Grounded PA-31's????
Gaunty, where I come from a Fruity Lexia au Chateaux Cardbord is top shelf!
The new gig is a hoot! Beats aviation!
nasa, if Microswitch is correct (and I suspect he may be) and comparing apples to apples, a Chieftan engine overhaul reserve should be $81.40 per M/R hour - and that is for overhaul only.
Conversely, a Campervan engine overhaul reserve to 5,000 hour first life only (incl HSI, starter generator, nozels etc) could be as low as $40 per M/R hour.
The new gig is a hoot! Beats aviation!
nasa, if Microswitch is correct (and I suspect he may be) and comparing apples to apples, a Chieftan engine overhaul reserve should be $81.40 per M/R hour - and that is for overhaul only.
Conversely, a Campervan engine overhaul reserve to 5,000 hour first life only (incl HSI, starter generator, nozels etc) could be as low as $40 per M/R hour.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty; You really are special. How about if I find you an AOC and you put up some of your Million's and buy some new turbine aircraft to put your theory to the test?????? <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> We'll all really know if your right then won't we!!!!
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grogmonster
Thank you for your very kind offer, but I've already been there, done that, twice, that's how I know that it works.
It's somebody elses turn now. Trust me, the market is there for the picking, right now, under your very own nose.
The only competitor who could bring you down would be yourself.
Thank you for your very kind offer, but I've already been there, done that, twice, that's how I know that it works.
It's somebody elses turn now. Trust me, the market is there for the picking, right now, under your very own nose.
The only competitor who could bring you down would be yourself.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Caloundra. Qld. Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
torres.....I'll make this as simple as I can <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> .....Cycle life on the 3600 Hour TBO CT Disk for PT6A-42 is 30,000......Means sweet FA if and when FOD/Tip Rub intrude and the blades need to be trashed....I was referring to the engine TBO which is 3600 hours, not 5000 hours as is issued under the AD/ENG.....I'm currently overseeing the O/H of two PT6A-42's with just on 5000 hours since NEW.....Cost USD$309K & USD$312K respectively.....The days of average USD$150K O/H are long gone.
Did an inspection on a Campervan recently, 1500 hours short of it's TBO (5000) best guestimate approx USD$300K NOW….BTW, it had a loaner Hot Section in it as it’s Hot Section had **** itself
…..I’m surprised that you have not jumped onto the 5000 hour TBO gaunty as I know how you dislike mods
You, like gaunty, torres I feel are living in a dream world.....did a H.S.I. on the R/H -28 in my KA 100 a few months back, 50 hours from a USD$30K P&W H.S.I., USD$9K it cost me, P&W didn't want to know about warranty.....I've seen H.S.I.'s from AUD$750.00 Thru to USD$100K, so your figure of USD$150K average, including H.S.I.'s (2 BTW in a 5000 TBO) is purely straight out of the book…..Suggest you both get back into the real world of aviation, not in the past <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> …..The numbers you are both quoting is what USED to be…..As a further example, I have a quote here on my desk for a surplus Vane Ring for a -27, USD$12K, Surplus and I could tell you the story about the -41 Hot Section with 10 hours since P&W H.S.I. that had a stuffed Vane Ring in it, but I won’t bore you with that.
gaunty…..Let’s not get into the same old same old again…..all here can do a search under either of our names and will be regaled with our jousts about finance and turbines…..I’m not opposed to the use of turbines, just completely aware of the reality of running them and the cost associated, TODAY
I’m tired and it’s time I went back to work
Did an inspection on a Campervan recently, 1500 hours short of it's TBO (5000) best guestimate approx USD$300K NOW….BTW, it had a loaner Hot Section in it as it’s Hot Section had **** itself
…..I’m surprised that you have not jumped onto the 5000 hour TBO gaunty as I know how you dislike mods You, like gaunty, torres I feel are living in a dream world.....did a H.S.I. on the R/H -28 in my KA 100 a few months back, 50 hours from a USD$30K P&W H.S.I., USD$9K it cost me, P&W didn't want to know about warranty.....I've seen H.S.I.'s from AUD$750.00 Thru to USD$100K, so your figure of USD$150K average, including H.S.I.'s (2 BTW in a 5000 TBO) is purely straight out of the book…..Suggest you both get back into the real world of aviation, not in the past <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> …..The numbers you are both quoting is what USED to be…..As a further example, I have a quote here on my desk for a surplus Vane Ring for a -27, USD$12K, Surplus and I could tell you the story about the -41 Hot Section with 10 hours since P&W H.S.I. that had a stuffed Vane Ring in it, but I won’t bore you with that.
gaunty…..Let’s not get into the same old same old again…..all here can do a search under either of our names and will be regaled with our jousts about finance and turbines…..I’m not opposed to the use of turbines, just completely aware of the reality of running them and the cost associated, TODAY
I’m tired and it’s time I went back to work
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nasa old chum
Sounds like you are having a bad trot with some of the aircraft you are buying.
I would hate any prospective operators/buyers of turbines to get the wrong idea about the running costs and the associated nightmares that you describe and perhaps for the sake of the uninitiated a bit of an explanation of the process will allay their fears.
It is not surprising therefore that many of those who venture unarmed into the uncharted waters of imported used equipment, get some very nasty surprises. . .To your credit, it would appear that the examples you quote, come, as the result of a prepurchase inspection for a prospective purchaser or on your own account from preparing stock for retail sale. And that is as it should be.. .The trick is to make sure that sufficient allowance for 'snakebite' had been made when you bought it, for it to leave some money behind when you sell it. This after all is scant reward for the huge risk.
A very wise and still very very succesful new car dealer friend of mine told me something whilst I was a boy, that has stood me in very good stead indeed and that is, when you buy and sell in the used market you make your money when you buy it NOT when you sell it. The sale simply confirms your assessment of its value when you bought it and AFTER you have sorted it out.
You would know as well as I, that in buying used equipment the message is in the price being asked. Is it mutton or lamb.. .A good sniff around the network will get the gossip going and there's a good chance you will suss out most of what you need to assess what's needed to be done. For our part nothing short of an HSI and borescope (Garrett or Pratt) of the rest, before we would even start talking price. The strength of that network was driven home to me once when I advertised a turbine twin as accident free, the log books apparently testified to this, or so we thought when we bought it many years before as an ex factory demonstrator (not from the factory I hasten to add and after athe usual wring out by some very experienced engineers), to be rung by a very respected dealer friend in the US to be told that this was not so and why. . .Microscopic scrutiny of the log books revealed the very clever and beautiful, but not illegal work that had been carried out, recorded in the work sheets but not listed (quite legally) as a repair in the logbooks. Needless to say a microscopic look at the aircraft which had done several thousands of fault free hours and had several major inspections since, with this knowledge revealed all. Changed the ad didn't change the price, no problem selling it with the new info revealed. So why are we surprised when the turbine engines on a used ship occasionally give us grief.
But are the savings illusory, I know so.
By your assertion every turbine engine costs the earth to overhaul and on that basis I wouldn't buy one either. But you and I know that isn't so and neither should those following this thread be so informed.
Why haven't Qantas gone broke on this assertion, if you are suggesting that their engine maintenance cost budgets are manufacturers polyanna?
If I may be so bold the examples you quote actually support my argument somewhat.
When real late model used and new are compared on a dollar for dollar basis exchanging capital for Overhaul Reserve the argument is probably moot.
Old used on year model, regardless of many or few hours you pays you money you take your chances. Whilst you continue to mess around with 20 year old aircraft especially turbines I remain deaf to your protestations.. .I know from practical experience that low hours and cycles on an old engine (or airfrasme for that matter) can actually mean more not less financial danger. . .I would be interested in the history of the C208 you mention, as this is entirely untypical of real world operation.
This business is not for the fainthearted nor the short of pocket, but you get a really really good start if you start fresh with new equipment that you can ensure is operated the way it should be, with all the factory airframe, equipment and engine warranties. At least you know precisely where its been, by whom and how it was operated.. .AND as a bonus you will get better finance rates that reflect that and because the lender will have insisted on a bankable business plan that underpins the borrowing, based on solid real research of the market, not just knocking off the competitor on price.
Exactly the same principle applies to piston engines, the only difference is the quantum of costs.
Sure as an operator go chance your hand in the wonderland of used in the US and around the world, chasing that "creampuff", but you'd better have someone around who really knows what they are about because you are right out there on your own AND surrounded by varmints.
I promise that you will sleep heaps better at night when you have the factory standing right behind you and your baby.
And as the real winning bonus you get to go spend ALL of your valuable time managing your business productively to sell your wares at a profit, instead of spending all day and night on the phone and email chasing used surplus or out of stock vendor items and parts, to keep the clunker flying and stop yourself going backwards out the door. Sound familiar anyone.
As always it's your choice.
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: gaunty ]</p>
Sounds like you are having a bad trot with some of the aircraft you are buying.
I would hate any prospective operators/buyers of turbines to get the wrong idea about the running costs and the associated nightmares that you describe and perhaps for the sake of the uninitiated a bit of an explanation of the process will allay their fears.
It is not surprising therefore that many of those who venture unarmed into the uncharted waters of imported used equipment, get some very nasty surprises. . .To your credit, it would appear that the examples you quote, come, as the result of a prepurchase inspection for a prospective purchaser or on your own account from preparing stock for retail sale. And that is as it should be.. .The trick is to make sure that sufficient allowance for 'snakebite' had been made when you bought it, for it to leave some money behind when you sell it. This after all is scant reward for the huge risk.
A very wise and still very very succesful new car dealer friend of mine told me something whilst I was a boy, that has stood me in very good stead indeed and that is, when you buy and sell in the used market you make your money when you buy it NOT when you sell it. The sale simply confirms your assessment of its value when you bought it and AFTER you have sorted it out.
You would know as well as I, that in buying used equipment the message is in the price being asked. Is it mutton or lamb.. .A good sniff around the network will get the gossip going and there's a good chance you will suss out most of what you need to assess what's needed to be done. For our part nothing short of an HSI and borescope (Garrett or Pratt) of the rest, before we would even start talking price. The strength of that network was driven home to me once when I advertised a turbine twin as accident free, the log books apparently testified to this, or so we thought when we bought it many years before as an ex factory demonstrator (not from the factory I hasten to add and after athe usual wring out by some very experienced engineers), to be rung by a very respected dealer friend in the US to be told that this was not so and why. . .Microscopic scrutiny of the log books revealed the very clever and beautiful, but not illegal work that had been carried out, recorded in the work sheets but not listed (quite legally) as a repair in the logbooks. Needless to say a microscopic look at the aircraft which had done several thousands of fault free hours and had several major inspections since, with this knowledge revealed all. Changed the ad didn't change the price, no problem selling it with the new info revealed. So why are we surprised when the turbine engines on a used ship occasionally give us grief.
But are the savings illusory, I know so.
By your assertion every turbine engine costs the earth to overhaul and on that basis I wouldn't buy one either. But you and I know that isn't so and neither should those following this thread be so informed.
Why haven't Qantas gone broke on this assertion, if you are suggesting that their engine maintenance cost budgets are manufacturers polyanna?
If I may be so bold the examples you quote actually support my argument somewhat.
When real late model used and new are compared on a dollar for dollar basis exchanging capital for Overhaul Reserve the argument is probably moot.
Old used on year model, regardless of many or few hours you pays you money you take your chances. Whilst you continue to mess around with 20 year old aircraft especially turbines I remain deaf to your protestations.. .I know from practical experience that low hours and cycles on an old engine (or airfrasme for that matter) can actually mean more not less financial danger. . .I would be interested in the history of the C208 you mention, as this is entirely untypical of real world operation.
This business is not for the fainthearted nor the short of pocket, but you get a really really good start if you start fresh with new equipment that you can ensure is operated the way it should be, with all the factory airframe, equipment and engine warranties. At least you know precisely where its been, by whom and how it was operated.. .AND as a bonus you will get better finance rates that reflect that and because the lender will have insisted on a bankable business plan that underpins the borrowing, based on solid real research of the market, not just knocking off the competitor on price.
Exactly the same principle applies to piston engines, the only difference is the quantum of costs.
Sure as an operator go chance your hand in the wonderland of used in the US and around the world, chasing that "creampuff", but you'd better have someone around who really knows what they are about because you are right out there on your own AND surrounded by varmints.
I promise that you will sleep heaps better at night when you have the factory standing right behind you and your baby.
And as the real winning bonus you get to go spend ALL of your valuable time managing your business productively to sell your wares at a profit, instead of spending all day and night on the phone and email chasing used surplus or out of stock vendor items and parts, to keep the clunker flying and stop yourself going backwards out the door. Sound familiar anyone.
As always it's your choice.
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: gaunty ]</p>
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now stop picking on my mate Gaunty!
For a breathtaking example with a double bang I surfed up a FAR 135 training facility using Partenavia aircraft. I admit that the example is based in Hawaii where the C of L is legendary and it is where the factory sent me, on them all those years ago to sample the delights of the Viator.
The company name has changed but the figures quoted for training are very enlightening.
Partenavia P68C $345-00 PH US, say $690-00 per hour Aussie ( I'd like to see that!!!)
Partenavia AT68TP (Viator) $550-00 PH US.
Now you just gotta ask yourself how they can charge $690-00 per hour for a piston twin!
Err...'cause that's the real profit over cost price? and how come the twin turbine isn't miles more expensive then? 'Cause it don't need to be.
So the only other thing you gotta wonder about if if the turbine training is subsidised. In Hawaii! I think not.
For the sake of the example, and it's not mine, let's assume that training and charter/LCRPT come from the same cost base with respect to premises, insurance, aircraft wear and tear. pilot costs ect.
5 PAX seats @ $690 PH in a piston or 11 PAX seats @ $1,100 PH in turbine. Distance covered in the hour over current real world cost of Chieftain PH = Gauuunnnntttyyyy
<img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
For a breathtaking example with a double bang I surfed up a FAR 135 training facility using Partenavia aircraft. I admit that the example is based in Hawaii where the C of L is legendary and it is where the factory sent me, on them
all those years ago to sample the delights of the Viator.The company name has changed but the figures quoted for training are very enlightening.
Partenavia P68C $345-00 PH US, say $690-00 per hour Aussie ( I'd like to see that!!!)
Partenavia AT68TP (Viator) $550-00 PH US.
Now you just gotta ask yourself how they can charge $690-00 per hour for a piston twin!
Err...'cause that's the real profit over cost price? and how come the twin turbine isn't miles more expensive then? 'Cause it don't need to be.
So the only other thing you gotta wonder about if if the turbine training is subsidised. In Hawaii! I think not.
For the sake of the example, and it's not mine, let's assume that training and charter/LCRPT come from the same cost base with respect to premises, insurance, aircraft wear and tear. pilot costs ect.
5 PAX seats @ $690 PH in a piston or 11 PAX seats @ $1,100 PH in turbine. Distance covered in the hour over current real world cost of Chieftain PH = Gauuunnnntttyyyy
<img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Caloundra. Qld. Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhhh gaunty the pen is indeed mightier than the sword, if used with guile and tact
I fear you misunderstand the point I’m trying to make……Without getting into our age old difference regarding financial institutions in Australia, it is indeed the cost factor that is the primary reason why operations in Australia do not operate Turbines as opposed to pistons…..Want proof, pick up the phone and ring any operator in Australia who currently uses pistons, but would like to use Turbines, and ask them why they don’t have turbines on line…..OK, so up the price you say, yeah that’s fine, but we do not have the population base here in Australia to justify such a price hike…..You need to have the bums wanting to get on the seats, to learn to fly, to get from point A to point B, and you need to be able to say, well stuff it, that guy didn’t show up, but there are another 280 million, not 18 million potential customers out there…..My favourite saying when it comes to comparing us with the US, there are more people in Orange County California then in Australia, there are more GA aircraft on Love Field Dallas then registered in Australia (slight exaggeration), the US and all it’s States can fit inside Australia…..As you well know, makes one hell of a difference when you have a quantity vying for your product.
Now to answer a few other points in your reply….Like you, I also want the punters out there to be aware of the real cost of operating Turbines, and not to fall for the old [quote] The US$150K overhaul cost of the -114A would be the average over three lives (15,000 hrs) and include the cost of HSI's, starter generators and replacement of rotating components.<hr></blockquote> sorry torres, but that’s a fallacy, and I don’t care how you cut it, it aint going to happen…..You may be able to cite one or two instances where it has, but I’ll cite you a dam sit more where it hasn’t…..As a point of interest, the examples I quoted in my previous thread, are experiences I’ve had personally over the past 5 or so years, and range from happening here in Australia, Malaysia, USA, Philippines, PNG etc etc…..A range of operations, climates, regulatory bodies, knuckle draggers etc etc…... . . .Your example of Qantas is a bit underdone…..I would assume that they would either negotiate an overhaul cost when purchasing the engines with their aircraft, at the least, they wouldn’t rely upon book figures as given by the engine manufacturers to organise their budget, of that I’m positive…..It’s amazing what buying power can do for you…..
It’s amazing really…..Here you are talking about 20 year old aircraft, particularly turbines, and yet, the 2001 C90B has –21’s in it….At least my 1971 KA 100 has –28’s and even you will agree that these are a far better engine than the –21’s…..
And in closing [quote] Sure as an operator go chance your hand in the wonderland of used in the US and around the world, chasing that "creampuff", but you'd better have someone around who really knows what they are about because you are right out there on your own AND surrounded by varmints I promise that you will sleep heaps better at night when you have the factory standing right behind you and your baby.<hr></blockquote> just as a matter of interest, when does a new aircraft from the factory, become a used aircraft, which in your opinion, we should all steer clear of?????
I fear you misunderstand the point I’m trying to make……Without getting into our age old difference regarding financial institutions in Australia, it is indeed the cost factor that is the primary reason why operations in Australia do not operate Turbines as opposed to pistons…..Want proof, pick up the phone and ring any operator in Australia who currently uses pistons, but would like to use Turbines, and ask them why they don’t have turbines on line…..OK, so up the price you say, yeah that’s fine, but we do not have the population base here in Australia to justify such a price hike…..You need to have the bums wanting to get on the seats, to learn to fly, to get from point A to point B, and you need to be able to say, well stuff it, that guy didn’t show up, but there are another 280 million, not 18 million potential customers out there…..My favourite saying when it comes to comparing us with the US, there are more people in Orange County California then in Australia, there are more GA aircraft on Love Field Dallas then registered in Australia (slight exaggeration), the US and all it’s States can fit inside Australia…..As you well know, makes one hell of a difference when you have a quantity vying for your product.
Now to answer a few other points in your reply….Like you, I also want the punters out there to be aware of the real cost of operating Turbines, and not to fall for the old [quote] The US$150K overhaul cost of the -114A would be the average over three lives (15,000 hrs) and include the cost of HSI's, starter generators and replacement of rotating components.<hr></blockquote> sorry torres, but that’s a fallacy, and I don’t care how you cut it, it aint going to happen…..You may be able to cite one or two instances where it has, but I’ll cite you a dam sit more where it hasn’t…..As a point of interest, the examples I quoted in my previous thread, are experiences I’ve had personally over the past 5 or so years, and range from happening here in Australia, Malaysia, USA, Philippines, PNG etc etc…..A range of operations, climates, regulatory bodies, knuckle draggers etc etc…... . . .Your example of Qantas is a bit underdone…..I would assume that they would either negotiate an overhaul cost when purchasing the engines with their aircraft, at the least, they wouldn’t rely upon book figures as given by the engine manufacturers to organise their budget, of that I’m positive…..It’s amazing what buying power can do for you…..
It’s amazing really…..Here you are talking about 20 year old aircraft, particularly turbines, and yet, the 2001 C90B has –21’s in it….At least my 1971 KA 100 has –28’s and even you will agree that these are a far better engine than the –21’s…..
And in closing [quote] Sure as an operator go chance your hand in the wonderland of used in the US and around the world, chasing that "creampuff", but you'd better have someone around who really knows what they are about because you are right out there on your own AND surrounded by varmints
I promise that you will sleep heaps better at night when you have the factory standing right behind you and your baby.<hr></blockquote> just as a matter of interest, when does a new aircraft from the factory, become a used aircraft, which in your opinion, we should all steer clear of?????
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mornin snide, mornin nasa.
I hope "Kudalia" doesn't mind me stealing a quote for his post in another thread which I thought was apposite to our little fracas here.
[quote] The 747-200 may be paid for but they are old aircraft and not cheap to run compared to newer generation Boeing & Airbus aircraft. QF have. .five 200 (1 on lease to Air Pacific) and they will not be going to Australian Airlines. . .Quote from latest QF Press Release (06-02-02)says ....."Qantas recently retired two Boeing 747-SP aircraft, amongst the oldest in its fleet, and has announced that it will retire four Boeing 747-200s later this year."
QF have already announced on arrival of the Airbus 330-200 & 330-300 and new 747-400 ER a/c that the 6 747-300's & 7 767-200's will go also. If the downturn in International traffic continues then they will go sooner than later and QF have already said that too.
<hr></blockquote>
What can I say. And it works like that all the way down the food chain, in fact it gets worse down the chain, the product Boeing use is INUDUSTRIAL strength, designed to handle up to around 4,000 cycles and over 4,000 hrs PA the product of which we talk is NOT.
When does a new aircraft become a used one? . .When you trade it back to the manufacturer for anothery, if the manufacturer is prepared to put it into their "manufacturers used inventory" after sorting it out to factory specs, . .Then you'll get a 'good used un' with "extended factory warranty", just like all the quality car manufacturers, including Holden and Ford do today. . .With factory finance yet TAP. . .It wont be cheap, because it will be priced at what it is WORTH, but it'll be nearly as good as new. . .If it is not up to their quality scratch, then they will put it out to the used trade dealers, where you'll find the ever present band of "that's a BS price I can do better than that".
As always in this great democracy of ours the choice is yours.
Finance?. .Just be sure that when you go to the bank for your finance, that you are asking them to lend you money under normal prudential terms, NOT to become an unwitting partner in a venture, where you are betting YOUR prejudices against the rest of the worlds with THEIR money.
Snide if I may add a coda to your;. ."build it and they will come". ."produce a BANKABLE business plan and they will finance it"
I hope "Kudalia" doesn't mind me stealing a quote for his post in another thread which I thought was apposite to our little fracas here.
[quote] The 747-200 may be paid for but they are old aircraft and not cheap to run compared to newer generation Boeing & Airbus aircraft. QF have. .five 200 (1 on lease to Air Pacific) and they will not be going to Australian Airlines. . .Quote from latest QF Press Release (06-02-02)says ....."Qantas recently retired two Boeing 747-SP aircraft, amongst the oldest in its fleet, and has announced that it will retire four Boeing 747-200s later this year."
QF have already announced on arrival of the Airbus 330-200 & 330-300 and new 747-400 ER a/c that the 6 747-300's & 7 767-200's will go also. If the downturn in International traffic continues then they will go sooner than later and QF have already said that too.
<hr></blockquote>
What can I say. And it works like that all the way down the food chain, in fact it gets worse down the chain, the product Boeing use is INUDUSTRIAL strength, designed to handle up to around 4,000 cycles and over 4,000 hrs PA the product of which we talk is NOT.
When does a new aircraft become a used one? . .When you trade it back to the manufacturer for anothery, if the manufacturer is prepared to put it into their "manufacturers used inventory" after sorting it out to factory specs, . .Then you'll get a 'good used un' with "extended factory warranty", just like all the quality car manufacturers, including Holden and Ford do today. . .With factory finance yet TAP. . .It wont be cheap, because it will be priced at what it is WORTH, but it'll be nearly as good as new. . .If it is not up to their quality scratch, then they will put it out to the used trade dealers, where you'll find the ever present band of "that's a BS price I can do better than that".
As always in this great democracy of ours the choice is yours.
Finance?. .Just be sure that when you go to the bank for your finance, that you are asking them to lend you money under normal prudential terms, NOT to become an unwitting partner in a venture, where you are betting YOUR prejudices against the rest of the worlds with THEIR money.
Snide if I may add a coda to your;. ."build it and they will come". ."produce a BANKABLE business plan and they will finance it"
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Caloundra. Qld. Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snide.....I dug up the site you refer to in Hawaii, and all I can say is, good bloody luck to them and I have no idea how they do it, or if in fact they do actually receive those amounts.....at the same time, I entered Flying Training Schools USA in my google, and went thru some of the sites and their prices.....suggest you and those folowing this thread do the same and have a look at the prices being quoted there.....USD$145/Hr for a Seneca II, USD$49/Hr for a C152, etc etc.....I guess it's a a case of figures can lie, and lies can figure <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> .....maybe the school in Hawaii has a captive market of the 1.7m population. <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
. .gaunty.....supplying a bankable business plan is the easy part and one of the main reasons that banks get sucked in by the smoothies
. .gaunty.....supplying a bankable business plan is the easy part and one of the main reasons that banks get sucked in by the smoothies
nasa, odd as it may seem, I accept your point. My prices may be a couple of years out of date. However, my mentor in aviation all those years ago had a simple rule when buying a used turbine aircraft: Only buy when the engine(s) has less than 2,000 hours since overhaul and only after an HSI by Pratts (not a boroscope); or buy when the engine(s) are timex and the aircraft price will be "bottom dollar" to reflect the engine(s) overhaul cost.
Buying a turbine aircraft particularly from overseas is always fraught with hazard. The only "known" quantity is generally an aircraft on an engine life extention program and an approved system of maintenance. Lack of preventative maintenance (daily compressor washes, regular boroscope inspections, fuel nozel changes at 300 - 400 hours etc etc) will always cost at engine overhaul time. Good preventative maintenance on a turbine is still by far the cheapest insurance.
I'm sure Gaunty will agree, 100%!
On price, my old mentor in another country and another time used a basic formula to calculate charter rate: Capital cost divided by 1,000 hours per annum. That worked on the used Twin Otters and Bandits when they were US$800K - US$1 mill and the Kina was on par with the US Dollar. The charter rate was therefore Kina 800 - 1,000 per hour.
For potential Caravan buyers in Australia, if you don't have 1,000 hrs plus per annum guaranteed utilisation at an average of Aus$1,250 per hour revenue yield, don't get involved in aviation. Ahhh, I hear you say, you can buy and operate a Chieftan, Titan etc for far less? Maybe, but for how long?
Nasa, I am surprised you have a KA100 - didn't think there were ever any in Australia. What could you possibly use that for?
Buying a turbine aircraft particularly from overseas is always fraught with hazard. The only "known" quantity is generally an aircraft on an engine life extention program and an approved system of maintenance. Lack of preventative maintenance (daily compressor washes, regular boroscope inspections, fuel nozel changes at 300 - 400 hours etc etc) will always cost at engine overhaul time. Good preventative maintenance on a turbine is still by far the cheapest insurance.
I'm sure Gaunty will agree, 100%!
On price, my old mentor in another country and another time used a basic formula to calculate charter rate: Capital cost divided by 1,000 hours per annum. That worked on the used Twin Otters and Bandits when they were US$800K - US$1 mill and the Kina was on par with the US Dollar. The charter rate was therefore Kina 800 - 1,000 per hour.
For potential Caravan buyers in Australia, if you don't have 1,000 hrs plus per annum guaranteed utilisation at an average of Aus$1,250 per hour revenue yield, don't get involved in aviation. Ahhh, I hear you say, you can buy and operate a Chieftan, Titan etc for far less? Maybe, but for how long?
Nasa, I am surprised you have a KA100 - didn't think there were ever any in Australia. What could you possibly use that for?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Naughty, naughty nasa,
You gotta stick with the program and offer up apples for apples to play in the sandpit.
Suggesting that "figures can lie and lies can figure" just don't make it so in this case and might just be something you want to consider yourself.
The example I picked used a FAR 135 operator 'cause I thought that level, standard if you like, better reflected the regulatory regime and hence compliance cost structure of the charter and LCRPT aircraft that this thread was dealing with.
You counter with "Uncle Cleetus' Flying School" pricing that is a whole other beast. I guess you know, but maybe not, that you don't need the equivalent of an AOC to conduct flying training in the US. Instructor Rating only then away you go, just offer up the punters when you reckon they are done and sign the statement that you've taught 'em all you know.
I don't have the first idea of the costs of running a C150 but I'm sure you'll accept it's at the low end of GA. Your other example of the Senecca is not helpful to the case either because in the US they don't have the throw away spar and transfer box AD that we have here.
Apples for apples please.
You suggested that the Hawaii population of 1.7mill. might be somehow "captive". Two minor points if I may. Have you seen the cost of an airfare from H'lulu to LA? Whilst on the subject of population the number of good souls in W.A. is? How about S.A. and N.T? FNQ? Tassie?
Anyway, kicking sand at each other won't prove very much. Given this crank problem, upcoming Coroner's hearings, our CASA, the plucky nature of the Aussie peso and such, is it at all likely that Chieftains and similar will be filling the skies on LCRPT and charter for much longer and, if so, will anyone make a reasonable profit at it?
You gotta stick with the program and offer up apples for apples to play in the sandpit.
Suggesting that "figures can lie and lies can figure" just don't make it so in this case and might just be something you want to consider yourself.
The example I picked used a FAR 135 operator 'cause I thought that level, standard if you like, better reflected the regulatory regime and hence compliance cost structure of the charter and LCRPT aircraft that this thread was dealing with.
You counter with "Uncle Cleetus' Flying School" pricing that is a whole other beast. I guess you know, but maybe not, that you don't need the equivalent of an AOC to conduct flying training in the US. Instructor Rating only then away you go, just offer up the punters when you reckon they are done and sign the statement that you've taught 'em all you know.
I don't have the first idea of the costs of running a C150 but I'm sure you'll accept it's at the low end of GA. Your other example of the Senecca is not helpful to the case either because in the US they don't have the throw away spar and transfer box AD that we have here.
Apples for apples please.
You suggested that the Hawaii population of 1.7mill. might be somehow "captive". Two minor points if I may. Have you seen the cost of an airfare from H'lulu to LA? Whilst on the subject of population the number of good souls in W.A. is? How about S.A. and N.T? FNQ? Tassie?
Anyway, kicking sand at each other won't prove very much. Given this crank problem, upcoming Coroner's hearings, our CASA, the plucky nature of the Aussie peso and such, is it at all likely that Chieftains and similar will be filling the skies on LCRPT and charter for much longer and, if so, will anyone make a reasonable profit at it?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Caloundra. Qld. Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steady there Snidely…..You offered up the fact that a flying school were getting $XXX for their aircraft, I just thru in a leveller that shows this is not the norm, but more the exception…..No I haven’t seen the cost of an airfare from Honolulu to La, but I know that from LA to Brisbane return economy with QF is USD$1257.00 <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
torres….I think you may have just hit the nail on the head…..I agree that 1000 hours PA is a minimum requirement, but you and I both know that once you start getting the 1000 hours PA, in comes 40,000 parts in close formation masquerading as an aircraft, and the problems start…..maybe the answer is in regulating the standard of aircraft allowed on certain sectors or regulating the standard of aircraft that can be used with RPT/Charter AOC’s……but then, we will need to regulate the bloody greedy financial institutions into using a more business friendly method of financing aircraft, and now I know it’s time for me to go and lie down
As for the KA 100, at the risk of pissing off Woomera, take a look at this <a href="http://www.worldaviation.net.au/kingair.htm" target="_blank">N626SA</a> it’s located in Sacramento and I have to say, it’s a bloody nice machine to fly and now, to look at…….
torres….I think you may have just hit the nail on the head…..I agree that 1000 hours PA is a minimum requirement, but you and I both know that once you start getting the 1000 hours PA, in comes 40,000 parts in close formation masquerading as an aircraft, and the problems start…..maybe the answer is in regulating the standard of aircraft allowed on certain sectors or regulating the standard of aircraft that can be used with RPT/Charter AOC’s……but then, we will need to regulate the bloody greedy financial institutions into using a more business friendly method of financing aircraft, and now I know it’s time for me to go and lie down
As for the KA 100, at the risk of pissing off Woomera, take a look at this <a href="http://www.worldaviation.net.au/kingair.htm" target="_blank">N626SA</a> it’s located in Sacramento and I have to say, it’s a bloody nice machine to fly and now, to look at…….
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adelaide South Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not in the industry,but am occasional self loading freight but I do have an understanding of economics and any company that does not faction into their costing the price of finance,regular maintenance and life-span replacementof equipment is living in a fools paradise.. .I see this happen all the time in the industry that I am involved in and the companies that do it properly stick around a long time and the ones that don't generally go out of business fairly quickly and cost lives and or other peoples money in the process. . .Like anythig that I do I don't just take the cheapest price, but look at the operator and the way that he works, because if I am flying my life is in his hands and I value that highly <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: North son, I say go North..........
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the original topic.
B*gger me but I've got one of those bl**dy engines.....
As for the turbine debate, nasa,gaunty,snide all good points but at the end of the day you need to make the repayments. C406 1.1 USD makes huge monthly repayments - doing min 1000 hours per year would make repayments easy, therefore there is no reason why RPT operators couldn't look at fleet replacement. When you do 600 hours per year general adhoc charter then it becomes a different kettle of fish..... There is only so much you can put into the per hour rate for repayments.*oh and the GPWS if it aint got it.
The 208 is a great example @1000 per year the repayments are $360 per hour in broad terms.
@800 per year $450 per hour and so on.
As I have said in a perfect world I would open the hangar door and see a fleet of turbines, but the world ain't perfect. If every one in DN decided to upgrade fleet then sure the clients would have NO CHOICE but to pay. Unfortunatley there is always the operator that will undercut and charge anything to get the work, even if in the long run it means they disappear. Hey look at Wimray how long had they been operating in the NT 15 years, they were always the cheapest by far and now ?????
As for a comment made earlier - why oh why would an operator drop there prices if they owned there aircraft outright????? Isn't this called PROFIT...
Anyways my little bit for the day, back to work, or is that back to play???
HA...
<img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
B*gger me but I've got one of those bl**dy engines.....
As for the turbine debate, nasa,gaunty,snide all good points but at the end of the day you need to make the repayments. C406 1.1 USD makes huge monthly repayments - doing min 1000 hours per year would make repayments easy, therefore there is no reason why RPT operators couldn't look at fleet replacement. When you do 600 hours per year general adhoc charter then it becomes a different kettle of fish..... There is only so much you can put into the per hour rate for repayments.*oh and the GPWS if it aint got it.
The 208 is a great example @1000 per year the repayments are $360 per hour in broad terms.
@800 per year $450 per hour and so on.
As I have said in a perfect world I would open the hangar door and see a fleet of turbines, but the world ain't perfect. If every one in DN decided to upgrade fleet then sure the clients would have NO CHOICE but to pay. Unfortunatley there is always the operator that will undercut and charge anything to get the work, even if in the long run it means they disappear. Hey look at Wimray how long had they been operating in the NT 15 years, they were always the cheapest by far and now ?????
As for a comment made earlier - why oh why would an operator drop there prices if they owned there aircraft outright????? Isn't this called PROFIT...
Anyways my little bit for the day, back to work, or is that back to play???
HA...
<img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HA . .Sorry to hear that.
Answer to your question, why indeed? It's a big part of the reason the industry is where it is.
Re turbines, the mistake every body makes is saying OK we'll increase the utilisation to offset the higher repayments? Wrong move. Unless you have a very very tightly constructed schedule for the aircraft that ain't gonna play.. .Most mining stuff wants to meet shift changes at the beginning and end of the day and usually with days competing with others, like Monday and Friday. . .What do fill the hole in the middle of the day with.. .The next mistake is to try and fill that hole with an RPT or two. Who wants to fly from anywhere to nowhere in the middle of the day?. .Ad Hoc shoots holes in the schedule because it wants to fly when every one else does and there is the daylight problem to unlit strips.. .Statistically and practically it is very difficult to get more than around 600 hrs PA. . .So you have to price on that, in any event any extra flying that you can squeeze over that by good management belongs to YOU as creamy profit.
Buy it and they WILL come. Trust me.
. .Torres,. .A pressurised Queenair on steroids is still a Queenair on steroids.
nasa. .You got the first bit right but . . [quote]……but then, we will need to regulate the bloody greedy financial institutions into using a more business friendly method of financing aircraft, and now I know it’s time for me to go and lie down. . <hr></blockquote>
I would really be interested in your explanation of why aircraft or aviation businesses are subject to different prudential lending requirements and treatment than any other type of equipment or business.
I am under that impression that they are mainstream lenders not venture capitalists or prospective shareholders. If you want the addresses of some venture capitalists I would be happy to oblige.
Believe me the lenders corporate memories are still vivid with the recollection of 5 line $1million valuations on $350k aircraft, Pre purchase inspections neglecting to report that the engines and props on the frame (in one case over a million dollars worth) do not belong to it and inventory checks revealing the aircraft was Christmas treed and the hull sold to Sims Metal for the funds for a staff Christmas Party.
You and I know this to be true and who the culprits are/were, it is at them, that you should be directing your well founded ire.
snide
SADLY, Probably and no. <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> we will continue to bounce along the bottom of the aviation pond (dare I say Cesspit ) with all the other third world countries for a time yet.
We were once, 1st world. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
But, I'll never give up neither will you I suspect. Because we can both remember what is was like, how it was and can be so again. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Answer to your question, why indeed? It's a big part of the reason the industry is where it is.
Re turbines, the mistake every body makes is saying OK we'll increase the utilisation to offset the higher repayments? Wrong move. Unless you have a very very tightly constructed schedule for the aircraft that ain't gonna play.. .Most mining stuff wants to meet shift changes at the beginning and end of the day and usually with days competing with others, like Monday and Friday. . .What do fill the hole in the middle of the day with.. .The next mistake is to try and fill that hole with an RPT or two. Who wants to fly from anywhere to nowhere in the middle of the day?. .Ad Hoc shoots holes in the schedule because it wants to fly when every one else does and there is the daylight problem to unlit strips.. .Statistically and practically it is very difficult to get more than around 600 hrs PA. . .So you have to price on that, in any event any extra flying that you can squeeze over that by good management belongs to YOU as creamy profit.
Buy it and they WILL come. Trust me.
. .Torres,. .A pressurised Queenair on steroids is still a Queenair on steroids.
nasa. .You got the first bit right but . . [quote]……but then, we will need to regulate the bloody greedy financial institutions into using a more business friendly method of financing aircraft, and now I know it’s time for me to go and lie down. . <hr></blockquote>
I would really be interested in your explanation of why aircraft or aviation businesses are subject to different prudential lending requirements and treatment than any other type of equipment or business.
I am under that impression that they are mainstream lenders not venture capitalists or prospective shareholders. If you want the addresses of some venture capitalists I would be happy to oblige.
Believe me the lenders corporate memories are still vivid with the recollection of 5 line $1million valuations on $350k aircraft, Pre purchase inspections neglecting to report that the engines and props on the frame (in one case over a million dollars worth) do not belong to it and inventory checks revealing the aircraft was Christmas treed and the hull sold to Sims Metal for the funds for a staff Christmas Party.
You and I know this to be true and who the culprits are/were, it is at them, that you should be directing your well founded ire.
snide
SADLY, Probably and no. <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> we will continue to bounce along the bottom of the aviation pond (dare I say Cesspit
) with all the other third world countries for a time yet.We were once, 1st world. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
But, I'll never give up neither will you I suspect. Because we can both remember what is was like, how it was and can be so again. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Caloundra. Qld. Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gaunty…..A Queenair on Steroids!!!! <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> …..Even today, lb for lb there is not an equivalent Cessna or Piper that can match them, and, in many cases, these aircraft outdo the later model offerings from Cessna & Piper……A Queenair on Steroids indeed!!!!! ……But that’s another subject we could start a thread on. [quote] I would really be interested in your explanation of why aircraft or aviation businesses are subject to different prudential lending requirements and treatment than any other type of equipment or business.<hr></blockquote>I don’t believe that I at any stage, differentiated between Aviation and non Aviation businesses…..My disgust at the financial institutions is not confined to their treatment of Aviation, but the Australian business community in general…..Besides, you know the old adage If it flys, floats, Freights or Fvcks, don’t touch it [quote] Believe me the lenders corporate memories are still vivid with the recollection of 5 line $1million valuations on $350k aircraft, Pre purchase inspections neglecting to report that the engines and props on the frame (in one case over a million dollars worth) do not belong to it and inventory checks revealing the aircraft was Christmas treed and the hull sold to Sims Metal for the funds for a staff Christmas Party.<hr></blockquote>and the fault with this belongs with whom…..the bloody idiots that get paid to sit on their collective RRR’s and make decisions based on pieces of paper as opposed to informed advice.....Nope, they get no sympathy from me…….
[ 08 February 2002: Message edited by: nasa ]</p>
……But that’s another subject we could start a thread on. [quote] I would really be interested in your explanation of why aircraft or aviation businesses are subject to different prudential lending requirements and treatment than any other type of equipment or business.<hr></blockquote>I don’t believe that I at any stage, differentiated between Aviation and non Aviation businesses…..My disgust at the financial institutions is not confined to their treatment of Aviation, but the Australian business community in general…..Besides, you know the old adage If it flys, floats, Freights or Fvcks, don’t touch it [quote] Believe me the lenders corporate memories are still vivid with the recollection of 5 line $1million valuations on $350k aircraft, Pre purchase inspections neglecting to report that the engines and props on the frame (in one case over a million dollars worth) do not belong to it and inventory checks revealing the aircraft was Christmas treed and the hull sold to Sims Metal for the funds for a staff Christmas Party.<hr></blockquote>and the fault with this belongs with whom…..the bloody idiots that get paid to sit on their collective RRR’s and make decisions based on pieces of paper as opposed to informed advice.....Nope, they get no sympathy from me…….[ 08 February 2002: Message edited by: nasa ]</p>
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess that explains why in Oz, the toughest and most competitive of all aviation markets in the world there are NONE in operation.
Oh;. . [quote] and the fault with this belongs with whom…..the bloody idiots that get paid to sit on their collective RRR’s and make decisions based on pieces of paper as opposed to informed advice.....Nope, they get no sympathy from me……. <hr></blockquote>
Lets not slide around this one, the "bloody idiots" who were paid to..... etc etc, were smart enough to recognise that they didn't have any aviation expertise and were smart/silly enough to ask for "informed advice" from those that they thought and were entitled to believe, actually knew what they were talking about, ie used aircraft dealers.
When they seek a valuation for an aircraft from "Acme Aviation Pty Ltd" with a flash office at Acetown Airport with a bunch of shiny freshly painted old hens parked out the front, how are they supposed to know they are getting served up as turkey.
In more than several cases I had to make a call as to whether we would take it to law, which had a very high probability of near dead set certain, of resulting in imprisonment for fraud and making a false declaration under the Evidence Act amongst other things. Not hearsay, but dead set signed by their own hand documentary evidence.
We relented and settled, but I can promise you that those people will never ever "value" an aircraft again.
So tell me about which 'idiots' again. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Oh;. . [quote] and the fault with this belongs with whom…..the bloody idiots that get paid to sit on their collective RRR’s and make decisions based on pieces of paper as opposed to informed advice.....Nope, they get no sympathy from me……. <hr></blockquote>
Lets not slide around this one, the "bloody idiots" who were paid to..... etc etc, were smart enough to recognise that they didn't have any aviation expertise and were smart/silly enough to ask for "informed advice" from those that they thought and were entitled to believe, actually knew what they were talking about, ie used aircraft dealers.
When they seek a valuation for an aircraft from "Acme Aviation Pty Ltd" with a flash office at Acetown Airport with a bunch of shiny freshly painted old hens parked out the front, how are they supposed to know they are getting served up as turkey.
In more than several cases I had to make a call as to whether we would take it to law, which had a very high probability of near dead set certain, of resulting in imprisonment for fraud and making a false declaration under the Evidence Act amongst other things. Not hearsay, but dead set signed by their own hand documentary evidence.
We relented and settled, but I can promise you that those people will never ever "value" an aircraft again.
So tell me about which 'idiots' again. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Caloundra. Qld. Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By Bloody Idiots I'm referring to the likes of one Financial Institution that asked me for a valuation on an aircraft, when I gave it to them they were not happy, so got one from elsewhere.....sure enough, buyer went tits up and the aircraft sold for what I said it was worth, AUD$300K under what they valued it at, and financed it for.
Or, the other mob that could be referred to as Against Good Conscience, that would not accept my valuation for a number of aircraft, when they went to auction, within $$$'s.
Or the same mob that asked for a valuation on an aircraft I was selling and relied upon a valuation from one of their approved valuers, who just happened to ring me to find out the value of the aircraft.
Or the same mob Against Good Conscience that asked me to change the wording on my valuations as it did not suit them, in other words, if we stuff up, we can hang it on you.
Nahhhh gaunty, you and I both know the Bloody Idiots and how they screw up the industry for all and sundry.....trouble is, they hold the purse strings and until the Financial Institutions of Australia are forced to act in a manner that is responsible for all Australians, not just Credit Card holders and Home Owners, we will struggle to advance, not only aviation, but many other businesses.....
Or, the other mob that could be referred to as Against Good Conscience, that would not accept my valuation for a number of aircraft, when they went to auction, within $$$'s.
Or the same mob that asked for a valuation on an aircraft I was selling and relied upon a valuation from one of their approved valuers, who just happened to ring me to find out the value of the aircraft.
Or the same mob Against Good Conscience that asked me to change the wording on my valuations as it did not suit them, in other words, if we stuff up, we can hang it on you.
Nahhhh gaunty, you and I both know the Bloody Idiots and how they screw up the industry for all and sundry.....trouble is, they hold the purse strings and until the Financial Institutions of Australia are forced to act in a manner that is responsible for all Australians, not just Credit Card holders and Home Owners, we will struggle to advance, not only aviation, but many other businesses.....