part owner

"Dave Butler" wrote in message
news:1105477010.323279@sj-nntpcache-5...

When you go from 1 owner to 2, you cut your expenses by 50 percent.
When you go from 2 owners to 3, you only go from 50 percent to 33 percent,
a 17
percent improvement, but the amount of time you have to spend
communicating with
your partners doubles.

... and so on (3 to 4, etc).

I'm #5 in a 5-way partnership and have been relatively happy. Availability
(esp. from Nov-March) is fine and splitting expenses 5 ways is the only
reason I was able to hold on to my share after I quit my job to start a
business. 1/5th of a plane is better than none. Even in the summer I know I
could get it one weekend a month minimum which would be pretty tough as a
renter. But if you can afford 2 or 3-way then no question that's better.
More can work, though, especially if the plane is simple like our 172. Most
of the time stuff is either "broken" or "not" and there ain't much gray
area.

-cwk.

Visit groups.google.com and search the archives. This topic has been hashed
and rehashed and home-fried to death more times than that guy's bank account
in Nigeria. There really isn't much new to say since the problems don't
change. Good luck.

"Anti-Death-Spec" wrote in message
news:aABEd.23119$sf5.16730@lakeread05...
Greetings:
I am considering part ownership/partnership. I would greatly appreciate
any
comments, suggestions, recommendations before I make my decision. What
things have some of you learned from your experiences. Thank you. Brian

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:
...
After my friend's accident, his partner was sued by one of the
passengers. His only connection to the accident was a part ownership
in
the aircraft. The pax had lost wages well in excess of the insurance
limits.

That sounds like the problem of co-ownership of the aircraft. The
contra to that is the situation where the same guy is a shareholder in
a corp or member of an LLC. It is true there that such person cannot
be named in a suit for alleged tort by another shareholder/member who
actually flew the airplane.

But when it comes to judgment time in a successful suit, and a partner
is not named as defendant, then that partner cannot be made to fork
over his interest. As a practical matter also, the plaintiff may not
seek dissolution of the partnership to obtain some more dough,
especially if there's a loan on the aircraft. However, if the
aircraft is owned by a corp or LLC, and both pilot and corp/LLC are
named in a successful suit, then the plaintiff automatically gets to
own all the assets of the corp or LLC, namely the aircraft, which
leaves the other guy bewilderingly "holding his schmeckle," without
even being sued! Potentially to lose either way, no?

Fred F.