Proparts has a balance associated with it that is the difference between all that you have paid in and the cost (full retail) of all the parts you have used.

If this balance is negative, you pulled more parts than you have paid for, then Textron requires you to pay for that if you go off program or sell the plane. You will eventually pay for everything you use.

So why do think you are saving money on Proparts?

It seems to me that Proparts saves no money and is simply a cost leveling tool for budgeting reasons. This is much like the cost leveling plans for utilities.

If the balance is positive, that can be transferred to the next owner.

Since Proparts requires buying parts through the Textron official sources, usually at higher cost than other sources, Proparts actually costs you money in the long run by negating any ability to shop around, and always costing you full retail for the part. Additionally, there is a tendency to replace/exchange parts on planes on Proparts rather than overhaul your own part, further driving up costs.

Mike C.

Thanks David - I'd appreciate if you could help educate this piston guy... is your (bosses) total cost to own/fly the CJ3 about $55k a year ($370x150 hours) + gas, insurance, and hangar?

Is there anything NOT covered by the plans?

Heck, I've had years with the 421 that cost me more then $55k! (Cue Mike saying how cheap he runs his MU2

Robert

Yeah, I know. My plane goes faster, burns less, engines last longer, and engines cost less to overhaul, than a PT6 airplane.

Buying a Citation would be a whole lot easier if I flew a King Air. The Citation would seem like so much more speed for not much more money. The improvement over an MU2, alas, isn't nearly as much.

Mike C.

Mike you are mostly right, it is a cost leveling plan, and aids in annual budgeting. Where you might be a little off target is your assumption that you can buy parts from non Textron sources at lower prices. This might be somewhat true for older legacy citations that have been around for years, with surplus parts coming from parted out planes, but this is not the case for newer planes.

For example I can't buy or exchange parts with Rockwell Collins any cheaper then buying from Cessna. And in most cases I can't buy parts for the CJ from anyone other then Textron simply because they aren't available anywhere else.

Engine and parts plans have been around for a long time, I'm sure they are all pretty much similar in the long run, but if they were a bad deal, people that are a lot smarter than me or you wouldn't be buying into them

I've stated this before, and I'll say it again, there is no such thing as a cheap jet, only the illusion that older jets with lower acquisition prices aren't as costly. The bottom line is you can pay now or pay later, but sooner or later you are gonna pay.

You want an aircraft that can carry a load and do west coast non stop. If you move to a jet that is going to cost you a premium. it adds additional costs such as recurrent training, single pilot exemptions, and approved maintenance programs. I'd say you are correct in that the conquest with dash 10's would be your best option. Going from a turbo prop to a jet is a huge difference. But you are a smart guy and already know that

The ways you can save on parts:

Have your part overhauled versus replaced with new, or exchanged. You trade some down time for lower cost.

Locate a used part from a salvage yard. Not many CJs there, but there are some.

Locate an alternative PMA part for those cases where they do exist. This can be common parts.

For example, I am *sure* I can buy your battery and tires for less than your Proparts charges.


But if the RC part is on the shelf at a salvage yard, then you could save money. I understand that might be rare to find, but you aren't even given the chance in Proparts.


There are plenty of "bad deals" people buy into. Even you described it as "saving" you money when it does no such thing.

In the case of Proparts, there is no "deal" here at all. AT BEST, YOU PAY THE SAME. The only thing it changes is WHEN you pay.


Pretty much an exact description of Proparts. Anybody who thinks it saves money is deluding themselves.

Mike C.

The ways you can save on parts:

Have your part overhauled versus replaced with new, or exchanged. You trade some down time for lower cost.

Locate a used part from a salvage yard. Not many CJs there, but there are some.

Locate an alternative PMA part for those cases where they do exist. This can be common parts.

For example, I am *sure* I can buy your battery and tires for less than your Proparts charges.


But if the RC part is on the shelf at a salvage yard, then you could save money. I understand that might be rare to find, but you aren't even given the chance in Proparts.


There are plenty of "bad deals" people buy into. Even you described it as "saving" you money when it does no such thing.

In the case of Proparts, there is no "deal" here at all. AT BEST, YOU PAY THE SAME. The only thing it changes is WHEN you pay.


Pretty much an exact description of Proparts. Anybody who thinks it saves money is deluding themselves.

Mike C.

2009 - $123.69 - 15% new plane discount for 2 years or 1000 hours = $105.14
2010 - $123.69 - 15% new plane discount = $105.14
2011 - $126.50
2012 - $131.48
2013 - $133.93
2014 - $146.35 - changed to TAP Blue plan
2015 - $149.34
2016 - $149.34
2017 - $150.40

About a 25% increase in 9 years. Less then 3% a year.

Can I do that even off Proparts? Won't Textron ship things overnight regardless of a Proparts contract? Won't the cost of the parts and shipping be the same?


You are suggesting Textron won't ship parts easily to those not on Proparts. Is there a systematic policy to do that?


What peace of mind are they not getting if they pay for parts as needed?

It seems you are making two contradictory statements.

People who own jets care more about time than money, so it isn't about the cost.

Proparts let's people who own jets not worry about the money, they can get $45K of stuff without having to pay the money now.

I compared Proparts to the utility payment leveling plans. It lets customers plan their budget better, but in the end, they pay for all the energy they use. Generally speaking, it is the lower income bracket that makes the most use of these plans, however, which doesn't seem to fit with jet ownership. Do jet owners not have $45K ready and handy?

I'm just trying to figure out when Proparts makes sense. Seems like a scheme to get money sitting at Textron rather than in your bank account.

Mike C.

Thanks, Allen.

That's encouraging.

You also have better coverage now than the start (TAP Blue). But didn't you have to pay a lump sum back to zero time for that? In some ways, if you back track Blue to the start, the increases are less percentage wise.

Williams no longer offers TAP Elite (pre Blue coverage) from what they told me.

It would have been nice if there had been a reduction when they announced the 2500/5000 hour HSI/OH/MPI extensions (around 2014?).

I understand why they give the new plane discount, want you to get tied to program equity at Williams from the start.

Williams quoted me $154.03 for FJ44-3A on Super SII Sierra for 2017. You are $150.40. Wonder what causes the slightly dissimilar pricing.

Mike C.

It is what many CFOs and owners want to budget for the aircraft costs.

You always seem to attribute some nefarious behavior to companies giving customers programs that they want.

Some people have different priorities then you do.

One of the incentives for existing TAP Elite to move to TAP Blue was no catchup cost on the previous hours. Just start paying new price going forward. I think that was a limited time offer.

Some people switched and some didn't. My engines were due for their first MPI soon after they offered Blue. I got more complete coverage for that maintenance event by enrolling with no out of pocket cost and a few more $'s going forward. It was the right strategic decision given my engines status.

They read these forums?

Andrew

Here is an analysis I posted on CJP:

Looking at the life limited parts in the FJ44-2C gives some insights into the difference in what needs to be replaced with a TBO of 3500 hours vs. 5000 hours.

In a first OH at 3500 hours there are no life limited parts to be replaced and all rotors and disks will go to the next TBO at 7000 hours. That first OH will be relatively inexpensive. For the second OH at 7000 hours ALL the rotors and disks need to be replaced to go to the next OH at 10,500 hours. This will be an expensive OH for anyone not on TAP. And Williams is replacing the fan rotor, 1st LP turbine disk and 2nd LP turbine disk while they still have 30% life left.

Compare that to a 5000 TBO cycle where in the first OH at 5000 hours where the compressor rotor and HP turbine disk need to be replaced although they have 37% of their life left. Then at the second OH the IP & HP compressor rotors and HP turbine disk need to be replaced again but the fan rotor, 1st LP turbine disk and 2nd LP turbine disk can be reused. On the third OH at 10,000 hours will be when all the rotors and disks need to be replaced.

I don't know the parts costs of the various rotors and disks but if we assume that the IP & HP compressor rotors and HP turbine disk are less expensive then the fan rotor, 1st LP turbine disk and 2nd LP turbine disk then the 5000 hour TBO pushes expensive parts replacements to the 3rd OH instead of the 2nd OH.

I think Williams is only giving the TBO extensions to engines on TAP because they don't want customers who are paying for the OH to get sticker shock of the first OH. At 3500 hours it should be relatively inexpensive with no life limited parts replaced.

For those on TAP the 5000 hour TBO likely optimizes the usage of the most expensive life limited parts although each OH will require some major parts replacements.

I am sure none of us are planning to run our engines over 15,000 hours but Williams is likely pricing TAP to cover that time.

With 3,500 TBO to get to 14,000 hours will require 4 OH's - two inexpensive and two very expensive.

With 5000 TBO to get to 15,000 hours will require 3 OH's - two mid-range cost, and one very expensive.

I would be very surprised if Williams doesn't get extended life on these parts to match the new MPI cycles.

This has happened several times in the TPE331 world. The cycle/hour limits get extended to make the 5000 or now 7000 TBO more reasonable.

So I predict that your analysis may hold true momentarily, but I would expect the life limited parts to either get extended or to have new versions that, at the next event, have longer life.

This is especially true if Williams is footing the majority of the cost of premature replacement of life remaining parts.

Also, there is an opportunity at HSI to replace some parts, typically the life limited ones are in the hot section, so the parts don't have to go OH to OH. This would change your calculus to some degree, you can leave parts in the engine if they can go half way to OH.

Mike C.

Can I do that even off Proparts? Won't Textron ship things overnight regardless of a Proparts contract? Won't the cost of the parts and shipping be the same?


You are suggesting Textron won't ship parts easily to those not on Proparts. Is there a systematic policy to do that?


What peace of mind are they not getting if they pay for parts as needed?

It seems you are making two contradictory statements.

People who own jets care more about time than money, so it isn't about the cost.

Proparts let's people who own jets not worry about the money, they can get $45K of stuff without having to pay the money now.

I compared Proparts to the utility payment leveling plans. It lets customers plan their budget better, but in the end, they pay for all the energy they use. Generally speaking, it is the lower income bracket that makes the most use of these plans, however, which doesn't seem to fit with jet ownership. Do jet owners not have $45K ready and handy?

I'm just trying to figure out when Proparts makes sense. Seems like a scheme to get money sitting at Textron rather than in your bank account.

Mike C.