Is General Aviation Dying in the USA?

[Everskyward]

I have made a few attempts to become an airport manager at small-town airports (just barely big enough for three-letter identifiers), only one of those would have involved running an FBO as well and it was in a place that would never be able to support more than maybe 3 airplanes at the outside (realistically, probably closer to one). Without the other aspects of an FBO business, there's no way you could have a viable flight school at a place like that.

I agree, but if you are interested in the flight school aspect it wouldn't make sense to open it in a small, isolated town because there is not that great a population base. The exception might be a small airport on the edge of a metro area where people with money have moved to the outlying areas. I think there are two types of people that are potential customers, people with the interest who don't have the money and people with money who don't have the interest. From a business standpoint it seems like it's a better idea to cultivate interest in the latter group than to subsidize the former group. That isn't the altruistic answer, however, since it doesn't make aviation accessible to everyone.

At Flying Cloud - ASI Jet Center? I don't know if they have LSA's, but they have Diamond DA20's which look very LSA-ish (composite, 2-seat, etc).

Could be.

 

[wabower]

Wall Street doesn't like any aspect of the GA business. Highly cyclical, no margins, no scale.

Sure, but he was referring to airlines -- not quite the same as an FBO or a couple of training airplanes and a CFI.

 

[wabower]

A significant amount of my acquisition consulting work has been for clients in cities without good non-stop airline service such as Little Rock, Tulsa, Kansas City, east Texas-Shreveport, etc. Big-city Dallas folk can board a plane and in most cases will be at their final destination when it lands.

Not so for the mid-small-market and country folks who face a significant schlep to a major terminal or a series of connecting flights. Not surprisingly, many of those less-served burgs have a strong GA community.

 

[pcorman]

Bound to be a little controversial, but GA is not dying necessarily. One of the big reasons could be China. If you look around, GA and the USA are synonomous. Most other countries have much smaller GA activity. But China has set a national goal of opening up a GA industry. It is starting with the freeing up of low altitudes to GA, and a commitment to build lots of airports (I've heard 3000-5000 over some period of time unknown to me). IF this happens, China could become the second GA country of measurable size with the potential to drive sales and support sky high (bad pun). More airplanes sold, more avionics sold, more demand... Hope my hope is true. The main reason I think people feel GA is dying is two-fold, fuel prices (aka the cost of flying) and our government's anti-GA beaurocracy.

 

[zaitcev]

I don't know about China, but as far as I know, creating Class G airspace in Russia last November did little to grow the GA actitivity thus far. Mostly it just made legal the flights people were doing without authorization before, which was certainly welcome, but only makes for one piece of the puzzle. It takes many years to create viable businesses, even if the bureaucrats relent a little. The bribery load in Russia and China is comparable. I heard it was about 7% to 11%.

 

[dmccormack]

Wall Street doesn't like any aspect of the GA business. Highly cyclical, no margins, no scale.

True, but since when do airline magnates include GA as part of their public statements?

 

[Cap'n Jack]

True, but since when do airline magnates include GA as part of their public statements?

When they want user fees.

 

[steingar]

True, but since when do airline magnates include GA as part of their public statements?

For any kind of new industry to emerge, those attempting it will have to ween themselves off of Wall Street money. To make something well you make it because its what you love. With luck you make some money as well. Wall street never has and never will understand that.

 

[denverpilot]

The airport(s) near you have dropped the ball and appear to be a hazard to aviation and themselves.

These airports should have at least one (if not more) LSA class aircraft so that they would be able to offer core training at a price that is affordable.

Having the smallest and cheapest trainer being a 172 is like a driving school trying to be successful and relevant by teaching in cars from 1973 equipped with V8 engines.

Even vintage LSA class aircraft are cheaper to own and operate then 172's and in many respects a better trainer.

My wife and many friends have learned in the LSA Cubs at Waynesville and they actually have STICK AND RUDDER SKILLS that are sorely missing in nearly every 172 trained pilot I know that has not moved on to aerobatics.

You're making an assumption that there are no LSAs at the airports from his comparison of prices?

There are gaggles of LSAs here in Denver at least. The new owners of Gobosh are KAPA-based of course, too.

As far as the other comments go, they're fine but a C-172 can even struggle up here at high Density Altitude on a hot summer day.

A C-150/152 with full tanks or some of the lower-performance LSAs with two people aboard, might be a risk some wouldn't want to take, too.

When I was flying C-150's early in my flight training, they were a "half-tanks only" aircraft here unless you were solo, and maybe not full tanks even then. I assume some LSAs will be similar here.

A 65HP "classic" LSA is also not a summertime option without managing fuel very carefully.

Just pointing out a couple logical problems in the comments for *here*. I can't speak for the low-landers.

If you want to go West of here, a C-172 starts to become very marginal on most nice weather days unless you're launching at dawn and done well before noon.

 

[Everskyward]

A significant amount of my acquisition consulting work has been for clients in cities without good non-stop airline service such as Little Rock, Tulsa, Kansas City, east Texas-Shreveport, etc. Big-city Dallas folk can board a plane and in most cases will be at their final destination when it lands.

But don't you mostly deal with people who want to use aircraft for business travel rather than as a hobby? I see how some small airports attract a lot of business traffic relative to their size, but a lot of that seems to have to do with the luck of the draw of where they are located in relation to an area of interest for the businesses.

I don't necessarily see many people out learning to fly in these locations compared to metro areas.

 

[wabower]

I'm not sure about the numbers, but I see a lot of shirt-tails on the wall at those places. You're right about my clients wanting airplanes for travel vs. training. GGG (Longview, TX) is a very small market with a very impressive GA fleet.

But don't you mostly deal with people who want to use aircraft for business travel rather than as a hobby? I see how some small airports attract a lot of business traffic relative to their size, but a lot of that seems to have to do with the luck of the draw of where they are located in relation to an area of interest for the businesses.

I don't necessarily see many people out learning to fly in these locations compared to metro areas.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I think there are two types of people that are potential customers, people with the interest who don't have the money and people with money who don't have the interest. From a business standpoint it seems like it's a better idea to cultivate interest in the latter group than to subsidize the former group.

A good point... But the folks with money can fly LSA's too, and are more likely to tolerate a new LSA than a ratty old 172. As with almost any business, being able to cater to the largest number of potential customers is a good idea.

They're also probably more likely to buy their own airplanes than rent anyway. Reminds me of a guy that was in the club for a while - He rented for his private, used club planes for most of his instrument until he took delivery of his brand-new SR22T. Must be nice!

 

[Ted]

A good point... But the folks with money can fly LSA's too, and are more likely to tolerate a new LSA than a ratty old 172. As with almost any business, being able to cater to the largest number of potential customers is a good idea.

They're also probably more likely to buy their own airplanes than rent anyway. Reminds me of a guy that was in the club for a while - He rented for his private, used club planes for most of his instrument until he took delivery of his brand-new SR22T. Must be nice!

Folks with money I think are less likely to fly LSAs, unless they are forced to.

Of course, you have to define "with money," as there are varying degrees.

But to my question: Why would I spend $115,000 on an LSA (albeit a new one), when for the same price I could buy a nice 310 or Baron? Used, yes, but still in nice condition.

 

[dmccormack]

A good point... But the folks with money can fly LSA's too, and are more likely to tolerate a new LSA than a ratty old 172.

It's not always a "ratty old 172" versus a shiny, new, untouched, fully loaded LSA.

 

[Everskyward]

But to my question: Why would I spend $115,000 on an LSA (albeit a new one), when for the same price I could buy a nice 310 or Baron? Used, yes, but still in nice condition.

Two totally different missions. Besides, while the upfront cost might be the same, the Baron or 310 will be much more expensive to operate and maintain, not to mention that there would be much more training involved. I can see a large majority of people picking an LSA over an older piston twin, especially if they start thinking about it in depth.

 

[wabower]

You're evidently not the only one who can see this selection process, as verified by the precipitous decrease in twin prices over the past ten years.

Two totally different missions. Besides, while the upfront cost might be the same, the Baron or 310 will be much more expensive to operate and maintain, not to mention that there would be much more training involved. I can see a large majority of people picking an LSA over an older piston twin, especially if they start thinking about it in depth.

 

[wabower]

It's not always a "ratty old 172" versus a shiny, new, untouched, fully loaded LSA.

Yeah, but the LSA zealots need a whipping boy for their argument, and the "ratty old" adjectives are the best tool they can conjure up. It's like when the liberals ask "but what about the children?"

 

[dmccormack]

Yeah, but the LSA zealots need a whipping boy for their argument, and the "ratty old" adjectives are the best tool they can conjure up. It's like when the liberals ask "but what about the children?"

Let them fly LSAs!!

 

[Everskyward]

Let them fly LSAs!!

That's the point, isn't it? To get the new generation interested in flying? I'll bet if you show a child an LSA with a modern glass panel he or she will be more intrigued than if you show the same child a 172 with a conventional panel, ratty or not. It would be the same reaction you get when you show an "older" pilot a shotgun panel compared to a 6-pack.

I think the bulk of the market from LSAs will come from people who are not yet pilots and ones who don't think they can get or keep a medical. Then there are people who want something new and would rather spend $100,000 than $300,000. It's hard to get a feel for that here since most everyone is a pilot who has learned on older equipment. But that's not who is going to keep GA alive in the future if that's what people are concerned about.

 

[dmccormack]

That's the point, isn't it? To get the new generation interested in flying? I'll bet if you show a child an LSA with a modern glass panel he or she will be more intrigued than if you show the same child a 172 with a conventional panel, ratty or not. It would be the same reaction you get when you show an "older" pilot a shotgun panel compared to a 6-pack.

I don't know -- when people go up for the first time they aren't looking at the panel -- they are just so enraptured with flight that it becomes a compulsion.

The folks that are dazzled by the hardware typically don't have the desire required to overcome the many, many obstacles.

FWIW, my antique gets all sorts of look overs by kids (CAP types). They think it's neat.

 

[Everskyward]

I don't know -- when people go up for the first time they aren't looking at the panel -- they are just so enraptured with flight that it becomes a compulsion.

That wouldn't account for the many people who love flight simulator programs since it's all panel and no experience of flight.

 

[wabower]

That wouldn't account for the many people who love flight simulator programs since it's all panel and no experience of flight.

Does anybody purport to track the number of pilots that were drawn to the activity by virtue of the computer-based simulator programs?

 

[dmccormack]

Does anybody purport to track the number of pilots that were drawn to the activity by virtue of the computer-based simulator programs?

I'm certain some segment concluded "I can do this!" and marched down to the nearest flight school, but there's little or no "How did you find us?" surveying on entry.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It's not always a "ratty old 172" versus a shiny, new, untouched, fully loaded LSA.

No, but at the same price point as the LSA's are renting for ($100/hr ±5 at all of the places an earlier poster linked to) you are NOT going to get a shiny, new, untouched, fully loaded 172 either.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Yeah, but the LSA zealots need a whipping boy for their argument, and the "ratty old" adjectives are the best tool they can conjure up. It's like when the liberals ask "but what about the children?"

Meh... Find me a 172 that rents for $100/hr that isn't ratty and old.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I don't know -- when people go up for the first time they aren't looking at the panel -- they are just so enraptured with flight that it becomes a compulsion.

The folks that are dazzled by the hardware typically don't have the desire required to overcome the many, many obstacles.

Awful broad brush you're painting with there, Dan... We have an entire new generation that's old enough to learn how to fly, and I would suggest that the same (unfortunately low) percentage have the desire to overcome the obstacles as previous generations. But, this generation grew up with special effects, navigation systems in cars, iPods and iPhones, DS3's and the Internet. They're used to gadgets, and a lack of gadgets may feed that "Wow these things are primitive" impression that can scare people who have never been in a car over 10 years old away from getting into an airplane that's 35 years old.

The problem isn't whether they'll be impressed or not when they go for their first flight - The problem is getting them to actually go up for that flight in the first place.

 

[dmccormack]

Awful broad brush you're painting with there, Dan... We have an entire new generation that's old enough to learn how to fly, and I would suggest that the same (unfortunately low) percentage have the desire to overcome the obstacles as previous generations. But, this generation grew up with special effects, navigation systems in cars, iPods and iPhones, DS3's and the Internet. They're used to gadgets, and a lack of gadgets may feed that "Wow these things are primitive" impression that can scare people who have never been in a car over 10 years old away from getting into an airplane that's 35 years old.

The problem isn't whether they'll be impressed or not when they go for their first flight - The problem is getting them to actually go up for that flight in the first place.

I make my living in technology and have for years, and have had at least 50 interns from prestigious engineering schools in my domain in the last 10. My statement was aimed at the presupposition that a person will be more likely to learn to fly if the panel is impressive.

They won't pay $125 an hour to look at a panel. The folks who will endure and jump through the hoops are enamored with flight - the technology is icing, not the main course.

 

[Jim Logajan]

For anyone just entering the market looking to buy new, the "high" $100k+ price for many LSAs is still a lot cheaper than the next rung up the ladder to most 4 seat Part 23 certified airplanes.

Going forward it seems to me that the only two classes of planes that will eventually dominate the U.S. "fleet" of single engine planes are LSAs and EABs. Attrition happens and something has to replace planes that become un-airworthy. It is unlikely that shiny new 172s or its cousins will be able to compete with shiny new LSAs and EABs. Prospects will find themselves adjusting their mission requirements downward.

All in my humble opinion, of course.

 

[Everskyward]

I make my living in technology and have for years, and have had at least 50 interns from prestigious engineering schools in my domain in the last 10. My statement was aimed at the presupposition that a person will be more likely to learn to fly if the panel is impressive.

They won't pay $125 an hour to look at a panel. The folks who will endure and jump through the hoops are enamored with flight - the technology is icing, not the main course.

You couldn't tell that from all the people on here wanting to redo their panel to make it more modern. It seems that whenever people are thinking of buying an airplane and they show a picture of the panel there is always some suggestion of how to improve it, when the airplane has obviously been flying with its current panel for many years. I'm not making a value judgment about that since it's obviously up to the individual, but, everything else being equal, I'm sure the majority of both current pilots and, especially, future pilots would pick a modern panel.

 

[wabower]

Move to strike, speculation.

No, but at the same price point as the LSA's are renting for ($100/hr ±5 at all of the places an earlier poster linked to) you are NOT going to get a shiny, new, untouched, fully loaded 172 either.

 

[wabower]

For anyone just entering the market looking to buy new, the "high" $100k+ price for many LSAs is still a lot cheaper than the next rung up the ladder to most 4 seat Part 23 certified airplanes.

Going forward it seems to me that the only two classes of planes that will eventually dominate the U.S. "fleet" of single engine planes are LSAs and EABs. Attrition happens and something has to replace planes that become un-airworthy. It is unlikely that shiny new 172s or its cousins will be able to compete with shiny new LSAs and EABs. Prospects will find themselves adjusting their mission requirements downward.

All in my humble opinion, of course.

What is the basis for your contention that the fleet will become un-airworthy?

 

[Jim Logajan]

What is the basis for your contention that the fleet will become un-airworthy?

On what basis do you think any airplane will remain flying forever?

(Even if they didn't submit to wear-and-tear of time, my understanding is that around 1% of the fleet is damaged beyond repair in accidents each year. What aircraft do you think prospective buyers will replace them with?)

 

[wabower]

Didn't your mama teach you that it's impolite to answer a question with a question?

When has "flying forever" ever been mentioned other than in your post?

So after about a hundred years you think we'll run out of airplanes? Will it matter, since at the present rate of attrition we're on track to lose 50% of the pilot population by 2025?

On what basis do you think any airplane will remain flying forever?

(Even if they didn't submit to wear-and-tear of time, my understanding is that around 1% of the fleet is damaged beyond repair in accidents each year. What aircraft do you think prospective buyers will replace them with?)

 

[Bob Noel]

I make my living in technology and have for years, and have had at least 50 interns from prestigious engineering schools in my domain in the last 10. My statement was aimed at the presupposition that a person will be more likely to learn to fly if the panel is impressive.

They won't pay $125 an hour to look at a panel. The folks who will endure and jump through the hoops are enamored with flight - the technology is icing, not the main course.

SHACK!!!

 

[Ted]

Two totally different missions. Besides, while the upfront cost might be the same, the Baron or 310 will be much more expensive to operate and maintain, not to mention that there would be much more training involved. I can see a large majority of people picking an LSA over an older piston twin, especially if they start thinking about it in depth.

Agreed, but to the point of the number of people who use aircraft for business purposes, the [insert any serious aircraft] can likely be had for the same price as the LSA, in some cases cheaper. Yes, more expensive operating costs, but that's the price you pay for the capability.

The point is, if I have $115,000, it's still difficult to convince me that I should buy a new LSA vs. a used... just about anything else. If my mission fits an LSA, there are still cheaper options.

 

[Bob Noel]

You couldn't tell that from all the people on here wanting to redo their panel to make it more modern. It seems that whenever people are thinking of buying an airplane and they show a picture of the panel there is always some suggestion of how to improve it, when the airplane has obviously been flying with its current panel for many years. I'm not making a value judgment about that since it's obviously up to the individual, but, everything else being equal, I'm sure the majority of both current pilots and, especially, future pilots would pick a modern panel.

For me, first and foremost is the flying. That doesn't preclude adding toys, but the do-dads don't make the flying better.

Count me as one of the pilots that doesn't want to be a button-pusher. I want to fly the airplane.

 

[rpadula]

I don't know -- when people go up for the first time they aren't looking at the panel -- they are just so enraptured with flight that it becomes a compulsion.

That's exactly what happened to me. A co-worker took me up in his Arrow for my birthday. After getting over how LOUD it was in there, we took off and after he leveled off, I asked, "so where's the airport?" He thumbed over his shoulder and said, "about 20 miles back there." I was hooked. Two weeks later, I signed up for lessons.

It can also happen to hesitant passengers. I took my best friend and his newlywed wife up for a tour around Maui the day after they got married. She was pretty reluctant to get in one of those "little planes," but when she saw it (a ratty old 172), she exclaimed, "you're right! It does look like the inside of an old Beetle!" (He told her that, not me). And after we left the ground and the ocean appeared below us, she forgot entirely where she was.

Oh, and for the record, I started off playing with MS Flight Simulator on my Apple //e while in high school. It never occurred to me that I would someday do it for real.

 

[rpadula]

Awful broad brush you're painting with there, Dan... We have an entire new generation that's old enough to learn how to fly, and I would suggest that the same (unfortunately low) percentage have the desire to overcome the obstacles as previous generations. But, this generation grew up with special effects, navigation systems in cars, iPods and iPhones, DS3's and the Internet. They're used to gadgets, and a lack of gadgets may feed that "Wow these things are primitive" impression that can scare people who have never been in a car over 10 years old away from getting into an airplane that's 35 years old.

I've been enamored by electronics since I was 12. I didn't grow up with exactly those things in their current incarnation (for me, it was Atari 2600, the Commodore PET computer, Apple //e, Compuserve and the various computer networks that begat "The Internet")

None of that prepared me for my first flight.

The problem isn't whether they'll be impressed or not when they go for their first flight - The problem is getting them to actually go up for that flight in the first place.

It may be there is no one mass-market way to do that. Given the perceived risk of the activity, the best we may hope for is by one trusted friend at a time. That's how I got my first flight.

 

[rpadula]

You couldn't tell that from all the people on here wanting to redo their panel to make it more modern. It seems that whenever people are thinking of buying an airplane and they show a picture of the panel there is always some suggestion of how to improve it, when the airplane has obviously been flying with its current panel for many years. I'm not making a value judgment about that since it's obviously up to the individual, but, everything else being equal, I'm sure the majority of both current pilots and, especially, future pilots would pick a modern panel.

See: hedonic treadmill.

For me, first and foremost is the flying. That doesn't preclude adding toys, but the do-dads don't make the flying better.

Count me as one of the pilots that doesn't want to be a button-pusher. I want to fly the airplane.

True. It was hard not to lust after the shiny new gear advertised in the trade rags. But when it came down to every one of them, I thought, "this isn't going to make my plane fly one bit faster, and the price of that Garmin would buy a lot of av gas. F it..."

 

[Jim Logajan]

Didn't your mama teach you that it's impolite to answer a question with a question?

Isn't that a self-referentially indicted question?

Anyhoo, with regard to the original question of this thread, I came across the following interesting abstract of a report produced in 1991 by the TRB (interesting to compare their predictions with what has transpired in the following 20 years):

"The panel on light general aviation examined the current and future status of light general aviation aircraft, defined as fixed-wing aircraft, powered by single or multiple piston engines and weighing less than 12,500 lbs. The following trends were identified: Fleet size will remain relatively constant. Flying for personal and instructional purposes will continue to increase. Piston-engine aircraft flying for other than personal or instructional purposes will continue to decline. New aircraft designs will enter the fleet primarily through the kit-built industry. The attrition rate for used piston-powered aircraft will increase. There will be increased demand for retrofit of avionics equipment and other aircraft systems. The number of airports open for public use will continue to decline. Small airports will find it increasingly difficult to get federal funding assistance for airport improvements, thus reducing the utility of these airports. The number of hours flown by the piston-powered airplane fleet will grow at the same rate as the GNP. The number of active general aviation pilots will continue to decline, but the average hours flown by the remaining pilots will increase. Federal regulations will require more equipment on light general aviation aircraft, especially if those aircraft operate near large metropolitan areas. Mandatory additional recurrent training for pilots will cause relatively inactive pilots to become completely inactive and those pilots who remain active to become more competent and skilled, improving the general aviation accident rate."

From: http://pubsindex.trb.org/view.aspx?id=364515

Between 1991 and 2008, fixed wing piston fleet size dropped from 173k to 163k: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_13.html

Kit-built fleet has gone up per the above BTS reference.

I believe accident rate has nudged down just a small bit in those 20 years.

Really not sure about how they did on the rest of their predictions - look mostly correct to me. Though light sport certification would seem to contradict their expectations in the last sentence.