Help - My 'Plane share' is going wrong

[gordon51]

Hi Guys
Planes shares are great - when they work. I own a plane 50/50 with a good friend, based upon a local strip. Up to now, over 2 years, no problem. Plane is always available for both of us, we fly a lot together, 100% the fun but only half the cost, etc etc. Always done on a friendly basis with no legal paperwork etc. Now the other owner has found a new girlfriend and moved 100 miles away and wants to arbitrarily book the plane for 2 week slots and keep it a few miles from himself and nearly 100 miles from me. Has even suggested he doesn't want me flying it during 'his 2 weeks', and has lost all interest in any days out where we both flew the plane etc. He is not too chuffed about my suggestion he 'sell his share'. I personally think he is unreasonable as after all he is the one that wanted to move 100 miles. Any suggestions on how I can resolve this - without too much argument and hassle? Regards Gordon51

[AC-DC]

I have no answer to this as it seems that you won't lose just the aircraft but also a friend. Get out of the group, buy his 1/2 or sell yours otherwise it will end in tears.

[dublinpilot]

1. Dissolve the group and sell the aircraft to a 3rd party.

or

2. Get an independent valuation, and one of you buy the other out completely. Obviously who ever both it would have the option of finding a new partner.

or

3. Base the aircraft 50% of the time close to him and 50% close to you.

or

4. Find a new airfield to base the aircraft on that's 50 miles from both of you.


It's not unreasonable for him to want decent access to the aircraft...after all he paid for 50% of the capital, and continues to pay 50% of the running costs.

What you both have to accept is that if you were living 100 miles apart from one another when you first thought of buying something together, you'd probably have dismissed the idea as unworkable fairly quickly, or would have had to make one of the above compromises.

Things change, and people move one. While it's true to say that it is him that has moved on, it's also unreasonable of you to expect him to leave the aircraft which he owns 50% of the capital in, right beside you, where he has little or no access to it, and to continue to pay 50% of the bills.

Baseing it 2 weeks beside him and 2 weeks beside you doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me under the circumstances. It's certainly more reasonable in my view than you insisting it stays beside you all the time.

dp

[eharding]

Insist on being allowed the use of his new girlfriend on a pro-rata basis to compensate you for the loss of use of the aircraft....unless of course she's a complete Swamp Donkey.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Ed, that that's the best idea I've heard for a long time!:ok:

Other than that, it would be simpler to just dissolve the group as often any compromise becomes unworkable and very complicated.

This is a prime example of why nobody should get into a group without a decent legal contract, especially when friends are involved. A sad thing really.

[BeechNut]

What are the regs on selling block time in the UK? If they're manageable, buy out his half and find a block time partner, that way you get to call the shots and have priority. Sell the block time in 1000 pound chunks; that way you're never more than 1000 pounds away from terminating the agreement.

Theoretically in Canada your aircraft has to be registered commercial to do so. So instead, we "loan" or aircraft, on a "pay your own expenses" basis and your close friend gives you an annual "gift" for being so kind. You do have to have the person named on the insurance policy.

[Felix Saddler]

fly away and never return... :}

[fernytickles]

On a practical level, how can you regulate the 2 week change over? If weather gets in the way, or work, or girlfriend, the aircraft is delayed and you, or your partner, misses out on the alloted 2 weeks.

On top of that, every time you fly that 100 miles, you're adding time to the engine and airframe. Not a huge factor, but if you're doing it every 2 weeks, without fail - thats 26 times a year. Depending on your speed, 26 hrs +/-..... Time wasted on boring ferrying, not a fun $100 hamburger trip.

[Romulus]

Times like these a "Savoy" clause s pretty helpful. Principle is pretty basic, if party A wishes to buy party B out then A nominates the price they are willing pay. Party B then has 30 days (or whatever timeframe is agreed) to match that offer and buy Party A out or if Party B chooses not to do so then Party B must sell to Party A at the nominated price.

No perfect, particularly if there is a monetary imbalanc ebetween the partners, but a reasonable way of ensuring both parties think the price is fair.

Equally if you keep the partnership going I'd be asking for costs associated with ferrying.

[Whirlybird]

dublinpilot tells it like it is. But first you have to both accept that the other has a point of view and isn't being unreasonable. Calm down, sit down over a a drink, and discuss it sensibly.

[sternone]

Don't trust guys that are following their d*ck...

[Three Yellows]

Gordon,

You have my sympathy.

I am in a very similar position to you, in as much as I half own an aeroplane with a very good friend. It has worked very well for us. Plane always avaliable when we need it and we also fly a lot together, so we are never short of constructive criticsm from the right hand seat. We have also pushed each other to do Night, IMC and Multi.

Luckily we are still good friends and its working very well. We too have no 'contract' and with only two in the group who has the deciding vote?

IMHO it is very black and white. Your friend is completely changing the basis on which you bought and currently operate the aeroplane. Even though you don't have a contract, you do have 'an understanding'. He is the one 'in the wrong'.

He cannot change the base of the aeroplane without your consent. If he wants these two week blocks, then that's fine, but HE must incur the cost and time of positioning and repositioning the plane to his local field, all within his two week window.

He will soon get fed up, especially if he suddenly needs the plane to go somewhere during your two weeks. As someone said, never trust a bloke who follows his d**k. Once the girlfriend finds out how unreasonable he his, she'll soon drop him, plane or not. I bet he's got a very big watch.

But, could you perhaps post a picture of the plane and the girlfriend so that we can all decide....

Good Luck

3Y

[GK430]

I'll bet the plane is the better looking;)
Has he got a nice car you can look after when he comes to take the plane:D

[S-Works]

Erm if it is a 50/50 share than how can the "owner" be making these demands?

If you own it 50/50 then you have to negotiate. If he want's to move it from it's established base then he has to offer to buy you out or you to buy him out.

Tell him to sling his hook.

[the dean]

its unfortunate but it happens...a girl comes between two good buddies...but you have to move on. as has been said if you have no written agreement you'll just both have to sit down and work it out. one buys out the other ( and hopefully won't wind up in litigation which would be sad.)

if you can't agree, it has to be sold.

sad but any partnership is like a marriage. if unhappy differences occur they have to be worked out or its at an end.:{

sorry but my guess is you already know the reality.

[effortless]

I had the same problem with a girlfriend back in the sixties. The other chap wanted to marry her. We couldn't agree on a price so we decided to hazard for her. I suggested gin rummy he said he preferred canasta. She said that Russian roulette was more appropriate and went to bed with the adj.. I think he married her.:E

[RatherBeFlying]

You can both advertise at your different locations. Whoever gets the best price at his chosen base gets the new partner and buys out the other with the proceeds.

Provided the other agrees that the proceeds are sufficient (viz. Savoy clause described earlier); if not, buys out partner for aforesaid offer.

[STLIM]

Is anyone know which pub that pilot like to hang around in manchester?

Thanks

[fusian]

My suggestion would be to sell the plane or get one of you to sell the share to the other. Selling the 50% share would of course be the better option as you are willing to buy it.
Another option would be court or solicitor based mediation, and although no legal contract exists you have a verbal agreement and should for the sake of expenses be able to prove that this is the case, ie use bills and payments to demonstrate the 50/50 split.
The aircraft in the mean time should remain based where it has been as not to fundamentally alter the original agreement.
Also look at the questions such as who is driving the changes and why? If the skirt is driving the changes, unless she has a share now given as a gift then she has no say.
Is he using to teach her to fly? Do you agree with this if he is and do you have insurance which covers that? if not it could prove costly for both as the owner will be held accountable.
Just my thoughts.

[foxmoth]

This is where a proper agreement is needed at the start. I would agree that as he wants to change things he should offer to buy you out and if you do not want to sell then he should sell to you at a fair price. How often are these 2 week slots anyway? If every other month then probably not too bad as you will have the bulk of the access - though I do not think it reasonable of him to try to hog it in that period - presumably he will sort out and pay for all the ferrying and make sure it is back at the right time, if he wants it every other 2 weeks then he really is being unreasonable. Whatever you end up doing I would recommend you get a proper agreement signed up for your group, this partner or the next one.

[sternone]

I'll bet the plane is the better looking


All planes are better looking....aldo some girls come pritty close...

[BackPacker]

Does anyone have a sample contract for a two- and/or more than two-person group?

[Brooklands]

Does anyone have a sample contract for a two- and/or more than two-person group?

There's This one (http://www.pfa.org.uk/About%20PFA/Flying%20Group%20Rules.pdf) from the PFA website.

WR - Nice idea, but if there's no agreement in place then he may claim that he's not obliged to contribute to the hangarage/parking at the home base any more as he's paying it at the "away" location.

Gordon - you have my sympathy - I hiope you manage to resolve it.

Brooklands

[BackPacker]

Interesting. That document covers almost everything, but does NOT cover the situation where half of the members (one out of two) want to relocate the aircraft to a new base - except the blanket rule of having a majority or two-thirds majority.

[Three Yellows]

Where's 'Flying Lawyer' when we need him?

[gordon51]

:)Dear 3Y

Thanks for your reply and to the 25 or so others that all gave their input. In the main supporting the fact that one member should not be able to relocate the plane without agreement. Some did though support the fact they thought this was 'okay', In fact though the real situation was a bit worse. :\What the other owner suggested that on say every alternate 2 weeks, say mid-week Tuesday-Thursday, the pilot with the plane at that time would travel solo to the other field, pick up the other owner, and fly both pilots back to his own field, then the co-owner could then fly back solo to the other field. So at least 3 hours engine time assuming that there is no hindrances from work, weather etc, meaning the only way the plane can be moved from one location to the other is by a combination of trains buses and taxis by the pilot who wants it. Plus I have the added grievance of the the other pilot not wanting to pay any hangarage at the original home base, plus to add insult to injury, not wanting to sell his share, nor buy out mine. I am hoping once he thinks it through there may be a realisation that selling his share is the only reasonable way forward - especially as I won't be falling over myself to agree his requests. As a few rightly stated, one of us only needs to get unlucky with the weather during our 2 week slot, and 6 weeks will go by with hardly any flying. The good flying season will be past before we know it.:ugh:

In summary I am going to give it a few weeks for him to find another plane to fly and sell his share - then I'll just have to tough it out :}- and travel 100 miles by road rail and taxi to pick up the plane whenever it's at the other base, and he'll have to do the same. I just hope he doesn't resort to mischief like disabling the plane when he thinks it's 'his' 2 weeks

Thanks again everyone for your valued input, and for the humorous chat comparing girlfriends and planes. Now to all you jokers out there, what do you make of this:- The plane is a 2003 near new one owner only 400 hours, and is a great pleasure to fly. The new girlfriend is a 1950's model with any amount of previous owners, countless hours on the clock, but a little bit of life and service still available. ;)

Thanks again everyone

[IO540]

I am not sure if I have missed something here, but surely each of these two people is benefitting from the other one's financial contribution.

It is therefore in both their interests to have the other one coughing up.

If this arrangement doesn't work, then the partnership (and there is a partnership, written or not) can be dissolved. The asset can be simply sold and that's it.

If Gordon's mate refuses to buy Gordon's share out then he is taking the micky, and I would challenge him directly with the threat of dissolving the partnership.

Regarding lawyers, the one thing I have observed here (and on other forums) for the past few years is that no lawyer ever offers specific advice on anything for which he could charge for... Most notably, nothing is said on actual cases of alleged ANO breaches which the said lawyer must have dealt with countless times, yet the pilot forums are packed with "is this legal" speculation.

[foxmoth]

Sounds totally unreasonable to me, if he wants anything like an alternating 2 weeks then he should be the one sorting it - and get an agreement that if it is late back then you get that extra time plus the costs if you need to go to pick up the aircraft. He is the one that has changed things so why should you be paying and messing about so he can do things differently. I think everyone who has said that it could be a manageable setup thinks your partner should be the one doing all the positioning because he is the one that wants to change things - and he should still expect to pay his bills at the original base!:hmm:

[Fuji Abound]

Regarding lawyers, the one thing I have observed here (and on other forums) for the past few years is that no lawyer ever offers specific advice on anything for which he could charge for... Most notably, nothing is said on actual cases of alleged ANO breaches which the said lawyer must have dealt with countless times, yet the pilot forums are packed with "is this legal" speculation.

There is the obvious comment that all they have to sell is their time - if they gave opinions gratuitously it would be bad for business.

However, there are other good reasons.

It is surprisingly how often people don’t tell the whole story. Sometimes this is because they consider there are elements that are inconsequential (when in fact they are not) and sometimes they know full well it is not helpful to their case. Proper enquiry often solicits the whole story. There is of course an obvious danger giving an opinion based on incorrect information.

Professional bodies and indemnity insurers take a dim view of gratuitous opinions. Whilst I am not suggesting you could get sued giving an opinion on an anonymous forum there have been some surprising cases where opinions have been given without any fee changing hands and yet the advisor was still found negligent, when his opinion was incorrect.

Finally in many professional arenas, as for that matter commercial arenas, those involved devise arrangements or obtain opinions or clearances which they know if you arrange your affairs in certain ways gives you a legal advantage - an age old reason for employing first class advisors. Not surprisingly this knowledge comes at a price and being cynical if proffered for mass consumption will sometimes result in the law being amended even sooner.

I recall a comment I like, it is not the ten minutes the consultant takes to remove the cataract, but the thirty years he spent learning how to do it properly.

The original definition of a professional was one who gives of his time without necessarily giving consideration to his fee - we would all wish the doctor would stop and render assistance in circumstances of urgent need - but perhaps sadly the world has turned a few more times since then.
So far as this case is concerned in the first instance you should avoid lawyers at all cost - becasue it will be costly and the courts are littered with individuals who should have resolved their differences without recourse to court.

Often a great deal can be solved by the parties agreeing to meet with an independent person in attendance (in this case another pilot who is either chairman or a member of another group). Both individuals then have a proper opportunity to set out their grievances and both will benefit from an impartial third party opinion.

Well worth a try.

[dublinpilot]

I think it would help a lot, if both parties recognised that the circumstances that led to the original agreement have fundamentally changed, and that the original setup is no longer workable.

At that point the obviously solution is to sell the aircraft to a third party at market value.

That is a basic and fair starting point. Only when both parties recognise that fundamential point, and accept that things will never be as they were before, can they start to look at other solutions to see if they are workable. Perhaps one can be found that is fair to both people, or perhaps not.

Expecting things to continue 'like they were before' is nothing more than wishful thinking, and likely to result in the loss of both a friend, and a lot of money.

dp

[IO540]

Very good points Fuji, esp. about the law getting amended. The CAA reads these forums daily; their medical department reads them hours :)

However in general I think one can give advice while stating the limits of it e.g. it is based on the apparent situation.

Returning to this case, I believe it is possible to dissolve a partnership without spending money. It's a simple legal process - just like forcing the sale of a house if the people sharing it don't get along anymore. Any partner can force a liquidation and AFAIK there is no defence (short of dependent persons, which I can't see would apply to a plane).

[QNH 1013]

I agree entirely with Dublinpilot's latest post and the only real input I can give you first-hand is that ferrying aircraft is a lot of hassle that gets more frustrating the more you do it.
I have experience of ferrying aircraft regularly and it is a real pain even though as a commercial pilot I don 't have to bear the costs. Organising return transport is always time consuming, and using the aircraft "three trips" method is not really any better, and its always expensive for someone.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Seriously Gordon he sounds like he's acting like a total a*se about this.

I know he's a mate, but he's also taking the mickey. Stand your ground and be very firm about it and if needs be put your share up for sale and just get out of it totally.

I have seen so many shares go down the pan and good friendships destroyed, that you really have to be careful about this if you want to protect your friendship.

Talk it over together seriously and state what everyone here has already put. i.e the basis for your "agreement" has changed through no fault of your own, so why should you suffer as he's moved away for a bit of nooky?

It simply isn't right that you should suffer in this case. So tell him to sort it, or you'll simply put your share up for sale.

Again, anyone reading this and thinking of buying a share, for the sake of your future sanity make sure you do have a good written agreement. No good in this example, but hopefully this will make others think twice. Especialy if you are uying an a/c with "friends."

[effortless]

Ok a serious response, he is being an arse but you should avoid escalating the problem. Speak reasonably and point out the things listed above, such as: he is changing the rules arbitrarily; he is going to increase costs and inconvenience to both of you and, if things get realy awkward, neither of you will come out with much.

Have you set out your arguments in writing to him? If not do so soon. Do it reasonably and in a friendly fashion. Use some of the more sensible arguments from this forum if it helps. Remind him of why you did this in the firts place. Surely the biggest motive was convenience. Above all make sure that niether of you tries to "win". Neither of you will.

I have spent a great deal of my time in arbitration and in court and no one ever really wins except the lawyers if things get out of hand.

[Fuji Abound]

Have you set out your arguments in writing to him? If not do so soon.

No, I disagree.

The partner is also a friend.

I would be upset if a friend felt it necessary to write to me. As I suggetsed previously, in the first instance, the two of you should meet, perhaps with another pilot owner who can give an independent view. Hopefully you can resolve your differences at that meeting.

If not, only then might it be time to write.

[tacpot]

Arbitration can be a good way to get such disputes resolved, but only if both parties agree on the impartiality & wisdom of the arbitrator!

If you want to go down that route, I would check with your friend that they are happy to use arbitration. But before doing so have some good suggestions in your mind as to who might make a reasonble arbitrator from your friend's point of view.

I would avoid using anyone who needs to maintain a relationship with either party, just in case...

good luck
tp

[Hombre]

Buy a porsche: The 100 or so miles will seem like 25 :E

[S-Works]

Buy a porsche: The 100 or so miles will seem like 25

Have you been on UK roads? I own 2 and they don't make driving 100 miles in the UK any less arduous......:E

[pulse1]

I own 2 and they don't make driving 100 miles in the UK any less arduous......

Perhaps, if you try driving one at a time it would be a little easier.:)

[gcolyer]

Buy an L-39 that would chew up the 100 miles pretty quickly. Sell your share of the spamcan and then buzz your ex-mate with the L-39. the wake turbulance should send the right message for you.

[pumper_bob]

If this chap is a good friend, then surley a bit of negotiation would resolve it? I would have though a new 172 could do the 100 mile in an hour, so one hour for you to drop it off to him, with the condition he drops you at the station to get home. Then he brings it back 2 weeks later and you drop him to the station and catch up on things with him, seeing as you wont be seeing that much of him while he is going through the honeymoon period with his new bit of skirt:) Trust me, he will be back into the pilot seat soon, like less than six months the novelty of the new woman will be wearing thin. Stick with it for a month or so and see where it goes to! Dont burn bridges in haste, thats my two pennorth for what its worth.
PB

[ALEXA]

Guys

This is almost certainly not a partnership as that word is understood in English law.

A partnership is the relation which subsists between persons carrying on a business in common with a view of profit. Section 1 Partnership Act 1890.

This is probably simple co-ownership. Just possibly a trust.

So the right to dissolve a partnership, which usually involves the sale of its assets, is irrelevant.

That's why you need a clear agreement as to what happens if you want to "dissolve" the group (to use a neutral word).

Ignoring land, which has its own special rules, there is no automatic right to force a sale of co-owned property or for one party to acquire the other's share. You can sell your own share to someone else without the other's consent, and so can he. But you can't force your co-owner to join in a sale of the asset or to sell his own share against his will, unless of course you've some form of agreement to that effect.

So the facts (including oral agreements and understandings) have to be trawled through in fine detail to see if something can be used to support the existence of an agreement (or possibly even a trust) for a sale.

If you can't settle it amicably, this could cost you a lot in fees. Settle it amicably if you possibly can, but if you can't, do find a competent solicitor who does aviation work and has seen this area before. If you pay peanuts, you WILL get advice from a monkey.

ALEXA

[Foxy Loxy]

Any update on this? Or is it still pending?

Hope you managed to work it out.

Foxy