C-152 Leaseback: what's the scoop?

EridanMan wrote:

All I can say is you need to prepare not only for the financial
outlay, but the emotional/physical/attention outlay as well. For me,
it was far more effort than it was ever worth.

Consider yourself warned by a bitter fool

LOL! Thanks, Scott. Duly noted.

My goal is to be able to make money teaching in my own plane (leaseback
or not, whichever is the least expensive) instead of having somebody
else making the money off of my students. If it's too much of a
headache--your experience seems particularly relevant there--I'll find
some other side business, I guess.


-c

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:18:45 +0000 (UTC), gatt
wrote:

EridanMan wrote:

All I can say is you need to prepare not only for the financial
outlay, but the emotional/physical/attention outlay as well. For me,
it was far more effort than it was ever worth.

Consider yourself warned by a bitter fool

LOL! Thanks, Scott. Duly noted.

My goal is to be able to make money teaching in my own plane (leaseback
or not, whichever is the least expensive) instead of having somebody
else making the money off of my students. If it's too much of a
headache--your experience seems particularly relevant there--I'll find
some other side business, I guess.

Oops! You can't do this without a Part 135 certification/approval.
The catch is providing the plane that you instruct in.

You can get around this in a leaseback, but you have to let the
student and/or FBO schedule your plane -- you cannot be in the
scheduling loop, and you better get copies of the weekly/monthly
booking sheets in case you have to back up your non-involvement to the
FAA.

That said, leaseback can be safe and financially rewarding, but more
for a student of PP, not for an instructor, by cutting your cost of
plane ownership. With a leaseback, all the fixed costs of operation,
and all ther vaiable costs associated with rental use can be claimed
as expenses.

I did this for 14 years with a C172, and it worked out very well for
me.

But, as someone earlier said: 'TREAT IT LIKE A BUSINESS!"

That's not true.

Jim




Oops! You can't do this without a Part 135 certification/approval.
The catch is providing the plane that you instruct in.

"gatt" wrote in message
...

The owner of FBO was a family member's partner on the police force, is a
retired Marine, former mayor, retired sheriff, city commissioner, owns a
successful FBO and the fuel operation. Did my IFR, Commercial and will
have finished my CFI with him very soon. His integrity and honesty are
unimpeachable.

Right now he only has one C-152 in the fleet because the previous owner
with a leaseback arrangement sold out for a larger aircraft. So there are
four IFR 172s, and Arrow, a 182 and a 310, but only one primary trainer.
There are a number of CFIs who are keeping busy enough that in the summer
you have to book the airplane out a week in advance, so there's no
shortage of work, and I will be working out of there as an independent
instructor as soon as possible.

Prospective students are heading over to the more expensive "academy"
because they have 152s available, but the training and rental fees are
ridiculous. Seems like a leaseback on a 152 would be a win-win situation
given that my family has known and respected him since shortly after World
War II. He did most of my ground school gratis--does that for most--and
except for a flat $100/mo. fee, the instructors keep 100% of the hourly
instruction rate.

I hear all kinds of horror stories about leasebacks, but this seems like a
much better than average prospect but I want to make sure I know what I'm
doing before I get into something like that.

Comments/experience?

Thanks in advance!

-c




Gatt you been in my C-150M it runs and flys good since I am so busy I am
concedering a leaseback if i can make some money or a sale, If I sell it I
will put it in a box and sent it to Korea they paying $35k+ for Crated....
for M model 150's and 152...

If anyoneknow of 152's for sale I have a buyer in Korea hahahahaha,,, they
looking for 40 to 50 of them will ship em 3 to a container!

I love this weak us dollar : )

On Jul 11, 1:48*pm, "RST Engineering" wrote:
That's not true.

Please explain how one gets around the 'holding out" restriction
without the 135 certificate?
Even AOPA will warn you about this "commercial privileges trap".


Jim



Oops! *You can't do this without a Part 135 certification/approval.
The catch is providing the plane that you instruct in.

"RST Engineering" wrote in
m:

That's not true.



Yeah, I don't see what 135 has to do with instructing either, unless
they've changed something!




Oops! You can't do this without a Part 135 certification/approval.
The catch is providing the plane that you instruct in.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 05:35:38 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"RST Engineering" wrote in
om:

That's not true.



Yeah, I don't see what 135 has to do with instructing either, unless
they've changed something!

It doesn't having anything to do 'per se' with instructing. It has
everything to do with providing the plane in which the instruction is
being done.





Oops! You can't do this without a Part 135 certification/approval.
The catch is providing the plane that you instruct in.

Scrooge McDuck wrote in
news
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 05:35:38 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"RST Engineering" wrote in
news:B9WdnVlnRNZpAerVnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@supernews. com:

That's not true.



Yeah, I don't see what 135 has to do with instructing either, unless
they've changed something!

It doesn't having anything to do 'per se' with instructing. It has
everything to do with providing the plane in which the instruction is
being done.

135 is for air taxi, pretty much end of story unless they've rewritten it
since I did it.


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
Scrooge McDuck wrote in
news
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 05:35:38 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"RST Engineering" wrote in
news:B9WdnVlnRNZpAerVnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@supernews .com:

That's not true.



Yeah, I don't see what 135 has to do with instructing either, unless
they've changed something!

It doesn't having anything to do 'per se' with instructing. It has
everything to do with providing the plane in which the instruction is
being done.

135 is for air taxi, pretty much end of story unless they've rewritten it
since I did it.


Bertie

Since you did what? Trip on your dick?

In article , Maxwell says...


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
Scrooge McDuck wrote in
news
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 05:35:38 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"RST Engineering" wrote in
news:B9WdnVlnRNZpAerVnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@supernews .com:

That's not true.



Yeah, I don't see what 135 has to do with instructing either, unless
they've changed something!

It doesn't having anything to do 'per se' with instructing. It has
everything to do with providing the plane in which the instruction is
being done.

135 is for air taxi, pretty much end of story unless they've rewritten it
since I did it.


Bertie

Since you did what? Trip on your dick?

Another obvious froggery by a jealous twit

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"