High fuel prices = buyer's market?

The reality is that unless you are really skimping on the maintenance,
not planning for major expenses like engine overhaul, not hangaring,
etc., fuel is at most 30% of your expenditures - and that assumes you
own the plane outright. If you have a note, it's less. The people who
find themselves priced out because the fuel has gone up are thus the
ones who were skimping on all these other expenses and just can't
afford any increase.

While there is some of that, I don't agree with your broad-brush
premise.

There are a LOT of really well-maintained aircraft on our field that
are simply not flying since gas doubled in price. When your fuel bill
goes from $160 to $320 per fill, that's a HUGE deterrent to flying.

Even among those who can easily afford it, the thought of paying that
much for a tank of gas is simply stupifying enough to make one think
twice before flying. It's going to take a while -- maybe a long while
-- for people to get used to it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
While there is some of that, I don't agree with your broad-brush
premise.

There are a LOT of really well-maintained aircraft on our field that
are simply not flying since gas doubled in price. When your fuel bill
goes from $160 to $320 per fill, that's a HUGE deterrent to flying.

Even among those who can easily afford it, the thought of paying that
much for a tank of gas is simply stupifying enough to make one think
twice before flying. It's going to take a while -- maybe a long while
-- for people to get used to it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Yep. Like Jay's pathfinder my 182 now cost over $50/hour fuel to operate.
Hard to justify as transportation. Under 200 miles car is lots cheaper and
gets there in same amount of time (plus I have a car when I arrive). Over
400 miles commercial is cheaper and faster for up to 3 passengers. With
insurance/hanger/maint/fuel my costs for the 182 now exceeds $150/hr at
100hrs/year. The proverbial $100 hamburger of 1990 has now become the $300
hamburger. I think my (well maintained) 182 will decrease in value and light
sport aircraft will be the future for those who simply "want to fly".

Howard

There are a lot of valid points being made here. For our family, at this
time in our lives, flying and airplane ownership is where we choose to spend
our "play" money. We have no vacation home, no time-share, no RV, no
motorcycles or four-wheelers, no boat, no antique cars or tractors, no
season tickets to any sporting event, no swimming pool, no skiing or lift
tickets, no gym memberships, nor many of the other recreational niceties
that seem so popular albeit possibly less expensive. In fact, these were
some of the very reasons that we decided that we could afford airplane
ownership.

Like many things in life, when costs increase, it becomes a matter of A) do
you really need it? and B) if you don't need it, how bad do you really want
it?

The biggest change that I see in my personal flying is that we simply don't
pull the Aztec out for many $300 hamburgers, instead we'll wait and go on
longer flights less often.

Jim

The biggest change that I see in my personal flying is that we simply don't
pull the Aztec out for many $300 hamburgers, instead we'll wait and go on
longer flights less often.

Personally, I don't plan on changing our habits too much. For short
flights to dinner (or what have you), the price is painful yet doable.
For long flights, on the other hand, the cost of avgas is really giving
me pause.

For example, our flight around the Midwest last month would cost much
more this month -- and the fuel cost was already difficult to bear.

Our flight to Madeline Island last week only took one fill-up of avgas
(ouch!), and our flight to Milwaukee didn't require that I buy ANY of
that expensive, awful stuff -- so the cost was doable. Of course, it
cost $150 to fill the Might Grape's 50 gallon transfer tank
yesterday...

I simply can't imagine feeding your Aztec right now, Jim. Doubling my
hourly cost would just kill me.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I think my (well maintained) 182 will decrease in value and light
sport aircraft will be the future for those who simply "want to fly".

I agree, Howard. That little Rotax-powered LSA "CT", sipping 4-gallons
per hour, is looking better and better....
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

I agree, Howard. That little Rotax-powered LSA "CT", sipping 4-gallons
per hour, is looking better and better....
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

But Jay, you're not going to get Mary and both kids into anything LSA.
You'd have to have 'his' and 'hers' planes, and then you'd still
probably not have the payload you have with Atlas, plus you're talking
about more like 8 GPH for the two airplanes, double the hangar space,
two annuals etc.

I somehow doubt the -235 or even my Six is going to decrease in value
much. There are plenty of folk who need the seats or payload.

On 2006-07-20, Jay Honeck wrote:
I agree, Howard. That little Rotax-powered LSA "CT", sipping 4-gallons
per hour, is looking better and better....

I flew a friend's Europa over to Yorkshire the other week to get some
maintenance done. It has the Rotax 914S. 1600 fpm climb at 55 knots (at
takeoff power, you have 20 degrees nose up pitch), and 140 knots.

The best thing is economy cruise (about 130 knots) it gets 50 nautical
miles per gallon (no wind), better than most cars.

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