GA pilot decline

jaymark6655 said:
I wanted to fly since I was a kid, parents always told me it was too expensive. I wanted to fly when CAP came to the jr. high school to recruit, I was told I couldn't join because my parents didn't want me to join the militaryo_O and it was too expensive:rolleyes:. I wanted to fly when I was in college, but I didn't because my friends told me it was too expensive and I really didn't have any free time.
Click to expand...

Some of my best decisions in life were to do what people said couldn't/shouldn't be done.

Of course some of my worst decisions fall into the same category, but that's a different story. :rolleyes:
 
Paying 21st century prices for 1950's technology ? The juice ain't worth the squeeze no mo'.
 
FormerHangie said:
Richard Collins wrote a post about marketing efforts made by the industry years ago, back when the aviation market was at its peak. What they found was that they response rate was near zero. There are so few people out there who are potentially interested in flying but don't know it yet that it was impossible to reach them in a cost effective basis. Let's face it, the value proposition that GA flying offers is poor enough to where a very limited number of people are willing to take it.
Click to expand...

Well, those that have a vested interest in General Aviation can stand by and continue business as usual, or they can make an effort. I have about 20 people- adults and kids- lined up for demo flights. Of the adults, there is one that is definitely taking up re-training after a multi-year absence, and 3 others that I would consider probable candidates for joining up. Of the kids, I have no idea, but maybe I will be the catalyst for them sometime in the future. I am not a CFI, so I have no direct benefit. But my so far meager efforts are going to garner some business for the flight schools and instructors.

If I were in the business of providing local flight training and rentals, $200 would provide for 300-600 mailouts. If even 1 customer is garnered from that $200, that would be a significant return on investment.
The purpose of most marketing/advertising efforts is to pique people's interest in your product/service and get them to initiate contact in any of several ways. Once that contact is made, then a modicum of salesmanship is usually needed to close the deal. My goal would be to get as many people as possible to listen to, and hopefully respond to, my message. Direct mail is just one method, but there certainly are other ways to get the message out. Mainly, the point I am trying to make is that just sitting and waiting for something to happen may not get it done. Now, as it seemingly has been for quite some time, is the time for these businesses to get proactive in their attempts to expand their customer base.

ps. An earlier poster mentioned cost as a factor in preventing people from getting into flying. I was a Navy E-3, with zero family dollars helping out, when I started taking lessons. I looked at current pay scales, and I daresay that if one were so-inclined, one could still take flying lessons on E-3 income today. Yes, marriage, kids, mortgage, and more does have an effect. But for the price of a luxury car/SUV, a person can own a plane. Maybe not a luxury airplane, but certainly not a dog of one. So, the trick is to find the message that appeals to today's potential customer, then take action.
 
Last edited:
$.02 from someone who wants to avoid joining the 80% who obtain a student certificate but do not complete their training...

I have wanted to fly since I was a kid. I grew up around general aviation as my father has his PPL and briefly owned a A36 Bonanza. In the last few years, I have enjoyed some of the popular YouTube channels, listened to LiveATC, subscribed to podcasts, and the like. When I reached the point when I had the time and the money (and a supportive family), I began to pursue lessons with the goal of being able to putter around the sky and maybe take my family on some short trips. The bottom line, despite knowing the costs and the statistics, flying is just d*** expensive. No matter how great the instruction and training, it hurts having to shell out $400+ after 1.5 of dual instruction. That is a lot of family meals out, baseball game trips, etc. My current area has limited options and the flight school--while great--charges what they charge. It feels very selfish to me to pay so much money for something that only I can enjoy for the time being. I know down the road my family will get the opportunity to enjoy the skies as well, but for now, flying (albeit instruction) is just MY hobby.

Overall, my personal goals are probably well aligned for the intent of the Sport Pilot. My family is too big for a 172 (or a Cirrus) and eventually renting a six-place Bonanza like I got to enjoy as a 10 year old seems like a huge indulgence, when in reality I want to be able to fly around, and periodically get a really expensive hamburger. Locally there are no 162's or other LSA's available for training. One flight school I had considered in Florida got rid of their Flight Designs. Similarly, I read that Sporty's shed their 162's. These are not good signs for that market...

In regards to the current fleet of training aircraft, I have no issue learning on an old school 172 with a six pack. That's what I grew up around as a kid and it seems like an appropriate rite of passage of sorts. At the same time it is somewhat frustrating that the mom mobile I drive my kids around has more technology and creature comforts.

Without getting the costs down somehow, it is likely 80% attrition rate will continue. I don't know the economics enough to assess what levers, if any, could be pulled to get training costs down for those for whom the PPL is the goal and not the stepping stone to an ATP. I wish I could have ready access to a $100/hour 162 like I see advertised elsewhere. Right now, I'm stuck with $170+/hour 172's. [As an aside, it appears cost vary considerably geographically. Maybe my personal situation will improve in the coming months, which could open up new options. My current local area has less demand for flight training that other metro areas.]

I love EAA, AOPA, and the other organizations and I want to do my part to buck the challenging trendlines, but honestly I'm not optimistic about the 25-30 year time horizon of GA. I love the Cirrus, but that is a Porsche, when what I (and perhaps others need) are more Honda's. I'm not sure what it says about the health of GA when Cirrus are the best selling aircraft. I'd be genuinely curious to learn how many are destined for individual pilots/partnerships and how many are getting used by Part 135 operations. Assuming the majority are destined for individual owners, that appears to reinforce the notion that GA is a rich man's hobby.

Apologies for the rambling remarks, but this something I have been trying to wrap my head around over the last few months.
 
I'm sure that everything is more expensive now, but flying seems to have outpaced everything. Some new single-engine Cirrus aircraft are close to a million dollars. A million dollars. Sure, some folks have that kind of money, but most don't. And many that have the money probably think that it's an absurd amount to spend on a single-engine airplane. Other hobbies start to look appealing when compared to aviation and a lot of folks have chosen to spend their money in other ways and steer clear of flying. It shows up in the statistical data charts that are an objective look at where recreational flying is headed.
 
It's just my opinion, but I think there are a lot of factors, many have been mentioned here.
Electonics, games. Even Flight sims for the kid that thinks "I wonder what it is like to fly a plane" except the only way in the old days was to actually get in a plane and learn while many now maybe fool around with flight sims, think that is THE experience, and move on. Also, no risk in a sim.

But more than that. Pardon the pun, but I don't think flying airplanes is on their "radar" in any way like it was in the past. We over a certain age still recall the thoughts of getting flying, that it was many kids dreams. As pointed out too, kids "these days" are way less physical in general.
Back in the 90's I visited where I grew up (northern suburb of Chicago) and it was a beautiful hot summer day, walking in my old neighborhood, not ONE kid out playing. None. Felt like a ghost town, and all you heard was the whirring of the air conditioning units. Funny thing, every single driveway had a basketball hoop (stand alone, not mounted) and they all looked so clean I bet they were used once.

When I was growing up, they often featured GA flying, small planes in tv shows, movies, etc. I mean, my dad was a pilot so I was aware of it, but other kids saw it often on tv (Sky King was one show, but it was often you'd see it and it was always presented as a very cool thing to be able to do, fly a plane).

Also small local airports were welcoming. Kids could go and watch planes take off etc. But I get the feeling after 911 folks think ALL airports are security no-go, or "need permission" or something. My local airport also hosts military (on days they use it it is towered) planes from time to time, I think they did maintenance there, but at the front gates it is misleading and seems to be warning folk off. "Military area" with "authorized personell" etc. I almost couldn't make it to my first lesson as I wasn't sure I could drive in there. The thing once past the gate the road forks, and the left side is the civilian side. All are allowed there. But it isn't clear.

What about those programs in the US (do they still have them?) flying Cadets, or programs to bring young folks into flying?

And of course, the cost. This one bit me. I grew up with a pilot father, and always wanted to learn to fly but was always broke.
And really from about 16-30 years old I just did not make enough money to think about it. So I checked it off in the "can't afford it" category.
Which was dumb. After around 30 yrs. old, I just assumed "it costs too much" but didn't actually think it through or understand how it all worked. I didn't realize it was "pay as you go". That I could have started learning ground school with some books, and schedule flying lessons, and if it took longer because I could only afford so many lessons a month....then it took longer, but it WAS doeable and I didn't see that.
Until I was in my 60's and had enough to go for it. It's a damn shame I didn't think more about it.

Advertising. Do flying clubs do it anymore? "X dollars a month and you can learn to fly!" could help. In local newspapers, "flyers" etc.
 
LongRoadBob said:
When I was growing up, they often featured GA flying, small planes in tv shows, movies, etc. I mean, my dad was a pilot so I was aware of it, but other kids saw it often on tv (Sky King was one show, but it was often you'd see it and it was always presented as a very cool thing to be able to do, fly a plane).
Click to expand...


Yep! And not just Sky King. Aunt Bea flew on Andy Griffith, there were several Perry Mason episodes which featured GA flying, there was The Flying Fisherman tv series, etc., etc.

But back then, TV was perhaps more popular with kids than today. Today, young folks are spending their time gaming on line. If you want to snag 'em, you need to develop a wildly popular game that has GA flying as an important component. AFAIK, nobody's doing that.
 
I hate to say it but a whole lot of things are in decline. Golf memberships are at all time lows for instance.
 
bnt83 said:
I hate to say it but a whole lot of things are in decline. Golf memberships are at all time lows for instance.
Click to expand...


Are there also some things on the upswing? Interests are probably shifting. Not nearly as many of my friends from my generation (I'm 57) are as interested in golf as older folks I know. But we're hardly sedentary; we just do other things.
 
I will not argue that flying is cheap, but nothing says you have to start out by buying a $1 million dollar new Cirrus either. There are plenty of capable single engine aircraft under $100,000 with lots of life left in them.

I have been told by many that they couldn't afford to get their pilot's license, while pulling out of their driveway of their $1 million dollar lake house, in a $70,000 SUV, towing a $50,000 boat. It isn't the money, its priorities.
 
Bobanna said:
Semper Fi. Thanks for your service.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I really enjoyed it and miss it some days.

Half Fast said:
Yep! And not just Sky King. Aunt Bea flew on Andy Griffith, there were several Perry Mason episodes which featured GA flying, there was The Flying Fisherman tv series, etc., etc.

But back then, TV was perhaps more popular with kids than today. Today, young folks are spending their time gaming on line. If you want to snag 'em, you need to develop a wildly popular game that has GA flying as an important component. AFAIK, nobody's doing that.
Click to expand...

I remember Aunt Bea learning to fly, she even soloed. Watched that episode again recently and looked the tail number up, C182 that is still flying around. Pretty Cool.
 
It's telling, the average ages of the old duffers here on this site. Guys, newspapaer advertisements, flyers, play bills, mailers. Seriously? You sound as out of touch as our regulators. The youngsters you're talking about trying to reach don't wear wrist watches, or carry cash either. Hello!

If you want to reach younger people these days you'll find them on social media. And then somebody is gonna pop up an say, "Oh yea, we forgot about Facebook". Sorry guys, you might reach a few, but Facebook is for wrinkled old people. Your target group has moved on. If you old duffers don't get it, sorry.

I'd like to go back and once again and ask those questions I asked earlier in this thread that nobody cared to pick up on. "Anybody wonder why pretty much any new single costs a half million dollars, or more?" "Why do we continue to quote statistics and make up so many excuses for why there's such a shortage of new pilots these days?"
There's not enough room here to explain those questions in detail, but simply stated, over-regulation is the culprit. Sorry, if you can't get it.

The costs associated with the crazy high prices for those new singles are directly generated by regulation. The certification process is merely one major contributor. The costs associated with simply maintaining a certified bird are stupid high. Once again, if you can't get it, sorry.

In an attempt to hopefully outrun some of the stupidity, lots of old duffers like me went Experimental. For many years it has worked, but their nippin at our heels.

Today's pilot shortage is directly related to over-regulation, and no amount of advertisement or promotion can overcome the financial requirements, red tape, or general difficulties that prospective pilots continue to encounter. The only reason for the uptick in pilot starts now is because of the massive pilot shortage that over-regulation created. And those dedicated new pilots who finish their training will start their careers tens of thousands of dollars in debt, most earning less than their worth, and all because of the screwed up system.

GA will continue it's decline until we decide to remove the politicians who appoint the regulators, or we force a change in the system to make the regulating body responsible to the ones they are regulating. Sorry, if you can't get that too.
 
Art Rose said:
GA will continue it's decline until we decide to remove the politicians who appoint the regulators, or we force a change in the system to make the regulating body responsible to the ones they are regulating.
Click to expand...

It starts before that.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the agency of the United States Department of Transportation responsible for the regulation and oversight of civil aviation within the U.S., as well as operation and development of the National Airspace System. Its primary mission is to ensure safety of civil aviation.​

The FAA could fulfill its primary mission by grounding every freakin' aircraft.

Until we get a change in their mission statement to include the purpose of facilitating private air transportation, and then change the FAA internal culture to match, GA will continue its decline. There is simply no motivation, other than infrequent and unreliable political pressure, for the FAA to promote GA flying.
 
jaymark6655 said:
I remember Aunt Bea learning to fly, she even soloed. Watched that episode again recently and looked the tail number up, C182 that is still flying around. Pretty Cool.
Click to expand...

I don't remember that episode, I'm going to have to hunt that one down. And that's awesome that plane is still flying - that's so cool!!!
 
midwestpa24 said:
It isn't the money, its priorities.
Click to expand...

And appearances. Here in town a neighborhood was built with houses averaging 450K. All sold at asking price. All have brand new cars, new 4 wheelers, Rvs and the top brand mountain bikes, yet can't afford 500 bucks to fix the A/C in the house.
 
warning - generalization ahead: a lot of the up and coming generations are not equipped mentally and emotionally to make effective decisions.

It wouldn’t matter what regulations were lifted, we are now a population with a different mindset- one that grew up with less action/consequence relationship - making us a population that is, in general, less suited to flying a heavier-than-air craft.
 
Clip4 said:
Is the rate is based on the number of pilots or number of estimated miles or hours?
Click to expand...
Based on numbers pulled from a warm dark place.

The FAA does not try to track how many individuals act as PIC on a semi regular basis, so estimates based on how much / far an unknown number of individuals fly would seem to be brown and sticky at best.

Note: the "active pilot" data from the FAA posted earlier in this thread is actually a count of medical certificates, not a count of individuals who may be acting as PIC at some frequency (which may or may not involve a medical).
 
Half Fast said:
Yep, very true. Paying $75k for a new car doesn't convey the same image as paying $75k for a 30-year-old airplane.
Click to expand...

I don't know, my wife sure loves telling people we have an airplane, or that we are flying somewhere for the weekend. ;)
 
midwestpa24 said:
I don't know, my wife sure loves telling people we have an airplane, or that we are flying somewhere for the weekend. ;)
Click to expand...


I'm sure once I have an airplane (someday), my wife will also like telling people that. But I doubt she'll be anxious to show them a photo of a faded Cherokee with worn-out seats and 1960s carpet. She'll just say "airplane" and let their imaginations conjure up images of Lears and Gulfstreams.
 
EdFred said:
Basically anything that can be simulated is in decline.
Click to expand...
Basically anything you can find a YouTube video on is in decline. And since you can learn the true cost of any anything in less that 1 minute it will decline even fasterer.
 
Brad Smith said:
I'm sure that everything is more expensive now, but flying seems to have outpaced everything. Some new single-engine Cirrus aircraft are close to a million dollars. A million dollars. Sure, some folks have that kind of money, but most don't. And many that have the money probably think that it's an absurd amount to spend on a single-engine airplane. Other hobbies start to look appealing when compared to aviation and a lot of folks have chosen to spend their money in other ways and steer clear of flying. It shows up in the statistical data charts that are an objective look at where recreational flying is headed.
Click to expand...

A college education has gone up dramatically too. We have two kids in college now. :eek:

Yeah, I don't know why people are spending ~$1 million on a SR22. A used earlier version can be bought for substantially a bit less.

Plus, I have no idea why there are not more co-owned planes. I've been in groups and even with 3 or 4 people flying availability has been great. That cuts capital and fixed costs significantly, plus reduces your exposure on sudden expensive breakage. It becomes a lot more affordable when you are dropping $50k-$150k (price point and number of co-owners) and splitting the fixed costs.
 
wayne said:
A college education has gone up dramatically too. We have two kids in college now. :eek:
Click to expand...

When did that change from the person going to college paying for it to parents paying for it. Everyone I know that's my age or older they paid for their own schooling. Why the flip that the burden is now on the parents?
 
Art Rose said:
It's telling, the average ages of the old duffers here on this site. Guys, newspapaer advertisements, flyers, play bills, mailers. Seriously? You sound as out of touch as our regulators. The youngsters you're talking about trying to reach don't wear wrist watches, or carry cash either. Hello!

If you want to reach younger people these days you'll find them on social media. And then somebody is gonna pop up an say, "Oh yea, we forgot about Facebook". Sorry guys, you might reach a few, but Facebook is for wrinkled old people. Your target group has moved on. If you old duffers don't get it, sorry.
Click to expand...

Yes, along with the other factors, this is one of them. For example, there is a ton of cool aviation content/activity on Instagram. I "follow" three of the schools nearby. One of them posted something last October. The other two haven't posted in over a year. They're missing the mark. Put some effort in and the marketing is free, hell it could even be a revenue stream. Also, the original chipped/peeling paint and laughable interiors don't help. There are some of us that actually appreciate that since it's what we grew up around (myself included) - but to most, they wouldn't be caught dead in the the thing based on how it looks, let alone go get a lesson. You can argue all you want about how safe it actually is, and we know that is likely true, but unless the aircraft itself appears safe, capable, and fun, there's a whole segment that just won't go near the thing.

Another huge issue is keeping the PPLs flying. Just today I saw on a school's website (that's another issue, it was ancient) about a separate dry-rate arrangement. When I asked about it, the response was that "it was a price program abandoned months ago and we didn't update the website." I also asked about the daily minimums, and got "3 hours per day, but we will also require you to fly here for several flights before we permit overnight rentals. We like to have a relationship with the renter before letting them stay overnight".

So if I fly to camp overnight at Kern Valley, for example, say conservatively 1.5 there and 1.5 back- at a sample wet rate of $150/hr (it's actually more than that), it'll cost me $450. However, with the 3 hr daily minimum, tack on another $225 for a whopping total of $675. This is not counting the "several flight" requirement just to do that trip. "But you're taking hours away from the flight line on overnights" I get that, and that's my point. There needs to be an outlet for renters to travel in planes without competing with the students. Maybe reserve one airframe that has no overnight minimums. I won't bring up the fact that if I look at the schedule for a given day many of the planes aren't even booked more than an hour or two for the next week. I know that's not common at all schools though.
 
EdFred said:
When did that change from the person going to college paying for it to parents paying for it. Everyone I know that's my age or older they paid for their own schooling. Why the flip that the burden is now on the parents?
Click to expand...
My parents paid for my college; I'm 53. My wife's parents paid for hers and her three siblings; she's older than I am.

I had some friends paying for their own, via grants/ loans / working. Our oldest had classmates paying for it themselves too.

It's really nice not having student loans to pay off. We could save for it, so we did. Yes, we also saved well for retirement also.

Our kids understand how beneficial it is. Better than I realized at the time.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
EdFred said:
When did that change from the person going to college paying for it to parents paying for it. Everyone I know that's my age or older they paid for their own schooling. Why the flip that the burden is now on the parents?
Click to expand...
That might be the case in some quarters, but it's not universal. I've yet to meet a student here whose parents are the main funding source for his/her education. Almost to a one, they're getting huge amounts of financial aid in the form of student loans. I think college debt is probably the single biggest factor keeping this generation out of the middle class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top