Do any of you have partners in your flying toys?

I am looking for input from anyone as to how many partners work and play well together.

What is the best way to own the plane (LLC, partnership, C-corp)?

What would you NOT do again?

Any info would be great. We are going to sell our PA-18 amphib. and got to thinking that maybe selling part ownership(s) would be a better way to go. That way we could keep her around and still have a little fun.

At this point we don't know if there is even a market for a part time play toy like this.

Personally, I would rather have a lesser plane and own the whole thing,, rather than a partner. G

I Agree. Having had partners on an RV (motorhome) and a boat previously, I'd rather have a ragged out bird that I can partially maintain myself (with my friendly IA's help) than a nicer bird in partnership.

I'm simply too old and selfish!

Dave C

As I have posted in the short past, I have been in a partnership for the last seven years in a 182B. For the most part it has been good. In hind sight I would have done things a bit different but not a whole lot different. If party "1" flies 100 hrs per year and party "2" flies 50 hrs then at engine overhaul time who pays the most for the overhaul. Etc, etc, etc.

In the AOPA web sight there is a sample partnership agreement that you should look at. It covers just about everything.

If you have been the owner of the PA18 for a while and you bring sombody in, you will always think of the plane as yours. Your partner will do a few little things that after seven years will accumulate and you will want out just like I do now.

The best way to do a partnership imho is to put a bunch of cash in a joint bank account, use the sample AOPA deal, then go together and buy a plane.

Anybody out there doing a LLC. I heard the insurance companies do not like them.

For the record, I would rather have a full 150 hp Stinson than a half of a 182B and that may be what it comes to. That will probably keep me out of the mountains.

Tim

Do a google search for airplane partnership. Lots of stuff


Tim

Thank's Tim

Looked at AOPA for ideas and they had a few samples. I will do the Google thing to see what's out there.

Right now I am just putting the big toe in the water to check out the options before jumping in.

Most people can't even stay married, I assume most partnerships are a good way to become enemies with what used to be a friend. I have no experience with one though.

I have been in partners a few times and offer this.

Many will talk and say there interested until you want the cash.

Have your potential partners look over the plane like they are doing a pre-buy and write down all the squawks they find. I remember on guy looked it over for 5 min and said gee it looks great, I taxied past him.


That right there will save you a ton of headaches and you will quickly learn a lot about your potential partner, friend or not.

It always comes down to money, the most successful one I ever had was done that way. Everyone looked it over agreed on the acceptability of its condition and I kept it in that condition. I set it up so much a month and so much per hour.

There we no hard feelings and the one that played the most paid the most.

The other two were not good, but done right they can be a great experience for all parties

PM me if you need any more details

I had a partner in a Pacer. He is a attorney and did all the legal things,
Corporation, etc. Then we went through the agreement, I think it came from AOPA, and talked about every issue we could think of. It worked out well.
When he chose to get a Aztec we had all the decisions already made.
I would do it again with the right partner and I think the additional hours on the airplane kept it in better condition.

I'm the type that could NOT have a partner. Guess I'm just too anal. Several peopla have asked if they could parnet with me but I see too many pitfalls and when I want to go flying I don't want to have to worry about scheduling, repairs, why isn't it clean.....
Sure I could afford a much better plane with a partner, but I am happy flying around in my 172 ot the Champ. I would love to have a 180/185 but everytime I crunch the numbers it just doesn't add up. I've owned the 172 for nearly 20 years and as far as planes go, it is realitively inexpensive to own and fly. Its the one I'd not worry about to just jump in and fly anyplace in the country. If I had a partner I wouldn't feel that way, but then that is probably just me.
I'm interested in your PA-18 if you are selling it. Got a 172 towards trade.

I have had the opportunity to have partners. Just won't do it. I've owned three planes, sole owner, and I just don't believe it would work out. I'm in tune with mechanical sound airplane, good avionics and don't really worry about paint or cosmetics.

Then some guys go oh ah about paint and interior, but mechanically it's a turd.

Right now I'm looking to get out of the 182 and to a 140, PA12, or something like that. Just because the the price of gas! Then I don't fill four seats anymore.

See ya, Bub

I have two partners. It's worked out quite well for me as the partners rarely fly on weekends and we all seem to be pretty ameniable towards each other. We used the AOPA agreement, pretty much, word for word. It really depends on the partners. We all agree that anything that affects safety is of utmost importance. The division of expenses and labor is nice and it doesn't sit idle too much, although lately, I'm the only one flying it.
One takes care of the finances, one the maintenance, and I implemented a scheduling program and wash the airplane now and then. Outline your goals and look for people with compatible ones. It is kinda like a marriage and there does have to be some give and take.

We do have our differences on what we want do do with the airplane. For them, it's primarily a trainer and local "fly the patch" machine. If it was only mine, I'd dump the extra weight from equipment I don't want or use. I agree with Skylane that looks are less important than safety and functionality for what I want.

We all plan to sell the airplane in about a year. I'm not sure what I'll do after that as it would be hard to justify the fixed costs on my own. Currently, on the top of my list, would be to get a Tri-Pacer or C172 with plans to improve backcountry handling capabilities. May be looking for another partner in the vancouver area with similar goals. ahem...

I think all fixed costs should be split equally (insurance, hanger, annual) and all operational costs (oil changes, engine reserve, wear and tear) should be done on an hourly basis.

Personally, I think an LLC would be better than a straight partnership for the extra liability protection when another partner is flying, but I have no experience with one and information is more difficult to come by.
Not sure why an insurance company would care so long as the people authorized to fly the aircraft are listed on the policy.

I'm firmly in the camp of own less plane and own it all myself.

I do know one person who is in a partnership which works well for him. He and another man bought a unloveable airplane (Piper 140), and they put it on the flight school flight line. They agreed on a cost per hour, and when either of them fly it that money is put into a airplane account, as is the rental fees from the school.

The flight school mechanic pretty much calls the shots on what maintenance will be preformed and when. It costs more to maintain the airplane this way, but the maintenance is always up to date and neither of the partners have to worry about it. Once a year they decided if they want to take money out of the plane account and pay themselves, or if they want to upgrade some aspect of the plane.

What makes this partnership work is that there is no love for this plane...it's just a machine that anyone is welcome to use and abuse, so long as they pay the rental fee.

At the end of the year each partner gets some price discounted flying hours, a tax write-off, and maybe a few dollars profit.

Hammer wrote:I'm firmly in the camp of own less plane and own it all myself.

Me too...

Being an old, fussy curmudgeon, I like coming home to a clean, squared away house, and going out to a clean, squared away airplane. Drives me nuts when equipment isn't operated or cared for the way I want it to be. When I flew for a living, I hated taking days off, knowing that my replacement pilots would leave me a trashed pilot house and airplane, or even worse, a broken airplane. Unbelievable the stupid stuff I would find.

Maybe the turbine and jet guys find their airplanes to be good business investments, and buy them strictly for the purpose of making a profit, but at my end of the financial scale, down with the welfare cases and bottom feeders, there's no money to be made. No, I'll get what I think will keep me just above dog food eating broke, and go it on my own. A couple bucks profit isn't worth the frustration or the paperwork.

Gump

In response to the original post, consider maintaining ownership but adding someone to your insurance and draw up a contract for division of operating costs. If you and a person are working well together you could always make them a full partner if you needed help with the equity cost as well.
Regarding partnerships in general, the contract and how costs, equity and scheduling are handled are the foundation for success.
What a contract may have difficulty with is determination of fault if something breaks. A local partnership that works very well had two prop strike incidents in less than a year. One a brake line failure with the plane hitting a rock off the side of the runway and the other running over a piece of FOD on a taxiway. On both,the group voted that it was not the individual pilots fault and evenly split the cost of two new props and one engine teardown.