Nah - I don't think it is that bad. I dug up some numbers I used to compare with clients who were interested in this specific scenario - Baron v. King Air. These are numbers, some of which I got from C&D, some from personal experience, and some I got from other users. These numbers are from March 2008, so take them with a grain of salt. I don't think that the economy has changed in favor of one or the other though, so it is just a simple adjust for today's numbers, and the results should be close to the same.

Anyhoo . . . FWIW here ya go.

Also, I am not looking to get in a flame fest with anyone; we can all find different numbers. If you don't like these, then



EDIT: TOOK ERRONEOUS FILE OUT, SEE NEW DOWNLOAD BELOW.

Holy cow, $274/hr on maintenance to run a Baron . Is that based on experience of running a Baron in a corporate environment ?

Interesting that the annual budget number for all of the King Airs (except the E90) runs in the same 100k bracket.

That number came from C&D IIRC (again, back in March 2008). The DOC is $477/hr, which I think most Baron operators would agree with if they are truly reserving as opposed to just paying as they go. Also, particularly with the Barons, it's kinda misleading as there are so many PMA parts out there which are cheaper than the factory parts. The last time I operated a Baron . . . well, it was just a long time ago, and things have changed.

Also, you caused me to remember that what I have on my laptop over here in the sandbox is a draft version of the final that is on my computer at home in the States. I did catch an error in the E90, F90, and F90-1 - so thank you for that. I have revised, and I hope the mistakes are gone - it's been 2 years since I last looked at this.

Also for note, the ultimate way to compare aircraft that are radically different is in the cost/mi. basis. While the King Airs do cost more, it isn't the 4 to 5 times amount, or even 100 times amount that have been put out there. The Baron to C90GT isn't more than a 50% increase in operating costs. Also of note, this chart doesn't factor in debt service.

At the end of the day absolute number of $$ leaving corporate checking account/year is the one that counts.



Which unless one owns every bolt, screw and patch of concrete in the company has to be factored in. Price differential is what, about 1.5mil between a G58 and a C90GT ? That would add another 120k/year on the side of the KA.

Florian,

As to the debt service, that is such an individualized line item that it just doesn't make sense to include it into a generalized spread sheet comparison. There are so many different ways to finance an aircraft (terms, down, etc.) that the matrix created would be huge. I am not saying at all that it shouldn't be factored; quite the contrary, it should. However, financing comes down to companies and individuals and isn't necessarily part of the aircraft comparison. You may get x financing, and I may get y financing, or we may both get z financing, but the plane still costs the same to run regardless of the financing. That is why I don't include it in a comparison.

Hope that helps!

It's allways entertaining to play the 'fun with numbers' game. But for some reason, everytime I see one of those spreadsheets comparing twin and turbine or business aircraft and commercial airline travel, some numbers are omitted on one side and artificially inflated on the other (a popular version loads up a light bizjet including the potty and compares the expense with the same number of walk-up cash price 1st class tickets ).

Individuals using after tax money to own/operate a personal aircraft tend to be more concerned with capital costs (although a lot of this class of operator runs it under a business structure). Companies are more sensitive (relatively) to operating costs, and often aren't that concerned with debt service and capital requirements.

I'm not a finance guy, but all I'm saying is that I think the cost/benefit equation has a lot of variables and that's why there's a buyer for most of the aircraft out there - from factory new to a cessna 401 to fill in the blank. Beech is selling brand new Barons and King Airs...some of us scoff at that idea, saying that you could spend one tenth and upgrade the panel very nicely and then there you go - "what kind of idiot buys one of these new." But for some people/companies it makes more sense to go new. Or for that matter go with a used King Air over a used Pilatus (despite a random spreadsheet telling you otherwise). Situations vary wildly.

Chris, keep the comments coming in BT...you're one of the guys i'm learning a lot from and I appreciate your posts. There's about 6 guys on here who generously share their vast experience and it's really helpful.

Tyler,

Thanks for the compliment; and I am happy to oblige. Of course, you can always email me if you have any questions - I seem to come and go on the board depending on what my flight schedules/life is like.

As for what you posted, I would tend to agree with you. You can get these numbers to say anything you want them to say. The bottom line is that what works financially for a person and fits with their wants and needs aesthetically and practically in the candidate aircraft is generally what that person will go with in the end.

We all have our biases - mine happens to be Beechcraft; doesn't make me right or wrong - it is just who I am based upon my significant amount of experience with those aircraft in my career.

Take care buddy!

Lots of truth to that.

And yes, your comments are very much appreciated.

Thanks Florian.

Thanks for all the info Chris.

Guys, I was exaggerating with the 100X. I should've used a smiley.

As you found out, they all basically cost the same . So, go ahead, plug some numbers into a spreadsheet and convince yourself that it is a KA300 you need . Make sure to get a nice custom paint job.

You're welcome for the info Jason - and I knew that you were exaggerating...no worries. My point was that King Airs aren't as bad as what you think compared to a Baron. Compared to a PC12, it is even closer. And, if you factor in debt service, the King Air may actually beat the PC12 depending on the vintage of each bird being compared.

But again, it all comes down to the financial, aesthetical, and practical demands, needs, and wants of the prospective buyer. The PC12 is a good bird. If I had the money to buy any of them of my choice, I would pick the Beechcraft product over the Pilatus product . . . that's just me though.

Have a great day!

Tyler,

As an owner who uses his aircraft exclusively for personal enjoyment I agree with the first part of your post...Owner/Operator vs. Company Operated.

It is the second part of post to which I would like to add something. "The kind of idiot who buys new" is sometimes the person who wants to know for sure that the plane he/she is putting their family in has not been abused/neglected etc.... I am not saying that used aircraft are unsafe, they are not, provided you know what you are doing. I am just saying that for some of us "idiots" new takes away a lot of the guess work and uncertainties.

This was my prinicpal rational for ordering a new aircraft. As I learn more I would not be surprised to find that my comfort level with purchasing a used aircraft is O.K.

Chris

That's why I bought NEW!