The cost of owning?

[Everskyward]

It's harder to convince anyone that a boat is an efficient means of transportation, though, since the fast ones are still slower than my truck. With airplanes even the slowest one has an airspeed faster than what you can legally do on the road. However I would argue that if you're flying a plane that can only go 100 mph, that my Mitsubishi would beat you door-to-door on most no-wind days. Dan has admitted the days he flies to work are at best a wash.

But my point is why try to convince anyone with all these facts and figures? Even yourself. Aviation seems to be one of those hobbies where people seem to feel they need a practical purpose for doing it, one that needs to be justified to other people. You don't hear people saying, "Look at my new bass boat, and see all the fish I caught for free!" Well, maybe they do say that but only as a joke.

Maybe it's my own bias, though. This thread has got me thinking about what made me want to fly originally and efficient transportation was one of the furthest things from my mind. Even now if I could strip away the whole business/career end of it the thing that would attract me is doing aerobatics like I did a few years ago. I would not care that it really has no practical application other than my own enjoyment and personal satisfaction.

 

[zaitcev]

How many people have wanted to fly, walked into an FBO, not been greeted, looked around for a bit, and walked back out? How many people have come to an airport to find that it has fences, key-pass doors and gates, and nobody to tell them where to go for the next step?

It was kinda the case at Bode at KAEG, althogh their location has a publicly accessible front desk. After getting on their nerves for a bit, they sent an instructor, Lee Truitt, to call me. We talked a bit about the steps necessary, I wrote down the plan with step #1 "get Medical", and he left me his cellphone number. Once I got my medical, I was unable to get either Lee or anyone else at Bode to return my calls. After about a week or two, I figured they just didn't like me and went to their competitors from across the town, DelSol of KABQ. DelSol people were completely professional, although also tended to assume that I knew what the eff I was doing. I remember being in state of perpetual confusion at first (*). But they never left me hanging. I suppose the point here is, there's always a way to fly if you really want, the question is how much.

-- P

(*) For example, I did not realize that the "discovery flight" was mandatory... To make it worse, nobody at either place would tell me that it was, in plain words. Instead, they tried to steer me gently but firmly towards it. It is still a mystery to me what that was about. Probably the FBO's way to evaluate prospective students.

 

[jsstevens]

Mari absolutely nailed it:



How many people have wanted to fly, walked into an FBO, not been greeted, looked around for a bit, and walked back out? How many people have come to an airport to find that it has fences, key-pass doors and gates, and nobody to tell them where to go for the next step?

We will NEVER be able to convince everyone that flying is something they should do - But we need to take every person who has that nascent desire to get off the ground and give them the best possible chance of succeeding, much of which is getting easily into, and fitting into, our community.

I've got two collections of Gordon Baxter's "Bax Seat" columns and he did an extended, investigative reporting style story for Flying about just this aspect in the early 80's I think. He impersonated a businessman who wanted to learn to fly for travel at many different FBOs. The stories are funny, but sad in a customer service way. One FBO, he stood around at the counter for 15 minutes in full view of the secretary/admin person, a couple of CFIs and nobody even asked what he wanted. He finally announced "Who can I talk to about learning to fly?" It sounds like it hasn't changed much.

John

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I was unable to get either Lee or anyone else at Bode to return my calls. After about a week or two, I figured they just didn't like me and went to their competitors from across the town, DelSol of KABQ. DelSol people were completely professional, although also tended to assume that I knew what the eff I was doing. I remember being in state of perpetual confusion at first (*). But they never left me hanging. I suppose the point here is, there's always a way to fly if you really want, the question is how much.

The problem is, in many areas there's only one flight school within a reasonable distance, and even if there's more than one, often people don't know there is. Since non-aviators tend to think of "the airport" as "the place where the big jets come and go" and often don't realize there are other GA airports in the area, there's a good chance they don't know what flight schools are around.

So, rather than turning around and going to the flight school at the other airport across town, many of them turn around and go buy the motor home that the wife wanted instead, or the motorcycle, or the boat...

This should NOT be a question of "how much does the non-pilot want to fly." It should be a question of "How much do WE want the non-pilot to become a pilot?"

 

[wabower]

If airline travel is available, the cost argument normally goes up in smoke. The biz aircraft organizations have been trying to make it work forever, to no avail. When lifestyle is factored in, however, the GA bird wins by a landslide.

Don't forget the cost of TIME. It is not only $/mile it is also Time/Mile. My Baron isn't cheap to fly; no doubt (~$250/hr). As stated above my fixed cost is more then fuel cost (~$150/hr fix ~$100/hr variable). However, for any trip east of the Mississippi River (I live near KCHS) my Baron is typically faster than an airline and cheaper than my car; much cheaper if I factor the cost of my time. My routine trip is to Washington DC. By car it is a 9 hour drive and a high probability of getting stuck in traffic for much longer; total cost ~$1125; much more if I have any employees with me. The flight time is 2 hours; total cost ~$700; actually $500 because my time during flight should be free as I'm doing what I love to do.

But don't forget that I'm not driving by car both ways in one day; actually it takes 2-3 days so I'm paying for food, hotel (~$300) and lots of lost productivity and time away from family. With the Baron I fly up before the meeting and leave immediately after. If you factor it that way it is cheaper to fly the Baron then to drive without taking cost of time into account.

As for reliability, my trips are 90%+ on-time with no issue due to maintenance or weather. When I do have a major issue, well we jump on the airline and deal with the mysery of being assaulted by TSA and packed in a flying greyhound petri dish.

 

[AA5Bman]

I totally agree that the cost of owning and operating a GA airplane that is as robust a transportation tool as the airlines is enormous. No question! That puts you in the twin/FIKI/turbine realm, and that's totally out of reach for almost everyone.

But... I really think that’s expecting too much.

I see the argument developing throughout this thread that for GA to flourish, it has to be a competitive (in terms of cost, safety, speed, and reliability) form of travel. But it will simply never compete with the reliability of driving or the speed, safety, and economy of the airlines. This isn't a valid line of reasoning in my opinion. The utility value of GA is no lower than that of boating, sailing, or motorcycling, none of which seem to be in danger of extinction.

To the contrary, I would argue that the utility of a basic 4-seater is considerably higher than those other “high-dollar” pastimes. Spend $30k to $50k (well within the reach of any powerboat owner), and you’ll have a perfectly decent Grumman Tiger, a C172, an older C182, an Archer, or any number of other capable go-places airplanes. Do $100 hamburgers, visit your sister that’s a 2.5 hr drive away for lunch, take it out of town for the weekend with your wife, whatever. As a recent Tiger owner, I can attest to the utility and low-cost of ownership myself. Further, if your goal is to “just fly” (as it might be to “just sail” or “just ride” [motorcycles]), you can buy a Champ, C150, or Pacer (the list goes on) for $15k and still do most of the things I listed above!

 

[Ted]

But my point is why try to convince anyone with all these facts and figures? Even yourself. Aviation seems to be one of those hobbies where people seem to feel they need a practical purpose for doing it, one that needs to be justified to other people. You don't hear people saying, "Look at my new bass boat, and see all the fish I caught for free!" Well, maybe they do say that but only as a joke.

Maybe it's my own bias, though. This thread has got me thinking about what made me want to fly originally and efficient transportation was one of the furthest things from my mind. Even now if I could strip away the whole business/career end of it the thing that would attract me is doing aerobatics like I did a few years ago. I would not care that it really has no practical application other than my own enjoyment and personal satisfaction.

I think for you part of the thing is that you live on the extreme end where GA serves no practical use as transport for you, and work on the extreme side with jets that cost orders of magnitude more than our houses and cost more per hour to operate than we make in a week. The middle ground actually does have a lot of practical uses, it's just a matter of figuring out what those are.

 

[timrj]

To the contrary, I would argue that the utility of a basic 4-seater is considerably higher than those other “high-dollar” pastimes. Spend $30k to $50k (well within the reach of any powerboat owner), and you’ll have a perfectly decent Grumman Tiger, a C172, an older C182, an Archer, or any number of other capable go-places airplanes.

You know of "perfectly decent" tigers and C182s in the $30k to $50k range?

I'd like to see those.

 

[AA5Bman]

Well... I did just sell a Tiger that was perfectly decent in that price range (actually it was pretty dang nice). Would you really argue that you can't get a decent four-seater in that range? Yes even 182s are available. I'm not vouching for these, but it only took one click to find two:

http://www.global-air.com/global/g08175.htm
http://www.global-air.com/global/g10107.htm

 

[alaskaflyer]

I think for you part of the thing is that you live on the extreme end where GA serves no practical use as transport for you, and work on the extreme side with jets that cost orders of magnitude more than our houses and cost more per hour to operate than we make in a week. The middle ground actually does have a lot of practical uses, it's just a matter of figuring out what those are.

Like a couple with a three year old who likes to regularly visit Grammy one or two states over? Just long enough to make the drive extremely unpalatable, the airline trip (3 seats roundtrip) uneconomical (and probably long since it will route through some distant hub) but short enough that the 120 minute flight in the $35k C172 is enjoyable?

Just one example. But one that takes place regularly.

 

[Ted]

Like a couple with a three year old who likes to regularly visit Grammy one or two states over? Just long enough to make the drive extremely unpalatable, the airline trip (3 seats roundtrip) uneconomical (and probably long since it will route through some distant hub) but short enough that the 120 minute flight in the $35k C172 is enjoyable?

Just one example. But one that takes place regularly.

Or moving 32 cats from Cozumel to Pennsylvania in a day. Yeah, unusual, but I've done it.

 

[flyersfan31]

But only of interest and/or usable to those who have already drunk the koolaid and paid for a ticket. That barrier to entry is much greater than you seem to think. With prices that are less than the cost of an outboard motor (never mind the boat) these planes would have been snapped up at much higher prices if the demand existed.

BING! Exactly. I would separate the market into 2 segments: A)airplane nuts, and B ) people who are interested in flying.

Airplane nuts will say, yeah, that's awesome, that 50yr old bird with tatty interior and narco radios that can't lift much more than me, spouse, and overnight bags.

People who are interested in flying will say, man, I like that plane over there. Looks like my car inside. Those other things look small, old and crappy. What'd you call that nice one? A Cirrus? And how much does that cost?

Only group A will contemplate those old inexpensive birds. And group A is very small.

(Obviously I've simplified greatly. Fact remains though, that if there were demand, those cheap planes would sell like hotcakes.)

 

[Theboys]

I've been following this thread and it seems kind of simple. If you want to own a plane or two so what! I have two planes a 172 and a 260 comanche. I haven't flown in years but started again recently. I think they will be a good investment in near future and am looking to buy more. I might put strip on my property and build hanger for up to 8 planes. Might not be smart but I like em and think they will go up in value. Wish I would have done it years ago.

 

[flyersfan31]

I've been following this thread and it seems kind of simple. If you want to own a plane or two so what! I have two planes a 172 and a 260 comanche. I haven't flown in years but started again recently. I think they will be a good investment in near future and am looking to buy more. I might put strip on my property and build hanger for up to 8 planes. Might not be smart but I like em and think they will go up in value. Wish I would have done it years ago.

You're kidding about the investment part, right?

Declining supply of pilots.

Increasing supply of aircraft.

Those two factors do not bode well for considering an airplane to be an investment from which one will earn even a market return.

 

[wabower]

More and more grampas are taking a hard look at this equation and deciding the drive isn't so bad after all. I talked to one of them in MO recently, and the brokers say they are bailing with regularity.

Like a couple with a three year old who likes to regularly visit Grammy one or two states over? Just long enough to make the drive extremely unpalatable, the airline trip (3 seats roundtrip) uneconomical (and probably long since it will route through some distant hub) but short enough that the 120 minute flight in the $35k C172 is enjoyable?

Just one example. But one that takes place regularly.

 

[AA5Bman]

Just to chime in one more time on a slightly different point: one of my biggest pet peeves is that we, as pilots, perpetuate the idea that flying is sooo expensive that normal people like yooouu couldn't possibly afford it. It's just not true. This "myth" does a huge disservice not only to those that would be interested in flying, but to ourselves as the ranks of pilots and supporters of airports, technologies, etc, diminish.

I've loved airplanes and aviation since I was a toddler, but had bought that myth hook, line, and sinker until one day when I met this young guy - less than thirty, engineer, not a trust-funder - who owned a Cessna 140. I looked at him and said to myself "Are you frigging kidding me? He can make it work? I've got to be able to make it work, too". Within a couple of months I owned the Tiger.

I tell this to people all the time: my biggest surprise about being an airplane owner is that it was so affordable. You hear all these stories about maintenance and hangar fees and this and that. Guess what? Annuals on a lower-end four-seater cost about as much as a new pair of skis (my other passion), and the bird doesn't have to be hangared.

Okay, okay: you can't be a grocery checker and afford to fly, no argument there. But you don't have to be a trust-funder, a wall-streeter, or a successful small-business-owner either.

P.S. I'm waiting for flack about the skis comment. My last annual was $750. My last pair of skis was $700, but then add bindings ($400), new boots maybe... blah blah blah... There are lots of expensive hobbies...

 

[timrj]

Well... I did just sell a Tiger that was perfectly decent in that price range (actually it was pretty dang nice). Would you really argue that you can't get a decent four-seater in that range? Yes even 182s are available. I'm not vouching for these, but it only took one click to find two:

http://www.global-air.com/global/g08175.htm
http://www.global-air.com/global/g10107.htm

I would argue that you can't find a decent 182 or tiger, but a cheetah or 172 would fall in those ranges.

 

[timrj]

Just to chime in one more time on a slightly different point: one of my biggest pet peeves is that we, as pilots, perpetuate the idea that flying is sooo expensive that normal people like yooouu couldn't possibly afford it. It's just not true. This "myth" does a huge disservice not only to those that would be interested in flying, but to ourselves as the ranks of pilots and supporters of airports, technologies, etc, diminish.

I've loved airplanes and aviation since I was a toddler, but had bought that myth hook, line, and sinker until one day when I met this young guy - less than thirty, engineer, not a trust-funder - who owned a Cessna 140. I looked at him and said to myself "Are you frigging kidding me? He can make it work? I've got to be able to make it work, too". Within a couple of months I owned the Tiger.

I tell this to people all the time: my biggest surprise about being an airplane owner is that it was so affordable. You hear all these stories about maintenance and hangar fees and this and that. Guess what? Annuals on a lower-end four-seater cost about as much as a new pair of skis (my other passion), and the bird doesn't have to be hangared.

Okay, okay: you can't be a grocery checker and afford to fly, no argument there. But you don't have to be a trust-funder, a wall-streeter, or a successful small-business-owner either.

P.S. I'm waiting for flack about the skis comment. My last annual was $750. My last pair of skis was $700, but then add bindings ($400), new boots maybe... blah blah blah... There are lots of expensive hobbies...

I thought it would be a good idea to own a plane. Bought a cheetah in 2000. My advice is thatif you can't drop 10% of the value of the plane each year for an annual for maintenance and also be ready for 20k for a new/OH engine then you are just not financially prepared.

It is not a myth - owning an airplane is freaking expensive. Probably the worst financial decision I ever made.

If you get lucky and everything works out perfectly then you can own a plane for 5 or 10 years and not have expensive annuals or a new engine, but you are playing a risky game thinking tht it will be the same for everyone.

Would I like to see more people in aviation? Sure. But not bad enough to lie to them and tell them that flying is only as expensive as golf.

 

[Theboys]

Okay maybe I might not make a lot of money on my investment but I'm going to have fun having my money invested in airplanes. I really don't think I'm going to lose money on them either. I have at least 6 friends and family who want to learn to fly and I'm willing to supply plane if they pay for gas. If more people were willing to do this there would be major influx of pilots. I really don't care what it costs. I have had lots of hobbys and business's where i have spent way more with less return. I like em and thats the main thing to me. I know they cost money to own but everything in life costs money. (even my wife) and I'm not complaining about the cost. I think partnerships would be a good thing to get young people interested and involved in flying. Flying clubs are good but ownership is special.

 

[dmccormack]

Um... Look again:

Yeah -- exactly. Plenty of airplane can be had for far less. It doesn't have to be new.

If you wanna NEED to fly cheap get your CFI.

Funny -- but most CFIs have other employment. Some more lucrative than others.

 

[Everskyward]

I think for you part of the thing is that you live on the extreme end where GA serves no practical use as transport for you, and work on the extreme side with jets that cost orders of magnitude more than our houses and cost more per hour to operate than we make in a week. The middle ground actually does have a lot of practical uses, it's just a matter of figuring out what those are.

Actually I've worked in the middle ground where smallish GA airplanes paid for themselves and more. But then that was business too. The equipment we carried up into the sky was worth more than the cost of the airplane, by far.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Would I like to see more people in aviation? Sure. But not bad enough to lie to them and tell them that flying is only as expensive as golf.

This is different than golf or tennis.

But then we are back to boating. How many times can you do circles with somebody hanging on the end of a rope behind your $90K Mastercraft?

Then again the vast majority of recreational boaters I've encountered should be nowhere near a GA plane. That includes those who do have a plane.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Yeah -- exactly. Plenty of airplane can be had for far less. It doesn't have to be new.

Sigh - Point was, you were disagreeing with the other poster's assertion that a NEW airplane costs >250K. With the exception of LSA's, he is correct.

Yes, you can get plenty of airplane for less - But that wasn't his point.

 

[shenanigans]

I don't know much about this particular issue. Perhaps someone can explain why all new planes are so expensive?

I would think that all the technological advances in the last 50 years would result in some sort of cost savings. Yet it doesn't seem that has happened. Is it just that there are so few made that they can't benefit from economy of scale?

I just can't see the value in a $250K+ C-172. Even a new LSA, which is touted as the "low cost option", isn't cheap. While I don't expect to get a new plane for the same price as a new mid sized car, it doesn't seem there is a new, certified plane priced for the budget minded.

 

[Henning]

I flew a Grumman Tiger (AA5B) for a number of years; yes hard IFR. The airplane cost ~$40K (a ton of money at the time). That was equivalent to buying a really nice boat.

???? What "really nice" boat can you buy for $40k?

 

[Dr. O]

First question: How long are you alive?
Second question: How long are you dead?

Third question: Is owning a plane cost effective?
Answer: The first two questions contain the answers to everything...

I am, therefore I fly... If you do not fly I cannot see you... You are a ghost, a wraith, drifting across the landscape... You are invisible to me as I fly above... You are as meaningful as the gnats tormenting the deer in the woods... Life is measured in the moments that take our breath away... For me it is that feeling as the wheels just leave the ground... It is the feeling of carving a turn above the fall colors on a still morning over the Appalachians... It is rolling out on short final with the engine just ticking over and the whistle of air over the wing roots and the grass runway cross lit by the setting sun showing every little ripple and dip... It is the smell of fabric and dope and aviation gas... When I walk away after flying I always stop and look back... There is nothing else that looks like an airplane...

When I come to the end of my days, as the air is leaving my lungs for the last time I shall weep... I shall weep not because I am dieing for I do not fear death... I shall weep because I will not fly again... I will not have the thrill of anticipation as I drive to the airport... That I wll not once again breath that smell that happens when I first open the hangar door... I will not hear the knock and rattle of the engine as it starts... And I will not feel the wheels leave the ground once more... That is why I shall weep... What does money have to do with that?

denny-o

 

[wabower]

Some people are more sentimental than you are, and cry every time they write a check to the bank or the shop.

First question: How long are you alive?
Second question: How long are you dead?

Third question: Is owning a plane cost effective?
Answer: The first two questions contain the answers to everything...

I am, therefore I fly... If you do not fly I cannot see you... You are a ghost, a wraith, drifting across the landscape... You are invisible to me as I fly above... You are as meaningful as the gnats tormenting the deer in the woods... Life is measured in the moments that take our breath away... For me it is that feeling as the wheels just leave the ground... It is the feeling of carving a turn above the fall colors on a still morning over the Appalachians... It is rolling out on short final with the engine just ticking over and the whistle of air over the wing roots and the grass runway cross lit by the setting sun showing every little ripple and dip... It is the smell of fabric and dope and aviation gas... When I walk away after flying I always stop and look back... There is nothing else that looks like an airplane...

When I come to the end of my days, as the air is leaving my lungs for the last time I shall weep... I shall weep not because I am dieing for I do not fear death... I shall weep because I will not fly again... I will not have the thrill of anticipation as I drive to the airport... That I wll not once again breath that smell that happens when I first open the hangar door... I will not hear the knock and rattle of the engine as it starts... And I will not feel the wheels leave the ground once more... That is why I shall weep... What does money have to do with that?

denny-o

 

[Henning]

Some people are more sentimental than you are, and cry every time they write a check to the bank or the shop.

Funny thing, the day I quit worrying about money was the last day money was a problem. Since then, when I need it, it shows up. Makes me wonder about them "quantum rules of the universe".

 

[Ted]

Actually I've worked in the middle ground where smallish GA airplanes paid for themselves and more. But then that was business too. The equipment we carried up into the sky was worth more than the cost of the airplane, by far.

Good point, but I think what I was more referring to was use of GA as practical transport. When you were working in the middle ground, wasn't it mostly mapping, i.e. not getting from point A to point B?

 

[Baron2PG]

If airline travel is available, the cost argument normally goes up in smoke. The biz aircraft organizations have been trying to make it work forever, to no avail. When lifestyle is factored in, however, the GA bird wins by a landslide.

Not true. The only time the airline is a better option is when the trip is more then ~4 hours of flight time (more or less) -OR- I'm travelling from CHS to ATL or CLT and can catch multiple direct hops. For my Baron that means I can fly to Boston, Witchita or Key Largo from Charleston. If the airline has connections and only one or two flights then the added cost of TIME, HOTEL, RENTAL CAR and FOOD x # of employees on trip makes GA the better deal. If I'm flying to Tucson on business, like I am next week, well then the airline wins hands down. If I fly to Phoenix for pleasure, well now TIME doesn't matter and I'll fly myself for the fun.

All of this is predicated on the fact that a) you own/rent a decent aircraft b) you fly the aircraft ~100-200 hours per year for business. If all you do is take one or two business trips a year and the rest of your hours are dorking around, well then it is hard to justify buying a plane for business purposes alone.

 

[zaitcev]

I don't know much about this particular issue. Perhaps someone can explain why all new planes are so expensive?

I would think that all the technological advances in the last 50 years would result in some sort of cost savings. Yet it doesn't seem that has happened. Is it just that there are so few made that they can't benefit from economy of scale?

I heard about third to half of the price is liability insurance. And the rest is the lack of manufacturing volume, like you said.
-- Pete

 

[dmccormack]

And is the equivalent of the small blind ante in a Texas hld 'em poker pot.

What used vehicle isn't?

It's not peculiar to aviation.

 

[Baron2PG]

I don't know much about this particular issue. Perhaps someone can explain why all new planes are so expensive?

I would think that all the technological advances in the last 50 years would result in some sort of cost savings. Yet it doesn't seem that has happened. Is it just that there are so few made that they can't benefit from economy of scale?

I just can't see the value in a $250K+ C-172. Even a new LSA, which is touted as the "low cost option", isn't cheap. While I don't expect to get a new plane for the same price as a new mid sized car, it doesn't seem there is a new, certified plane priced for the budget minded.

I'm assuming this was a real question and not rhetorical...

You can't compare the cost of an airplane to the cost of a car for many reasons:
1) Cars are manufactured by the 10 or 100 of thousands. Airplanes by the 10 or 100 per year by hand.
2) Airframe technology hasn't changed much in 50 years. The only thing that has really changed is the avionics; they've gotten better but also much more EXPENSIVE. The core C-172 airframe is probably 95% identical to the model from 1960. There are a couple reasons: the cost to certify a new or changed airframes is very high. The risk of lawsuits is equally high.
3) Lawyers: Whenever an airplane crashes the lawyers AND the families of those deceased sue every manufacturer on the plane. This drives the cost of business for those companies way up. (I've made my wife promise not to sue if I crash; have you?) This raises the barriers of entry to any new players way up. Don't forget this legal cost is amortized over hundreds of planes. The auto companies can amoritize their legal costs over millions of cars.
4) Airplanes don't fly much. Buy a good used plane, much better value for your money. A nice well maintained plane from the early 1970s is fine and is 99% as safe as the 'new' bird. Good luck finding a nice car from the 1970s.
5) If aircraft were built in the same volumes as cars I'm willing to bet the cost for a new C-172 would be $20K or less.

 

[dmccormack]

3) Lawyers: Whenever an airplane crashes the lawyers AND the families of those deceased sue every manufacturer on the plane. This drives the cost of business for those companies way up. (I've made my wife promise not to sue if I crash; have you?) This raises the barriers of entry to any new players way up. Don't forget this legal cost is amortized over hundreds of planes. The auto companies can amoritize their legal costs over millions of cars.

If a wing falls off in flight and kills several people and the cause is found to be shoody materials and workmanship, I would most definately sue.

A blanket statement "Never sue" allows unscrupulous operators to survive and even thrive.

 

[Ted]

Dan, if a wing falls off of your Chief, your wife has no place to sue for faulty workmanship. Even then, it'd be highly debatable that there's nothing to sue over at all.

I'm with our Baron friend. If something goes out on my Aztec and kills me, the plane's 41 years old. It's not Piper's fault.

 

[wabower]

Ask your CPA to prepare an analysis for you. Then you'll understand.

Not true. The only time the airline is a better option is when the trip is more then ~4 hours of flight time (more or less) -OR- I'm travelling from CHS to ATL or CLT and can catch multiple direct hops. For my Baron that means I can fly to Boston, Witchita or Key Largo from Charleston. If the airline has connections and only one or two flights then the added cost of TIME, HOTEL, RENTAL CAR and FOOD x # of employees on trip makes GA the better deal. If I'm flying to Tucson on business, like I am next week, well then the airline wins hands down. If I fly to Phoenix for pleasure, well now TIME doesn't matter and I'll fly myself for the fun.

All of this is predicated on the fact that a) you own/rent a decent aircraft b) you fly the aircraft ~100-200 hours per year for business. If all you do is take one or two business trips a year and the rest of your hours are dorking around, well then it is hard to justify buying a plane for business purposes alone.

 

[dmccormack]

Dan, if a wing falls off of your Chief, your wife has no place to sue for faulty workmanship. Even then, it'd be highly debatable that there's nothing to sue over at all.

I'm with our Baron friend. If something goes out on my Aztec and kills me, the plane's 41 years old. It's not Piper's fault.

The 70 year old Aeronca Chief and 41 year old Piper Aztec are covered under GARA.

Let's say I buy a replacement wing strut from Univair and it's STC'ed and all that. A&P installs, IA inspects, yada, yada.

Let's say it fails in flight. Further investigation reveals the strut was made from 1100 grade aluminum when the STC specified 2024 aluminum, yet the aluminum was marked "2024."

The courts are made for this situation, because evidence needs to be heard and judgements made on who was at fault -- the owner? Univair? the A&P? the IA? The strut manufacturer? The aluminum company? Who?

So blanket statements about "I'll never sue" are not helpful. It may not do me much good, but should the rest of the small GA world be exposed to defective spars?

Only the pressure of lawsuit will keep some manufacturers honest. Trust, but verify.

 

[timrj]

Dan, if a wing falls off of your Chief, your wife has no place to sue for faulty workmanship. Even then, it'd be highly debatable that there's nothing to sue over at all.

I'm with our Baron friend. If something goes out on my Aztec and kills me, the plane's 41 years old. It's not Piper's fault.

Maybe not Piper's fault, but if things were not put back together correctly or a wrench was left somewhere in the tailcone and caused the accident then you bet your ass the repair shop should be sued.

 

[Ted]

Maybe not Piper's fault, but if things were not put back together correctly or a wrench was left somewhere in the tailcone and caused the accident then you bet your ass the repair shop should be sued.

Oh, I don't disagree with that. The problem is that Piper, Lycoming, Hartzell, Precision, King, and every other manufacturer whose name exists on the plane will end up getting called in for a lawsuit as well. Maybe not all, but most. I've seen it too much, and it is the biggest reason why this costs as much as it does.

 

[Everskyward]

Good point, but I think what I was more referring to was use of GA as practical transport. When you were working in the middle ground, wasn't it mostly mapping, i.e. not getting from point A to point B?

True, it was mostly mapping. The only A to B we did was to get to the place where we were going to do the mapping. It's funny, now that I think of it one of the reasons I stayed in mapping so long (in the business for about 20 and pilot for about 15) is that I thought A to B would be kinda boring without the work element in between. There were obviously other reasons too but in the end I'm glad I moved on.

I'm not saying that small airplanes are useless for transportation although their usefulness depends on many different factors which we have discussed already. I'm mostly responding to the theory that the reason GA had a big decline in the late 1970s was deregulation. I don't think people stopped buying single engine Cessnas and Cherokees because the price of airline tickets went down.