LeSving wrote:
There’s no bullet proof arrangement, but there are things that can be done up front so that things are legally tidy. This is a must when/if change of interests occur. The OP did almost everything wrong IMO also. Not to dismiss that crazy “Tom” character, and the others, but that should be sorted out up front. How was that group organized? Who was the rightful owner of the aircraft and so on?
I guess I could have asked what they generally do if there is an issue, in which case I might have been able to judge better whether it was right for me or not. But personality wise everybody seemed nice to me when I joined. In terms of organization we were all equal members with the group set up as a company and everybody a shareholder in that company. Everybody had an equal vote if any major decisions were made.
New Syndicates may have a modern problem which didn’t exist 30 years ago. Apart from our 2018 new Syndicate having an even 2 v 2 composition from the start, I suspect the 2 younger guys went on an aviation forum, and followed suggestions from assorted people. We let them have all admin positions. But known snags when we bought her were not fixed, and she wasn’t flown.
Peter wrote:
Judging by Peter’s observations, none of them works in the UK,Nonsense; I never wrote that.
In think the point is that when things go wrong, you hear about it.
You never hear about the syndicates that just chug along happily.
GA_Pete wrote:
One way (of a few) that a group can work well, is when 1 member is appointed to be ‘in charge’ who also is happy and capable to undertake all paperwork, organising and accounting.
There’s no need for anyone to be in charge. You just need someone who does the accounts and someone who coordinates engineering / tech matters. A very small amount of decision-making power tends to be delegated to the engineering person, but on trivial things such as when to book the annual, etc. Anything of any significance goes to a group vote – a WhatsApp group makes this very simple.
I just don’t get the concept of someone ‘running’ a syndicate or otherwise being in charge.
AFAICT lots of people go into a syndicate because somebody else will look after the plane, and it is cheaper than renting.
Even for a given-condition plane, a group is cheaper than renting because any surplus (and there must be a surplus, obviously, otherwise the whole thing just sinks deeper and deeper into debt) stays in the bank, whereas if you are renting the owner (a school, generally) has to make a profit for its owner. There are clubs which retain the surplus and they are equivalent to a syndicate in this respect.
I specifically wrote ‘in charge’
Not in charge.
The guy is prior authorised arrange work to be done, sign cheques and generally get on with keeping the aircraft available without calling all 4 of us for approval on every little thing.
Spending 6k on a new prop would have meant a phone call.
It’s called trust.
It worked perfectly for 16 years.
Why do people have to split-hairs on every single word that gets typed.
GA_Pete wrote:
Why do people have to split-hairs on every single word that gets typed
Its called the internet, innit ?
Its called the internet,
Not really; debates here reflect the fact that things are just more complicated in the real world than can be depicted with the mostly banal one-liners which are so overwhelmingly common on social media.
We have lots of threads already about syndicates but how about the “little detail” of whether all shareholders are Directors. It’s a pretty big difference. Shareholders have no personal liability but Directors are jointly and severally liable for the actions of everybody else in the group (in simple terms). Like here. So guess what most members would like to be, and guess why smarter members tend to prefer a Company structure…
The tendency of people to get wrapped up in themselves is one of the reasons why I wouldn’t want to get mixed up with other people in the ownership of little planes. When people who have partial ownership of little planes start calling the group a ‘syndicate’ and themselves ‘directors’ I’d suggest that’s the beginning of the end for rational interaction. This is not Wall St.
BTW, somebody mentioned an airline training captain with an outsized ego. One of those bought my Luscombe a few years ago, a United Airlines guy since retired, telling me in the process that he’d never ‘bent metal’ in decades of flying. He bought it in partnership with another guy and came to collect it. A week later a multi-showing winning restoration was on its back and I understand it’s still in pieces, rebuild work started but never completed. The guy was an idiot in his approach to flying and risk management, I suppose sheltered and promoted within the airline environment. How’d you like to own a plane with that guy? No thanks.
Our syndicate in the Auster (4 of us) worked perfectly well. It just ended up slowly dissolving because members left the island, and I bought out their shares as they went till it was just me left! (Officially, it’s still a group of two with the CAA – my wife and I).
I’ve had the occasional person sort of hint “why don’t you sell shares again” but to be honest now the ownership is 100% ours, I don’t really want to give that up even if it would cut my expenses on the fixed costs; the Auster is very comfortably within my flying budget, and if we’re the sole owners, if (for example) we want an engine monitor we buy it and put it in and there’s no arguing over the cost.
> I came in one day to a post-it note on my cowling. Your engine is dripping too much oil. FIX IT! It was Gypsy Major 8..
“F*** off” is a complete sentence, and if a Dripsy isn’t dripping oil, there ain’t no oil in it! (Incidentally, one of the reasons I have a Lycoming on my plane, the Auster looks fantastic with a Gipsy on it but I’d rather admire them on someone else’s plane thank you very much!)
GA_Pete wrote:
1 member is appointed to be ‘in charge’ who also is happy and capable to undertake all paperwork, organising and accounting.
That is not very fair on such particular member, unless some kind of compensation is agreed, or is it? Any significantly and evidently unfair situation is bound to fail in the long run.
