Aircraft Prices Versus Annual Income in the 1930s

[WhiskeyPapa]

A 38 HP Cub, designed to be a plane for the masses--but recognized as underpowered, cost $1,325 in the early 1930s (according to William Trimble in "High Frontier." The same book says another early trainer developed by Gilbert Taylor sold for $ 4,550.

Here's a link to a list of average salaries in 1932-32 in the US:

http://www.paper-dragon.com/1939/priceguide.html

(Interesting to note that Airline Pilots were among the highest paid people in the country--at $ 8,000/yr. nearly 6 times the average salary of $1,368.)

But my real question concerns the price of aircraft relative to income. How much worse has it gotten (if it has)?

Does anyone have a list of new aircraft prices from the 1920s on? Interesting to compare the prices to annual incomes and/or inflation indices.

 

[Goflying]

Interesting question! I guess it depends on what sort of aircraft you want to buy. I would assume if you compared average salary to the average cost of a certified ga aircraft it would not look good. Ie (just numbers plucked from the air) 50k annual salary versus 400k for a new Cessna 172.

Obviously the ration woukd be different for buying a second hand aircraft.

Also more interesting might be to compare the average cost of maintaining a certified machine (hard to determine) now versus earlier times.

 

[Hank S]

I just read something that compared new airplane cost against average home prices. Oh, it was in my new Sport Aviation that came yesterday. Home prices have outpaced inflation since 1955 when Paul P. Designed his first plane; at that time, new factory planes and new houses had the same average cost. Now a new Skyhawk is $350,000+, and average home prices are about half that. Don't have data for the intervening years, and these are from memory so may be off a little.

 

[Henning]

A 38 HP Cub, designed to be a plane for the masses--but recognized as underpowered, cost $1,325 in the early 1930s (according to William Trimble in "High Frontier." The same book says another early trainer developed by Gilbert Taylor sold for $ 4,550.

Here's a link to a list of average salaries in 1932-32 in the US:

http://www.paper-dragon.com/1939/priceguide.html

(Interesting to note that Airline Pilots were among the highest paid people in the country--at $ 8,000/yr. nearly 6 times the average salary of $1,368.)

But my real question concerns the price of aircraft relative to income. How much worse has it gotten (if it has)?

Does anyone have a list of new aircraft prices from the 1920s on? Interesting to compare the prices to annual incomes and/or inflation indices.

Well from the sounds of it, not much has really changed, although the bottom and top relative price have diverged further. It looks like the cheap underpowered trainer was an average annual salary. Now average annual is $30k and the equivalent plane today would be a "fat ultralight" that can be bought for $15-$20k. So in those regards, it's actually improved.

 

[TexasAviation]

I'd be interested to see those numbers, too.

I'm not sure how much they'd mean because a basic 1920s plane is dramatically simpler and has fewer bells and whistles than even the most stripped down new Cessna trainer. I agree that today's ultralight cost would probably be a better comparison.

 

[TexasAviation]

In fact ... I'd be more interested to see how income/plane prices have diverged since the 1970s. I don't think a new 172 is different enough from a '70s 172 to justify the crazy, crazy price hike. But that's just me

I think you could tie a big chunk of that price hike to lawyers and government regulations, for better or worse. Avionics has got to be a part of it, too.

 

[N747JB]

Do people now, or did people in the 30's with average incomes, buy new airplanes? On average. I'd bet the buyers of new planes in the 30's had double or more than the average income, similar to today's buyers. Not many $50k per year folks buying a new 172, maybe a nice one built in the 60's or 70's, but not a new one.
It's had to compare since, like cars and houses, the technology has changed dramatically, as well as people's expectations. A house in the 30's didn't have a walk in closet the size of a small bedroom! The cars didn't give weather updates and warn you that you are getting too close to the car in front of you!

 

[Henning]

In fact ... I'd be more interested to see how income/plane prices have diverged since the 1970s. I don't think a new 172 is different enough from a '70s 172 to justify the crazy, crazy price hike. But that's just me

I think you could tie a big chunk of that price hike to lawyers and government regulations, for better or worse. Avionics has got to be a part of it, too.

New L-88 or LS-7 Corvette in the late 60s/early 70s were $6800-$7200 IIRC, that was the baddest Vette you could buy. Now the Z06 starts at $78,000, so let's say a ten fold increase. Price of a 172 in 1970 was $34,000, now a much more capable 180hp G1000 172 is available for around 10 times that (or less).

So basically it looks like it's parallelled the target demographic in other markets.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

A 38 HP Cub, designed to be a plane for the masses--but recognized as underpowered, cost $1,325 in the early 1930s (according to William Trimble in "High Frontier." The same book says another early trainer developed by Gilbert Taylor sold for $ 4,550.

Here's a link to a list of average salaries in 1932-32 in the US:

http://www.paper-dragon.com/1939/priceguide.html

(Interesting to note that Airline Pilots were among the highest paid people in the country--at $ 8,000/yr. nearly 6 times the average salary of $1,368.)

But my real question concerns the price of aircraft relative to income. How much worse has it gotten (if it
Does anyone have a list of new aircraft prices from the 1920s on? Interesting to compare the prices to annual incomes and/or inflation indices.

Try it this way.....when the bonanza first appeared it cost around ten grand. They were very popular. Today they run around half a mill. Do you see many new ones? My last annual on a very nice t craft cost 1200 bucks which is close to what it cost new. No new parts were needed.

 

[OkieAviator]

Don't try to associate any income with a specific cost of a particular product. There are far too many variables to come up with any type of correlation. Inflation is based mainly on the consumer price index, I wouldn't think aircraft are a part of that.

 

[DFH65]

It appears that the cub cost about one years average salary back then. That same cub today cost about 3-4 years average salary (assuming 35-50K) new or 1-2 used.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Don't try to associate any income with a specific cost of a particular product. There are far too many variables to come up with any type of correlation. Inflation is based mainly on the consumer price index, I wouldn't think aircraft are a part of that.

You can cut it anyway you want. The fact remains that the middle class that bought the 1950s bonanza for ten grand can not afford one going for half a mill. The jobs that supported the purchase back then are for the most part, gone.

 

[Henning]

Don't try to associate any income with a specific cost of a particular product. There are far too many variables to come up with any type of correlation. Inflation is based mainly on the consumer price index, I wouldn't think aircraft are a part of that.

Correct, but one can compare other products in relationship to the CPI, as well as track it against other products for the target demographic. The information to gleen is not meaningless.

 

[OkieAviator]

It appears that the cub cost about one years average salary back then. That same cub today cost about 3-4 years average salary (assuming 35-50K) new or 1-2 used.

Average salary in 1951 was $2,800.... 2013 it was $44,800.... However consumer behavior in 1951 was much much different. On a percentage base they spent less on their house, food, transportation ect... Where now people have monthly payments for cell phones, Internet, lawn service, house cleaning, multiple cars, credit cards and all sorts of things people in the 50s didn't have.

 

[Henning]

You can cut it anyway you want. The fact remains that the middle class that bought the 1950s bonanza for ten grand can not afford one going for half a mill. The jobs that supported the purchase back then are for the most part, gone.

Yes they can. You can pull a 30 year note on a new Bonanza, which puts it at the same as a house payment for that same middle class in many urban areas of the country, which is about what $10k would buy you in 1947 on the same note. Still pretty much the same.

 

[OkieAviator]

Correct, but one can compare other products in relationship to the CPI, as well as track it against other products for the target demographic. The information to gleen is not meaningless.

Sure but it's just one piece of the puzzle. What would be more interesting if someone who works for Textron could show two pie charts. One showing the cost to produce a 172 in 1960 vs cost in 2015. The certification component would undoubtably be much higher with the testing process... But what about other parts such as raw material, r&d, technology, ect...

You can cut it anyway you want. The fact remains that the middle class that bought the 1950s bonanza for ten grand can not afford one going for half a mill. The jobs that supported the purchase back then are for the most part, gone.

The middle class of the 1950s doesn't exist anymore at least in the U.S. Based solely on the average income level, those that make $44k a year and raising a family have additional expenses sucking into their income that weren't around in the 50s.

 

[WingNut42]

....... those that make $44k a year and raising a family have additional expenses sucking into their income that weren't around in the 50s.

I think this is a key point, "middle class" is traditionally defined by material goods. That list has grown substantially over the decades, and has become far more disposable with more frequent need for replacement.

 

[Henning]

Sure but it's just one piece of the puzzle. What would be more interesting if someone who works for Textron could show two pie charts. One showing the cost to produce a 172 in 1960 vs cost in 2015. The certification component would undoubtably be much higher with the testing process... But what about other parts such as raw material, r&d, technology, ect...





The middle class of the 1950s doesn't exist anymore at least in the U.S. Based solely on the average income level, those that make $44k a year and raising a family have additional expenses sucking into their income that weren't around in the 50s.

Pretty much all the R&D in a 172 since 1970 has been third party system and component provider expense. The 172 airframe has seen little in the way of upgrade since then. Fuel tank change is the only thing of significance that strikes my mind.

My guess is the per aircraft margin has increased slightly.

 

[N747JB]

Average salary in 1951 was $2,800.... 2013 it was $44,800.... However consumer behavior in 1951 was much much different. On a percentage base they spent less on their house, food, transportation ect... Where now people have monthly payments for cell phones, Internet, lawn service, house cleaning, multiple cars, credit cards and all sorts of things people in the 50s didn't have.

I grew up in the 70's, we didn't have cable TV, the lawn guy was me, one phone at the house was fine, we had an account at the local grocery store that my mom paid in full once or twice per month, lots of families had one car, my mom did have a lady come twice a month to help her clean. We were never in day care, obviously no Internet, eating out was a treat, maybe twice a month wed go to a sit down restaurant, fast food twice a month was a big deal! Life was certainly simpler, maybe not easier, but simpler.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

I grew up in the 70's, we didn't have cable TV, the lawn guy was me, one phone at the house was fine, we had an account at the local grocery store that my mom paid in full once or twice per month, lots of families had one car, my mom did have a lady come twice a month to help her clean. We were never in day care, obviously no Internet, eating out was a treat, maybe twice a month wed go to a sit down restaurant, fast food twice a month was a big deal! Life was certainly simpler, maybe not easier, but simpler.

problem with all this comparison....shop rates for US MFG labor is not cheap. Comparing those prices from then to now are apples and oranges....since most goods can not be made in the US and be affordable today.

Since aircraft are still a US industry.....we pay dearly for that labor rate compared with our other low cost manufactured goods we purchase at WalMart and HomeDepot. Even the majority of autos today are not manufactured in the US.....assembled in the US yes, but not manufactured here.

So....this comparison kinda goes off the rails.....we live in a different global world.....that didn't exist in the 70's.

 

[Henning]

problem with all this comparison....shop rates for US MFG labor is not cheap. Comparing those prices from then to now are apples and oranges....since most goods can not be made in the US and be affordable today.

Since aircraft are still a US industry.....we pay dearly for that labor rate compared with our other low cost manufactured goods we purchase at WalMart and HomeDepot. Even the majority of autos today are not manufactured in the US.....assembled in the US yes, but not manufactured here.

So....this comparison kinda goes off the rails.....we live in a different global world.....that didn't exist in the 70's.

Right, but the buying power of a certain demographic is still a valid comparison.

 

[ClimbnSink]

In the 1930's 38 HP was enough to lift two 'then' normal weight adults. Good luck with that now. Of course as pointed out modern equivlant to a 38 HP cub is cheaper now. Real problem is everyone wants something from the cover of flying mag or nothing at all.

 

[Howard Wilson]

Couple of things:

Taylor's 'Chummy' was priced around $4000, (depending on which engine they used). Looks like he may have sold three of the six he made. Other manufacturers were selling 3 and 4 place airplanes for similar amounts. Taylor then went towards the light trainer market.

Other thing, and the most basic is; that back then a silver dollar and a paper dollar were considered equal in value. Today June 7th 2015 you would need $16.12 worth of paper dollars to trade for that silver dollar, plus probably another $3 premium.

just sayin'

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Right, but the buying power of a certain demographic is still a valid comparison.

Meh....I don't think so. Folks are still buying $70,000 boats.

The light sport market has kinda proven this whole price point demand model.....people just don't much care about airplanes like prior generations. We had brand new $100K light sport airplanes for sale....and that market dried up. Bring back brand new C-172's for $150K...would things change? Prolly not much....cept used planes would be even cheaper.

 

[bnt83]

To me new aircraft prices mimic cutting edge pharma drugs.

 

[FloridaPilot]

Meh....I don't think so. Folks are still buying $70,000 boats.

The light sport market has kinda proven this whole price point demand model.....people just don't much care about airplanes like prior generations. We had brand new $100K light sport airplanes for sale....and that market dried up. Bring back brand new C-172's for $150K...would things change? Prolly not much....cept used planes would be even cheaper.

Spot on,

The interest is not there anymore IMO. Kids rather stay home and play PlayStation rather than explore and that is a darn shame. When I was a kid video games did exist, (Atari) but systems didn't carve into our culture back then as they have today. For some children today video games is all that they do, why? because the parents are working longer and harder today than they ever have to keep a roof and food on the table.

When I was a kid, Airplanes were cool back in the day. I never seen a real life P38 lightning and a P51 when I was a kid. It flew before my time but marketing made me realize they exist and I loved them. T.V. made pilots cool and I wanted a part of it. Not so today! All we hear about Pilots today is what accident they were a part of.

The only way interest will happen again in GA is if the media changes there agenda.

 

[overdrive148]

At the same time, I grew up when video games were becoming big (SNES, N64, PS1) and loved playing them maybe too much. I still took a very strong interest in aviation

Today I play video games, but probably 70% of them relate to aviation or aircraft. (War Thunder/Guns of Icarus/Ace Combat series/DCS A-10C/FSX/etc).

I think the reasoning behind kids not taking an interest in aviation due to video games is about as valid as the claim that video games make people more violent. I have a great deal of video game time including the fabled GTA series and I've never carjacked/stabbed/crashed into/shot anyone.

Do kids still play a ton of video games and spend a lot of time on the computer, and does it cause other problems? Overwhelming yes. Do I? Probably.

If kids today are anything like me at 23, I think they're experiencing a kind of uncertainty... that or they seek an escape from the world today. Escaping from reality is something that both of our generations has done, video games and drugs could have a parallel too. Too many interested in being blazed to get into aviation. YMWV

//
On top of that, I loved watching Top Gun on tape when I was a kid and was totally enthralled with the idea of flying the Tomcat. That never happened, they were retired before I got to age. I wanted to be a pilot and fly all over the place. Around the time I was training I realized what the industry was doing and got an idea of how much investment you need to get anywhere.

If I had kids, despite the fantastic ability to fly for a living, I wouldn't feel safe at all watching them flying jump or tow planes that are falling apart for the sake of a flying job today. And considering the economy today and the industry I want to go into, I don't know if I can save enough for him...her......them? To go to college, much less push them through a flight school far enough so they would have enough hours to avoid that.

My perception may or may not change. Just how I feel now.

 

[FloridaPilot]

I think the reasoning behind kids not taking an interest in aviation due to video games is about as valid as the claim that video games make people more violent.

I respectfully disagree. That is comparing apples to oranges. On average, what do kids spend most of there free time on? When I was a kid, we went outside, played ball until it got dark and went home. Today, kids are in the house when they have free time. Video games is "Waaaaaaay" different today then when I grew up. When I grew up, in order to play video games with friends someone had to make the effort to go over a friends house to play together, (They got out of the house) Today! I don't have to leave the house, just connect to the internet and all of my friends are on there already we can play the game and talk like if we were in the same room.

How this relates to flying:

As a kid, if all of my fantasies are done for me with video games I wouldn't have the desire to go out and fly airplanes. Why should I when video games supply that need? And my parents know where I am at all times.

Just my opinion of course!

 

[Cholley6]

I would also imagine the used market of the 50's isn't what it is now. How many of the people that bought a new airplane back then would get one that now is 30 years old? They would have to buy something from the 20's to compare in airframe age.

 

[Henning]

Meh....I don't think so. Folks are still buying $70,000 boats.

The light sport market has kinda proven this whole price point demand model.....people just don't much care about airplanes like prior generations. We had brand new $100K light sport airplanes for sale....and that market dried up. Bring back brand new C-172's for $150K...would things change? Prolly not much....cept used planes would be even cheaper.

Of course, that's a whole different issue. This isn't about people buying or not buying, this is about cost and affordability now vs 1970 and 1930. So I chose the target demographic by the lifestyle of person who has traditionally been in aviation. In that comparison, inflation of cost has basically paralleled that with other items the same demographic buys like Corvettes and boats. This is the skilled tradesman, middle management, professional, entrepreneur, demographic mid 20s to mid 40s.

Want to talk about seriously disproportionate price then and now? Look at pick up trucks and Suburbans.

 

[FormerHangie]

As far as I can tell, aviation has always been expensive. Going back to the 30's, most people were more concerned with making sure they had food and a place to live, after all, a depression was going on. The great boom in median household income came after the second world war, but even going back to the 60's and 70's, the average family didn't include a pilot.

What's happened since then is the relative cost of manufactured goods, including cars, has declined, while the cost of housing, education, and medical care has risen dramatically. A few years ago I looked up the price of my old family home. It's a 3 bedroom, 1 bath ranch house, about 1400 square feed, in a pleasant but not particularly upscale suburb of Chicago. Zillow estimated its value at $250,000 at the time. The poor sclub who most recently bought it paid $300,000 at the peak of the bubble. Median household income in that zip code was in the $60,000 range. I can guarantee my father wasn't paying 4+ times his income when he bought the place.

Medical care I think we all know about. Also, education has really gone out of sight over the last 30 years. It now costs as much to attend an instate school as it used to for a private university, and many jobs now require more education. These days, you need a bachelors degree to get hired as a flight attendant, and it seems like you have to have a masters for far more management positions, and even some nonmanagement positions than in days gone by. Even our sysadmin has a masters degree.

Also, many more people had pensions. Now, we're almost all on 401k's, so there's six percent or more off the top. Add all that up, and fewer people can afford to fly than was possible 30 years ago. And, like others have mentioned, fewer people are interested. When my father learned to fly back in the 50's, being a pilot was a very big deal, and now it's just not.

 

[Henning]

The other thing about general aviation is it has become less useful over the years as local airports have disappeared. GA has failed to evolve, that is why it is stagnated to a market that is disappearing. 'Face time' in business has turned to "Facetime" Type Apps. GA was promised to evolve and expand, but we never were willing to pay the price of change. Even the EAB crowd has hardly been revolutionary, and it's mostly due to an issue of available power density and efficiency. Had our nuclear energy program been built Thorium based looking solely for energy instead of Uranium to get Plutonium for weapons, it could be much different now.

GA has failed to thrive because our society has failed to thrive.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Nah. Dudes don't want to be pilots because they no longer think(correct they are) that skill will get them ladies. Want to get more pilots, sell women the idea that pilots are hot studly men. But yeah GA is mostly useless, the regular vanilla GA stuff isn't even that much fun.

 

[danhagan]

A 38 HP Cub, designed to be a plane for the masses--but recognized as underpowered, cost $1,325 in the early 1930s (according to William Trimble in "High Frontier." The same book says another early trainer developed by Gilbert Taylor sold for $ 4,550.

(Interesting to note that Airline Pilots were among the highest paid people in the country--at $ 8,000/yr. nearly 6 times the average salary of $1,368.)

But my real question concerns the price of aircraft relative to income. How much worse has it gotten (if it has)?

How about 1 to 3 times annual earnings based on your numbers, then compare to today's median incomes.

 

[Henning]

How about 1 to 3 times annual earnings based on your numbers, then compare to today's median incomes.

Exactly, the numbers still work. You can still buy an equivalent capability aircraft for 1x median income.

 

[Hank S]

Exactly, the numbers still work. You can still buy an equivalent capability aircraft for 1x median income.

In the 30s, you could buy a factory new plane for 1-3 X median income.

Now, factory new planes start at 4X, and that's only for a plain vanilla, no options Skyhawk. Others are in the 6-10X median income range (Cirrus, Mooney, Bonanza, Piper M class . . . )

 

[ClimbnSink]

In the 30s, you could buy a factory new plane for 1-3 X median income.

Now, factory new planes start at 4X, and that's only for a plain vanilla, no options Skyhawk. Others are in the 6-10X median income range (Cirrus, Mooney, Bonanza, Piper M class . . . )

That is TV planes, modern equivalent to a38 HP cub is cheaper.

 

[Henning]

In the 30s, you could buy a factory new plane for 1-3 X median income.

Now, factory new planes start at 4X, and that's only for a plain vanilla, no options Skyhawk. Others are in the 6-10X median income range (Cirrus, Mooney, Bonanza, Piper M class . . . )

I can buy a Factory New Eipper GT-500 for that. That is an equivalent aircraft to the 38hp 1930s Cub.

 

[Challenged]

1956 Cessna 172: $9,000 ($78,286 in 2015 dollars)
1971 Cessna 172: $13,425 ($78,428 in 2015 dollars)
2015 Cessna 172: ~ $365,000

 

[Henning]

1956 Cessna 172: $9,000 ($78,286 in 2015 dollars)
1971 Cessna 172: $13,425 ($78,428 in 2015 dollars)
2015 Cessna 172: ~ $365,000

1956 Bel Air $2000 ($17,000 in 2015 $$$)
1970 Impala Bel Air $3200 ($19,900 in 2015 $$$)
2015 Impala in comparable trim package, $38,000.

Business makes more money now than then all around. Back to the Boomer thread.