dutch_flyer wrote:
to transfer some percentage to the new owner.
What you would want to write into the agreement, is that each shareholder cannot split their 50% share into smaller shares, otherwise you could finish up with 5 co-owners all holding 10% (or worse).
GRIFF wrote:
What you would want to write into the agreement, is that each shareholder cannot split their 50% share into smaller shares, otherwise you could finish up with 5 co-owners all holding 10% (or worse).
This is an excellent point!
The UK CAA provides a form for up to 20 part-owners. There is no charge for changing names but there is a charge for changing the names listed on the CAA site, the “Trustee of the XYZ Flying Group.”
Keep rules simple. It is unlikely many aircraft values are worth the cost of a civil action.
My second Group of 4 was a disaster. I bought 2 out and am now 5/6 owner after paying upgrades.
My first Group of 6 had no serious problems over 30 years, until deaths and illness made selling the plane the only solution.
An article said the important thing was for members to be “nice people” I strongly disagree – vigorous but sensible argument is needed. But they all must want cheaper flying. If they don’t actually fly much, that’s fine, as long as some fly a lot.
Hourly charge MUST make a good profit, above engine fund. It’s easy to not increase the charge, as costs rise, because the kitty is already big enough.
And you pay the deductible for your accident, unless the group agree
Maoraigh wrote:
But they all must want cheaper flying.
Can you explain this further?
I suggest a search on
syndicate*
and all will be revealed 
Basically, in most cases, people who buy shares are buying shares because that is all the money they have. Most people buying a whole plane tend to be sort of aware that they need a bit spare, but from what I have seen, most syndicate members are regarding it as a thing where they pay €X, plus €Y/hr, a plane is provided for their use, “somebody” looks after it, and if a big bill arrives they are surprised and kick up a big fuss
It is also not that unusual for maintenance companies to be well aware that syndicates have difficulties agreeing on whether the sun rises in the morning, and they use it to extract excessive amounts.
The above are just illustrations of what to watch out for You can find working syndicates.
Peter wrote:
Basically, in most cases, people who buy shares are buying shares because that is all the money they have. Most people buying a whole plane tend to be sort of aware that they need a bit spare, but from what I have seen, most syndicate members are regarding it as a thing where they pay €X, plus €Y/hr, a plane is provided for their use, “somebody” looks after it, and if a big bill arrives they are surprised and kick up a big fuss
I offered a deal that was exactly this, €X per month and €Y per hour instead of co-ownership, specifically stating that this option was for the budget-conscious person who just wants more availability. In exchange I get the airplane flying more and half the fixed costs paid. He wants the ownership experience, and I’m doing everything I can to make sure the costs of said experience are understood. It’s also why I want a partnership, two people only, and not a multi-owner syndicate.
Not sure if the point has been raised already, but what about potential liability issues? I.e. if sh*t hits the fan and a partner a) gets bankrupt or b) crashes the plane and huge liabilities (beyond insured levels) pop up? AFAIK, at least based on German or Swiss law, in such a case all partners are liable equally, also for issues caused by another partner. Hence, in case a) there is the risk that the plane gets possessed / confiscated or in b) if there is a damage beyond insured levels other partners face the risk of a joint liability. Admittedly, the risk probability of these scenarios are rather low, but who knows…
If I would consider forming a partnership, I would always do that with a safeguarding legal structure. Depending on the regional laws, that doesn’t need to be an operating company, but could also be a club / association (the latter is a usual structure I see a lot here in Switzerland).
The liability risk depends on the wealth of the partners. It’s only financially viable to sue the very wealthy, rather than the comfortably well off.
This came up with a Group where the retired founder of a large industrial business wanted to join, for ease of use, not money saving.
His lawyers found a solution, but I don’t know the details.
