So if I fly my MU-2 for 15 minutes a year, is it accurate to say that it
"costs $100,000/hr to operate a MU-2"? I suppose that if the KA90 is flown
under 100hrs per year and is financed with expensive money, then one might
come up with $900/hr. My point is that it is not really an accurate
statement to say the a KA90 costs $900/hr to operate. It might be accurate
to say: "because of my low utilization, it costs $900/hr for me to operate
my KA90, if I had average utilization my cost would be about $500/hr"

My own approach is to split "ownership costs" from "operating costs". Fixed
costs are "ownership costs" and I compare them to the long term (annual or
longer) benefit of owning an airplane. Fuel and maitenance are "operating
cost" that are used to assess whether it makes sense to make a particular
flight. Since I am only flying about 150hrs/yr, fixed costs are a large
percentage of the total but they are "sunk cost" and don't have any
relevence on whether to make a flight or not.


Mike
MU-2


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...
Great story! If a KA90 costs $900/hr to operate, I wonder how these
guys
are chartering one for $775?
http://www.fargojet.com/charter_kingair-c90.htm


It depends on the age of the plane and how you amortize the cost. Actual
operating cost of a King Air C90 is about $1/mile, or less than $300/hour.
If your King Air does not fly much, you have to spread fixed costs like
insurance, annual inspections, and interest over fewer hours, meaning a
higher cost per hour. So the cost per hour for a charter company may well
be
lower than that of a less frequently used corporate plane.