Is GA flying for transportation dead?

Jay Honeck

Jay Honeck

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
11,571
Location
Ingleside, TX
Display Name
Display name:
Jay Honeck
http://macsblog.com/2012/06/is-ga-transportation-flying-dead/

You generally don't read stuff like this from Mac (or any of the other paid GA writer) since this is the LAST thing any aircraft manufacturer wants to publicize.

In my opinion, Mac's only stating the obvious. Compared to the airlines, it now costs double or even triple to fly my 160 mph airplane to the East or West coasts from South Texas -- and that's just for the fuel alone. If you factor in the other costs of aircraft owning, it can be a 400% penalty for flying your own plane.

Other than Oshkosh, which is an epic 3000 mile, multi-day round trip for us each year, we simply don't use Atlas for transportation beyond about 300 nm anymore. This is a far cry from "the olden days" (all of 10 years ago), when we routinely hopped in the plane and flew off to points all over North America.

Part of it is that we're no longer transporting four people everywhere. The fuel cost when divided by four of us looked a lot better than when we only divide it by 2 or 3 people.

It's sad, but IMHO until avgas comes down from the stratosphere, the "new normal" is a reality that is not conducive to/for personal air travel for any but the extremely wealthy.

Which, in turn, means that GA will continue it's slow downward spiral... :nonod:
 
Maybe not for long-haul. OTOH, to drive up and see my daughter takes 5.5 hours of driving, including 2 hours on a mountain pass and burns 13 gallons of gas. The CTSW makes the trip in 2 hours total and burns 9 gallons of premium mogas.
 
There's also the issue that it takes longer than the airlines for long trips, and longer than driving for short trips (although there are exceptions as Old Geek noted). The only reason I fly GA on trips is because it's my hobby. It's certainly not a practical means of transportation for the middle class.
 
it really depends on where you live and where you are going and when you want to leave and be there and come back.

Leah and I are heading to my hometown for the weekend in a few hrs via 172. 9 hr drive vs. 3 hr flight. inaccessable via airlines. driving would require using at least one vacation day for both of us to have a meaningful weekend home which would wipe out the $ savings of driving.

When going to see her parents in MSP we will sometimes fly airlines since there is a direct flight and it is much cheaper than renting the 182RG, which can make the trip non-stop. In some cases though we have found that the convenience of setting our own arrival and departure times was worth the increased cost.
 
Old Geek said:
Maybe not for long-haul. OTOH, to drive up and see my daughter takes 5.5 hours of driving, including 2 hours on a mountain pass and burns 13 gallons of gas. The CTSW makes the trip in 2 hours total and burns 9 gallons of premium mogas.
Click to expand...

My son goes to UCSB, a 7 hour drive for me. My little Cherokee can get it done in 2 1/2 hours or so and about 25 gallons. That might be a push cost wise to a car, but well worth it for the convenience. Commercial air has to go through L.A. and costs quite a bit (maybe $300 one way or more).
 
I'm not a AC owner of even a current PP as of now. I do feel that Mogas is the only likely savor for GA in these times. If I would ever purchase a plane I wold definitely be looking for one that is capable of safely burning mogas.
 
I've written pretty much the same thing myself. For >500 mile trips, the airlines are a slam dunk. For <300 miles, a car is the answer. Most people don't have enough in-between trips to justify GA. Add to that the hassles of rental cars and the uncertainy of weather and other options become even more appealing.

But if Mac believes what he wrote, why is he moving Sport Aviation away from being an enthusiast magazine and towards a transportation magazine?
 
Foxhole said:
I'm not a AC owner of even a current PP as of now. I do feel that Mogas is the only likely savor for GA in these times. If I would ever purchase a plane I wold definitely be looking for one that is capable of safely burning mogas.
Click to expand...

Very few airports have mogas on the field and even off field, you have to find mogas that does not have alchohol (can be extremely rare, depending where you live). It is not really practical for travel. It works when you mostly fly local and can truck it in yourself. IMHO.
 
Being not in a hub city, and having a 2-1/2nm/min plane, I can beat the airlines door to door within 800-1000nm, and with just me it's close to a wash cost-wise. If I had a travel companion, we'd beat the airlines on cost and time anywhere east of Denver. Add a 3rd person, and it's not even close.

Example: If I were to fly to Wings FLY-B-Q it would cost me $610 (prices today for a Friday/Sunday trip), and 3hrs of travel time via the airlines. Of course that doesn't include getting to the airport 2 hours early to check in and deal with security. Plus, getting to where I actually need to go after I get there. Add another hour. So $610 and 6 hours of travel time with no delays.

In the Comanche I burned 75 gallons of fuel on the the trip. Average fuel cost was $5.75 for the trip. $430 in fuel and It took me less than 4 hours from the time I left my house until the time I was at my destination. If two of us went the cost per person would be $215, whereas on the airlines it still costs $610/person.

You just have the wrong plane.
 
Last edited:
I still fly long distances because it is more convenient and because I like to. It never has been cheaper. I really like being able to fly at the time I want to and to the airport that I want without waiting in any lines.
 
John221us said:
Very few airports have mogas on the field and even off field, you have to find mogas that does not have alchohol (can be extremely rare, depending where you live). It is not really practical for travel. It works when you mostly fly local and can truck it in yourself. IMHO.
Click to expand...

The Rotax 912 engine runs just fine on California mogas premium and will also run ok on 100LL in a pinch. The aircraft fuel system may or may not have a problem with 10% ethanol. Mine doesn't.
 
I love these arguments, is getting somewhere as cheap as possible the goal???

How about Greyhound, you can go Miami to Seattle for what $70?

Or you could drive a Prius with four people getting 50 MPG, sleep in rest stops, bring your own food, etc.

We could go on with these scenarios forever.

If I am going coast to coast major city to major city with light luggage I'll fly commercial.

Otherwise I like to fly GA, I just flew Dallas to Eleuthera, Bahamas with my wife and 200lbs of SCUBA gear, luggage, etc. stopped in New Orleans on the way down here. Might stop somewhere on the way back. Quite a hassle by airline.

I love GA for travel, makes every part of the trip enjoyable for us.
 
Jay, not to nitpick, but do you really get 160 MPH out of your Warrior? Do you have speed mods or anything, because that's about what I get out of my 180 HP Tiger.

I think a case can still be made for GA depending on where you are going like some others have said, especially if it a non-hub, or offbeat location.
 
Jay,

It comes to "right plane for the mission".

For a coast-coast trip, or even a trip to Dallass, the airlines win both on time and cost.

For a trip from my home base to New England/upstate NY, Savannah, Ocracoke, Hatteras, or the Dayton/Cincinnati area, GA in my plane is competitive (or beats) the airlines. If you've got more than one traveling, it's a big win. Can't even get to Ocracoke or Hatteras via airline.

Dayton is running $400 RT from DC, figure a little over two-1/2 hours for the flight + TSA/airport time (and the obligitory grope of my junk) for the airline, 3:15 in my plane plus 15-30 minutes of pre-flight depending on whether I've pre-fueled (drive to the airport is the same) - at my burn rate, that's about $200 in fuel each way, maybe $325/350 each way fully burdened. I get to leave when I want, and I get to land at an airport closer to my destination with rental car waiting on-ramp. The trip back is generally shorter due to prevailing winds & my ability to go high.

It's comparable.

It's never cost-competitive on the long-haul (LAX or overseas). LAX is about 2300 miles - 5 hours commercially - at a fare ranging from $400 RT to $1500+ RT. Impossible to compete time-wise or fare-wise on that.

And for Hatteras, Ocracoke, and other garden spots of vacationland USA, you can't go commercially unless you charter. GA wins.

When I lived in San Antonio, I used to do business trips to the east coast via my plane. A typical trip would be Dallas for dinner, Memphis the next day, Cincinnati the following day, Ft. Meade (MD)/BWI area the following 2 days, Blacksburg (VA) then back to San Antonio. Cost and time prohibitive via airline.
 
EdFred said:
In the Comanche I burned 75 gallons of fuel on the the trip. Average fuel cost was $5.75 for the trip. $430 in fuel and It took me less than 4 hours from the time I left my house until the time I was at my destination. If two of us went the cost per person would be $215, whereas on the airlines it still costs $610/person.

You just have the wrong plane.
Click to expand...

IMO, you're not being realistic on the cost of using your Comanche. I suspect your real cost is a buck a mile or $150/hr. If you look at it that way, there is no way you're competitive with airlines on cost unless you fill all 4 seats, and then you're still subject to all of the uncertainties of GA travel.
 
tonycondon said:
Leah and I are heading to my hometown for the weekend in a few hrs via 172. 9 hr drive vs. 3 hr flight. inaccessable via airlines. driving would require using at least one vacation day for both of us to have a meaningful weekend home which would wipe out the $ savings of driving.
Click to expand...
That's the kind of thing I'm looking at. We take trips to see my in-laws... 2 hours driving, less than that to fly it even when you count preflight, taxi, and getting a ride from the nearest airfield about 20 miles away. Our son is currently 3 hours away by car, about half that by air in a 172. Later this month we have to drive to a wedding (I won't have my PPL yet); it's going to be at least 14 hours driving, not counting fuel and potty stops. And we've got to do the trip back in one day. By air? 6 hours plus a fuel stop on the way out, a little less on the way home.

Then there's this one. We want to go see a relative in MS. We can make the 20 hour drive or do it in six or so plus a fuel stop in the 172. Or we could fly commercial... for roughly the same cost, and roughly the same duration, maybe an hour less.

So, sure, I plan to fly for transportation whenever possible. I don't know that I'd fly a 172 from here to Charlotte at 3-4x the cost of a ticket on an airline... but I'd still consider it. With the connection and airport hassles on each end, it wouldn't take much longer. Heck, we've done it on the motorcycle before.

Will it cost more than driving places where airlines don't go? You bet.
Will it cost more than flying commercial to places where they do? Sometimes. Sometimes not.
Will it take less time than driving? Probably.
Will it be cool enough and fun enough to do it anyway? You betcha.

See, this is how you can tell I'm a student pilot and not a jaded old timer. :)
 
A run across the state for a football game at WSU can be done 1 of 3 ways.

1. Drive. 5 1/2 to 6 hours each way. Approximately 3 tanks of gas for the round trip, for a cost of about $200 for fuel (ouch!). This is the slowest and least expensive way.

2. Ride Horizon Airlines from SEA to PUW. 1+ hour drive to SEA, arrive 2 hours before a 45 minute flight, get picked up at the airport. About 4 hours home to PUW. About $200 per person, wife and me makes $400. Pay to park at the airport, another $40. And about 120 miles, or 7 gallons of gas for the round trip - $30 for gas. $470 for the trip.

3. Fly in the 182 (or 172). 182 takes just over 2 hours from OLM to PUW. 20 minutes to the airport, another 15 for pre-flight. Call it 2:45 from home to PUW. Current rate is $116/hr wet, so 5 hours = $580 for the plane.

GA is the fastest, and not that much more expensive for 2 than Horizon. Driving is the slowest, and least expensive. Not much longer than riding Horizon.

I'll fly, thank you.
 
kyleb said:
IMO, you're not being realistic on the cost of using your Comanche. I suspect your real cost is a buck a mile or $150/hr. If you look at it that way, there is no way you're competitive with airlines on cost unless you fill all 4 seats, and then you're still subject to all of the uncertainties of GA travel.
Click to expand...

I do not share your opinion on cost. I have the plane anyway, even if I don't fly it a single hour, it's going to cost me insurance + hangar + maintenance. If I didn't take the trip, I am still paying the mx+h+i. It cost me nothing extra except fuel and oil to fly it. When you take a trip by car, do you figure your cost at $0.39/mile, and your license plate fees, and your car insurance, and everything else? No. You figure it on your credit card receipt at the pump. Same with my plane, I already have it. The trip cost me <$450.
 
That's an interesting take Ed. So, essentially what you are saying is the plane is a "sunk cost", and the marginal costs of operation is all you acknowledge.

I like it. My costs now drastically went down! :D
 
Anthony said:
Jay, not to nitpick, but do you really get 160 MPH out of your Warrior? Do you have speed mods or anything, because that's about what I get out of my 180 HP Tiger.

I think a case can still be made for GA depending on where you are going like some others have said, especially if it a non-hub, or offbeat location.
Click to expand...

Jay has a 235 or Dakota Anthony so he may get that with the bigger engine.
 
Anthony said:
That's an interesting take Ed. So, essentially what you are saying is the plane is a "sunk cost", and the marginal costs of operation is all you acknowledge.

I like it. My costs now drastically went down! :D
Click to expand...

That's what I've always done. That whole $10/hr for engine reserve, and $5/hr avionics reserve and all that is the stupidest way to figure out "true" cost. My dad had bought a plane with a newly OH'd engine, and had to have it re-OH'd again 200 hours later. Ooooooh, that $2000 reserve really covered the $20000 needed for the overhaul. When I bought my Cherokee, I ripped the panel out less than 50 hours after buying the plane. Wow, that $250 really covered the $13,000 for the panel upgrades.

I already have the plane, it costs me whether I fly it or not. Cost for the trip is fuel and oil. (I already have e-charts for the whole country)
 
Last edited:
Old Geek said:
The Rotax 912 engine runs just fine on California mogas premium and will also run ok on 100LL in a pinch. The aircraft fuel system may or may not have a problem with 10% ethanol. Mine doesn't.
Click to expand...

Not the point I was trying to make. I only know of one airport in California that has mogas on the field. Are you going to rent a car and go into town with jerry cans to fillup when you are traveling (this is a traveling thread)? Also, my understanding with the problem with ethanol is its solvent qualities on the hoses. http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2010/11/30/ethanol-a-very-real-danger/
 
EdFred said:
I do not share your opinion on cost. I have the plane anyway, even if I don't fly it a single hour, it's going to cost me insurance + hangar + maintenance. If I didn't take the trip, I am still paying the mx+h+i. It cost me nothing extra except fuel and oil to fly it. When you take a trip by car, do you figure your cost at $0.39/mile, and your license plate fees, and your car insurance, and everything else? No. You figure it on your credit card receipt at the pump. Same with my plane, I already have it. The trip cost me <$450.
Click to expand...

Ah, the "sunk cost" argument. No disagreement that some costs are fixed - some of the MX is hour-dependent (at least on my plane).

Accounting - something folks will pretty much always argue about....
 
AdamZ said:
Jay has a 235 or Dakota Anthony so he may get that with the bigger engine.
Click to expand...


Ahh yes, I missed the "Pathfinder" on the list which is essentially a stretched 235 before it was renamed Dakota with the new, tapered wing. So the Pathfinder is a stretched 235 with the Hershey Bar wing? At least I think that is how it went, but I may be wrong.

My mistake Jay.
 
Anthony said:
Jay, not to nitpick, but do you really get 160 MPH out of your Warrior? Do you have speed mods or anything, because that's about what I get out of my 180 HP Tiger.

I think a case can still be made for GA depending on where you are going like some others have said, especially if it a non-hub, or offbeat location.
Click to expand...

I haven't owned a Warrior since 2002.

The Pathfinder (with every speed mod made, plus 235 HP) trues out at 142 knots, or 163 mph.

Edit: Whoops, didn't see your last post, up one from here!
 
Last edited:
Anthony said:
That's an interesting take Ed. So, essentially what you are saying is the plane is a "sunk cost", and the marginal costs of operation is all you acknowledge.

I like it. My costs now drastically went down! :D
Click to expand...

That's the way I usually look at it, too. The plane is there, no matter what.

It's a warped way of thinking...but I like it here in my dream world... :D
 
I wouldn't say GA is "dead" or "replaced" for transportation, I think it's fair to say it fills a gap, which is going someplace that takes too long to drive, but isn't far enough away to justify a commercial flight. Particularly if Southwest doesn't fly there to begin with.
 
At this point if you aren't pulling in >$125k, pretty much so.
 
Cincinnati to Granby CO

Took about 10hrs, 125gal of fuel. All in airlines would have been 45min faster and much more hassle. I also saves a lot on the car rental because I put fewer miles on it.
 
Alexb2000 said:
I love these arguments, is getting somewhere as cheap as possible the goal???
Click to expand...

Of course not. None of us own planes because it makes sense to do so. We do so because we love aviation, plus the convenience of flying our own plane. Some use them for business, too, which helps.

HOWEVER, as Mac points out, there WAS a time when the costs were more in GA's favor, which meant that regular people used GA for regular transportation.

Those days are gone, which means the sport is left to enthusiasts -- a MUCH smaller group. This had led directly to the decline in FBOs, A&Ps, IAs, avionics shops, airport restaurants, blah blah blah.

Mac is really just stating the obvious -- I was just surprised to read it, because it stabs directly at the heart of his biggest advertisers.
 
Henning said:
At this point if you aren't pulling in >$125k, pretty much so.
Click to expand...

That's a silly number. It's easily possible to do GA on FAR less.

I know, because I do. :D

Unless you mean for RELIABLE transportation, in which case I agree. You need that sort of income to feed a truly capable, nearly all-weather GA plane.
 
wsuffa said:
Ah, the "sunk cost" argument. No disagreement that some costs are fixed - some of the MX is hour-dependent (at least on my plane).

Accounting - something folks will pretty much always argue about....
Click to expand...

I'll take sunk costs for $100, Alex.

My F-150 Supercrew costs about .23/mi for gas, the Mooney no wind lean of peak costs about .28/mi. An extra .05/mi. I'd venture when I compare the plane flying direct vs the truck following roads, it's a wash cost wise.

Going to North Myrtle (KCRE) next weekend. Truck, 8.5hrs each way. plane 2:02 block to block. Hello Mooney!
 
Bill Jennings said:
I'll take sunk costs for $100, Alex.
Click to expand...
Ditto.

When I drive my truck, or Wifey's car, or the Harley, my cost to get from Point A to Point B is what I spend on gas. The cost of tires and whatnot is so low as to be negligible. I'm going to own the vehicle whether I take that trip or not. That cost is not a cost of taking the trip, that cost is what it takes for the convenience (or whatever other reasons I have) to own the vehicle in the first place.

I can understand the arguments to the contrary, I simply disagree that we should all abide by what is taught in econ classes as a basis for everything we do. If you feel otherwise -- do you go so far as to include a proportional portion of the mortgage payment, taxes, homeowner's insurance and home maintenance costs for the garage when you figure what it costs to drive your car? How about the cost of the education that allows you to earn enough to afford it all? The hourly rate for the free time you gave up working hard to get there? Of course not. You're going to have that garage whether you park a car in it or not.

You have a fixed monthly cost to own the airplane. That doesn't change whether you fly it or not. Hangar, insurance, GPS updates or whatever, and throw in some to cover a typical annual with no major issues. Then you have the cost to fly, which is gas and oil. Yes, at some point -- which is some unknown value between 0 and well-past-TBO -- you have the cost of an engine overhaul. Or you sell the plane and trade up, which may or may not cost you about the same.

You have to draw the line somewhere; some people choose different places to draw the line.
 
The C152 gets better gas mileage than my jeep and is much quicker.

memorial day weekend...

KRDU to KMRH (beach with girlfriend's family) friday evening... 1.3 hours plane (3hrs car)
KMRH - W75 sunday morning (parent's house on chesapeake bay) 1.9 hrs plane (5.2 hrs car)
W75 KRDU (home) 1.6 plane, 4 car

That was 4.8 plane for what would have been 12.2 hours in the car. In a 152. Flying is fun. I hate traffic. I burned LESS GAS than if I had driven my grand cherokee.

Overall I estimate it cost me about $100 more to fly the plane than to drive. 7.2hrs of my time is worth more than that!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top