin of the typical charter broker? I would guess it is plain ol' marketing and relationships that allow them to carve out some $, but why do YOU think they are being more successful than charter companies selling direct?

Also, how about ARGUS ratings? Do you think customers demand those ratings, or is it an exercise in dollar extraction like the BBB?
 
It's clearly not impossible to make money in this business. There are countless charter operations out there doing very well. We don't own all of our aircraft, and the owners of the ones we don't own are very happy.
 
It wouldn't surprise me if ARGUS ratings were customer derived. Brokers certainly require it more and more now.
 
I think that the days of charter companies owning all of the airplanes in their fleet, unless their fleet is very small, are over because of the economics of the situation. Most of them are looking for aircraft to manage. Management contracts cover a wide spectrum, though, from all Part 91 to all Part 135 and every combination in between. It just depends what is negotiated by the two parties. If you are an aircraft owner and have no experience with this, it would be money well-spent to get some advice from someone who knows the business before you start negotiating with a management company. On the other side of the coin, if you decide to go it on your own you could hire a pilot who claims to know how to manage your airplane but really doesn't have a clue. It really just depends on the company or people involved, including the owners who sometimes have overoptimistic expectations.

Charter brokers can also range from legitimate to shady. We had a pop-up charter once where the passengers paid the charter broker but the charter broker's credit card kept being denied so the airplane didn't move until it was all straightened out which took about a half a day. If there had been no middle-man it would have gone right away.
 
This exercise doesn't require NASA assistance.

The reason 135 plane owners don't make money is dog simple. The rental rates charged minus the expenses incurred to fly the trips, pay the fixed costs and maintain the airplanes are insufficient to produce the revenue necessary to pay for the plane and earn a profit.

All of the other spin that the 135's try to impute into the conversation is just plain bullshlt.

Inverted said:
It's clearly not impossible to make money in this business. There are countless charter operations out there doing very well. We don't own all of our aircraft, and the owners of the ones we don't own are very happy.
Click to expand...
 
It all depends. I do agree with you, however we own a 35, and part own 3 55s. These are older aircraft that do not have a big upfront cost. Especially a Lear 55. They are almost a 60 for probably a third of the cost. Hell look at JetSuite. They are purchasing used CJ3s, refreshing them and will fly them. There is a huge cost difference between newer aircraft and some older ones that can still compete. Sure a Lear 55 or a CJ3 isn't a Citation X or a GIV. But they are better performers than a Phenom 100 or a Mustang, and have a much lower up front cost to purchase used. This takes a Ron of pressure off owners to try and charge an arm and a leg, and operators can make more money per charter.
 
Inverted said:
They are almost a 60 for probably a third of the cost.
Click to expand...
Wait until you try to take off from Aspen in the summer. :D

I flew a couple 55s for a while that were based in Denver. They could be a real flight planning challenge in the summer.
 
wabower said:
This exercise doesn't require NASA assistance.

The reason 135 plane owners don't make money is dog simple. The rental rates charged minus the expenses incurred to fly the trips, pay the fixed costs and maintain the airplanes are insufficient to produce the revenue necessary to pay for the plane and earn a profit.

All of the other spin that the 135's try to impute into the conversation is just plain bullshlt.
Click to expand...

You can say that all you want, but Thea simple fact is, money is being made in the industry. If there were no owners making money, you would see fewer people doing it. That being said, there is a percentage of owners who aren't looking to make money, but rather offset costs. Maybe they don't use the aircraft often so they throw it on a 135, it keeps the juices flowing and offsets the cost a bit. Then when the owner needs it, he gets it.
 
Everskyward said:
Wait until you try to take off from Aspen in the summer. :D

I flew a couple 55s for a while that were based in Denver. They could be a real flight planning challenge in the summer.
Click to expand...

We do it. They are a freaking pig. Because if it we have to take a fuel stop if we are going out of a small runway and going a long distance. That's why I said almost a 60 lol. Passengers are still just as comfortable inside, so to them it not much different. For pilots however, that's a different story lol.
 
Lol haha ya. That and waiting for it to get up to 410 is like pulling teeth.
 
The crash of 2008 created a window for some favorable purchases that allows some owners with the opportunity to lose less money than those who paid 2x the cost for the same plane in 2007 or prior.

The other side of that story is that very few planes have been purchased during the dip, otherwise the increased demand would have driven prices up. Insofar as using older planes is concerned, the 135 operators don't pay for fuel and maintenance (or any other expenses) the aircraft owners do. Accordingly, the increased costs and inefficiencies don't cause the operators the same amount of heartburn. An honest 135 operator (well, usually only former operators will admit it) will confirm that the only party that makes money from a 135 deal is the operator.



Inverted said:
It all depends. I do agree with you, however we own a 35, and part own 3 55s. These are older aircraft that do not have a big upfront cost. Especially a Lear 55. They are almost a 60 for probably a third of the cost. Hell look at JetSuite. They are purchasing used CJ3s, refreshing them and will fly them. There is a huge cost difference between newer aircraft and some older ones that can still compete. Sure a Lear 55 or a CJ3 isn't a Citation X or a GIV. But they are better performers than a Phenom 100 or a Mustang, and have a much lower up front cost to purchase used. This takes a Ron of pressure off owners to try and charge an arm and a leg, and operators can make more money per charter.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top