Why? The high cost of flying..

Art Rose said:
Recently it was announced that Mooney is on the verge of going out of business, (by the end of this month), and is looking for another new owner to continue production. Another shutdown in a long line of shutdowns since the 1920's when the Mooney boys decided to produce airplanes.

I'm sure that many of us here have taken the walking tour of their facility. We know the majority of the facility itself has been around, buildings and all, essentially unchanged, since the 1950's. Even the original metal presses and dies are still used today. Basically, so far as the factory itself is concerned, little has changed except the cost of labor and materials. Granted, the Mooney is a very labor intensive product, with even the cockpit structure being hand welded as it was in the beginning.

We can only speculate as to why the price of a new Mooney now lies somewhere in the quarter million dollar range. Personally, I suspect it's a mixture of reasons, among them, increased labor, material, liability, and regulatory related costs. But the fact remains, at least to the average guy on the street, that demanding a quarter million dollars for such a product is either greed, poor business, or insanity.

Who, and where is their market. Who in their right mind is going to spend a quarter million dollars for a new Mooney? In my estimation, they are participating in a extremely narrow market. Makes perfect sense to me why they keep going out of business. And we could substitute a half dozen other product names for the Mooney brand.

Personally, I left the Certified arena years ago, and until the regulatory garbage is overhauled, I won't be back.

I think the answer to the original question asked here could be very easily put to rest by the current, or former Mooney owners, but I honestly doubt any would come forth and honestly answer the question.
Click to expand...
The post on Mooneys was one reason I posted this query.
 
alfadog said:
I don't know who you're basing these generalities on but I couldn't disagree more. Nor do I follow your logic in that more options equal less of anything. Young people are plenty active. When I was young, in the hippie days, I guess you could say the same thing about all the drugs we were experimenting with. I did a lot of drugs but it didn't stop me or my friends from doing a lots of real-life stuff too.

PS, here are some of those kids you're sure are doing nothing IRL because they have video games and Uber. Pics taken about two weeks ago.

View attachment 79723 View attachment 79724
Click to expand...
Nice pix... We could show boyscouts or young eagles as easily...
Or even an army bootcamp... Basic training...

The armed forces consist of 1% of the population.

These good, active kids, probably the same % of their demographic only.

Don't see any grossly obese kids in your photos... Yet it's an epidemic in this country.

It is much more pleasant to look at the positives out there... I mean, we don't go to Rodeo drive to see the homeless.
 
CharlieD3 said:
Nice pix... We could show boyscouts or young eagles as easily...
Or even an army bootcamp... Basic training...
...
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely. Plenty of active and engaged young people out there. That is my point. I have no data regarding percentages now and then and I doubt you do either.

Don't see any grossly obese kids in your photos... Yet it's an epidemic in this country.
...
Click to expand...

I don't know what that has to do with your original premise below that I disagreed with but okay. That and the connection somehow to the lack of Interest in some folks today in owning and driving a car. There's lots of reasons that that is a good decision but I'm not going to go into them.

The lack of wanting Independence and it's inherent responsibility is less attractive than being one of the collective.
Click to expand...

Anyway this is in the agree to disagree range so we'll just leave it there.
 
Kenny Lee said:
In 1948 people were eating cornbread and white beans. Today we call up pizza delivery or fly for a $100 burger. Dunno about ya’ll but I cant fly and get a burger for $100. We’re all spoiled rotten
Click to expand...
Well, if it's within an hour flying time each way... yeah, I can. My cost per hour to operate, all in and including an engine reserve, is somewhere between $30 and $35 wet. If you throw in the fixed costs (hangar, insurance, oil changes, yadda yadda), it's still under $60 per hour assuming I fly roughly 50 hours a year, which I have been. Flying an Experimental is one way to dramatically reduce your expense.

We are indeed, though, spoiled rotten... or to phrase it another way, our standard of living has changed considerably since the 40s (which was WAY before my time anyway) or even since I was growing up in the 60s and 70s. When I graduated high school in 1978, our household had ONE land line for phone. TV viewing cost us zero per month, you watched the three broadcast channels when they were on the air. Need to look something up? Go to the public library (free, other than a few cents for gas).

Now most of my peers are probably spending over $300 a month on electronic communications alone -- Internet, cable or satellite TV, streaming video, cell phone service, and on and on. We've trimmed ours way down, and we're still spending over $200 a month. Total that stuff all up, you'll probably be shocked.

New cars? Airplanes? Look at what was required to sell a new vehicle of any sort in the 1960s or 70s, and compare it to today. What do you thing think the software development costs were for a new vehicle (land, sea, or air) in 1970? How about the total cost of safety or environmental regulation compliance?

Yup. Stuff's more expensive now.
 
Kenny Lee said:
In 1948 people were eating cornbread and white beans. Today we call up pizza delivery or fly for a $100 burger. Dunno about ya’ll but I cant fly and get a burger for $100. We’re all spoiled rotten
Click to expand...

My last burger run was more like $300. That inflation, I tell ya, it's an outttrrraaaaaggggeeee. :D
 
I about hammerfist a hole through my computer screen when I read this back in 2017 wrt primary non-commercial. Nevermind I've been harping about it ever since Congress passed the law in 2015 and FAA stonewalled it for 2 years. The temerity to write "at least the FAA is up-front about it...". No they're not. That is the exact opposite of transparency. To this day, that OEM/airline-bought and paid-for agency has not publicly addressed the reasons they drowned the baby in the bathtub.

I still attribute my wife walking me off the ledge as to why I still own this thing tbh. It's no secret I wasn't and continue not be happy about it, but she reminds me the alternative is driving and she knows I'm def not gonna drive 12 hours for a weekend trip, so I relent for the sake of the collective.

We have a fundamental problem of economically sustainable supply, for those of us with more than 15 years of active flying left. And we're getting gentrified with impunity. I have zero illusions of new OEM attaining a replacement volume that would help me jump out of this overpriced, nickle and diming 1960s/70s legacy stock, which is why I harp on primary non-commercial so much. Ditto for 4-seater EAB; the volume being produced for the resale market is a non-starter.

But it is a solution. The Canadians know this and would have had a better case to make if the US hadn't poison pilled their category. Our regulatory agency is actively stonewalling us on this front, and they won't say why. That tells me all I need to know about the issue. I can't prove OEM lobbying is behind this, but that's where my finger is pointed at, especially when you look at their recent behavior wrt airframe replacement parts and general attitudes towards legacy support as a matter of principle. Put that up in the "that's why" column. That's also why I part company with the cohort that thinks we're in the same club as turbine part 91 recreational players, as far as AOPA advocacy is concerned. Nope. That's the same as those who believe ALPA representing both regional airline work groups and mainline means everybody is getting a fair shake. Yeah, and I got a timeshare in Aleppo to sell ya...


So yeah, it's a big effing club alright, but we ain't in it.....
 
hindsight2020 said:
I about hammerfist a hole through my computer screen when I read this back in 2017 wrt primary non-commercial. Nevermind I've been harping about it ever since Congress passed the law in 2015 and FAA stonewalled it for 2 years. The temerity to write "at least the FAA is up-front about it...". No they're not. That is the exact opposite of transparency. To this day, that OEM/airline-bought and paid-for agency has not publicly addressed the reasons they drowned the baby in the bathtub.

I still attribute my wife walking me off the ledge as to why I still own this thing tbh. It's no secret I wasn't and continue not be happy about it, but she reminds me the alternative is driving and she knows I'm def not gonna drive 12 hours for a weekend trip, so I relent for the sake of the collective.

We have a fundamental problem of economically sustainable supply, for those of us with more than 15 years of active flying left. And we're getting gentrified with impunity. I have zero illusions of new OEM attaining a replacement volume that would help me jump out of this overpriced, nickle and diming 1960s/70s legacy stock, which is why I harp on primary non-commercial so much. Ditto for 4-seater EAB; the volume being produced for the resale market is a non-starter.

But it is a solution. The Canadians know this and would have had a better case to make if the US hadn't poison pilled their category. Our regulatory agency is actively stonewalling us on this front, and they won't say why. That tells me all I need to know about the issue. I can't prove OEM lobbying is behind this, but that's where my finger is pointed at, especially when you look at their recent behavior wrt airframe replacement parts and general attitudes towards legacy support as a matter of principle. Put that up in the "that's why" column. That's also why I part company with the cohort that thinks we're in the same club as turbine part 91 recreational players, as far as AOPA advocacy is concerned. Nope. That's the same as those who believe ALPA representing both regional airline work groups and mainline means everybody is getting a fair shake. Yeah, and I got a timeshare in Aleppo to sell ya...


So yeah, it's a big effing club alright, but we ain't in it.....
Click to expand...
Yes, well... Gubmint...

You're right about that...

Bureaucracy... Might as well figure it as a fixed cost for us little guys... And a write off as expense of doing bidness... Deductable, no doubt, for the big guys.
 
CharlieD3 said:
Yes, well... Gubmint...

You're right about that...

Bureaucracy... Might as well figure it as a fixed cost for us little guys... And a write off as expense of doing bidness... Deductable, no doubt, for the big guys.
Click to expand...

You guys give private industry too much of a pass. Gubmint is the hatchet, the surrogate if you will. I don't blame the puppet for what the hand does.
 
hindsight2020 said:
You guys give private industry too much of a pass. Gubmint is the hatchet, the surrogate if you will. I don't blame the puppet for what the hand does.
Click to expand...
Uh, I agreed with you... In a carefully couched, diplomatic manner...

That said, individuals in the hatchet enjoy and prosper whilst being held/wielded by the hand.
 
CharlieD3 said:
Average salary 1948 $3100
Equivalent today about $32K

About the same 2years income to purchase the hand made plane...
Click to expand...
What payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation insurance, employee benefits, and so on were added on to the employer’s cost of labor in 1948 versus 2019?
 
CharlieD3 said:
Flying has not always been expensive.

It was supposed to be a "middle class" endeavor, with a practicality to it.

Just recently, there was an old video from the ~60s 70s posted about empty nesters getting flying lessons, after their kids flew in to visit them.

THAT was what it was supposed to be.

Not, an exclusive club, that names their own monetary units. (AMUs A moniker I hate, as well.)

My PPL cost me $2051.83 total. Paid in full from start to the day I got my ticket in November 1982.

What's it cost today on average? A lot more than the $5472.27 that it would be, corrected for inflation.
Click to expand...
Basing a belief about what was supposed to be on an advertisement that tried to sell a product to the upper middle class is a non-starter. Otherwise, we would be better off organizing a protest about the lack of swimming pools full of beautiful women that the beer ads promised us.
 
iamtheari said:
Basing a belief about what was supposed to be on an advertisement that tried to sell a product to the upper middle class is a non-starter. Otherwise, we would be better off organizing a protest about the lack of swimming pools full of beautiful women that the beer ads promised us.
Click to expand...
What... you guys don't have those??
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
Just to reinforce the point already made, not one quarter, but 3 quarter million dollars.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I should have said $750,000.00 rather the "hurry up get this posted" repetition of a quarter million dollars.
A Quarter Million won't buy hardly squat anymore in the aviation world.
 
iamtheari said:
Basing a belief about what was supposed to be on an advertisement that tried to sell a product to the upper middle class is a non-starter. Otherwise, we would be better off organizing a protest about the lack of swimming pools full of beautiful women that the beer ads promised us.
Click to expand...
Advertising today sells cars to people who can't afford them based on payments...

Maybe GA should
 
Assuming a 30 year, 3.8% interest rate and a $20,000 down payment on a $750,000 airplane loan the monthly payment would be $3,988.99 per month. You would end up paying $494,535.92 in interest.

This is why we don't sell airplanes like cars, or houses. BTW a 50 year payment plan would be $3307.17 with 901,799.83 in interest.
 
I think 20% down is more standard. Still going to be a ridiculous payment. $2795. ($3575 for 20 years)
 
As we were talking about making it affordable I used a 2 1/2% of $20,000 down vs the 20% equating to $150,000 down.
 
lol I also just looked at the VisionJet finance page and it shows on a 1,960,000 plane with 20% down ($392,000) the Financed Amount: $1,568,000.00, Fixed Rate: 4.14 %, Term: 240 months, Monthly payment: $9617.84.

Let me add this to the list of things I cannot afford.
 
FastEddieB said:
Isn’t that exactly backwards?

View attachment 79726
Click to expand...

I was an economics major. What is taught in Econ 100 is the economics equivalent of high school physics, in that there are a whole lot of details that are left out, and that's what you spend the rest of your college career learning.

When demand drops off, suppliers leave the marketplace and/or reduce production. If demand drops enough, economies of scale disappear, and prices have to rise, as companies that behave normally don't like to lose money. (Silicon Valley startups that have a nearly unlimited supply of investor capital behave differently.) That is what had happened to general aviation.

Looking at Cessna's behavior, I wonder if they are getting ready to exit the piston engine market.
 
alfadog said:
I don't know who you're basing these generalities on but I couldn't disagree more. Nor do I follow your logic in that more options equal less of anything. Young people are plenty active. When I was young, in the hippie days, I guess you could say the same thing about all the drugs we were experimenting with. I did a lot of drugs but it didn't stop me or my friends from doing a lots of real-life stuff too.

PS, here are some of those kids you're sure are doing nothing IRL because they have video games and Uber. Pics taken about two weeks ago.

View attachment 79723 View attachment 79724
Click to expand...

I see the same thing that you do...young people are doing a lot of activities nowadays, just different activities is all. Maybe they don't play marbles at recess, or ride their pedal bikes all over like I did when young, but they still do a lot of activities, just that trends changed in what sort of activities they partake of. My daughter and her best friend were both into snowboarding, they built a canoe together, love to fly drones, have done about a dozen tough mudder competitions, were in competitive swimming, and they even volunteered at the hospital. I did exactly zero of those things as a youth.
 
CharlieD3 said:
My PPL cost me $2051.83 total. Paid in full from start to the day I got my ticket in November 1982.
Click to expand...
Got my PPL in 1996 I think total cost was $4500. That said, my worked moved me a lot and I flew in 3 states and had 6 flight instructors. As I remember it took me 60 hours. I'm sure I could have completed PPL training sooner if I did not have to demonstrate my flying abilities to so many CFI's.
 
FastEddieB said:
Or drop prices, to stimulate demand, right?

For example, when demand for a car model falls off, I don’t usually see prices for those models going up.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do, but you also see that the models in that situation get discontinued. Nissan did that when they most recently envisioned the Rogue, selling the previous version alongside the new one for a while, to get additional revenue out of the old tooling and to keep a production line running, but at some point the cars are undesirable enough to where they have to be sold at a loss, and production stops. But that's very different from building airplanes where the volume is small and the amount of labor is great, the maker isn't going to lower the price to keep building airplanes at a loss. Economies of scale don't apply when volumes are that low.
 
FastEddieB said:
Or drop prices, to stimulate demand, right?

For example, when demand for a car model falls off, I don’t usually see prices for those models going up.
Click to expand...
No, but if demand for ALL car models dropped to near zero, all but one or two manufacturers went under, and the remaining two or three were only selling a few dozen cars a year... yeah, you bet the prices would go up. WAY up.
 
Adjusted for inflation, we're paying what people in the 60's paid for brand new airplanes to get 40-50 year old airplanes today with mostly the same technology. That's the issue. Yeah the fixed costs and the cost of fuel are expensive but when compared to a $300k-$1mil and up new aircraft those costs are peanuts.
 
The OP has a great point and viewed as from an economic standpoint, the cost of buying a new airplane has become virtually out of reach for all of the middle class. It’s why we still have planes that are approaching 60 plus years old still flying around.

With stagnant wage growth for almost 40 years in this county and an ever growing gap between those that can afford to live vs those just living to afford it’s clear the United States has a problem. I’m not advocating for governmental interference or the “Warren Tax” but when middle class opportunities can only be obtained by the middle class by taking on piles of debt, we need to take a step back as a nation and ask if this is what we want to be.

Specific to flying, as long as people keep forking over 300,000 plus dollars for a brand new 172 they will continue to be worth that. It’s basically a supply and demand case and point.
 
DaleB said:
No, but if demand for ALL car models dropped to near zero, all but one or two manufacturers went under, and the remaining two or three were only selling a few dozen cars a year... yeah, you bet the prices would go up. WAY up.
Click to expand...

It seems to me you’re taking an edge case in an attempt to disprove a general economic theory that increased demand causes price increases and decreased demand causes decreased prices.
 
FastEddieB said:
It seems to me you’re taking an edge case in an attempt to disprove a general economic theory that increased demand causes price increases and decreased demand causes decreased prices.
Click to expand...
Oligopolies and monopolies don't follow the supply/demand curve.
 
cowman said:
Adjusted for inflation, we're paying what people in the 60's paid for brand new airplanes to get 40-50 year old airplanes today with mostly the same technology. That's the issue. Yeah the fixed costs and the cost of fuel are expensive but when compared to a $300k-$1mil and up new aircraft those costs are peanuts.
Click to expand...

Yes! But.

I think the reason we pay so much for used is regulation. These vehicles need to be maintained. BY REGULATION. Arguably, a frequently used, well cared for aircraft is like new or nearly so. In the car market with less regulation, cars are disposable, and for decades, obsolescence was planned. There have been few changes in commercially built aircraft... No new model year with different body styles and old molds broken... That makes a '72 172 the same plane as a 2012 model. Oh sure, glass panel. Otherwise, minor cosmetic difference.

GRG55 said:
I'm paraphrasing a quote from the late Gordon Baxter, from one of his Bax Seat columns: "The cost of flying today is exactly the same as it was 50 years ago...all ya got"
Click to expand...

I think it might be a little bit more of "...all ya got." Than it was back then.

jspilot said:
The OP has a great point and viewed as from an economic standpoint, the cost of buying a new airplane has become virtually out of reach for all of the middle class. It’s why we still have planes that are approaching 60 plus years old still flying around.

With stagnant wage growth for almost 40 years in this county and an ever growing gap between those that can afford to live vs those just living to afford it’s clear the United States has a problem. I’m not advocating for governmental interference or the “Warren Tax” but when middle class opportunities can only be obtained by the middle class by taking on piles of debt, we need to take a step back as a nation and ask if this is what we want to be.

Specific to flying, as long as people keep forking over 300,000 plus dollars for a brand new 172 they will continue to be worth that. It’s basically a supply and demand case and point.
Click to expand...

But as I mentioned above, those sixty year old planes are close to "good as new" as they can be. So you sell less new.

This has been an interesting discussion so far. I only wish our discussion would change the reality.
 
jspilot said:
With stagnant wage growth for almost 40 years in this county and an ever growing gap between those that can afford to live vs those just living to afford it’s clear the United States has a problem. I’m not advocating for governmental interference or the “Warren Tax” but when middle class opportunities can only be obtained by the middle class by taking on piles of debt, we need to take a step back as a nation and ask if this is what we want to be.
Click to expand...

The standard of living for today's young adult generation is the highest in world history. They have supercomputers in their hands, they have the nicest autos to drive, they order their food delivered to them, and have access to instantaneous, cheap and endless entertainment on the internet. As a general rule, they have no interest in getting their pilot's license and spending money to fly.

Massive government redistribution of wealth will not solve this problem, but will certainly make it worse. History has demonstrated this lesson multiple times.
 
Grum.Man said:
The bottom line is, if someone came out with a new 4 seat airplane you could buy for the same price as a truck or SUV we would suddenly have a lot more pilots in the world.
Click to expand...

When we get to autonomous flying, and mass manufacturing, that will certainly happen. Finally the Jetsons flying car!

6202684692_c5f6a48d6d_b.jpg
 
Cluemeister said:
When we get to autonomous flying, and mass manufacturing, that will certainly happen. Finally the Jetsons flying car!

View attachment 79801
Click to expand...

It will take a Tesla approach to get flying anything’s down in price. A company will have to be willing to take a loss for several years while demand catches up with supply. You would be amazed at the price difference of a product sourced at 3k units a year versus 300k. Airplane volumes are extremely difficult to source, companies have to charge a ridiculous price to justify running a 3k piece order and being able to turn a profit.

A company I worked at had a product we had discontinued but a high volume customer requested some replacement parts and threatened to purchase from a competitor if we didn’t fulfill the order. We got quotes for some of the outsourced purchased parts and they came back Triple the original cost when it was in volume production.
 
Grum.Man said:
The bottom line is, if someone came out with a new 4 seat airplane you could buy for the same price as a truck or SUV we would suddenly have a lot more pilots in the world.
Click to expand...

I think this was part of the goal of Light Sport - a basic little flying machine for about the cost of a new Lexus or Mercedes.

Yet the market seems to want to gild every Light Sport lily, to the point that even average ones are in the vicinity of $150k, about triple what I think many had in mind for a "starter" plane. But it is what it is.
 
While
FastEddieB said:
I think this was part of the goal of Light Sport - a basic little flying machine for about the cost of a new Lexus or Mercedes.

Yet the market seems to want to gild every Light Sport lily, to the point that even average ones are in the vicinity of $150k, about triple what I think many had in mind for a "starter" plane. But it is what it is.
Click to expand...
while the goal may have been to get more affordable flying to younger people the reality is, it turned into a class to extend the old and wealthy’s days of flying. Of course they want it to have the capability of their old 182 so that’s how they equip them.
 
When I was in the computer business, I had a client. Professor at a college. I was installing his home systems. He made excuses for his home, saying, "We sold our souls to travel the world."

They had been nearly everywhere and we're still traveling, any time they had time off.

Someone above made the counterpoint to another post that today's generations have a very high standard of living. I think that's right. We can have virtually anything we want.. or is that we can anything we want, virtually?

We can be entertained at the touch of a button or click of a mouse. We can go to the Himalayan range, and listen to the monks chant. We can go above the peak of Everest. All virtually.

Some rare souls want to actually go there, hear the flapping of the prayer flags, see the rivers of waste, smell them, pass the graves of those who died trying to summit, climb over the used oxygen tanks and plastic water bottles and make the attempt themselves REALLY.

There seems to be less and less commitment to DO, MAKE, BUILD, TASTE, FEEL, ACT. It can almost all be simulated.

There are a few who DO. There are many who WATCH.

Flying is doing, feeling, tasting, for some even making and building before they can feel, and taste the air.

But, MSFS 2020 will be out soon... No need to really go fly... And it's a whole lot less expensive... And, there's no risk, no self reliance, no envelope stretched, no learning muscle memory or pucker factor.

And all of that was way off the initial topic... But, flying is a spiritual thing for a few... A task for others. And a bit of both for some...

Carry on
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top