What needs to be done/sign of things to come?-merged
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: here
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I left a fantastic GA job to go and fly jets and I can tell you after my big head settled down with the satisfaction of the achievement,I realised that the job isnt all that fantastic.
I havent had a weekend off in 5 months and have never been so tired in my entire life. I get lots of money, sector pay, bonus etc but I am seriously thinking whether its all worth it.
I havent ruled out a return to GA in FNQ as I found the regoinal job/lifestyle combination far exceeded the financial gains of city living/airline work.
..the grass is always greener!!!
PS. Kiwiblue...turnbacks are well practised and safe manouvres in Asepta a/c as long the prop is feathered. In fact you usually end up way too high.
I havent had a weekend off in 5 months and have never been so tired in my entire life. I get lots of money, sector pay, bonus etc but I am seriously thinking whether its all worth it.
I havent ruled out a return to GA in FNQ as I found the regoinal job/lifestyle combination far exceeded the financial gains of city living/airline work.
..the grass is always greener!!!
PS. Kiwiblue...turnbacks are well practised and safe manouvres in Asepta a/c as long the prop is feathered. In fact you usually end up way too high.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wherever I Lay my Hat...
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good run at the figures Cloud Basher, would certainly be interested in a copy of that spreadsheet!
Looking at it another way... your $580ph on a C210, with 5 pax seats comes to a mere $116 per seat, per aircraft hour, with all costs covered. I reckon you might be undervaluing your services a tad! Where I once was, we charged $295 (knock 10% off straight away for commissions usually payable) for a 5-hour excursion, which included 1.4 hours airborne, ~$35 for a boat-cruise and remaining time on the ground. Many of the aircraft operated by our competitors were C206, so similar costs (we operated BN-2). The charter rate on the BN2 was $1000-$1200ph, with the 206 then (5-6 years ago) around the $800ph mark. I don't reckon those rates will have come down.
Almost double what you reckon you can earn...
Looking at it another way... your $580ph on a C210, with 5 pax seats comes to a mere $116 per seat, per aircraft hour, with all costs covered. I reckon you might be undervaluing your services a tad! Where I once was, we charged $295 (knock 10% off straight away for commissions usually payable) for a 5-hour excursion, which included 1.4 hours airborne, ~$35 for a boat-cruise and remaining time on the ground. Many of the aircraft operated by our competitors were C206, so similar costs (we operated BN-2). The charter rate on the BN2 was $1000-$1200ph, with the 206 then (5-6 years ago) around the $800ph mark. I don't reckon those rates will have come down.
Almost double what you reckon you can earn...
As Hedge said, turnbacks are normal for a single engine turbine. Great fun to practice during the training too, 
. Even practicing them with zero thrust (not as good as a feathered propellor) you end kicking in a side slip and a lot of flap to get you down onto that runway! When's my next base check, 
??
In keeping with the topic of the thread though, I can see things like PC12's, C208's, TBM's etc. becoming more popular, maybe not so much in the short term, but definitely in the long term.
All those piston twins that started their lives in the 70's and 80's are certainly only going to get more and more expensive to maintain, and it's only going to take an accident (unfortunately) of something like a Chieftain or a 402 full of politicians (we can only hope,), belonging to a company that pays their pilots below award, and takes shortcuts with their maintenance, before action is going to start taking place on these sorts of operations. And let's be realistic, there certainly are a few too many out there. Criminal to be operating such operations in my opinion. And I'm sure I speak for everyone, bar the operators themselves!
What are the long term answers? I can't honestly give too many answers. However one thing I think is obvious, is that the current lineup of aircraft in production I don't think are suited to the need's of the Australian scene. The C208 fits one part of the market, the PC12 fit's another, but they're not fitting across the entire spectrum.
We need more light twins, be they turbine or piston (turbine makes more sense!), to fit into the PA31/C402/C404, and BE58/C310 sort of market, that DO perform when one donk goes out, can carry large payloads, have plenty of fuel without having to stop off 3 times between Brisbane and Mt Isa, and are relatively simplistic in systems. Joe Blobs out in Meekatharra who gained his LAME's Licence back in 1975 isn't going to have the faintest idea how to fix the nice Garmin 1000 screen you just broke in your brand new turbine driven C402 (hypothetically, if only Cessna would do this,
), and even if he can, he probably can't sign it off legally. Unfortunately I think trying to get newly qualified LAME's into the bush is just as big of a problem, if not larger, than trying to bring GA operators back into line.
I know a lot of people think I'm crazy even thinking of replacing light twins with light twins (even if they are new), with that low seating capacity, but I think a touch of realism is required here. This is Australia, not America, not Europe. Yes we may appear to be behind the rest of the world, however we also have a very different aviation industry to the rest of the world. And whilst the C208 and PC12 are great aircraft, try telling that to the mines who have Single Engine Phobia. They are probably at the moment, the single biggest market aviation has in terms of $$'s.
Conquest's, King Air's, Metro's, nice aircraft, but all starting to get into that high cost and high seating capacity end of the market. Not to mention, the C441 is still an old aircraft. You still need something in that 6-8 seat market that is cost effective, new, and suited to the smaller clients who want to fly, but can't afford the big budgets like mines.
Finally, if GA is going to change with regards to pay and conditions, then it's going to take a very large majority of pilots to finally stand up and say "enough is enough". You don't have to trawl Pprune to realise that there are an awful lot of spineless and gutless pilots out there who are only concerned with getting themselves to the top of the ladder in the quickest way possible, and willing to ruin everything along the way, so that the poor guys/girls who are still coming up through the ranks, or are choosing to stay in GA for the lifestyle, are eating 2min noodles and working 7 days a week. I've met enough of these myself along the way, and you could hardly say I've been in the industry for ages!
One day....
morno
. Even practicing them with zero thrust (not as good as a feathered propellor) you end kicking in a side slip and a lot of flap to get you down onto that runway! When's my next base check, ??In keeping with the topic of the thread though, I can see things like PC12's, C208's, TBM's etc. becoming more popular, maybe not so much in the short term, but definitely in the long term.
All those piston twins that started their lives in the 70's and 80's are certainly only going to get more and more expensive to maintain, and it's only going to take an accident (unfortunately) of something like a Chieftain or a 402 full of politicians (we can only hope,
), belonging to a company that pays their pilots below award, and takes shortcuts with their maintenance, before action is going to start taking place on these sorts of operations. And let's be realistic, there certainly are a few too many out there. Criminal to be operating such operations in my opinion. And I'm sure I speak for everyone, bar the operators themselves!What are the long term answers? I can't honestly give too many answers. However one thing I think is obvious, is that the current lineup of aircraft in production I don't think are suited to the need's of the Australian scene. The C208 fits one part of the market, the PC12 fit's another, but they're not fitting across the entire spectrum.
We need more light twins, be they turbine or piston (turbine makes more sense!), to fit into the PA31/C402/C404, and BE58/C310 sort of market, that DO perform when one donk goes out, can carry large payloads, have plenty of fuel without having to stop off 3 times between Brisbane and Mt Isa, and are relatively simplistic in systems. Joe Blobs out in Meekatharra who gained his LAME's Licence back in 1975 isn't going to have the faintest idea how to fix the nice Garmin 1000 screen you just broke in your brand new turbine driven C402 (hypothetically, if only Cessna would do this,
), and even if he can, he probably can't sign it off legally. Unfortunately I think trying to get newly qualified LAME's into the bush is just as big of a problem, if not larger, than trying to bring GA operators back into line.I know a lot of people think I'm crazy even thinking of replacing light twins with light twins (even if they are new), with that low seating capacity, but I think a touch of realism is required here. This is Australia, not America, not Europe. Yes we may appear to be behind the rest of the world, however we also have a very different aviation industry to the rest of the world. And whilst the C208 and PC12 are great aircraft, try telling that to the mines who have Single Engine Phobia. They are probably at the moment, the single biggest market aviation has in terms of $$'s.
Conquest's, King Air's, Metro's, nice aircraft, but all starting to get into that high cost and high seating capacity end of the market. Not to mention, the C441 is still an old aircraft. You still need something in that 6-8 seat market that is cost effective, new, and suited to the smaller clients who want to fly, but can't afford the big budgets like mines.
Finally, if GA is going to change with regards to pay and conditions, then it's going to take a very large majority of pilots to finally stand up and say "enough is enough". You don't have to trawl Pprune to realise that there are an awful lot of spineless and gutless pilots out there who are only concerned with getting themselves to the top of the ladder in the quickest way possible, and willing to ruin everything along the way, so that the poor guys/girls who are still coming up through the ranks, or are choosing to stay in GA for the lifestyle, are eating 2min noodles and working 7 days a week. I've met enough of these myself along the way, and you could hardly say I've been in the industry for ages!
One day....
morno
Last edited by morno; 31st Jul 2007 at 11:42.
"you end kicking in a side slip"
What's that? You side slip a single engine turbine aircraft?
How completely irresponsible!
What a totally crap pilot you must be!
Dr
Footnote: See earlier thread on sideslipping Cessnas!
What's that? You side slip a single engine turbine aircraft?
How completely irresponsible!
What a totally crap pilot you must be!
Dr
Footnote: See earlier thread on sideslipping Cessnas!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wherever I Lay my Hat...
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good points morno, thanks for the info re the turn-back also.
How would twin-pac C208's go then? I know one at least was modified with 2 PT-6's (i think?) swinging the single prop in NZ years ago, when CAA was struggling with the concept of SEIFR in a gas turbine... not sure what ever became of that airframe, or the whole twin-pac idea after that. Do you think the mines would be more accepting with 2 gas turbines driving a single prop?
Originally Posted by morno
the mines who have Single Engine Phobia. They are probably at the moment, the single biggest market aviation has in terms of $$'s.
To quote morno: "And whilst the C208 and PC12 are great aircraft, try telling that to the mines who have Single Engine Phobia."
I would love to hear the rationale as to why putting miners into a creaking, circa 1975, 15,000hr C404/PA31/insert other cabin class piston twin here is safer than putting them into a nice new (or low time) PC-12 that can fly over most of the weather – more comfortable and SURELY much safer?! I'm still waiting to play with a stormscope, let alone a colour wx radar while in the soup. Embedded CBs?!? I'll boil the kettle again.
PT6s aren't perfect but I'd trust one of those more than two GTSIOs (as good a piston engine they may be).
The same could also be argued regarding older King Airs and Conquests but since the PC-12 only has one donk, sorry not safe enough!
/Rant (How many ground rules did I break? 
)
I would love to hear the rationale as to why putting miners into a creaking, circa 1975, 15,000hr C404/PA31/insert other cabin class piston twin here is safer than putting them into a nice new (or low time) PC-12 that can fly over most of the weather – more comfortable and SURELY much safer?! I'm still waiting to play with a stormscope, let alone a colour wx radar while in the soup. Embedded CBs?!? I'll boil the kettle again.
PT6s aren't perfect but I'd trust one of those more than two GTSIOs (as good a piston engine they may be).
The same could also be argued regarding older King Airs and Conquests but since the PC-12 only has one donk, sorry not safe enough!
/Rant
(How many ground rules did I break? )
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The statistics speak for themselves. There are less deaths per 100,000 hours in SE Turb than ME Piston. It will take one operator and one mining company to make the first move....
On a different note:
What about loading 9 miners on their 4 days off into a C208 and flying them from Roxby to Lincoln. Included in this 3 day package is airfares, accommodation and of course 3 days of insane deep sea fishing charter. What would a miner pay for that???
The answer I think is this: more than enough to make a healthy profit. The problem is, getting it off the ground.
Who's with me?
On a different note:
What about loading 9 miners on their 4 days off into a C208 and flying them from Roxby to Lincoln. Included in this 3 day package is airfares, accommodation and of course 3 days of insane deep sea fishing charter. What would a miner pay for that???
The answer I think is this: more than enough to make a healthy profit. The problem is, getting it off the ground.
Who's with me?
Grandpa Aerotart
Cloud basher.
1/. There is not a 'simple' 210 on the planet worth $300k. Try 200k for a really good one.
2/. Over insuring an aircraft is very nearly as silly as underinsuring...certainly if you're talking double anyway.
3/. C210 DOCs (engine/prop/fuel) $120/hr...same as my A36 Bonanza.
My stab at what running a charter company with 5 C210s would cost to do properly.
Fixed overheads for 5 x C210s (1 million worth of aeroplanes)
Capital costs = 100k (20k/annum each..a wild stab in the dark but that would have you paying off an aeroplane about every 2 and a bit years so probably close)
Aircraft Insurance = 30k (5 times my A36 which is insured for 200k)
Annual spare parts. radios, paint jobs, tires etc = 90k
Since our hyperthetical company employs a full time Lame + Apprentice .
Employees $650k
7 pilots ( average 70k)
1 Lame+1 apprentice (90k+30)
1 secretary (40k)
Wages/super/occupational insurance etcs...what it costs to employ someone is lots more than just the pay packet...in that 70k average I have about 10k each for a couple of houses scattered around communities with which you could house say 2 or 3 pilots in each base....FOC!
Accountantancy fees. $30k
Hangar/office rent, utilities and office consumables. 100k (easy)
Total overheads = $1 million
On 4000 (5 aircraft @ 800 hrs each) revenue hrs/annum that is 250/hr.
Break even total/aircraft hr = $370.
If you were not averaging $500/hr it probably would not be worth the stress.
As you point out though, very accurately, if the utilisation is not there you go broke VERY quickly.
I would not even consider the above without a full time Lame employed...outsourcing maintenance could EASILY destroy the viability...busy maintenance outfits in Darwin were charging me 4k to 100rly my Bo when it was online there...and sometimes it took a week to do..once it took two weeks just because my aircraft was not their primary concern...their own aircraft were.
5 aircraft at 4k x 8 100hrlies/annum = 160k
If they take 3 days each that is 17 weeks lost revenue.
Your own full time LAME + apprentice and a good maintenance plan that has each aircraft out of action perhaps 1 day every 21 for a good dose of TLC and periodic maintenance, would be essential in my view.
At Simbu Aviation back in the mid 80s we were doing 100 hrs a mth on each aircraft averaging double charter rates and losing maybe 7 days a month average (including ferrying aircraft to maint facility/longer stays for engine changes etc) to maintenance between the Islander and C185. We did that with just two pilots employed at any one time...we really needed 3 but we were young and keen and happily flew 6 days a week...sometimes 7
...we had cargo bois to load and wash the aircraft so we just flew our rings off...you'll never hear me complain about my time in GA...I had a fecking ball.
How many charter companies in the North and West even do half that utilisation on average, 50-60hrs a mth, and as a result struggle to make charter rate?
1/. There is not a 'simple' 210 on the planet worth $300k. Try 200k for a really good one.
2/. Over insuring an aircraft is very nearly as silly as underinsuring...certainly if you're talking double anyway.
3/. C210 DOCs (engine/prop/fuel) $120/hr...same as my A36 Bonanza.
My stab at what running a charter company with 5 C210s would cost to do properly.
Fixed overheads for 5 x C210s (1 million worth of aeroplanes)
Capital costs = 100k (20k/annum each..a wild stab in the dark but that would have you paying off an aeroplane about every 2 and a bit years so probably close)
Aircraft Insurance = 30k (5 times my A36 which is insured for 200k)
Annual spare parts. radios, paint jobs, tires etc = 90k
Since our hyperthetical company employs a full time Lame + Apprentice .
Employees $650k
7 pilots ( average 70k)
1 Lame+1 apprentice (90k+30)
1 secretary (40k)
Wages/super/occupational insurance etcs...what it costs to employ someone is lots more than just the pay packet...in that 70k average I have about 10k each for a couple of houses scattered around communities with which you could house say 2 or 3 pilots in each base....FOC!
Accountantancy fees. $30k
Hangar/office rent, utilities and office consumables. 100k (easy)
Total overheads = $1 million
On 4000 (5 aircraft @ 800 hrs each) revenue hrs/annum that is 250/hr.
Break even total/aircraft hr = $370.
If you were not averaging $500/hr it probably would not be worth the stress.
As you point out though, very accurately, if the utilisation is not there you go broke VERY quickly.
I would not even consider the above without a full time Lame employed...outsourcing maintenance could EASILY destroy the viability...busy maintenance outfits in Darwin were charging me 4k to 100rly my Bo when it was online there...and sometimes it took a week to do..once it took two weeks just because my aircraft was not their primary concern...their own aircraft were.
5 aircraft at 4k x 8 100hrlies/annum = 160k
If they take 3 days each that is 17 weeks lost revenue.
Your own full time LAME + apprentice and a good maintenance plan that has each aircraft out of action perhaps 1 day every 21 for a good dose of TLC and periodic maintenance, would be essential in my view.
At Simbu Aviation back in the mid 80s we were doing 100 hrs a mth on each aircraft averaging double charter rates and losing maybe 7 days a month average (including ferrying aircraft to maint facility/longer stays for engine changes etc) to maintenance between the Islander and C185. We did that with just two pilots employed at any one time...we really needed 3 but we were young and keen and happily flew 6 days a week...sometimes 7
...we had cargo bois to load and wash the aircraft so we just flew our rings off...you'll never hear me complain about my time in GA...I had a fecking ball.How many charter companies in the North and West even do half that utilisation on average, 50-60hrs a mth, and as a result struggle to make charter rate?
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 31st Jul 2007 at 16:44.
Grandpa Aerotart
strim...you need to think outside the box...verticle integration my man.
A C208,
Accomadation with bar,in room porno movies, 'friendly' girls, poker machines and a kitchen with 24 hr good food...they should not want for anything (read 'need to leave your premises')
A boat and crew...although I don't think the fuel and bait bill for the boat will be very high
A lot less stress than 5 x C210s me thinks....in fact employ a young pilot and spend all your time on the under utilised boat...with a few of your better girls
Edit: In fact set the whole deal up on an Island and have an amphib C208 as above...like an X rated club med. I have a line on girls in Thailand and PI....pure genius
A C208,
Accomadation with bar,in room porno movies, 'friendly' girls, poker machines and a kitchen with 24 hr good food...they should not want for anything (read 'need to leave your premises')
A boat and crew...although I don't think the fuel and bait bill for the boat will be very high
A lot less stress than 5 x C210s me thinks....in fact employ a young pilot and spend all your time on the under utilised boat...with a few of your better girls
Edit: In fact set the whole deal up on an Island and have an amphib C208 as above...like an X rated club med. I have a line on girls in Thailand and PI....pure genius
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 31st Jul 2007 at 17:22.
Led Zep and strim, I totally agree with you. I have flown single engine turbines and I've flown twin engine piston's, and I trust that PT6 up front more than I trusted those 2 Continental's.
However, mine's are yet to be convinced. And until we do convince them, it'll be those 1970's model twins,.
morno
However, mine's are yet to be convinced. And until we do convince them, it'll be those 1970's model twins,
.morno
I know that minesites do not promote 1970s OH&S onsite...so why should travelling to site be any different?! Those 1970s twins surely would not meet certification requirements today?
Anyway, sorry for the thread drift, kiwiblue.
Anyway, sorry for the thread drift, kiwiblue.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wherever I Lay my Hat...
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No problem Led Zep -it raises the question of: how would we best go about educating the likes of the miners to the inherent benefits of the single-engine turbine vs the apparent benefits of the c.1970 piston twin?
Try pointing them in the direction of a couple of mining companies in northern WA who dig little bits of carbon out of the ground, and transfer staff in C208's AND C210s...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had a bit of a nibble from a large Gov Dep looking at commissioning a report on the OH&S + legal ramifications for senior management, regarding staff travel in remote areas travelling in '70's era aircraft.
Said department pulled out due to unspecified reasons, shame, as it would have been a great exercise to highlight the problems we are talking about.
Maybe the Fed/State Governments should take the lead and show some leadership? their staff certainly don't hire
cars when they get off their nice RPT aircraft at the other end, so why accept your 'valuable' and litigious staff?
Said department pulled out due to unspecified reasons,
shame, as it would have been a great exercise to highlight the problems we are talking about.Maybe the Fed/State Governments should take the lead and show some leadership? their staff certainly don't hire
cars when they get off their nice RPT aircraft at the other end, so why accept your 'valuable' and litigious staff?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu Chuckles,
We will have to agree to disagree on some of the costs, particularly real (that include the opportunity cost etc...) aircraft operating costs (your company stuff is probably closer than mine) but I guess that is not the point anyway. The point is as has been said we continuously degrade the actual real cost of doing business with small aircraft. To make an actual decent living from GA I'm thinking you would have to charge somewhere around $7-800 per hour for a 210 with usage closing on 1000hrs per aircraft per year.
As an aside I chucked a brand new Cessna Caravan into my little program and came out with Direct costs of $462 per hour, with a fixed cost including finance of $747,000 per year on a 40% residual after 5 years using current market interest rates, insurance rates etc.
If you paid cash and didn't care that you could invest your money and get 10% without trying, then your fixed costs are about $140,000 per year.
So if you have the utilisation then making money out of a caravan if you charged about $15-1600 per hour migth even be possible!
Cheers
CB
We will have to agree to disagree on some of the costs, particularly real (that include the opportunity cost etc...) aircraft operating costs (your company stuff is probably closer than mine) but I guess that is not the point anyway. The point is as has been said we continuously degrade the actual real cost of doing business with small aircraft. To make an actual decent living from GA I'm thinking you would have to charge somewhere around $7-800 per hour for a 210 with usage closing on 1000hrs per aircraft per year.
As an aside I chucked a brand new Cessna Caravan into my little program and came out with Direct costs of $462 per hour, with a fixed cost including finance of $747,000 per year on a 40% residual after 5 years using current market interest rates, insurance rates etc.
If you paid cash and didn't care that you could invest your money and get 10% without trying, then your fixed costs are about $140,000 per year.
So if you have the utilisation then making money out of a caravan if you charged about $15-1600 per hour migth even be possible!
Cheers
CB
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cloud Basher - what numbers do you come up with per hour for a 10 year old Pitts S-2B (A$175) vs a new S-2C (around $300k)?
And why are you depreciating down to 40% over 5 years when history and regression analysis demonstrates rather better depreciation than that?
Anyway, I'd be inclined to factor the cost of finance at the rate I actually paid then use that rate to work out the P&L of the business. I'd hope to get a better RoC than 10% in any case - but surely the business is about operating aircraft, not owning them.
And why are you depreciating down to 40% over 5 years when
history and regression analysis demonstrates rather better depreciation than that?Anyway, I'd be inclined to factor the cost of finance at the rate I actually paid then use that rate to work out the P&L of the business. I'd hope to get a better RoC than 10% in any case - but surely the business is about operating aircraft, not owning them.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HappyJack,
For the Pitts both doing 300 hours per year I come up with the following:
assuming full life engine and prop for both aircraft.
S-2B - $360 per hour including finance, $245 per hour not including finance.
S-2C - $405 per hour including finance, $200 per hour not including finance.
I am just working on a 40% residual after five years of fixed interest as when I was (still am!) looking at an aircraft myself this is what "seemed" to be the industry standard. Note that this was for aircraft ownership and not for a business, where ownership may not necessarily be a goal.
Also note I have not included depreciation in the above figures. Your are right, second hand aircraft depreciate very little, especially those over 15 years old.
Edited to add: Sorry HJ, just saw what you were on about, my figures don't reflect depreciation to 40%, they assume you still owe 40% of the original capital value of the aircraft after five years, having paid 60% off over that time. I do have facility to work out depreciation, however I usually don't bother as all the aircraft I am looking at are at least 20 years old and so depreciate very little if at all, some models even appreciate!
Cheers
CB
For the Pitts both doing 300 hours per year I come up with the following:
assuming full life engine and prop for both aircraft.
S-2B - $360 per hour including finance, $245 per hour not including finance.
S-2C - $405 per hour including finance, $200 per hour not including finance.
I am just working on a 40% residual after five years of fixed interest as when I was (still am!) looking at an aircraft myself this is what "seemed" to be the industry standard. Note that this was for aircraft ownership and not for a business, where ownership may not necessarily be a goal.
Also note I have not included depreciation in the above figures. Your are right, second hand aircraft depreciate very little, especially those over 15 years old.
Edited to add: Sorry HJ, just saw what you were on about, my figures don't reflect depreciation to 40%, they assume you still owe 40% of the original capital value of the aircraft after five years, having paid 60% off over that time. I do have facility to work out depreciation, however I usually don't bother as all the aircraft I am looking at are at least 20 years old and so depreciate very little if at all, some models even appreciate!
Cheers
CB
