JT15D owners have choices.

Williams owners don't.

It is that simple.

Among the choices I have are to fly past TBO, and to choose my engine shop. Essentially every engine shop other than Pratt costs a lot less than Pratt. These choices greatly reduce my engine costs, and it also serves as a competitive pull against Pratt itself.

But of course, you like spending your client's money, so Pratt is where you'd send them. There are other choices.

Mike C.

JT15D owners have choices.

Williams owners don't.

It is that simple.

Among the choices I have are to fly past TBO, and to choose my engine shop. Essentially every engine shop other than Pratt costs a lot less than Pratt. These choices greatly reduce my engine costs, and it also serves as a competitive pull against Pratt itself.

But of course, you like spending your client's money, so Pratt is where you'd send them. There are other choices.

Mike C.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/-yQGfxC1QI0[/youtube]

[youtube]https://youtu.be/4A7BLMA1LIw[/youtube]

I think you kinda missed the point of the argument, the tubes are roughly the same, so my point was that on the newer airplanes like the M2 and CJ3+, Textron has gone to great lengths to soften corners, tuck the tray tables in closer to the sidewall and redesign the drink rails to make the cabin roomier. Is it even an inch wider? I don't know, I actually measured a CJ3+ and was going to measure the V we had in prebuy at a gold plated shop, but when I went out Thursday they still didn't have the interior back in, I was with the airplane yesterday, but was so focused on getting it ready for the test flight and delivery that I didn't think to measure it.

Mike C's argument was there is no physical difference and this is roomier feel I spoke of is just an optical illusion based on colors. He's flat wrong, as he often is these days, he has fallen in to the trap he use to warn others about which is arguing about that which you have no direct experience. I've pointed out that Mike hasn't actually seen a Mustang, M2 or CJ3+, but continues to criticize them. Mike also refuses to ever admit when he is wrong, which bugs me... but it is what it is.

So, yes it is an argument about the interior, not types, and no you can't do the new style interior in legacy Citations, at least not yet.

So, the new airplanes have a roomier interior than the old ones. See photos I posted earlier for all the proof one needs... or just go sit in a new one, they're everywhere.

Those are good looking seats.

Chip-

You can do a lot of things to make legacy Citation seats look great.

Mike

Mike, you keep showing up to a battle of experience unarmed.

Which at this point is just becoming sad, you keep taking potshots at me and I keep asking for specifics. Dodge and defer seems to be your new game.

It has become apparent that your main goal is to pivot away from the interior debate because you know you are wrong and won't admit it.

As far as your shot about me "spending my clients money" you know dang good and well that I don't "send my customers to Pratt" and if you had half the knowledge or experience that you pretend to have on this forum you would know that Pratt produces the parts so they set the trend for what we can expect ALL engine shops to charge for overhauls.

Unlike you, I have experience with all levels of engine shops and actually know the pros and cons of each... all you know is that cheaper is better (in your decision making paradigm). You're not picking at me because you think that I actually waste my clients money, because you're not stupid, you know that I do not manage airplanes... I have an acquisition firm. You are picking at me about spending money because "low cost" is all you have.

Do my clients ask me for advice on things like engine overhauls, sure they do, but do I send them to Pratt. No. They're grown ups, many of them with a lot more experience operating turbine equipment than you... they gather information and make decisions, take action and spend THEIR money accordingly.

BTW, I don't recall any of my clients going to Pratt for overhauls.

We got the emails with the increase across the board. It’s not $500/hr per plane. It’s $408.04/hrs per plane, and represents about a 17% increase from 2023 numbers.

I’ll agree not really happy about it, but also not as bad as being reported here. And still far and away better than anything MSP or JSSI is putting out there.

Like most things in life - there is a choice. For our folks, we chose the program. They have their reasons, just as those who choose older airplanes with no programs have theirs. Both sides of this stupid argument have valid reasons for their positions. To try and convince either party the other is wrong is a fools game.

If I remember right, Chip - you stated this thread to showcase the costs associated between t-props and legacy jets. I love analytical stuff, and we’ve got some really amazing minds on this forum. Maybe, JUST maybe, we could get back to topic that started this whole thread? The “man measuring” is exhausting and ruining what should be a really informative thread.

Ok, I’m off my box. I’ll propose a comparison to get this going :

Buyer has $1.5-1.7m to spend. Needs to move 4 people (let’s assume 200 lbs each) to various cities several times per week - let’s say every Tuesday and Thursday. Longest leg is Atlanta - Houston / Atlanta - Boston and will be done 1 time per month. The other flights will all be between 200-400 miles. They are risk adverse, but financially very sound and can absorb the “cost of doing business”. They would prefer these trips to be day trips to maximize their time. Otherwise they would just keep doing these trips via airlines over 3 days.

Tell me which airplane is the best for this mission. Show your work to include the cost of capital, ALL Maintenace reserves (you must account for engines…) and fuel at $5/gallon - because that’s what it is here in Atlanta.

How is it you are doing so much better than the CJP posters?

CJ4 owner reported $492/hr.

CJ2 owner reported $466/hr.

What makes you special?

Mike C.

Daniel’s pretty smart, he manages quite a few planes, I’d listen and learn

They would be doing all of us, themselves included, if they would just block each other. Both are of great value to the community, but they mix like oil and water.

Daniel, love this, because well this almost exactly what I'd like to find out the brain trust here have to say about this scenario.

Yay! Back to a fun exercise. What is the annual budget? You can buy lots of old wide body jets for $1.5 to $1.7M. Or, why don't we take the ambiguity out of it and call it 200 (out and back twice per week, 50 weeks per year) 300NM trips and 24 (out and back once per month) 750NM trips, and we post our annual costs for our respective planes, not including capital costs or property taxes (as some don't have that cost), just has to be in the $1.5-1.7M purchase price range. I'll start it off at the bottom of the spectrum with a lowly Meridian. It'll do it, likely with a fuel stop, on at least half of the 750NM trips. My annual cost for such a mission (including insurance, pilot training, maintenance, engine reserves, subscriptions and hangar, but not including capital or property taxes) would be about 375 hours of flight time and about $175,000 to $195,000 depending on maintenance squawks.

Insurance - $15,000
Hangar - $10,000
Training - $3,000
Subscriptions - $2,000
Fuel - $75,000
Engine Reserves - $40,000
Maintenance - $30,000-$50,000

Who's next?

Shall we put an age cap on the airframe? When I was buying 20 years old was the oldest I was willing to consider.