They don't.

Just so this misconception goes any further, they don't.

This is all you need to know, they under charge because the owners of the aircraft are funding it. If you're going to pay $2, $3, $4M a year to own and operate a jet, its nice to make some money back and you're making money back as long as you're making more than you spend in fuel... at least in some people's view.

Look at a GV for instance, say you bought within the last year and not at the pre 2008 $60M+ range, but lets go with $40M. They charter for $8000/hr, you're total DOC is about $3000, maybe $2200 if you get a hefty Netjets/EJM fuel discount at Signature or something. So you're contribution is at best around $6000. Divide a typical loan or lease out and you're looking at 600, 700, 800 hours just to pay the note.

Airliners fly 3, 4, 5K hours a year, but not charter aircraft. And not in this economy. But put yourself in the owners shoes, you're paying $4.4M a year on a note for a hangar queen, you have two punk cry baby pilots that hardly ever have to work anyways so put it out for charter and earn a modest $1.5-$2.5M back in income.

Hence why you don't see people starting charter companies and buying aircraft on their own and making a go at it like you do in the cargo and airline world. It's got to be subsidized in some way. Airplanes suck, they're very expensive to buy, maintain and the regulatory world is suffocating even if you do things on the up and up.

And if you look at Netjets, well, go look at the fractional threads. Ponzi schemes work until people want what they thought they bought.

Airlines and cargo is where you see airplanes make money for flying, thats the key, for flying. The only other time I see commercial planes make money is doing what they do best and reaching into places people can't reach- DHC2 in Alaska for instance... as long as the pilot is poorly paid.