Help - My 'Plane share' is going wrong

[sternone]

I'll bet the plane is the better looking

All planes are better looking....aldo some girls come pritty close...

[BackPacker]

Does anyone have a sample contract for a two- and/or more than two-person group?

[Brooklands]

Does anyone have a sample contract for a two- and/or more than two-person group?

There's This one from the PFA website.

WR - Nice idea, but if there's no agreement in place then he may claim that he's not obliged to contribute to the hangarage/parking at the home base any more as he's paying it at the "away" location.

Gordon - you have my sympathy - I hiope you manage to resolve it.

Brooklands

[BackPacker]

Interesting. That document covers almost everything, but does NOT cover the situation where half of the members (one out of two) want to relocate the aircraft to a new base - except the blanket rule of having a majority or two-thirds majority.

[Three Yellows]

Where's 'Flying Lawyer' when we need him?

[gordon51]

My Plane share gone wrong

Dear 3Y

Thanks for your reply and to the 25 or so others that all gave their input. In the main supporting the fact that one member should not be able to relocate the plane without agreement. Some did though support the fact they thought this was 'okay', In fact though the real situation was a bit worse. What the other owner suggested that on say every alternate 2 weeks, say mid-week Tuesday-Thursday, the pilot with the plane at that time would travel solo to the other field, pick up the other owner, and fly both pilots back to his own field, then the co-owner could then fly back solo to the other field. So at least 3 hours engine time assuming that there is no hindrances from work, weather etc, meaning the only way the plane can be moved from one location to the other is by a combination of trains buses and taxis by the pilot who wants it. Plus I have the added grievance of the the other pilot not wanting to pay any hangarage at the original home base, plus to add insult to injury, not wanting to sell his share, nor buy out mine. I am hoping once he thinks it through there may be a realisation that selling his share is the only reasonable way forward - especially as I won't be falling over myself to agree his requests. As a few rightly stated, one of us only needs to get unlucky with the weather during our 2 week slot, and 6 weeks will go by with hardly any flying. The good flying season will be past before we know it.

In summary I am going to give it a few weeks for him to find another plane to fly and sell his share - then I'll just have to tough it out - and travel 100 miles by road rail and taxi to pick up the plane whenever it's at the other base, and he'll have to do the same. I just hope he doesn't resort to mischief like disabling the plane when he thinks it's 'his' 2 weeks

Thanks again everyone for your valued input, and for the humorous chat comparing girlfriends and planes. Now to all you jokers out there, what do you make of this:- The plane is a 2003 near new one owner only 400 hours, and is a great pleasure to fly. The new girlfriend is a 1950's model with any amount of previous owners, countless hours on the clock, but a little bit of life and service still available.

Thanks again everyone

[IO540]

I am not sure if I have missed something here, but surely each of these two people is benefitting from the other one's financial contribution.

It is therefore in both their interests to have the other one coughing up.

If this arrangement doesn't work, then the partnership (and there is a partnership, written or not) can be dissolved. The asset can be simply sold and that's it.

If Gordon's mate refuses to buy Gordon's share out then he is taking the micky, and I would challenge him directly with the threat of dissolving the partnership.

Regarding lawyers, the one thing I have observed here (and on other forums) for the past few years is that no lawyer ever offers specific advice on anything for which he could charge for... Most notably, nothing is said on actual cases of alleged ANO breaches which the said lawyer must have dealt with countless times, yet the pilot forums are packed with "is this legal" speculation.

[foxmoth]

Sounds totally unreasonable to me, if he wants anything like an alternating 2 weeks then he should be the one sorting it - and get an agreement that if it is late back then you get that extra time plus the costs if you need to go to pick up the aircraft. He is the one that has changed things so why should you be paying and messing about so he can do things differently. I think everyone who has said that it could be a manageable setup thinks your partner should be the one doing all the positioning because he is the one that wants to change things - and he should still expect to pay his bills at the original base!

[Fuji Abound]

Regarding lawyers, the one thing I have observed here (and on other forums) for the past few years is that no lawyer ever offers specific advice on anything for which he could charge for... Most notably, nothing is said on actual cases of alleged ANO breaches which the said lawyer must have dealt with countless times, yet the pilot forums are packed with "is this legal" speculation.

There is the obvious comment that all they have to sell is their time - if they gave opinions gratuitously it would be bad for business.

However, there are other good reasons.

It is surprisingly how often people don’t tell the whole story. Sometimes this is because they consider there are elements that are inconsequential (when in fact they are not) and sometimes they know full well it is not helpful to their case. Proper enquiry often solicits the whole story. There is of course an obvious danger giving an opinion based on incorrect information.

Professional bodies and indemnity insurers take a dim view of gratuitous opinions. Whilst I am not suggesting you could get sued giving an opinion on an anonymous forum there have been some surprising cases where opinions have been given without any fee changing hands and yet the advisor was still found negligent, when his opinion was incorrect.

Finally in many professional arenas, as for that matter commercial arenas, those involved devise arrangements or obtain opinions or clearances which they know if you arrange your affairs in certain ways gives you a legal advantage - an age old reason for employing first class advisors. Not surprisingly this knowledge comes at a price and being cynical if proffered for mass consumption will sometimes result in the law being amended even sooner.

I recall a comment I like, it is not the ten minutes the consultant takes to remove the cataract, but the thirty years he spent learning how to do it properly.

The original definition of a professional was one who gives of his time without necessarily giving consideration to his fee - we would all wish the doctor would stop and render assistance in circumstances of urgent need - but perhaps sadly the world has turned a few more times since then.
So far as this case is concerned in the first instance you should avoid lawyers at all cost - becasue it will be costly and the courts are littered with individuals who should have resolved their differences without recourse to court.

Often a great deal can be solved by the parties agreeing to meet with an independent person in attendance (in this case another pilot who is either chairman or a member of another group). Both individuals then have a proper opportunity to set out their grievances and both will benefit from an impartial third party opinion.

Well worth a try.

[dublinpilot]

I think it would help a lot, if both parties recognised that the circumstances that led to the original agreement have fundamentally changed, and that the original setup is no longer workable.

At that point the obviously solution is to sell the aircraft to a third party at market value.

That is a basic and fair starting point. Only when both parties recognise that fundamential point, and accept that things will never be as they were before, can they start to look at other solutions to see if they are workable. Perhaps one can be found that is fair to both people, or perhaps not.

Expecting things to continue 'like they were before' is nothing more than wishful thinking, and likely to result in the loss of both a friend, and a lot of money.

dp

[IO540]

Very good points Fuji, esp. about the law getting amended. The CAA reads these forums daily; their medical department reads them hours

However in general I think one can give advice while stating the limits of it e.g. it is based on the apparent situation.

Returning to this case, I believe it is possible to dissolve a partnership without spending money. It's a simple legal process - just like forcing the sale of a house if the people sharing it don't get along anymore. Any partner can force a liquidation and AFAIK there is no defence (short of dependent persons, which I can't see would apply to a plane).

[QNH 1013]

I agree entirely with Dublinpilot's latest post and the only real input I can give you first-hand is that ferrying aircraft is a lot of hassle that gets more frustrating the more you do it.
I have experience of ferrying aircraft regularly and it is a real pain even though as a commercial pilot I don 't have to bear the costs. Organising return transport is always time consuming, and using the aircraft "three trips" method is not really any better, and its always expensive for someone.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Seriously Gordon he sounds like he's acting like a total a*se about this.

I know he's a mate, but he's also taking the mickey. Stand your ground and be very firm about it and if needs be put your share up for sale and just get out of it totally.

I have seen so many shares go down the pan and good friendships destroyed, that you really have to be careful about this if you want to protect your friendship.

Talk it over together seriously and state what everyone here has already put. i.e the basis for your "agreement" has changed through no fault of your own, so why should you suffer as he's moved away for a bit of nooky?

It simply isn't right that you should suffer in this case. So tell him to sort it, or you'll simply put your share up for sale.

Again, anyone reading this and thinking of buying a share, for the sake of your future sanity make sure you do have a good written agreement. No good in this example, but hopefully this will make others think twice. Especialy if you are uying an a/c with "friends."

[effortless]

Ok a serious response, he is being an arse but you should avoid escalating the problem. Speak reasonably and point out the things listed above, such as: he is changing the rules arbitrarily; he is going to increase costs and inconvenience to both of you and, if things get realy awkward, neither of you will come out with much.

Have you set out your arguments in writing to him? If not do so soon. Do it reasonably and in a friendly fashion. Use some of the more sensible arguments from this forum if it helps. Remind him of why you did this in the firts place. Surely the biggest motive was convenience. Above all make sure that niether of you tries to "win". Neither of you will.

I have spent a great deal of my time in arbitration and in court and no one ever really wins except the lawyers if things get out of hand.

[Fuji Abound]

Have you set out your arguments in writing to him? If not do so soon.

No, I disagree.

The partner is also a friend.

I would be upset if a friend felt it necessary to write to me. As I suggetsed previously, in the first instance, the two of you should meet, perhaps with another pilot owner who can give an independent view. Hopefully you can resolve your differences at that meeting.

If not, only then might it be time to write.

[tacpot]

Arbitration can be a good way to get such disputes resolved, but only if both parties agree on the impartiality & wisdom of the arbitrator!

If you want to go down that route, I would check with your friend that they are happy to use arbitration. But before doing so have some good suggestions in your mind as to who might make a reasonble arbitrator from your friend's point of view.

I would avoid using anyone who needs to maintain a relationship with either party, just in case...

good luck
tp

[Hombre]

Buy a porsche: The 100 or so miles will seem like 25

[S-Works]

Buy a porsche: The 100 or so miles will seem like 25

Have you been on UK roads? I own 2 and they don't make driving 100 miles in the UK any less arduous......

[pulse1]

I own 2 and they don't make driving 100 miles in the UK any less arduous......

Perhaps, if you try driving one at a time it would be a little easier.

[gcolyer]

Buy an L-39 that would chew up the 100 miles pretty quickly. Sell your share of the spamcan and then buzz your ex-mate with the L-39. the wake turbulance should send the right message for you.