Originally Posted by
chazbird
The PC-12 costs much less to operate than a B200 (and certainly even less than a 300)...so, hypothetically, suppose Mr. Airplane buyer decides he couldn't swing a B200/300 and because of the costs opts for a PC-12 but Mr. Pilot says, oh, but its not a twin engine...then Mr. Buyer says thank you Mr. Pilot, so if we really need two engines I'll get a 421, it costs less than a PC-12 to buy and operate and is a twin. Now what would "we" do? I know my answer. This reminds me of a company I flew for where I did my own unsolicited audit/cost benefit analysis where we were better off with a "lesser" aircraft. The manager went all slap happy saying "Finally, a pilot who isn't trying to run us into the ground by getting too fancy an airplane". (I guess he didn't get the bad pun on his part). I was only trying to ensure the longevity of my job.
The original post never said anything about cost being a major deciding factor. Sure the 421 is cheaper (Besides being a fine aircraft) however youre only going to be able to average about 190 in it. To get a truely acurate cost analysis you have to get them equal as in a cost per mile to operate. Often times the aircraft that seems more expensive on the outset may be more costly in the long run. There are a lot of factors that have to be determined. B&CA has an issue once a year which addresses the up to date cost structure. That would be a good first step. Also NBAA has good information available.
Ive always found that if you get the owner to buy a little more airplane than they need initally they typically always grow into it within the first year or two of ownership. That can really save money in the long term not having to change aircraft as often.
You just want to be careful not to step over the dollar to pick up the nickle.