Fixed vs. Operating Costs

[James Carlson]

Steve Gordon writes:
> First I have a question I would like to pose to the group.  EAA chapter 106
> which is based at LWM has a roster of over 200 members (myself included).
> Some EAA members may be interested in joining a flying club (I spoke with
> one today who is actively looking for a club).  Would anyone have an
> objection to announcing our forming club to the EAA folks?  Perhaps we can
> pick up a few more members.

That sounds like a good idea to me.

> The above paragraph articulates a minor concern of mine.  During today's
> meeting we entertained the idea of lease-back as a means of meeting an
> assumed minimum number of hours required to meet the basic costs to keep the
> aircraft airworthy.  The idea of having to meet a minimum number of hours
> concerns me.  In my humble opinion, if an aircraft needs to meet a minimum
> hour requirement to balance the budget, then something is in the wrong
> column.  The club should be able to keep that aircraft airworthy whether or
> not it leaves the ground.

Agreed; the costs that occur regardless of whether the plane is flying
should be kept separate and not amortized over the flying time.

Eagle's rental price includes both the hourly rates and the amortized
overhead.  I'm interested in the club as a way to break that up
differently, so that I'm sharing overhead and paying directly for
wear-and-tear.  If it were structured more like the rentals I'm
already using, I'd probably be less interested.

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <carlsonj at workingcode.com>