An owner is under no obligation to run an aviation department of their own. Placing the aircraft under management covers the whole of its operation — and, if the aircraft spends a lot of time on the ground, it covers part of the cost as well.
Through scale, an operator usually has better terms on fuel, insurance and maintenance programmes — that difference partly offsets the management fee.
An aircraft sitting on the ground still consumes fixed costs. Put it into charter and part of them is covered by other people's flights. But life is being used up too: engine and airframe reserves accrue in step with the hours flown.
So no one can promise a particular percentage of cost recovery — the economics are worked out for your aircraft, your home base and the demand on the routes. We do that calculation before the contract is signed and show both scenarios: with charter and without.
Management makes sense in three cases: the aircraft flies little and sits idle; the owner does not want to run an aviation department of their own; or you need access to the terms that an operator's scale brings — fuel, insurance, maintenance programmes.
It does not suit an owner who wants to fly at any moment without notice and does not want strangers on board their aircraft. In that case it is more honest to budget for the upkeep entirely yourself and not count on charter to offset it.
Usually a fixed monthly fee plus variable costs as incurred. The figure depends on the type of aircraft, the home base and the scope of services — it is worked out case by case.
Yes, owner priority is a standard condition. What matters is that it is written into the contract together with the notice periods.
Anywhere from nothing to a substantial share, depending on the type of aircraft, the base and demand. The only honest answer comes from a calculation on the specific aircraft.
Describe the situation — I answer personally and to the point.