FractionalFocus - Blog

As much merit as fractional jet ownership has, the running consenus is that it’s not for everybody. If you don’t travel that much it could make more sense to charter. If you travel constantly it might make more sense to purchase your own jet. And while there seems to be some agreement on the hours of flight required to make fractional jet ownership a worthy endeavor, there isn’t a magic formula.

Not that I’ve found, at least.

Sure. You’ll find stuff out there that says if you fly less than 50 hours a year you should just charter a flight. And if you fly more than 400 hours per year you’re better off owning an aircraft outright. But is it really that simple? Can you just plug in the amount of hours you fly and know whether fractional ownership is or isn’t for you? Between 50 and 400 hours equals good idea? Outside of 50 and 400 hours equals bad idea?

I wish it were that easy. It just seems like there are too many variables and too many intangible benefits of fractional jet ownership to come to any conclusion that quickly. It might be a good starting point, but other things such as convenience, tax benefits, and decreased responsibility and liability should be every bit as much of the decision process.

Plus, there are many circumstantial factors, it seems, that could tip the balance on the hour scale. The biggest, perhaps, being the amount of people on each flight. If you have an average of 4 or more people on each trip, you could reach the point where fractional jet ownership is financially viable much faster. 40 hours? 30 hours?

And who will be using the aircraft could be just as important as how many. What is the value of their time to the company? How much money do you lose when they’re sitting in the airport or stuck overnight thanks to a canceled flight?

I have nothing against using a standard forumla as a quick reference to get started, but I’m definitely cautious about it, and believe that anyone considering fractional ownership should dig much deeper before making a decision.