Rental Planes - Am I Alone in my Fears?

pericynthion said:
Placarded INOP is better than inop and not placarded.
Click to expand...

Very true. Keeping in mind that if it's inop and they don't want to finance replacing the piece of equipment with pretty much the exact match, I think they would have to re-weigh the a/c and do a new wt/bal workup. That sounds like a financial decision that helps keep the rental cost down in a tradeoff against maintenance cost and keeping a cheaper a/c around to rent. That I am ok with. If I want the DME/RNAV/GPS or whatever that is placarded, I have options to pay more for a plane with one that is operative. So long as they use money for good 100 hr inspections and a/p maint.
 
It's a free country. If you're not looking to build time, what's an extra couple of bucks to fly a nice plane. $10 per hour times 50 hrs a year is $500. If it's a deal breaker, move on. If not, enjoy the ride.

My issues when checking out rentals are:

Daily minimums.......what are they and what rate is charged if under the mins
Fuel reimbursement policy
Hidden fees
Currency requirements
 
BTDT. Our 2,900' house in the desert cost the same as the one at home that was 2X the size, with much higher op costs, taxes, utility bills and other costs.

100LL costs, hangar space, MX costs? Fuggedaboutit.

JHW said:
I don't buy it. When I've checked, our $250k house is 600+ in CA. A lot more in many locations. Kids' expenses (pariochal school, dance lessons, summer camps, etc) are also much higher. Add it all up and you have a significant zip code penalty to overcome before you can start to worry about whether the plane rents for $80 or 90.
Click to expand...
 
I've always wondered about the daily minimums - why do they charge some multiple of the REGULAR rental rate?

I'm thinking if I have an airplane and its gone on an overnight trip someplace, it has no wear and tear, no maintenance burden, no reserve fund, no nothing except lost profit on the non-use. . .

Would it not be better economics for a FBO to GUARANTEE a profit of 'X' per hour by simply having a $75 over night fee? You can't tell me that a rental Skyhawk is making more than that a day in net profit for anyone. 6 hours a day actual hobbs rental time was a good average for the FBO I used to rent from - and it can't be any better now - and it likely more like 3-4 hours a day what with empty days, maintenance days and weather. So it would seem that a $75 overnight fee would make more money than actually renting out the airplane . . .
 
comanchepilot said:
I've always wondered about the daily minimums - why do they charge some multiple of the REGULAR rental rate?
Click to expand...

Because the assumption is that you will be flying it.

I'm thinking if I have an airplane and its gone on an overnight trip someplace, it has no wear and tear, no maintenance burden, no reserve fund, no nothing except lost profit on the non-use. . .

Would it not be better economics for a FBO to GUARANTEE a profit of 'X' per hour by simply having a $75 over night fee? You can't tell me that a rental Skyhawk is making more than that a day in net profit for anyone. 6 hours a day actual hobbs rental time was a good average for the FBO I used to rent from - and it can't be any better now - and it likely more like 3-4 hours a day what with empty days, maintenance days and weather. So it would seem that a $75 overnight fee would make more money than actually renting out the airplane . . .
Click to expand...

Everything is negotiable and, if you offer them $75/day over your flight time they might take it but it might not work out to be the best deal for you. Case in point, I rented a 172 for 4 days and negotiated a 10-hour flight time minimum. Turns out I used 13 hours. If I was paying an overnight fee, it would have cost me another $225.
 
comanchepilot said:
I've always wondered about the daily minimums - why do they charge some multiple of the REGULAR rental rate?

I'm thinking if I have an airplane and its gone on an overnight trip someplace, it has no wear and tear, no maintenance burden, no reserve fund, no nothing except lost profit on the non-use. . .

Would it not be better economics for a FBO to GUARANTEE a profit of 'X' per hour by simply having a $75 over night fee? You can't tell me that a rental Skyhawk is making more than that a day in net profit for anyone. 6 hours a day actual hobbs rental time was a good average for the FBO I used to rent from - and it can't be any better now - and it likely more like 3-4 hours a day what with empty days, maintenance days and weather. So it would seem that a $75 overnight fee would make more money than actually renting out the airplane . . .
Click to expand...

/added to my toolbag
 
wabower said:
:rofl: And maybe a stool sample as well?
Click to expand...

You may wish to do that but, I wouldn't find it useful in determining the overall credibility of an FBO and the probabable airworthiness of its birds....

Giving any FBO a good looking over is just as appropriate for the high end ones because they may have cut corners in maintenance to boost profits. It doesn't even take much time. If they are well established, I just sign on the dotted line and fly whatever they have.
 
My issues with daily guarantees:

If you fly more than the daily guarantee, there's no issue.

If you fly less than the daily guarantee, should you have to pay the full retail rental price or some thing less. In my perfect world, I should only have to pay for the fixed costs plus the profit margin. In others words, a dry rate. I have rented from outfits that did just that. I've rented from outfits that not only wanted the full hourly price, but wanted the fuel surcharge also. The surcharge that covers the high cost of fuel that I never burned.

The next question is does the daily minimum vary with the type of plane flown. I can understand why there would be a minimum on a popular training plane vs. a complex plane that flies less. I have found that this can be a good tool to bring up when you speak with the manager or owner. One FBO told me that he'd be willing to discuss daily minimums on certain types of planes on a case by case basis. His plane either sat on the ramp or a customer from Europe would rent it for a week. Very little in between. It pays to ask.

Everything is negotiable and it is something that I would factor into my decision to rent from FBO A vs. FBO B.
 
ja_user said:
I judge a rental by the speed at which things I write up get resolved. A&P's generally don't fly the damn thing, and so if people report it timely I like to see it resolved in a timely fashion...

And none of that "you don't need that to fly" crap either.
Click to expand...

There you go.

Look God knows I try to keep my rental fleet in tip top mechanical shape (cosmetics don't pay here so while we don't let them look like crap they are not new looking either) but I can only do so much. We have a mechanism for pilots to report maintenance issues, many are very reluctant to use it:mad2:

I WANT to know when something is wrong with the plane, how else can I fix it?!
 
jonnyjetprop said:
My issues with daily guarantees:

If you fly more than the daily guarantee, there's no issue.

If you fly less than the daily guarantee, should you have to pay the full retail rental price or some thing less. In my perfect world, I should only have to pay for the fixed costs plus the profit margin. In others words, a dry rate. I have rented from outfits that did just that. I've rented from outfits that not only wanted the full hourly price, but wanted the fuel surcharge also. The surcharge that covers the high cost of fuel that I never burned.

The next question is does the daily minimum vary with the type of plane flown. I can understand why there would be a minimum on a popular training plane vs. a complex plane that flies less. I have found that this can be a good tool to bring up when you speak with the manager or owner. One FBO told me that he'd be willing to discuss daily minimums on certain types of planes on a case by case basis. His plane either sat on the ramp or a customer from Europe would rent it for a week. Very little in between. It pays to ask.

Everything is negotiable and it is something that I would factor into my decision to rent from FBO A vs. FBO B.
Click to expand...

These too can be negotiated...

One of the 172s I use to rent had a 3 hour minimum for each day you had the plane overnight. This was the one where the owner was really taking care of the plane. I had come to find out this was the club rule, not the owner's rule. The owner prefered to let someone take it for a couple of days on a X-County in place of student pilot pattern work. He just didn't want to see a LGB to SBA and back for three days..

Many of my overnights were LGB to LVK or CCR from Friday to Sunday with an average of 7.5 hours for each trip.. There was once I did have kick ass tail wind coming back and came in just a little under 7 hours for the entire trip... he was OK with it.
 
Last edited:
If I can't rent a plane I fully trust to be maintained to a high standard, then I'll do something else with my time besides fly.

It just isn't that important to me.
 
JHW said:
I don't buy it. When I've checked, our $250k house is 600+ in CA. A lot more in many locations. Kids' expenses (pariochal school, dance lessons, summer camps, etc) are also much higher. Add it all up and you have a significant zip code penalty to overcome before you can start to worry about whether the plane rents for $80 or 90.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you make the significant leap of faith from the price of your house to the price of airplane hour. You seem to be taking it for granted, but I am talking about facts, not your mental model of the way the world ought to work. And yes, I am paying $1000/mo for the house that's $1500/mo in Cali, in the same quality location. But low-end rentals in California are cost-competitve with the flyover country, even superior, and that is a fact. We may speculate all we want why that is so. Perhaps the higher population density allows them fly more hours per calendar year, thus reducing the necessary maintenance reserve. Perhaps it's greater competition that drives prices down (at the expense of maintenance, again).
 
Last edited:
When looking for a rental, I look at price. I've found a place where I'll rent the cheapest airplane on the ramp, because I know that it's not flown as much as the others. And it's not as beat looking as the others either. It's also a Taildragger, and their rules don't allow solo flight in it without 100hrs taildragger time. So it's not used much as a primary trainer, but for endorsements.
 
zaitcev said:
I don't know how you make the significant leap of faith from the price of your house to the price of airplane hour. You seem to be taking it for granted, but I am talking about facts, not your mental model of the way the world ought to work. And yes, I am paying $1000/mo for the house that's $1500/mo in Cali, in the same quality location. But low-end rentals in California are cost-competitve with the flyover country, even superior, and that is a fact. We may speculate all we want why that is so. Perhaps the higher population density allows them fly more hours per calendar year, thus reducing the necessary maintenance reserve. Perhaps it's greater competition that drives prices down (at the expense of maintenance, again).
Click to expand...
I didn't say thing one about airplane rentals being more expensive. That's not the point, quite the opposite in fact.
 
It's funny how when we rent a car for 39 bucks a day, we will ***** and moan about everything that isn't absolutely perfect. For 39 bucks that car will have GPS, Sirius XM and probably less than 20k miles on it total.

Yet, we'll pay 150/hour for an airplane that's older than many of us are, is ragged and torn inside with paper clips holding open vents and shrug it off.

Me personally, I have no problem with the aircraft I rent, they're old and shi**y and I just deal with it. BUT, with that being said, how did aviation slide this far into despair that we just accept and even at times apologize for it or excuse it? Is it really that hard to care enough to keep some plastics updated, a maybe 25 year refresh on carpet or maybe a little cushion rebuild in the seat every 30 years?? Is there not that much money or "oomph" left in the industry to warrant refreshing aircraft once in a while and offloading to secondary markets in a much short time frame than the decades many of these aircraft are hitting?? Just curious.
 
supernovae said:
It's funny how when we rent a car for 39 bucks a day, we will ***** and moan about everything that isn't absolutely perfect. For 39 bucks that car will have GPS, Sirius XM and probably less than 20k miles on it total.

Yet, we'll pay 150/hour for an airplane that's older than many of us are, is ragged and torn inside with paper clips holding open vents and shrug it off.

Me personally, I have no problem with the aircraft I rent, they're old and shi**y and I just deal with it. BUT, with that being said, how did aviation slide this far into despair that we just accept and even at times apologize for it or excuse it? Is it really that hard to care enough to keep some plastics updated, a maybe 25 year refresh on carpet or maybe a little cushion rebuild in the seat every 30 years?? Is there not that much money or "oomph" left in the industry to warrant refreshing aircraft once in a while and offloading to secondary markets in a much short time frame than the decades many of these aircraft are hitting?? Just curious.
Click to expand...

I won't. No way in hell I'd pay $150/hr for a ragged out 172, especially with the hourly and overnight restrictions.

http://controller.com solves most of those issues. You can fly a whole hell of a lot nicer than you can drive, Just make sure the check will clear the bank.

Most of the folks on here (myself included) are a 0 or two in our paycheck away from being into the meat and potatoes of aviation. If you want to do a car analogy, we're the folks driving this:

176143=6186-clunker_1.jpg
 
Is it safe to assume that you have never performed the ROI calculations to determine the hourly rental rate and volume necessary to provide the ride you'd like to have?

supernovae said:
It's funny how when we rent a car for 39 bucks a day, we will ***** and moan about everything that isn't absolutely perfect. For 39 bucks that car will have GPS, Sirius XM and probably less than 20k miles on it total.

Yet, we'll pay 150/hour for an airplane that's older than many of us are, is ragged and torn inside with paper clips holding open vents and shrug it off.

Me personally, I have no problem with the aircraft I rent, they're old and shi**y and I just deal with it. BUT, with that being said, how did aviation slide this far into despair that we just accept and even at times apologize for it or excuse it? Is it really that hard to care enough to keep some plastics updated, a maybe 25 year refresh on carpet or maybe a little cushion rebuild in the seat every 30 years?? Is there not that much money or "oomph" left in the industry to warrant refreshing aircraft once in a while and offloading to secondary markets in a much short time frame than the decades many of these aircraft are hitting?? Just curious.
Click to expand...
 
supernovae said:
It's funny how when we rent a car for 39 bucks a day, we will ***** and moan about everything that isn't absolutely perfect. For 39 bucks that car will have GPS, Sirius XM and probably less than 20k miles on it total.

Yet, we'll pay 150/hour for an airplane that's older than many of us are, is ragged and torn inside with paper clips holding open vents and shrug it off.

Me personally, I have no problem with the aircraft I rent, they're old and shi**y and I just deal with it. BUT, with that being said, how did aviation slide this far into despair that we just accept and even at times apologize for it or excuse it? Is it really that hard to care enough to keep some plastics updated, a maybe 25 year refresh on carpet or maybe a little cushion rebuild in the seat every 30 years?? Is there not that much money or "oomph" left in the industry to warrant refreshing aircraft once in a while and offloading to secondary markets in a much short time frame than the decades many of these aircraft are hitting?? Just curious.
Click to expand...

It's not worth it, even though it's no more expensive to fly now than it ever was, adjusted for inflation/CPI, according to some rental operators I happen to have spoken with.

It is due to a certain decline in overall populations' desires, goals and aptitudes.
 
wabower said:
Is it safe to assume that you have never performed the ROI calculations to determine the hourly rental rate and volume necessary to provide the ride you'd like to have?
Click to expand...

ROI calculations favor desirable products. If you're leasing out a junker, there is good chance you will have junker revenues. Perhaps you would have more volume if you invested in the aircraft a bit more?

I don't have all the answers, but again, I've only ever worked in wildly successful businesses who love their customers and make sure they take care of everything and have pride in their products.

BTW, I have seen some pretty aircraft, but it sure doesn't seem to be the norm in the rental markets.
 
supernovae said:
ROI calculations favor desirable products. If you're leasing out a junker, there is good chance you will have junker revenues. Perhaps you would have more volume if you invested in the aircraft a bit more?

I don't have all the answers, but again, I've only ever worked in wildly successful businesses who love their customers and make sure they take care of everything and have pride in their products.

BTW, I have seen some pretty aircraft, but it sure doesn't seem to be the norm in the rental markets.
Click to expand...

I flew my first 650 hours in various aircraft at a high end facility in the early '90s and it was great for what I wanted, paying premium fees all the way. They HAD over 40 planes on their line ranging from a few 152s through a dozen 172s some half dozen 182s and a few twins and some oddballs for aerobatics, ALL very well kept.

It worked well for over 15 years, with lots of professionals as customers paying the highest rates in the city, using a nice big facility with huge staff and lots of CFIs/students/renters.

NOW, they have maybe only a dozen planes but still the same facility, so it's still working but, with much less volume.
 
Do any other businesses with which you're familiar consider this a success story?

Dave Krall CFII said:
I flew my first 650 hours in various aircraft at a high end facility in the early '90s and it was great for what I wanted, paying premium fees all the way. They HAD over 40 planes on their line ranging from a few 152s through a dozen 172s some half dozen 182s and a few twins and some oddballs for aerobatics, ALL very well kept.

It worked well for over 15 years, with lots of professionals as customers paying the highest rates in the city, using a nice big facility with huge staff and lots of CFIs/students/renters.

NOW, they have maybe only a dozen planes but still the same facility, so it's still working but, with much less volume.
Click to expand...
 
supernovae said:
ROI calculations favor desirable products.
Click to expand...

ROI doesn't favor anything. It simply measures results.

If you're leasing out a junker, there is good chance you will have junker revenues.
Click to expand...
And if you paid less for the junker, then what?

Perhaps you would have more volume if you invested in the aircraft a bit more?
Click to expand...

How does that equate to price elasticity of demand?

I don't have all the answers, but again, I've only ever worked in wildly successful businesses who love their customers and make sure they take care of everything and have pride in their products.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should have considered the industry first.

BTW, I have seen some pretty aircraft, but it sure doesn't seem to be the norm in the rental markets.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the point of this entire exercise?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Do any other businesses with which you're familiar consider this a success story?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're asking exactly. They appear successful to me at all observed time frames, just downsized by 2/3 now. Less volume does not necessarily mean less successful, as they have less overhead and less staff.

Who knows, actual useable profits going to the owners pocket MAY even be higher with the smaller FBO due in part to possible higher efficiency.
 
So you're thinking profit margins have improved while GA business has gone in the ditch?

Dave Krall CFII said:
I'm not sure what you're asking exactly. They appear successful to me at all observed time frames, just downsized by 2/3 now. Less volume does not necessarily mean less successful, as they have less overhead and less staff.

Who knows, actual useable profits going to the owners pocket MAY even be higher with the smaller FBO due in part to possible higher efficiency.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
So you're thinking profit margins have improved while GA business has gone in the ditch?
Click to expand...

That profit margin depends on each individual case.

As FBOs fold, there are still FBOs doing OK, some are even still growing in this poor economy, two specific ones that I know of in my area.
 
FBO profits are irrelevant. How are the plane owners faring financially?

Dave Krall CFII said:
That profit margin depends on each individual case.

As FBOs fold, there are still FBOs doing OK, some are even still growing in this poor economy, two specific ones that I know of in my area.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
FBO profits are irrelevant. How are the plane owners faring financially?
Click to expand...

Plane owner's financial returns would also be on a case by case basis. In some cases, the FBOs are also the aircraft owners. In other cases, the FBO's rentals are lease-backs.
 
Which fleet is cosmetically superior?

Dave Krall CFII said:
Plane owner's financial returns would also be on a case by case basis. In some cases, the FBOs are also the aircraft owners. In other cases, the FBO's rentals are lease-backs.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Which fleet is cosmetically superior?
Click to expand...

From what I've seen in my casual observations since cosmetics are lowest on my list of concerns, they are about the same for looks, with '70s vintage Pipers and Cessnas, not bad interiors, some seats redone many years ago, others a few years old look new. No ratty ones.

Paint variable too: 6-9 0ut of 10.
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
supernovae said:
ROI doesn't favor anything. It simply measures results.
Click to expand...

If no one desires your product, your ROI is reduced. ROI is just a measurement, its up to you to figure out how to improve it on what basis it is reflected and measured with.

And if you paid less for the junker, then what?
Click to expand...

Try it out, do some market research. Every company does it. Compare your revenue for a Junker vs a competitively priced pleasure aircraft in good condition. Then also research he same thing in multiple markets.


How does that equate to price elasticity of demand?
Click to expand...

If an industry appears in shambles to outside observers, demand reduces. If the availability of quality/clean aircraft is pathetic, measuring demand, necessity, duration and all are moot.

Sadly, I think the buy-leaseback type program all to familiar with aviation isn't driven on a measuring this.. Why would a lease back owner operator want to put MORE money into something they're trying to stop bleeding money? They don't see their aircraft as an investment and thus, they're not investing in it. Which isn't really good for the market.

Clubs on the other hand, seem to reflect a stronger quality and are thusly apparently growing. At times not even being cheaper than renting.. which begs the question, are rental FBO's just giving up?

BTW, how did aviation become so tied to owner lease back options vs say capital market lease options? Too much risk?
Click to expand...
 
In one long standing flying club, INITIAL customer education right on their website, explains that an aircraft's lower rate is due to less or no investment in cosmetic details, while still maintaining all the FAA designated airworthiness standards, in order to keep rental prices the lowest in the region.
 
There is only one example I can think of where someone offering their aircraft on a leaseback makes money. There is a POS Dutchess at a local flight school that the owner wants going out at $350 an hour plus fuel surcharge and tax. If you don't like it don't rent it. Of course if you are a foreign student and want your ratings.... you bite the bullet. He purposely raised the rates until it was profitable and discourages anything but the necessary amount of hours.
 
supernovae said:
wabower said:
If no one desires your product, your ROI is reduced. ROI is just a measurement, its up to you to figure out how to improve it on what basis it is reflected and measured with.
Click to expand...

So your position is that lower-priced products are less attractive than higher-priced competitors when tangible benefits to the buyer are roughly equal?

Try it out, do some market research. Every company does it. Compare your revenue for a Junker vs a competitively priced pleasure aircraft in good condition. Then also research he same thing in multiple markets.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea which business I have been involved in for the past 30 years?



If an industry appears in shambles to outside observers, demand reduces. If the availability of quality/clean aircraft is pathetic, measuring demand, necessity, duration and all are moot.
Click to expand...

And you think you know more about that than the guys who own and lease those planes?

Sadly, I think the buy-leaseback type program all to familiar with aviation isn't driven on a measuring this.. Why would a lease back owner operator want to put MORE money into something they're trying to stop bleeding money? They don't see their aircraft as an investment and thus, they're not investing in it. Which isn't really good for the market.
Click to expand...

Do you do what's best for your business or what's best for "the market" for whatever it is that you do?
Clubs on the other hand, seem to reflect a stronger quality and are thusly apparently growing. At times not even being cheaper than renting.. which begs the question, are rental FBO's just giving up?
Click to expand...

Clubs typically have monthly dues and other sources of income/revenue (assessments of members for uprgrades, refurbs, other costs) that allow them to use different pricing models for hours of use.

[QUOTE}BTW, how did aviation become so tied to owner lease back options vs say capital market lease options? Too much risk?
Click to expand...

For all the reasons we've been talking about it. Nobody can make a return on the lease, nor does anybody who understands the market spend any time pretending it can be done. If you own an airplane on leaseback and know that you will be required to overhaul the engine and other components, will you keep a portion of the rental revenue in reserve, or will you spend it on paint fresh, new plastic trim and carpets that you know from experience that the renters will grind into dust within a couple of years?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
For all the reasons we've been talking about it. Nobody can make a return on the lease, nor does anybody who understands the market spend any time pretending it can be done. If you own an airplane on leaseback and know that you will be required to overhaul the engine and other components, will you keep a portion of the rental revenue in reserve, or will you spend it on paint fresh, new plastic trim and carpets that you know from experience that the renters will grind into dust within a couple of years?
Click to expand...

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.
 
supernovae said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
As Mom said, hope in one hand and pee in the other. See which one gets full first. Lots of people already know.

supernovae said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top