Is GA flying for transportation dead?

[Anthony]

The rising cost of fuel, and maintenance is sure making it harder, and harder to justify for any reason. Fuel costs are over half of operational costs now for me. 55%- 60% power is now the norm if I don't need to be somewhere, and I rarely do need that few extra minutes anyway.

It makes me want to go in on a Cub or something low, slow and fun to just fly around, and maybe do little grass fields to see what GA used to be like before it is gone all together.

 

[wabower]

The calculation is easy. Look at your airframe or pilot log for the past ~5 annual inspections to determine the total hours flown. Divide by the number of years used to determine average use.

Prepare a category report on Quicken (or whichever software you use) for the same 5-year period and divide the total dollar cost shown on the report by the hours flown during the period.

If you think this year will be signficantly different, adjust as necessary. If you think the paint job should be amortized over a longer period (I would agree with that position) then adjust the costs accordingly.

The number you will obtain using this method won't be perfectly accurate, but will be "close enough for gubment work" and in the ballgame with those of other owners of similar planes.

I understand your position on it, but if basing it on an hourly cost, I can really only take trips in December, as the ones in January are going to very cost prohibitive, since my hours for the year will be unknown, and that $5000 fixed cost for Annual/Insurance/Hangar is going to make any flight cost prohibitive.

If I take the trip in January it will cost me ~$360/hr, but in December will only cost me ~$100/hr. (15hr/mo) - of course this assumes $0 additional maintenance besides the annual inspection. That's why I only worry about immediate trip cost, because I have no idea how many hours I am going to be flying for the year.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Do rural Alaskans count?

 

[Alexb2000]

Fishing, golf, horses, boating, etc..... People spend tons of money on them with no practical value. At least with GA you get from point A to B quicker than a car, so that is something. You don't see anyone on the Golf forums building a spreadsheet to justify the $500 cost of 18 at the Wynn Las Vegas vs. sitting on the couch.

 

[EdFred]

The calculation is easy. Look at your airframe or pilot log for the past ~5 annual inspections to determine the total hours flown. Divide by the number of years used to determine average use.

Prepare a category report on Quicken (or whichever software you use) for the same 5-year period and divide the total dollar cost shown on the report by the hours flown during the period.

If you think this year will be signficantly different, adjust as necessary. If you think the paint job should be amortized over a longer period (I would agree with that position) then adjust the costs accordingly.

The number you will obtain using this method won't be perfectly accurate, but will be "close enough for gubment work" and in the ballgame with those of other owners of similar planes.

Wouldn't work for me. In 2007, I had over 100 hours (different airframe), in 2008, 0 hours on any owned equipment. In 2009 over 100, in 2010 around 100, and in 2011, I had 43. Sooooooo.....................I don't have a track record that's accurate to guess what my hourly cost will be this year.

 

[tonycondon]

Leah and I had a wonderful trip. Made it there non stop thanks to tailwinds in time for supper with the family. Headwinds Sunday and a line of rain to our west moved our fuel stop slightly east. Stormscope worked for Leg 1 which was when we needed it. Back home just after sunset. Round trip time still 2 hrs shorter than 1 way driving.

 

[wabower]

OTOH, you see lots of people (especially golf wives) looking at their Y/E quicken reports and asking pointed questions about the expense. You also see frequent drop-outs at country clubs by people whose stated reason is "I'm just not playing enough to justify keeping the membership" and then walking away from most or all of the $25,000 to $100,000 initiation fee they paid to join the club. Lots of used boats and RVs can be bought for pennies on the dollar of original cost. ANFL.

Fishing, golf, horses, boating, etc..... People spend tons of money on them with no practical value. At least with GA you get from point A to B quicker than a car, so that is something. You don't see anyone on the Golf forums building a spreadsheet to justify the $500 cost of 18 at the Wynn Las Vegas vs. sitting on the couch.

 

[wabower]

Only five categories of use to choose from. Very little, not much, some, about the same or quite a bit. Pick one.

Wouldn't work for me. In 2007, I had over 100 hours (different airframe), in 2008, 0 hours on any owned equipment. In 2009 over 100, in 2010 around 100, and in 2011, I had 43. Sooooooo.....................I don't have a track record that's accurate to guess what my hourly cost will be this year.

 

[airguy]

I've never used my homeowners insurance policy, but I still have one. Some things we buy just because we WANT them, not necessarily because we NEED them or even can justify them by a certain amount of use.

Yeah, I know they aren't really comparable - just sayin'...

I expect to lose money on my airplane during the course of my life. I accept that. I don't care. I want an airplane, therefor I will have one.

 

[wabower]

No dispute about the cost that we accept as owners. I first learned about them in 1964 (hard lesson) and have owned one or more airplanes continuously since 1973. I fail to understand why owners are so reluctant to develop a realistic budget and acknowledge the costs that we all know are part of the equation. Can you explain that piece? Is it because the costs are so small compared to their other life-style expenses that they are just a rounding error, or because the costs are so high they don't want to know, or want anybody else to know? Or what?

I've never used my homeowners insurance policy, but I still have one. Some things we buy just because we WANT them, not necessarily because we NEED them or even can justify them by a certain amount of use.

Yeah, I know they aren't really comparable - just sayin'...

I expect to lose money on my airplane during the course of my life. I accept that. I don't care. I want an airplane, therefor I will have one.

 

[somorris]

If flying gives you pleasure then it is worth the money.

Agreed!

 

[Ted]

I understand why businesses need to justify the expense but, to me, it's a little bit strange to have the need to justify your hobby. That is, as long as you are realistic about how much it costs and have the funds to afford it.

Fully agreed. If it's a hobby, no point in justifying it. My wife and I have Harleys that don't save us a dime on fuel, and cost more than what we normally spend on cars, which get more miles. But we have them because we like them.

However, many pilots have a combined use of their aircraft - some for hobby, and some for business. In that case, if they aren't being compensated appropriately for their aircraft use, they are giving the company money. In the automotive world this is easier since the IRS has established appropriate compensation per mile for use of an automobile, but in aviation there's too much of a variety for that to work.

In Ed's case, being one of the proprietors of a family-owned business, it's a bit different. But I certainly wouldn't give any company I worked for free airframe time.

I think the issue that exists here is that some pilots are trying to say there's no way to justify flying, and those of us who employ GA as a tool in various forms know better, and also realize that the justifications are in the value of time. Sometimes this value can be quantified to bean counters, and other times the value is simply because it's important to us, and the bean counters can pound sand if they have a problem with it.

 

[EdFred]

No dispute about the cost that we accept as owners. I first learned about them in 1964 (hard lesson) and have owned one or more airplanes continuously since 1973. I fail to understand why owners are so reluctant to develop a realistic budget and acknowledge the costs that we all know are part of the equation. Can you explain that piece? Is it because the costs are so small compared to their other life-style expenses that they are just a rounding error, or because the costs are so high they don't want to know, or want anybody else to know? Or what?

I know what the total costs are, it's just the difference between what is this trip going to cost me using the plane, vs not using the plane. My sunk costs are there no matter what. So at the end of the year, if I own an airplane with 5k in sunk costs, take 0 trips with it, and pay $600/ticket on the airlines for 12 trips I've got $12,200 in aviation costs. But if I take the 12 6 hour trips in my plane@ $75/h in fuel, I've got $10,400 in aviation costs.

It's cheaper to go GA.

 

[wabower]

Justification of ownership is probably the wrong descriptive term. Being able to quantify it is arguably more important. Various posts have mentioned financial setbacks (layoffs, job losses, cutbacks, etc.) that have affected discretionary spending. Understanding all of the aspects of ownership and the underlying budgetary requirements is nothing more than prudent financial management. The plane budget is no different than any other discretionary category.

I understand why businesses need to justify the expense but, to me, it's a little bit strange to have the need to justify your hobby. That is, as long as you are realistic about how much it costs and have the funds to afford it.

 

[somorris]

Sometimes this value can be quantified to bean counters, and other times the value is simply because it's important to us, and the bean counters can pound sand if they have a problem with it.

An awful lot of things in life are like that.

 

[Everskyward]

Justification of ownership is probably the wrong descriptive term. Being able to quantify it is arguably more important. Various posts have mentioned financial setbacks (layoffs, job losses, cutbacks, etc.) that have affected discretionary spending. Understanding all of the aspects of ownership and the underlying budgetary requirements is nothing more than prudent financial management. The plane budget is no different than any other discretionary category.

Definitely agree with that which is why I wrote, "That is, as long as you are realistic about how much it costs and have the funds to afford it." You would think that's so obvious that we wouldn't need to debate the question but I guess it's not.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Is GA flying for transportation dead?

Not for me. I'm not a shopper. I won't drive all over town comparing features and spending $50 in gas to save a few dollars. If I have a desire or need for something I set requirements, decide how much I want to spend, and if I see something that ticks all the boxes in the first stop I'm done.

I desire a means to constantly challenge myself. I am a Type A control freak.
80% of my travel is in the Western US. I have no schedule to keep other than one I set for myself which is very pliable. I will pay whatever it costs for that freedom and flexibility.

Consequently, GA is the perfect mode of travel for me, and serves many others as well.

 

[wabower]

And as Johnny told the teacher, "that's not the right answer, but I like the way you think."

I know what the total costs are, it's just the difference between what is this trip going to cost me using the plane, vs not using the plane. My sunk costs are there no matter what. So at the end of the year, if I own an airplane with 5k in sunk costs, take 0 trips with it, and pay $600/ticket on the airlines for 12 trips I've got $12,200 in aviation costs. But if I take the 12 6 hour trips in my plane@ $75/h in fuel, I've got $10,400 in aviation costs.

It's cheaper to go GA.

 

[wabower]

So noted. As is the proclivity of many pilots to blame the bean counters when the numbers don't come out the way they want. Almost everybody can count, but the exercise fails when the pilots won't put all the beans in the jar prior to starting the count. Stated differently, the reason that bean counting specialists are needed is because those in charge of the beans cannot be trusted to provide an accurate count. :wink2:

Fully agreed. If it's a hobby, no point in justifying it. My wife and I have Harleys that don't save us a dime on fuel, and cost more than what we normally spend on cars, which get more miles. But we have them because we like them.

However, many pilots have a combined use of their aircraft - some for hobby, and some for business. In that case, if they aren't being compensated appropriately for their aircraft use, they are giving the company money. In the automotive world this is easier since the IRS has established appropriate compensation per mile for use of an automobile, but in aviation there's too much of a variety for that to work.

In Ed's case, being one of the proprietors of a family-owned business, it's a bit different. But I certainly wouldn't give any company I worked for free airframe time.

I think the issue that exists here is that some pilots are trying to say there's no way to justify flying, and those of us who employ GA as a tool in various forms know better, and also realize that the justifications are in the value of time. Sometimes this value can be quantified to bean counters, and other times the value is simply because it's important to us, and the bean counters can pound sand if they have a problem with it.

 

[airguy]

I know what the total costs are, it's just the difference between what is this trip going to cost me using the plane, vs not using the plane. My sunk costs are there no matter what. So at the end of the year, if I own an airplane with 5k in sunk costs, take 0 trips with it, and pay $600/ticket on the airlines for 12 trips I've got $12,200 in aviation costs. But if I take the 12 6 hour trips in my plane@ $75/h in fuel, I've got $10,400 in aviation costs.

It's cheaper to go GA.

Not always, but it's close enough in a lot of scenarios to be arguable. I can't count the number of times I have jumped into my airplane to fly a trip that could just as easily be driven - but I flew just because I wanted to. I make frequent trips from my home strip to KSJT (about .5 enroute) to meet my parents at the Chinese food restaurant on the field for lunch, just because I can and I want to go flying. A lot more expensive than a sandwich at home, and a lot more satisfying.

It ain't always about the dollars. You can substitute "airplane" with "bass boat" or "vacation home" or whatever other toy in this conversation and it wouldn't change the logic, nor the outcome.

 

[denverpilot]

Ahhh, the expected 40-point-ramble reply.

Well, Dick sold the P-210, Tom sold the Cardinal, Karl has discussed selling the Cheyenne. Many others who aren't writers have followed suit and many others are thinking about it. Ask me how I know. :wink2:

And someone else bought them.

As Doc Bruce would say, "Welcome to your demographic!"

At some point it's time to sell the toys. There's going to be continued pressure on prices as there will be less buyers than sellers.

The reply was not rambling. It was detailed enough to keep you from whining about some missed point in my opinion acting like I hadn't already considered it. I know how you work. I work for cranky old technologists, remember. Learned a lot from them, too.

This is only the first wave of the sell-off. Somewhere in the middle where the prices have continued to fall (but watch out for overall inflation and continued wage stagnation) while still in the timeline where the aircraft for sale are still being maintained, is where my generation will pick up some excellent deals. After that, there will be piles of junk on the market for a while until they're sent to the beer can makers.

Tell your friends not to hang on too long. I'll be happy to pay them half of what they paid for their airplanes in another decade or so... The Circle of Life is fun, ain't it?

 

[tonycondon]

Dick sold his 210 to a scrap yard.

Pretty sure Tom's former Cardinal has been the source of a LOT of discussion on this forum.

 

[wabower]

Don't get too busy counting your chickens, sonny-boy. Those of us who have made it this far have ongoing mortality odds that aren't all that much different than yours. And now that we're stress-free and out of the trap, we may live forever. Waking up each morning with the knowledge that your biggest decision is whether to go to the airport or the golf course isn't all bad, assuming that you can remember where they are.

And someone else bought them.

As Doc Bruce would say, "Welcome to your demographic!"

At some point it's time to sell the toys. There's going to be continued pressure on prices as there will be less buyers than sellers.

The reply was not rambling. It was detailed enough to keep you from whining about some missed point in my opinion acting like I hadn't already considered it. I know how you work. I work for cranky old technologists, remember. Learned a lot from them, too.

This is only the first wave of the sell-off. Somewhere in the middle where the prices have continued to fall (but watch out for overall inflation and continued wage stagnation) while still in the timeline where the aircraft for sale are still being maintained, is where my generation will pick up some excellent deals. After that, there will be piles of junk on the market for a while until they're sent to the beer can makers.

Tell your friends not to hang on too long. I'll be happy to pay them half of what they paid for their airplanes in another decade or so... The Circle of Life is fun, ain't it?

 

[wsuffa]

Don't get too busy counting your chickens, sonny-boy. Those of us who have made it this far have ongoing mortality odds that aren't all that much different than yours. And now that we're stress-free and out of the trap, we may live forever. Waking up each morning with the knowledge that your biggest decision is whether to go to the airport or the golf course isn't all bad, assuming that you can remember where they are.

That longer will be paid for by the likes of.... making it harder to pay for said plane.

I'd posit that the bigger pricing issue will be the declining population of pilots, leading to an oversupply and lower prices.

 

[Rex Kramer]

I agree. I like the way Mac writes, and it's occasionally interesting to read about what it's like to fly the way he flies -- but it's so far removed from the way I fly that it's usually not relevant to me.

I haven't flown for "fun" in years. All airline as of late. Not happy about it, but that's the way life is treating me now with a couple small kids and a stay at home wife. That being said, I absolutely cannot stand that Mac is in the position he is in now. If I wanted to read Flying I would have kept my subscription to Flying.

 

[wabower]

So you think the same number of planes being chased by half as many buyers might impact prices sometime between now and 2025?

That longer will be paid for by the likes of.... making it harder to pay for said plane.

I'd posit that the bigger pricing issue will be the declining population of pilots, leading to an oversupply and lower prices.

 

[Everskyward]

I think the planes are going away as fast as the buyers. Also, for the most part, I don't think new buyers want old planes unless they fall into the category of "classics". Some will take and old airplane and modernize it but there are many old airplanes that aren't worth that kind of investment.

 

[CJones]

Does taking the airline require you to invest $150k up front or burden you with $5-8k in fixed costs every year, not including the opportunity cost of having $150k tied up in the RV? Honest to gosh, do what you want with your airplane, but be honest with yourself. It is an expensive convenience (for the times when it is convenient), and it is far more expensive than flying commercial unless you're shading your argument in an attempt to convince a reluctant spouse.

I'm OK with that. I've told my wife that there is no way to justify an airplane other than that flying gives me incredible enjoyment, even better if I can kill two birds with one stone by using it for something practical and enjoying the flying part at the same time...

No. The up-front purchase/build cost of the airplane is a 'sunk cost' just for the 'toy'. If it turns out that I can use the 'toy' to travel cheaper than airlines (on a per-trip basis), then that is an added bonus.

 

[weilke]

No. The up-front purchase/build cost of the airplane is a 'sunk cost' just for the 'toy'. If it turns out that I can use the 'toy' to travel cheaper than airlines (on a per-trip basis), then that is an added bonus.

I have yet to meet the boatowner who breaks down the cost for his boat on an hourly basis.

This past weekend I threw my wife a big birthday party. I wonder how many $/hr of good graces that is going to buy me for the next couple of weeks .

If you fly on someone elses dime or if there is some tax math involved, yes you have to break down flying cost by the hour. Without those factors, there is a cost to hold the key and then you just swipe different credit and debit cards at the fuel pump just so you dont know how much you actually spend .

 

[wabower]

If you can teach your seeing-eye dog to fly, you can even wear a blindfold.:wink2:

I have yet to meet the boatowner who breaks down the cost for his boat on an hourly basis.

This past weekend I threw my wife a big birthday party. I wonder how many $/hr of good graces that is going to buy me for the next couple of weeks .

If you fly on someone elses dime or if there is some tax math involved, yes you have to break down flying cost by the hour. Without those factors, there is a cost to hold the key and then you just swipe different credit and debit cards at the fuel pump just so you dont know how much you actually spend .

 

[weilke]

If you can teach your seeing-eye dog to fly, you can even wear a blindfold.:wink2:

I already have super-tinted 'Aviator' sunglasses to match my 'pilots watch'. With those it's easier not to see the numbers on the fuel truck counter.

 

[wabower]

I already have super-tinted 'Aviator' sunglasses to match my 'pilots watch'. With those it's easier not to see the numbers on the fuel truck counter.

 

[denverpilot]

Don't get too busy counting your chickens, sonny-boy. Those of us who have made it this far have ongoing mortality odds that aren't all that much different than yours. And now that we're stress-free and out of the trap, we may live forever. Waking up each morning with the knowledge that your biggest decision is whether to go to the airport or the golf course isn't all bad, assuming that you can remember where they are.

No worries. Not counting chickens here.

I will point out that life expectancy and ability to pass a 3rd Class physical aren't related. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, and folks here certainly know more about how to protect their medical from the postings of Doc Bruce, but many will fall into the many traps laid by their peer group (age-wise) at Aeromedical and decide its not worth thousands of dollars to dig out.

Those aircraft will go cheap too.

 

[BillyBH]

To the contrary, the bottom line is that short of inheritance or other benevolence nobody "already has an airplane" without financial consequence any more than they "already have a Beemer." At some time they bought it, at which time the meter started to run insofar as own/op costs are concerned.

Your right to recognize only those that you wish to acknowledge is not in question.

What if my rich uncle gave me the airplane. No cost to me. Does that change anything?

 

[wabower]

What if you immediately sold it after he gifted it to you and then invested the money in a bond fund?

What if my rich uncle gave me the airplane. No cost to me. Does that change anything?

 

[EdFred]

What if you immediately sold it after he gifted it to you and then invested the money in a bond fund?

Why would I do that? Today's society says to spend every dime you have, and even those you don't have. The only current reason I'd sell a plane that was given to me is so I could get different one.

 

[Everskyward]

Unless your goal is to accumulate as much money as possible, there is an income level beyond which it probably isn't going to make much difference if you blow money on an airplane or not. For some people it might be a small purchase and most people don't agonize over small purchases. Then there's always the question about whether or not it's worth it TO YOU. I would say that most people are not quite in this income range (or they're looking at a more expensive airplane) but I'm sure some are.

 

[Ted]

I think the planes are going away as fast as the buyers. Also, for the most part, I don't think new buyers want old planes unless they fall into the category of "classics". Some will take and old airplane and modernize it but there are many old airplanes that aren't worth that kind of investment.

There's something of the eye of the beholder here. The closest plane I could find to a 310 these days would be a new Baron, and I don't like Barons.

I could do like my friend did and buy a T310R for a smoking deal, add an Aspen and RAM conversion, and have a plane that's faster and more capable than a G58 Baron, plus more comfortable and more to my liking. I will have a total of 1/4 the amount I'd have tied up in a new G58, leaving me with a bit under $1 mil that I can then invest and make me money (theoretically). In 10 years when I decide to sell both planes, I will end up losing less money on the T310R than I will from depreciation on the new Baron.

Of course, then I have a very capable plane. A lot of older planes that lack the capability probably don't make sense with that. The Twin Cessnas are good options since there's nothing much else like them, and probably won't ever be again.

 

[somorris]

It occurred to me that Walmart maintains a fleet of GA aircraft to fly their people around. If GA is not cost effective, I am surprised that Walmart of all companies would use GA like they do. Hmmm.

 

[denverpilot]

It occurred to me that Walmart maintains a fleet of GA aircraft to fly their people around. If GA is not cost effective, I am surprised that Walmart of all companies would use GA like they do. Hmmm.

Sam Walton flew himself around when the business was starting. The whole original concept of WalMart was giant stores in rural areas, not cities and suburbs.

So GA, in a way, made WalMart possible. He'd drop in on stores unannounced by transporting himself there, and scouted possible locations from the air for construction sites.

There was an AOPA magazine article about Sam Walton sometime in the late 80s or early 90s.

The kids after Sam died, utilize aviation more like a typical Corporation does. AFAIK, they're not pilots.

WalMart in general is one of the most paranoid customers I have ever had the "pleasure" of working with (long ago). One of our techs (in)famously got thrown off the Bentonville data center site for lifting a floor tile in the data center and requested never to return. He'd waited on them for hours and had a schedule (that they set) to keep during an equipment installation.

WalMart stores typically have a ratio three security cameras watching employee spaces to every one camera you see in the public areas. Count sometime. They trust their employees deeply. Har har.