How Much Does It Really Cost to Fly Private? - Moneywise Recap

Podcast: Moneywise

Published: 2025-06-10

Duration: 39 min

Summary

In this episode, Jackie Lamport explores the ins and outs of private flying, discussing the financial implications of chartering, fractional ownership, and full ownership. The conversation features insights from industry expert Preston Holland, making clear that private flying is not a one-size-fits-all solution.

What Happened

Jackie Lamport kicks off the episode by highlighting a common concern among founders: hiring top talent. She introduces Nia, a service that helps companies hire skilled offshore talent in Latin America, emphasizing cost savings and quality. This sets the stage for a discussion on the financials of flying private, which often brings to mind images of luxury and expense.

The episode then dives into the various options for private flying, starting with chartering. Preston Holland explains that chartering is the least committal and most expensive way to fly private on a per-hour basis. He breaks down the costs associated with owning versus chartering an aircraft, revealing that owning a jet typically requires flying 150 to 200 hours a year for it to make financial sense. The discussion also touches on the mindset of individuals like Andrew Wilkinson, who sees the value in chartering for important meetings, despite the costs involved.

Further along, the episode introduces fractional ownership as an alternative to full ownership. Preston notes that fractional ownership allows individuals to enjoy significant benefits without the headaches of managing the aircraft. He mentions that this model is becoming more appealing, even to those who typically own entire aircraft, due to the convenience it offers. The episode wraps up by exploring additional ownership options, although Preston cautions against co-ownership due to potential pitfalls.

Key Insights

Key Questions Answered

What are the costs associated with chartering a private jet?

Chartering a private jet can be quite expensive, typically costing around $10,000 per hour for a super mid aircraft like the Challenger 300. While it offers flexibility and is the least committal option, it's the most costly method if measured on a per-hour basis. In contrast, owning an aircraft incurs direct operating costs of about $5,000 per hour, but also involves additional expenses such as hangar fees, pilot salaries, and insurance.

At what point does it make sense to own a private jet?

Ownership of a private jet generally begins to make sense when an individual is flying between 150 to 200 hours a year. This threshold is crucial as it allows owners to spread their total fixed costs over their flying hours, making it financially viable. Andrew Wilkinson's perspective illustrates this, as he finds value in chartering for significant trips rather than owning an aircraft outright.

What is fractional ownership in private aviation?

Fractional ownership allows individuals to purchase a share of an aircraft, gaining access to private flying without the full responsibility of ownership. It provides many of the benefits of owning a jet, such as tax advantages and reduced operational headaches, since the management of pilots and maintenance is handled by the fractional company. This model is increasingly appealing, even to those who previously owned whole aircraft.

How do high net worth individuals view private flying?

The mindset regarding private flying varies among high net worth individuals. For some, like Andrew Wilkinson, the convenience and time-saving aspects justify the costs, especially for important meetings. In contrast, others, such as Josh Payne, who has a net worth of $60 million, may still prefer commercial options, viewing private flying as excessive unless for specific needs.

What are the alternatives to full ownership of a private jet?

Beyond chartering and full ownership, individuals can explore fractional ownership or co-ownership as alternatives. Fractional ownership offers shared use of an aircraft, which can be more manageable and cost-effective. However, co-ownership may not be advisable due to potential complications in shared responsibilities and decision-making.