3 ms·

Any tech company that thought it a good idea to buy rather than lease a Cessna deserves to be made bankrupt.

krisoft 2y ago
Depends on what were they doing with it? If they were just flying with it from A to B then I tend to agree with you. If they were working on tech actually attached to the airplane (like a fly-by-wire system, sensors attached, or something like that) then I can imagine the point of it. Paperwork around test flights are hard enough without also having to convince the lessor to let you do what the FAA lets yo do.
bombcar 2y ago
That wasn’t a Cessna, but a Piper Warrior, and depending on the age it might not have been terribly much (even new ones can be had for $250k or so).
- bluGill 2y ago
  Even still in most cases leasing is what you want to do. Preferably in terms where they take care of maintenance (if the crankshaft fails inspection it doesn't increase your costs), and if "yours" is down you get a loaner. You probably want shared plane terms, not a plane that is all yours, and they provide trained pilots. There are lots of tax reasons this is better. Buying a plane makes sense when it is your personal plane (and leasing your personal plane to the company is done - though the laws/ethics get weird) and you fly a lot. It also makes sense when you have several (though I don't know where the break even is). It make might sense for bragging rights, but generally your customers won't be as impressed as you think.
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    The particular startup in the article was developing tech to replace regular aircraft engines with those running on Hydrogen. I don't think any lessor would appreciate those extensive modifications on their aircraft.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      That is a good reason to own an airplane (or several) then. I missed that detail.
      - sangnoir 2y ago
        A curious disclaimer on the listing was that they were selling the physical plane with the Hydrogen engine, but not the intellectual property. I suppose the IP was sold separately, and the buyer might need to obtain a license separately before legally operating the aircraft.
ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
Their goal was to convert to a hydrogen fuel source. Moonshot for sure, but hardly deserving to fail, especially since that sort of thing would almost certainly be barred in lease terms
buildsjets 2y ago
What is your opinion about the full sized airliner (Dehavilland Dash-8) that said "tech company" also bought? Are you aware that the tech company in question was Universal Hydrogen, who was modifying aircraft to utilize a hydrogen fuel cell power system? Don't you think it would be reasonable for an aircraft development company to own flight test assets? Besides, the cost of that little puddlejumper is the noise. It's a 1976 Piper Cherokee 235, nearly 50 years old. Fair market value of $150K currently, but they have been appreciating rapidly over the past 5 years or so, and it is likely that they will realize a profit on it's sale. Rather than a loss if they had leased a newer aircraft. But either way, it costs less than hiring a useless new college graduate "full stack" developer.

Depends on what were they doing with it? If they were just flying with it from A to B then I tend to agree with you. If they were working on tech actually attached to the airplane (like a fly-by-wire system, sensors attached, or something like that) then I can imagine the point of it. Paperwork around test flights are hard enough without also having to convince the lessor to let you do what the FAA lets yo do.

bombcar 2y ago

That wasn’t a Cessna, but a Piper Warrior, and depending on the age it might not have been terribly much (even new ones can be had for $250k or so).

bluGill 2y ago
Even still in most cases leasing is what you want to do. Preferably in terms where they take care of maintenance (if the crankshaft fails inspection it doesn't increase your costs), and if "yours" is down you get a loaner. You probably want shared plane terms, not a plane that is all yours, and they provide trained pilots. There are lots of tax reasons this is better. Buying a plane makes sense when it is your personal plane (and leasing your personal plane to the company is done - though the laws/ethics get weird) and you fly a lot. It also makes sense when you have several (though I don't know where the break even is). It make might sense for bragging rights, but generally your customers won't be as impressed as you think.
- sangnoir 2y ago
  The particular startup in the article was developing tech to replace regular aircraft engines with those running on Hydrogen. I don't think any lessor would appreciate those extensive modifications on their aircraft.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    That is a good reason to own an airplane (or several) then. I missed that detail.
    - sangnoir 2y ago
      A curious disclaimer on the listing was that they were selling the physical plane with the Hydrogen engine, but not the intellectual property. I suppose the IP was sold separately, and the buyer might need to obtain a license separately before legally operating the aircraft.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago

Their goal was to convert to a hydrogen fuel source. Moonshot for sure, but hardly deserving to fail, especially since that sort of thing would almost certainly be barred in lease terms

buildsjets 2y ago

What is your opinion about the full sized airliner (Dehavilland Dash-8) that said "tech company" also bought? Are you aware that the tech company in question was Universal Hydrogen, who was modifying aircraft to utilize a hydrogen fuel cell power system? Don't you think it would be reasonable for an aircraft development company to own flight test assets? Besides, the cost of that little puddlejumper is the noise. It's a 1976 Piper Cherokee 235, nearly 50 years old. Fair market value of $150K currently, but they have been appreciating rapidly over the past 5 years or so, and it is likely that they will realize a profit on it's sale. Rather than a loss if they had leased a newer aircraft. But either way, it costs less than hiring a useless new college graduate "full stack" developer.