The cost of owning?

[iflyforfun]

That is almost a contrived ideal situation ... The aviation/GA market is VERY inefficient and capital intensive. Period.

Your story is like a realtor saying "Oh, finding a cheap house is easy. I did it" - they snatch up the arbitrage deals quicker than you can shake a stick. Joe Shmo has no chance to find the same deals.

Just don't agree. I wouldn't say GA is cheap, but it isn't the insanely expensive hobby we make it out to be (unless we choose to make it so). I did the traditional "got a license, couldn't afford to fly, had a family and finally have enough money to start flying again" routine. That said, when I started flying again, our total household income wasn't much more than what two 35 year old teachers would be making (and we had 2 kids by that time).

I didn't know anybody. Went to the local airport to get current and asked about partnerships/clubs in the area. Joined 3 others in a 172N for $15k/person. Had monthly outlay of <$100/month an flew a beautiful plane for $40/hr wet. Had a Stormscope and IFR GPS, no autopilot. Took the family everywhere for a couple of years before I moved.

I didn't have an inside track, I didn't do maintenance, etc. Also, in 2 years, I only had one or two scheduling conflicts. I'd say GA is capital inefficient, not capital intensive.

I own my own plane by my self now. I CHOOSE to spend a lot more than necessary. It isn't smart, but it is a choice - I work hard and it's what I want. If push comes to shove, I'd get 90% of the utility out of a 3-4 person partnership.

The problem is that we don't promote partnerships. We make it seem this big, scary, risk prone exercise that only the strong of heart should pursue. Take on ONE partner and you cut expenses in half. That's a BIG deal. And what do you give up ... dang near nothing. Lets see, if you assume the flying day starts at 7:00am and wraps at 8:00pm, there are 4750 flying hours a year. If the average pilot flys 100 hours/year in a recreational partnership (a LOT of flying if you aren't using the plane for business), that is 2% capital utilization. Heck, say you fly 2 hours, spend a weekend and fly back 2 hours, and do that a few times a year. You're still at less than 10%. How the heck doesn't a partnership make sense?

Aviation isn't cheap and it isn't easy. Cost and difficulty are real issues, but lets not pretend that it is out of reach for most. MOST people with a boat, or a Harley or two cars that are less than 4 years old can afford flying. They either chose not to or we've led them to believe it is impossible.

 

[wabower]

The new public courses (that are now struggling to stay afloat) were built based on a combination of the projected growth of the game and a dire shortage of tee times in many areas. The growth didn't happen, the number of rounds has declined every year, and the industry is trying to woo the young folks and doing everything they can think of to build play.

Meanwhile, many observers are offering the same too-little-too-late assessment that is prevalent in GA.

But golf had a resurgence there for awhile judging by the number of golf courses that sprung up in the past 20 years. It may be on the decline now. I heard that skiing is having the same problem too.

I could never figure out why anyone would want to watch cars going around and around and around for hundreds of miles.

 

[dmccormack]

New? I don't think so...

Most airplanes sold are not new.

 

[dmccormack]

I'm talking brand new from the factory, planes like a Cessna 172 or a Piper warrior or archer, Husky, etc. I'm not talking about kits or light sport.

Heck, they are almost giving away used airplanes now.

John

Even a fully certificated airplane can be had for less than $30k. Not new, of course -- but airworthy and flyable.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Another relevant -- but barely mentioned -- factor is suitability as a family or spouse activity.

Many families and/ or spouses will travel in motorhomes, camp out of trailers, float along on boats, jet ski along, golf together -- et cetera.

The number of same spouses and family members who actually enjoy droning along in the right seat on a bumpy day with no air conditioning is a bit less.

Illustration: In the last two weeks, we have flown to (and spent a day at) the Alamo in San Antonio, followed by lunch on the famous Riverwalk. We were back home in time for dinner.

Just yesterday we flew to New Braunfels. Had lunch at the famed Coopers BBQ, then drove down to Landa Park to ride the train. We scoped out the town, figured out where WurstFest is going to be (for a return visit) -- and was back home for dinner.

What we did in the last 14 days is patently impossible with any other form of transportation, and we did it in style and comfort. These the are the sorts of flights that convince families and spouses of the utility and joy of GA flying.

 

[dmccormack]

Illustration: In the last two weeks, we have flown to (and spent a day at) the Alamo in San Antonio, followed by lunch on the famous Riverwalk. We were back home in time for dinner.

Just yesterday we flew to New Braunfels. Had lunch at the famed Coopers BBQ, then drove down to Landa Park to ride the train. We scoped out the town, figured out where WurstFest is going to be (for a return visit) -- and was back home for dinner.

What we did in the last 14 days is patently impossible with any other form of transportation, and we did it in style and comfort. These the are the sorts of flights that convince families and spouses of the utility and joy of GA flying.

Yeah, well, not everyone is ok with being aloft.

It is what it is, and no amount of cheerleading or salesmanship will change it for the majority of "I hate flying" types.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I think a whole lot more people than we realize, do consider it to be a very dangerous activity.

John

You are correct. This is another aspect of our new risk-averse society that makes me ill.

When my Dad was my age, everybody smoked, drank (and drove), cars had sharp, pointy things on the dashboard, cribs had slats that were wide enough apart to choke a toddler, pipes were insulated with asbestos, toy train-tracks were cleaned with carbon tetrachloride, almost everyone knew how to shoot, and the idea of suing an airplane manufacturer because the pilot was an idiot was laughable.

People thought all of this was normal. They also flew commercially in DC-4s, behind engines that regularly failed in flight. No biggy -- feather the prop, and soldier on with the other three. Again, this was considered to be normal, and no one gave it too much thought.

Times have changed. Perceptions have changed. What was once considered "normal" and an "acceptable risk" is now thought to be horrifically, insanely reckless.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Yeah, well, not everyone is ok with being aloft.

It is what it is, and no amount of cheerleading or salesmanship will change it for the majority of "I hate flying" types.

True, but I think you're overstating the number of "I hate flying" types.

There are a lot of people who are simply ignorant of general aviation. Once upon a time, I was one of them -- and I was an airplane fanatic. It took a great deal of effort -- and, ultimately, a mentor -- for me to simply break through all the obstacles to learning to fly (Where? How? Who? When? What's involved? Etc.) -- the least of which were the financial hurdles.

We have to do a better job of edumacating the public on the processes involved with learning to fly. AOPA Project Mentor is a great program that I've used to help several people learn to fly. I highly recommend it.

AND we have to stop intimidating people. Pilots LOVE to share stories about their daring exploits, often scaring the bejeesus out of the uninitiated. We also like to make flying sound like scaling Mt. Everest, which does nothing to attract people to the fold.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Disco? Tramatic perhaps, but not killing GA as we know it.John

Disco seems like as good a scapegoat as any...

 

[OffCenter]

Yeah, well, not everyone is ok with being aloft.

Let me take that statement a bit further.
A LOT of people are scared senseless at the idea of being airborn. I have several of 'em in my family and know a few more outside the family.
I would go as far as to say that there are probably more people in this catagory than we would ever believe.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Your story is like a realtor saying "Oh, finding a cheap house is easy. I did it" - they snatch up the arbitrage deals quicker than you can shake a stick. Joe Shmo has no chance to find the same deals.

Oh, pshaw. Pick up Trade-a-Plane right now. Go to Barnstormers.com. There are dozens of airplanes for sale for $18K or less.

My Ercoupe is one of them.

There's nothing magical about finding a cheap airplane. Right now, they are EVERYWHERE.

 

[Everskyward]

AND we have to stop intimidating people. Pilots LOVE to share stories about their daring exploits, often scaring the bejeesus out of the uninitiated. We also like to make flying sound like scaling Mt. Everest, which does nothing to attract people to the fold.

But if you're looking for young people a lot of them love daring exploits. The more extreme the better! Of course that may not be the kind of person you want to attract.

 

[timrj]

Oh, pshaw. Pick up Trade-a-Plane right now. Go to Barnstormers.com. There are dozens of airplanes for sale for $18K or less.

My Ercoupe is one of them.

There's nothing magical about finding a cheap airplane. Right now, they are EVERYWHERE.

If the only goal is to have a cheap airplane then that is easy. I note that you have a different one for doing REAL flying in. If I wanted cheap aviation I would fly gliders or ultralights.

Again, I restate the assertion that acquisition cost is not the issue. Around here a TIEDOWN is $150+. Insurance is at least $100 per month. That's 250 per month and we're not even at the annual or using avfuel yet.

For a new-comer they are also looking at $6k+ just to get the certificate. Aside from a coke habit i'd say flying is as efficient it gets as far as burning through money.

Flying ain't cheap. Period.

I do concede that partnerships are the way to go for reducing the cost significantly. But most people these days are not going to be content with the 2 seat singles. I also doubt that the under 18k planes are something that I would bet my life on each time I wanted to go to the airport - at least without spending another 10k on them...

 

[John Baker]

Oh, pshaw. Pick up Trade-a-Plane right now. Go to Barnstormers.com. There are dozens of airplanes for sale for $18K or less.

My Ercoupe is one of them.

There's nothing magical about finding a cheap airplane. Right now, they are EVERYWHERE.

Yea, but don't you miss having the little peddles to push on? Real airplanes have peddles. Does a Ercoupe even have a turn and bank doohickey?

John

 

[timrj]

Odd claim since news out just today says airline revenue and profits appear to be doing just fine:
http://247wallst.com/2010/10/14/airlines-will-have-record-profits-for-the-third-quarter/

And you're going to ignore the recent history of airlines going belly up, pilot layoffs, pilots being asked to cut salaries, etc? Your article is nice but it covers one quarter of a year...


By the way - it was just a toss-out - someone made the claim that airline prices rising would increase GA use and all I stated was that ticket prices seemed unsustainably low.

Also - if you read the content of the article it actually proves my point more than yours - it is unusual for them to have profit - especially that much.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Most airplanes sold are not new.

No, but you were responding to, and quoted, this:

A new, basic airplane costs around 250K, about the same as a house.

Emphasis mine. Yes, you can get some very nice airplanes for a lot less money than that. Heck, our club just got a 2006 DA40 with a glass panel for a lot less than that. But it ain't new, and somebody's gotta buy the new ones to make them into used ones...

Some folks don't like the idea of flying in a thirty year old airplane

... and that is a problem. Many of the folks who can afford to fly are the kind of people who would never THINK of buying a used car, so they look at the price of new airplanes, and they go buy a nice new boat/motorcycle/RV instead of a ratty old used airplane.

The type of airplane that you fly, Dan, is not the type of airplane that generally attracts new faces into aviation - It's the kind of airplane that people who are already aviators buy. Before I was a pilot, I looked at planes like Barons, TR182's, etc. It's only after we get into flying and discover that there's a lot more to it than going higher, farther, faster that we find how nice an Ercoupe or a Chief can be, and that there is something affordable for us.

 

[dmccormack]

No, but you were responding to, and quoted, this:

No, I didn't. John wrote that after my response.

I had visions of flights to exotic locales when I started flying. Then costs and reality seeped in.

I've done plenty of long cross countries in the last 8 years, but none in my own airplane. I either rented, borrowed, or more recently flew in the right seat (if you wanna fly cheap get your CFI ).

But the Chief should have been my first airplane. I think its alot like motorcycling -- if you first learn to ride on the dirt your transition to road will be far easier. I think you're a better rider, as well (you know what it's like to fall, can handle various hazards, and have built up a risk limit sensor).

Hanging above the earth in a lightweight, underpowered airplane you learn quite a bit in a hurry about flight that power and weight can insulate or even hide.

I'm not a fan of Richard Bach anymore (tomes of overwrought prose in between some diamonds of brilliance) but he had a good essay on the School of Flight.

That model could work.

 

[wabower]

And is the equivalent of the small blind ante in a Texas hld 'em poker pot.

Even a fully certificated airplane can be had for less than $30k. Not new, of course -- but airworthy and flyable.

 

[wabower]

And two trips that others would happily combine into one and complete in three days, including accomodations, for much less than the fully-allocated cost of the plane. I spoke to a cousin yesterday who just returned to his home outside Memphis after driving 4,300 miles in two weeks. He said they had a great time, went all over the pacific northwest, just driving around. He washed the car and put it back in the garage, didn't even need an oil change.

Illustration: In the last two weeks, we have flown to (and spent a day at) the Alamo in San Antonio, followed by lunch on the famous Riverwalk. We were back home in time for dinner.

Just yesterday we flew to New Braunfels. Had lunch at the famed Coopers BBQ, then drove down to Landa Park to ride the train. We scoped out the town, figured out where WurstFest is going to be (for a return visit) -- and was back home for dinner.

What we did in the last 14 days is patently impossible with any other form of transportation, and we did it in style and comfort. These the are the sorts of flights that convince families and spouses of the utility and joy of GA flying.

 

[wabower]

But only of interest and/or usable to those who have already drunk the koolaid and paid for a ticket. That barrier to entry is much greater than you seem to think. With prices that are less than the cost of an outboard motor (never mind the boat) these planes would have been snapped up at much higher prices if the demand existed.

Oh, pshaw. Pick up Trade-a-Plane right now. Go to Barnstormers.com. There are dozens of airplanes for sale for $18K or less.

My Ercoupe is one of them.

There's nothing magical about finding a cheap airplane. Right now, they are EVERYWHERE.

 

[wabower]

Current airline profits are distorted by the impact of recently-implemented baggage fees and other add-ons that haven't been fully digested. If the industry has repriced itself with these fees (as opposed to increased ticket prices) the outlook for the industry is much better. How their decisions affect their ongoing business is yet to be determined.

And you're going to ignore the recent history of airlines going belly up, pilot layoffs, pilots being asked to cut salaries, etc? Your article is nice but it covers one quarter of a year...


By the way - it was just a toss-out - someone made the claim that airline prices rising would increase GA use and all I stated was that ticket prices seemed unsustainably low.

Also - if you read the content of the article it actually proves my point more than yours - it is unusual for them to have profit - especially that much.

 

[Ted]

Us pilots make great ostriches sometimes. Compare it to your ground-based vehicles. Jay's Ercoupe and Dan's Chief are cheap to fly, that's true. But they are roughly as practical as, say, a 250cc motorcycle (which is also cheap to operate). If all that you want to do with your flying is to be in the sky, then that's fine. The experimental market has made these sorts of things a lot more affordable, and the options out there have made it such that it's easy for people to get in the sky.

Now the kind of aviation that Wayne, Mari, and I tend to think of is the serious aviation that gets you where you're going. The fact is the sorts of planes that are cheap to fly are not serious travel machines. It doesn't matter how cheap it is to buy them. Operating expenses are more expensive. I've found flying the Aztec that fuel is actually LESS expensive than the dry costs. If Piper built new Aztecs today, they would probably cost about $800,000. Parts are priced accordingly, and worse yet, the plane is 40 years old, so more of them break. Even if you get a FIKI piston twin for free (which to me is the bare minimum for a serious go-places airplane east of the Rockies), you will very quickly spend more the cost of a nice car in maintenance and other fixed costs, nevermind fuel.

My Ford Excursion, which I believe is pretty much in the same category as the Aztec, has been virtually maintenance free since purchase. In 3 years of ownership and 50,000 miles, the total costs incurred have been around $10,000, including purchase, not including fuel (I've probably spent another $10,000 on fuel).

For aviation to be affordable, you need aircraft to exist that get $/mile costs on a similar level to an equivalent car (obviously a bit higher since you'll get worse MPG) with a similar level of reliability as a means of transport. Maybe on the very low end (i.e. the just get up in the air planes that are more comparable to an impractical motorcycle) it's close enough to not matter. But on the higher end, it's nowhere near equivalent.

 

[wabower]

The market analysts refer to most of the airplanes you're describing as having no transportation value. Sure you could fly it from Iowa City to Oshkosh, and many zealots to great efforts to fly their airplanes across the country to get their each year. The traveling public, however, seems disinclined to share the adventure of numerous 2-hour 150-mile legs for two straight days (that, depending on weather, could be 10 days) in the heat and humidity of the midwest.

As we near completion of our L-2 rebuild, my partner and I joke about which one of us has to fly the damn thing to Oshkosh. I'm pretty sure the novelty will wear off long before Tulsa.

Oh, pshaw. Pick up Trade-a-Plane right now. Go to Barnstormers.com. There are dozens of airplanes for sale for $18K or less.

My Ercoupe is one of them.

There's nothing magical about finding a cheap airplane. Right now, they are EVERYWHERE.

 

[Ted]

But only of interest and/or usable to those who have already drunk the koolaid and paid for a ticket. That barrier to entry is much greater than you seem to think. With prices that are less than the cost of an outboard motor (never mind the boat) these planes would have been snapped up at much higher prices if the demand existed.

And even free planes that provide you any kind of serious capabilities are expensive. My mom isn't much of an economist, but she did tell me that free things cost money when I was a kid. I didn't get it when I was 5, but I got it once I started having to pay the bills.

 

[Everskyward]

The traveling public, however, seems disinclined to share the adventure of numerous 2-hour 150-mile legs for two straight days (that, depending on weather, could be 10 days) in the heat and humidity of the midwest.

Exactly. Most of the traveling public does not want an "adventure". For them it's all about the destination, not the journey. I've had conversations with many of our passengers and most of them are only interested in the airplane to the extent that it meets their transportation needs, that is if they are interested at all which most of them don't seem to be. The engineering/scientific/technical crowd appreciates the mechanical aspects but even they don't seem to have much interest in learning to fly. I don't think money would be much of a barrier to many of them either.

We who are pilots generally love flying and want to share it with people, which is great, but I think that in our zeal to spread the word we sometimes overstate the arguments we are trying to use to convince people that it is the greatest thing since ice cream. I think a better approach would be to take the people who are already interested and give them better service at flight schools and FBOs which sometimes tend to be cliquish places.

 

[Baron2PG]

Now the kind of aviation that Wayne, Mari, and I tend to think of is the serious aviation that gets you where you're going. The fact is the sorts of planes that are cheap to fly are not serious travel machines. It doesn't matter how cheap it is to buy them. Operating expenses are more expensive. I've found flying the Aztec that fuel is actually LESS expensive than the dry costs. If Piper built new Aztecs today, they would probably cost about $800,000. Parts are priced accordingly, and worse yet, the plane is 40 years old, so more of them break. Even if you get a FIKI piston twin for free (which to me is the bare minimum for a serious go-places airplane east of the Rockies), you will very quickly spend more the cost of a nice car in maintenance and other fixed costs, nevermind fuel.

My Ford Excursion, which I believe is pretty much in the same category as the Aztec, has been virtually maintenance free since purchase. In 3 years of ownership and 50,000 miles, the total costs incurred have been around $10,000, including purchase, not including fuel (I've probably spent another $10,000 on fuel).

For aviation to be affordable, you need aircraft to exist that get $/mile costs on a similar level to an equivalent car (obviously a bit higher since you'll get worse MPG) with a similar level of reliability as a means of transport. Maybe on the very low end (i.e. the just get up in the air planes that are more comparable to an impractical motorcycle) it's close enough to not matter. But on the higher end, it's nowhere near equivalent.

Don't forget the cost of TIME. It is not only $/mile it is also Time/Mile. My Baron isn't cheap to fly; no doubt (~$250/hr). As stated above my fixed cost is more then fuel cost (~$150/hr fix ~$100/hr variable). However, for any trip east of the Mississippi River (I live near KCHS) my Baron is typically faster than an airline and cheaper than my car; much cheaper if I factor the cost of my time. My routine trip is to Washington DC. By car it is a 9 hour drive and a high probability of getting stuck in traffic for much longer; total cost ~$1125; much more if I have any employees with me. The flight time is 2 hours; total cost ~$700; actually $500 because my time during flight should be free as I'm doing what I love to do.

But don't forget that I'm not driving by car both ways in one day; actually it takes 2-3 days so I'm paying for food, hotel (~$300) and lots of lost productivity and time away from family. With the Baron I fly up before the meeting and leave immediately after. If you factor it that way it is cheaper to fly the Baron then to drive without taking cost of time into account.

As for reliability, my trips are 90%+ on-time with no issue due to maintenance or weather. When I do have a major issue, well we jump on the airline and deal with the mysery of being assaulted by TSA and packed in a flying greyhound petri dish.

 

[John Baker]

Question: How much does it cost to learn to fly?

Answer: That depends on you, and how much time you can put into it. If you fly every day, probably around four to six thousand dollars. It also depends on the flight training school you attend, your age can be a factor. Your health can be another factor. Are you a citizen? Learning to fly can go over fifty thousand dollars or more.

Question: Is it dangerous?

Answer: Thats up to you again, most fatal accidents can be traced directly to pilot error. Have you ever made mistakes?

Question: What if I want to own my own airplane, how much does that cost?

Answer: Well that's up to you again, there are a lot of variables. Essentially though, if you have to ask such a question, plan on flying an older, smaller airplane. The basic price of ownership is probably around twenty or thirty thousand dollars to make a purchase for an older airplane, then about five thousand more dollars a year to maintain it, park it, and fly it, if you are a frugal person.

Question: How appealing (appalling) is all that to the average working stiff?

John

 

[Ted]

Don't forget the cost of TIME. It is not only $/mile it is also Time/Mile. My Baron isn't cheap to fly; no doubt (~$250/hr). As stated above my fixed cost is more then fuel cost (~$150/hr fix ~$100/hr variable). However, for any trip east of the Mississippi River (I live near KCHS) my Baron is typically faster than an airline and cheaper than my car; much cheaper if I factor the cost of my time. My routine trip is to Washington DC. By car it is a 9 hour drive and a high probability of getting stuck in traffic for much longer; total cost ~$1125; much more if I have any employees with me. The flight time is 2 hours; total cost ~$700; actually $500 because my time during flight should be free as I'm doing what I love to do.

But don't forget that I'm not driving by car both ways in one day; actually it takes 2-3 days so I'm paying for food, hotel (~$300) and lots of lost productivity and time away from family. With the Baron I fly up before the meeting and leave immediately after. If you factor it that way it is cheaper to fly the Baron then to drive without taking cost of time into account.

As for reliability, my trips are 90%+ on-time with no issue due to maintenance or weather. When I do have a major issue, well we jump on the airline and deal with the mysery of being assaulted by TSA and packed in a flying greyhound petri dish.

I intentionally left out the cost of time aspect. While it applies to you and me (I have said for a long time that the Aztec is my time machine), for some it doesn't apply (or rather they choose not to factor it). So you and I are on the same page. I've had about 98% trip reliability with my Aztec. I can't say the same for any commercial travel.

For me, most places within a 1000 nm radius show the Aztec to be faster from my home (KIPT). As far as the value of my time, I place variations on that. For instance, when my day job is paying I go whatever method they're paying me to go. Reason being that they are paying me for my time, however long that takes. If it's my personal time, however, I place a significantly higher value on my time, and will tend to pick the fastest method because I have a limited amount of free time, and while I'm interested in the journey and the destination, the destination is typically the driving factor. So if flying myself saves me time, I'll do it even if it costs me more money.

But sometimes I also just feel like taking my sports car on a trip, or riding the motorcycle somewhere. In those cases, the extra time doesn't bother me, because the point of the trip is in part to enjoy my vehicle. Actually on crappy days I'd rather take the Aztec and go fly in the clouds shooting low approaches. On nice fall days like today, I'd rather take the Mitsubishi or the motorcycle.

 

[PoppaJimmy]

Very interesting thread. Lots of good points. Likely parts of all of them contribute to the current situation. I'll throw this into the mix:

There are 100s of millions of car (and trucks, etc.) owners all over the world. Only a small percentage of them own cars because they love driving or love cars themselves. They own in order to go places and carry lots of stuff, often every day. They buy what will fill their needs for their various activities, then add to that what they like personally - looks, comfort, etc., and finally, what they can afford.

I didn't get into flying because of a love for it or for airplanes. Rather, I got involved because of the potential usefulness of it. A LSA will not do what I need. It doesn't matter how inexpensive it is. I spent the money to get a private, instrument and multi-engine licenses because that is the type of airplane I intend to purchase and will meet my needs (accepted that there are singles that do as well as most light twins). I only later realized how much I enjoy it but, for many, the same could be said of driving.

We also cannot discount the fact that, for most people, learning to drive and maintaining that ability is much easier than flying. For those who do it, flying may seem easy but that's true of many activities for those who are into it. A Judo person may say, this is the easiest thing in the world, so might a Poker player or Snowboarder. The reality for most people though is that learning to fly could be one of the most difficult things they ever try. Ground School stops many people cold and actually flying in a small plane, really knowing what you're doing, staying current with your skills, and on and on ... requires more of an investment of effort than most people are willing to put forth. Not because they can't, but because they don't want to, if they don't have to. You learn to drive and, for most people, that's it. They're done. In flying, we all know the quote, "A good pilot is always learning." For most people, that is not their definition of fun.

If you are only considering people who are flying because they like it, you will always have a smaller group. The 'real' population is for those who would fly in order to go somewhere, reasonably quickly, carrying everything they need in whatever they view as comfort and at something approaching a reasonable cost.

When you look at it from that perspective, flying for its usefulness rather than just for the fun of it, there is quite a ways to go before GA is accessible to the average person in a way that compares with loading up the family vehicle and hauling a trailer. The learing curve, regulations, purchase cost, maintenence, insurance, continuing education, perception of safety, and all the other things mentioned previously, start to really add up for a person who wants to use an airplane regularly as a travel/work/leisure option.

Just my $0.02.

Be Well,

Jimmy

 

[Everskyward]

I intentionally left out the cost of time aspect. While it applies to you and me (I have said for a long time that the Aztec is my time machine), for some it doesn't apply (or rather they choose not to factor it). So you and I are on the same page. I've had about 98% trip reliability with my Aztec. I can't say the same for any commercial travel.

But the two of you are talking about an Aztec and a Baron which fall way outside the price of a motorcycle, a car, a personal-sized truck or most boats, especially when you consider the fixed and operating costs on top of the cost of acquisition. Like someone mentioned, it's a significant leap to go from a pleasant diversion to reliable transportation. I've also figured out that the advantages GA has in transportation depends a lot on where you live and where you want or need to travel. As you know my frequent personal trip is KDEN-KSFO. There are a selection non-stop flights on a number of different airlines to choose from plus you would need a fairly capable GA airplane to be able to do that reliably so the equation has never been in favor of GA, for me anyway. It would be fun to take a low and slow airplane on that route and bum around... maybe once or twice. A couple weeks ago I was having a conversation with a frequent passenger who knows that I make that trip. He asked me if I had ever considered buying a personal airplane. I hemmed and hawed and conceded that I had once tossed around the idea of a Super-D, but not very seriously. Then he suggested that perhaps a King Air would be a good airplane for me to buy.

 

[gprellwitz]

No, I didn't. John wrote that after my response.

Impossible. Go back and look at your post again and the text you quoted. He reiterated it after your post.

 

[Ted]

But the two of you are talking about an Aztec and a Baron which fall way outside the price of a motorcycle, a car, a personal-sized truck or most boats, especially when you consider the fixed and operating costs on top of the cost of acquisition.

Which I thought was my point in the first place.

I think the $/mile for a lot of boats ends up being not much lower than planes, though. One guy I used to know had a Cigarette boat that he proudly stated got 1 mpg. Henning knows more here than me, but that sounds pretty inefficient.

Basically my point was that when you get to the point of serious, go-anywhere transportation, planes cost money. If all you want to do is get in the sky, it can be done cheaply, but not as cheaply as a motorcycle.

Like someone mentioned, it's a significant leap to go from a pleasant diversion to reliable transportation.

I thought I did.

I've also figured out that the advantages GA has in transportation depends a lot on where you live and where you want or need to travel. As you know my frequent personal trip is KDEN-KSFO. There are a selection non-stop flights on a number of different airlines to choose from plus you would need a fairly capable GA airplane to be able to do that reliably so the equation has never been in favor of GA, for me anyway. It would be fun to take a low and slow airplane on that route and bum around... maybe once or twice. A couple weeks ago I was having a conversation with a frequent passenger who knows that I make that trip. He asked me if I had ever considered buying a personal airplane. I hemmed and hawed and conceded that I had once tossed around the idea of a Super-D, but not very seriously. Then he suggested that perhaps a King Air would be a good airplane for me to buy.

Exactly. And to be able to provide reasonable reliability for your most frequent travel route, a King Air would be a good airplane for you to buy. Of course, at that point you're not only spending a ridiculous amount of money, but also more time. East of the rockies is much simpler.

 

[Everskyward]

I think the $/mile for a lot of boats ends up being not much lower than planes, though. One guy I used to know had a Cigarette boat that he proudly stated got 1 mpg. Henning knows more here than me, but that sounds pretty inefficient.

But people who buy Cigarette boats or most other boats don't try to convince anyone that they are an efficient means of transportation. They are just content to say that they are a lot of fun and leave it at that. Airplane advocates don't seem to be able to do that for some reason.

Exactly. And to be able to provide reasonable reliability for your most frequent travel route, a King Air would be a good airplane for you to buy. Of course, at that point you're not only spending a ridiculous amount of money, but also more time. East of the rockies is much simpler.

In thinking about it, the time would be pretty much a wash. A King Air might be about 1 1/2 hours slower but KAPA is about half the distance as KDEN driving time and I can have that airplane ready to go in an hour easy. I could rent a car at Signature SFO, which is the closest airport to my destination, without having to take the airtrain to the rental car facility. Of course there are the fees at Signature but heck, if you're talking about me owning a King Air what do fees matter?

 

[Henning]

One other factor missed, a lot of the WWII generation was getting into their 60s in the late 70s early 80s and that is where you start failing your medicals. That was the last generation mass introduced into aviation.

 

[dmccormack]

Question: How appealing (appalling) is all that to the average working stiff?

John

Does it matter?

After all, there is no recreation other than bait fishing that can be entered without some cost in time, materials, and acquired skill.

 

[Baron2PG]

But the two of you are talking about an Aztec and a Baron which fall way outside the price of a motorcycle, a car, a personal-sized truck or most boats, especially when you consider the fixed and operating costs on top of the cost of acquisition. Like someone mentioned, it's a significant leap to go from a pleasant diversion to reliable transportation. I've also figured out that the advantages GA has in transportation depends a lot on where you live and where you want or need to travel. As you know my frequent personal trip is KDEN-KSFO. There are a selection non-stop flights on a number of different airlines to choose from plus you would need a fairly capable GA airplane to be able to do that reliably so the equation has never been in favor of GA, for me anyway. It would be fun to take a low and slow airplane on that route and bum around... maybe once or twice. A couple weeks ago I was having a conversation with a frequent passenger who knows that I make that trip. He asked me if I had ever considered buying a personal airplane. I hemmed and hawed and conceded that I had once tossed around the idea of a Super-D, but not very seriously. Then he suggested that perhaps a King Air would be a good airplane for me to buy.

True - I've worked very hard for a number of years to get to the position of affording, borrowing from the Aztec, a Baron Time Machine. There are many people who will never be able to afford any sort of aircraft let alone a Harley or nice boat. Unfortunately, the government in all its wisdom has decided that airplanes need special attention in the form of FARs, FAA, Certification, etc whereas motorcycles, boats and the like get only a cursior glance thus making aircraft much more expensive then they need to be (not to mention the lawyers). Another thread to be sure.

The experimental class and the new light sport class could be the saving grace for GA offering a lower cost way to get hooked on flying - yet another thread too.

I flew a Grumman Tiger (AA5B) for a number of years; yes hard IFR. The airplane cost ~$40K (a ton of money at the time). That was equivalent to buying a really nice boat. My wife and I discussed that very trade off and determined the net costs: parking, maintenance, insurance, taxes were about a wash. We decided that boating in circles around the same patch of water wasn't going to be as much fun as flying to many new places. (turned out to be very true) Even though the Tiger (which I would love to have back by the way) was albiet a bit slower then the Baron it still was a fairly useful machine carrying two or three (one very small dude) adults 400-500nm at 130Knots. As evaluated above, the Tiger was still a very economical machine if you have to travel (about $40/hr variable).

Just my opinion , once you drop below the ~125K speed and 400-500 mile range with two adults and bags the aiplane becomes more of a toy, fun to be sure (aka boat, jetski, motorcycle) then a "Time Machine" business tool.

 

[Ted]

But people who buy Cigarette boats or most other boats don't try to convince anyone that they are an efficient means of transportation. They are just content to say that they are a lot of fun and leave it at that. Airplane advocates don't seem to be able to do that for some reason.

It's harder to convince anyone that a boat is an efficient means of transportation, though, since the fast ones are still slower than my truck. With airplanes even the slowest one has an airspeed faster than what you can legally do on the road. However I would argue that if you're flying a plane that can only go 100 mph, that my Mitsubishi would beat you door-to-door on most no-wind days. Dan has admitted the days he flies to work are at best a wash.

When you get into the range of Aztecs, Barons, etc. then you're at the point where you have something that actually is an efficient mode of transport. It's pretty hard to argue that my most recent flight in the 310 from Cozumel to Pennsylvania in one day would be hard to do otherwise, especially when you consider the fact that I had 32 cats on board.

 

[tonycondon]

i can't afford not to own

 

[flyingcheesehead]

No, I didn't. John wrote that after my response.

Um... Look again:

I've done plenty of long cross countries in the last 8 years, but none in my own airplane. I either rented, borrowed, or more recently flew in the right seat (if you wanna fly cheap get your CFI ).

If you wanna NEED to fly cheap get your CFI.

That actually brings something up, though - People say to buy an airplane that'll work for 90% of your missions, and rent for the other 10. Sounds good, but often it's impossible to rent the 10% plane, or there's currency issues where you'd have to get re-checked out. So, people buy the plane for the 10% missions (family vacations with 6 seats) that will work for the 90% missions (just getting somewhere fast, alone - Or poking holes in the sky). And that tends to be more expensive.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Mari absolutely nailed it:

We who are pilots generally love flying and want to share it with people, which is great, but I think that in our zeal to spread the word we sometimes overstate the arguments we are trying to use to convince people that it is the greatest thing since ice cream. I think a better approach would be to take the people who are already interested and give them better service at flight schools and FBOs which sometimes tend to be cliquish places.

How many people have wanted to fly, walked into an FBO, not been greeted, looked around for a bit, and walked back out? How many people have come to an airport to find that it has fences, key-pass doors and gates, and nobody to tell them where to go for the next step?

We will NEVER be able to convince everyone that flying is something they should do - But we need to take every person who has that nascent desire to get off the ground and give them the best possible chance of succeeding, much of which is getting easily into, and fitting into, our community.