You need $100M to have a jet?

Glad I didn't know that.

Mike C.

If you read it carefully, you need to be >$30M and <$100M.

I suspect that the extra money for down payments was a factor for many people. Interest rates are also negative which means borrowing costs little to nothing right now. And loan payoffs to banks are unprecedented and banks are awash in cash. That doesn't necessarily mean credit is looser but lenders are anxious to make loans to borrowers with good credit and demonstrated capability to pay back.

I tried to eliminate airline travel when I had a piston airplane and you can just about do it going anywhere but it takes a lot of planning, effort, time and fatigue. In short, it's not easy. People buying jets and turbo props (especially that aren't pilots) are looking for easy and more time. I had lunch with someone yesterday that owns a Falcon 50. That's what he's buying. Me too.

I personally like "aircraft curator". That sounds high class, no?

I don't really "own" an airplane, I "curate" it. I tend to do what it wants, not the other way around, thus it is an obligation, a demanding one at times.

Mike C.

There is a stupid amount of money sloshing around, and as always, Florida is a good place to watch the waves. People of modest means are stroking checks for near million dollar homes around here like they're going out of style. Maybe the buyers aren't rich, but the sellers are sure getting that way.

The above chart assumes no "business" use of the airplane, facilitating expense write off and my own personal gut feeling...IE no way I'd get involved with any kind of turbine unless I had 10 millie in the bank, because I have no business use for it, but hey that's just me.

OTOH, I have watched jets roll in with nothing but the dogs. That's PBI for you. There are people here who have zero concept of money, simply because they have so much of it. Good on them.

The other thread about "building a business just to sell" is a great example of that.

Best,
Rich

There is a stupid amount of money sloshing around, and as always, Florida is a good place to watch the waves. People of modest means are stroking checks for near million dollar homes around here like they're going out of style. Maybe the buyers aren't rich, but the sellers are sure getting that way.

The above chart assumes no "business" use of the airplane, facilitating expense write off and my own personal gut feeling...IE no way I'd get involved with any kind of turbine unless I had 10 millie in the bank, because I have no business use for it, but hey that's just me.

OTOH, I have watched jets roll in with nothing but the dogs. That's PBI for you. There are people here who have zero concept of money, simply because they have so much of it. Good on them.

The other thread about "building a business just to sell" is a great example of that.

Best,
Rich

Take your political comments elsewhere.

Take your political comments elsewhere.

Let's be honest, most people what can afford a jet who aren't pilots and don't own an aircraft don't want the hassle or expense (perceived or otherwise) of owning and operating jet. That's why NetJets, XO Jet, etc exist. P

The last year for which data is publicly available (2016), there were 18,995 households in the US with net Assets of greater than $50mm. I would bet that the percentage of those households with access to and significant use of private aviation, either through direct ownership, use of company aviation assets, or jet cards is upwards of 75%. I'd also argue that most of those people aren't just "lucky sperm," but they acquired their wealth through building a business - meaning they're not in the business of being stupid about spending, particularly on things they don't understand.

My guess is that a good fraction of those made their money the old fashion way...they inherited it. Which is totally cool, but I think ascribing 100% to hard work is a bit generous. Some faction of that probably took their head start and make things even better for themselves.

My guess is that a good fraction of those made their money the old fashion way...they inherited it. Which is totally cool, but I think ascribing 100% to hard work is a bit generous. Some faction of that probably took their head start and make things even better for themselves.

The fractionals have been popular for a long time, and they continue to grow, but I’ve compared fractionals to typical owner/operator stats, and the fractionals are about 10X more expensive. Granted, they have a different operating model (Part 121, crews, dispatchers, salespeople, etc.). However, many users that fly significant fractional hours are starting to discover the cost of owning with a hired pilot/manager is more economical. That puts more people in the market to buy a jet. The shortage continues.

None of the top 10 richest persons inherited their money. They are predominately high tech founders who started with almost nothing.

Most wealth is created, not inherited.

Most wealth is equity, on paper, value derived entirely from the perception of value. This is why the net worth of these individuals bounces around all the time, the stock prices are changing.

The general public think it is piles of cash, not so.

Tax the holdings of billionaires will backfire. This will require them to sell stocks to the general public to raise the cash to pay the tax bill. The fact the main guy is selling his stock will lower the perception of value of the stock. Say Elon Musk dumps a chunk of SpaceX or Tesla. The general public who hold that stock will see a value lost. Also, the revenue generated is cash removed from the economy and handed to the government, which will slow down the economy. Somebody has to actually spend their cash to buy the billionaires stock so he can send that to the government. In effect it is a tax on the general population when all of the effects are accounted for.

If Elon Musk "goes to cash", sells his entire equity position, the stock price will go to near zero. There's not enough cash out there to absorb that kind of purchase size.

Billionaires actually don't have a billion dollars. They have pieces of "paper", stocks, which we, the general public, set the value of.

Mike C.

None of the top 10 richest persons inherited their money. They are predominately high tech founders who started with almost nothing.

Most wealth is created, not inherited.

Most wealth is equity, on paper, value derived entirely from the perception of value. This is why the net worth of these individuals bounces around all the time, the stock prices are changing.

The general public think it is piles of cash, not so.

Tax the holdings of billionaires will backfire. This will require them to sell stocks to the general public to raise the cash to pay the tax bill. The fact the main guy is selling his stock will lower the perception of value of the stock. Say Elon Musk dumps a chunk of SpaceX or Tesla. The general public who hold that stock will see a value lost. Also, the revenue generated is cash removed from the economy and handed to the government, which will slow down the economy. Somebody has to actually spend their cash to buy the billionaires stock so he can send that to the government. In effect it is a tax on the general population when all of the effects are accounted for.

If Elon Musk "goes to cash", sells his entire equity position, the stock price will go to near zero. There's not enough cash out there to absorb that kind of purchase size.

Billionaires actually don't have a billion dollars. They have pieces of "paper", stocks, which we, the general public, set the value of.

Mike C.