After the Grand Illusion ends...

[FormerHangie]

Well, I don't rent enough to justify ownership right now, so it won't make any less sense to wait 10 years for recessions and baby boomer retirements.

Financially, we're solidly middle class, have a boat, jet ski, and 3 late-model (10 yr old or less) vehicles with no debt on any of them. We are able to cover all mortgage, utilities, recurring bills on half of my monthly income. Wife's paycheck only goes toward daycare, so we are able to save a good bit each month. We could go out and finance an aircraft without a ton of heartache, but it's not where I want to spend the money right now. I'm also really short on time between work, home projects, and a 1yr old. 10 years should work out fine for me, and with any luck, a recession and influx of available used aircraft will be used to my advantage.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hope that works out for you. From listening to the travails that some of the folks here have gone through to find a decent older plane, I'm not sure it will. The peak year for aircraft production was 1978, I think, and that 40+ year old stuff is getting played out. If we have to depend on old airplanes to keep GA alive, at some point in time it will become very, very small.

Boy, that sounds familiar!

Another important factor is time. Aviation is much more time consuming than some other pastimes. It's a lot easier and faster to pull the motorcycle out of the garage and go for a burger run, than in the plane.

Life for most of us is more complex, and in many ways less predictable/more uncertain than it was for our parents (maybe every generation says that ). That all comes out of the discretionary time available for any hobbies.

You can say that again. My wife started working full time for the first time in 17 years, and the stuff that used to get done during the week now happens on the weekends. I find myself doing a major grocery shopping trip every weekend. It's gotten to where she doesn't come out on the boat every time my daughters and I go because she's too busy, and the boat is one of her favorite things.

The thing about places like Atlanta is that storage costs are a non-starter for many people who otherwise can afford it at more reasonable storage rates. It really isn't an inconsequential shift. We're talking about doubling of-all in yearly costs, just because of parking. I love my hobby as much as the next guy, but even I consider that a reason to exit stage. Furthermore, even though I'm not one to necessarily exit stage due to lack of hangar *availability (*include affordability in that definition as well), most people do consider a hangar a prereq to ownership, which exacerbates the "disinterest" problem.

When you get down to it, that $450 a month to hangar a Skylane is actually a below market rate. if you look at the cost of self storage units in the area, to get the same amount of indoor storage as you'd need for an airplane, it would be more like $600 - $750 per month, and that's for a unit with an 8 foot ceiling.

So, there's not much most of us here can do about the high costs of airplanes nor the wages average people make. I will point out that, adjust for inflation, a new 172 costs about 4x what they did when they first were available for sale and that's not a small issue. Of course, most of us are buying 20-40 year old planes that cost what a 172 used to new adjusted for inflation.... which blows but hey at least you can get one.

What you can do is talk about it, share photos on your social media accounts, give people rides, and provide guidance to anyone who who is interested in learning. Sure, most people are aware of airplanes but it isn't on most people's radar as a think that they could potentially go do. Make them aware that it is.

In 1971, my father bought a new Skylane. IIRC it was $25,000 after the radios were put in. That would buy a decent house back then, or 12-15 small cars, so probably the equivalent of $225,000 or so. That will buy you about a 20 year old Skylane now. It appears to me that new airplanes have just about doubled in price, adjusted for inflation. I suspect that's mostly because of the loss of volume, and partly because new airplanes today are better equipped than they were back then.

The American dream:
- BIG HOUSE
- 2.5 kids
- 2+ cars less than 5 years old
- Golf clubs and membership to the local course
- Socker for the kids
- Baseball
- Football
- Music lessons
- Family ski vacation in the winter
- Family cruise in the summer
- Dinner every noon and night at a restaurant due to not having time to actually cook!
- (list too long - snip)

How the **** does anyone have any money or time left!!

Our house is bigger than I'd like, but you know, the builder didn't ask us what we wanted, they just built the most expensive house they could sell on the space they had. That's the marketplace at work, and it behaves differently for housing than it does things that are easy to move. Housing has gone up in price over the last 30 years, and not just because new houses are bigger. When I was a child in the 60's, my uncle owned a gas station in Chicago, and lived in a big house on Chicago's north side. Now, a two bedroom apartment in that area sells for $300,000 and a house like his would be $750,000 or more. Same is true for health care and education. For the most part, manufactured goods are less expensive, airplanes being a notable exception.

 

[SoonerAviator]

I hope that works out for you. From listening to the travails that some of the folks here have gone through to find a decent older plane, I'm not sure it will. The peak year for aircraft production was 1978, I think, and that 40+ year old stuff is getting played out. If we have to depend on old airplanes to keep GA alive, at some point in time it will become very, very small.

I hope so, too, but we'll see. Ultimately, I'd love to go the experimental route like an RV-10, but I don't expect I'll have the time to invest in order to build one, now or in 10 years. I also don't see the experimental/homebuilts having quite the impact that certified birds will in regards to high volumes coming on the market with baby boomers moving on.

In 1971, my father bought a new Skylane. IIRC it was $25,000 after the radios were put in. That would buy a decent house back then, or 12-15 small cars, so probably the equivalent of $225,000 or so. That will buy you about a 20 year old Skylane now. It appears to me that new airplanes have just about doubled in price, adjusted for inflation. I suspect that's mostly because of the loss of volume, and partly because new airplanes today are better equipped than they were back then.

Well, per the CPI, $25K in 1971 is about $154K today. If they were selling 182s for $154K, I doubt people would be complaining too much. I also don't buy the "better-equipped" reasoning, either. They had dual nav/coms, ADF, etc. which were current technology back then. Having a couple of glass-panel screens, or a GPS stack is current technology, but shouldn't be any more expensive relatively-speaking. It's still a NAV/COM at its base, right? I can see being a few thousand more due to additional complexities and such, but not $30K+ more than the 1970 equivalent.

 

[Grum.Man]

The operating cost difference between C150M and say a C172M are almost nil. The tires, brakes, oil filters, alternators, magnetos, spark plugs, ELT batteries, light bulbs, almost all the consumables are virtually identical. Hangar expenses, transponder inspections, static system altimeter inspections won't be any different either. The annual inspection costs should be almost identical. The 172M holds another couple quarts of oil, burns on average a couple gallons of gas more. The 172 can comfortably be rented for other things and not just primary training.

Everyone has figured out that the 150/152/Tomahawks aren't as practical as the entry level 4 seat Cessnas and Pipers. I had a C150B for about 5 years and would love to have another, but for the costs it ain't happening (A&P IA here so even with free labor I'm not really interested).

I see your point but the few places I have seen that rent a 152 and 172 there is about a 30 - 50 dollar an hour savings depending on equipment. That is about a $1,600.00 savings over the course of 40 hours! The savings alone would pay for your instructor and then some.

 

[jesse]

I see your point but the few places I have seen that rent a 152 and 172 there is about a 30 - 50 dollar an hour savings depending on equipment. That is about a $1,600.00 savings over the course of 40 hours! The savings alone would pay for your instructor and then some.

I rent out three 172s. There is no way I would buy a 150 or 152. They are too small for the majority of the students we have (middle aged males).

There is also no way in hell it would be 30 to 50 dollars less. The fixed costs are all about the same and the fuel flow difference would save $10 at best.

We charge $120 for the 172s and according to my master price setter spreadsheet I'd have to charge about $105-$110 for a 152.

I can promise you that the 152 would be a money loser for me. Nobody that is 2017 sized wants to cram themselves into one to save $10/hr.

Maintenance, insurance, hangars...all of that would cost the same.

 

[bnt83]

I see your point but the few places I have seen that rent a 152 and 172 there is about a 30 - 50 dollar an hour savings depending on equipment. That is about a $1,600.00 savings over the course of 40 hours! The savings alone would pay for your instructor and then some.

Most of these places are operating much much newer 172s than the nearby 150/152s. That's most of the cost delta. No effing way would I try and rent a 172R/S/SP, simply too much unneeded crap on them and fewer aftermarket PMA parts support.

I've also noted most places are running 100LL, probably mostly due to airport politics, but mogas may or may not be an attractive cost savings measure. The STC is essentially free if you operating rental aircraft that fly a couple hundred hours a year.

 

[bnt83]

I rent out three 172s. There is no way I would buy a 150 or 152. They are too small for the majority of the students we have (middle aged males).

There is also no way in hell it would be 30 to 50 dollars less. The fixed costs are all about the same and the fuel flow difference would save $10 at best.

We charge $120 for the 172s and according to my master price setter spreadsheet I'd have to charge about $105-$110 for a 152.

I can promise you that the 152 would be a money loser for me. Nobody that is 2017 sized wants to cram themselves into one to save $10/hr.

Maintenance, insurance, hangars...all of that would cost the same.

I've wasted a lot of time climbing to pattern altitude in a Cessna 150 with a CFI on board. A 172 can get that job done a bit quicker in a bit more comfort.

I really enjoy flying the 150/152 and even had fun in the AA1C, especially solo.

 

[Grum.Man]

I rent out three 172s. There is no way I would buy a 150 or 152. They are too small for the majority of the students we have (middle aged males).

There is also no way in hell it would be 30 to 50 dollars less. The fixed costs are all about the same and the fuel flow difference would save $10 at best.

We charge $120 for the 172s and according to my master price setter spreadsheet I'd have to charge about $105-$110 for a 152.

I can promise you that the 152 would be a money loser for me. Nobody that is 2017 sized wants to cram themselves into one to save $10/hr.

Maintenance, insurance, hangars...all of that would cost the same.

That for the most part is pretty uncommon. Around here a 172 goes for 135-140 per hour and a 150-152 is around 105 or less. I would have loved to save $20.00 / hour when I was learning.

 

[mtuomi]

I rent out three 172s. There is no way I would buy a 150 or 152. They are too small for the majority of the students we have (middle aged males).

There is also no way in hell it would be 30 to 50 dollars less. The fixed costs are all about the same and the fuel flow difference would save $10 at best.

We charge $120 for the 172s and according to my master price setter spreadsheet I'd have to charge about $105-$110 for a 152.

I can promise you that the 152 would be a money loser for me. Nobody that is 2017 sized wants to cram themselves into one to save $10/hr.

Maintenance, insurance, hangars...all of that would cost the same.

Insurance is a few grand less per year for a 150/152. It's not a student/CFI plane though, you want to rent it to European hour builders in 50 hour dry blocks. It would fly 365 days a year and that way no need to do 100hr inspections. I was playing with this idea, and I got probably 50 emails in 2 days when I said I might be renting mine. They don't care about the size or anything, they go for the price. Heck, many of them just sit on an airport with the engine running without actually flying anywhere (they are mostly asians though).
You could easily rent it out for 500-600 hours/year at say $45/hr dry. That will turn a nice profit. I flew mine for around 400 hours in 6 months and my total opex including FBO fees, fuel, a few expensive out-of-base maintenance hits etc was $54/hr. I didn't defer any maintenance so wasn't building "repair debt". No capex, I sold it for more than what I paid for.

 

[bcool]

Did they ever get a restaurant at Sporty's?

That trip still lives in memory as one of my most disappointing flights. After all the years of getting Sporty's catalogs, I had a vision of some sort of grandiose pilot's paradise in my head. So, I loaded the kids in the plane and flew from Southeast WI to Sporty's. (This in the 1990s.) We were stunned to find a tiny showroom (in front of a big warehouse) and craptastic vending machine food for lunch.

I don't think I've ever lived that one down with Mary... lol

Ditto on the disappointment with Sporty's. I thought it would be like Target or Home Depot for pilots, with all their stuff on the shelves - but nope

 

[denverpilot]

I've wasted a lot of time climbing to pattern altitude in a Cessna 150 with a CFI on board. A 172 can get that job done a bit quicker in a bit more comfort.

I really enjoy flying the 150/152 and even had fun in the AA1C, especially solo.

Hahaha it wasn't "wasting time" if you made it to pattern altitude by the time you were abeam the numbers and it was time to start down! It was just a very efficient pattern! LOL.

(Been there, done that... just transition straight from the climb to the descent!)

 

[172andyou]

So not sure that it's really a valid complaint. I guess it's valid to complain that the lowest class has increased by 4%, but not that 7% of the middle class has absconded to the upper class.

That's like complaining when you're making so much money that you get into the next tax bracket.

Well, there is also the fact that the "lowest" category expanded by a 25%, but yes, you are at least conforming your arguments to what has actually happened and thus one could have a spirited discussion on that foundation (on a political site, rather than here). Denver was just making stuff up.

 

[denverpilot]

So not sure that it's really a valid complaint. I guess it's valid to complain that the lowest class has increased by 4%, but not that 7% of the middle class has absconded to the upper class.

Exactly.

What I think he's trying to do is figure out a way to cram the numbers into the world view that someone doing better than him (or anyone else) must have harmed everyone in some way to do it.

That's the fear mongering basis for phrases like "the shrinking middle class" (which isn't true when you factor in folks climbing above the middle class) and outrage about "1%ers" and so on and so on.

The reality is, the middle class is doing fine, and half or so is doing even better than in the 70s. They're just spending it all. Via debt.

There's also another problem with that first graph. Clipping the numbers off at "Above $200K" is always going to make that end bar look huge if incomes are growing well.

Would be interesting to see the rest of that graph if taken all the way out to real numbers on the right without an arbitrary stopping point.

 

[denverpilot]

Well, there is also the fact that the "lowest" category expanded by a 25%, but yes, you are at least conforming your arguments to what has actually happened and thus one could have a spirited discussion on that foundation (on a political site, rather than here). Denver was just making stuff up.

Why would you say that? No I wasn't. The post wasn't made in a vacuum. The numbers are pretty easy to see. It appears to be you who needed clarification.

Our economy has shown a very long term trend of that graph sliding slowly to the right and a huge mountain of people at the left, collapsing.

 

[GRG55]

That for the most part is pretty uncommon. Around here a 172 goes for 135-140 per hour and a 150-152 is around 105 or less. I would have loved to save $20.00 / hour when I was learning.

That's exactly our experience. Our club has two 152s, and four 172s that rent for $24 per hour more (wet rate) than the 152s. That's not a small difference for many people.

Everything about the 152s is slightly less expensive (insurance, less time to maintain mechanically, tires and brakes last longer, less elaborate instrumentation to maintain, lower fuel burn, etc.). The 152s have proved very popular with VFR pilots.

 

[FormerHangie]

What about adding a Tomahawk to the flight line? You can buy a decent one for about half of what a 40 year old Skyhawk would cost, and it's much roomier than is a 150/152. I have some PIC time in the Tomahawk, and I enjoyed flying it.

Another option would be a Grumman AA1B or AA1C. That's what I learned in and they're still my favorite two seaters.

 

[Jay Honeck]

What about adding a Tomahawk to the flight line? You can buy a decent one for about half of what a 40 year old Skyhawk would cost, and it's much roomier than is a 150/152. I have some PIC time in the Tomahawk, and I enjoyed flying it.

Another option would be a Grumman AA1B or AA1C. That's what I learned in and they're still my favorite two seaters.

Cherokee 140s can be had for cheap, and they actually have a usable back seat. In WI and IA, the Cherokee was the trainer of choice at all of the airports we frequented.

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk

 

[FormerHangie]

Cherokee 140s can be had for cheap, and they actually have a usable back seat. In WI and IA, the Cherokee was the trainer of choice at all of the airports we frequented.

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk

That's what my father learned in, way back in the late 60's. It's also what I took my first flight in.

Skybound Aviation at PDK has or had one, not sure if it's still there, and it's quite a bit less per hour than is a 172. Figuring that it will take the average student 60 hours to get his/her ticket, $20 or $30 an hour is significant.

 

[mtuomi]

That's what my father learned in, way back in the late 60's. It's also what I took my first flight in.

Skybound Aviation at PDK has or had one, not sure if it's still there, and it's quite a bit less per hour than is a 172. Figuring that it will take the average student 60 hours to get his/her ticket, $20 or $30 an hour is significant.

$99/hr, it's still there.

 

[Jay Honeck]

$99/hr, it's still there.

That's a real bargain. Split it 2 or 3 ways, and you've got yourself a nice burger run for $65, plus the cost of the food.



Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk

 

[eman1200]