Charter flight prices

When I get all my ducks in a row and the FAA signs off, I'm looking at charging about $620 per hour. That's for a very nice 7 place (6 pax) Piper Navajo. From what I remember, the small turboprops start around $800-1000/hr.

It seems, depending on geography and aircraft type, that most operations start in the $500/hr range and go up. There's a jet charter operating a Lear out of the hangar I'm in that charges $2800 an hour. Their profit margin is pretty tiny, but the jet is owned by a very wealthy businessman who is just looking to offset a bit of cost.

 

Depends of the aircraft.

Look for a PC12. There are several charter services using them.

 

Free magazine available at many FBOs. Many charter operators advertise in it, plus you can compare rates. Use PC-12 rates as a benchmark.

Off topic, but have you considered lowering your MGB with the Moss springs? They cure the high ride height common to rubber-bumper Bs.

KevFla

 

A PC-12 or a King Air 200 would be the way to go.

Remember, if you are staying for a week, you are probably looking at two round trips, unless you find an operator who is desperate.

Air Charter Guide is good, if you can find a copy.

 

Also, be careful about going with the cheapest guy. There are some real bottom feeders out there in the charter business, and your priorities should be safety, reliability, then cost.

I don't know if you'll find it, but if you ask about a wyvern-qualified crew and aircraft, you'll at least let the operator know that you have some understanding of the business. Wyvern is a consulting company which sets standards and does safety audits of charter operators.

Often, operators will claim to be "wyvern qualified" because they have a few aircraft/crew combinations which do meet the wyvern standard, but the aircraft and crew you get may or may not meet that standard. Something to keep in mind.

 

Yournext step ups a medium sized jet. Lots of money. You have too many for a small jet. Pc12 is large.

 

the charter is going to hurt... it's about 750nm one way... or about 3 hrs flight time each way in a turbo prop... or 12 hours of flight time... this distance is really better suited to a jet ( more economical and less time in the air for the passengers )

an operater will not want to leave the plane on the ground for a week,

this is where an operator like Net Jets or Marquis Jets starts to make sense ( and cents )
they have planes criss crossing the country, they may have a plane that can take your trip, after dropping someone off, then picking up a trip after dropping you off... very little dead heading and down time which goes to more economical rates

they prefer to keep the aircarft in the air 24 / 7 ( generating revenue )

 

+1

It's 4 trips. Not 2. And maybe you'll go up on 1 plane and come back on another.

If you don't charter a lot or own your own plane, this stuff gets to be more trouble than it's worth. You're going to pay a fortune and you'll be stressed out.

 

it looks like your plan is coming together and the " air stair " started to make more sense and cents... Baron is a nice plane, the revenue will better, as will the versatily with the Navajo... your rate looks like it is a little light, not much room to build reserves...

 

A Lear 31 or 35 would do that trip very nicely, and everyone would fit just fine.

 

Well, I'm flexible on the rate...I do have a line on a fuel tank, though

I agree, after much back and forth, that the Navajo is the way to go.

 

I have a friend who is dry leasing his PC12 for 800 and hour. And we are flying up to Oshkosh on a friends Chyenne IIIA, and I think the fuel bill is about 2600 for the round trip from CAE.

 

4 adults, 2 kids and week of bags... 750NM. No way

"fit" isn't the problem.

 

Sorry, that's simply not the case. A 25, 31, or 35 would all do this handily. The biggest issue would be baggage space, but even that's manageable.

You wouldn't believe the amount of stuff I've managed to cram into a 35 baggage!

You must be thinking of a 24-- that would be a bit tight.

 

Are you adding in the amount of gas needed for a Lear to go 750NM?

 

In a 35, I could almost make it round trip without buying any!

And useful load is not an issue at all. Most 35s can carry around 1800 pounds with full fuel.

Were you thinking about runway performance, or something? Jackson MS has 8,500 feet of runway. At 100F, I could still take off at 18,300 pounds with 7,370 feet of runway required.

Most 35s weigh around 10,000 pounds, but let's assume a heavy one, so 10,500. Full fuel is 6,175 pounds, so that leaves us at 16,675 pounds, leaving 1,625 pounds for payload. 4 adults (200 pounds each), 2 young children (50 pounds each), is only 900 pounds, leaving about 700 pounds for baggage. I doubt if 700 pounds of baggage would fit, however, unless they are bringing their stash of gold with them.

Of course, the fuel burn over that leg is only going to be around 2,400 pounds, so there would be no need to depart full, unless fuel was especially cheap on the other end. At 100F, personally, I would not depart full of fuel, because I would prefer to have a little bit more margin, but if I had to I could.

 

I stand corrected.

Then why are they so cheap? Sounds like the ultimate airplane.

 

They are wonderful airplanes. Personally, I think they are bargains, and that's why you see so many of them in roles where they make money for their owners-- freighters, air ambulance, aerial survey, charter, etc.

The big downside to them is that they are getting old, and the maintenance can get expensive. My experience with them, which has been over a long time, is that they are generally pretty reliable, but things can get expensive very fast.

The other big downside, in my opinion, is that the avionics are getting old, and I haven't seen a good upgrade path. The issue is that the Garmin stuff which is going in all the turboprops isn't certified for transport category aircraft. Yes, some 430s and 530s were put in Lears, but apparently that's not allowed any more.

The real bargain of the bunch is the 31A. They are much newer, have better avionics, are slightly more efficient (because they are lighter), and have the same cabin. A friend of mine bought several of them for under $1 million each, and that's a steal.

The only downside to the 31A is that it carries less fuel, and hence has less range, than the 35. Most of them carry 4,200 pounds, so it would easily do the OPs trip, but anything longer could be an issue if the winds are bad.

 

In that case, are there any on 135 charter?

If so, are they common on 135 Charter? Could the OP find one if he wanted too?

 

There are tons of them.

For that matter, maybe Chupacabra's Lear neighbor could do it. If it's two round trips, it really doesn't matter which end the airplane comes from. At least get him to quote it.

 

I learn something new every day.

Too bad there are no upgrade options for these planes. I'd buy one. Of course, if there were upgrade options, they would be listed so cheap..

I always though Lears just had bad fuel burn compared to newer jets.

 

That is true of the 20-series Learjets (the 23/24/25) but not the 30 series. There was a huge improvement in engine technology from the old straight turbojets to the high bypass fans, but improvements have not come so fast since.

It used to be that a 25 was $500k and a 35 was $1.5M and you could argue that the fuel difference was made up by the initial cost. However, now that a 25 is $250k and a 35 is $600k (and fuel is $5/gallon), that argument doesn't work and the result is that the 20 series airplanes are just being scrapped.

I think there will end up being a viable avionics upgrade path for the 30 series airplanes, because there are just too many of them (700+ 35/36s and 250 31s), and the airplane is too cost effective to be scrapped.

 

PM sent!