How to operate a group aircraft?

[Groups Are Bad]

I have recently left two different aircraft groups both of which ran very differently. I am wondering what the best ways to operate a group are?

Here are the three most obvious ways I can think of.

1. There is no formal agreement; it is set up and operated like a bunch of mates sharing an aeroplane.
2. The group has a formal shareholder agreement and has rules and policies to follow.
3. The group is set up a limited company and has a formal agreement; this would then protect the individual shareholders from each other’s actions?

What do you think?

[Jan Olieslagers]

I would never share an aeroplane with people stupid enough to engage in 1. , that is a sure recipe for disaster. 3. looks like overkill but, depending on where you are, could perhaps have advantages taxwise.

[Johnm]

Three or two. Three has the benefit that the owner is a limited company and insulates the Directors from the unlimited liability aspects of ownership. Otherwise three and two are more or less the same.

[Maoraigh1]

I've been a Group member for almost 25 years. (Same Group since January 1990 - 6 members)
You don't have to be a group of mates. You only need a common purpose. It helps if some people don't fly much. :E Only one member now has been in the Group longer than me.
We have the minimal rules. There's no point in a legal framework for an aircraft Group whose share value is less than a few hours lawyer's time. You have to be reasonable. Some people may be incompatable with Group operating requirements.
It has saved me a lot of money for the flying I've done over the years, and gives good short-notice availability.

[horizon flyer]

Have run a group as a company. Does mean you have to make tax & company house returns and keep tight accounting. No VAT claw back as end user. Believe no advantage these days on liability.

The most important is the character of each member, requires team players with give and take, not selfish bastards which I have come across. Equal wealth is good so everyone pays their way on cash calls if needed.

Good set of rules also needed so every member knows the boundaries.

Did throw a share hold out once for endangering the aircraft, was in the rules.

[007helicopter]

I would never share an aeroplane with people stupid enough to engage in 1

I suppose each to their own, 1 has worked great for our 3 way split in a Cirrus since 2007 and I would not want any other way.

I have done the limited company and share thing and for me personally not a disaster but for the group specific group I was in turned out pretty much a disaster.

Bottom line which ever, 1,2 or 3 it is all down to the people for the outcome.

[robin]

In our group I wrote a set of rules based on the PFA/LAA guidance and tailored to our own needs

What is absolutely vital is to ensure everyone knows them, especially bits around payments and, most importantly, leaving and disputes.

In an earlier group we had rules that excluded those parts and the group broke up acrimoniously and getting money back was a struggle

I think joining a group is very much like a marriage - we go into it in soft focus and with the best hopes. When things don't go well, then messy and nasty divorces happen. Always good to ensure your exit with a pre-nup.

[sharpend]

I was in a group with comprehensive rules. It worked very well. They are necessary, indeed vital.

[astir 8]

I've been in glider syndicates for 25 years based on option 1. It can work fine but gliders normally have only 2 or 3 in the syndicate. Any new partners came from within the club and their characters were known. Some were politely declined.

There's no engine fund of course and not much in the way of depreciation or big periodic overhaul bills.

But then I have heard of a few disastrous glider syndicates as well - with and without formal rules.

[Keef]

I ran a Limited-Company group with six members for a long time. It worked well. Then the rules for submitting accounts to the UK tax authorities changed, from a four-page simple form to a vast PDF with serious penalties for getting anything wrong. What used to take me under half an hour each year got to several days.

I wouldn't go the Ltd Co route any more, for that reason alone. I would still have some well-defined group rules so members know how things work. There are various "proforma" ones on offer around the web - I've not seen a bad one.

[FleetFlyer]

I'm on my second group. They are both operated in the same way, along the lines of option 2. A set of basic rules and a constitution. As others have said, the success or failure of the group is down to the character of those involved more than anything else. Both groups also had a bit of leadership from an individual or two which really helps in getting decisions made, as putting things to the vote often results in long waits for responses from some members.

Both the groups I've joined have been established for a long time. I believe that a track record is a pointer for potential success, but not a guarantee.

Overall, group flying is definitely the best option for me and has slashed my flying costs and given me very little other bother as the hassle of paperwork/annuals/permits etc has been taken care of for me.

[A and C]

It is not the rules it is the people who are in the group that matter, by wife was in a group that was happy to take her money but she could not get near the aircraft during the summer and had free run of it when the weather was bad during the winter.

However her troubles pale to nothing, one group I know of had very real problems with one member who booked the aircraft most weekends, retuned the aircraft late and had a habit of not replacing the fuel. Late one Friday afternoon he returned the aircraft very late and had writen up a snag that resulted in the aircraft ih the hangar for investigation, another member who had finaly got a weekend booking was very displeased as we could not fix the aircraft before Monday due to lack of parts.
Had the aircraft been returned on time we would have been able to get the parts, as you can understand the guy whos weekend had been disrupted was very unhappy...... infact so unhappy that myself and the Chief Engineer had to lock the guy who returnrd the aircraft late in the bonded store for his own protection.