buy or rent a 2006 182

My $30k of hull is enough to cover the owners deductible.

Do you believe that you will only be asked to pay the owner's
deductible? Why do you think the owner's insurance company won't
come after you for the money they paid to the owner?

The liability covers the rest.

Do you think your liability coverage will pay the owner's insurance
company back for the claim they paid to the owner on the hull coverage?

If I am a renter, and the engine quits because something breaks, I land
it and walk away. The insurance companies fight over who pays what.
Who are they going to get more from? Me or the others (including the
owner) who have an interest?
As it has been explained to me, inusrance companies rarely subrogate
unless they have a deep pocket or there was a blatant violation of the
regulations.
In todays litiguous society, the owner and the owners insurance company
stand an equal chance of being sued for improper maintenance.

On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:08:26 -0500, Dan Luke wrote:

So I ran a few
numbers to see how buying and renting the same model airplane would
compare, based on costs here in Mobile:

I've a problem with your numbers; I don't see how they can be correct.
It's not any specific number you've described, but the overall sum.
Essentially: how can the two work out to anything but the rental costing
the same or more?

Both aircraft are insured (and, apples to apples, I assume they're insured
identically). Both would have the same hourly into engine/paint/interior
reserves. Both use the same fuel and oil. both get the same annual, etc.

Renter's insurance is an added expense on the rental side, as is funding
the 100 hour inspections.

You're right that the renter avoids financing costs (whether aircraft is
bought for debt or cash). But the owner of the rental presumably knows
this and figures it into the hourly, making the per hour charge for the
rental slightly higher.

What am I missing that would "break" what I've described?

- Andrew

On Fri, 25 May 2007 19:14:32 -0400, Kyle Boatright wrote:

Beyond the equity issue, there is something to be said for being able to
schedule the aircraft at your convenience and for the ability to maintain
and upgrade the aircraft to your standards.

This is why I like the "compromise" of a club where all members are
owners. It has the best of rental and ownership characteristics; in fact
it looks like a large partnership over multiple aircraft (or perhaps
multiple single-airplane partnerships).

The members/owners control issues like MX, upgrades, paint schemes, etc.
Scheduling is, in theory, more complex than with a single-owner aircraft.
But as the number of aircraft in the fleet goes up, this becomes less of
an issue.

And with multiple aircraft, the impact of any given aircraft being down
for MX drops.

It's not the perfect replacement for single-ownership. You have to adjust
the seats, and there are limits on scheduling (ie. you cannot keep an
aircraft at your vacation home for "the season"). But it's also cost
effective at under 300 hours/year (or whatever number is considered the
proper break-even point nowadays {8^).

The final benefit is that you're never making choices in a vacuum; there
are always older and more seasoned members of whom to seek advice. It's a
terrific way to learn about the care and feeding of aircraft from people
that are just as invested as yourself.


- Andrew
http://flyingclub.org/

Andrew Gideon wrote:
The members/owners control issues like MX, upgrades, paint schemes, etc.
Scheduling is, in theory, more complex than with a single-owner aircraft.
But as the number of aircraft in the fleet goes up, this becomes less of
an issue.

That depends on how the club is structured.
Not all are as you describe above.

On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:31:32 -0400, john smith wrote:

Andrew Gideon wrote:
The members/owners control issues like MX, upgrades, paint schemes, etc.
Scheduling is, in theory, more complex than with a single-owner
aircraft. But as the number of aircraft in the fleet goes up, this
becomes less of an issue.

That depends on how the club is structured. Not all are as you describe
above.

Not all clubs are like this, true. But are not all clubs with members as
owners like this? I admit I don't know of all clubs laugh, but how
could owners not have at least a voice on such matters?

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:08:26 -0500, Dan Luke wrote:

I've a problem with your numbers; I don't see how they can be correct.
It's not any specific number you've described, but the overall sum.
Essentially: how can the two work out to anything but the rental costing
the same or more?

Several reasons:

The main economic difference is probably that the rental aircraft should have
much higher utilization because it is available to far more pilots. This would
distribute the fixed costs among far more flying hours.

Another reason is leasebacks. Leasebacks are often a rather bad deal for
the airplane owner. Owners either enter into the leasback because they have
been "sold" on the idea along with the purchase of a new airplane, or they
already own the plane and are trying to reduce their ownership costs. Simple
fact: if it were cheaper for flying schools/FBOs to own their fleets outright,
that is what more of them would be doing.

Anytime anyone tries to convince you that any form of aircraft ownership is
cheaper than renting, check the figures several times and then go get a second
and third opinion before signing any dotted lines.

Vaughn

"Andrew Gideon" wrote:


What am I missing that would "break" what I've described?

The rental airplane will likely fly 300 hrs/yr.


--
Dan

"Dragged forward by cold science, which doesn't care what we think or believe
or wish for, we are headed into some interesting times."

- John Derbyshire

In article ,
Andrew Gideon wrote:

On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:31:32 -0400, john smith wrote:

Andrew Gideon wrote:
The members/owners control issues like MX, upgrades, paint schemes, etc.
Scheduling is, in theory, more complex than with a single-owner
aircraft. But as the number of aircraft in the fleet goes up, this
becomes less of an issue.

That depends on how the club is structured. Not all are as you describe
above.

Not all clubs are like this, true. But are not all clubs with members as
owners like this? I admit I don't know of all clubs laugh, but how
could owners not have at least a voice on such matters?

I am not a part-owner in either of the two clubs of which I am a member.
I simply rent the aircraft. All of the aircraft are lease-backs in one
club and the club is incorporated and the corporation owns the other.
There are nine airplanes in the one club and one in the other.

On Mon, 28 May 2007 17:57:38 -0400, john smith wrote:

I am not a part-owner in either of the two clubs of which I am a member.

So these clubs are not of the sort I've been discussing.

- Andrew

On Mon, 28 May 2007 19:31:10 +0000, Vaughn Simon wrote:


The main economic difference is probably that the rental aircraft should
have
much higher utilization because it is available to far more pilots. This
would distribute the fixed costs among far more flying hours.

Okay. If we equalize flight hours, does this advantage disappear?

- Andrew