Is General Aviation Dying in the USA?

[rpadula]

Most successful businesses don't open up in a fairly out-of-the-way location and just sit around waiting for customers to appear, but all too often that's what the aviation industry does.

LOL. That's because airports are far away from where the people live, because they don't want those noisy things in their back yard.

 

[wabower]

Move to strike, speculation. Assumes facts not in evidence.

I could buy an old 172, put an Aspen and airtex interior in it (now it's glass, and no longer old and ratty by your definition, right) and with half as much invested I would beat your dick off in both price and comfort while truthfully telling my customers that they'll be learning to fly a real airplane that they might actually want to use for a trip with their wife and kid, not one that was made in China and whose only claim to fame is that the doors keep falling off.

So there.

No doubt about that... And that's why the $100/hr LSA will beat the more-expensive 172 every time.

Now, LSA vs. 152 makes it tougher. The 152 can be bought much cheaper, and operated for not much more than the LSA (I'm assuming here that the maintenance costs will be higher on the 152 with its age). So, its hourly cost is likely to be less than the LSA. (The difference could be at least partially canceled out by the total training cost being potentially cheaper on the LSA because you can get a Sport Pilot certificate instead of the full Private, though.)

However, I chose the 172 instead of the 152 because I'm 6'4" and I don't fit in a 152. Lotsa folks these days don't fit in a 152. Many of the LSA's are quite roomy - Gotta have enough drag to keep 'em slow enough to be LSA's, so a large cabin cross section works well. I've flown several, and sat in several more to try them on. No problems, in most cases. Locally, I would guess based on the comings and goings at the flight school that it's about a 50/50 split between the 152's and 172's for primary training. Well, make that 40/40 with the other 20 going into the PA28's.

So, were I starting a flight school... Again, I'd still go with the LSA, assuming I have to start out with one airplane. (Yeah, I know I can buy 4 152's for the cost of one LSA... But it won't work for taller/wider people or those who only want a sport certificate, so there's no point in having 4 of them!)

 

[airbornejohnny]

Well, rather than relying on "them" to come to "us," we took aviation to "them."

Most successful businesses don't open up in a fairly out-of-the-way location and just sit around waiting for customers to appear, but all too often that's what the aviation industry does.

Incorporating both of the above together would certainly be a step in the right direction. Sure, it's wishful thinking, but even if FBO's were to work together a little bit. For example, my aforementioned community college serves as a county college for two counties, within which there are quite a few airports...Solberg, Somerset, Kupper (well, central jersey gazoondhight), and plenty more my cranium-gas is blocking...
If said airports' FBO's were to collaborate with the college, so that something like Kate did teaching ground school at the college were to be supplemented by the local airport for the student...so of 10 students, 3 went to Kupper for actual flight time, 4 to Solberg, etc...based on what is actually closer for the student, all of the local FBO's could benefit from only ONE program the school can offer. Approaching the schools is definately the first thing that would have to happen, and for those bold enough to do so, it very well may be a downwind short final, but IMHO such an effort would be well worth it in the long run for the sake of GA.

P.S. heck, there theoretically could even be a way to offset some of the costs to the student pursuing their license...waaaay down the road from here of course, but enticement added to enticement sounds like a winner...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Incorporating both of the above together would certainly be a step in the right direction. Sure, it's wishful thinking, but even if FBO's were to work together a little bit. For example, my aforementioned community college serves as a county college for two counties, within which there are quite a few airports...Solberg, Somerset, Kupper (well, central jersey gazoondhight), and plenty more my cranium-gas is blocking...
If said airports' FBO's were to collaborate with the college, so that something like Kate did teaching ground school at the college were to be supplemented by the local airport for the student...so of 10 students, 3 went to Kupper for actual flight time, 4 to Solberg, etc...based on what is actually closer for the student, all of the local FBO's could benefit from only ONE program the school can offer. Approaching the schools is definately the first thing that would have to happen, and for those bold enough to do so, it very well may be a downwind short final, but IMHO such an effort would be well worth it in the long run for the sake of GA.

Actually, you wouldn't necessarily need the flight schools to cooperate with each other at all: The community college is making their money off tuition. They're paying the instructor, so the instructor gets some money regardless of whether they get any actual flight students out of the deal, but they'll likely get more students than anyone else. The students can go to any flight school or CFI they want to, whatever's most convenient and/or has the right airplane(s) at the right price.

Win-win all around, if you ask me. Yet, very few actually do it. Why?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

LOL. That's because airports are far away from where the people live, because they don't want those noisy things in their back yard.

True - And it's not like you can open up a flight school downtown - But you also can't expect to just sit back and let customers come to you. Outreach, promotions, networking - Things that are sorely lacking in many flight schools.

 

[airbornejohnny]

Actually, you wouldn't necessarily need the flight schools to cooperate with each other at all: The community college is making their money off tuition. They're paying the instructor, so the instructor gets some money regardless of whether they get any actual flight students out of the deal, but they'll likely get more students than anyone else. The students can go to any flight school or CFI they want to, whatever's most convenient and/or has the right airplane(s) at the right price.

Win-win all around, if you ask me. Yet, very few actually do it. Why?

Very true...I didn't think of it that way; I was thinking of it sort of like a "school district." There's lots of ways to skin the cat, of course...but picking up this slack and moving forward with it definately ought to happen if GA is to survive. Exploiting everything we can out of the education system would help a LOT. More people go to college now than did back when the greatest generation were the youngins on the airfield, and the trend of continuing education is pretty much a norm these days...that's potentially a gold mine for keeping numbers, let alone spawning growth in the community.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I could buy an old 172, put an Aspen and airtex interior in it (now it's glass, and no longer old and ratty by your definition, right) and with half as much invested I would beat your dick off in both price and comfort while truthfully telling my customers that they'll be learning to fly a real airplane that they might actually want to use for a trip with their wife and kid, not one that was made in China and whose only claim to fame is that the doors keep falling off.

Wayne, I've never had this much fun arguing with anybody.

So... Half as much invested? $35K to buy the old ratty 172, $8K to paint it, $2746 to Airtex and $3827 to Plane Plastics for the new interior (not including install), $6K for the most basic Aspen display (not including installation), $10K for the G430W to drive the Aspen (It's the cheapest thing that has graphics that don't look like they came from the 80's), at least $5K to install all of the above, and we're north of $70K for an airplane that'll still cost more to maintain and fuel, and costs about as much to acquire as the LSA (like I mentioned before, *asking* prices for the used SportStars are in the upper $70K range, so we should be able to buy them for $70K...)

Plus, you can't give Sport Pilot training in it, and taking the average ratty Cessna panel and only adding a single Aspen and GPS is like lipstick on a pig - To make it truly look modern, you'd need a new panel overlay, replace the other Nav/Com, transponder, audio panel, etc.

Now, it clearly does things an LSA doesn't - Haul more people/stuff, and... uh... Well, it's probably IFR-capable whereas most LSA's aren't (though they can still be used for all IFR training provided you keep them out of IMC.) So, this is probably what I would do for my second airplane at my hypothetical flight school.

If things went really well, the third plane would be a 182RG so I could give HP and complex endorsements and commercial and CFI training, as well as use it for basic charter.

 

[wabower]

Your fix-up numbers are way off, but so are all your other assumptions, so at least you're consistently wrong. Maybe everybody who's reading this can guess which of us has actually restored an old Cessna. Or maybe even more than one.

A good touchup guy can make a silk purse out of most sow's-ear paint job for less than $2 grand. Have you ever noticed that the fuselage paint aft of the cabin always looks pretty good on even the worst airplanes? Spray the cowl, leading edges and landing gear with Matterhorn white and it will look plenty good on the ramp. Ask Kareem about the prices he heard about when he was looking to spiff his Arrow.

And now you're going to pick nit with the graphic qualities on a glass-equipped PPL trainer? GMAB.

Wayne, I've never had this much fun arguing with anybody.

So... Half as much invested? $35K to buy the old ratty 172, $8K to paint it, $2746 to Airtex and $3827 to Plane Plastics for the new interior (not including install), $6K for the most basic Aspen display (not including installation), $10K for the G430W to drive the Aspen (It's the cheapest thing that has graphics that don't look like they came from the 80's), at least $5K to install all of the above, and we're north of $70K for an airplane that'll still cost more to maintain and fuel, and costs about as much to acquire as the LSA (like I mentioned before, *asking* prices for the used SportStars are in the upper $70K range, so we should be able to buy them for $70K...)

Plus, you can't give Sport Pilot training in it, and taking the average ratty Cessna panel and only adding a single Aspen and GPS is like lipstick on a pig - To make it truly look modern, you'd need a new panel overlay, replace the other Nav/Com, transponder, audio panel, etc.

Now, it clearly does things an LSA doesn't - Haul more people/stuff, and... uh... Well, it's probably IFR-capable whereas most LSA's aren't (though they can still be used for all IFR training provided you keep them out of IMC.) So, this is probably what I would do for my second airplane at my hypothetical flight school.

If things went really well, the third plane would be a 182RG so I could give HP and complex endorsements and commercial and CFI training, as well as use it for basic charter.

 

[MadseasoN]

Why do you need a new interior or paint job to train pilots? I have yet to meet one student pilot who cares what the plane looks like. Most of them are just happy to be in the air. Our club has a '69 C150 that has seen better days. But it's cheap and light - my 250# instructor and myself (210#) can fly it for 1.5 hours without worry. Granted you have to move up (C172/P28A) for the dual cross-country flights, but the C150 is a great bargain when you're starting out.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Your fix-up numbers are way off, but so are all your other assumptions, so at least you're consistently wrong.

Well... Tell me where I went wrong! I'm always willing to learn.

Most of the numbers were from the manufacturers' own web sites. Paint was an educated guess (been 6 years since I had a plane painted), and installation was an educated guess based on real-world bills I paid.

Now, if I'm an FBO with my own A&P, labor costs will go down significantly, and getting a "show deal" from Oshkosh can probably knock a couple grand off the interior. A used 430W might be found for another couple grand less...

So, do you really think you could put together a glass-equipped 172 with a nice interior for $40K? If I ever do get into the FBO/flight school business, you can expect a call.

A good touchup guy can make a silk purse out of most sow's-ear paint job for less than $2 grand.

Huh... Good to know. Especially since the quality of our 6-year-old paint job on the 182 is a bit lacking. Still looks good for the most part, but there's some edges where it's flaked off.

And now you're going to pick nit with the graphic qualities on a glass-equipped PPL trainer? GMAB.

Not saying it's important to ME - I'm fine flying behind the 80's-look KLN94, or a monochrome GPS, or no GPS at all. Your average knows-nothing-never-been-to-an-airport-before person will look at a KLN94 and it'll look old.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Why do you need a new interior or paint job to train pilots? I have yet to meet one student pilot who cares what the plane looks like. Most of them are just happy to be in the air. Our club has a '69 C150 that has seen better days. But it's cheap and light - my 250# instructor and myself (210#) can fly it for 1.5 hours without worry. Granted you have to move up (C172/P28A) for the dual cross-country flights, but the C150 is a great bargain when you're starting out.

My contention is that a lot of the people who can afford to learn how to fly are going to come to the airport, look at the ratty old C-birds on the line, and decide they want nothing to do with 'em - The perception being that newer is safer, and old = unsafe. We know that perception and reality don't match here, but until we get them hooked, the perception IS important.

Why do you need to move up for your cross countries? Fly somewhere with fuel.

 

[Everskyward]

My contention is that a lot of the people who can afford to learn how to fly are going to come to the airport, look at the ratty old C-birds on the line, and decide they want nothing to do with 'em - The perception being that newer is safer, and old = unsafe. We know that perception and reality don't match here, but until we get them hooked, the perception IS important.

I'm going to agree with you that perception is important to some people. I know passengers who prefer flying in airplanes with modern cockpits even though they know nothing about how the airplane works and have no interest in flying it. Then I know other people who don't like to fly in airplanes with props, even if it's a King Air. However, I think this is somewhat like the argument people have with cars. Some people want to drive their old cars until they fall apart because it's cheaper. Some people prefer to drive new cars. Some people are into the styling of the cars and some only care about practicality and reliability. I don't think there are one-size-fits all potential pilots either.

 

[Jim_R]

For most people, is the difference in LSA status of any import when they start training or renting an airplane?

My impression is that the decisions are largely price-driven, and that the cheapest airplane usually wins.

Absolutely concur. At my home field, there were two schools to choose between. One had older Tomahawks with basic steam gauges and CFIs who wore tee shirts and sneakers. One had newer 172s with GPS and pristine interiors and CFIs who all had matching polo shirts with FBO logos on them.

The Tomahawks were $30/hr cheaper, and that's what I went for. I figured I could always learn how to work the GPS and get checked out on the 172 after I got my ticket, and use some of the ~$1500 I saved to take a few trips.

 

[ChrisRikli]

Having read through this entire thread it seems like there are a lot of pilots that don't remember what it's like to be new to flying. And they certainly have no idea what it's like to be new to flying right now, today.

cheesehead said something several page back that I *really* identified with:

Anyway - The real point is that you have someone with the money to fly, and they're probably showing up in a pretty nice car... And they're probably expecting the airplane to have at least a couple of modern conveniences. Instead, we stuff them into something that was designed in the 50's and built in the 70's and it shows... And then we tell them how much it costs, and they think "For THAT old trap?!?"

I'll never forget my first lesson not too many months ago. I drove to the airport in my 2005 BMW 5 with the big motor and all the fixin's. Not bragging, just setting the stage. I bought it used last year and I stole it.

The plane we were using was a 2001 172S, not exactly a "ratty old Cessna". The first thing I thought when I looked into the cabin was, "wow, what a piece of ****." It looked a million years old, had lambskin seat-covers that looked really cheesy, and smelled faintly of armpit. It seemed to be designed for Lilliputians, not linebackers, and it felt more like a toy than an real airplane.

I remember my instructor explaining the mixture control to me; being an engineer my first question was "why on earth is that not computer controlled?"

I completed my first lesson, loved it, and then when I got home got online to find out how much it would cost me to buy what I'd just flown. I was floored to find out that it would cost almost 5x what I'd paid for my pretty nice car. Over 13x for a new one!

Now, of course, I'm a certificated pilot and I "get it". Well, I still don't fully grasp why the mixture isn't computer controlled, but whatever. But I understand that the wider the airframe is the more HP it takes to drag the thing through the air. I don't really care how the plane smells. I hope it has lambskin. Don't care how old it is. Don't care if it has steam gauges or glass. If it has wings and a motor, I'm all in because I'm an addict looking for an excuse to fly.

The same sentiment doesn't extend to my spouse. When I bring up the idea of flying somewhere, she gets a nauseated look. She doesn't enjoy traveling in this loud, uncomfortable, smelly and *VERY* expensive conveyance where she can't recline the seat and has to wear a headset when she could be traveling in quiet, cushy, non-smelly, paid-for, fully reclining luxury. And to be candid, I can see her point.

Cirrus sold a ton of planes because they realize that pilots like me have spouses like mine. They realize that if you're paying a pile of money to get from point A to point B, you probably want to do it in style and comfort. So they created an airplane that provokes the opposite reaction from a 172: you stick your head in it and go, "Wow, that thing looks like the inside of a 5-series. Cool. And it goes how fast?"

Now, I'm well aware that a 172 vs a Cirrus isn't an apples-apples comparison, if for no other reason that one costs 2x as much as the other. But my point is that they've sold planes, a lot of them and during crappy economic times, because they recognized and prioritized the high value of perception.

Flying isn't just about the pilot; the passenger experience matters too. Actually, it matters a hell of a lot because we need as many of those passengers as possible to become pilots. And in these times of $6 avgas, I think it would entice more of them to take that step if they payoff was being able to pilot a more creature-accommodating vehicle. Of course once they got a couple flight lessons in they wouldn't care about that stuff, but maybe they'd have better luck getting their spouses to fly with them.

 

[wabower]

Well... Tell me where I went wrong! I'm always willing to learn.

Most of the numbers were from the manufacturers' own web sites.

Which everyone who actually buys their stuff knows are always the highest possible prices you can pay. And you defaulted to the most money you could spend for each vendor's entire package, which anybody who's done it knows is totally unnecessary.

Some filler and a couple of cans of spray paint will do wonders to a Cessna interior--especially a trainer. Remember that our goal is to provide decent cosmetics in a cost-efficient basic trainer, so we can escape the "old and ratty" stereotype that you have incorrectly applied with a broad brush. Contrary to your implied assumptions, we're just planning to fly it; we're not planning to show it at the fair.

Paint was an educated guess (been 6 years since I had a plane painted), and installation was an educated guess based on real-world bills I paid.
Now, if I'm an FBO with my own A&P, labor costs will go down significantly,

Hourly rates for journeyman A&P (not that you need one for most of this stuff) is ~$25 including P/R tax. What are you paying?

and getting a "show deal" from Oshkosh can probably knock a couple grand off the interior. A used 430W might be found for another couple grand less...

OK, now we're finally getting somewhere. What's your revised number after the reality check? My best-case scenario would be to have somebody as a competitor who spends money like you're proposing to do. I would own them (or what's left that's worth buying) in six months.

So, do you really think you could put together a glass-equipped 172 with a nice interior for $40K? If I ever do get into the FBO/flight school business, you can expect a call.

No, that's your number. I don't think it's reasonable, and never said or implied that. Can I put a nice-looking glass-equipped 172 on the line for a lot less than the cost of an LSA? Absolultely guaranteed. Will I have to charge more rent? Nope. The operating cost deltas are peanuts compared to the fixed and capital costs. After one flight in each, do you really think pilots will choose those glorified kites over real airplanes?

And BTW, your previous post extolled their slow cruise speeds as one of the virtues of the LSA's. Can you point out the posts on any forum from pilots who were seeking ways to downgrade so they can fly slower?

Huh... Good to know. Especially since the quality of our 6-year-old paint job on the 182 is a bit lacking. Still looks good for the most part, but there's some edges where it's flaked off.

Well, at least something constructive came out of this. Touchup jobs on high-wear areas are an everyday occurrence at the airport, and amazingly effective for cosmetic improvement. Airplanes listed for sale are also known to have some non-original paint that may or may not be recorded in the logs. If you check around, I'm willing to bet you'll find somebody in your area who can work magic for very little money.

Not saying it's important to ME - I'm fine flying behind the 80's-look KLN94, or a monochrome GPS, or no GPS at all. Your average knows-nothing-never-been-to-an-airport-before person will look at a KLN94 and it'll look old.

How in the world will that guy have a clue about what "new vs. old" looks like in an airplane if he's never seen one? Please note that I'm not trying to pretend that there are no risks associated with older 172's. I've owned two of them and have the receipts to prove it. Brian will attest to that risk as well.

But if my assignment is to compete with some high-priced two-seater, there's no question that I can do it effectively. Not that I ever will, or will ever want to, because as previously stated I think anybody who gets in this business is nuts.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm going to agree with you that perception is important to some people. I know passengers who prefer flying in airplanes with modern cockpits even though they know nothing about how the airplane works and have no interest in flying it. Then I know other people who don't like to fly in airplanes with props, even if it's a King Air. However, I think this is somewhat like the argument people have with cars. Some people want to drive their old cars until they fall apart because it's cheaper. Some people prefer to drive new cars. Some people are into the styling of the cars and some only care about practicality and reliability. I don't think there are one-size-fits all potential pilots either.

That's a great way of putting it, Mari - I don't think every person in the world will be susceptible to the perception problem, but there's a significant percentage of the population who will feel that way. We need to appeal to the largest number of potential customers, so being able to address the perception problem while keeping costs reasonable is important.

 

[denverpilot]

Uhhh... When did we start talking about airlines?

I guess my point was that showing off aviation to kids who aren't wealthy is somewhat cruel right now. If they get hooked, as we here all know, they're going to be dropped into the world of $100/Hr aircraft rentals.

There used to be a chance they could "feed the beast" of aviation addiction by making it a career. Heck the stories abound about "washing airplanes" to get flight time or working at the FBO as a line boy. How many hours of line boy work would it take today to rent anything airworthy for an hour?

I've only been flying 20 years and I remember renting a C-150 for $38/Hr wet. Salaries (across the board from blue-collar through the middle class, executives excluded) have not kept up with the aviation price jump from then until now.

I kinda cringe at the idea of "hooking" youngsters into this. But then again, maybe their predicament will spur them on to create fixes for aviation's ills.

 

[denverpilot]

True. It was hard not to lust after the shiny new gear advertised in the trade rags. But when it came down to every one of them, I thought, "this isn't going to make my plane fly one bit faster, and the price of that Garmin would buy a lot of av gas. F it..."

That's exactly where we're at right now. Only difference is that we had an ADF fail and it doesn't make much sense to put an ADF back on board.

It also doesn't make much sense that someone doesn't continue to produce a well-supported (as in not out of flash card space in less than five years with no replacement model on the horizon and that doesn't require a damned CDI upgrade) Enroute-only IFR GPS anymore. (Yeah I'm looking at you Honeywell/Bendix/King)

Just need an economical way to get to the IAF. The nice ILS gear on board will be fine from there...

 

[denverpilot]

. Look at all the people, many of whom are on the older side, who are drooling over ForeFlight on the other threads...

I drool over Foreflight because it can offer the exact same features and functionality (over time) that the FAA has created a monopoly for Garmin to charge $10K for. Less than $800 in hardware and less than $100 a year gets me a lot of my buck.

That has always been the promise of technology to me, not the bureaucracy untangle-able mess surrounding "Certified" overpriced avionics.

When you know someone's flying in the same soup with a Dynon in their "experimental" aircraft and trusting their life to it, while you're stuck with Garmin at 3x the price... And you can both look down at your iPads and see the same data for 10x cheaper...

The certification system is horribly broken. It's not adding to safety anymore.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

And you defaulted to the most money you could spend for each vendor's entire package, which anybody who's done it knows is totally unnecessary.

I actually chose the less expensive options when there were multiple options, but I think they normally have package pricing and I didn't see that anywhere on their site.

Contrary to your implied assumptions, we're just planning to fly it; we're not planning to show it at the fair.

Not at the fair... But the first impression that a non-pilot gets is very important. (See what Mari and Chris said.) So we are "showing" it to an extent. Does the cracked plastic on the inside of the baggage door matter? No. But a lot of broken plastic, worn seat covers, etc. do matter to some people.

Hourly rates for journeyman A&P (not that you need one for most of this stuff) is ~$25 including P/R tax. What are you paying?

$65/hr for maintenance and $75/hr for avionics at the home drome. And that's with a discount for based customers...

I've heard of much worse, but there's better too. We're taking our planes off-field for annuals because we found a shop elsewhere that does great work for more reasonable prices and it pays to go there despite the 3 round trips it takes to get it done. (1 for the plane getting annualed, 2 "chase plane" trips to reposition the pilot.) I don't think the hourly rate is much different, but they seem to be more efficient in getting things done and doing them right.

OK, now we're finally getting somewhere. What's your revised number after the reality check?

Well, if we use your $2K to rehab the paint instead of fully repainting, and we can probably do the interior for $3K sans install. Used 430W, $6500 on the cheap end. Aspen, I don't think you'll find used, so we're probably on the hook for the full $6K there. GPS&Aspen install, we're still stuck going to an avionics shop - I don't think an independent A&P can work on those, right? So, probably still a good $2000-$2500 for the GPS, make it an even $3K with the Aspen. Call it a grand for the interior - 40 hours at $25 each about right?

So... $55K-$60K still. Better, but still not half of my sub-$80K LSA.

My best-case scenario would be to have somebody as a competitor who spends money like you're proposing to do. I would own them (or what's left that's worth buying) in six months.

If they spend frivolously, sure... But my best-case scenario would be competition from people who refuse to adapt, appeal to the widest possible audience, and use some new ideas.

Realistically, I would want BOTH the LSA and the 172. While the LSA gives them something to start off in and get to the point where they can fly on their own for the cheapest price, the availability of the 172 (and if I can afford 3 planes, that 182RG) gives them something to grow into that they can take the family on trips in, and an incentive to continue beyond the Sport Pilot certificate.

What drives me nuts is seeing flight schools with fleets of underutilized 172-class airplanes and zero LSA's. Businesses must adapt or die, and for some reason we in GA are not very good at adapting.

No, that's your number. I don't think it's reasonable, and never said or implied that.

You said "half the cost" of my LSA, which I already said was going to be south of $80K.

Can I put a nice-looking glass-equipped 172 on the line for a lot less than the cost of an LSA? Absolultely guaranteed. Will I have to charge more rent? Nope. The operating cost deltas are peanuts compared to the fixed and capital costs.

Except that as fuel prices climb, the 172 will cost more and more to operate.

Also, what would you disagree with from my analysis in post 241? While the fixed costs are higher, the variable costs are MUCH lower in the LSA.

I made a spreadsheet (are you surprised? ) and using the numbers from that post, ran several scenarios:

1) Both 172 and LSA are $100/hr. At 300 hours/year, I've made some chump change but you're still $4200 in the hole. 500 hours/year, I've made $12,000 profit and you're still in the hole. At 750 hours/year, you've made a measly $3,800 and I'm over halfway towards buying the 172 off you, or 1/3 of the way to my second LSA.

2) 172 at $120/hr, LSA still at $100/hr. At 300 hours, we're both just barely in the black - You at $1,771 and me at $642. At 360 hours, I pass you. At 500 hours, We're both doing pretty well, assuming you can convince people that they should spend $20/hr more to fly your old airplane than they spend to fly my new airplane - You've made $9371 and I've made $12,042. At 750, you've made nearly $19K, I've made over $26K.

3) Charging $120/hr for each. After 250 hours, I've made $2800 in profit and you're still in the hole. 500 hours, you've got your $9,371 and I'm out of the poor house with $22,042. 750 hours, you made $18,871 but I bought your airplane with my $41,292.

Higher fixed costs, on any airplane, means we need more hours per year to be able to pay those costs while remaining at a reasonable price point. At the same price point, I would suggest that more people will choose to fly the LSA than the 172 - It's new, it has GPS, and the extra two seats are worthless for training anyway.

I've talked about hours to break even before - Let's talk about rental price to break even. At less than 170 hours a year, the 172 will break even first. Example: At 120 hours/year, it would take $162.24/hr to break even in the 172, or $180.15/hr to break even in the LSA. At 170 or so, they cross, both being just shy of $140/hr, which is still kind of at the upper limit for what I think people outside the expensive states are willing to pay. At 520 hours/year (10 hours/week), the 172 would break even at $100.52/hr, the LSA at $74.65.

No, I'm not trying to break even - But you need to be charging more than those numbers to make a profit. Granted, they're within $10 of each other up until 240 hours/year, so if you can't get the plane to fly at least that much, it's still almost a wash between 170-240 hours/year. But at 240 hours/year, the 172 still needs $122.12/hr just to break even, so you're looking at charging $142/hr to make under $5000 in profit. That's already to the point where the hourly rate is going to be affecting the number of hours per year, IMO.

After one flight in each, do you really think pilots will choose those glorified kites over real airplanes?

And that right there is why I will have more students than you. With a very few exceptions that I think are terrible designs, LSA's *are* real airplanes, not "glorified kites." The ones I've flown fly quite well and are fun to fly. And yes, I think that after one flight in each, your average newbie student pilot will choose the LSA over the 172 in a heartbeat. Remember, they don't have the same biases you do, Wayne - All they know is that they both fly, but the LSA has nice avionics and doesn't smell of rotting 100LL. (Yet, anyway. LOL)

And BTW, your previous post extolled their slow cruise speeds as one of the virtues of the LSA's. Can you point out the posts on any forum from pilots who were seeking ways to downgrade so they can fly slower?

I didn't say that slow cruise speeds were a virtue of LSA's, merely that because of the artificial limitation in cruise speeds, they tend to have larger cabin cross sections and thus more comfort. Besides, they're still every bit as fast as a 172, and they tend to perform better than a 172 in such things as climb rate, takeoff and landing roll, etc.

How in the world will that guy have a clue about what "new vs. old" looks like in an airplane if he's never seen one?

I'll tell you why I think the KLN94 looks old: It uses what looks like a 16-color display. Y'know, like an Apple ][ did back in the 80's. The other Kings use monochrome displays, as do the older Garmins. At least the older Garmins are LCD.

But if my assignment is to compete with some high-priced two-seater, there's no question that I can do it effectively.

Please point out where my numbers are wrong. (Post 241 shows the SWAG's for an $80K slightly-used LSA vs. an old 172 without the upgrades.) Because, it sure looks to me like the only way the 172 beats the LSA is when the number of hours per year is so low as to make the business unsustainable in either case.

Not that I ever will, or will ever want to, because as previously stated I think anybody who gets in this business is nuts.

Sadly, on this we agree.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I guess my point was that showing off aviation to kids who aren't wealthy is somewhat cruel right now. If they get hooked, as we here all know, they're going to be dropped into the world of $100/Hr aircraft rentals.

Well... We're either going to hook people into the world of $100/hr aircraft rentals... Or we're going to hook nobody and the rental business will cease to exist, making something like Cirrus Access the only way to learn how to fly. (That'll be $600,000 for the airplane and $80,000 for the training, please.)

Is it cruel to inspire kids to want to do well in STEM and work towards making enough money to afford a $100/hr airplane rental?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

cheesehead said something several page back that I *really* identified with:

I'll never forget my first lesson not too many months ago. I drove to the airport in my 2005 BMW 5 with the big motor and all the fixin's.

The plane we were using was a 2001 172S, not exactly a "ratty old Cessna". The first thing I thought when I looked into the cabin was, "wow, what a piece of ****." It looked a million years old, had lambskin seat-covers that looked really cheesy, and smelled faintly of armpit. It seemed to be designed for Lilliputians, not linebackers, and it felt more like a toy than an real airplane.

Bingo! Perception is important!

Chris, I'm glad you got in the airplane and flew it. I wonder how many other people go to the airport every year, get the same impression you did, and they turn around and go home and never return.

The same sentiment doesn't extend to my spouse. When I bring up the idea of flying somewhere, she gets a nauseated look. She doesn't enjoy traveling in this loud, uncomfortable, smelly and *VERY* expensive conveyance where she can't recline the seat and has to wear a headset when she could be traveling in quiet, cushy, non-smelly, paid-for, fully reclining luxury. And to be candid, I can see her point.

Another excellent point.

Cirrus sold a ton of planes because they realize that pilots like me have spouses like mine. They realize that if you're paying a pile of money to get from point A to point B, you probably want to do it in style and comfort. So they created an airplane that provokes the opposite reaction from a 172: you stick your head in it and go, "Wow, that thing looks like the inside of a 5-series. Cool. And it goes how fast?"

And, combining with the spouse thing, let's not forget the parachute. Again, perception vs. reality. I can talk until I'm blue in the face about how much better of a safety record the DA40 has than the SR20 (and there are threads here to prove it ) but when I put those two otherwise-comparable ones in front of someone's spouse and say "This is a traditional airplane with a phenomenal safety record - And this is an airplane with a parachute that gets crashed repeatedly" she's still gonna pick the plane with the parachute because it feels more comfortable to have that option, despite the reality.

Now, I'm well aware that a 172 vs a Cirrus isn't an apples-apples comparison, if for no other reason that one costs 2x as much as the other. But my point is that they've sold planes, a lot of them and during crappy economic times, because they recognized and prioritized the high value of perception.

Exactly. And the rest of the industry could learn a lot from Cirrus.

 

[ChrisRikli]

Here's another angle on this whole 172 vs LSA deal: To a non pilot (which is indirectly the core subject of this whole thread) there is no discernible difference between an LSA and a 172. They're both little tiny miniscule toy planes to a general public that identifies a Super ATR or an ERJ 135 as a small plane.

You can argue flight school financials until you're blue in the face but those numbers are irrelevant to the larger issue that is the indirect subject of this thread: creating new and active pilots. Acquiring new student pilots is all about sales and marketing (e.g., perception).

We live in a time where the wonder and excitement of flight has long since passed and has been replaced with disgust and apprehension. Mention "flying" to someone and you've invoked invasive patdowns, surly flight attendants, and backscatter scanners.

Private GA is not a necessity but rather a luxury and privilege. There is a part of the cost of private GA that offset by utility; the rest of the cost has to be justified by the luxury and privilege that GA provides. With the price of private GA almost doubling in less than 10 years, there is more to try to justify but nothing more with which to do so.

 

[wabower]

I think the discussion should also be framed with whether the level of GA activity that we've accepted as normal is instead an artificially inflated number. The special set of circumstances (WW-II, Korea and Viet Nam) coupled with prosperity and the advent of the GA era and low fuel prices and other factors may simply be the exception rather than the norm and perhaps unsustainable without those stimuli and conditions.

There's no question that the industry is shrinking, I think the more interesting question is the level at which it might stabilize. I'm not convinced that outreach, marketing and other related activities produce much in the way of tangible results, if measured by the number of new pilot certificates. Do the flight schools publish the percentage of discounted intro flights that result in new customers who then complete their training?

Here's another angle on this whole 172 vs LSA deal: To a non pilot (which is indirectly the core subject of this whole thread) there is no discernible difference between an LSA and a 172. They're both little tiny miniscule toy planes to a general public that identifies a Super ATR or an ERJ 135 as a small plane.

You can argue flight school financials until you're blue in the face but those numbers are irrelevant to the larger issue that is the indirect subject of this thread: creating new and active pilots. Acquiring new student pilots is all about sales and marketing (e.g., perception).

We live in a time where the wonder and excitement of flight has long since passed and has been replaced with disgust and apprehension. Mention "flying" to someone and you've invoked invasive patdowns, surly flight attendants, and backscatter scanners.

Private GA is not a necessity but rather a luxury and privilege. There is a part of the cost of private GA that offset by utility; the rest of the cost has to be justified by the luxury and privilege that GA provides. With the price of private GA almost doubling in less than 10 years, there is more to try to justify but nothing more with which to do so.

 

[dmccormack]

Do the flight schools publish the percentage of discounted intro flights that result in new customers who then complete their training?

My tiny sample reveals 12 discovery flights, 2 trainees, no completes.

Reason? Lack of time and cash.

 

[ChrisRikli]

I think the discussion should also be framed with whether the level of GA activity that we've accepted as normal is instead an artificially inflated number. The special set of circumstances (WW-II, Korea and Viet Nam) coupled with prosperity and the advent of the GA era and low fuel prices and other factors may simply be the exception rather than the norm and perhaps unsustainable without those stimuli and conditions.

Dude. That is a really great point.

 

[wabower]

Dan, I'd bet your numbers are pretty close to the industry averages.

My tiny sample reveals 12 discovery flights, 2 trainees, no completes.

Reason? Lack of time and cash.

 

[dmccormack]

Dan, I'd bet your numbers are pretty close to the industry averages.

I think so -- discussions with other local CFIs supports that guess.

 

[MadseasoN]

My contention is that a lot of the people who can afford to learn how to fly are going to come to the airport, look at the ratty old C-birds on the line, and decide they want nothing to do with 'em - The perception being that newer is safer, and old = unsafe. We know that perception and reality don't match here, but until we get them hooked, the perception IS important.

Why do you need to move up for your cross countries? Fly somewhere with fuel.

This is the number that you want to increase. You cannot do that with +$100 rental rates + instructor fees. We already said that cost is the main factor, so something has to give. If a paint job matters then have a nice looking 172 or PA28 and a bunch of C150 trainers. The guy who thinks that nice paint = safe can spend more money until he learns otherwise.

In the last 2 months I've taken up 8-9 people in an old Warrior that needs a paint job and interior work. I mention that to them but tell them that the engine has 200 hours on it and it has a nice GPS. They all have said the same thing - 'who cares, it's an airplane - let's stop talking and go flying!'. That's the spirit GA needs.

 

[hindsight2020]

This is the number that you want to increase. You cannot do that with +$100 rental rates + instructor fees. We already said that cost is the main factor, so something has to give. If a paint job matters then have a nice looking 172 or PA28 and a bunch of C150 trainers. The guy who thinks that nice paint = safe can spend more money until he learns otherwise.

In the last 2 months I've taken up 8-9 people in an old Warrior that needs a paint job and interior work. I mention that to them but tell them that the engine has 200 hours on it and it has a nice GPS. They all have said the same thing - 'who cares, it's an airplane - let's stop talking and go flying!'. That's the spirit GA needs.

Yeah but tell them how much it cost to upkeep that lack-luster set of capabilities and comfort level and they'll go: " I'd love to ride roller coasters for a living too, but I ain't gonna do it for 3 bucks an hour". They expect bare bones cost for bare bones fun, and that's not where GA is today. Premium price points for all but the most spartan set of capabilities. It has been established, the costs far have outpaced inflation-adjusted incomes for the same demographic that was the bulk of GA fliers yesteryear. Grandpa doesn't give a %hit, that's also been established here, but the demographic with money everybody wants to gravitate to doesn't exist. We need to deflate this mother down. It's not even about this elitist jab about "since flying is more complex than boating, that's why people don't stick with it". Flying is complex, but it ain't that complex at the low performance level. It's a lack of cash.

Also, even people with disposable income don't tolerate the lack of utility very well either. Again, tell these motivated folks the cost to putz around in a 100kt 70s trainer and they'll tell you to sail a boat. It's crazy. We're competing with boats and ATV fellas. I recognize we're not even aiming at equalizing the economies of scale to that of ATV users, but the current approach ain't working. It's got dedicated enthusiasts such as ourselves sitting on the fence or exiting the stage. This is not looking good. Costs have to come down if we want to allow our children to inherit access to such an inspiring activity. That or we start breaking rules to steal our access back, which wouldn't be totally un-American either, pre-capitalist American anyways. I've got my eye set on experimental aviation as that last bastion of freedom, but that too could be taken away. To each their own on that one.

 

[EdFred]

Tax write off for all flight training to get a private certificate (up to average hours x average rate/hr). Even if people wouldn't normally take lessons, they might - not because it's cheaper - but just because it's an excuse to not give as much to the government.

 

[Everskyward]

I drool over Foreflight because it can offer the exact same features and functionality (over time) that the FAA has created a monopoly for Garmin to charge $10K for. Less than $800 in hardware and less than $100 a year gets me a lot of my buck.

But I wrote that in response to the person who said that technology doesn't mean much to him compared to the experience of flight. My only point was that some people really get into the technology whether it is certified or not. Again, I think it just depends on the person.

 

[Everskyward]

My tiny sample reveals 12 discovery flights, 2 trainees, no completes.

Reason? Lack of time and cash.

But it was that way back in the mid-1980s when I was giving discovery flights. The number of lookers compared to the number of buyers were similar.

 

[dmccormack]

But it was that way back in the mid-1980s when I was giving discovery flights. The number of lookers compared to the number of buyers were similar.

There are three types of Discovery Flight types:

1. Just want to go up once to see what it's like with no intention of continuing
2. Curious about flight (lots of time on MSFS, stories from grandpa, etc), but quickly turned off by turbulence, noise, apparent complexity, whatever
3. Interested in learning to fly

#3 Is further broken down into several categories

1. Mentally and physically capable, but no money
2. Mentally and physically capable, with money
3. Mentally and/or physically incapable, but no money
4. Mentally and/or physically incapable, with money

 

[alaskaflyer]

I drool over Foreflight because it can offer the exact same features and functionality (over time) that the FAA has created a monopoly for Garmin to charge $10K for. Less than $800 in hardware and less than $100 a year gets me a lot of my buck.

That has always been the promise of technology to me, not the bureaucracy untangle-able mess surrounding "Certified" overpriced avionics.

When you know someone's flying in the same soup with a Dynon in their "experimental" aircraft and trusting their life to it, while you're stuck with Garmin at 3x the price... And you can both look down at your iPads and see the same data for 10x cheaper...

The certification system is horribly broken. It's not adding to safety anymore.

Look at the iCub, for crying out loud.

*Rummages around the Interwebs*

Here you go:

http://icub.aero/

If that isn't an ironic example of the argument nothing is

Alas, my need for four seats and the room they provide...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I think the discussion should also be framed with whether the level of GA activity that we've accepted as normal is instead an artificially inflated number. The special set of circumstances (WW-II, Korea and Viet Nam) coupled with prosperity and the advent of the GA era and low fuel prices and other factors may simply be the exception rather than the norm and perhaps unsustainable without those stimuli and conditions.

Hmmm. Good point. But did those make people want to fly, or did they simply force a fair number of people into flying?

It'd be interesting to do a survey of pilots who served in Vietnam and see how many of them learned to fly as part of their service, and how many did so of their own accord afterwards.

I'm not convinced that outreach, marketing and other related activities produce much in the way of tangible results, if measured by the number of new pilot certificates.

That's because we're not doing them. Young Eagles will take many years to pay off (though the payoff could be *starting* by now, it won't be in full swing for probably another 20 years). That's the most organized, largest outreach I can think of. The more local stuff just seems to not get done very much... Operators are sitting out at the airport waiting for people to come to them. It's obviously not working.

 

[dmccormack]

Operators are sitting out at the airport waiting for people to come to them. It's obviously not working.

This is like blaming horse and carriage operators for not being more proactive in finding customers.

There are still plenty of horses out there, and some money to be made, but it's a niche market, the end.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

This is like blaming horse and carriage operators for not being more proactive in finding customers.

There are still plenty of horses out there, and some money to be made, but it's a niche market, the end.

Yeah, but a lot more people would probably consider it if they knew where to go to become a customer of that business. Heck, that's a great date idea but I didn't even think of it until you said something, and I have no idea if such a thing exists in my city. If it does, then I lump those operators in with the FBO's that sit around waiting for people to come to them.

There are lots of people out there who would love to fly and who could afford to fly... We need to show them where and how.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Yeah, but a lot more people would probably consider it if they knew where to go to become a customer of that business. Heck, that's a great date idea but I didn't even think of it until you said something, and I have no idea if such a thing exists in my city. If it does, then I lump those operators in with the FBO's that sit around waiting for people to come to them.

There are lots of people out there who would love to fly and who could afford to fly... We need to show them where and how.

Bah then they might end up flying a better plane than me.

 

[JohnAJohnson]

We need to deflate this mother down....

Normally market forces would work this out, but government over-regulation and airplane chasing parasitic lawyers have us in a death spiral.