What is the general state of GA?

I don't know if I could afford a Mako (in fact, I'm pretty sure I couldn't). But I've been refining my goals for some time now. My wife is disabled, so a low wing is out. It'll be a high wing. At the suggestion of several people here, I took a LONG look at the Cessna Cardinal (the 177), but it looks like I'm going to be limited to a Sport Pilot license because of my age and the medications that I'm taking. Plus, just to be brutally honest, I don't want to buy something that old. I just don't.

Given that, I'm definitely thinking about S-LSA, then taking it experimental. If I get one of those nice LSAs that's a stripped-down 4 seater, well, if the FAA ever gets its mind right and eases the limits a little, that's a plus. And I'll be able to do most of my own maintenance, and I can install whatever the heck I want to for avionics, including some stuff that I'll probably design and write the code for.

This wouldn't just be for joy riding, it would be for a purpose. Trips of 100-300 miles would be quite doable at 110-120 knots, maybe with a stop for a $300 hamburger in the middle. It hurts my wife to drive for too many hours, which is why we fly commercial for any trip over a few hundred miles. I want to be in charge of that instead of giving my money to Delta. :)
 
This. How much does getting a PPL cost? It cost me in the neighborhood of 12k between instructor, airplane rental, equipment, and check ride. And I got mine at minimums.

Pretty insane isn't it? And doesn't track inflation very well at all, either. I got mine in the heart of Atlanta (PDK) in the year 2000 (around the time the place went to hell post-Olympics, and the invasion of California "equity refugees") for training minimums circa 4.5 AMUs. Inflation calculator says that's about 6.5 today. Your rate doubles that. Something's not right.

My opinion? You can blame airline aspirants for that; they're paying with credit, willingly. Paying people with access to credit instead of real wages creates a perverse incentive to normalize the selloff of your future labor value, which put in other terms means an easy way for the mouth breathing proletariat to unwittingly agree to the dilution of their labor value in the first place. It also accelerates what I call "goat economics", aka gold rush behavior, which ruins everything for everybody (tragedy of the commons). Housing and automobiles are several examples of goat dynamics. College education and the gravitation to quantitatively unrigorous short course training like nursing and PA schools (compared to MD as the benchmark of time and money) are other examples of this perverse behavior.

...and that's why we can't have nice things imo, in the aggregate. Wall St is happy though. The Country still shows "rich" on the global paper "metric", GINI index be damned of course. Oh well, we deserve the outcomes we allow. Sins of omission, as my guilt-ridden Catholic upbringing would say.

Yes. The first step toward deliverance is accepting that there's a problem. Still too much denial because "my airport" or "my flying friends" are doing well, or because Oshkosh had a good crowd. The numbers don't lie.

Thing about "extended airshows" like Oshkosh is that it strikes me as state carnie these days, in the way when I did Young Eagles was mostly a way for mothers to have something free to do with the s---head on a Saturday afternoon so she could gab on the phone with her squeeze or girlfriends without encumbrance.

50% non-aviation vendors doesn't strike me as a bona fide Mecca, it's just more cheap s--t to occupy a broke pedestrian on a saturday afternoon. If you normalize for that demographic, Osh is tiny as far as hobbies go. So I agree with you Osh is not a representation of the health of recreational GA, though I arrive at your conclusion through a different avenue.
 
Here is an interesting article from AOPA that discusses this exact topic and some of the reasons why airplane prices have outpaced inflation by so much (about 300% according to them).

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2013/january/01/waypoints-why-do-airplanes-cost-so-much

“The number of airplanes produced fell from more than 17,000 in 1977 to 1,950 in 2011, fewer than 900 of them piston-powered. That 1977 number wasn’t healthy either, as it resulted in softening of the market, but no industry can survive long on fewer than 2,000 units a year.”
 
Kind of leaves out the fact that planes unlike computers, phones, cars last pretty much forever. So of course the need for new ones diminish. The biggest competitor for ALL of the OEM's is the used market. Can't buy a well running 40 year old AMC pacer (outside of an occasional museum piece) but you can find a lot of very nice perfectly flying 40 year old aircraft. GA will remain alive and healthy in our lifetime, who knows what the future holds, but if you have the expendable income and desire, GA rocks. There is a plane for most people's in the middle class and higher budget. It is just about desire. As far as economics of FBO's though. It is driven by the Turbine crowd. I was in an FBO the other day, and someone ordered 5 on the left and 4 on the right. After the pilot left, I was puzzled, what did he order? AV gas the owner replied. The owner said he can run his AV gas truck for 6 hours to make the same money that he gets on just one fill of a standard small turbine. Want a healthy FBO, find a way to invite turbines to play. Then enjoy the infrastructure that they support.
 
That’s just not true. Modern car engines , while still operating on the same principle, are very different that what was common in the 50s - in fact ,someone from the 50s wouldn’t even know where to begin to diagnose an issue with a fuel injected , computerized engine.

I suppose it is hard to do this experiment for real, but I am sure a mechanic from 1950 will be able to identify all the major components. That's the cylinder, there's the pistons, spark plugs, and here is the exhaust and muffler. Fuel tank is over there, and those must be the fuel lines. Oh but where's the carburetor? I suppose they are using a different way to spray the fuel into the cylinder these days. Looks like that's the transmission, and they are still using disc brakes and hydraulics like the old days. The magnetos are missing, but the plug wires are attached to something else that must be producing the spark.

Of course, ECM is entirely new, but that again was my point - information technology and electronics is the only new aspect.
 
Here's a data point for you...

If I'm going from Olympia, WA to Pullman, WA (which I do a number of times a year) I have 3 basic options. Ride Horizon, fly myself or drive.

The fastest option is fly myself. About 20 minutes to the airport, 20 minutes to pre-flight and taxi to the end of the runway and just over 2 hours in the air from KOLM to KPUW. And I still have to get from the airport to wherever I'm going in town. About 3 hours from my house to KPUW.

The next fastest option is to ride Horizon. A bit over an hour from my house to KSEA. Arrive 2 hours before flight time. About 1 hour gate to gate. And I still have to get into town. About 4 hours from my house to KPUW.

The slowest is to drive. About 5 1/2 hours from my house to wherever I'm going in Pullman.

Guess what? The cost of the trip (not counting my time) is exactly the opposite. Driving is the least expensive, flying myself is the most expensive. And I've had trips where it was faster to drive the round trip and teach a seminar at WSU than it was to ride Horizon because of their schedule (not very many options). 11 hours driving for a 1 1/2 hour seminar. BTDT.

Given the choice, however, I'll fly myself. Much more fun and "the view is tremendous" (to quote John Glenn).

Well, off to the airport. It's the club's annual cleanup day and I have to help clean hangars and airplanes.
 
The perennial "Is GA dying?" thread. Depressing but necessary, I suppose.

Here are three data points:

1. We flew to OSH this year (36 years in a row, baby!) and stopped at half a dozen Midwest airports. The condition of these small-town airports was sad -- even though this was arguably the busiest GA week of the year, we were the only aircraft present.

The most shocking was Independence, Kansas, a former B-29 base and site of the current Cessna plant. (They build Caravans and Citations there.) This formerly bustling GA airport, with enormous runways, plentiful hangars, and CESSNA, is a ghost town.

We needed fuel, but the self serve pumps were dead. There was not another living soul on that airport, as far as the eye could see, on a beautiful summer day . I called the number on the door, and got Cody to come out and flip the breaker on the pumps. His best guess is that the breaker had popped in a recent storm, but he didn't really know because no one had told him they weren't working.

They closed the old control tower back in 2012.

I'd like to say this was unusual, but we saw this everywhere we went. It made us want to cry.

2. We have owned aviation themed hotels since 2002. In those 16 years, the percentage of our business that is actual GA pilots flying in to stay with us has declined from about 5% (in Iowa -- not a destination) to less than 2% (in a resort town on the ocean). Our courtesy car (we are the only hotel in the world with a free car for pilots) hasn't moved in 10 days.

This is in Texas -- supposedly the #2 GA state in the world.

We are in the midst of our best year in business. It's all happening without GA.

3. Cirrus, usually touted as a world leader in GA sales, sold 350 aircraft in 2017. This is trumpeted by their marketing department as a huge success.

To put that in perspective, Lambourghini sold 3815 hand-made, million dollar, super cars in 2017. The most exclusive coachworks in the world sold eleven times more than the GA airplane leader.

Anyone who pronounces GA as "healthy" is not paying attention.

Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk
 
My dad was a private pilot during 1975-1986 (the year he sold his Dakota and gave it up). During his flying years, getting a pilot's license and buying a plane was the thing to do for guys with the means to do so. My dad was a small business owner, and so were many of his friends, and many of them took up owning and flying. My dad stayed with it longer than most of them - they all eventually gave it up for one reason or another.

My point is: I don't think learning to fly and owning a plane is a "must do" or trendy thing as much as it used to be, even for those with the means to do it.
 
The cost has gotten out of hand. I got my license in 1989 when I was making $9.00 an hour as a drywaller. A C-150 was $28/hour wet to rent. The "good" 172 had DME which commanded $42/hour. On rare occasions I would rent that just to experience the wonders of DME.

Despite my low pay I was able to purchase a new truck and pay rent while flying at least twice a week. There is no way someone in the lower middle class could afford to fly without making serious compromises in lifestyle.
Agree. The costs are crazy. I was a law enforcement officer for 14 years. Never had a prayer of learning to fly on that income, and I made solid money for the area I live in. It wasn't until I left LE and started my own trucking business that I was able to afford it five years later. I'll throw this out there. If you don't make a six figure income and have your finances under control, you'll struggle affording the costs to get your PPL, which runs around 10k where I live. If you have kids at home or in college good luck. Thankfully mine are grown and gone or it wouldn't have happened.
 
The perennial "Is GA dying?" thread. Depressing but necessary, I suppose.

Here are three data points:

1. We flew to OSH this year (36 years in a row, baby!) and stopped at half a dozen Midwest airports. The condition of these small-town airports was sad -- even though this was arguably the busiest GA week of the year, we were the only aircraft present.

The most shocking was Independence, Kansas, a former B-29 base and site of the current Cessna plant. (They build Caravans and Citations there.) This formerly bustling GA airport, with enormous runways, plentiful hangars, and CESSNA, is a ghost town.

We needed fuel, but the self serve pumps were dead. There was not another living soul on that airport, as far as the eye could see, on a beautiful summer day . I called the number on the door, and got Cody to come out and flip the breaker on the pumps. His best guess is that the breaker had popped in a recent storm, but he didn't really know because no one had told him they weren't working.

They closed the old control tower back in 2012.

I'd like to say this was unusual, but we saw this everywhere we went. It made us want to cry.

2. We have owned aviation themed hotels since 2002. In those 16 years, the percentage of our business that is actual GA pilots flying in to stay with us has declined from about 5% (in Iowa -- not a destination) to less than 2% (in a resort town on the ocean). Our courtesy car (we are the only hotel in the world with a free car for pilots) hasn't moved in 10 days.

This is in Texas -- supposedly the #2 GA state in the world.

We are in the midst of our best year in business. It's all happening without GA.

3. Cirrus, usually touted as a world leader in GA sales, sold 350 aircraft in 2017. This is trumpeted by their marketing department as a huge success.

To put that in perspective, Lambourghini sold 3815 hand-made, million dollar, super cars in 2017. The most exclusive coachworks in the world sold eleven times more than the GA airplane leader.

Anyone who pronounces GA as "healthy" is not paying attention.

Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk


Fear not, gentle citizen. General Aviation shall be saved! Its future is secure! Behold, EAA has given us Aviore!

upload_2018-8-18_20-33-21.png

Problem solved.
 
I don't know if I could afford a Mako (in fact, I'm pretty sure I couldn't). But I've been refining my goals for some time now. My wife is disabled, so a low wing is out. It'll be a high wing. At the suggestion of several people here, I took a LONG look at the Cessna Cardinal (the 177), but it looks like I'm going to be limited to a Sport Pilot license because of my age and the medications that I'm taking. Plus, just to be brutally honest, I don't want to buy something that old. I just don't.

Given that, I'm definitely thinking about S-LSA, then taking it experimental. If I get one of those nice LSAs that's a stripped-down 4 seater, well, if the FAA ever gets its mind right and eases the limits a little, that's a plus. And I'll be able to do most of my own maintenance, and I can install whatever the heck I want to for avionics, including some stuff that I'll probably design and write the code for.

This wouldn't just be for joy riding, it would be for a purpose. Trips of 100-300 miles would be quite doable at 110-120 knots, maybe with a stop for a $300 hamburger in the middle. It hurts my wife to drive for too many hours, which is why we fly commercial for any trip over a few hundred miles. I want to be in charge of that instead of giving my money to Delta. :)

Hey, not to get into personal business so please don’t reply if you don’t want to.

You mention it hurts your wife to be in a car on long trips. I don’t know the reasoning behind that, nor your actual experience flying in the little guys, but there’s quite a bit of bouncing about in flight. An hour in a GA aircraft can sometimes feel like running a marathon, depending on conditions of course.

If you’ve never flown in turbulent conditions before, ask a cfi to take you up sometime just so you can experience it first hand. Rest assured that if you are making 100+ mile journeys you WILL experience turbulence. And it’s absolutely nothing like the bumps you feel flying commercial.

Now if it’s something you already have experienced and you are sure your wife can handle it, then carry on and ignore my post.

Just saying from personal experience, flying GA to a destination is almost always LESS comfortable than driving. More fun for sure, but less comfortable. And then there are the times when non-vfr weather comes up, and you are forced to land and wait it out. My wife and I were forced to land and wait out a storm for seven hours at a small airport once. Another time waited several hours in a Denver area airport restaurant for the snow to melt off the wings.

Maybe I’m just unlucky? Lol.

Regardless, best of luck on your journey.
 
This was posted over on redboard, a rather interesting analysis on price and technology. The thread was started by discussing the end of HIWAS. (Reposted with permission)
Code:
I've never used HIWAS, ever. I have called FSS (Flight Watch) many times before there was even data link weather, and afterwards before I got on board with ADS-B In; that's all I could do to get enroute weather. Since I installed ADS-B In several years ago, I think I've called FSS a couple of times to confirm what I was seeing on the iPad, presuming that their radar was less delayed than my display.

Whenever I think about the massive leaps in technology that have occurred in the 45+ years I've been flying, I'm really amazed. So much has changed for the better--and some has changed for the worse, primarily the proliferation of Class Bs and other airspace that will soon require expensive boxes to use, and the elimination of many ground based approaches. The better, though, is so much better--GPS navigation, GPS approaches mimicking ILS, in-cockpit weather, weather forecasting (that's HUGE!), etc.

It's actually less expensive today than it was back then. People complain about the high cost of flying, but in reality it's the high cost of living. For instance, I paid $4.68/gallon for LL a few days ago. That's $.83 in 1973 dollars--yet I recall LL was about $1.25/gallon at Laramie when I first started flying there (that would be $7.06/gallon today--more than what the uber-expensive FBOs at Class Bs charge today and more than most of AOPA's "target" FBOs charge). Locally, a 172 rents for $130/hour today. In 1973 dollars, that's $23/hour--and I paid more than that when I first started renting in Laramie back then--I think it was $28/hour, but I'm not positive.

So flying in 1973 actually cost more than it does today.

Yet the airplanes we flew back then, although they were not very different from the ones we fly today, weren't equipped the way they are today. That $130/hour 172 has a 430W in it and a second nav/com--we flew 172s with a single nav/com. That same flight school has a Cirrus with dual 430Ws and ADS-B In and Out, and only rents for $153/hour--$27 in 1973 money. Laramie's "instrument trainer", fully decked out with a full King Silver Crown package (sans autopilot), rented for $33/hour--I remember thinking how outrageously expensive that was back then, and it was--in today's money, that would be $187/hour for a 135 knot airplane.

Lots of changes, for sure, and the elimination of HIWAS and Flight Watch and DF Steers and many ground based approaches are just some of them that may be missed--but mostly things are much better.

Cary

Tim
 
Well, looks like the LSA limit will go up to 1600 or so LBS , that will instantly add 300 lbs of useful load the the Ranger line- perhaps that’s what they counted on when designing the Ranger.
I can find nothing on increasing the LSA weight limit; if there are rumblings, point me in that direction! 750 kg. would be perfect (or whatever is the highest gross on a 150/152), and it would change my views on owning another plane.
 
Kind of leaves out the fact that planes unlike computers, phones, cars last pretty much forever. So of course the need for new ones diminish. The biggest competitor for ALL of the OEM's is the used market.

^^^Yes.

If new planes cost what they did in 2000 (Cessna 172 for $225K, not $385K today), more gently used Cessna's would be on the market for $150K, with the cream of the older planes for under $75K with tons of quality used parts for service.

Instead we are like Cuba. Keeping 40-60 year old planes flying, like Cuban's keep USA cars on the road from 1950's early 60's.
 
^^^Yes.

If new planes cost what they did in 2000 (Cessna 172 for $225K, not $385K today), more gently used Cessna's would be on the market.

Instead we are like Cuba. Keeping 40-60 year old planes flying, like Cuban's keep USA cars on the road from 1950's early 60's.

Yep, it is exactly like Cuba and the underlying cause is pretty much similar ... if you strangle the industry with both , insane regulations on one side and legal insanity on the other side, you end up with the same results as in Cuba - nobody can afford anything and everyone is running what they can afford until it literally falls apart .
 
This was posted over on redboard, a rather interesting analysis on price and technology. The thread was started by discussing the end of HIWAS. (Reposted with permission)
Code:
I've never used HIWAS, ever. I have called FSS (Flight Watch) many times before there was even data link weather, and afterwards before I got on board with ADS-B In; that's all I could do to get enroute weather. Since I installed ADS-B In several years ago, I think I've called FSS a couple of times to confirm what I was seeing on the iPad, presuming that their radar was less delayed than my display.

Whenever I think about the massive leaps in technology that have occurred in the 45+ years I've been flying, I'm really amazed. So much has changed for the better--and some has changed for the worse, primarily the proliferation of Class Bs and other airspace that will soon require expensive boxes to use, and the elimination of many ground based approaches. The better, though, is so much better--GPS navigation, GPS approaches mimicking ILS, in-cockpit weather, weather forecasting (that's HUGE!), etc.

It's actually less expensive today than it was back then. People complain about the high cost of flying, but in reality it's the high cost of living. For instance, I paid $4.68/gallon for LL a few days ago. That's $.83 in 1973 dollars--yet I recall LL was about $1.25/gallon at Laramie when I first started flying there (that would be $7.06/gallon today--more than what the uber-expensive FBOs at Class Bs charge today and more than most of AOPA's "target" FBOs charge). Locally, a 172 rents for $130/hour today. In 1973 dollars, that's $23/hour--and I paid more than that when I first started renting in Laramie back then--I think it was $28/hour, but I'm not positive.

So flying in 1973 actually cost more than it does today.

Yet the airplanes we flew back then, although they were not very different from the ones we fly today, weren't equipped the way they are today. That $130/hour 172 has a 430W in it and a second nav/com--we flew 172s with a single nav/com. That same flight school has a Cirrus with dual 430Ws and ADS-B In and Out, and only rents for $153/hour--$27 in 1973 money. Laramie's "instrument trainer", fully decked out with a full King Silver Crown package (sans autopilot), rented for $33/hour--I remember thinking how outrageously expensive that was back then, and it was--in today's money, that would be $187/hour for a 135 knot airplane.

Lots of changes, for sure, and the elimination of HIWAS and Flight Watch and DF Steers and many ground based approaches are just some of them that may be missed--but mostly things are much better.

Cary

Tim


Well he flew in a time when inflation wasn’t the best either so his numbers make it appear things were a lot worse back then.

Some numbers from 1994 when I got my PPL:

100LL was roughly $2 gal. Today’s money that’s $3.31. National average right now is around $5.50 gal.

C172 was $56 per hr. Today’s money, that’s $93. Local flight school has one for $135 per hr.

CFI was $16 per hr. Today’s money, that’s roughly $26. Local flight school is $60 per hr for a CFI.


Simple fact is, the observations I had as a kid in the late 70s early 80s, reflect the AOPA numbers I posted earlier. I grew up around GA airports and the same ramps that I walked on (without gates / TSA) had rows of SE private aircraft. I view those same airports on satellite now and they look like a ghost town. Well there’s one (CRG) that has a full ramp but it’s only because ATP Pros replaced the lack of private GA with their trainers.

I use model aircraft as a perfect parallel. A hobby that takes time, money, attention to detail and patience. Good luck finding a hobby store these days. We had one open down the road and it stayed open for a year before it closed. The Golf industry is another perfect comparison. Money is only one part of the puzzle, a change in culture is the biggest piece.
 
Last edited:
OK, I guess I am just puzzled. Sounds like GA does not look like some here feel that it should, but GA is alive and well. If anyone wants to look at the GAMA report for 2017, there were 20.2 billion (with a B) dollars in fixed wing sales. Just because they don't all look like Skycatchers, does not mean that GA is not vibrant. There are a couple hundred thousand GA airframes flying in the US. Pick a reasonable yearly budget and there is probably something out there that can be flown for that budget. Just because everyone can't afford the latest deiced 200 Knot airframe does not mean that GA is dead. This thread is pretty wack, but interesting perspective ;-)
 
Hey, not to get into personal business so please don’t reply if you don’t want to.

You mention it hurts your wife to be in a car on long trips. I don’t know the reasoning behind that, nor your actual experience flying in the little guys

No, it doesn't bother us to talk about it. The issue with the car is having to sit in the same position for many, many hours. To give you an idea, if I can't get my license, we'll buy a big land yacht of a van or SUV and have it modified. Shaking and vibration aren't the problem, it's no legroom.

Right now we fly commercial because it's much faster (less time in one position). We fly from Birmingham (BHM) to Fayetteville (FAY) to see family, with a stopover in Atlanta. We fly Delta Comfort to get a little more stretch room (which is A JOKE on a CRJ, those things should be crushed and melted!), so it costs roughly $700-800 for each trip, for both of us. Delta has been great, providing a wheelchair to get her from one gate to the next. They also let us board first because she's disabled.

Also, because of her artificial hips and other surgeries, she's going to set off the detectors at the airports. We have the Known Traveler and Gold Star IDs; that helps a little, but she's still going to have to stand (very uncomfortable for her) and wait until they can run that silly wand over her. Simply put, that's the second reason to get our own plane: avoiding security.

Not that I haven't thought of becoming a pilot for many years, and I absolutely love to fly. So does she. Not taking away the "fun factor" for a minute, but I want my Sport license for a reason: 2-3 hours on our own plane, which I can modify to allow her to stretch out all she wants (if I buy the right plane), without having to hassle with security.

I'm not talking about an old 172. This would be one of the newer LSAs with plenty of room (Jabiru, for example -- their LSA is basically the 4-seat plane with 2 seats removed and a smaller motor). I'll take it Experimental to do my own mods and maintenance, and I plan to just remove the pedals and stick from the passenger's side, if I need to.

So, there's a method to my madness. The alternative, if this keeps up, will be to take fewer trips, but First Class on Delta. I'd really rather be in control of my destiny.

(And if they ever make me Supreme Dictator For A Day, I truly will crush and melt every CRJ in existence. Right after I outlaw speed bumps, those hard-shell plastic cases that batteries come in, and the FAA.)
 
Sounds like GA does not look like some here feel that it should, but GA is alive and well.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that there aren't still a LOT of people flying GA. Of course there are. But the numbers don't lie. It IS in a decline. See some of the excellent posts above.

Also, there's a lot of discussion about what can be done to get more people flying. Whence this thread.
 
[...] CRJ, those things should be crushed and melted! [...]

And if they ever make me Supreme Dictator For A Day, I truly will crush and melt every CRJ in existence.

Aww, that's not necessary at all! Just remodel the interior with 30% fewer seats and it's a perfectly fine airplane. :) Or you could go to town, custom interiors, mini- version of the BBJ for people who want that but smaller. :)
 
I don't think that anyone is arguing that there aren't still a LOT of people flying GA. Of course there are. But the numbers don't lie. It IS in a decline. See some of the excellent posts above.

Also, there's a lot of discussion about what can be done to get more people flying. Whence this thread.


Sometimes it makes more sense to go to the market than to try to create one.

I really don’t think all the emphasis on recruiting young people to aviation will do squat. I think the market has shown itself to be with middle-aged and above folks. There’s some affluence there and there’s likely to be disposable income after the mortgage is retired and the kids move out and the dog dies. This is the time when people begin to pursue delayed dreams and become interested in traveling and look forward to retirement.

So why aren’t there aviation ads in retirement and travel magazines? Why aren’t the AOPA and EAA recruiting the 45+ crowd? Why not partner with the AARP or similar organizations?

A 50 year old person can easily be flying for 25 years or more. He likely has some disposable income and some spare time. He has some life wisdom and maturity. Why not tailor some programs and marketing to this demographic?
 
Aww, that's not necessary at all! Just remodel the interior with 30% fewer seats and it's a perfectly fine airplane. :) Or you could go to town, custom interiors, mini- version of the BBJ for people who want that but smaller. :)

But can we trust the airlines to do this? I say not. Even if they did, it wouldn't be long before some kid-in-a-business-suit-Poindexter said (in an annoying, nasally voice) "Hey, we can cram mo' seats in here and fly mo' peoples!"

Better to just remove the temptation entirely. Crush and melt.

It's kind of like percolators: before you throw yours away and purchase a REAL coffeemaker, you should take the perc-er and run over it a few times to prevent some poor unsuspecting soul from using it.
 
I really don’t think all the emphasis on recruiting young people to aviation will do squat. I think the market has shown itself to be with middle-aged and above folks. There’s some affluence there and there’s likely to be disposable income after the mortgage is retired and the kids move out and the dog dies. This is the time when people begin to pursue delayed dreams and become interested in traveling and look forward to retirement.

So why aren’t there aviation ads in retirement and travel magazines? Why aren’t the AOPA and EAA recruiting the 45+ crowd? Why not partner with the AARP or similar organizations?

A 50 year old person can easily be flying for 25 years or more. He likely has some disposable income and some spare time. He has some life wisdom and maturity. Why not tailor some programs and marketing to this demographic?

Most of the 40+ people getting into aviation that I know dreamed of it as kids. So getting kids a taste of aviation now, will have them dreaming of it for twenty years until they can afford it.

Tim
 
Most of the 40+ people getting into aviation that I know dreamed of it as kids. So getting kids a taste of aviation now, will have them dreaming of it for twenty years until they can afford it.

Tim


Maybe, and maybe we'll see the state of GA improve in 20 years or so. But if we want improvements in the near term, we need to be marketing to people who have the time and the scratch to pursue it.
 
Maybe, and maybe we'll see the state of GA improve in 20 years or so. But if we want improvements in the near term, we need to be marketing to people who have the time and the scratch to pursue it.

I could be a cynic (ok, I am definitely a cynic), but for those with the time and money, they first need a dream or a reason. Adding a new dream later in life is much harder, and reasons tend to be more rationalizations, especially at aviation price points. For the baby bombers, the romantic aspects of flight were obvious, for Gen X and below flying is much more common, nothing special, and based on the press not romantic.

So at this point, I think a lot of the effort should be focused on reconnecting with the romantic/dream aspect of aviation and the associated lifestyle. Basically take Cirrus marketing message and go big. Secondly the barrier to entry is way to high compared to other distractions and priorities. Both monetary and effort for the amount of reward. This aspect is a much harder nut to crack.

Tim
 
Here is an interesting article from AOPA that discusses this exact topic and some of the reasons why airplane prices have outpaced inflation by so much (about 300% according to them).

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2013/january/01/waypoints-why-do-airplanes-cost-so-much

“The number of airplanes produced fell from more than 17,000 in 1977 to 1,950 in 2011, fewer than 900 of them piston-powered. That 1977 number wasn’t healthy either, as it resulted in softening of the market, but no industry can survive long on fewer than 2,000 units a year.”
I don't have to read the article to know that it's the lack of scale that affects the price of manufactured goods. Also, in the heyday, we had federal funds paying for primary flight instruction via GI Bill, a more "adventurous" male population that was the sole or major bread winner in a family and decided unilaterally how much to spend on a "hobby", and loan money that had fully deductible interest (although higher than today's "free" rates and leaseback was a "thing" . Not to mention fleet buys of trainer A/C by very busy flight schools.
 
I think bringing young people in is very important. Don't forget that flight school enrollment is bursting at the seams right now. Many want to be airline pilots will either get back into personal flying when they have the money and desire to fly outside of the bus. Many will have their license and pursue other business lines but still want to use that license. The trend will be turning positive over the next 20 years. Seems like almost everyone I know right now has a kid, nephew or niece in flight training or looking towards it.
 
Well he flew in a time when inflation wasn’t the best either so his numbers make it appear things were a lot worse back then.

Some numbers from 1994 when I got my PPL:

100LL was roughly $2 gal. Today’s money that’s $3.31. National average right now is around $5.50 gal.

C172 was $56 per hr. Today’s money, that’s $93. Local flight school has one for $135 per hr.

CFI was $16 per hr. Today’s money, that’s roughly $26. Local flight school is $60 per hr for a CFI.


Simple fact is, the observations I had as a kid in the late 70s early 80s, reflect the AOPA numbers I posted earlier. I grew up around GA airports and the same ramps that I walked on (without gates / TSA) had rows of SE private aircraft. I view those same airports on satellite now and they look like a ghost town. Well there’s one (CRG) that has a full ramp but it’s only because ATP Pros replaced the lack of private GA with their trainers.

I use model aircraft as a perfect parallel. A hobby that takes time, money, attention to detail and patience. Good luck finding a hobby store these days. We had one open down the road and it stayed open for a year before it closed. The Golf industry is another perfect comparison. Money is only one part of the puzzle, a change in culture is the biggest piece.
It's hard to fly a plane or swing a club when you have both eyes and two thumbs on an iThing at all waking hours.
 
It's hard to fly a plane or swing a club when you have both eyes and two thumbs on an iThing at all waking hours.

Yep. What’s funny is, they even interrupt other forms of entertainment. We were watching a movie at work the other day and a coworker was looking at his iPhone literally every 2 minutes.
 
Having a real Space Program again will ignite interest in the youngsters, as it did with my generation.
 
Small insignificant anecdote. Wife's grandfather rapidly deteriorating condition (she was kept from his condition by a truly despicable piece of trash excuse for a human sibling, but that's beyond the scope of my post). Sunday night get the call. Monday I fly a full day of 4-ship tac, get home and change, load up the Arrow, 340NM away in 2.7 hours later she's there to see him.

I was just informed her grandfather passed this morning. Between tearful sobs and gut wrenching pain, she thanks me for making this happen for her. I of course remind her it is her who has changed my life for the better. No way the airlines or a car would have made that happen for us. GA did this for her, and in her support as a spouse for my career and avocation, she made this happen for herself as well. I can't monetize this case study. There is no price.

So for us, economics noted, this is just an admitted lifestyle. We fit our economics to our desired living values, not the other way around. To each their own.
 
Anyone have any insight into how often plane manufacturers are actually sued? Out of all the dozens of pilots I've know and met I've never actually met anyone who has sued an airplane manufacturer. Of the 35,000 or so Skyhawks that Cessna has built, how many of those resulted in them getting sued and actually having to go to court and pay a settlement? I still think they're just inefficient, riddle me this below


Let's build a Skyhawk in 2018. Your research, dyes, process, everything already exists and is paid off.. because you've had them for 7 decades.. so your raw production costs are going to be strictly personnel and materials:
-you will need 1,000 lbs of sheet aluminum, namely probably 500 lbs of T6 and 500 lbs of T3 aircraft grade aluminum
--t6: 500lb X $1.50 = $750
--t3: 500lb X $1.50 = $750
^based on $3K/metric ton sheet

-you will also need (1) Lycoming IO360
--$40K (that's being very liberal. We can get into the costs of a why bare bones simple dye cast Lyco is that expensive later)

-you will also need (1) G1000 avionics suite
--$100K (that's being very liberal again)

-you will need some fit and finish and other components
--say another $5K for upholstery seats, etc. miscellaneous items

-you will need to paint it
--say another $2,500 (that's super high. If you have your own paint booth there is no way it'll run you that much, but w.e.)

-then you need to build it. If a kit plane takes 2,000 hrs then let's say Cessna is at least four times as good as me (since you know, they've been building planes for nearly a hundred years) and can do it in 500 hrs. At $50/hr for labor (includes taxes, healthcare, etc., I actually doubts most aircraft assemblers make that much, but okay) you get $25K

So we have
+$1,500
+$40,000
+$100,000
+$5,000
+$2,500
+$25,000
=$174,000
+$20K for the cost of utilities, floor space, etc.
=$200K all in grand total direct cost to build, with extremely padded numbers. Assuming Cessna wants a 35% profit margin, that means it should sell for about $300K.. mind you.. you could get that price down to about $225K by ditching the G1000. Where is that extra $100K going? Plus, I guarantee that Cessna is not paying retail prices for their engines or avionics.. they probably actually spend $60K-$80K for that G1000 and $30K for the Lycoming

Going back to the law suit thing.. even if 1 in 10 people who buy a Skyhawk sue them, that still means that if they're banking at least $100K on every Skyhawk then they should have plenty of money to absorb a suit. Sell 5,000 airplanes you have $500,000,000 in the bank in straight profit. Get sued on 500 of them that gives you some legal fund for settling, fighting, etc. Plus, I highly doubt that 1 in 10 plane owners sues their manufacturer.. probably closer to 2.5% or smaller

Compare Cirrus assembly methodology <- that is a well oiled machine
Now look at Cessna <- no stations for the SE planes, just random Skyhawks strewn about with people randomly milling around to build them.. he even says "a team member doesn't just work on a 172 or 206, they have to learn to work on all models" :eek: imagine you go to the Toyota plant and you have a guy building a Camry, Tacoma, Prius at the same time. Notice in the video they don't actually show you building anything. And they only just "most RECENTLY" learned to put the propeller on at the end of the assembly process so they can paint it more easily and limit the amount of time things just sit in inventory. This was painful to watch. These guys sound like the company was born yesterday and they just learned to build a plane... they've been around since 1927. Shameful

Anyway.. I stick to my story. These planes are expensive because they CAN be, not because they HAVE to be. Textron cares about their turbine market and they know that the flight schools will dump half a mil into their Skyhawks because the students going there will pay the rates since they're there on student loans anyway

Also.. there is a TON of regulation in the automotive industry, maybe even more than planes. I am not talking about Ford who sells over 500,000 F series trucks alone per year.. let's look this company right here, Ariel. they sell <100 cars per year.. and they build some high performance machines. Okay.. there's no roof and it's missing some creature comforts, but again, look at their assembly line process and how lean it is. You can buy an Ariel for around $70K... but that 172 will run almost 6 times that. Unfortunately there are no other good low volume auto makers to choose from because most low volume guys build "hypercars" or "supercars" and that has a whole different bespoke premium on it

Worked at Cessna in Wichita in 1977/78. The hangar where my office was builds Caravans. The Caravans had assembly stations. Once a plane was on wheels, every so often it would be rolled a few feet closer to the hangar door, until it was ready for flight test. Also, there were places where sub-components were assembled, before being assembled into the plane.

I visited the Cessna Mustang assembly hangar in Independence, KS a few times, to check my On-Ground Avionics diagnostic software for the Mustang. It looked to me that the planes were assembled from parts shipped in from other plants, and sat in one place from assembly start until ready for flight test.

And, there was a lot of hand work needed for everything. The scuttlebutt was only about half the workforce actually did anything. The other half talked a good job.

Cessna also had an employee discount program. I never looked into it, but heard a Cessna 172 could be had for $100.00 less by an employee than by a non-employee. Of course, Cessna was really tight with their money. They held onto your 401(k) money almost as long as they legally could before depositing it into your account. There was no financial reason they couldn't put it in sooner, but they were getting the interest on the float.

Finally, it used to be that half the cost of a new Cessna went to pay the premiums of the liability insurance they carried. I don't know if that is still true.
 
And, there was a lot of hand work needed for everything. The scuttlebutt was only about half the workforce actually did anything. The other half talked a good job.
Thanks for the insight. Overall sounds like a not very lean way to build a product. Even if the volume and costs were never there to build more automation into their assembly, surely the human portion could have been leaned out. Plus, continuous improvement is not an overnight cycle.. but if they'd begun a proper CI program back in the 50s they would be able to virtually stamp those 172 (or PA28 in Piper's case) out for a fraction of the cost. It's incredible how many of the DOTWIMP resources can be saved just by mapping out your assembly process and improving it from there. Seems like they're legitimately stuck in the 1950s paradigm

^and honestly, you can't necessarily blame them. When you have only one competitor (Cessna v Piper; Piper v Cessna) and each have their loyal high / low wing followers there is very little pressure to improve upon your process. Continuous improvement is usually the result of strong forces that require you to stay as lean and efficient as possible
 
One of my wife’s biggest hangups right now is a $300,000 plane has a ****tier and less comfortable interior than a $30,000 car, and when you are buying a $300,000 plane, you are probably used to a nicer interior than that $30,000 car has. This is one of the biggest factors in Cirrus’ success IMHO.
 
Thanks for the insight. Overall sounds like a not very lean way to build a product. Even if the volume and costs were never there to build more automation into their assembly, surely the human portion could have been leaned out. Plus, continuous improvement is not an overnight cycle.. but if they'd begun a proper CI program back in the 50s they would be able to virtually stamp those 172 (or PA28 in Piper's case) out for a fraction of the cost. It's incredible how many of the DOTWIMP resources can be saved just by mapping out your assembly process and improving it from there. Seems like they're legitimately stuck in the 1950s paradigm

^and honestly, you can't necessarily blame them. When you have only one competitor (Cessna v Piper; Piper v Cessna) and each have their loyal high / low wing followers there is very little pressure to improve upon your process. Continuous improvement is usually the result of strong forces that require you to stay as lean and efficient as possible

I have been to the Piper factory recently, love factory tours of anything. The tour guide told us about the lean process and continuous improvement. They look at all the processes in detail and invite their own employees to engage in process improvement where they see room for improvement. Outside of avionics, propellors and the composite radar domes, Piper makes almost everything from raw material in the factory for their planes.

Personally, I think you are completely off base in your assessment. If anyone could build planes and bring them to market, better or cheaper, they would. But the vast majority of people that think they can do it better, get no farther than a paper or flying prototype, before they realize wow this stuff is hard and go belly up. Not like everyone in management at Piper or Textron is an idiot. The planes are largely hand built, and that is because that is the best compromise of cost and quality with the number of units built. But there is some real neat technology in these factories as well. Like this enormous machine thingy? is it called a lathe? Which takes these solid I think they said ?600 lb billets of solid aluminum, and machines them into these freakin massive solid wing spars on the M600 that go wing tip to wing tip.

1 (14).jpg
1 (15).jpg 1 (16).jpg
 
This. How much does getting a PPL cost? It cost me in the neighborhood of 12k between instructor, airplane rental, equipment, and check ride. And I got mine at minimums. How many people have 12k to throw at a hobby? Plus the acquisition cost of an aircraft. Depends on what you want to do. If you want to travel, an Ercoupe probably isn't your best bet. It's going to be something like a 4 place aircraft that can travel at more than 100 kts and carry more than 1 1/2 FAA standard people. People around here deride the desire for a 4 place aircraft with the justification of "you probably won't use those seats." That's probably true, since most 4 place aren't true 4 place aircraft.... BUT you can ALWAYS use the performance associated with the ability to carry more... whether you're carrying more or not. And I don't think I recall someone saying "What do you want a sedan for? You're mostly going to be driving alone. Just go to Enterprise and rent a sedan if you need a bigger car."

Fuel injection? GPS? Upgraded radio? Better lighting? Electronic ignition? Good upholstery? Decent paint? Good luck.

It's like the old Woody Allen joke... you can live to be 100 as long as you're willing to give up everything that makes you want to live to be 100. You can afford a plane as long as you don't want anything that makes you want a plane.

Someone else said it and I agree... you want to fly around for the sake of flying itself... a powered paraglider might be right up your alley. Or an LSA. But if you want to go places and take things in comfort, it starts getting real expensive, real quick. In cars, you can, for the most part, buy something that needs a little love and fix it up nice and proper. Can't do that to airplanes. Well.. can't do that to certificated airplanes. Can kind of do that to the experimentals. And the experimentals have far nicer doodads, whirlygigs, gizmos, interiors, and equipment than the legacy GA fleet because of that. But they're limited in their own ridiculous ways.

Ugh.

Even with a pretty stout income, as a married father of two with one in college, spending $12,000 for a private ticket, and then a minimum of $6,000 a year for a rental budget seems very selfish. It would also be very difficult to find the time to get the license, between work, professional development, and the things I need to do around the house.

I'll refine that a bit. It's in decline because it isn't practical.

It isn't practical for many of us. Even though I don't fly GA any longer, when I get ready to go out of town I make a mental calculation thinking that if I had a Skylane at my disposal, could I make this trip by air, and would it make sense to do so? For us, the answer is "no" 90% of the time. Either we're going too far, have too much stuff to bring, or the weather would not permit it.

Yes. The first step toward deliverance is accepting that there's a problem. Still too much denial because "my airport" or "my flying friends" are doing well, or because Oshkosh had a good crowd. The numbers don't lie.

Edit: there's a reasonably-nice-looking airport near where I live (Robbins Field, 20A, Oneonta, AL) that has almost become a ghost town now. It's a shame. I was thinking about basing any plane that I acquired there, but I ain't gonna park it where they don't even have fuel available(!).

That story is being repeated all over this country, too. Slowly, very slowly, but surely.

I think what you're seeing is the result of the tendency for the better paying jobs increasingly are concentrated in the larger cities. This leaves the airports in small towns and cities to wither, unless there's a large flight school based there.

Kind of leaves out the fact that planes unlike computers, phones, cars last pretty much forever. So of course the need for new ones diminish. The biggest competitor for ALL of the OEM's is the used market. Can't buy a well running 40 year old AMC pacer (outside of an occasional museum piece) but you can find a lot of very nice perfectly flying 40 year old aircraft. GA will remain alive and healthy in our lifetime, who knows what the future holds, but if you have the expendable income and desire, GA rocks. There is a plane for most people's in the middle class and higher budget. It is just about desire. As far as economics of FBO's though. It is driven by the Turbine crowd. I was in an FBO the other day, and someone ordered 5 on the left and 4 on the right. After the pilot left, I was puzzled, what did he order? AV gas the owner replied. The owner said he can run his AV gas truck for 6 hours to make the same money that he gets on just one fill of a standard small turbine. Want a healthy FBO, find a way to invite turbines to play. Then enjoy the infrastructure that they support.

Airplanes wear out, just like any other mechanical device. Some of them crash, others are damaged by storms, some just get neglected. Pinning GA's future to the indefinite use of planes built from late 60's to early 80's is a surefire way to watch it shrivel and almost disappear.

My dad was a private pilot during 1975-1986 (the year he sold his Dakota and gave it up). During his flying years, getting a pilot's license and buying a plane was the thing to do for guys with the means to do so. My dad was a small business owner, and so were many of his friends, and many of them took up owning and flying. My dad stayed with it longer than most of them - they all eventually gave it up for one reason or another.

My point is: I don't think learning to fly and owning a plane is a "must do" or trendy thing as much as it used to be, even for those with the means to do it.

Mine flew from 1967 until 1981. I agree, among men of his generation flying was the thing to do, particularly if you owned your own business. Back then, marginal income tax rates were high, and there were tax incentives to buy capital equipment. Lots of business owners used this opportunity to buy airplanes. I suspect the IRS called lots of them on it since they weren't being used much for business, but it still got airplanes sold. Business owners also have the schedule flexibility that allows them to travel, those of us on salary have to be there until 5:30 on Friday and back to work at 8 on Monday. Unfortunately, business ownership has become much more concentrated over the last 40 years and there are few such businessmen and women than there once was.

Agree. The costs are crazy. I was a law enforcement officer for 14 years. Never had a prayer of learning to fly on that income, and I made solid money for the area I live in. It wasn't until I left LE and started my own trucking business that I was able to afford it five years later. I'll throw this out there. If you don't make a six figure income and have your finances under control, you'll struggle affording the costs to get your PPL, which runs around 10k where I live. If you have kids at home or in college good luck. Thankfully mine are grown and gone or it wouldn't have happened.

I have one at home and one in college. We have two professional incomes and I'd still be hard pressed to find the money to get a private certificate.

One of my wife’s biggest hangups right now is a $300,000 plane has a ****tier and less comfortable interior than a $30,000 car, and when you are buying a $300,000 plane, you are probably used to a nicer interior than that $30,000 car has. This is one of the biggest factors in Cirrus’ success IMHO.

In the last 40 years, cars have made great strides in capabilities and comfort. That's the standard that GA has to meet.
 
Personally, I think you are completely off base in your assessment. If anyone could build planes and bring them to market, better or cheaper, they would.
Maybe, hopefully. Cool pictures. I got my PPL and did my IR in Pipers. My main disappointment was with Cessna. Their tent was a joke. Piper's was very active and constantly had a crowd, and their product line branding reflects a consistent effort to keep up. But more so unforunately, especially for Cessna, the sales figures speak for themselves. Cessna is living in the past. Only a few TTx, a handful of Bo's, and outside of flight schools I doubt they'd sell a single half mil SkyHawk. The product didn't keep up with the times, and they shouldn't still be handbuilding the same plane decades later and "just recently" discovering that the propeller should go on at the end after painting. It's a shame.
 
Back
Top