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

Matt Barrow wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assuming the rental fleet GETS USED enough.

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

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

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

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