It is costly fuel. Right?

There were over 11 MILLION cars manufactured in the USA last year. 11
MILLION. And yes, only a few thousand airplanes.

Google for "annual auto production" and you'll see that BMW
plans to build 1.2 million cars this year, Honda has plants
in several countries, each build more than a million cars
yearly.
There are over 200 million cars and 50 million big trucks on
the road in the USA. They build cars by the millions. They
build airplanes in dozens, 500 airplanes is a boom year.



"John T" wrote in message
...
| Not really. The reason autos are relatively cheap are
sheer numbers.
| There are 10 of millions if not 100s of millions of autos
on the road.
| Sheer numbers produced keeps the price "low". Probably
something like
| over a 100,000 new cars are produced each year (guessing),
while only a
| few thousand (at best, another guess) GA planes and
experiementals are
| built each year. Another example is engines. Auto engines
can be built
| and sold for a few thousand bucks because of the economies
of scale.
| Aviation engines, OTOH, cost about $25,000 and up new,
simply because so
| few are made compared to auto engines.
|
| All comes down to economy of scale.
|

On 2006-05-24, John T wrote:
All comes down to economy of scale.

The (lack of) economies of scale in GA are not the root cause though -
they are just one result of the root causes.

The main root cause is that 99% of humanity find being in the air a
frightening and unpleasant experience to varying degrees - from mild
anxiety at the one end to sheer terror at the other. Flying a light
aircraft will NEVER have mass appeal, even if you solved all the
infrastructure problems.

Flying is a very unnatural thing for humans to do - we are land
creatures. Only a few of us are weird enough that we are air creatures.
That will always be the case.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Dylan Smith wrote:

The main root cause is that 99% of humanity find being in the air a
frightening and unpleasant experience to varying degrees - from mild
anxiety at the one end to sheer terror at the other.

what magic hat did you pull your 99% number from? There is no way the
number is that high. I would bet 50% is more like it and there is no
way it is any higher than 75%. The to main reasons there aren't more
people involved in GA are 1)Financial cost (both real and perceived) and
2)the cost in time. If the time cost could be reduced somewhat, and the
financial cost reduced significantly, you would see a lot more people
interested in GA. Another thing which I believe is a significant
contributing factor is the level of regulation by the government, how
significant I can't say. That is in as much as people don't like the
government telling them what and how to do things. Of course the
government regulation is one of the major contributors to reason number
1 too.


--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

"John T" wrote in message
...
Training is costly, and there is no "mass training" along the likes of
drivers ed classes.

Which is the genesis of the old cliché, "Where'd you learn to drive, Monkey
Wards?".

"neo" wrote in message
ups.com...
Like cars, mass production of personal plane is possible. Mass training
of pilots who can work on pay equal to pay of car-driver is possible.
But still i do not see planes in sky.

Reason is costly fuel. Am i right?

No. Fuel expense affects the costs of practically everything we do. In
that respect, the effects of fuel costs are equal for any industry or
product you'd care to compare. In another respect, depending on the
proportion of the costs of fuel to other costs involved, fuel can be more or
less of a problem. But it's still not a "make or break" situation.

Aviation has never been a "mass participation" industry, even when fuel
costs were extremely low (and frankly, on an inflation-adjusted basis, fuel
costs aren't all that high today).

Probably the biggest problem keeping the participation in aviation down is
the large personal barrier to participation itself. It's relatively
difficult to become a pilot, compared to other activities competing for the
same dollars. Reduced participation does of course relate back to overall
costs, but margins are pretty tight in the aviation business, mitigating
somewhat the lack of economy of scale.

If and when aviation is reduced to buying an airplane and pushing the button
that hooks it into the global navigation and control system, allowing a
person to get from Point A to Point B with no intervention on their own and,
most importantly, with significantly reduced formalized training, then
perhaps you'll see more airplanes in the sky. Until then, people will
continue to spend their extra $30,000-$80,000 (or more) on their cars and
other stuff, excluding aviation entirely.

Of course, that said, any discussion regarding the true reason for lack of
participation in aviation is going to be large part conjecture. We've been
'round this topic many times before in this newsgroup, and I'm sure we'll
see a wide variety of differing opinions here too.

Pete

No. Most people realize recreational GA is a very expensive hobby which
requires continual training and dedication in order to not wind up like a
dead Kennedy. Unless one is proficient and dedicated enough to get their
IFR cert, GA is a pretty damned unreliable form of transportation.

The majority of small planes you see on sunny weekends are flown by pilots
flying around in circles just for the fun of it, or looking for someplace
to land (like a hamburger stand.) Most people with discretionary dollars
would rather spend them elsewhere.

The upcoming price increases (new or raised landing fees, tie-down fees,
etc.) due to reduction of federal tax subsidies to GA will also hurt the
business, because it is currently heavily subsidized by commercial air
passengers and taxpayers in general.

The AOPA does its best to misinform people of the supposed benefits of GA
(see GA Serving America website, which abounds with misinformation and
propaganda designed to get people to foolishly sign up for flight
training. Most who do quickly realize the real state of affairs and
wisely quit.)

So
Virtually no private pilot will agree that GA is subsidized (despite the
facts), or that pollution, increasing populations around formerly rural
airstrips, etc. is a problem affecting. They will blame politicians,
insurers, lawyers, anti-pollution, anti-noise, and anti-GA activists for
the industry's problems. They want the world to revert to 1955,
consistent with the level of technology of their planes.

Skylune wrote:


The majority of small planes you see on sunny weekends are flown by pilots
flying around in circles just for the fun of it, or looking for someplace
to land (like a hamburger stand.)

Unlike boats, classic cars, or motorcycles cruising by. G

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

The majority of small planes you see on sunny weekends are flown by pilots
flying around in circles just for the fun of it, or looking for someplace
to land (like a hamburger stand.) Most people with discretionary dollars
would rather spend them elsewhere.

The upcoming price increases (new or raised landing fees, tie-down fees,
etc.) due to reduction of federal tax subsidies to GA will also hurt the
business, because it is currently heavily subsidized by commercial air
passengers and taxpayers in general.

I don't think 'the upcoming price increases' will hurt 'the majority of
small planes you see on sunny weekends'.

Very simply, I will not land at towered airports, nor will I file flight
plans or use flight following. This will not greatly change my flying
habits. I don't frequent towered fields. I'll go there if I have a need. I
don't usually get flight following unless I'm flying near or thorugh
controlled airspace.

I fly from a privately owned field. If the present fuel tax is replaced by
user fees, my costs will actually decrease. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure
any user fees will be in addition to fuel texes.


The AOPA does its best to misinform people of the supposed benefits of GA
(see GA Serving America website, which abounds with misinformation and
propaganda designed to get people to foolishly sign up for flight
training. Most who do quickly realize the real state of affairs and
wisely quit.)

In my opinion AOPA is a lobbying group. They wouldn't be doing a very good
job if they didn't try everything under the sun to promote their agenda.
They're very good at what they do.



So
Virtually no private pilot will agree that GA is subsidized (despite the
facts)

It certainly is, but even without recreational GA, most of the
infrastructure would still be needed. I truely believe that the incremental
cost of recreational GA to 'the system' is small.


, or that pollution,

But the airlines claim that GA uses so little fuel that it needs to change
the billing model. So how much pollution can it produce when it uses so
little fuel? (In reality, It would be a good idea if pollution could be
reduced, but I gotta argue first)


increasing populations around formerly rural
airstrips, etc.

Caveat Emptor !


They will blame politicians,
insurers, lawyers, anti-pollution, anti-noise, and anti-GA activists for
the industry's problems.


Everything is the fault of lawyers and insurance companies!!!

They want the world to revert to 1955,
consistent with the level of technology of their planes.

Just don't take away my GPS

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
news:yGJcg.1039$JL5.923@trndny03...
"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
[snipped]

Please, do not feed the troll.