Golden Age of GA

[Kevin Eggert]

"... The ridiculous costs are a mix of regulation, litigation, and the fact that we fly a diverse set of aircraft that seems almost intentionally designed to self-sabotage and ensure we never achieve any economies of scale

THIS RIGHT HERE

Even if you ignore the regulation and litigation, the basic costs to produce a basic aircraft are at a level far greater than the inflation adjusted costs from the days when Piper and Cessna was producing Cherokees and 172s like the assembly line at Ford. Flying has never been "cheap", but when a company only produces a relatively small number of its products, there is just no way to get the costs down to those same levels.

 

[TCABM]

[QUOTE="ArrowFlyer86, post: 3605976, member: 38268"… economies of scale [/QUOTE]
Are relative. Pretending the SEP market is big enough to have an mass market economy of scale is disingenuous.

 

[Doc Holliday]

[QUOTE="ArrowFlyer86, post: 3605976, member: 38268"… economies of scale

Are relative. Pretending the SEP market is big enough to have an mass market economy of scale is disingenuous.
[/QUOTE]

You mean if they say "If you build it, they will come" doesn't apply here?

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

@TCABM
However you quoted my previous post it seems to have created a tear in the PoA space-time contiuum. I tried quoting your answer in a response and it gobbled it up and lost it.

But here's an abbreviated version. Below is a picture of our market structure. Each manufacturer could potentially have a half a dozen (or more) model groups, and we know in cases like Cessna/Piper/Beech/Mooney -- they do. And then within each model group are submodels.
We don't have a big number of aircraft to begin with, but then we fragment it further through all these different aircraft. And within these sub groups we create modifications so that few planes are exactly alike.

So while you might not ever achieve a mass market with our low volumes, this structure is nearly optimized to ensure you never achieve anything resembling an economy of scale. So it's not the only culprit but I'd still say it doesn't help matters at all.

EDIT: Not pictured are 99 other manufacturers in the data all lumped into 'REMAINDER'

 

[Lowflynjack]

In the 70's they could produce a lot of planes and sell a lot of planes, same with cars. However, how many people are still driving 1970s cars? I don't think Cessna planned to be competing with my 1959 Cessna Skylane 66 years after they built it. I bought it for $120K (had an offer for $150K recently). New ones start at $653K. Same speed, slightly better payload, more fuel (My bladder doesn't want me to have more range!). I can fly 150mph, 3.5 hour legs, and make if from Texas to Oshkosh in one stop. Do I like the new ones? Yep, they're pretty. Do I like them $500K more than mine? Nope.

 

[Jim K]

THIS RIGHT HERE

Even if you ignore the regulation and litigation, the basic costs to produce a basic aircraft are at a level far greater than the inflation adjusted costs from the days when Piper and Cessna was producing Cherokees and 172s like the assembly line at Ford. Flying has never been "cheap", but when a company only produces a relatively small number of its products, there is just no way to get the costs down to those same levels.

I'm not sure economy of scale has as much to do with as we might think. Labor has gone up much more in proportion to other costs, save insurance. These planes are very much hand built, as were cars back then. Maybe riveting robots are a thing, but i suspect that an airplane that could be built by robots on an assembly line would have to be a clean sheet design. Now we're back to certification costs...

Even with the CNC punch machines Van's uses to produce final size holes, there's still a lot of handfitting and deburring. Airplanes aren't hand built because there's no economy of scale so much as because they have to be. Look at videos of the aircraft production plants in WWII. Willow Run was cranking out a B-24 every hour, but they were hand built. Literal armies of people riveting pieces together.

Every business in the country is looking to automate labor costs away.

 

[TCABM]

@TCABM…So while you might not ever achieve a mass market with our low volumes, this structure is nearly optimized to ensure you never achieve anything resembling an economy of scale. So it's not the only culprit but I'd still say it doesn't help matters at all.

Correct. Because you can’t have any type of scaled economies, there are little to no places to achieve broad savings. The entire SEP/light twin market is essentially bespoke work.

 

[Dana]

Labor has gone up much more in proportion to other costs, save insurance. These planes are very much hand built, as were cars back then. Maybe riveting robots are a thing, but i suspect that an airplane that could be built by robots on an assembly line would have to be a clean sheet design. Now we're back to certification costs...

This. My day job is designing automated assembly machinery for small hydraulic components. I work in the automotive division, but the company also has aerospace divisions (a modern jetliner has hundreds of not thousands of our parts). The automotive division has been automated from day one and the products were all designed with that in mind and input from the automation engineers like myself. The aerospace divisions are just barely starting to automate. My current project is an assembly robot for the aerospace side, I'm on loan to that division, but the parts (with drawings in some cases dating back to the 1950s) were never designed for automatic handling, leading to some difficult challenges.

In many cases, we sell the mass produced automotive component for a dollar or two, while the nearly identical aerospace part is hand assembled and sells for tens or hundreds of dollars.

 

[Bell206]

We don't have a big number of aircraft to begin with, but then we fragment it further through all these different aircraft.

I believe the answer to your questions can be found in the reasoning behind why did Textron spend millions to develop the clean-sheet Beechcraft Denali with a clean-sheet GE turbine engine for the SETP market instead of spending that money on a clean-sheet aircraft for the recreational SEP market. And for context the SETP market is about 160+ new deliveries per year vs the SEP market which is about 1500+ new deliveries per year.

If Lycoming and Continental can stay afloat making engines for small GA, it's hard to believe that Honda could not do it better and cheaper.

I don't think its a matter if they could do it better and cheaper. The question is why didn't they. Porche tried and failed. Toyota had an aircraft engine variant developed for its TAA-1 aircraft but pulled it. Just because one has the ability to provide a tangible product doesn't always mean its the prudent thing to do. For example, why don't you find or develop an alternate engine for your aircraft? No rule prevents this with several rules actually providing a path accomplish this. Theres been a number of people who have done this with reasonable success. So why wait for Honda?

 

[elvisAteMySandwich]

If Honda felt there was money to be made in the piston engine aircraft market, they would be doing it. The money is in jet aircraft and engines, they have delivered 250+ Hondajets for a total of $1.3B

It's still just 30 jets a year on average so about $174M/year revenue. Sure, selling piston engines would be less than that and have lower profit margins. With Honda's annual revenue of $142.45B, any jet sales or other aviation related work is just a rounding error. And *if* there is no money to be made in piston aircraft engines ... why not and what does that mean for Continental, Lycoming and Rotax over time?

 

[elvisAteMySandwich]

Are relative. Pretending the SEP market is big enough to have an mass market economy of scale is disingenuous.

Agreed. For avionics, it appears we're benefitting from Garmin's mass market products helping aviation. For 2024, Garmin aviation revenue was $877M, representing 14% of their total revenue and 13% of their profits.

 

[elvisAteMySandwich]

I don't think its a matter if they could do it better and cheaper. The question is why didn't they. Porche tried and failed. Toyota had an aircraft engine variant developed for its TAA-1 aircraft but pulled it. Just because one has the ability to provide a tangible product doesn't always mean its the prudent thing to do. For example, why don't you find or develop an alternate engine for your aircraft? No rule prevents this with several rules actually providing a path accomplish this. Theres been a number of people who have done this with reasonable success. So why wait for Honda?

I agree with you. They don't have to do it if they don't want to. But why don't any of the engine manufacturers want to?

If there's no profit, then I need to start saving more because there's the risk that Lycoming will jack up rates when I need an engine overhaul. If it's regulatory issues, well then I may be writing to representative of congress.

In post #91, it looks like Garmin is doing for avionics exactly what I'm hoping someone does for piston engines. Using mass market tech and sales volumes to help meet the special needs of niche markets.

 

[Bell206]

But why don't any of the engine manufacturers want to?

I think the point you’re missing is they already tried 20+ years ago, as noted above, and found no viable market for their engines. So they moved on to other aviation projects like Honda’s Jet aircraft which is still sold. And the others simply changed focus to the future and the next generation aircraft. Below is a short list of those current efforts. “Mass market tech” won’t make a market buy a product it doesn’t want or need.

BMW: Skai project
Toyota: eVTOL gearboxes and Joby production
Honda: eVTOL and hybrid-electric propulsion system development
Hyundai: SA-2 project
Porsche: eVTOL development
Stellantis: eVTOL development
Suzuki: SkyDrive project

 

[genna]

In the 50-60s cars(and roads) were terrible and commercial aviation was slow, very expensive, and limited. Both methods were also not terribly reliable. In comparison, flying a small private plane was pretty useful and relatively affordable. By 90s cars and commercial aviation improved a lot and got much more affordable. Small GA practically stayed the same just more expensive. Now there is a little practical use for it as a means for travel. Most trips are better(logistically), faster, safer, more reliable, and far cheaper by either car or commercial aviation(depending on distance).

 

[WDD]

So few aircraft engines are sold each year the cost of development, certification, and liability isn’t going to pay out.

The only option might be to develop an aircraft engine from a long lived car engine design - like an LS - and be protected from liability.

Years ago Toyota was developing one but the liability killed it / cancelled development.

 

[Rockymountain]

Probably depends no where you fly, but one of the biggest problems I face going to most of the places that I fly is too much traffic. Too little ramp space. Too few hangars.And very crowded patterns. Delays getting out, and even EDCT times and ground holds due to ATC saturation. Hard for me to believe that GA is dying. Here are some data from Air Facts. Doesn't look like a death spiral.

 

[Doc Holliday]

It's still just 30 jets a year on average so about $174M/year revenue. Sure, selling piston engines would be less than that and have lower profit margins. With Honda's annual revenue of $142.45B, any jet sales or other aviation related work is just a rounding error. And *if* there is no money to be made in piston aircraft engines ... why not and what does that mean for Continental, Lycoming and Rotax over time?

Why don't you write Honda and tell them of this incredible money making venture idea you have. Let us know how it turns out.

 

[AKiss20]

I think the point you’re missing is they already tried 20+ years ago, as noted above, and found no viable market for their engines. So they moved on to other aviation projects like Honda’s Jet aircraft which is still sold. And the others simply changed focus to the future and the next generation aircraft. Below is a short list of those current efforts. “Mass market tech” won’t make a market buy a product it doesn’t want or need.

BMW: Skai project
Toyota: eVTOL gearboxes and Joby production
Honda: eVTOL and hybrid-electric propulsion system development
Hyundai: SA-2 project
Porsche: eVTOL development
Stellantis: eVTOL development
Suzuki: SkyDrive project

And the reason eVTOL is everywhere is because they are all hoping it's "the next big thing" with UAM and the much much larger market it could be attractive to than GA as we know it. Almost certainly a pie in the sky idea that won't come to fruition anytime soon (if ever), but the development on electric power trains is happening for the automotive space as well so throwing some effort behind UAM efforts has a lot of synergy and they are all hoping they will be the winners in the low probability event of UAM becoming realizable.

 

[Flying Keys]

I don’t know about the intervening 30 or so years, but Covid really inspired a lot of people to get into GA. I was seriously in the market for a SEP, but as soon as life started resuming, the airlines started hiring like crazy. Between the flight schools that exploded, people more financially-mobile than me moving faster, global supply chain shocks, and an increasingly risk-averse insurance industry, prices were jacked to an unattainable range. It doesn’t help that it’s super easy for financially mobile people to instantly search anywhere in the country for a deal, whereas it used to be more regionalized or even localized.

The romanticism of the 1960s everyday Joe on the GI Bill, hopping over to fly a Bonanza out of one of thousands of surplus airports left over from or built since WWII, when postwar manufacturing was still tooled up, NIMBYism really hadn’t yet taken hold, and the population of the US was roughly half of now, is long gone. Brb, gotta go watch a YouTube video.

 

[Bell206]

Years ago Toyota was developing one but the liability killed it / cancelled development.

It was Toyota’s decision to drop their TAA-1 airplane project that killed the engine since it had already rec’d its FAA type and production certificates. The TAA-1 was developed under the same program that the Cirrus SR20 and Columbia 300 were. Regardless, even Cirrus and Columbia sold out shortly after that program stopped so I think Toyota saw the writing and bailed first along with several other developers.

Hard for me to believe that GA is dying.

Only the private, recreational side of GA is declining. The rest of GA has been doing just fine to the point even Textron has been developing new aircraft to service it.

And the reason eVTOL is everywhere is because they are all hoping it's "the next big thing" with UAM and the much much larger market it could be attractive to than GA as we know it.

Don’t quite follow how its “the next big thing” since they been working on UAM eVTOL tech for the past 15+ years. I would think "the next big thing" is what they’re working on to replace the current eVTOLs? But won’t have to wait long to see if and how it works… or doesn’t work.

Since there’s already been a number of threads on UAM and eVTOLs no need to derail this one. I merely posted that info to show where the vehicle OEMs are currently in aviation. Regardless, if you dig a bit, you’ll find outside a few off-the-shelf electric motor parts there’s not much in common between EVs and eVTOLs. So not much "synergy" between those efforts.

 

[Dana]

Let's face it, recreational GA survives on the leftovers or by-products of "going places" aircraft.

Garmin's (and a few other avionics company's) business model seems to involve experimental aircraft serving as beta testers for TSO'd GA avionics, and... well, I don't know much about the avionics the big boys use, but I'm guessing they're not much more advanced than what you'll see in a lot of RVs, so it's probably on the same continuum.

But with engines, there's no development path from piston engines to turbines, and iron hardware doesn't scale like electronics and software do.

 

[Rockymountain]

If you want to fly recreationally you can still do it relatively inexpensively. Maybe not an IFR capable 200 knot aircraft, but an older piston single can be run for around the price of a high end SUV.

 

[Randomskylane]

Notice how I said “relative to productivity”? Wages and productivity tracked each other very well in the post war period until the mid-70s when real wages leveled off while productivity continued to grow. Your own chart shows that real wages outside the top 5% have barely moved.

Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts

Our country has suffered from rising income inequality and chronically slow growth in the living standards of low- and moderate-income Americans. This disappointing living-standards growth—which was in fact caused by rising income inequality—preceded the Great Recession and continues to this...

www.epi.org

For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades

Despite some ups and downs over the past several decades, today's real average wage in the U.S. has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. And most of what wage gains there have been have flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers.

www.pewresearch.org

Another change from the 60s to now: 2 income families. When my dad wanted to travel somewhere, the entire family was available to go immediately, now most people have to coordinate two work schedules…and the second bread winner might prefer doing something else.

Seems like quite a list built up in this thread; only doubling (whatever) the population has kept recreational ga alive

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In the 50-60s cars(and roads) were terrible and commercial aviation was slow, very expensive, and limited. Both methods were also not terribly reliable. In comparison, flying a small private plane was pretty useful and relatively affordable. By 90s cars and commercial aviation improved a lot and got much more affordable. Small GA practically stayed the same just more expensive. Now there is a little practical use for it as a means for travel. Most trips are better(logistically), faster, safer, more reliable, and far cheaper by either car or commercial aviation(depending on distance).

Y'know, we as pilots sell GA short an awful lot. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that GA is just not practical for travel, blah blah blah.

Personally, I have used GA to great effect for personal and business travel. With a family, it's often/usually cheaper than buying 3-4 airline tickets. My door-to-door times are very competitive with airline flights on sub-1000 mile trips.

I haven't ever been stranded overnight by a maintenance issue. I've arrived a day late due to weather twice (both related to Gaston's!). GA has been highly reliable for me.

Yes, it takes money to get to that point. You really need to have an instrument rating for it to be this reliable, though I did trips from WI-KY and WI-TX while I was still VFR only. You need to fly and/or train enough to stay proficient. You need a plane that is relatively affordable to operate. It helps if you are able and willing to fuel your own airplane.

But all of this "time to spare, go by air" nonsense does us all a disservice. Yes, you'll need to have some schedule flexibility, though not as much as you'd think. You'll need to be willing and able to scrap plan A, B, and C and make up a new one on the fly.

And you know what? I've never been stranded in some airline terminal waiting in line to try to get the last seat on the only flight out of town today because ATC/Weather trapped my plane somewhere, or the crew timed out and they're looking for another one, or any of the myriad nightmares that come with airline travel too.

If you want to travel by GA and you're willing to put in the initial effort and money to get to that point, it can be practical, reliable, and even "cheap" (relative to other modes of transport).

 

[jsstevens]

Y'know, we as pilots sell GA short an awful lot. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that GA is just not practical for travel, blah blah blah.

Personally, I have used GA to great effect for personal and business travel. With a family, it's often/usually cheaper than buying 3-4 airline tickets. My door-to-door times are very competitive with airline flights on sub-1000 mile trips.

I haven't ever been stranded overnight by a maintenance issue. I've arrived a day late due to weather twice (both related to Gaston's!). GA has been highly reliable for me.

Yes, it takes money to get to that point. You really need to have an instrument rating for it to be this reliable, though I did trips from WI-KY and WI-TX while I was still VFR only. You need to fly and/or train enough to stay proficient. You need a plane that is relatively affordable to operate. It helps if you are able and willing to fuel your own airplane.

But all of this "time to spare, go by air" nonsense does us all a disservice. Yes, you'll need to have some schedule flexibility, though not as much as you'd think. You'll need to be willing and able to scrap plan A, B, and C and make up a new one on the fly.

And you know what? I've never been stranded in some airline terminal waiting in line to try to get the last seat on the only flight out of town today because ATC/Weather trapped my plane somewhere, or the crew timed out and they're looking for another one, or any of the myriad nightmares that come with airline travel too.

If you want to travel by GA and you're willing to put in the initial effort and money to get to that point, it can be practical, reliable, and even "cheap" (relative to other modes of transport).

Family size is an often overlooked cost multiplier for travel. I live within 30 minutes of a major airline hub. For almost anywhere I’d need to go flying commercial is the cheapest-even over driving. But when all the kids were home, flying a family of 6 (or taking them out to eat) gets expensive fast.

 

[WDD]

M2C. GA is a hobby, similar to owing a boat, RV, etc. But hobbies have price curves like anything else.

It still costs a lot more today vs golden age 1973 for example. A new plane back then costs 2X median income. Today? 10X or so.

Parts were easy to get, harder today.

Getting a medical back then was easier than today.

It all adds up.

 

[TCABM]

…A new plane back then costs 2X median income. Today? 10X or so.

Today, a new SEP is more likely than not a Cirrus. In the 70s, it was a Cherokee or 152; maybe a 172.

Performance wise, what did a comparable (M20F / V35) sell for relative to income back in the day?

 

[Schuy]

cardinal II in 1975 was 25k
maybe another 10k for ifr with dual nav com , adf and auto pilot

 

[WDD]

Yes - I was thinking cost of new Shyhawk then and now. Not sure what a Cirrus comparison I. 1973 would be.

 

[AA5Bman]

While I agree with most of the points posted, I feel like not enough emphasis or blame has been placed on the FAA in regulating innovation out of existence, either by slow-playing approvals, driving up costs, layering on new "safety" requirements, or increasing operating costs (e.g. allowing landing fees, not supporting the development of hangars, supporting quasi-monopoly FBOs, targeting individual owners and maintenance shops, not supporting reform in medicals and owner maintenance, etc). The FAA sets the field upon which all of us play, and they have done an absolute @#$% job of it.

 

[SoonerAviator]

55mph national speed limit lifted…

Damn that Sammy Hagar!

 

[TCABM]

Yes - I was thinking cost of new Shyhawk then and now. Not sure what a Cirrus comparison I. 1973 would be.

So let’s take today’s 172. TAA being sold to a 141 flight school is the most common configuration.

What’d a Skyhawk II w/NAV-PAC sell for back then? You’d still be missing the autopilot, but at least you’d have a day/night VFR/IFR comparison.

 

[WDD]

So let’s take today’s 172. TAA being sold to a 141 flight school is the most common configuration.

What’d a Skyhawk II w/NAV-PAC sell for back then? You’d still be missing the autopilot, but at least you’d have a day/night VFR/IFR comparison.

A new Skyhawk cost $20k and median income was just above $9k.

 

[genna]

Y'know, we as pilots sell GA short an awful lot. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that GA is just not practical for travel, blah blah blah.

Personally, I have used GA to great effect for personal and business travel. With a family, it's often/usually cheaper than buying 3-4 airline tickets. My door-to-door times are very competitive with airline flights on sub-1000 mile trips.

I haven't ever been stranded overnight by a maintenance issue. I've arrived a day late due to weather twice (both related to Gaston's!). GA has been highly reliable for me.

Yes, it takes money to get to that point. You really need to have an instrument rating for it to be this reliable, though I did trips from WI-KY and WI-TX while I was still VFR only. You need to fly and/or train enough to stay proficient. You need a plane that is relatively affordable to operate. It helps if you are able and willing to fuel your own airplane.

But all of this "time to spare, go by air" nonsense does us all a disservice. Yes, you'll need to have some schedule flexibility, though not as much as you'd think. You'll need to be willing and able to scrap plan A, B, and C and make up a new one on the fly.

And you know what? I've never been stranded in some airline terminal waiting in line to try to get the last seat on the only flight out of town today because ATC/Weather trapped my plane somewhere, or the crew timed out and they're looking for another one, or any of the myriad nightmares that come with airline travel too.

If you want to travel by GA and you're willing to put in the initial effort and money to get to that point, it can be practical, reliable, and even "cheap" (relative to other modes of transport).

I'm not saying that there is no situation when small GA is better. There certainly are and I certainly use small GA for travel. I'm just saying that compared to 60s that window is a lot smaller and effort and cost to even get there(plane, certificate, currency, IFR) is a lot higher. And so then very few people even attempt.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Today, a new SEP is more likely than not a Cirrus. In the 70s, it was a Cherokee or 152; maybe a 172.

Performance wise, what did a comparable (M20F / V35) sell for relative to income back in the day?

A new 172 now is a lot more than 2x median income too, more like 5x-6x.

I'd definitely be interested in what a Bo cost back in the day... But one of the people in One Six Right was a news anchor, and he was talking about how he had bought a brand-new Bonanza back in the 70s. Regular people on plain old salaried jobs that aren't 3 capital letters starting with "C" aren't going to be buying new airplanes today.

 

[Jim K]

Y'know, we as pilots sell GA short an awful lot. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that GA is just not practical for travel, blah blah blah.

Personally, I have used GA to great effect for personal and business travel. With a family, it's often/usually cheaper than buying 3-4 airline tickets. My door-to-door times are very competitive with airline flights on sub-1000 mile trips.

I haven't ever been stranded overnight by a maintenance issue. I've arrived a day late due to weather twice (both related to Gaston's!). GA has been highly reliable for me.

Yes, it takes money to get to that point. You really need to have an instrument rating for it to be this reliable, though I did trips from WI-KY and WI-TX while I was still VFR only. You need to fly and/or train enough to stay proficient. You need a plane that is relatively affordable to operate. It helps if you are able and willing to fuel your own airplane.

But all of this "time to spare, go by air" nonsense does us all a disservice. Yes, you'll need to have some schedule flexibility, though not as much as you'd think. You'll need to be willing and able to scrap plan A, B, and C and make up a new one on the fly.

And you know what? I've never been stranded in some airline terminal waiting in line to try to get the last seat on the only flight out of town today because ATC/Weather trapped my plane somewhere, or the crew timed out and they're looking for another one, or any of the myriad nightmares that come with airline travel too.

If you want to travel by GA and you're willing to put in the initial effort and money to get to that point, it can be practical, reliable, and even "cheap" (relative to other modes of transport).

I can't like this enough.

 

[ateamer]

If you want to fly recreationally you can still do it relatively inexpensively. Maybe not an IFR capable 200 knot aircraft, but an older piston single can be run for around the price of a high end SUV.

True, but the cost of parts is as much as if they’re for the newest planes. Perhaps at some age - 50 years old maybe - aircraft should automatically be authorized for maintenance under the same conditions as Experimental Amateur Built.

 

[TCABM]

True, but the cost of parts is as much as if they’re for the newest planes. Perhaps at some age - 50 years old maybe - aircraft should automatically be authorized for maintenance under the same conditions as Experimental Amateur Built.

VARMA was supposed to help with that, but like with a lot of things in certified aviation, nobody wants to accept the risk.

 

[Bell206]

VARMA was supposed to help with that but like with a lot of things in certified aviation, nobody wants to accept the risk.

Have you seen anything from the FAA on this? The only thing I've seen is through the EAA. In principle, the ACO takes the risk which is different than with owner parts or using other guidance like AC 23-27.

 

[Warmi]

A new Skyhawk cost $20k and median income was just above $9k.

These days a new 172 runs about 450k and, at least among folks I work with, median income runs close to 200 k so not too far off …