Airplane prices are ridiculous

Mark wrote:
Relatively speaking the price of an airplane today
is much higher than they were in the 1970's as
compared to the value of a dollar and average wages
back then. And really, if you look at the price of
complex automobiles with all the bells and whistles
there really is no justification for planes to be priced
so high. There just isn't that much more technology
or material.

For me personally after looking at the economy, I'd
rather keep that much money in a safe place right
now drawing a humble rate of interest than to spend
it on a plane worth 35K that costs 120K.

---
Mark

When airplanes become mass produced in millions per year by robots,
the price won't be much more than cars.

Of course, airplanes are never going to be mass produced in millions per
year by robots.

In term of cost, the best time to buy stuff is when the economy is down
and people are dealing.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 9, 8:51*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
Relatively speaking the price of an airplane today
is much higher than they were in the 1970's as
compared to the value of a dollar and average wages
back then. *And really, if you look at the price of
complex automobiles with all the bells and whistles
there really is no justification for planes to be priced
so high. There just isn't that much more technology
or material.

For me personally after looking at the economy, I'd
rather keep that much money in a safe place right
now drawing a humble rate of interest than to spend
it on a plane worth 35K that costs 120K.

---
Mark

When airplanes become mass produced in millions per year by robots,
the price won't be much more than cars.

So why, relatively speaking, were planes so much cheaper
back in the 1970's? I don't think it was supply and demand
but I could be wrong.

Of course, airplanes are never going to be mass produced in millions per
year by robots.

Maybe not but with globalization of the world economy I
wouldn't be suprised to see China step up to the plate and
fill this niche. From a stand-point of profitablility I'm sure
Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft among others have found a
nice balance of optimum profit by producing just enough
inventory to keep the prices where they want them without
having to tool up and mass produce. Labor would be their
largest overhead and human resource management is
always volatile.

Back to the Chinese... this short video gives a nice little
tutorial on the state of electric airplanes and China's
contribution. Just think, no oxygen required.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwyyQ1BckK0

In term of cost, the best time to buy stuff is when the economy is
down
and people are dealing.

No doubt and people are selling everything these days,
especially in Florida where houses are 1/2 (or less)
their former price. Most anywhere you can find a boat,
travel trailor, or motorcycle for bargain prices and people
are selling 120K airplanes for 80K. Problem is, after a
year or so most of those toys just end up sitting in the
garage and the 80K plane is STILL overpriced.

--
Mark


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mark wrote:
On Sep 9, 8:51Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
Relatively speaking the price of an airplane today
is much higher than they were in the 1970's as
compared to the value of a dollar and average wages
back then. Â*And really, if you look at the price of
complex automobiles with all the bells and whistles
there really is no justification for planes to be priced
so high. There just isn't that much more technology
or material.

For me personally after looking at the economy, I'd
rather keep that much money in a safe place right
now drawing a humble rate of interest than to spend
it on a plane worth 35K that costs 120K.

---
Mark

When airplanes become mass produced in millions per year by robots,
the price won't be much more than cars.

So why, relatively speaking, were planes so much cheaper
back in the 1970's? I don't think it was supply and demand
but I could be wrong.

They weren't.

A decent, used, lower end airplane both then and now costs about the same
as a high end car.

Oh, sure, in absolute dollars they were a lot cheaper then, but so was
everything else.

Of course, airplanes are never going to be mass produced in millions per
year by robots.

Maybe not but with globalization of the world economy I
wouldn't be suprised to see China step up to the plate and
fill this niche.

What niche?

The equipment to do robotic building costs big bucks that can only be
payed for by huge volumes.

Even if the price for a new Cessna/Cirrus/Piper were the same as a new car,
the percentage of people owning airplanes would not change very much simply
because most people are not interested in owning an airplane.

The bottom line is there is no huge market for airplanes at any price which
means the building of them will never be automatted like cars are.

From a stand-point of profitablility I'm sure
Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft among others have found a
nice balance of optimum profit by producing just enough
inventory to keep the prices where they want them without
having to tool up and mass produce. Labor would be their
largest overhead and human resource management is
always volatile.

Utter nonsense.

All the airplane makers have been struggling just to survive for a decade
or so now.

Back to the Chinese... this short video gives a nice little
tutorial on the state of electric airplanes and China's
contribution. Just think, no oxygen required.

Electric airplanes are toys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwyyQ1BckK0

In term of cost, the best time to buy stuff is when the economy is
down
and people are dealing.

No doubt and people are selling everything these days,
especially in Florida where houses are 1/2 (or less)
their former price. Most anywhere you can find a boat,
travel trailor, or motorcycle for bargain prices and people
are selling 120K airplanes for 80K. Problem is, after a
year or so most of those toys just end up sitting in the
garage and the 80K plane is STILL overpriced.

What are you, 15?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 10, 12:12*pm, wrote:

So why, relatively speaking, were planes so much cheaper
back in the 1970's? *I don't think it was supply and demand
but I could be wrong.

They weren't.

A decent, used, lower end airplane both then and now costs about the same
as a high end car.

Oh, sure, in absolute dollars they were a lot cheaper then, but so was
everything else.

My understanding is that the RATIO has not been maintained,
as I've already stated and RELATIVELY speaking planes cost
more today than in the 1970's.

Of course, airplanes are never going to be mass produced in millions per
year by robots.

Maybe not but with globalization of the world economy I
wouldn't be suprised to see China step up to the plate and
fill this niche.

What niche?

The sector of people who don't want to pay more than
50K.

The equipment to do robotic building costs big bucks that can only be
payed for by huge volumes.

Yes I am familiar with this, as I worked for Lockheed during
the 70's and 80's.

Even if the price for a new Cessna/Cirrus/Piper were the same as a new car,
the percentage of people owning airplanes would not change very much simply
because most people are not interested in owning an airplane.

I'm sure that there are MANY people who would own an
airplane today if they could get one for $24,900.

The bottom line is there is no huge market for airplanes at any price which
means the building of them will never be automatted like cars are.

While I wouldn't expect a company to try and crank out planes
as if they were toyotas, I think the cheap international labor
market could make available a reasonably priced new craft
for the geneneral aviation market.

* From a stand-point of profitablility I'm sure

Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft among others have found a
nice balance of optimum profit by producing just enough
inventory to keep the prices where they want them without
having to tool up and mass produce. Labor would be their
largest overhead and human resource management is
always volatile.

Utter nonsense.

Wrong. Generally speaking your highest on-going overhead
is labor. With any successful business, at some time the
idea of expansion is entertained, and while your actual sales
very well may increase (the reason for examining expansion)
very likely your profits may decrease.

All the airplane makers have been struggling just to survive for a
decade
or so now.

Agreed, with many going bankrupt but it isn't due
to lack of demand. (you know...supply/demand)

Back to the Chinese... *this short video gives a nice little
tutorial on the state of electric airplanes and China's
contribution. Just think, no oxygen required.

Electric airplanes are toys.

Precisely what was said about the telephone..."Just a toy".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwyyQ1BckK0

In term of cost, the best time to buy stuff is when the economy is
down
and people are dealing.

No doubt and people are selling everything these days,
especially in Florida where houses are 1/2 (or less)
their former price. Most anywhere you can find a boat,
travel trailor, or motorcycle for bargain prices and people
are selling 120K airplanes for 80K. Problem is, after a
year or so most of those toys just end up sitting in the
garage and the 80K plane is STILL overpriced.

What are you, 15?

No need for insults. I'm 55, became financially
independent at age 40, and I didn't do it by throwing
away money on impulse spending.

Thanks, Mark



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mark wrote:
On Sep 10, 12:12Â*pm, wrote:

So why, relatively speaking, were planes so much cheaper
back in the 1970's? Â*I don't think it was supply and demand
but I could be wrong.

They weren't.

A decent, used, lower end airplane both then and now costs about the same
as a high end car.

Oh, sure, in absolute dollars they were a lot cheaper then, but so was
everything else.

My understanding is that the RATIO has not been maintained,
as I've already stated and RELATIVELY speaking planes cost
more today than in the 1970's.

It is rather trivial to find both the current price and the 70's price
for things.

Why don't you do that and let us know what numbers you come up with?


Of course, airplanes are never going to be mass produced in millions per
year by robots.

Maybe not but with globalization of the world economy I
wouldn't be suprised to see China step up to the plate and
fill this niche.

What niche?

The sector of people who don't want to pay more than
50K.

There are lots of airplanes available for under $50k, just not new.

However many new cars are now pushing $50k.

The equipment to do robotic building costs big bucks that can only be
payed for by huge volumes.

Yes I am familiar with this, as I worked for Lockheed during
the 70's and 80's.

Yeah, and I worked for Lockheed in the 60's.

Lockheed never automatted anything to the extent car makers have.

Even if the price for a new Cessna/Cirrus/Piper were the same as a new car,
the percentage of people owning airplanes would not change very much simply
because most people are not interested in owning an airplane.

I'm sure that there are MANY people who would own an
airplane today if they could get one for $24,900.

You CAN get one for $24,900, which BTW is less than most decent new cars
and trucks cost now.

The bottom line is there is no huge market for airplanes at any price which
means the building of them will never be automatted like cars are.

While I wouldn't expect a company to try and crank out planes
as if they were toyotas, I think the cheap international labor
market could make available a reasonably priced new craft
for the geneneral aviation market.

You do know that a big chunk of the new LSA aircraft are coming out of
former Soviet block Eastern European nations don't you?

They may be cheaper than the Cessna LSA, but not by anywhere near the order
of magnitude you are whining about.

Â* From a stand-point of profitablility I'm sure

Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft among others have found a
nice balance of optimum profit by producing just enough
inventory to keep the prices where they want them without
having to tool up and mass produce. Labor would be their
largest overhead and human resource management is
always volatile.

Utter nonsense.

Wrong. Generally speaking your highest on-going overhead
is labor. With any successful business, at some time the
idea of expansion is entertained, and while your actual sales
very well may increase (the reason for examining expansion)
very likely your profits may decrease.

The point went right over your head.

See the next sentence and try again.

All the airplane makers have been struggling just to survive for a
decade
or so now.

Agreed, with many going bankrupt but it isn't due
to lack of demand. (you know...supply/demand)

Gibberish; if there were demand companies wouldn't be going bankrupt and
the remaining companies fighting so hard to keep alive with a diminished
market.

Back to the Chinese... Â*this short video gives a nice little
tutorial on the state of electric airplanes and China's
contribution. Just think, no oxygen required.

Electric airplanes are toys.

Precisely what was said about the telephone..."Just a toy".

You mean as opposed to the gasoline telephone?

BTW, electric transportation of any kind is a toy unless you have an
onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwyyQ1BckK0

In term of cost, the best time to buy stuff is when the economy is
down
and people are dealing.

No doubt and people are selling everything these days,
especially in Florida where houses are 1/2 (or less)
their former price. Most anywhere you can find a boat,
travel trailor, or motorcycle for bargain prices and people
are selling 120K airplanes for 80K. Problem is, after a
year or so most of those toys just end up sitting in the
garage and the 80K plane is STILL overpriced.

What are you, 15?

No need for insults. I'm 55, became financially
independent at age 40, and I didn't do it by throwing
away money on impulse spending.

So quit whinning and get a job to pay for an airplane or buy a used one
for $25k.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 10, 7:46*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 10, 12:12*pm, wrote:

So why, relatively speaking, were planes so much cheaper
back in the 1970's? *I don't think it was supply and demand
but I could be wrong.

They weren't.

A decent, used, lower end airplane both then and now costs about the same
as a high end car.

Oh, sure, in absolute dollars they were a lot cheaper then, but so was
everything else.

My understanding is that the RATIO has not been maintained,
as I've already stated and RELATIVELY speaking planes cost
more today than in the 1970's.

It is rather trivial to find both the current price and the 70's price
for things.

That's not my objective.

Why don't you do that and let us know what numbers you come up with?

Actually people other than me have already done
this with regard to General Aviation and it's a fact that
planes were more accessable to the public back in
the 1970's. I'm merely recounting from memory what
I've already read.



Of course, airplanes are never going to be mass produced in millions per
year by robots.

Maybe not but with globalization of the world economy I
wouldn't be suprised to see China step up to the plate and
fill this niche.

What niche?

The sector of people who don't want to pay more than
50K.

There are lots of airplanes available for under $50k, just not new.

Yeah, but not low wing, light-sport, cross-country ones,
unless you want something made in 1945.

However many new cars are now pushing $50k.

The equipment to do robotic building costs big bucks that can only be
payed for by huge volumes.

Yes I am familiar with this, as I worked for Lockheed during
the 70's and 80's.

Yeah, and I worked for Lockheed in the 60's.

Neat. I was in Marietta.

Lockheed never automatted anything to the extent car makers have.

You CAN'T make planes the way you make cars.

Even if the price for a new Cessna/Cirrus/Piper were the same as a new car,
the percentage of people owning airplanes would not change very much simply
because most people are not interested in owning an airplane.

I'm sure that there are MANY people who would own an
airplane today if they could get one for $24,900.

You CAN get one for $24,900, which BTW is less than most decent new cars
and trucks cost now.

Which one is a light sport, low-wing, cross-country plan that
I can fit my 6'3" self into?

The bottom line is there is no huge market for airplanes at any price which
means the building of them will never be automatted like cars are.

While I wouldn't expect a company to try and crank out planes
as if they were toyotas, I think the cheap international labor
market could make available a reasonably priced new craft
for the geneneral aviation market.

You do know that a big chunk of the new LSA aircraft are coming out of
former Soviet block Eastern European nations don't you?

Of course. Czechoslovakia is a leader.

They may be cheaper than the Cessna LSA, but not by anywhere near the order
of magnitude you are whining about.

They aren't cheaper.


* From a stand-point of profitablility I'm sure

Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft among others have found a
nice balance of optimum profit by producing just enough
inventory to keep the prices where they want them without
having to tool up and mass produce. Labor would be their
largest overhead and human resource management is
always volatile.

Utter nonsense.

Wrong. Generally speaking your highest on-going overhead
is labor. *With any successful business, at some time the
idea of expansion is entertained, and while your actual sales
very well may increase (the reason for examining expansion)
very likely your profits may decrease.

The point went right over your head.

I understood your point.

See the next sentence and try again.

All the airplane makers have been struggling just to survive for a
decade
or so now.

Agreed, with many going bankrupt but it isn't due
to lack of demand. (you know...supply/demand)

Gibberish; if there were demand companies wouldn't be going bankrupt and
the remaining companies fighting so hard to keep alive with a diminished
market.

My point went right over your head.

The ---- demand is there, but not at those prices.

Back to the Chinese... *this short video gives a nice little
tutorial on the state of electric airplanes and China's
contribution. Just think, no oxygen required.

Electric airplanes are toys.

Precisely what was said about the telephone..."Just a toy".

You mean as opposed to the gasoline telephone?

No, I mean it's a fledgling technology that has aspects
of superiority if developed.


BTW, electric transportation of any kind is a toy unless you have an
onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity.

You must read up on bullet trains.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwyyQ1BckK0

In term of cost, the best time to buy stuff is when the economy is
down
and people are dealing.

No doubt and people are selling everything these days,
especially in Florida where houses are 1/2 (or less)
their former price. Most anywhere you can find a boat,
travel trailor, or motorcycle for bargain prices and people
are selling 120K airplanes for 80K. Problem is, after a
year or so most of those toys just end up sitting in the
garage and the 80K plane is STILL overpriced.

What are you, 15?

No need for insults. I'm 55, *became financially
independent at age 40, and I didn't do it by throwing
away money on impulse spending.

So quit whinning and get a job to pay for an airplane or buy a used one
for $25k.

Ha ha, it isn't a matter getting the money, but one
of refusing to waste it.

Ok, so where it that light-sport, low-wing, cross
country plane produced after 1990 for 25K? I'll
take two.

---
Mark


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mark wrote:
On Sep 10, 7:46Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 10, 12:12Â*pm, wrote:


It is rather trivial to find both the current price and the 70's price
for things.

That's not my objective.

It is what you are bitching about.

Why don't you do that and let us know what numbers you come up with?

Actually people other than me have already done
this with regard to General Aviation and it's a fact that
planes were more accessable to the public back in
the 1970's. I'm merely recounting from memory what
I've already read.

No, you are refusing to look at any real numbers and just pulling stuff
out of your butt.

There are lots of airplanes available for under $50k, just not new.

Yeah, but not low wing, light-sport, cross-country ones,
unless you want something made in 1945.

The light sport classification has only been around for a couple of years.

There are a few certificated airplanes built prior to that that are light
sport eligable, however there weren't any GA built in 1945 as there was
this other thing called WWII that interrupted civil production.

Used LSA's can be had for not much more than $50k.

You CAN'T make planes the way you make cars.

Sure you could if the volume were high enough to pay for the machinery, but
it isn't, and isn't ever going to be.

Which one is a light sport, low-wing, cross-country plan that
I can fit my 6'3" self into?

Since LSA is a new catagory, there are no old LSA airplanes, but used ones
a couple of years old can be had you can fit into for around $80k.

Since you are financially independent, if you got a job and saved for a
couple of years, you could easily buy one cash, especially since as the
years go by the early ones only get cheaper.

You do know that a big chunk of the new LSA aircraft are coming out of
former Soviet block Eastern European nations don't you?

Of course. Czechoslovakia is a leader.

They may be cheaper than the Cessna LSA, but not by anywhere near the order
of magnitude you are whining about.

They aren't cheaper.

Of course they are and a simple search shows them to be so.

Electric airplanes are toys.

Precisely what was said about the telephone..."Just a toy".

You mean as opposed to the gasoline telephone?

No, I mean it's a fledgling technology that has aspects
of superiority if developed.

Airplanes, electric motors, and batteries have all been around for about
a hundred years.

There is nothing "fledgling" about any of the technology.

BTW, electric transportation of any kind is a toy unless you have an
onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity.

You must read up on bullet trains.

Trains can get power from the rails; they don't have to carry their energy
source.

Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy
source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
electricity.

Better?

So quit whinning and get a job to pay for an airplane or buy a used one
for $25k.

Ha ha, it isn't a matter getting the money, but one
of refusing to waste it.

Excuses are like belly buttons; eveyone has one.

Ok, so where it that light-sport, low-wing, cross
country plane produced after 1990 for 25K? I'll
take two.

Once again, the light sport catagory is new so the oldest airplanes are
only a few years old.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark writes:

You must read up on bullet trains.

Electric trains are different from electric airplanes, because the source of
power is not being carried with the vehicle in an electric train. You can have
a massive, fixed power plant producing electricity for the train, and all the
train needs is some transformers and motors. That option doesn't exist with
aircraft, which must carry the entire power plant aboard. Worse yet, aircraft
are much more sensitive to weight than trains.

Mark wrote:
Ok, so where it that light-sport, low-wing, cross
country plane produced after 1990 for 25K? I'll
take two.

http://www.sonexaircraft.com/

Mark wrote:
Ok, so where it that light-sport, low-wing, cross
country plane produced after 1990 for 25K? I'll
take two.

$20k ready-to-fly ultralight or light-sport low-wing:
http://www.interplaneaircraft.com/zjviera.htm