Part 91 Aircraft Partners

[volunteer]

The boss is talking about bringing in a partner or two and getting a large cabin airplane. Anybody currently dealing with an airplane owned by two or three partners? If so, what is your experience with it... good, bad, or ugly. Thanks.

 

[7KCAB]

We fly a Citation 501 with two partners and it usually works OK for us. The plane is based in one partner's city and we reposition about 50 NM to pick up the other, and in return the guy we reposition for doesn't pay for the hangar and related expenses. They fly pretty close to even hours each year, around 175 each. We use fltplan.com for all trips and everyone can log on and look at the current schedule and see if the airplane is available, but I am the only one who is authorized to make changes to it.

I have an unofficial understanding with one partner (the one where the plane is based) that the other partner takes priority if there is a double-up, as we don't want to upset him and potentially loose him as a partner (he could really afford his own plane). We also have interchange agreements with a Kingair 200 and a 350 that we use if both partners have "must fly" trips. The partner where the plane is based also owns a Cirrus SR-22 which serves as a backup plane in an emergency as well.

We've contemplated upgrading to a larger airplane and taking on a third partner, but we are concerned about scheduling issues with three.

Seems like partnerships can work and are a good way to share costs as long as 1) The hours of useage are roughly equal and 2) You have backup plans in place in case of the inevitable double-up and 3)One officially or unofficially takes priority or you have some other policy in place.

 

[rice]

Hours might not be too out of whack but I'll bet your monthly RON's for the crew go way up!!!!!!!!
Last gig I had was for two individuals, both flew about 175 to 200 hrs/yr. Not to bad but we were gone from home in excess of 15 nights/month and flew 18+ days/month.
Wound up having to canx two vacations in one yr because "the other guy" decided to use the plane at the last minute.
Two owners means two sets of plans which are always changing. Basically with 4 pilots no problem, 3 is still doable, 2 (my deal) is pure hell. Trust me, you will have no life if you do it with just two.

Good luck.

 

[volunteer]

Thanks.

 

[taters]

I fly a cirrus for two guys, combined we fly about 500 hours a year, one partner in dsm the base partner is in lnk. You definately have to establish a "senior" partner in terms of scheduling but I think it is a great thing. Think of it as added job security! so far only 2-3 RON's a month

 

[Spooky 2]

Ithink you need to get a legal opinion on this one, In spite if the fact that several posters here have said they are doing this, I think you need to be on an operating certificate to operate in this fashion. I know this is done frequently and while i'm not sure what you mean by a large cabin airplane, I would think that a King Air might call more attention than a Cirrus.

 

[Lead Sled]

Ithink you need to get a legal opinion on this one, In spite if the fact that several posters here have said they are doing this, I think you need to be on an operating certificate to operate in this fashion. I know this is done frequently and while i'm not sure what you mean by a large cabin airplane, I would think that a King Air might call more attention than a Cirrus.

This can be done legally, but there are definately some gotcha's. It's been a long time since I had anything to do with an aircraft partnership and then it was with a cabin-class piston twin. This possibility was considered when we were going through the "what if we were to..." and the due diligence phases when we were purchasing our current airplane. I discussed, at length with an aviation attorney, all of the various scenarios - partners, dry leasing, sole-ownership, etc. We have a unique situation and we needed to get it right - the first time. The entire process was an eye opener for me. There were many long-held "ya, we can do thats" that we really couldn't do legally.

In your case, I think that the partnership won't be the problem per se, the big issue will likely be the flight crew and who they work for. This is one of the gotchas that I was talking about.

I've posted in several threads lately on this general topic and my advise has not changed - find yourself a good, experienced aviation attorney and have a chat. They will save you a lot of grief. Good aviation attornies are where you find them. Your boss's business attorney probably won't have a clue (ours didn't) so do't even go there. If you need a reference PM me and I'll give you the name and contact info for the guy we used - he's a well-known and respected aviation attorney who is a frequent contributor to several aviation trade magazines and a part-time FlightSafety sim instructor on a couple different jets.

LS

 

[volunteer]

Thanks for the replies. The smallest airplane they have mentioned is a Challenger 604, but they would really like something that can beat the climb out of Aspen. So, that narrows the field considerably and will probably cost considerably more money if they stick to that and want to stay in the large cabins.

 

[ekuflyer]

Ithink you need to get a legal opinion on this one, In spite if the fact that several posters here have said they are doing this, I think you need to be on an operating certificate to operate in this fashion. I know this is done frequently and while i'm not sure what you mean by a large cabin airplane, I would think that a King Air might call more attention than a Cirrus.

Read 91.501 in the FAR's