Client that cannot justify purchase?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Land of Ice and Fire
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Client that cannot justify purchase?
I would like to find a client that uses charter aircraft, would like his own aircraft, but just cannot justify the cost when flying only 150-200 hours a year.
There is an interested party in the same situation and would like to "share" one aircraft. (CL604) His usage pattern means that the aircraft will be available except for periods planned at the start of the year. Could not be more ideal for a sharing situation.
London base anticipated, but as long as the positioning is covered, the "sharer" can be located elsewhere.
Anyone know of an interested party?
There is an interested party in the same situation and would like to "share" one aircraft. (CL604) His usage pattern means that the aircraft will be available except for periods planned at the start of the year. Could not be more ideal for a sharing situation.
London base anticipated, but as long as the positioning is covered, the "sharer" can be located elsewhere.
Anyone know of an interested party?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 14 days away 14 at home
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have seen the best friendships sour over a few thousand $ landing fees and who is responsible for what part of the mx bill, ferrry flights, charter rev... 
In short: putting an ad in the paper for sharing a 10 to 15 mil aircraft plus the runningcost of a milion or two per annum is very looong shot. Generally the only two people happy with this are the person selling the aircraft to them and the lawyer involved in the legal settlement at the end...
In short: if you cannot justify an aircraft: don't do it....
In short: putting an ad in the paper for sharing a 10 to 15 mil aircraft plus the runningcost of a milion or two per annum is very looong shot. Generally the only two people happy with this are the person selling the aircraft to them and the lawyer involved in the legal settlement at the end...
In short: if you cannot justify an aircraft: don't do it....
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Where the Money Takes Me
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on mate. Anything less than 200 hrs and you should be fraxing or jetcarding, simple as. Sharing? As soon as people do it, they're either arguing or trying to extract themselves from the deal. A definite no no.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Land of Ice and Fire
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember Kelly´s Heros? Stop with the negative waves...... Of course there can be disagreements, and of course these can sour some relationships, which is why a clear agreement is needed at the outset.
One hears mostly about the sharing gone wrong, but lots of flying clubs and partnerships exist and work out. Like maybe 50% of marriages end in divorce and some terrible, but there are another 50% that carry on.
...and there are in fact car-sharing schemes in many major cities, as well as sharing of summer houses, ski chalets, sail boats....even wives! So if the schedule fits, it can be to mutual benefit. If it looks like they will conflict at the get-go, then that is not the "right" person to share.
Cut out the negative waves, Moriarity.....
One hears mostly about the sharing gone wrong, but lots of flying clubs and partnerships exist and work out. Like maybe 50% of marriages end in divorce and some terrible, but there are another 50% that carry on.
...and there are in fact car-sharing schemes in many major cities, as well as sharing of summer houses, ski chalets, sail boats....even wives! So if the schedule fits, it can be to mutual benefit. If it looks like they will conflict at the get-go, then that is not the "right" person to share.
Cut out the negative waves, Moriarity.....
FerryPilotDK,
The guys are just putting out their opinion on what might be an "undesirable" outcome. They might just be trying to help you see this "threat".
On the other hand, you're probably right, one would hear mostly about the wrong going.
Cheers,
K.
The guys are just putting out their opinion on what might be an "undesirable" outcome. They might just be trying to help you see this "threat".
On the other hand, you're probably right, one would hear mostly about the wrong going.
Cheers,
K.
