Airline Pilot Forums

My boss asked me to look into starting a 135 operation based off a Meridian. He planned on starting one a year from now with a King Air, but after he found out the low fuel burn of the Meridian and that he could use it for 135 (He thought you needed a twin for 135 IFR operations) he decided to start the charter service early with a smaller plane. He is really focusing on a Meridian, but I want to look at the other options.

The max trip length will probably be in the 500 mile range, but most will probably be 200-300 with some trips to Canada. Our budget is between 1 and 2 million with favor to the lower end. Besides charter, the plane would be primarily used as a personal aircraft for short trips for the boss (he owns a medium size business jet and does not want to use it for short trips). An important consideration is going to be insurance as the charter pilot will have low time (1200-1500).

I would prefer getting a TBM700, but I don’t know how either the Meridian or TBM are to live with. Pros and cons for the Meridian and TBM are welcome as well as any other airframe.

Thanks!

How is the charter pilot going to have less than 1200 Total Time, unless you are doing VFR 135 ops?

How is the charter pilot going to have less than 1200 Total Time, unless you are doing VFR 135 ops?

Good point. I was trying to be generic but I overlooked that important FAR. The pilot has 1200 hours now and depending on when the 135 starts, he may have 1500.

Not sure if you know this already, but if he is looking to start a year from now, you probably need to start the paperwork IMMEDIATELY. My understanding is that it takes 1-2 years to finally get your certificate. There are things like finding a chief pilot, director of operations and director of maintenance. I had a friend who was looking into starting a 135 operation off a Caravan and reading through 135 and 119 shows how much has to go into it.

There is a video online that explains the process. It's an old FAA 1980s video but its pretty informative.

There is enough generic paperwork around for the 135 certificate, and it's fairly easy as I have done this several years back. We used verbiage such "due to the limited size and scope of the operation, the CP and DO positions are combined". We initially got the certificate on a C-172, then added A/C to it later on. The 172 was already on CAMP.

Not sure if you know this already, but if he is looking to start a year from now, you probably need to start the paperwork IMMEDIATELY. My understanding is that it takes 1-2 years to finally get your certificate. There are things like finding a chief pilot, director of operations and director of maintenance. I had a friend who was looking into starting a 135 operation off a Caravan and reading through 135 and 119 shows how much has to go into it.

There is a video online that explains the process. It's an old FAA 1980s video but its pretty informative.

You may want to look at a single pilot operator certificate. This makes the certfication process easier because you do not need an operations manual which is always a big process and you won't need a Chief Pilot, Director of Operations, or a Director of Maintenance as a single pilot operator.

You may want to look at a single pilot operator certificate. This makes the certfication process easier because you do not need an operations manual which is always a big process and you won't need a Chief Pilot, Director of Operations, or a Director of Maintenance as a single pilot operator.

We were leaning on a single pilot operation, but I like the structure of a traditional 135 carrier. I am writing a manual now with the intention of the operation growing in the future. Casual conversation with the FAA gave us an approval time table of 6 months.

The biggest variable for now is the aircraft. My boss knows a lot about large twins (jet and piston) but he is new to single engine turbines. He has latched on to the Meridian, but I want to make sure we don’t base all of our decisions on a low fuel burn. I know how to compare performance numbers, but they do not tell the entire story. When something breaks, what is the easiest plane to fix? Although the book says it can hold 6, will those 6 be comfortable? If you were given the choice, what plane would you want for 135, a TBM or a Meridian?

We were leaning on a single pilot operation, but I like the structure of a traditional 135 carrier. I am writing a manual now with the intention of the operation growing in the future. Casual conversation with the FAA gave us an approval time table of 6 months.

The biggest variable for now is the aircraft. My boss knows a lot about large twins (jet and piston) but he is new to single engine turbines. He has latched on to the Meridian, but I want to make sure we don’t base all of our decisions on a low fuel burn. I know how to compare performance numbers, but they do not tell the entire story. When something breaks, what is the easiest plane to fix? Although the book says it can hold 6, will those 6 be comfortable? If you were given the choice, what plane would you want for 135, a TBM or a Meridian?


If your boss is willing to spend a few million on a new plane, I'd think he would be willing to send someone to check out the planes and do a test flight. The aircraft companies are more than happy to show the planes and take you for a flight if you are a serious buyer.

Don't worry about the certification process, most of the Inspectors at the FSDO's today are quite helpful. The PC-12 offers a lot of bang for your buck, and superior range. Just one more aircraft to consider.

The biggest variable for now is the aircraft. My boss knows a lot about large twins (jet and piston) but he is new to single engine turbines. He has latched on to the Meridian, but I want to make sure we don’t base all of our decisions on a low fuel burn. I know how to compare performance numbers, but they do not tell the entire story. When something breaks, what is the easiest plane to fix? Although the book says it can hold 6, will those 6 be comfortable? If you were given the choice, what plane would you want for 135, a TBM or a Meridian?

When ever helping people look at planes (light single and twin piston) one of the main things we look at after "MPG", is useful load. Sure it has 6 seats, but can you put 6 people in it and put any amount of fuel? Especially if they want to bring any luggage. So while looking keep an eye out for useful load.

Also ADs. There can be some really expensive ADs for certain serial #s for certain airplanes. So one make and model would be fine, but an earlier (or later) manufactured one may have used a different part and is thus required to conform to the AD. I remember helping someone look at C421s and there was this really expensive AD that had something to do with the wing spar.

edit: I remember about that single pilot certification. I thought there were 3 "Special" ones. Like single pilot, Single PIC (and you could have like 3 FOs), and Limited. Not sure, it was a while ago when I looked.

Don't worry about the certification process, most of the Inspectors at the FSDO's today are quite helpful. The PC-12 offers a lot of bang for your buck, and superior range. Just one more aircraft to consider.

I would love a PC-12 and I know it is superior. I am familiar with its engine's operating cost, but nothing else. It will outperform every other single engine turbine, but how much higher is the realistic operating cost? Also, I think the insurance rate will increase significantly. Letting a 1500 hour pilot fly a glorified Malibu is a bit different then letting a 1500 hour pilot fly a PC-12 single pilot.

I will now take off by business hat and put on my more selfish pilot hat. Career wise, would I be better off with a Navajo?

Well the second aircraft I added to the certificate was was a 1980 Beech 58. Great aircraft for four pax and 200nm stage lengths. Come to think of it, I took my 135 initial and my ATP ride in this very aircraft, at the local FSDO. I was 23. Very comfortable single pilot with the KFC-200 IFCS.

2STG, I'm extremely familiar with both the TBM and Meridian as it is my job to demonstrate them, train new owners, yadi yadi, I have 770+hrs between the two.

I will say yes, the Meridian will be best bang for the buck over the mileage. You're going to be sacrificing the Useful load, which you calculated. It is a great 500-700nm airplane with 1-3 folks in the plane. Assuming you get one with the GW-increase, you'll have 400-500lbs with full fuel. So some fuel planning can be used, and you can get some loading out of it. The capacity is 170 gal(1140lbs), which burning 40-43gph at cruise(figure 60gph first hour) flying at 260ktas+, it is a 3hr plane. Bring the fuel back to 800lbs, and you got around 1.5-2hrs w/ reserve, and you just gained another 300+lbs, and you can get a 300-400nm trip in most conditions very easily. You can get into a brand-new Meridian for under $2mil right now(we have these in stock) and I know they have around 510lbs useful on those with Full Fuel.(And G1000 cockpit!!!!!)

Now, the TBM, which is by far a superior airframe because it was built from day-one to be a turbine. TBM's handle "heavier" in the roll because they have huge flaps, and tiny ailerons supplemented by spoilers tied into their motion. The interior is obviously going to be larger than the meridian, but about the same baggage space. The 700A/B are definately in the $1-1.5mil mark, a 700C2 would be in the $1.5-2mil mark. My company has both a 700B and 700C2 in inventory(FOR SALE BTW!!!), both with WAAS garmins, and GMX200 MFD's. The biggest difference is paint, interior, and of course the 500+lbs you gain in useful load by going with the C2. You'll get around a 270-280ktas, 50-55gph at altitude, and with 281gal of fuel on board, you can go a lot further than the meridian can dream about. So the obvious with the 700B is to keep only 200gal on it, you then have gained 536lbs, making it an 800lb useful, and you can still fly further than the Meridian.

As far as Mx, Under Part 91 flying the Meridians are just planned on Annual's, the TBM's have 100hr inspections set-up already. So makes an easy transition there if you went 135 with one. Obviously you have a domestic aircraft vs. a foreign, so yes there could be some parts delays if something "suprising" happens, but the daily stuff we have no problems with. I honestly don't deal much in this area, couldn't even tell you how much it costs, but I do the test-flights when they come out just to verify we did everything correctly and solved any problems the aircraft had coming in.

Besides all this great info, where are you located? I'm betting outside our region, but that only hurts us if you are wanting a new airframe. The used ones we can sell anywhere. Shoot me a PM if you have any other questions regarding the airframes.

2STG, I'm extremely familiar with both the TBM and Meridian as it is my job to demonstrate them, train new owners, yadi yadi, I have 770+hrs between the two.

I will say yes, the Meridian will be best bang for the buck over the mileage. You're going to be sacrificing the Useful load, which you calculated. It is a great 500-700nm airplane with 1-3 folks in the plane. Assuming you get one with the GW-increase, you'll have 400-500lbs with full fuel. So some fuel planning can be used, and you can get some loading out of it. The capacity is 170 gal(1140lbs), which burning 40-43gph at cruise(figure 60gph first hour) flying at 260ktas+, it is a 3hr plane. Bring the fuel back to 800lbs, and you got around 1.5-2hrs w/ reserve, and you just gained another 300+lbs, and you can get a 300-400nm trip in most conditions very easily. You can get into a brand-new Meridian for under $2mil right now(we have these in stock) and I know they have around 510lbs useful on those with Full Fuel.(And G1000 cockpit!!!!!)

Now, the TBM, which is by far a superior airframe because it was built from day-one to be a turbine. TBM's handle "heavier" in the roll because they have huge flaps, and tiny ailerons supplemented by spoilers tied into their motion. The interior is obviously going to be larger than the meridian, but about the same baggage space. The 700A/B are definately in the $1-1.5mil mark, a 700C2 would be in the $1.5-2mil mark. My company has both a 700B and 700C2 in inventory(FOR SALE BTW!!!), both with WAAS garmins, and GMX200 MFD's. The biggest difference is paint, interior, and of course the 500+lbs you gain in useful load by going with the C2. You'll get around a 270-280ktas, 50-55gph at altitude, and with 281gal of fuel on board, you can go a lot further than the meridian can dream about. So the obvious with the 700B is to keep only 200gal on it, you then have gained 536lbs, making it an 800lb useful, and you can still fly further than the Meridian.

As far as Mx, Under Part 91 flying the Meridians are just planned on Annual's, the TBM's have 100hr inspections set-up already. So makes an easy transition there if you went 135 with one. Obviously you have a domestic aircraft vs. a foreign, so yes there could be some parts delays if something "suprising" happens, but the daily stuff we have no problems with. I honestly don't deal much in this area, couldn't even tell you how much it costs, but I do the test-flights when they come out just to verify we did everything correctly and solved any problems the aircraft had coming in.

Besides all this great info, where are you located? I'm betting outside our region, but that only hurts us if you are wanting a new airframe. The used ones we can sell anywhere. Shoot me a PM if you have any other questions regarding the airframes.

Thanks for the first hand information. I would rather go with the TBM because we will only have one aircraft for a while and I don't want to turn away potential customers if they want to carry a little bit more and go a bit further than the Meridian will allow.

As far is buying one, we are looking for used planes. We don't plan on making money the first few years so we are looking for the plane that will lose us the least money. I might be able to persuade my boss with a TBM due to cabin size because he is used to larger aircraft. We are in the northeast but will buy a plane in the middle of Russia if it is what we want, so if you have some older airframes, I would love to get the citation out to go look at some.

I would love a PC-12 and I know it is superior. I am familiar with its engine's operating cost, but nothing else. It will outperform every other single engine turbine, but how much higher is the realistic operating cost? Also, I think the insurance rate will increase significantly. Letting a 1500 hour pilot fly a glorified Malibu is a bit different then letting a 1500 hour pilot fly a PC-12 single pilot.

I will now take off by business hat and put on my more selfish pilot hat. Career wise, would I be better off with a Navajo?

If I understand you correctly, career-wise you will be much better off with a King Air (ME TPIC time). As far as the difference between ME piston and SE turbine, it's probably a wash.