Rental Planes - Am I Alone in my Fears?

[wabower]

Most anybody who's been around the airport for any length of time can recite a list of acquaintances who have entered into leaseback deals at one time or another. Very few can name a single person who has done it more than once.

Pride of ownership is a common term that everybody seems to understand. Pride of rentership doesn't seem to be nearly as common. Anybody wonder why?

I used to lease a beautiful brand new T182T. Probably a $350K aircraft at the time. I quit leasing it after I bought my own 182. Anyway, I saw it when it was two years old, TWO years. It looked like hell. Interior was filthy and worn, paint all chipped up. Windshield all scratched up from what looked like a cars snow and ice scraper. Lots of minor damage associated with pilots that just didn't give a crap. It is also amazing what two years out in the sun without a wax, only occasional washes, and no cockpit cover can do to a paint job and glare shield.

It was really heart breaking to see that. Right after I saw it the owner sold it and got out of the leasing business for obvious reasons.

 

[Jaybird180]

If I owned an aircraft on leaseback, I would treat that aircraft as if it was my pride and joy. If I couldn't afford it on lease back, I couldn't afford it by myself, I would sell it. The last thing I would do is drag the airplane down or let it drag me down.

With that being said, if I AM leasing it out, I would take pride in it.

In many ways, the market is in a self inflicted downward spiral. If people aren't maintaining anything but the engine, then only the engine shops will survive.. the paint shops will become fewer and more expensive, upholstery shops will close up, plastics will become short supply (if not already non existence) and soon it just won't be worth keeping these birds flying.

Maybe if someone reinvigorated the market with some active aircraft, kept clean and modern and at a fair rate and worked hard on filling in hours flown to capture as much revenue as possible, then things may work out.

The fact is, leaseback owners are by an large absent owners who don't want to do anything. We're essentially ghettoizing our rental fleet because no one wants to fix it.

BUT, I don't want to generalize whole heartedly. I do see some beautiful aircraft out there that are on leasebacks where owners do give a crap and it really shows.

Before its too late, I hope someone can come out and dominate the market by rebooting what it is to have a rental fleet. change the rules, break this nasty habit of honey badger aircraft.

If someone told me this was the thought process behind the establishment of the Cessna Pilot Centers I would buy that. The CPC is supposed to acquire fairly new airplanes for training and then turn them back over to Cessna, keeping the fleet renewed. Cessna had inadequate supervision of this as where I trained was a CPC, but I didn't see the new fleet materialize.

If someone like Diamond or Cirrus did it, and did it RIGHT, it may be the booster fuel the training and retention segment needs.

 

[e.pie]

My favorite plane at my club also happens to be the most rough looking one.

She just flies the best.

 

[PPC1052]

This thread makes me sad. Sad for the state of general aviation.

But at the same time, I feel lucky that I fell into the ownership partnership that I did. I bought 1/3 of a 1976 Cardinal 177B FG for less than 10k. I am pretty much the only one that flies it. She's been hangared her entire life. Sure, the paint on the top of the wings has been disolved by fuel spills, and the original Royalite is brittle and has some cracks. But the original paint on the body still looks nice to me, and the interior, while clearly original, still looks nice to me. Maybe I am just not a perfectionist, but she looks good to me, and I am proud of her. Every time I open the hangar and see her, I am amazed that I actually own a plane, and I can take her when ever and where ever I care to go.

Less than $10,000 or $350,000 for brand new? I think the choice is pretty clear. $350,000 for a new plane, or even $100,000 for a newer plane, is simply not an option. All that extra money isn't worth it to me in terms of extra enjoyment, speed, or what ever.

 

[SkyHog]

This is ridiculous. I'd wager that most pilots are not as rich as some of you think they are. You don't have to be rich to fly, and that's why most planes in the rental fleet are not luxurious and perfect. If something breaks, like some trim, or the paint is faded, who gives a ****? It flies the same way, and its ok.

Now, if you're a millionaire, and demand perfection, that's fine too - there's probably airplanes out there for you. But that doesn't mean that those who don't make as much (or are reasonable in their desires) as settling for less safety.

My favorite rental plane was N3552E, and it was in shambles. But hell, it flew fast and was the best little 172 I ever rented.

My least favorite was an almost brand new DA20C. That plane was annoying and lame. But based on this thread, that would be reversed.

 

[schmookeeg]

If someone told me this was the thought process behind the establishment of the Cessna Pilot Centers I would buy that. The CPC is supposed to acquire fairly new airplanes for training and then turn them back over to Cessna, keeping the fleet renewed. Cessna had inadequate supervision of this as where I trained was a CPC, but I didn't see the new fleet materialize.

If someone like Diamond or Cirrus did it, and did it RIGHT, it may be the booster fuel the training and retention segment needs.

The CPC program was for Cessna sales. Once the ink touched paper, Cessna wants nothing to do with the airplane, and the CPC is often stuck with it. The CPC was required to have a restart-or-newer plane on the line (1997+). When the pre-sales of the C162 got slack, they tried to change the rules to be a 2-year-old or newer plane, which caused a lot of yelping (especially from us, still making payments on a 2006 model)

The C162 was very heavily marketed to CPCs... I'd even say uncomfortably so. I think a lot of CPCs ate the deposit and never took delivery, as we frequently got calls with "a skycatcher ready to go now!" from the local sales clowns... almost immediately after the deliveries started.

 

[PPC1052]

I don't get the appeal of a sky catcher. $150,000 for a new two seater that can't go IFR, and tops out at 113kts TAS? I guess its sort of comparable to the Diamond DA20 Eclipse I trained in, and a not too dissimilar price. But that's a lot of cash compared to the performance and utility of my old 1976 Cardinal, but more than 5 times the price, adjusted for percentage of ownership.

 

[schmookeeg]

I don't get the appeal of a sky catcher. $150,000 for a new two seater that can't go IFR, and tops out at 113kts TAS? I guess its sort of comparable to the Diamond DA20 Eclipse I trained in, and a not too dissimilar price. But that's a lot of cash compared to the performance and utility of my old 1976 Cardinal, but more than 5 times the price, adjusted for percentage of ownership.

We didn't either. But we're young and arrogant and can still fog a mirror sufficient for a third-class medical.

The guys who asked us about LSA training? I've seen healthier mummies at the museum. But they were oh-so-smug that they "beat the FAA" and didn't let their medical get revoked, and so they could still sneak by with an LSA. When I mentioned that self-certification still required a reasonable expectation of health, smiles turned upside-down.

Insurance was apparently as unimpressed as we were -- the CPC insurance program required LSA solos to have a third-class medical. Without the reg-cheating possibilities, I have no idea what a C162 offers over a 150/152, much less for 5x-8x the price.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

That's a good deal for any flying C177 to have almost whenever you want it, let alone if it's not totally ratted out.

This thread makes me sad. Sad for the state of general aviation.

But at the same time, I feel lucky that I fell into the ownership partnership that I did. I bought 1/3 of a 1976 Cardinal 177B FG for less than 10k. I am pretty much the only one that flies it. She's been hangared her entire life. Sure, the paint on the top of the wings has been disolved by fuel spills, and the original Royalite is brittle and has some cracks. But the original paint on the body still looks nice to me, and the interior, while clearly original, still looks nice to me. Maybe I am just not a perfectionist, but she looks good to me, and I am proud of her. Every time I open the hangar and see her, I am amazed that I actually own a plane, and I can take her when ever and where ever I care to go.

Less than $10,000 or $350,000 for brand new? I think the choice is pretty clear. $350,000 for a new plane, or even $100,000 for a newer plane, is simply not an option. All that extra money isn't worth it to me in terms of extra enjoyment, speed, or what ever.

 

[PPC1052]

That's a good deal for any flying C177 to have almost whenever you want it, let alone if it's not totally ratted out.

She doesn't look ratted out. At least I don't think so. She looks more like an old 1970s Cadilac or Lincoln that your grandfather owned, babied, and then stopped driving around 1989 and left in the garage, covered. The fabric and plastic are close to 40 years old, which is always going to show its age a little bit. But it was never abused, and not very warn. If this were a collector car, you would never dream of restoring it because of how nice it is in its original condition.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

Nick, we all have different opinions, but let's not say it's ridiculous to want a plane that looks nice AND is a good flier.

One of my main reasons for wanting a nice plane is not for me...it's that my passengers are uncomfortable in a plane that looks like it's falling apart. Heck, they are scared enough anyway. Seeing cracked fiberglass, worn seats, and yellow brittle broken plastic makes them even more uncomfortable.

And yes, as you point out, there are some folks out there who are willing and able to pay a bit more for themselves and their passengers.

Let's remember that as pilots, it's about more than us. We all have different needs and budgets.

For me, for now, I found a rental plane that the FBO owner owns. Guess what...he loves his plane and really takes care of it. And at $138 / hour for a newer C172 with good avionics, it's not too shabby.

 

[wabower]

Depends on how far you're going to fly it. I wouldn't dream of flying any old Cessna very far on foam seat cushions even half that old. BTDT

She doesn't look ratted out. At least I don't think so. She looks more like an old 1970s Cadilac or Lincoln that your grandfather owned, babied, and then stopped driving around 1989 and left in the garage, covered. The fabric and plastic are close to 40 years old, which is always going to show its age a little bit. But it was never abused, and not very warn. If this were a collector car, you would never dream of restoring it because of how nice it is in its original condition.

 

[MAKG1]

One of my main reasons for wanting a nice plane is not for me...it's that my passengers are uncomfortable in a plane that looks like it's falling apart. Heck, they are scared enough anyway. Seeing cracked fiberglass, worn seats, and yellow brittle broken plastic makes them even more uncomfortable.

If your passengers are uncomfortable with light aircraft, it doesn't matter if it looks nice or not.

Managing their comfort is MUCH more about you and your choices. Like, do you do first flights according to arbitrary schedules, or do you plan it for their comfort? That often means early morning for a first flight.

 

[bluee]

One place I used to rent (past tense), all of their airplanes looked like hunks of junk, but one had some issue and the mechanic had to pull the engine out, and he told me that engine was so corroded, the airplane should not have been flying at all. The owner was livid because the mechanic refused to put the corroded engine back in. That's pretty much when I left that place.

 

[Skylane81E]

If I owned an aircraft on leaseback, I would treat that aircraft as if it was my pride and joy. If I couldn't afford it on lease back, I couldn't afford it by myself, I would sell it. The last thing I would do is drag the airplane down or let it drag me down.

With that being said, if I AM leasing it out, I would take pride in it.

In many ways, the market is in a self inflicted downward spiral. If people aren't maintaining anything but the engine, then only the engine shops will survive.. the paint shops will become fewer and more expensive, upholstery shops will close up, plastics will become short supply (if not already non existence) and soon it just won't be worth keeping these birds flying.

Maybe if someone reinvigorated the market with some active aircraft, kept clean and modern and at a fair rate and worked hard on filling in hours flown to capture as much revenue as possible, then things may work out.

The fact is, leaseback owners are by an large absent owners who don't want to do anything. We're essentially ghettoizing our rental fleet because no one wants to fix it.

BUT, I don't want to generalize whole heartedly. I do see some beautiful aircraft out there that are on leasebacks where owners do give a crap and it really shows.

Before its too late, I hope someone can come out and dominate the market by rebooting what it is to have a rental fleet. change the rules, break this nasty habit of honey badger aircraft.

You can't do that, to lease your pride and joy will be a failure. A leased plane must be viewed as a working asset and nothing more. You can take some pride in the plane but if you want the plane to always have a nice interior, it will be getting a new one every other year.

Example, we reupholstered the front seats on a trainer 172 a couple years ago. Within 50hrs they were stained beyond recovery and were well worn in a few months.

If the people flying the planes treated them with the respect someone's pride and joy demands then maybe you could pull it off. Thing is on the whole renters treat planes like crap.

 

[zaitcev]

Insurance was apparently as unimpressed as we were -- the CPC insurance program required LSA solos to have a third-class medical. Without the reg-cheating possibilities, I have no idea what a C162 offers over a 150/152, much less for 5x-8x the price.

On paper, 162 is an incremental step forward from 150/152. Its useful load is almost like 152's, and much better than 150, but then it uses the same fuel as 150 or better. I saw some idiot on a popular blog talking how 162 takes less than 150 with full fuel, but who cares?! At 230 lbs I had to find the thinnest CFI the 150-equipped FBO had and even so we had to off-load to 9 gallons. A 162 would give the two of us 2x the endurance of 150, enough to do initial supervised cross-countries. Some people say that 162 is faster than 152. Also, it comes with some kind of fancy-pants Garmin glass. So it's basically a modern 152, nothing more, nothing less.

Is a modern 152 worth $145k? Well. It clearly is 1/2 the price of a new Skyhawk, at least. As my personal airplane, no, it's not worth it. However, I know a man who is running a business on a Remos GX. He bought it new with every option for $135k, and he claims that the terms of the financing, insurance, maintenance, fuel, and hangar close for him if airplane flies as little as 150 hours per year. In reality it flies close to 300, and generates enough revenue that he's thinking about buying another. Mind this is an airplane where you swap engine every 1000 hours. A 162 has TBO of some 2000 hours or so, and its engine is probably marginally cheaper. That's 1/2 maintenance reserve, is it not? So it would appear that a 162 may be worth it as a business tool, despite the outrageous price. This is probably what Cessna was counting on when they announced the 40% price hike for 2013.

 

[PPC1052]

I am sure Cessna knows their business better than I do, and I am not one to complain about the "fairness" of a price. But given the lack of demand for planes in general, I cannot believe that the increased price was just in response to a percieved ability of the market to absorb it. My guess is that cost over-runs is the reason for the hike.

My personal guess, for what that's worth, is that they would be better off reducing the price of these trainers as low as possible to help bring more pilots into the market than arbitrarily hiking prices just because they think the demand is there. More certificated pilots trained in a 162 means more demand for their 172s, and 182s.

 

[zaitcev]

This sort of long-term strategy is probably beyond the Textron goons who kicked Jack Pelton out. So 162 has to stand on its own legs and bring Cessna profit on every sale.

 

[wabower]

How far up the line should this misguided "loss-leader" mentality spread before the company should expect to sell its products at a profit?

This sort of long-term strategy is probably beyond the Textron goons who kicked Jack Pelton out. So 162 has to stand on its own legs and bring Cessna profit on every sale.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

From the original poster...wow...this thread was popular. Tonight, I tried to fly one of the "junkier" planes at my FBO. As you may have seen in another post, there was a vacuum issue and the attitude indicator was blown. The message back from the FBO - "You don't need an attitude indicator for VFR." I chose to cancel my take off. Yikes. Am I overreacting? This rental thing is starting to wear me down!

 

[denverpilot]

Am I overreacting? This rental thing is starting to wear me down!

Nope. Time to buy.

 

[jonnyjetprop]

Nope. Time to buy.

No, time to find a different FBO to rent from. The OP is in the Los Angeles area. Plenty of other places to go.

 

[Jaybird180]

Ever hear the phrase, 'dropping a bad habit'?

 

[redtail]

I only logged .3 hrs on my first flight lesson due to a bad magneto in one of the flight school's Skyhawks. The CFI was walking me through the runup using the checklist and one mag check showed an abnormal drop. So after a thorough check, he asked me are we good to takeoff since the other one was fine. I said no, we need to taxi back and have it checked out.

Well, all the other planes were out so I didn't get to fly that day, but it was still a great lesson on the importance of a thorough preflight and runup!

I got a lot of taxi training that day.

Overall, my rental experiences have been great! Well maintained aircraft, so nothing that would keep me from flying a rental.

 

[jonnyjetprop]

I totally get the 162.

Simply put, airplanes built in the 70's will not cut it. They're too old. Folks who are already pilots have learned to accept faded paint, ratty interiors, old radios and lack of reliability.

Now, buy a plane and you can fix all of those issues. We are not talking ownership, most people rent first. The rental fleet needs help, but it costs money. So a Skycatcher at 150K makes sense because the next price point is 300K. I'm an all inclusive guy, so I think that there is room for the rent a wreck guy and the shiny new guy in most of the larger markets. Smaller markets, not so much.

A point of referrence. My local airport has three places to rent planes. Hands down, the winner is the guy renting new LSA planes. The two other places renting the 1970's vintage planes are not nearly as busy. I've asked and the answer I get is people don't like old planes. Cost wise, it's a push on the hourly cost of a 1976 C-172 and the LSA. The guys I rent the 172 from just got 2 restart 172's and they are busy compared to the older planes.

 

[MAKG1]

From the original poster...wow...this thread was popular. Tonight, I tried to fly one of the "junkier" planes at my FBO. As you may have seen in another post, there was a vacuum issue and the attitude indicator was blown. The message back from the FBO - "You don't need an attitude indicator for VFR." I chose to cancel my take off. Yikes. Am I overreacting? This rental thing is starting to wear me down!

Actually, I think you are.

You don't need an artificial horizon when you have a real one. I might be concerned if the vacuum pump was physically broken, but if that can be ruled out, you need neither the AI nor the DG for VFR flight, and as a private pilot, you must be able to function without them.

You need to learn to distinguish minor problems from major ones. Not every problem is earth-shattering, and there is a big pattern of fear in your posts.

The airplane will fly just fine VFR with no vacuum and no electrical system at all. You could even knock out the pitot/static system for good measure as well, and still fly and land the aircraft safely. You don't panic and make an emergency off-airport landing because you get a low voltage light or the AI and DG start to BS you.

 

[Jaybird180]

Actually, I think you are.

You don't need an artificial horizon when you have a real one. I might be concerned if the vacuum pump was physically broken, but if that can be ruled out, you need neither the AI nor the DG for VFR flight, and as a private pilot, you must be able to function without them.

You need to learn to distinguish minor problems from major ones. Not every problem is earth-shattering, and there is a big pattern of fear in your posts.

The airplane will fly just fine VFR with no vacuum and no electrical system at all. You could even knock out the pitot/static system for good measure as well, and still fly and land the aircraft safely. You don't panic and make an emergency off-airport landing because you get a low voltage light or the AI and DG start to BS you.

This entire time, I was thinking you guys were advising him in contravention to 91.205, but I was WRONG! 91.205 doesn't even require an AI at night!

With that said, I still wouldn't fly a plane with a bad AI, the VFR-IMC gremlin lives.

 

[MAKG1]

This entire time, I was thinking you guys were advising him in contravention to 91.205, but I was WRONG! 91.205 doesn't even require an AI at night!

With that said, I still wouldn't fly a plane with a bad AI, the VFR-IMC gremlin lives.

That's right. The AI is required for IFR, but not VFR, even night (but I wouldn't recommend that in the middle of nowhere, as the real horizon might be difficult to determine).

If there isn't a cloud in the sky, a short XC or local flight presents no significant risk of IMC.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

From the original poster...wow...this thread was popular. Tonight, I tried to fly one of the "junkier" planes at my FBO. As you may have seen in another post, there was a vacuum issue and the attitude indicator was blown. The message back from the FBO - "You don't need an attitude indicator for VFR." I chose to cancel my take off. Yikes. Am I overreacting? This rental thing is starting to wear me down!

The ~mid-'70s Carbon Cub on floats I've done my BFRs in the last few times has it's AI removed, with proper paperwork. The whole plane was recently totally upgraded and redone at considerable expense, -not easy to beat classic successes.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

She doesn't look ratted out. At least I don't think so. She looks more like an old 1970s Cadilac or Lincoln that your grandfather owned, babied, and then stopped driving around 1989 and left in the garage, covered. The fabric and plastic are close to 40 years old, which is always going to show its age a little bit. But it was never abused, and not very warn. If this were a collector car, you would never dream of restoring it because of how nice it is in its original condition.

That sounds like "Classic" territory and a keeper for sure. There might be a product to dress up the old plastic and help slow further surface oxidation.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Nick, we all have different opinions, but let's not say it's ridiculous to want a plane that looks nice AND is a good flier.

One of my main reasons for wanting a nice plane is not for me...it's that my passengers are uncomfortable in a plane that looks like it's falling apart. Heck, they are scared enough anyway. Seeing cracked fiberglass, worn seats, and yellow brittle broken plastic makes them even more uncomfortable.

And yes, as you point out, there are some folks out there who are willing and able to pay a bit more for themselves and their passengers.

Let's remember that as pilots, it's about more than us. We all have different needs and budgets.

For me, for now, I found a rental plane that the FBO owner owns. Guess what...he loves his plane and really takes care of it. And at $138 / hour for a newer C172 with good avionics, it's not too shabby.

If I'm gonna rent a beater, I'd tell a concerned pax that the owners were trying to save $ and put all the $ into things that made the crate safer and more reliable to fly.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Rental, lease-back, owner, FBO, flying club, newer, older, are just terms in an overall system that has worked well under various structures to provide occasional use of aircraft to pilots with minimal financial commitment for their flying desires.

Even with continued declines in customer volume due to economic factors and overall declining average aptitude, some operators will continue with success and others will drop out, some of their customers going to the operators that prevail.