Toying with the idea of biz jet ownership...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phil, they don't have an AOC. They only do private management.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Hotels
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because maybe he knows that you management sharks will cost dearly his Bizjet? Let the pilots manage it!. You will save money and have a more cared for aircraft.
Aircraft management companies only line their own pockets.
Aircraft management companies only line their own pockets.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let the Pilots manage it? - pilots with no AOC (which was the original question). Pilots tend to sub out the flight planning etc anyway - might as well pay a management company and have access to a pool of crew and proper Ops staff - in my opinion a false economy.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ilchester
Age: 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CJ
I am in no way connected or have an interest in Phil Brockwell's company but if you are thinking about getting a CJ, you will be remiss not to sit down and talk to him about it, they are the best in the business in the CJ market, both operating and Charter.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: london, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
phil doesn't like pilots. As soon as Cessna produce a pilotless CJ he will rule the world.
I like doing a spot of flight planning. At least I know what the RAD is..
I like doing a spot of flight planning. At least I know what the RAD is..
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dudeness,
Looking around at the trade shows there are literally hundreds of trip support companies looking after your lazy pilots, I have 13 on my books in the UK alone not including the big boys like UAS, Universal, Jepps etc, they must be getting their work from somewhere, makes sense to me. We even use a third party for flight planning, if you have someone you trust and does a good job cheaper than I could do it then its good business.
Phil
Looking around at the trade shows there are literally hundreds of trip support companies looking after your lazy pilots, I have 13 on my books in the UK alone not including the big boys like UAS, Universal, Jepps etc, they must be getting their work from somewhere, makes sense to me. We even use a third party for flight planning, if you have someone you trust and does a good job cheaper than I could do it then its good business.
Phil
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Switzerland
Age: 55
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly: why pay a management fee to an operator who is just going to turn around and subcontract the flight planning and permissions to a support company?
The operator will of course slap a fee on top of those services, then pocket for himself any bulk discount he gets on fuel or services. Waste of money.
For a privately owned small or medium jet, you are better off hiring an experienced crew and let them buy in the required services. There are excellent specialists for CAMO, planning, overflights, and fuel, and a good group of pilots should be able to shop around for them.
What's more, if you are not bound to a "management" company, it's astonishing how much you can talk down broker fees when you need to buy/sell a plane.
As has been stated on this thread already, jet owners never make money from chartering out their plane, only operators/brokers ever do. Stay private, trust a small and competent team and the price for owning a jet will only be moderatly outrageous. Go with an operator and it's either not going to generate revenue, or it will basically be the broker's plane to play with, you being allowed to pay for it and watch it depreciate rapidly.
The operator will of course slap a fee on top of those services, then pocket for himself any bulk discount he gets on fuel or services. Waste of money.
For a privately owned small or medium jet, you are better off hiring an experienced crew and let them buy in the required services. There are excellent specialists for CAMO, planning, overflights, and fuel, and a good group of pilots should be able to shop around for them.
What's more, if you are not bound to a "management" company, it's astonishing how much you can talk down broker fees when you need to buy/sell a plane.
As has been stated on this thread already, jet owners never make money from chartering out their plane, only operators/brokers ever do. Stay private, trust a small and competent team and the price for owning a jet will only be moderatly outrageous. Go with an operator and it's either not going to generate revenue, or it will basically be the broker's plane to play with, you being allowed to pay for it and watch it depreciate rapidly.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyMD
A lot of assumptions there old boy, most of which are completely misinformed and urban myth. As previously demonstrated - a light jet (this thread is about a light jet) does make revenue if it is with the right management company (see previous thread).
As for management companies pocketing the discount on fuel etc that's just not true.
It is horses for courses, there is no right fix for every owner, and there are good and bad (and dangerous) on both sides of the fence -
A lot of assumptions there old boy, most of which are completely misinformed and urban myth. As previously demonstrated - a light jet (this thread is about a light jet) does make revenue if it is with the right management company (see previous thread).
As for management companies pocketing the discount on fuel etc that's just not true.
It is horses for courses, there is no right fix for every owner, and there are good and bad (and dangerous) on both sides of the fence -
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You all seem to be focusing on a bit of flight planning and getting a pilot to fly it. That's the easy bit. It's the maintenance planning and asset management part that is critical.....and then of course it's about the safe operation of the aircraft. That goes well beyond the ability to match the amount take offs to landings. If you have the operating pilot doing all the ops as well, such as flight planning, slots, handling, onward surface transport etc...the safety is compromised. The incident in Egelsbach in the Citation X is testament to that.
Financially, operationally and safety wise there is a much bigger picture to deal with in order for the aircraft to be operated efficiently. It requires expertise and experience that no single person has, but many organisations do. If the aircraft goes on an AOC, you can tap into that expertise. (or reputable management companies of course). It's up to the owner to ensure he picks the right partner, as in any business deal. The ability to offset some of the costs and make it a more financially viable proposition can also be achieved by chartering the aircraft out if you take an AOC operator. Check though that the AOC company has the commercial nous and track record to support their claim.
I Concur with herbaceous. If it was a CJ2 I would be talking with Phil.
Financially, operationally and safety wise there is a much bigger picture to deal with in order for the aircraft to be operated efficiently. It requires expertise and experience that no single person has, but many organisations do. If the aircraft goes on an AOC, you can tap into that expertise. (or reputable management companies of course). It's up to the owner to ensure he picks the right partner, as in any business deal. The ability to offset some of the costs and make it a more financially viable proposition can also be achieved by chartering the aircraft out if you take an AOC operator. Check though that the AOC company has the commercial nous and track record to support their claim.
I Concur with herbaceous. If it was a CJ2 I would be talking with Phil.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phil,
true, but.... If a small ops has just a few flights that go out of their comfort/knowledge zone, then it makes perfect sense to use someone else.
They are also a great help - if competent - to get permits and to use the correct handler, setup payment schemes etc. I use a company for these things as well mainly because my company does not like to pay up out front. They know that it costs us more (our trip supporter charges 8% on top), but they prefer it that way - their decision.
OTOH I always ask for an cost estimate and that alone has saved us a lot of money when local agents try to pull 'special fees' from where the sun donīt shine.
If longer trips pop up with short notice while youīre on the road then it makes perfect sense to use em as well to use time as efficient as possible.
So its not black or white. IMO.
Sorry, that is just plain bulls.
The flight planning I always do myself, otherwise one ends up with totally stretched out plannings that donīt allow for anything going awol. (like planning on max level with LRC without actual wind - been there, done that)
true, but.... If a small ops has just a few flights that go out of their comfort/knowledge zone, then it makes perfect sense to use someone else.
They are also a great help - if competent - to get permits and to use the correct handler, setup payment schemes etc. I use a company for these things as well mainly because my company does not like to pay up out front. They know that it costs us more (our trip supporter charges 8% on top), but they prefer it that way - their decision.
OTOH I always ask for an cost estimate and that alone has saved us a lot of money when local agents try to pull 'special fees' from where the sun donīt shine.
If longer trips pop up with short notice while youīre on the road then it makes perfect sense to use em as well to use time as efficient as possible.
So its not black or white. IMO.
If you have the operating pilot doing all the ops as well, such as flight planning, slots, handling, onward surface transport etc...the safety is compromised. The incident in Egelsbach in the Citation X is testament to that.
The flight planning I always do myself, otherwise one ends up with totally stretched out plannings that donīt allow for anything going awol. (like planning on max level with LRC without actual wind - been there, done that)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dude,
Of course it is always the Capts final decision to accept a flight plan. If the company that has been tasked with the planning cannot do it efficiently or safely then get rid of them and find one that can. When you're working hard in the pointy end, maybe weather issues, or technical issues and perhaps facing a divert situation, your mind should be wholly focused on the safe operation of the aircraft, and not having to balance out a whole load of hassle if you do have to divert with handling, surface transport for your boss in the back etc...The Egelsbach accident was really down to bad decision making by the PIC which seemed to be hindered by the overwhelming desire not to divert knowing that to arrive at EDDF without any provisions being made is a nightmare. A decent ops team would have everything already set up at your divert before you arrive. The pilots principle task is to ensure the safe operation of the aircraft. Nothing should ever detract from that basic task.
FNPL
Of course it is always the Capts final decision to accept a flight plan. If the company that has been tasked with the planning cannot do it efficiently or safely then get rid of them and find one that can. When you're working hard in the pointy end, maybe weather issues, or technical issues and perhaps facing a divert situation, your mind should be wholly focused on the safe operation of the aircraft, and not having to balance out a whole load of hassle if you do have to divert with handling, surface transport for your boss in the back etc...The Egelsbach accident was really down to bad decision making by the PIC which seemed to be hindered by the overwhelming desire not to divert knowing that to arrive at EDDF without any provisions being made is a nightmare. A decent ops team would have everything already set up at your divert before you arrive. The pilots principle task is to ensure the safe operation of the aircraft. Nothing should ever detract from that basic task.
FNPL
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyMD,
It's amazing how so many of us with 20+ years of experience in this game can have such opposite opinions that we pass off as fact, I suppose it depends who you spent all those years working with. We've all got horror stories, both first hand and from FBO tittle tattle from both sides of the fence. If I were an owner, I'd want my Pilots doing their job and my Ops team doing theirs, just saying, at 400MPH I'd appreciate a bit of focus on the task in hand.
PB
It's amazing how so many of us with 20+ years of experience in this game can have such opposite opinions that we pass off as fact, I suppose it depends who you spent all those years working with. We've all got horror stories, both first hand and from FBO tittle tattle from both sides of the fence. If I were an owner, I'd want my Pilots doing their job and my Ops team doing theirs, just saying, at 400MPH I'd appreciate a bit of focus on the task in hand.
PB
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Switzerland
Age: 55
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PB,
'Nuf said, it IS about 2 sides of the fence, and the respective opinions of driver-monkeys and sales-weenies..
At the end of the day the guy with the money will speak to both of us and make up his mind.
FlyMD
'Nuf said, it IS about 2 sides of the fence, and the respective opinions of driver-monkeys and sales-weenies..
At the end of the day the guy with the money will speak to both of us and make up his mind.
FlyMD
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lot of opinions here, particularly people defending their corner.
I've no axe to grind, not involved in either part of the market. In my day job for an OEM however I was involved in discussions with prospective and current owners about which route to go down so over the years I have formed some opinions.
Phil.
You previously said 'as previously demonstrated'. You didn't demonstrate anything. Just put up a couple of numbers which mean nothing. You could well be correct. However on first glance I'm not sure I agree with you, particularly regarding the depreciation figure. You can depreciate an aircraft at any rate you like, but ultimately what it sells for and how quickly it sells are the deciding factors. After 5 years your example aircraft will have flown 1500 hrs more. That is a lot of depreciation. Also much closer to HSI's, overhaul, timed maintenance. There is an actual example on the market just now. Two serial numbers apart but one has double the hours of the other, and a similar proportion of cycles. The higher houred one just won't sell as too many similar aged aircraft with much lower hours are on the market. I do stand by my original post on this topic. I've seen dry rates which don't even cover engine and maintenance program payments never mind anything else.
In saying that though to balance the argument. A lot of pilots like to think they can manage aircraft, and many do a fine job. But a lot just don't have the patience, knowledge or contacts. Particularly on a new type. They then get railroaded by 'experts' who invariably have a finger in a pie with someone. This applies to the acquisition stage as much as the subsequent management phase. Mistakes in this business are expensive so it pays to weed out the Walter Mittys. A quick google of aircraft management companies shows so many vague and wooly websites where I doubt they've even seen a real aircraft in some cases. But that hasn't stopped them paintshopping their logo along the side of one they downloaded from the web.And remember if it's going to be vastly under-utilised that does more harm than flying the bottom out of it.
Flynowpaylater hit the nail on the head on one point. It's the management of the asset which is crucial here. It really doesn't matter who files an fpl. And there are plenty of third party providers out there who do a great job for very small money.
Which then begs the question what to do?
It depends a lot on the type, age and how the owner is disposed to aviation.
An old aircraft which had already racked up the hours may be better suited to charter than a brand new one. The depreciation has levelled out, any snags have been worked out and depending on the inspection state it may well need any income possible just to replace gear legs, overhaul engines etc. Also with the best will in the world charter aircraft do get knocked about so a new cabin will age very quickly.
The type determines just how often maintenance occurs. Is it an Phenom which from what I gather can go for ages or is it something shall we say more maintenance intensive.
Is the owner disinterested completely and just wants a turnkey solution. Or do they prefer to have an interest in their machine, what is being billed for and how it's being used.
Answering all these honestly may be the first stage in at least determining which road to go down.
And the type of operation is also critical. There are private operators who contract CAMO out to third parties who are excellent at it and also objective due to having no internal influence. This is crucial in my opinion. And bizarrely the most important aspect of the whole thing can be bought in at a competitive rate. Ask any potential operator who does this. Also how are their pilots trained? I would be looking for simulator at least annually. Preferably a full recurrent at a training organisation. Where is maintenance done? Get quotes individually on this to make sure you're seeing this 'purchasing power'.
On brand new aircraft the best setups I've seen are private. Usually on the M registry.
I'll certainly say that from what I hear Phil is exceptionally reputable, and if the original poster (who has probably stopped reading this by now!) were to go down the AOC route on a CJ, well worthy of consideration.
I've no axe to grind, not involved in either part of the market. In my day job for an OEM however I was involved in discussions with prospective and current owners about which route to go down so over the years I have formed some opinions.
Phil.
You previously said 'as previously demonstrated'. You didn't demonstrate anything. Just put up a couple of numbers which mean nothing. You could well be correct. However on first glance I'm not sure I agree with you, particularly regarding the depreciation figure. You can depreciate an aircraft at any rate you like, but ultimately what it sells for and how quickly it sells are the deciding factors. After 5 years your example aircraft will have flown 1500 hrs more. That is a lot of depreciation. Also much closer to HSI's, overhaul, timed maintenance. There is an actual example on the market just now. Two serial numbers apart but one has double the hours of the other, and a similar proportion of cycles. The higher houred one just won't sell as too many similar aged aircraft with much lower hours are on the market. I do stand by my original post on this topic. I've seen dry rates which don't even cover engine and maintenance program payments never mind anything else.
In saying that though to balance the argument. A lot of pilots like to think they can manage aircraft, and many do a fine job. But a lot just don't have the patience, knowledge or contacts. Particularly on a new type. They then get railroaded by 'experts' who invariably have a finger in a pie with someone. This applies to the acquisition stage as much as the subsequent management phase. Mistakes in this business are expensive so it pays to weed out the Walter Mittys. A quick google of aircraft management companies shows so many vague and wooly websites where I doubt they've even seen a real aircraft in some cases. But that hasn't stopped them paintshopping their logo along the side of one they downloaded from the web.And remember if it's going to be vastly under-utilised that does more harm than flying the bottom out of it.
Flynowpaylater hit the nail on the head on one point. It's the management of the asset which is crucial here. It really doesn't matter who files an fpl. And there are plenty of third party providers out there who do a great job for very small money.
Which then begs the question what to do?
It depends a lot on the type, age and how the owner is disposed to aviation.
An old aircraft which had already racked up the hours may be better suited to charter than a brand new one. The depreciation has levelled out, any snags have been worked out and depending on the inspection state it may well need any income possible just to replace gear legs, overhaul engines etc. Also with the best will in the world charter aircraft do get knocked about so a new cabin will age very quickly.
The type determines just how often maintenance occurs. Is it an Phenom which from what I gather can go for ages or is it something shall we say more maintenance intensive.
Is the owner disinterested completely and just wants a turnkey solution. Or do they prefer to have an interest in their machine, what is being billed for and how it's being used.
Answering all these honestly may be the first stage in at least determining which road to go down.
And the type of operation is also critical. There are private operators who contract CAMO out to third parties who are excellent at it and also objective due to having no internal influence. This is crucial in my opinion. And bizarrely the most important aspect of the whole thing can be bought in at a competitive rate. Ask any potential operator who does this. Also how are their pilots trained? I would be looking for simulator at least annually. Preferably a full recurrent at a training organisation. Where is maintenance done? Get quotes individually on this to make sure you're seeing this 'purchasing power'.
On brand new aircraft the best setups I've seen are private. Usually on the M registry.
I'll certainly say that from what I hear Phil is exceptionally reputable, and if the original poster (who has probably stopped reading this by now!) were to go down the AOC route on a CJ, well worthy of consideration.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent points silverknapper but this, particularly, is spot on:
Refreshing to see people thinking this way 
Originally Posted by silverknapper
There are private operators who contract CAMO out to third parties who are excellent at it and also objective due to having no internal influence. This is crucial in my opinion.