Is the bottom going to fall out of the used GA market?

flyingcheesehead said:
You're assuming that regulation is the sole reason we're not building as many planes. Big assumption.

EU aviation is highly regulated, but they don't have the litigious society we do, so the liability costs are way lower. Tort reform would make a major difference for us.

Or are you predicting the second coming of GA after the part 23 rewrite?
Click to expand...

definitely agree with tort reform..
 
When you invest in an airplane, you should consider the long run in flying. I purchased a used Cessna 172, got my ticket then traded it in on a Cherokee Six.

My plan was to restore my "Six", bring it up to modern avionics standards, strobes, auto-pilot, new pain, leather interior, you get the picture.

I paid $58000. for my "Six", l put more than that back in it, more in it than its worth, but.. it was going to be my last airplane. This great six seater and heavy hauler was all the airplane I will need the rest of my life. I would never get back the money I put into it but it will give me a lot of flying pleasure in my life. Its still an old bird, but it is a pleasure to fly, life is not all about the money, just the journey.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
You're assuming that regulation is the sole reason we're not building as many planes. Big assumption.

EU aviation is highly regulated, but they don't have the litigious society we do, so the liability costs are way lower. Tort reform would make a major difference for us.
Click to expand...

I would say liability laws & concerns (Personally, I include these in "regulations") are a major reason we don't build much of anything here anymore.
 
timwinters said:
Yeah, I agree, my '58 model with only 3200 hours, a tight airframe (zero smoking rivets), absolutely no corrosion and about 85% showroom condition should be tossed in the scrap yard tomorrow. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...


My little gem fits that description, except it's ten years older. Do I also have to junk mine?:confused:
 
Bill Jennings said:
We are building a house downtown in an up and coming neighborhood. I will be trading an hour+ per day in the car for a 6mi rountrip bicycle ride. My wife's commute will be similarly reduced. Also, there is a prethora restaurants, bakerys, shops and bars within a 10min walk of our new home, and all of downtown as well as 15+ miles of greenways will be easily bikeable.

We can't wait! I hate wasting lifetime sitting in traffic. Walk and bike more, drive less!
Click to expand...
Congrats that is awesome. A huge quality of life increase right there.
 
As an "Investment" GA is dead, airplanes depreciate, just like almost everything else that is mechanical. :rolleyes: Try buying a boat and using it for 3-5 years and selling it for what you've got in it! :rofl::rofl:
Older airplanes that have been well kept will soldier on, junk is junk and will be sold as junk. Pilots tend to like gadgets, newest, latest, greatest avionics etc, that's why G1000 Cessnas are selling quickly, while steam gauge equipped ones are sitting or selling for much lower prices.
I have two friends buying airplanes right now, another just sold a 2007 182, the market is actually moving right now, or so it appears. ;)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Umm... Most airports with paved runways are public. Get rid of all the public airports, you won't have anywhere for the airplanes to go, nor any place to train new pilots.
Click to expand...
If we didn't have public ones people would build private ones, and they would be better. Public airports are disgusting pits of crap.
 
Geico266 said:
It is actually uncool to own a car now in some circles.
Click to expand...


Cars, guns, airplanes, big radio towers, other things that make lots of noise or require lots of energy to operate...

I pretty much continually **** off that entire clique. :)
 
Geico266 said:
It is actually uncool to own a car now in some circles.
Click to expand...

These people are called hipsters. They wear funny, tight clothes and spend all of their money on small apartments, craft beer and expensive new bicycles that are designed to look old.
 
Last edited:
Bill Jennings said:
Not just aviation. Youth today aren't really into vehicles of any kind. Why drive/travel when you can text, tweet, facebook, facetime, skype...
Click to expand...

Because if you stay home, you won't be spread eagle on the asphalt with your hands cuffed behind your back for being 17. Cars are for people to help them deal with their midlife crisis. Kids don't care about environmentally friendly DOT certified plastic safety chariots that attract cops.
 
ClimbnSink said:
If we didn't have public ones people would build private ones, and they would be better. Public airports are disgusting pits of crap.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Yeah. Last weekend I flew to Decorah, IA. 4000x75 paved - A runway that was likely $4-5M to build. How long do you think it would take to earn that money back if it was private? Who on earth would build a private airport there?

Looking at the FAA's airport database, there are 426 operational privately-owned, public-use airports with paved runways. Only 82 of those have 4000 foot or longer runways.

And looking at the list - The 2nd-worst airport I've ever landed at is there (the worst airport I've ever landed at was unpaved so it wouldn't make the list anyway). So whether an airport is or isn't a "disgusting pit of crap" isn't helped by it being private. And I've been at plenty of very nice public airports - Your argument doesn't hold water IMO.
 
Nothing wrong with grass. Funny you seem adamant that you need other non pilots money to fly. That is part of the problem.
flyingcheesehead said:
Hmmm. Yeah. Last weekend I flew to Decorah, IA. 4000x75 paved - A runway that was likely $4-5M to build. How long do you think it would take to earn that money back if it was private? Who on earth would build a private airport there?

Looking at the FAA's airport database, there are 426 operational privately-owned, public-use airports with paved runways. Only 82 of those have 4000 foot or longer runways.

And looking at the list - The 2nd-worst airport I've ever landed at is there (the worst airport I've ever landed at was unpaved so it wouldn't make the list anyway). So whether an airport is or isn't a "disgusting pit of crap" isn't helped by it being private. And I've been at plenty of very nice public airports - Your argument doesn't hold water IMO.
Click to expand...
 
ClimbnSink said:
Nothing wrong with grass. Funny you seem adamant that you need other non pilots money to fly. That is part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Don't need non-pilots' money - But the pilots' money needs to be (here's that evil word) re-distributed. The guy who sells fuel at Addison, Teterboro, Van Nuys, or Palwaukee is gonna have to share it with the guy who's running the show at Decorah, Antigo, Crete, or Flippin. Otherwise, the whole system won't work, as the only profitable airports will be the ones near major metro areas - IE, pretty much the current airline system.

And if it isn't the government doing the re-distribution, then someone's gonna have to make a profit on it. Do we want LockMart Airport Services in charge? I sure don't.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Don't need non-pilots' money - But the pilots' money needs to be (here's that evil word) re-distributed. The guy who sells fuel at Addison, Teterboro, Van Nuys, or Palwaukee is gonna have to share it with the guy who's running the show at Decorah, Antigo, Crete, or Flippin. Otherwise, the whole system won't work, as the only profitable airports will be the ones near major metro areas - IE, pretty much the current airline system.
Click to expand...
If an airport is not located near a population center it better be located near a resort area or place where there is some business reason for airplane traffic. I've often wondered how small airports and FBOs make it. This is not something recent either. I can remember sitting at small airports all day and not seeing another airplane.
 
If people in flyover land want an airport they should build it with their own money. You don't need anyone in charge of airports that is the whole problem. People want one let them build one. Too poor to build one well hard cheese, hustle or figure something else out. Heck move to where there is a community of rich pilots and ask to use their airport.
flyingcheesehead said:
Don't need non-pilots' money - But the pilots' money needs to be (here's that evil word) re-distributed. The guy who sells fuel at Addison, Teterboro, Van Nuys, or Palwaukee is gonna have to share it with the guy who's running the show at Decorah, Antigo, Crete, or Flippin. Otherwise, the whole system won't work, as the only profitable airports will be the ones near major metro areas - IE, pretty much the current airline system.

And if it isn't the government doing the re-distribution, then someone's gonna have to make a profit on it. Do we want LockMart Airport Services in charge? I sure don't.
Click to expand...
 
DFH65 said:
The issue is really cost. Wages have not kept up with inflation and in many cases people are making less than they did 10 or more years ago due layoffs and having to get back into the work place. Of course much of this depends on what you do and where you live.

When I was a kid my dad bought me a functional car for $525 my insurance for a year was a little more than that and I think minimum wage was $3.35.

In order for my son to buy a car that was equivalent to what I had would cost 2-3000 and the insurance would be $1200 a year. Minimum wage here just hit $8. So while the car has increased 4-5X and insurance has doubled the wage he can earn has simply doubled and the cost of gas has increased 3-4X.
Click to expand...

I have said this same concept to anyone who will listen to me! It is so simple why this country is in the shape we are, this is the real world example of how the current youth, and youth for so long, are really fighting an impossible battle towards economic independence. Their is a book to be written about this comparing potential earning to relative cost of entry level "life products"( first car, first house, education.) When costs sky rocket and salaries do not,people can't acquire.

It's really simple, and sad.
 
ClimbnSink said:
If people in flyover land want an airport they should build it with their own money. You don't need anyone in charge of airports that is the whole problem. People want one let them build one. Too poor to build one well hard cheese, hustle or figure something else out. Heck move to where there is a community of rich pilots and ask to use their airport.
Click to expand...
There are all kinds of airports in "fly-over country" they just don't cater to the airlines. You don't need 10k' of asphalt/concrete, with terminal building and jetways, to serve as an airport.

The downfall of most small town airports is getting too big for their britches, and forgetting who pays the bills there. Thus they regulate themselves out of business.
I'm not about to spend $500k to build a hangar, and pay you rent on it, then just hand you the title after 7-10 years. But that's how it works here. end result is a brand new taxiway leading to nowhere, with a ditch on both sides of it. Been that way for many years, taxiway was built thinking "build it and they will come". Well they came, found out that they would build a hangar and give it to the county, and left.
 
FastEddieB said:
Just take a good look at the average age of attendees at Oshkosh or Sun 'n' Fun.

Most will no longer be flying in a decade or two, and young people with the same passion for aviation are few and far between.

As an aside, the same demographics were in evidence at an RV show we attended in Tampa in January.

Dwindling demand can only have one long term effect on any market.
Click to expand...


The FAA keeps statistics on things like this. In 2003, the average age of a pilot was 44.7. In 2012, the last year that statistics were available the average age was... 44.7. Private ticket holders got a little older, while student ages decreased.
 
Everskyward said:
If an airport is not located near a population center it better be located near a resort area or place where there is some business reason for airplane traffic. I've often wondered how small airports and FBOs make it. This is not something recent either. I can remember sitting at small airports all day and not seeing another airplane.
Click to expand...

Well, I've seen some of the small-town examples where the airport manager lives on or near the field, runs a small shop, and does flight training and charter all just by themselves. That's apparently enough to keep 'em going, but it's a lot of work I'm sure. But they sure as hell wouldn't have enough money left over to build and maintain the airport as well.

ClimbnSink said:
If people in flyover land want an airport they should build it with their own money. You don't need anyone in charge of airports that is the whole problem. People want one let them build one. Too poor to build one well hard cheese, hustle or figure something else out. Heck move to where there is a community of rich pilots and ask to use their airport.
Click to expand...

Well, the problem with that is that even if I could afford my own airport, I doubt there's anyone in Decorah, Iowa that wants and airport and has the scratch to build it. And it doesn't matter how much money *I* have or how nice my airport is, because if there's no airport at the other end, I have no mission and the plane sits on the ground.

If we had as many pilots as drivers, it'd probably work financially. In fact, it'd probably work much better than our highways do - Remember, YOU are paying gas taxes towards the interstate highway system in rural Montana! But a couple dozen airports scattered around the state would be a helluva lot cheaper than building all those roadways. But the point is, this is infrastructure. Having airports everywhere benefits everyone. Private enterprise can never build a system like this, and your idea of having no central authority (private or public) and complete privatization would completely kill GA. Completely.
 
ClimbnSink said:
If people in flyover land want an airport they should build it with their own money. You don't need anyone in charge of airports that is the whole problem. People want one let them build one. Too poor to build one well hard cheese, hustle or figure something else out. Heck move to where there is a community of rich pilots and ask to use their airport.
Click to expand...
And if people in urban areas want food, let them grow it themselves. Too crowded to grow enough? Well, hard cheese, starve your ass off.
 
timwinters said:
And if people in urban areas want food, let them grow it themselves. Too crowded to grow enough? Well, hard cheese, starve your ass off.
Click to expand...

Or they could use their money to buy food and flyover land farmers can use money made from selling food to build their own airports. Does anyone really believe the economic value of little airports shtick?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Hmmm. Yeah. Last weekend I flew to Decorah, IA. 4000x75 paved - A runway that was likely $4-5M to build. How long do you think it would take to earn that money back if it was private? Who on earth would build a private airport there?
Click to expand...
I think you have underestimated the cost of the runway by at least a factor of 2, maybe more depending on local topography and soil conditions.
 
ClimbnSink said:
If people in flyover land want an airport they should build it with their own money. You don't need anyone in charge of airports that is the whole problem. People want one let them build one. Too poor to build one well hard cheese, hustle or figure something else out. Heck move to where there is a community of rich pilots and ask to use their airport.
Click to expand...
The same could be said of the majority of paved roads in the U.S. As much as I value private enterprise and loathe federal overreach, there are some functions that are inherently governmental, and I would put transportation infrastructure in that category.

My company is one of the largest airport engineering firms in the country. We do work from Put in Bay, Ohio to LAX. When it comes to making an airport "nice", it's all about local politics. If there's a problem, that's likely where it is. If there's a solution, that's likely where it comes from. It's usually not a matter of funds, but of priorities.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Does anyone really believe the economic value of little airports shtick?
Click to expand...
My profession is, in part, to measure that. It may surprise you to know that the vast majority of small GA airports have very positive economic value. GA is about a lot more than $100 hamburger runs. You need to look around more.
 
Ken Ibold said:
My profession is, in part, to measure that. It may surprise you to know that the vast majority of small GA airports have very positive economic value. GA is about a lot more than $100 hamburger runs. You need to look around more.
Click to expand...
What does GA do for Decorah, IA?
 
Ken Ibold said:
I think you have underestimated the cost of the runway by at least a factor of 2, maybe more depending on local topography and soil conditions.
Click to expand...

That doesn't surprise me - I was estimating based on the cost of a smaller runway that someone got a quote to pave here a few years ago. Runways are expensive!!! :eek:
 
It's not all that complex. Break it into simple to understand terms. You own an aircraft repair shop. All of your personal expenses come to $5,000.00 per month, house, kid in college, cars, groceries, etc. Your shop expenses come to $5,000.00 per month, hanger rent, tools, utilities, etc. That means you have to have a gross income of around $15,000.00 per month.

That equates to servicing a minimum of fifteen planes per month, assuming you average about a thousand dollars per plane in labor charges. This hypothetical shop has no employees, just the owner.

So at first your doing fine, then fewer planes come in for servicing, you are averaging only ten planes per month. That means you have to raise your prices on labor to $1,500.00 per airplane. As the number of customers keeps dwindling, the higher you must raise your prices on each airplane you service. When it reaches the point that nobody comes to your shop, then you fold.

The same holds true on all of the aviation industry, the fewer the customers, the higher the prices have to be.

When I owned an airplane, I spent around five thousand dollars a year in the aviation industry, that is now gone. The remaining participants will have to either find someone to replace me, or they will have to start paying a little more to be a member of the community.

It will eventually reach the point when there are not enough participants to support the industry, then it will be over. The only bright star in GA at this point is the LSA and experimental market, the certificated fleet is going by by.

It does you no good to buy a great used airplane if it costs more than its worth for an annual, or fuel is thirty dollars a gallon because they do not sell enough of it.

-John
 
John Baker said:
It's not all that complex. Break it into simple to understand terms. You own an aircraft repair shop. All of your personal expenses come to $5,000.00 per month, house, kid in college, cars, groceries, etc. Your shop expenses come to $5,000.00 per month, hanger rent, tools, utilities, etc. That means you have to have a gross income of around $15,000.00 per month.

That equates to servicing a minimum of fifteen planes per month, assuming you average about a thousand dollars per plane in labor charges. This hypothetical shop has no employees, just the owner.

So at first your doing fine, then fewer planes come in for servicing, you are averaging only ten planes per month. That means you have to raise your prices on labor to $1,500.00 per airplane. As the number of customers keeps dwindling, the higher you must raise your prices on each airplane you service. When it reaches the point that nobody comes to your shop, then you fold.

The same holds true on all of the aviation industry, the fewer the customers, the higher the prices have to be.

When I owned an airplane, I spent around five thousand dollars a year in the aviation industry, that is now gone. The remaining participants will have to either find someone to replace me, or they will have to start paying a little more to be a member of the community.

It will eventually reach the point when there are not enough participants to support the industry, then it will be over. The only bright star in GA at this point is the LSA and experimental market, the certificated fleet is going by by.

It does you no good to buy a great used airplane if it costs more than its worth for an annual, or fuel is thirty dollars a gallon because they do not sell enough of it.

-John
Click to expand...

IMHO LSA is the worst possible thing that could have happened to GA.
 
FastEddieB said:
Not for me!

Came along at the best time possible.

And I'm all that really matters, of course!
Click to expand...

We now have a group of people who are complacent with the medical situation at best or for keeping the current medical requirements because their business depends on it. Plus, Nobody wants/wanted an LSA/SPL.
 
bartmc said:
We now have a group of people who are complacent with the medical situation at best...
Click to expand...

And, in your opinion, has that complacency led to any increase in accidents?

Certainly possible, but I have seen no data to that effect. And it's been about 9 years since implementation, so there should be some data one easy or the other.
 
FastEddieB said:
Not for me!

Came along at the best time possible.

And I'm all that really matters, of course!
Click to expand...

It's not a personal thing really. You belong to a generation that holds the aggregate remaining discretionary income in this Country. That wealth is being siphoned away by foreign investors, NOT trickling down to GenX/Y/Z. In so far as we recoup some of the last bastions of discretionary wealth by the continued participation of members of your demographic via LSA, it is an economic positive for the manufacturers and support business of the LSA. It does nothing for the more mainstream GA demographic of small business travelers or recreational non-solo X/C traveler. I am hopeful the part 23 re-write will breathe a little bit of life to the spam can market.

Whatever. The boomers are dying and their paper wealth is being siphoned overseas. Some of us may or may not be able to continue to afford personal aviation. I'm not gonna pay six figures for an LSA kite though. At that point I too will exit, expat or scofflaw. Piper is still building single engine pistons, so all is well on my end. The sky isn't falling yet; with the part 23 re-write, which will eventually become reality (I got time, Im only 32 years old) primary non-commercial will allow me to take the Arrow into de facto experimental status and at that point I'll enjoy the same insulation RV owners enjoy today in terms of legality of flying outside the paper disaster of certified logbook airplanes. Piper is still making arrows, so that's even better on the parts and knowledge side. I owe it to my children to keep at it as much as I can, baby boomer self-centered indifference notwithstanding.

John Baker said:
It will eventually reach the point when there are not enough participants to support the industry, then it will be over. The only bright star in GA at this point is the LSA and experimental market, the certificated fleet is going by by.

It does you no good to buy a great used airplane if it costs more than its worth for an annual, or fuel is thirty dollars a gallon because they do not sell enough of it.

-John
Click to expand...

I owned the same airplane you did for a while, before I upgraded to an Arrow. It cost nowhere near what I acquired it for, in annuals. Maybe in California it does. That's a matter of priorities. I don't live in California because the taxation and price structure of living in that state would make pretty much any discretionary activity of mine unaffordable, whereas in Texas I can without hardship. That translates into QOL for me. I can make the same criticism of New England. Of course, coasters would argue they would never endure the indignity of living in "flyover country", which proves my point that life is a matter of personal priorities.

The other point that I hardly consider fact is the idea that everything is tied to 100LL. Piston airplanes don't have to burn 100L; most don't need to. You decouple GA from 100LL and presto, unicorn-gas pricing goes away. Now you have the economies of scale of automobiles and more participants can afford the activity to a frequency of use that's justifiable in their minds. 10% of the market are holding the other 90% hostage. That's not a sustainable model.

Just like rich people hoarding capital, we're better off with a higher numerical amount of participants spending less money individually, as there is an economic multiplier in terms of support economic functions (servicing multiple units, multiple maintenance cycles, lodging for multiple travelers, food for multiple travelers, et al) that ONE airplane burning all the gas available at an FBO does not create. It stands to reason for the commercial operators to jump to Jet-A/diesel and stop bogarting the community at the expense of the majority who could provide higher aggregate economic output to the communities where they transit in their personal airplane.
 
FastEddieB said:
And, in your opinion, has that complacency led to any increase in accidents?

Certainly possible, but I have seen no data to that effect. And it's been about 9 years since implementation, so there should be some data one easy or the other.
Click to expand...

I'm not terribly concerned with accidents. I'm well into 6 figures deep into aviation, looking at spending another $25K or so this year to get my IR and travel around. I have Zero desire to go to the airport and fart around. My mission is being able to get up on Saturday morning, be at moms house by 9:30 am and come back home Sunday afternoon. That makes visiting family and tending to personal business I have to tend to doable on the weekend. Otherwise, it's a 10 hour drive each way. I have no desire to cram my ass into an LSA to make that trip. Seriously, I'm staring down spending $25K on flying this year alone and one trip to the Dr can **** it all up.
 
hindsight2020 said:
It's not a personal thing really. You belong to a generation that holds the aggregate remaining discretionary income in this Country. That wealth is being siphoned away by foreign investors, NOT trickling down to GenX/Y/Z. In so far as we recoup some of the last bastions of discretionary wealth by the continued participation of members of your demographic via LSA, it is an economic positive for the manufacturers and support business of the LSA. It does nothing for the more mainstream GA demographic of small business travelers or recreational non-solo X/C traveler. I am hopeful the part 23 re-write will breathe a little bit of life to the spam can market.

Whatever. The boomers are dying and their paper wealth is being siphoned overseas. Some of us may or may not be able to continue to afford personal aviation. I'm not gonna pay six figures for an LSA kite though. At that point I too will exit, expat or scofflaw. Piper is still building single engine pistons, so all is well on my end. The sky isn't falling yet; with the part 23 re-write, which will eventually become reality (I got time, Im only 32 years old) primary non-commercial will allow me to take the Arrow into de facto experimental status and at that point I'll enjoy the same insulation RV owners enjoy today in terms of legality of flying outside the paper disaster of certified logbook airplanes. Piper is still making arrows, so that's even better on the parts and knowledge side. I owe it to my children to keep at it as much as I can, baby boomer self-centered indifference notwithstanding.



I owned the same airplane you did for a while, before I upgraded to an Arrow. It cost nowhere near what I acquired it for, in annuals. Maybe in California it does. That's a matter of priorities. I don't live in California because the taxation and price structure of living in that state would make pretty much any discretionary activity of mine unaffordable, whereas in Texas I can without hardship. That translates into QOL for me. I can make the same criticism of New England. Of course, coasters would argue they would never endure the indignity of living in "flyover country", which proves my point that life is a matter of personal priorities.

The other point that I hardly consider fact is the idea that everything is tied to 100LL. Piston airplanes don't have to burn 100L; most don't need to. You decouple GA from 100LL and presto, unicorn-gas pricing goes away. Now you have the economies of scale of automobiles and more participants can afford the activity to a frequency of use that's justifiable in their minds. 10% of the market are holding the other 90% hostage. That's not a sustainable model.

Just like rich people hoarding capital, we're better off with a higher numerical amount of participants spending less money individually, as there is an economic multiplier in terms of support economic functions (servicing multiple units, multiple maintenance cycles, lodging for multiple travelers, food for multiple travelers, et al) that ONE airplane burning all the gas available at an FBO does not create. It stands to reason for the commercial operators to jump to Jet-A/diesel and stop bogarting the community at the expense of the majority who could provide higher aggregate economic output to the communities where they transit in their personal airplane.
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point, my use of expensive annuals and avegas were purely hypothetical. The point was, the fewer the participants, the more everything will cost, until GA is unaffordable. If all of your local mechanics go out of business, you are going to have to fly your plane, or truck it, for it's needed upkeep and repairs.

-John
 
But the point is, this is infrastructure. Having airports everywhere benefits everyone. Private enterprise can never build a system like this, and your idea of having no central authority (private or public) and complete privatization would completely kill GA. Completely.
Click to expand...

You got that right, Kent! Infrastructure is primarily the responsibility of government, because as you say, a good system of airports (and roads and water systems and sewer systems, etc.) is important to us all. What good are interstates in North Dakota and Idaho if they don't connect across Montana? The United States has developed the best system of airports in the world and we need to keep up the effort. Whichever country can move people and goods faster and more efficiently in the future will prosper the most. China has figured this out and is investing in infrastructure at a rapid pace. The U.S. is struggling to compete now and I think at least part of the reason is we have rested on our laurels and not continued the investment in infrastructure that was started in the 1950's and after.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top