It seems ironic, at best, for someone who is paid crew to be preaching about not saving money on paid crew.

Pretty sure those of us who are owner operators are fairly aware of where our best interests lie.

I missed it, where anybody had advocated being poorly trained.

The implicit assumption was "owner flown" equals "poorly trained", that's what one can take from the "stay as pax" comment.

Generalizations like that often fail, of course.

Mike C.

Yeah, sidelines. Waiting for an owner to put you in. You're not in the owner's box. Buy a turbine powered aircraft and feel free to justify your decision to non-owner critics who somehow think they know your situation better than you do, lol.

A legacy Citation: very little capital tied up, low fixed costs, relatively simple to maintain and safe to operate, 2x the speed and comfort of my Bonanza (which I have no intention of selling, btw). Perfect for my mission: personal transportation, 1-6 souls on board, single pilot, low utilization, 300-1200 miles, and I'm content burning a lot more fuel than a WI powered jet, making a fuel stop, and being a speed bump in the mid 30s.

To address the point of why the market value of legacy Citations is what it is, part of that is the requirement for a type rating. There are a lot of people who can fly a Citation, and there are a lot of people who can buy a Citation, but there are not a lot who can do both. I believe some people buy turboprops (older KA 90s, Cheyennes, TBMs, JetProps, etc) to avoid the type rating. Maybe insurance requirements are a factor too. Heck, I went and flew for a regional just to get the experience necessary to satisfy the insurance industry (and so I'd feel comfortable flying a jet single pilot).

And then of course there is money. I sleep well knowing the value of my airplane could go to zero (worst case, and zero likelihood) and I'd still be fine. If I had 10x my net worth would I buy a Phenom 300, maybe. But that type of discussion is all theoretical, sort of like yours from the sideline.

The implicit assumption was "owner flown" equals "poorly trained", that's what one can take from the "stay as pax" comment.

Generalizations like that often fail, of course.

Mike C.

Honestly, the type rating isn't really the issue. If you fly a turboprop these days, King Air, TBM, PC-12, MU2, etc, insurance basically mandates type training every year. That type training is basically a type rating in scope. If you can do that, you can maintain a jet type rating as well. My type rating recurrent and my MU2 recurrent are not a lot different, not a material difference. If you can competently fly a TBM, you can competently fly a Citation.

Many of these turboprops, especially the singles, cost way more than legacy Citations. So cost isn't really a barrier either.

When you look at the used light jet market, there is a dividing line between owner flown and corporate/charter usage. When a plane is no longer considered a corporate/charter class airplane, and it is single pilot capable, then it enters the owner flown market. The hull values in that market are limited since the planes don't produce revenue. If a two crew plane falls out of the corporate/charter class, then it either becomes a bottom feeder charter plane, or gets scrapped, there is no owner flown market for it. Examples are old Lears, Sabreliners, etc.

Sometimes the line moves, as it did in COVID. My plane was falling into the owner flown class when I bought it. Then COVID dramatically increased the demand for corporate/charter planes and now my plane is back in the corporate/charter class with a hull value to match. I expect it will drop out of that class again in time, as all planes do eventually.

Fundamentally, people pay a lot of money for planes to get ones with lower operating costs. They do this in part because they don't properly value the cost of capital. A $2.5M TBM that costs $800/hour to operate seems like a better deal to them than a $700K Citation V that costs $1500 an hour. But do the math and the extra cost of capital is $150K/year for the TBM (assuming a very modest 6% growth), plus you have a much larger downside risk if the market should tank.

150 hours of TBM is $120K operating, $150K extra capital cost, $270K total.

120 hours of C560V is $180K.

You got the same miles/trips, went faster, carried more, over more weather, safer, plus saved money in actual fact even if you don't see it directly. And I didn't even take into account higher taxes and insurance premiums for the TBM.

I can't afford to fly a TBM, but I can afford to fly a Citation V. Isn't that weird?

Of course, today, I can't afford to buy a Citation V either.

Mike C.

You can afford to fly a tbm, you can't afford to buy one.

Honestly, the type rating isn't really the issue. If you fly a turboprop these days, King Air, TBM, PC-12, MU2, etc, insurance basically mandates type training every year. That type training is basically a type rating in scope. If you can do that, you can maintain a jet type rating as well. My type rating recurrent and my MU2 recurrent are not a lot different, not a material difference. If you can competently fly a TBM, you can competently fly a Citation.

Many of these turboprops, especially the singles, cost way more than legacy Citations. So cost isn't really a barrier either.

When you look at the used light jet market, there is a dividing line between owner flown and corporate/charter usage. When a plane is no longer considered a corporate/charter class airplane, and it is single pilot capable, then it enters the owner flown market. The hull values in that market are limited since the planes don't produce revenue. If a two crew plane falls out of the corporate/charter class, then it either becomes a bottom feeder charter plane, or gets scrapped, there is no owner flown market for it. Examples are old Lears, Sabreliners, etc.

Sometimes the line moves, as it did in COVID. My plane was falling into the owner flown class when I bought it. Then COVID dramatically increased the demand for corporate/charter planes and now my plane is back in the corporate/charter class with a hull value to match. I expect it will drop out of that class again in time, as all planes do eventually.

Fundamentally, people pay a lot of money for planes to get ones with lower operating costs. They do this in part because they don't properly value the cost of capital. A $2.5M TBM that costs $800/hour to operate seems like a better deal to them than a $700K Citation V that costs $1500 an hour. But do the math and the extra cost of capital is $150K/year for the TBM (assuming a very modest 6% growth), plus you have a much larger downside risk if the market should tank.

150 hours of TBM is $120K operating, $150K extra capital cost, $270K total.

120 hours of C560V is $180K.

You got the same miles/trips, went faster, carried more, over more weather, safer, plus saved money in actual fact even if you don't see it directly. And I didn't even take into account higher taxes and insurance premiums for the TBM.

I can't afford to fly a TBM, but I can afford to fly a Citation V. Isn't that weird?

Of course, today, I can't afford to buy a Citation V either.

Mike C.

Park capital all you want but you’re going to get recaptured one day not a a great argument; anyone that has experienced this will understand this.

I recall ground crew signaling me in my King Air to do a 270 over grass to park. Plenty of room; that’s just what they preferred. I shut down and asked them to position it. They said others had done that. I asked if the others owned the plane. Of course, the answer was no. They had to move the plane to a paved parking area anyway. Made no sense to be signaling for donuts on grass. I flew crew in the Army. Treated my plane a bit differently.

I fully agree a pro pilot who also owns a plane is better

Owned my own plane for a long time

But I’ve also seen hobby pilots who’s lack of operational experience causes them to spend more, not know what really is a big deal and what isn’t, be fun to be a fly on the wall as CAE SIMCOM or FSI instructors talk and hear them talk about teaching pro pilots vs owners

The smart ones hire on folks who have been there and done that and gain that knowledge, having at least one pro pilot is a good call, both for coverage but also knowledge, they are humble and they learn tons and do well, but others just jump from a 182 or something to Jet fuel burners


I’m a pro pilot, I’m sure I’m smarter than most stylists, and I can afford WAAAAY better scissors, but I still don’t cut my own damn hair

I can read tax law just the same, but I have a CPA do my taxes

I fully agree a pro pilot who also owns a plane is better

Owned my own plane for a long time

But I’ve also seen hobby pilots who’s lack of operational experience causes them to spend more, not know what really is a big deal and what isn’t, be fun to be a fly on the wall as CAE SIMCOM or FSI instructors talk and hear them talk about teaching pro pilots vs owners

The smart ones hire on folks who have been there and done that and gain that knowledge, having at least one pro pilot is a good call, both for coverage but also knowledge, they are humble and they learn tons and do well, but others just jump from a 182 or something to Jet fuel burners


I’m a pro pilot, I’m sure I’m smarter than most stylists, and I can afford WAAAAY better scissors, but I still don’t cut my own damn hair

I can read tax law just the same, but I have a CPA do my taxes

This will never work out in the end.

Either you have recapture when you sell (which can be BIG taxes since it occurs all in one year), or the asset has lot value (you capital is gone).

You would always be better off sticking the money in an investment instead.

I have never understood the delusional folks who think depreciation is a win. Indeed, if it occurs over more than one year, you are only saving future less valuable dollars.

Mike C.

Oy vey

That’s not what I’m saying

Just the best move if you can afford it, is to have at least one experienced pro pilot on payroll, when compared to the other costs it ain’t that bad, plus the money they’ll save on insurance and taking spear point on hangers and Mx, if you’re sweating over that salary or every cycle, you probably aren’t in a position to own that much aircraft

Scheduling a pilot is a pain in the ass. I call it "chartering the human".

Being on the payroll doesn't solve it either. Say I want to do a 5 day trip over Christmas. My pro pilot is going to give up their holiday to sit in a hotel for 5 days? Yeah, right.

And where are you going to find a pro pilot who will be happy flying only 150 hours a year?

The costs for another pilot are substantial, well beyond the salary. Hotels, meals, rental cars, benefits, overhead, etc.

Your advice just isn't on point for the freedom of being truly owner flown, and the money isn't the main issue.

I'd love to have an SIC that I can turn off after the flight and stick in the baggage compartment until I need them again. Know anyone who wants that job?

Mike C.