I thought I would post a link to the newly announced TBM 900.

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All- ... M-900.aspx

Some pretty impressive improvements. I just can't believe that people are standing in line for these things at 3.71 million a pop. I would be interested what the current TBM owners on this forum have to say about the improvements. Does anyone know what the useful load is on one of these from the factory? Full fuel useful load? Just curious if they have gotten fat over the years like many other planes.

Jimmy Elza

You can't? really?

What other plane offers this kind of speed and utility? 330 knots on probably less than 50 GPH….. And it's Certified.

The bar has been raised again. The jet manufacturers will now need to get back to work.

For that kind of money I think I would rather be flying a twin jet or a Pilatus. I personally don't understand how anyone buys any new plane because of the serious depreciation issues. That is just me. I would rather use the money toward the Pilatus and watch my asset appreciate or remain flat. Just my 2 cents. I do like the TBM. The winglets look sweet.

Jimmy Elza

A new Pilatus is $4.6MM.

What similar sized twin jet will do what this TBM 900 will do? None that I know of.

Jason,

I guess I shouldn't be comparing a new TBM to a used Pilatus. That is not really a fair comparison. I really would like to know what the useful load is on the new TBM. I think this would allow for better comparisons against the VLJ's. How fat have they gotten with all of the new improvements?

Jimmy Elza

A new Pilatus is $4.6MM.

What similar sized twin jet will do what this TBM 900 will do? None that I know of.

"I personally don't understand how anyone buys any new plane because of the serious depreciation issues. That is just me. I would rather use the money toward the Pilatus and watch my asset appreciate or remain flat."

I guess we could start a lesson on financial and tax management with this quote but suffice it to say that a lot of the US tax laws are written to address the above argument. Also, anyone that uses a piece of equipment to bolster their income knows that having a fully operational/safe asset (such as a car, truck, plane, lift truck, computer, etc) decreases risk of down time and increases the opportunity to make money. Buying something new normally means reducing risk and saving on maintenance costs. That is why we buy new stuff. Also, it helps to keep people employed.

VLJ's were never viable for anything more than a couple folks on board. VLJ sales are based 95% on "sex appeal". There's a reason VLJ's are so cheap on the used market and planes like TBM and PC12 are expensive on the used market.

My airplane is ugly. My friends who know nothing of airplanes call it a "propeller airplane" and assume it cost me $50K to acquire. No respect.

If I had a VLJ that cost a fraction of the price of my PC12 I would get laid a lot more.

If you are using your unpaid tax dollars to fund some growth with the interest free loan, your earnings on that money COULD exceed the cost of depreciation. Very few businesses can pull this off, and buying new is usually a poor financial decision.

Do it because you WANT to. That is the only reason that makes sense over buying a year or two old.

[/quote] I guess we could start a lesson on financial and tax management with this quote but suffice it to say that a lot of the US tax laws are written to address the above argument. Also, anyone that uses a piece of equipment to bolster their income knows that having a fully operational/safe asset (such as a car, truck, plane, lift truck, computer, etc) decreases risk of down time and increases the opportunity to make money. Buying something new normally means reducing risk and saving on maintenance costs. That is why we buy new stuff. Also, it helps to keep people employed.[/quote]

I understand your argument. I don't agree with it. I certainly don't feel like I need lessons from you.

Jimmy Elza

While I tend to agree with you that buying any piece of equipment used probably makes more financial sense in the long run, the most successful businesses are trying to improve profits in the short run. If you don't you may get run over by your competitors. Critical pieces of equipment need to have low risk.

My sense is, if you "got laid a lot more," you'd be walkin' funny.

I buy lots of process equipment for my business and I also buy airplanes.

Equipment purchases are not where I see "waste" in a way that the competition will beat me. "Waste" comes from "loan expenses" and "employees". Reduce or eliminate bank loans and employees and the competition cannot catch up.

I only buy new equipment. New forklifts, new centrifuges, new boilers, new everything. Why? because it's a lot more reliable.

I've only bought used airplanes but used=100-400 hours on the airframe.

Define "profits". I'm assuming you are saying having more cash using a sec 179 will help you be more profitable from an EBITDA standpoint. Net income will obviously be drastically reduced on paper vs a 7-10 yr. depreciation. Will they bring 179 back for 2014?

As for short term management....I'm not a fan.

Aerodynamics allways works.

I am carefully looking at my children trying to decide which one I am going to sell for one of these