Both the members who took on that role, volunteered.
One was already doing it when I joined, and continued for 10 years.
Coincidentally they both were MD’s in their own very very successful businesses.
I think the general story was that with their experience, doing the books/banking, managing the hours to be paid for, and dealing with insurance/ maintenance was to them, ‘very trivial’ and that they would have the office time to do it, and the time to ‘pop’ to the field whenever that may be required.
Also working fairly locally also helped.
From home, none of us were more than 15 mins away, but for work the rest of us were scattered around.
For me, I definitely would have struggled to keep it all in-check.
Maybe this is all unusual, but worked perfectly even as the membership changed slightly. Coincidentally, here’s another group on the field now that runs exactly the same way.
Everybody has to find their own way.
Owning is spectacularly expensive. I can see myself in a group again some day.
Both groups I’m in have been fine, but I was careful to inspect the membership at least as closely as the aircraft.
Funnily enough I looked at a share in that particular 182 but was told I should look elsewhere due to group dynamics.
I was very relieved to hear that they bought you out @Parthurnax.
I’m in another 182 group nearby, which I think works because we all care about the plane, are decent human beings, and perhaps most importantly, could afford to be in a group or 1, 2 or 3 instead of the actual group of 5/6.
Shares available, but not if you think I’m being an a***hole by mentioning it :-)
alioth wrote:
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!)
I’m still laughing a while after I read it!! Thx!
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.
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!)
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.
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…
GA_Pete wrote:
Why do people have to split-hairs on every single word that gets typed
Its called the internet, innit ?
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.
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.
