FYI: If that was the case why didn't congress pass a law to make GA tax friendly instead of passing GARA which reduced civil liability on products over 18 years old? Shortly there after the GA production lines reopened.
^^^^ This... which trumps even liability issues.
GARA - General Aviation Revitalization Act. While the tax credit loss has been discussed along with other economic issues like finance rates, large used market, etc. the main driver was product liability and the trickle down effect of increased insurance premiums and restrictions. This scenario has been hashed out in a number of reports and papers which became the foundation behind GARA. The same can be said for your comment above "if liability risks were the real concern they would have just bought up all the old airframes and scrapped them" as this is moot due to GARA since the majority of those old airframes are over 18 years old.
Unfortunately, no. Even with GARA the price point had been set on the costs of GA. So if you can find a way to get that price point back to those earlier levels and adjust it for normal inflation you might have a chance to increase demand. However they tried with LSA and couldn't do it either. Having watched aviation, to include my personal business, get decimated by over the top liability processes and the subsequent trickle down effects, I can tell you with certainty no one mentioned the loss of their investment tax credit as the reason they got out of GA.
It sounds so simple, but development and certification are not free. A clean-sheet design that takes advantage of modern materials and construction still needs to bring enough business to cover development at some point, even if the manufacturing costs are lower.
What do you mean? The Raptor program seems to be going well...
);
I have observed the exact opposite. It seems as if GA airports in rural areas are dying while it is thriving more in areas near populations centers. I know this is true around Denver and the San Francisco Bay Area. I think a lot of that is driven by more people with money for play.- urbanization as populations moved from spread out farms in rural areas to the cities (there's a reason States such as Kansas and Wisconsin become known for GA and it's not because of high population density living in downtown condominiums
I mean.. most "great" pieces of tech come from Europe.. without getting into human nature, politics, and all that "jazz" the European "mindset" (for the most part) has seemed less profit driven and more intellect driven (if that makes sense). A lot of our own great US tech after all was a result of Operation Paperclip. US motivation on the other hand seems more profit maximization driven. Without stating which is better, we'll leave that up to the eye of the beholder, I'm not entirely surprised that the same people who gave us Airbus FBW, brought us the Concorde, give us BMW, Audi, Merc, and a host of other tech, are also the same ones pushing the envelope with GA aircraft design. To that point though, how many European ventures have failed (Concorde, Airbus (wouldn't survive without huge EU backing, to Boeing's chagrin), several aircraft makers, car makers, etc.). You need a balance in there.
).. from the other side of the pond you have Oyster, Swan, Boreal, Hallberg Rassy, etc. Granted.. Oyster's quality was recently drawn into question and I believe they're now in bankruptcy, but if given the choice of an Atlantic crossing on a Catalina/Hunter vs Boreal/Hallberg Rassy I wouldn't even think twice about choosing the non US variantsYes! Which is why Cessna and Piper only really exist as a flight school vehicle. Cirrus got lucky and had a perfect storm of good marketing, the whole chute thing, two doors, bigger cabin, etc., but I'm really not sure how long they can sustain their piston sales as the used market for Cirrus grows each day.. why would you spend $1M for something if you can buy virtually the same plane for half the cost? You can buy a very nice turbo G3/G5 SR22 for around $500K.. it will effectively be no different than a new G6 except the wingtips look different. Hell, some of the TN G3 are actually faster. To your point though, you really need either strong financial backing, or lots of capital, or just passion (or some comination). For all the grief we give Peter at Raptor he certainly has the passion part nailed down! The Mooney guys have passion, Piper's got it.. Cessna's passion died when they first killed the piston line. What exists now is just a flightschool vehicle.
..unfortunately my default is the latter!
FYI: that's because a number of industries are subsidized in the EU from R&D up to the manufacture level in some cases. So their priority is less driven to profits than as similar industries in the States.
I think the interest in "seeing the world from above" is still there.. FS2020 made a big splash, just about everyone has some type of RC "drone" and the airshows (that I've been to) still see good attendance.
IMO that's because flying is so commonplace now due to cheap, accessible airline flights. Kids are taken on flights at a rate exponentially higher than during the hey-day of GA, and all their friends have done it too, so the glamour isn't there for them.
This exactly. Same thing with motorcycles. Interest is just not there like it was
Add up those costs and divide by the cost of a typical commercial flight and you can do quite a bit of flying around and not have to pass any tests other than the tickle test at the gate.
In my attempts to get kids interested, I found I couldn't compete with their virtual gaming worlds and as of late their drone worlds. I guess it was too analog for them.
Different strokes for different folks I guess. I can't imagine living somewhere without coastal access. Florida is a cheaper option than many coastal areas, but I'm not ready to give up mountains, the desert, skiing.
(as was I, hell I found a way to do it on the west coast at $75K for a long time)
