loco wrote:
Peter, anywhere between 25 and 150 hours, depending on the age of the TBM.
There was until recently a listing for a TBM700 after engine overhaul for EUR 760k. Depreciation on that would be very little. I estimate 25h on it would be breakeven with NetJets. I’d say 150h if buying a new one.
Over one year?
I was calculating per year over 5 years ownership.
Edit: OK, so my calculation is wrong due to fixed costs being more significant when flying only a few hours. It may be difficult to run an old TBM for 25k EUR per year. Here it is anyway.
Peter, anywhere between 25 and 150 hours, depending on the age of the TBM.
There was until recently a listing for a TBM700 after engine overhaul for EUR 760k. Depreciation on that would be very little. I estimate 25h on it would be breakeven with NetJets. I’d say 150h if buying a new one.
This can be possible only because the $550k is a deposit which you get back at the end – is it?
This leads to the Q of what exactly Netjets do with this deposit. In these days of negligible interest rates, it cannot be of any significant value to them. To argue that it is of value to them is to argue that their business is so dodgy that nobody will lend them money, so that argument also fails 
Sorry, I was writing NetJets, but thinking typical charter hire, where there’s no need for capital.
Thanks Loco for that spreadsheet. They are pretty close.
The TBM would not cost 1k/hr, would it? Not as a DOC. But maintenance would take it past that. One TBM shop I was hangared in for 10+ years would have billed perhaps 50k a year even if you never flew it 
But Part 91 ops (which reportedly, allegedly, definite rumour has it, nobody does, because everybody is on a programme, to preserve the resale value) would cost way less.
Peter wrote:
The TBM would not cost 1k/hr, would it?
My experience is that 600 EUR per hour covers everything, but that is at 400h per year. 25h per year is another story and I don’t have experience here, so that sheet was a stretch.
Peter wrote:
But Part 91 ops (which reportedly, allegedly, definite rumour has it, nobody does, because everybody is on a programme, to preserve the resale value) would cost way less.
Turbine aircraft even Pt91 have to be on an inspection programme. You dont have to do overhauls or some other maintenance unless needed to maintain airworthiness. But most jets are on a manifacturer programme. Turboprops are far less commonly on programmes from the engine manufacturer.
JasonC wrote:
Turbine aircraft even Pt91 have to be on an inspection programme.
Is that a FAR requirement, or from somewhere else? 91.403 only seems to require it if the manufacturer or certifying authority also requires it, otherwise it seems you could (in principle) just check it over at the annual.
redRover wrote:
Is that a FAR requirement, or from somewhere else? 91.403 only seems to require it if the manufacturer or certifying authority also requires it, otherwise it seems you could (in principle) just check it over at the annual.
Yes the annual can be the inspection program.
https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/notice/n_8900.410.pdf
Jason,
That’s very interesting, thanks!
