Is General Aviation Dying in the USA?

[Jim Logajan]

Cheapest LSAs that look like normal airplanes are:

- Allegro, as made in Sanford -- same 90k that Luscombe promised. I do not know of any delivered. About 30 Czech-made "2007" models fly around. No suspicious crashes, the flying qualities are said to be improved over the "2000" model, which Mr. Flying Cheese Head called "complete piece of junk - basically takes everyone's misconceptions about LSA's and makes them come true".

- X-Air -- 60k. This is basically as low as an airplane can go without turning into a complete homebuilt-like. You get a Lexan windshield, etc. The airplane actually exists, they sell about 10 a year. There are enthusiasts that fly them around and love them.

- Cheetah -- 70k, same as X-Air, but I do not know of many

- Aerotrek -- the villain in the SomethingFox scandal, apparently, but that water flowed under that bridge back in the 20th century. 69k like X-Air, but somewhat slicker marketing. Seems like the same quality from the outside and from Dan Johnson videos. Well-proven EuroFox design. Comes in 2 varieties: conventional and tricycle undercarriage.

- Also, there was an entry that tried to aim to 65k with a tube-cage airframe with the classic ultralight layout, Sport Hornet. Unfortunately, I have been informed that the company in Oklahoma folded and was liquidated.

So it seems that nobody can go below 60k for tube+fabric LSA and below 110k for a metal, composite, or combo airplane. Allegro is trying, but we'll see.

-- Pete

Actually metal and composite airplanes can be purchased, ready to fly, for under $110k; even under $100k:

- Savannah -- $77k from Skykits Corp; metal; ready to fly: http://www.skykits.com/RTF_Pricing.html

- J-170 -- $90k from Jabiru; composite; ready to fly: http://www.jabirupacific.com/specs/j170sp.htm

- Lightning -- $99k from Arion; composite; ready to fly: http://www.flylightning.net/images/pdf/2011LSABrochurerev3-2-11.pdf

They all look like real airplanes to me; all under $100k (admittedly just barely in the case of the Lightning.)

I'm surprised no one has yet set up shop to build and sell RV-12s in the $90k range (probably have and I have missed the fact.) Would be legal to do that.

(Back in the tube-and-fabric category is the venerable Kitfox, which could be added as another contender:

- Super Sport -- $84k from Kitfox; tube-and-fabric; ready to fly: http://www.kitfoxaircraft.com/Kitfox-SLSA.htm )

 

[barnstorm]

If this is so simple to you, why haven't the FBO's figured it out?

Some have. That is why I posted A LOCAL FBO RATES IN MY POST.

Note that their LSAs are booked solid 2 weeks in advance year round and the 172's are NOT and spend most days sitting on the ramp.

So, I have $100k sitting around and I want to start a flight school.

Let's see -- I can buy two rental-able, IFR-equipped C172s for $35k and a 150 for $20k and then have $10k left for contingencies. Insurance will run $15k/ year, I'll figure 200 hours on each airplane each year. Harry on the field says he'll rebuild the old Continentals.

Or I can buy one LSA with a newfangled engine Harry won't touch for $110k.

Oh -- and hull insurance will be unavailable for the shiny new LSA.



Yep -- terrible businessmen.

Thankfully, other posters have debunked all of the items in this post.

However, I would like to add that you seem to completely forget that there are plenty of vintage LSAs to be had that are excellent trainers and if "harry" can work on a 172 he surely can work on a Cub or Aeronca.

You also completely forgot the fuel savings you will get running aircraft that only burn 4gal /hr of auto gas and the fact you will have MORE biz thanks to your lower running costs and ability to offer Sport Pilot training.

.

 

[zaitcev]

They all look like real airplanes to me; all under $100k (admittedly just barely in the case of the Lightning.)

Thanks, Jim - duly noted. I knew about J-170, but forgot to write down the price.

 

[Everskyward]

I think whoever mentioned location was right on. I see quite a few small airplanes out flying when the weather is nice, including LSAs. I found out (from Murphey) that we have a school that specializes in LSAs on the field. We are also having that LSA expo out at KFTG this weekend. I honestly didn't think that LSAs would catch on that well out here because of the DA issues and their small engines but apparently I was wrong.

I don't know why people say they wouldn't want to travel in an LSA. Sometimes it's nice to go low and slow and watch the scenery drift by. You just can't be too destination-oriented.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

- Allegro, as made in Sanford -- same 90k that Luscombe promised. I do not know of any delivered. About 30 Czech-made "2007" models fly around. No suspicious crashes, the flying qualities are said to be improved over the "2000" model, which Mr. Flying Cheese Head called "complete piece of junk - basically takes everyone's misconceptions about LSA's and makes them come true".

To clarify - I know nothing of its flying characteristics. I never flew it - One look and I didn't feel like it was safe at all. Poorly placed, exposed control rods everywhere that seemed to be extremely susceptible to jamming. Fuel tank is the pilot's seat. Etc. etc... I'd sooner build my own airplane than fly that trap, and I've never even managed to make an airworthy R/C model.

And since I saw one, well, they've delivered at least one. But, it's the only one I've ever seen. I think the US dealer is based at KPCZ.

 

[barnstorm]

Wayne,

An $80K used LSA will need either twice the amount allocated in the hourly rate, or twice the hours, to pay for itself compared to a $40K 172 - No doubt about that.

But, let's look at the two options. Let's compare a $40K 172 and the aforementioned $80K SportStar. 10-year loan at 6% on each.

So, the 172 is going to cost $444.08/mo on that loan payment. Let's say $1000/yr for liability insurance, $1500/year for hull. Hangar/Tiedown at $150/month. So, fixed expenses of $9,629/yr.

The SportStar is going to cost $888.16/mo on the loan, $1000/yr liability, $3000/yr hull, $150/mo hangar/tiedown. So, $16,458/yr fixed expenses.

Now, let's say gas is $5/gallon, 172 burns 8gph, so $40/hr for fuel. Let's go with $1/hr for oil. Let's also assume we have an A&P on staff or at least on contract for a much lower labor rate. I would budget a good $30/hr for maintenance on the 172. Engine reserve ($22K/2000 TBO) is $11/hr. So, $82/hr for variable costs. If we charge $100/hr, we need to put 535 hours per year on it to break even.

Now, the SportStar is gonna burn 4gph, but it runs better on auto fuel - $4/gallon, $16/hr. We'll stick with the $1/hr for oil and coolant, and go with $20/hr for maintenance. Looks like Rotax got their TBO's upped to 2000 hours finally, with an overhaul cost of about $12,000. So, $6/hr for the engine reserve. $43/hr for costs. We charge $80/hr, and we only need 445 hours/year to break even.

BUT, now we have a nice new-ish airplane that's renting for $20/hr less than the old clapped-out 172 - I bet it gets flown a lot more! So, the FBO makes more money, the renters can afford to fly more, everybody's happy.

So, tell me again why the established FBO's are instead charging $130+ for a 172 rather than replacing some of those 172's with LSA's so that more people can afford to fly?

Fantastic post.

Also, don't forget the added customers that will want a SP cert & rental time, that will come to you because some other place has nothing smaller/cheaper than 172s.

A local FBO has a SkyCatcher on order. Right now they have only 172's and up. I spoke with them and they get calls daily asking if it has arrived by people wanting lessons and to rent it. Most of those wanting to rent it are rated higher than Sport Pilot and are interested in the low cost of rental / fuel.

Thankfully, a few FS's and FBOs are getting a clue.

.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Thanks, Jim - duly noted. I knew about J-170, but forgot to write down the price.

I honestly hadn't really paid much attention to the J-170 since a J-430/230 experimental has always been closer to what I would want, but I just noticed in the J-170 specs that its fuel consumption of 3.4 gph at 100 kts and a 35 gal fuel tank yields over 33 smpg and an endurance of over 10 hours and range of over 1000 nm! Of course, that leaves only 350 lbs left for people and toothbrushes. Still, no one can complain about having to land too often for fuel!

 

[dmccormack]

Thankfully, other posters have debunked all of the items in this post.

However, I would like to add that you seem to completely forget that there are plenty of vintage LSAs to be had that are excellent trainers and if "harry" can work on a 172 he surely can work on a Cub or Aeronca.

You also completely forgot the fuel savings you will get running aircraft that only burn 4gal /hr of auto gas and the fact you will have MORE biz thanks to your lower running costs and ability to offer Sport Pilot training.

.

No, they haven't. If all those posters were so correct why haven't LSA-based FBO Flight Schools sprung up like weeds all over the country?



You clearly don't know much about fabric and tube airplanes -- I know several A&Ps who will not work on them since, as one admitted, "I haven't seen fbric since school, and that was half a day." I'm very fortunate to have an A&P on my field that has done recovers, overhauls, and has rebuilt magnetos. You may not know that A&Ps with those skills are rare and becoming scarce.

Read a bit more carefully and you'll see I mentioned a previous "LSA" based flight instruction era when light, 2 seat aircraft dominated the training market.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I think whoever mentioned location was right on.

Well, I mentioned it in this thread, but I sure as heck didn't make up that saying.

I found out (from Murphey) that we have a school that specializes in LSAs on the field.

Don't they know that you can't possibly make a business out of that?

There's several LSA-only flight schools out there. Chesapeake Sport Pilot, for example... Their Sky Arrow did a couple landings at Wings after the FlyBQ last year.

I honestly didn't think that LSAs would catch on that well out here because of the DA issues and their small engines but apparently I was wrong.

They have some pretty impressive climb rates for those small engines. When I flew the Evektor we were probably over gross but that little thing was doing better than 1000 fpm. Power loading at 1320lb and 100hp is 13.2 lb/hp - Roughly equivalent to a Piper Arrow, and closer to a C182 than a C172.

I don't know why people say they wouldn't want to travel in an LSA. Sometimes it's nice to go low and slow and watch the scenery drift by. You just can't be too destination-oriented.

The LSA's that bump up against the legal LSA speed limit (of which there are quite a few) are faster than a C172, roughly equivalent to an Archer... 120 knots is not a bad speed for getting somewhere, as long as there's not a too much headwind. Hell, that's only about 10-15 knots slower than the 182, and I've been all over the place in that. When it comes to traveling, the fact that most of them can't be flown IFR is a bigger problem than the speed, IMO.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Also, don't forget the added customers that will want a SP cert & rental time, that will come to you because some other place has nothing smaller/cheaper than 172s.

There is a certain competitive advantage there. You'll get the people who want the SP cert for cost reasons, and you'll get the folks who can't get a medical any more.

A local FBO has a SkyCatcher on order. Right now they have only 172's and up. I spoke with them and they get calls daily asking if it has arrived by people wanting lessons and to rent it. Most of those wanting to rent it are rated higher than Sport Pilot and are interested in the low cost of rental / fuel.

Thankfully, a few FS's and FBOs are getting a clue.

Yes! And the FBO owners I've talked to who don't like LSA's, it's not because they've actually considered them, run the numbers, and decided against it - It's because they haven't even bothered to look into it at all. They wrote 'em off without even considering it.

So no, I don't think they "know something I don't" (well, at least not this particular thing. )

 

[flyingcheesehead]

No, they haven't. If all those posters were so correct why haven't LSA-based FBO Flight Schools sprung up like weeds all over the country?

Let me say this again:

Yes! And the FBO owners I've talked to who don't like LSA's, it's not because they've actually considered them, run the numbers, and decided against it - It's because they haven't even bothered to look into it at all. They wrote 'em off without even considering it.

And it may just be that they're all thinking like you, Dan... They figure that since nobody else is doing it, that it must not make sense. OTOH, those that went out and DID it are doing quite well. Hell, when I flew the Evektor, the owner of the airplane was trying to get more of them as quick as he could.

 

[wabower]

How do we equate all this with the success of Cirrus? Hasn't it been the best-selling airplane of the past decade? Evidently somebody has been willing to spend some money on airplanes.

We already have two really nice traveling airplanes. The Archer is generally not used for long-distance travel, and when it is, it's generally with only 1-2 people. I've taken it to Gaston's (when the 182 was down and we didn't yet own the DA40) with Pete, I've taken it to Kansas City solo, Larry took it to Florida solo and Arkansas with one other person... But that, and one other trip to Sun 'n' Fun, is all the cross country travel it's seen in the past 6 years I think. It rarely has more than the front seats filled - And there's always the 182 and the DA40 for that anyway.

Really, I think the Archer's main mission (bopping around Wisconsin and northern IL with one or two people) could easily be filled by an LSA. Actually, if we got enough people in the club, we could keep the Archer AND get an LSA.

I think the main barrier to others' acceptance of LSA's is simply lack of familiarity. There's a big sentiment in the GA community that those aren't "real" airplanes somehow. Unfortunately, the only LSA that was ever for rent in our area was an Allegro 2000 which is a complete piece of junk - basically takes everyone's misconceptions about LSA's and makes them come true. But the Evektor, SportStar, Skycatcher, Flight Design, etc. are all decent airplanes.



Same here.



And, as fuel prices continue to increase, that's only going to tilt the equation that much more in favor of the LSA's.



As Dave Higdon says, the two most important things keeping us from getting more new pilots: Air conditioning and cupholders.

He's not too far off.

 

[dmccormack]

And it may just be that they're all thinking like you, Dan... They figure that since nobody else is doing it, that it must not make sense. OTOH, those that went out and DID it are doing quite well. Hell, when I flew the Evektor, the owner of the airplane was trying to get more of them as quick as he could.

::Sigh::

Only some FBOs are "trying to get more of them" due to unusual circumstances not prevalent in most of the country.

An exception does not prove the rule.

You placed the blame at poor business practice, but I know a little bit about business and don't see how you make money on a $100k asset that depreciates quickly at the rate of use required to pay the fixed costs.

So -- one last time -- if LSAs were the salvation of FBOs nationwide, why haven't LSA's taken over the industry.

By the way -- my Chief is Light Sport, so I'm a booster, but I'm also a bit skeptical of claims that everyone else is an idiot that doesn't share your rosy assessment.

 

[zaitcev]

And since I saw one, well, they've delivered at least one. But, it's the only one I've ever seen. I think the US dealer is based at KPCZ.

I meant the deliveries from the factory in Sanford, NC. The Allegro 2000 and Allegro 2007 models were both made by Fantasy Air in Czech Republic. I am quite sure they would not be able to resist making some modifications, so it's going to be "American Allegro", different from the 2007. (btw, http://zaitcev.mee.nu/flying_allegro )

 

[Everskyward]

Don't they know that you can't possibly make a business out of that?

They are also charging more than your hypothetical $80/hour plus there are dues.

http://www.skyraideraviation.com/fleet.htm

 

[Jim Logajan]

- Cheetah -- 70k, same as X-Air, but I do not know of many

Just realized I hadn't seen that model before (http://www.mwsportaviation.com/cheetah-xls/specifications-and-price.html ) though it is listed for a very basic plane on that website for between $50k and $64k for an SLSA.

 

[wabower]

I spent much of my financial services career structuring "rolling stock" equipment deals including several hundred airplanes and helicoptors. The accepted ROI method for those deals was/is a "money-in/money-out" analysis, similar to the auto leases that are now commonly used in that industry as an alternative to financed purchases.

In order to commit capital to the deal, the owner/lessor's investment must provide a positive return during a pre-defined time-certain business cycle. The return will typically consist of a combination of annual rents and resale proceeds. If the lease is structured as an operating lease (owner pays mx and other expenses) the higher risk of such a transaction causes the lessor to expect a higher return than a capital (net) lease under which the lessor/user is responsible for such expenses. Neither scenario includes an open-ended " but you can make more money after it's paid for" assumption. Some lease-extension options may be included in the leases, but they too are time-certain events.

If an LSA can provide the ROI necessary to make the deals attractive, investors can be secured to buy them. The problem with airplane transactions has historically been that they won't pass the ROI test, and investors with a lick of sense won't touch them. That group probably involves a large number of FBO's.

::Sigh::

Only some FBOs are "trying to get more of them" due to unusual circumstances not prevalent in most of the country.

An exception does not prove the rule.

You placed the blame at poor business practice, but I know a little bit about business and don't see how you make money on a $100k asset that depreciates quickly at the rate of use required to pay the fixed costs.

So -- one last time -- if LSAs were the salvation of FBOs nationwide, why haven't LSA's taken over the industry.

By the way -- my Chief is Light Sport, so I'm a booster, but I'm also a bit skeptical of claims that everyone else is an idiot that doesn't share your rosy assessment.

 

[barnstorm]

Thankfully, other posters have debunked all of the items in this post.

No, they haven't.

They sure did.

If all those posters were so correct why haven't LSA-based FBO Flight Schools sprung up like weeds all over the country?

Lots and lots of reasons, some I know, some I do not.

FBO's have been using the same biz model for GENERATIONS and they don't know how to change, are afraid to change and don't even understand how to change.

Most, still don't know the basic Sport Pilot FARs why would you expect them to be omniscient and understand what they should do by osmosis?

Sport Pilot and LSAs have been the fastest growing segment of aviation for some time and for good reasons that the FBOs ignore at their peril and the hobby's as well.

Since there will finally be a LSA with the name Cessna on it many FBOs are starting to wake from their slumber and realizing they are not in the 1970's.

You clearly don't know much about fabric and tube airplanes -- I know several A&Ps who will not work on them since, as one admitted, "I haven't seen fbric since school, and that was half a day." I'm very fortunate to have an A&P on my field that has done recovers, overhauls, and has rebuilt magnetos. You may not know that A&Ps with those skills are rare and becoming scarce.

You clearly do not know me.

I know plenty of A&Ps and inspectors that LOVE to work on T&F. It is far from friggen rocket science. If your A&P can't learn fabric work they are pretty dim and really should be in another field IMHO. Vintage work is common around here and AGAIN it is only one of many LSA options.

If you think you are fortunate to have a mechanic that knows how to work on a magneto then why are you proposing flight schools use Lycoming powered 172s over Rotax powered LSAs? What are they going to do when they come across composite, diesel or turbines? Learn and change or get out of they way so someone worthy can have the job.

.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Only some FBOs are "trying to get more of them" due to unusual circumstances not prevalent in most of the country.

An exception does not prove the rule.

That was merely a single example. There are several. In addition, I believe that a large part of the lack of more "exceptions" is simply the "we've always done it this way and it's worked" style of business at most FBO's.

For example, at an FBO I used to work at, the AVERAGE employee had been there for over 15 years. Holy crap, don't ever try to make a suggestion for improvement at a place like that! In 2003, they had no web site. "Well, why would we need one of those? We've never had one before..." (They do have one now - Scheduling and all. Finally.)

You placed the blame at poor business practice, but I know a little bit about business and don't see how you make money on a $100k asset that depreciates quickly at the rate of use required to pay the fixed costs.

Frankly, you don't make a lot of money on 172's either. Aviation is not a great business to be in.

So -- one last time -- if LSAs were the salvation of FBOs nationwide, why haven't LSA's taken over the industry.

I've answered this question at least twice. Just because they aren't out there in droves does not mean that the business case isn't there. In fact, that they are working very well for the relatively small number of businesses that HAVE tried it suggests that it's a lot more worthy than the overall popularity would seem to indicate.

By the way -- my Chief is Light Sport, so I'm a booster, but I'm also a bit skeptical of claims that everyone else is an idiot that doesn't share your rosy assessment.

I never said anyone was an idiot... Except for you, saying that you'd spend $100 on starting a flight school, if you had it sitting around. That was merely a reference to the fact that, LSA or not, owning a flight school is generally not a very high-performing investment.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

How do we equate all this with the success of Cirrus? Hasn't it been the best-selling airplane of the past decade? Evidently somebody has been willing to spend some money on airplanes.

Yes, but you don't see too many of those on a rental line being used for primary training.

There are certainly people in the world who have enough money that they can buy a Cirrus. Cirrus has also done a great job of marketing to people who are not already part of the pilot community. Very smart, if you're trying to sell airplanes!

But, the SR22's in the local rental fleet are $235/hr (actually I think they're more than that now with fuel prices going the way they are), with a minimum 16-hour checkout. I've never seen one flying. At least one of them is for sale. $235/hr is simply not a workable price for a large enough percentage of the population to make it work. For me personally, I like to go places so I look at the price per nautical mile. I can fly some really nice airplanes for about $1 per nm. But, those Cirri are more like $1.30/nm, and combined with the 16-hour checkout it just doesn't make any sense at all for me to fly them, so I don't.

I think a lot of Cirrus' success is the result of their marketing... Other airplane companies could learn a thing or three from them. They do a really good job of it. We've had the arguments about the airplanes, and while I think there are other airplanes that compare favorably, I do think Cirrus builds a pretty nice airplane that is clearly desirable to a lot of people. Being modern design is a significant part of that... It doesn't look like the aviation equivalent of a Ford Pinto.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If an LSA can provide the ROI necessary to make the deals attractive, investors can be secured to buy them. The problem with airplane transactions has historically been that they won't pass the ROI test, and investors with a lick of sense won't touch them. That group probably involves a large number of FBO's.

"Investors with a lick of sense" won't touch airplanes at all. It's not a high-return business, and people with a lick of sense don't get into this business to make a lot of money.

It's just like the ol' trucking business. After the owner of the company I worked for a few years ago died, his kids took an objective look at it and decided to shut it down and sell off the equipment. I don't blame them, I'd have done the same. Trucking is a TERRIBLE business to be in - Huge capital costs, huge liability, razor-thin profit margins. Sounds exactly like aviation to me.

I'm not saying that an LSA is a great investment. I think it's a good investment for someone who chooses to be in this business. If you want to make money, buy a gas station and forget about this silly aviation stuff.

 

[wabower]

Frankly, you don't make a lot of money on 172's either. Aviation is not a great business to be in.

I never said anyone was an idiot... Except for you, saying that you'd spend $100 on starting a flight school, if you had it sitting around. That was merely a reference to the fact that, LSA or not, owning a flight school is generally not a very high-performing investment.

How many posts were required before this deep and profound grasp of the obvious was finally aired? Isn't that the reason that very few finance majors and MBA's find their way into the profession? Does anybody really think that having a couple of high-priced LSA's on the flight line (that, due to their cost, rent for about the same rate as the others) will have an impact on FBO business? Did you read the posts on another forum from the kid in NY whose FBO finally got a 162? Ka-ching!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

They are also charging more than your hypothetical $80/hour plus there are dues.

http://www.skyraideraviation.com/fleet.htm

Looking at all the links from that post, this is the only one that charges dues - And there are other FBO's that do that, masquerading as "clubs."

Two of the others offer a club/block rate as well as a regular rate.

With the exception of the ones in California, they're all charging $100 ±$5 for the LSA's.

In California, they're charging $125-$135/hr for the LSA's... They're also charging $170/hr for 172's, even the old 1980's ones! :hairraisi

Again, my hypothetical $80 was just an attempt to show that an LSA can turn a profit at a lower hourly rate on fewer hours per year. I wouldn't charge $80/hr either.

In any case, looking at the sites that were linked to pretty much proves the point - I'm sure none of them are losing money (they'd raise their rates otherwise) - So, clearly you can make money on an LSA at a lower hourly rate than you can on a 172. The lower the rates, the more potential pilots.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

How many posts were required before this deep and profound grasp of the obvious was finally aired? Isn't that the reason that very few finance majors and MBA's find their way into the profession? Does anybody really think that having a couple of high-priced LSA's on the flight line (that, due to their cost, rent for about the same rate as the others) will have an impact on FBO business? Did you read the posts on another forum from the kid in NY whose FBO finally got a 162? Ka-ching!

Dammit Wayne, I'm still young enough that I still know ALMOST everything.

I was never saying that an LSA was a great investment when compared with non-aviation investments. I am merely saying that it makes sense for an aviation business - You have to have a passion for aviation to be in this business, or you wouldn't do it at all. For those who have made the choice to forego higher returns for the chance to do something they enjoy, having an LSA or three on the line can be a very good idea.

 

[Everskyward]

Yes, but you don't see too many of those on a rental line being used for primary training.

We've got a Cirrus-based school at the home airport too. They've been around for a number of years now.

http://www.ia-kapa.com/

We also have a couple schools with large conventional fleets. I don't know how all these places are doing economically but some of them have been around for a long time. Maybe that's why I don't think GA is dead, but like you said it also has to do with location.

 

[wabower]

Is it not then disingenuous to damn the FBO's (like the one where you worked) for being poor businessmen who are set in their ways with no intention of changing and in the next breath say they have to be dumb as a post to be in that sorry-ass business in the first place?

Dammit Wayne, I'm still young enough that I still know ALMOST everything.

I was never saying that an LSA was a great investment when compared with non-aviation investments. I am merely saying that it makes sense for an aviation business - You have to have a passion for aviation to be in this business, or you wouldn't do it at all. For those who have made the choice to forego higher returns for the chance to do something they enjoy, having an LSA or three on the line can be a very good idea.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Is it not then disingenuous to damn the FBO's (like the one where you worked) for being poor businessmen who are set in their ways with no intention of changing and in the next breath say they have to be dumb as a post to be in that sorry-ass business in the first place?

Nope - I happen to subscribe to the same brand of idiocy. I would LOVE to own an FBO. I just don't know if I'd be able to fly for fun any more if I did.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

We've got a Cirrus-based school at the home airport too. They've been around for a number of years now.

http://www.ia-kapa.com/

We also have a couple schools with large conventional fleets. I don't know how all these places are doing economically but some of them have been around for a long time. Maybe that's why I don't think GA is dead, but like you said it also has to do with location.

Yup, they're out there. The FBO at Wings Field also has some Cirri. They had an LSA, but it wasn't great. I forget what it was, but at ~25 hours TTAF the prop was already coming apart.

Glad to hear there are so many active flight schools there! I don't know of a single airport around here with more than one flight school. Of course, we do have lots of airports, especially per capita, and nearly every airport between Madison and Milwaukee at least has ONE flight school.

 

[dmccormack]

Nope - I happen to subscribe to the same brand of idiocy. I would LOVE to own an FBO. I just don't know if I'd be able to fly for fun any more if I did.

I tried and got out before I lost more than I was willing to lose -- and that was with the lowest possible cost "fleet" (and a new LSA was never part of that equation because both airplanes were lease backs).

The flight schools/ FBOS that have started and failed around here in the last 7 years is a bigger number than those that have survived. The two I know that have continued are essentially hobbies. For one the owners somehow supplement an extravagant need for twins and the other has been doing it so long he doesn't know any better (and will tell you so).

As others have tried to convey, your broad brush descriptions don't stand up to scrutiny. Cup holders might bring some tire kickers in, but those will be forgotten once you whip out the PTS and described what's required to earn the cert or the summer bumps make the coffee fly all over the cockpit and the school adds yet another rule about liquids in the cockpit.

Face it -- it's a niche market with fairly narrow band of interest. The nexus of interest, desire, time, commitment, location, convenience, and real or imagined missions have to coalesce into one or more people with adequate money before you walk out to the shiny Evectacator LSA or glass paneled Cialis.

YOU think as MOST of us think -- "Gee, if everybody else knew how cool this was they'd all want to do it! It's merely a lack of information or superficial appeal that keeps the masses away!"

When in fact it's expensive, somewhat dangerous, time consuming, somewhat challenging, sometimes uncomfortable, and even embarrassing.

Not everybody likes that or is willing to put up with that.

 

[EdFred]

Great. now I'm going to have to go somewhere else to hunt. With all the p!ssing going on in this thread, the deer are never going to come around here anymore.

 

[wabower]

I have long contended that the reason fishing is more popular than golf is because fishermen don't have to post a score. All they are required to do is shrug and say "they weren't biting."

I tried and got out before I lost more than I was willing to lose -- and that was with the lowest possible cost "fleet" (and a new LSA was never part of that equation because both airplanes were lease backs).

The flight schools/ FBOS that have started and failed around here in the last 7 years is a bigger number than those that have survived. The two I know that have continued are essentially hobbies. For one the owners somehow supplement an extravagant need for twins and the other has been doing it so long he doesn't know any better (and will tell you so).

As others have tried to convey, your broad brush descriptions don't stand up to scrutiny. Cup holders might bring some tire kickers in, but those will be forgotten once you whip out the PTS and described what's required to earn the cert or the summer bumps make the coffee fly all over the cockpit and the school adds yet another rule about liquids in the cockpit.

Face it -- it's a niche market with fairly narrow band of interest. The nexus of interest, desire, time, commitment, location, convenience, and real or imagined missions have to coalesce into one or more people with adequate money before you walk out to the shiny Evectacator LSA or glass paneled Cialis.

YOU think as MOST of us think -- "Gee, if everybody else knew how cool this was they'd all want to do it! It's merely a lack of information or superficial appeal that keeps the masses away!"

When in fact it's expensive, somewhat dangerous, time consuming, somewhat challenging, sometimes uncomfortable, and even embarrassing.

Not everybody likes that or is willing to put up with that.

 

[EdFred]

I have long contended that the reason fishing is more popular than golf is because fishermen don't have to post a score. All they are required to do is shrug and say "they weren't biting."

That and buying a 12 pack at the store is cheaper than buying em from the beer cart.

 

[dmccormack]

Great. now I'm going to have to go somewhere else to hunt. With all the p!ssing going on in this thread, the deer are never going to come around here anymore.

Here you go:

Now quit yer whinin'

 

[Everskyward]

Nope - I happen to subscribe to the same brand of idiocy. I would LOVE to own an FBO. I just don't know if I'd be able to fly for fun any more if I did.

In my mind an FBO is different than a flight school. I can't think of any that do both well although my experience with flight schools is pretty small. I occasionally see FBOs which rent airplanes but they don't seem to make that a big part of their business. The only one the I can remember from the past few years is the FBO at Flying Cloud, but I can't remember which one it was. It had a number of LSAs (I think) parked outside.

 

[wabower]

That and buying a 12 pack at the store is cheaper than buying em from the beer cart.

I lack the athletic ability required to play golf and drink beer. I'm probably the worst drink-cart customer in the state.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Cup holders might bring some tire kickers in, but those will be forgotten once you whip out the PTS and described what's required to earn the cert or the summer bumps make the coffee fly all over the cockpit and the school adds yet another rule about liquids in the cockpit.

I don't think Dave meant the cup holder thing quite that literally - Though I must admit, I have used the cup holder (for a can) in the DA40. In the 182, I usually end up with a bottle in the side pocket instead.

Anyway - The real point is that you have someone with the money to fly, and they're probably showing up in a pretty nice car... And they're probably expecting the airplane to have at least a couple of modern conveniences. Instead, we stuff them into something that was designed in the 50's and built in the 70's and it shows... And then we tell them how much it costs, and they think "For THAT old trap?!?"

Sure, the rest of us know that those old birds can be excellent airplanes - But they sure don't give off that impression to the people we're trying to reach.

When in fact it's expensive, somewhat dangerous, time consuming, somewhat challenging, sometimes uncomfortable, and even embarrassing.

Not everybody likes that or is willing to put up with that.

Very true - But let's say 10% of the population is willing to put up with the dangerous, time-consuming, challenging, uncomfortable, and sometimes embarrassing aspects. That's the 10% we're trying to reach. Their incomes probably form a nice bell curve. Reducing the cost of flying can make aviation accessible to a MUCH larger number of people. That, in turn, could further reduce the cost of flying.

Unfortunately, things are currently moving in exactly the opposite direction, and if we keep going with business as usual in GA, GA will be dead. It's well on its way already.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In my mind an FBO is different than a flight school. I can't think of any that do both well although my experience with flight schools is pretty small. I occasionally see FBOs which rent airplanes but they don't seem to make that a big part of their business. The only one the I can remember from the past few years is the FBO at Flying Cloud, but I can't remember which one it was. It had a number of LSAs (I think) parked outside.

Mari,

My non-major-metro-area experiences have probably given me a somewhat different perspective - 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.

Also, I fly from a class C airport in a modest-sized city (200K population) where there are 3 other paved GA fields. One has no services, one is an airpark, and the "other" field has a combo FBO/Flight School.

The FBO at my field does it all - They sell fuel to the airlines, they are the sole GA FBO, they have a flight school, a maintenance shop, an avionics shop, and a fairly active charter department. I wouldn't say they're the best at any of the above, but they are pretty good at all of the above. They also have two other locations where they are both the sole FBO and the sole flight school.

I actually only know of three flight schools in the state that aren't part of the FBO at their respective airports, though I think there's maybe 2 more up in the Fox Valley.

In an area like Denver, there's probably a much better chance of making a go of it solely as a flight school. Here, not so much. There's just not the population to support it.

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).

 

[Ted]

And that 30% probably logs more than 60% of the hours, I would guess....

Just like the 20% of the aircraft out there that burn 80% of the fuel (almost all of which need 100LL)...

 

[steingar]

People who invest in aviation are the biggest suckers in the world.

— David G. Neeleman, after raising a record $128 million to start New Air (the then working name for what became JetBlue Airways), quoted in Business Week, 3 May 1999

 

[dmccormack]

— David G. Neeleman, after raising a record $128 million to start New Air (the then working name for what became JetBlue Airways), quoted in Business Week, 3 May 1999

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