A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 12th 10, 05:54 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,958
Default A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes

I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical
general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about
the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that
is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of
4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the
cost of inflation, houses, or autos.

Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note:

http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_...rcraftGAMA.pdf

The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation,
so is missing explanations and references.
  #2  
Old September 12th 10, 01:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
a[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 562
Default A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes

On Sep 12, 7:26*am, Mark wrote:
On Sep 12, 12:54*am, Jim Logajan wrote:

I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical
general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about
the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that
is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of
4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the
cost of inflation, houses, or autos.


Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note:


http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_...onference_mate...


The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation,
so is missing explanations and references.


In 1971, the average family income was $9,870. [1]
The 1971 Cessna sold for USD$13,425 in the 172 version and USD$14,995
in the Skyhawk version.[2}

In 2010 the average family income was $46,242 [3]
A new 2010 Cessna Skyhawk costs about $297,000 [4]

THEREFORE...

In 1971 you'd pay 1.51 times the average annual salary
to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.

In 2010 you will pay 6.42 times your average annual
salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.

Any Questions??

---
Mark

1.http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=457822
2. wikipedia
3. U.S. census bureau
4.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4203648AAeYJkd


This is one way to do the analysis: what is being overlooked is income
distribution among households. A person on the business side of
general aviation would not give a damn about the 'average' household
but would want to know how many people constitute his market. There
are more relatively poor single family units than there were in the
70s. In the 70s the US had, I think, a more robust middle class, and
general aviation in some form was within reach of what might have been
called the 'upper middle' class. Never the less, your ratios do tell a
worthwhile story.

I think the general decline in g a as measured by fleet size and
number of active pilots is a consequence both of social change and
economics. I really enjoy flying as do my pilot friends, but the
consensus among us older pilots at least is that general aviation's
best days were 20 or 30 years ago, and we would not expect much of a
return on money invested in this market segment.
  #3  
Old September 12th 10, 02:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes

On Sep 12, 8:38*am, a wrote:
On Sep 12, 7:26*am, Mark wrote:





On Sep 12, 12:54*am, Jim Logajan wrote:


I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical
general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about
the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that
is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of
4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the
cost of inflation, houses, or autos.


Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note:


http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_...onference_mate....


The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation,
so is missing explanations and references.


In 1971, the average family income was $9,870. [1]
The 1971 Cessna sold for USD$13,425 in the 172 version and USD$14,995
in the Skyhawk version.[2}


In 2010 the average family income was $46,242 [3]
A new 2010 Cessna Skyhawk costs about $297,000 [4]


THEREFORE...


In 1971 you'd pay 1.51 times the average annual salary
to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.


In 2010 you will pay 6.42 times your average annual
salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.


Any Questions??


---
Mark


1.http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=457822
2. wikipedia
3. U.S. census bureau
4.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4203648AAeYJkd


This is one way to do the analysis: what is being overlooked is income
distribution among households. A person on the business side of
general aviation would not give a damn about the 'average' household
but would want to know how many people constitute his market.


You would need an average income of everyone who actually purchased
a plane in 1971. That was the actual market, then do the same for
today and ratio those against their respective purchase prices. That
that would be 100% accurate. However, anyone who talks with an
old-timer doesn't need that data to see what's happened. Planes
cost more than they used to. (dollar per dollar)

There
are more relatively poor single family units than there were in the
70s.


Very much so, and the upper 3% of society averaged against
the other 97% give a distorted picture. In reality there are
millions and millions of people making less than 20K/year.
None of them can buy an airplane today.

In the 70s the US had, I think, a more robust middle class, and
general aviation in some form was within reach of what might have been
called the 'upper middle' class. Never the less, your ratios do tell a
worthwhile story.


Well...it's the "Walmart syndrome". They are the world's largest
importer of Chinese goods. This was the beginning of manufacturing
going overseas. Then, remember Ross Perot and NAFTA?
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...s_perot_right/
The trading borders fell, and contributed to the problem. And
finally our own government, through taxation, punishes American
companies for trying to make a profit. Ergo...manufacturing goes
overseas and middle-class begins the big shrink. Now the aviation
market has an elite customer base of the upper eschelon, and is
most profitable by selling fewer planes at a higher price.

cut

... but the
consensus among us older pilots at least is that general aviation's
best days were 20 or 30 years ago, and we would not expect much of a
return on money invested in this market segment.


I said that a resurgence in GA is underway, and I maintain that
position. This opinion isn't based on U.S. sales and fleet numbers,
but on observations in the global arena. The number of new pilots
in countries such as Iran and South America are very much on the
upswing and should the global financial environment change for
the better we in U.S. aviation are bound to benefit.

Safe money today is in the LSA market, barring an outright
depression. (imho).

---
Mark
  #4  
Old September 12th 10, 02:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
a[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 562
Default A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes

On Sep 12, 9:27*am, Mark wrote:
On Sep 12, 8:38*am, a wrote:



On Sep 12, 7:26*am, Mark wrote:


On Sep 12, 12:54*am, Jim Logajan wrote:


I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical
general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about
the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that
is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of
4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the
cost of inflation, houses, or autos.


Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note:


http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_...onference_mate...


The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation,
so is missing explanations and references.


In 1971, the average family income was $9,870. [1]
The 1971 Cessna sold for USD$13,425 in the 172 version and USD$14,995
in the Skyhawk version.[2}


In 2010 the average family income was $46,242 [3]
A new 2010 Cessna Skyhawk costs about $297,000 [4]


THEREFORE...


In 1971 you'd pay 1.51 times the average annual salary
to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.


In 2010 you will pay 6.42 times your average annual
salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.


Any Questions??


---
Mark


1.http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=457822
2. wikipedia
3. U.S. census bureau
4.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4203648AAeYJkd


This is one way to do the analysis: what is being overlooked is income
distribution among households. A person on the business side of
general aviation would not give a damn about the 'average' household
but would want to know how many people constitute his market.


You would need an average income of everyone who actually purchased
a plane in 1971. That was the actual market, then do the same for
today and ratio those against their respective purchase prices. That
that would be 100% accurate. *However, anyone who talks with an
old-timer doesn't need that data to see what's happened. Planes
cost more than they used to. (dollar per dollar)

There
are more relatively poor single family units than there were in the
70s.


Very much so, and the upper 3% of society averaged against
the other 97% give a distorted picture. In reality there are
millions and millions of people making less than 20K/year.
None of them can buy an airplane today.

In the 70s the US had, I think, a more robust middle class, and
general aviation in some form was within reach of what might have been
called the 'upper middle' class. Never the less, your ratios do tell a
worthwhile story.


Well...it's the "Walmart syndrome". *They are the world's largest
importer of Chinese goods. This was the beginning of manufacturing
going overseas. Then, remember Ross Perot and NAFTA?http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...s_perot_right/
The trading borders fell, and contributed to the problem. And
finally our own government, through taxation, punishes American
companies for trying to make a profit. Ergo...manufacturing goes
overseas and middle-class begins the big shrink. Now the aviation
market has an elite customer base of the upper eschelon, and is
most profitable by selling fewer planes at a higher price.

cut

... but the
consensus among us older pilots at least is that general aviation's
best days were 20 or 30 years ago, and we would not expect much of a
return on money invested in this market segment.


I said that a resurgence in GA is underway, and I maintain that
position. *This opinion isn't based on U.S. sales and fleet numbers,
but on observations in the global arena. *The number of new pilots
in countries such as Iran and South America are very much on the
upswing and should the global financial environment change for
the better we in U.S. aviation are bound to benefit.

Safe money today is in the LSA market, barring an outright
depression. *(imho).

---
Mark


My views of general aviation are limited by my direct experience, and
that is in the US domestic airspace. Global influences will certainly
be a factor, and energy availability, Egs per ml or BTUs per gallon
will also be a limit. Nothing comes close to packing the controlled
energy in a gallon of oil based fuel, and for GA to be an alternative
to airlines or longer distance surface travel there will most likely
have to be enough endurance on board for a 1000 km flight. In the next
decade we'll probably see batteries that can propel small cars a few
hundred miles. Although my airplane, flown conservatively, can give me
20 miles to a gallon of 100 octane low lead, the weight of the
batteries to provide the same energy, now and in the next 10 years,
will not effectively replace the 33 gallons of gas I carry in each
wing. There are a bunch of people a lot smarter than I am working on
the electrochemical properties of batteries, but my knowledge of the
underlying chemistry and physics suggest any gains will be
incremental. Converting carbon to carbon dioxide and hydrogen to water
is a remarkably effective source of energy, and the best sources of
that carbon and hydrogen in transportable form is oil. Maybe some
genius will figure out an energy efficient way of liquefying coal to
accomplish the same kinds of results, or turning other forms of energy
into liquid hydrogen, but in terms of providing venture capital, it's
likely wallets are going to remain in pockets. Waving one's hands
about emerging technologies does create a breeze, but it takes more
than that to spring funding for development.


  #5  
Old September 12th 10, 04:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes

On Sep 12, 9:50*am, a wrote:
On Sep 12, 9:27*am, Mark wrote:





On Sep 12, 8:38*am, a wrote:


On Sep 12, 7:26*am, Mark wrote:


On Sep 12, 12:54*am, Jim Logajan wrote:


I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical
general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about
the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that
is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of
4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the
cost of inflation, houses, or autos.


Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note:


http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_...onference_mate...


The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation,
so is missing explanations and references.


In 1971, the average family income was $9,870. [1]
The 1971 Cessna sold for USD$13,425 in the 172 version and USD$14,995
in the Skyhawk version.[2}


In 2010 the average family income was $46,242 [3]
A new 2010 Cessna Skyhawk costs about $297,000 [4]


THEREFORE...


In 1971 you'd pay 1.51 times the average annual salary
to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.


In 2010 you will pay 6.42 times your average annual
salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.


Any Questions??


---
Mark


1.http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=457822
2. wikipedia
3. U.S. census bureau
4.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4203648AAeYJkd


This is one way to do the analysis: what is being overlooked is income
distribution among households. A person on the business side of
general aviation would not give a damn about the 'average' household
but would want to know how many people constitute his market.


You would need an average income of everyone who actually purchased
a plane in 1971. That was the actual market, then do the same for
today and ratio those against their respective purchase prices. That
that would be 100% accurate. *However, anyone who talks with an
old-timer doesn't need that data to see what's happened. Planes
cost more than they used to. (dollar per dollar)


There
are more relatively poor single family units than there were in the
70s.


Very much so, and the upper 3% of society averaged against
the other 97% give a distorted picture. In reality there are
millions and millions of people making less than 20K/year.
None of them can buy an airplane today.


In the 70s the US had, I think, a more robust middle class, and
general aviation in some form was within reach of what might have been
called the 'upper middle' class. Never the less, your ratios do tell a
worthwhile story.


Well...it's the "Walmart syndrome". *They are the world's largest
importer of Chinese goods. This was the beginning of manufacturing
going overseas. Then, remember Ross Perot and NAFTA?http://www.truthdig..com/report/item...s_perot_right/
The trading borders fell, and contributed to the problem. And
finally our own government, through taxation, punishes American
companies for trying to make a profit. Ergo...manufacturing goes
overseas and middle-class begins the big shrink. Now the aviation
market has an elite customer base of the upper eschelon, and is
most profitable by selling fewer planes at a higher price.


cut


... but the
consensus among us older pilots at least is that general aviation's
best days were 20 or 30 years ago, and we would not expect much of a
return on money invested in this market segment.


I said that a resurgence in GA is underway, and I maintain that
position. *This opinion isn't based on U.S. sales and fleet numbers,
but on observations in the global arena. *The number of new pilots
in countries such as Iran and South America are very much on the
upswing and should the global financial environment change for
the better we in U.S. aviation are bound to benefit.


Safe money today is in the LSA market, barring an outright
depression. *(imho).


---
Mark


My views of general aviation are limited by my direct experience, and
that is *in the US domestic airspace. Global influences will certainly
be a factor, and energy availability, Egs per ml or BTUs per gallon
will also be a limit. Nothing comes close to packing the controlled
energy in a gallon of oil based fuel, and for GA to be an alternative
to airlines or longer distance surface travel there will most likely
have to be enough endurance on board for a 1000 km flight. In the next
decade we'll probably see batteries that can propel small cars a few
hundred miles. Although my airplane, flown conservatively, can give me
20 miles to a gallon of 100 octane low lead, the weight of the
batteries to provide the same energy, now and in the next 10 years,
will not effectively replace the 33 gallons of gas I carry in each
wing. *There are a bunch of people a lot smarter than I am working on
the electrochemical properties *of batteries, but my knowledge of the
underlying chemistry and physics suggest any gains will be
incremental. Converting carbon to carbon dioxide and hydrogen to water
is a remarkably effective source of energy, and the best sources of
that carbon and hydrogen in transportable form is oil. Maybe some
genius will figure out an energy efficient way of liquefying coal to
accomplish the same kinds of results, or turning other forms of energy
into liquid hydrogen, but in terms of providing venture capital, it's
likely wallets are going to remain in pockets. *Waving one's hands
about emerging technologies does create a breeze, but it takes more
than that to spring funding for development.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Research into alternative renewable energy is a hot ticket
right now being backed by the current administration. That can
be lucrative in itself. My research on this got dumped onto a
flash drive when I switched computers and I've not revisited it
in months but three things stick in my mind.

1) the efficent electrolysis of water now possible by very
low voltage with the use of specific enabling catylists.
The molecular seperation creates current, isolates
hydrogen for use, and upon recombination creates
current again. This work by MIT makes it possible to
do this with 12V DC, i.e., solar panels.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Water...de-91275.shtml

2) Lithium Nanotitanate, state of the art batteries.
http://www.growthconsulting.frost.com/web/images.nsf/0/CF3363569E7FD0B5652571F6001CBF4B/$File/TI%20Alert-Power.htm

3) Graphene, and it's incredible ultracapacity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene

By now I'm sure this is all old news and new gains are
being made. The batteries we will use won't be the
heavy lead batteries of the past, but tiny light-weight ones
perfect for aviation. Just as computers used to take up
entire buildings to do what today's cell phone's can do,
batteries will be tiny and super powerful. Electric motors
have also seen significant new discoveries recently too
which make them smaller and more powerful.

---
Mark


  #6  
Old September 12th 10, 04:51 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
a[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 562
Default A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes

On Sep 12, 11:29*am, Mark wrote:
On Sep 12, 9:50*am, a wrote:



On Sep 12, 9:27*am, Mark wrote:


On Sep 12, 8:38*am, a wrote:


On Sep 12, 7:26*am, Mark wrote:


On Sep 12, 12:54*am, Jim Logajan wrote:


I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical
general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about
the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that
is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of
4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the
cost of inflation, houses, or autos.


Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note:


http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_...onference_mate...


The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation,
so is missing explanations and references.


In 1971, the average family income was $9,870. [1]
The 1971 Cessna sold for USD$13,425 in the 172 version and USD$14,995
in the Skyhawk version.[2}


In 2010 the average family income was $46,242 [3]
A new 2010 Cessna Skyhawk costs about $297,000 [4]


THEREFORE...


In 1971 you'd pay 1.51 times the average annual salary
to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.


In 2010 you will pay 6.42 times your average annual
salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.


Any Questions??


---
Mark


1.http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=457822
2. wikipedia
3. U.S. census bureau
4.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4203648AAeYJkd


This is one way to do the analysis: what is being overlooked is income
distribution among households. A person on the business side of
general aviation would not give a damn about the 'average' household
but would want to know how many people constitute his market.


You would need an average income of everyone who actually purchased
a plane in 1971. That was the actual market, then do the same for
today and ratio those against their respective purchase prices. That
that would be 100% accurate. *However, anyone who talks with an
old-timer doesn't need that data to see what's happened. Planes
cost more than they used to. (dollar per dollar)


There
are more relatively poor single family units than there were in the
70s.


Very much so, and the upper 3% of society averaged against
the other 97% give a distorted picture. In reality there are
millions and millions of people making less than 20K/year.
None of them can buy an airplane today.


In the 70s the US had, I think, a more robust middle class, and
general aviation in some form was within reach of what might have been
called the 'upper middle' class. Never the less, your ratios do tell a
worthwhile story.


Well...it's the "Walmart syndrome". *They are the world's largest
importer of Chinese goods. This was the beginning of manufacturing
going overseas. Then, remember Ross Perot and NAFTA?http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...s_perot_right/
The trading borders fell, and contributed to the problem. And
finally our own government, through taxation, punishes American
companies for trying to make a profit. Ergo...manufacturing goes
overseas and middle-class begins the big shrink. Now the aviation
market has an elite customer base of the upper eschelon, and is
most profitable by selling fewer planes at a higher price.


cut


... but the
consensus among us older pilots at least is that general aviation's
best days were 20 or 30 years ago, and we would not expect much of a
return on money invested in this market segment.


I said that a resurgence in GA is underway, and I maintain that
position. *This opinion isn't based on U.S. sales and fleet numbers,
but on observations in the global arena. *The number of new pilots
in countries such as Iran and South America are very much on the
upswing and should the global financial environment change for
the better we in U.S. aviation are bound to benefit.


Safe money today is in the LSA market, barring an outright
depression. *(imho).


---
Mark


My views of general aviation are limited by my direct experience, and
that is *in the US domestic airspace. Global influences will certainly
be a factor, and energy availability, Egs per ml or BTUs per gallon
will also be a limit. Nothing comes close to packing the controlled
energy in a gallon of oil based fuel, and for GA to be an alternative
to airlines or longer distance surface travel there will most likely
have to be enough endurance on board for a 1000 km flight. In the next
decade we'll probably see batteries that can propel small cars a few
hundred miles. Although my airplane, flown conservatively, can give me
20 miles to a gallon of 100 octane low lead, the weight of the
batteries to provide the same energy, now and in the next 10 years,
will not effectively replace the 33 gallons of gas I carry in each
wing. *There are a bunch of people a lot smarter than I am working on
the electrochemical properties *of batteries, but my knowledge of the
underlying chemistry and physics suggest any gains will be
incremental. Converting carbon to carbon dioxide and hydrogen to water
is a remarkably effective source of energy, and the best sources of
that carbon and hydrogen in transportable form is oil. Maybe some
genius will figure out an energy efficient way of liquefying coal to
accomplish the same kinds of results, or turning other forms of energy
into liquid hydrogen, but in terms of providing venture capital, it's
likely wallets are going to remain in pockets. *Waving one's hands
about emerging technologies does create a breeze, but it takes more
than that to spring funding for development.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Research into alternative renewable energy is a hot ticket
right now being backed by the current administration. That can
be lucrative in itself. My research on this got dumped onto a
flash drive when I switched computers and I've not revisited it
in months but three things stick in my mind.

1) the efficent electrolysis of water now possible by very
* * low voltage with the use of specific enabling catylists.
* * The molecular seperation creates current, isolates
* * hydrogen for use, and upon recombination creates
* * current again. This work by MIT makes it possible to
* * do this with 12V DC, i.e., solar panels.http://news.softpedia.com/news/Water...Easy-by-Revolu...

2) Lithium Nanotitanate, state of the art batteries.
* *http://www.growthconsulting.frost.co...CF3363569E7FD0...

3) Graphene, and it's incredible ultracapacity.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene

By now I'm sure this is all old news and new gains are
being made. The batteries we will use won't be the
heavy lead batteries of the past, but tiny light-weight ones
perfect for aviation. Just as computers used to take up
entire buildings to do what today's cell phone's can do,
batteries will be tiny and super powerful. *Electric motors
have also seen significant new discoveries recently too
which make them smaller and more powerful.

---
Mark


Electrolysis of water can be quite efficient, but of course one puts
more energy into the process than is available in the resultant
hydrogen. It has the advantage of allowing stationary power plants to
provide a mobile fuel. Storage and transportation is a formidable
task, and I think energy density is very low compared to hydrocarbons.
That the primary energy comes from solar power directly, or coal is
fairly meaningless. Energy density it a key requirement. I submit the
notion that government advocacy and funding as opposed to private
sector financing tells you all you need to know about the likelihood
of success. If the ROI was there BP and others would be pouring money
into it. The oil companies know about oil depletion and don't want to
be overtaken by alternatives.

There is certainly private sector interest in battery technology, but
again, my wallet is going to stay in my pocket. The odds on some bets
just are not attractive, I am comfortable letting someone else take
the risks.
  #7  
Old September 12th 10, 07:51 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes

On Sep 12, 1:16*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 12, 12:54*am, Jim Logajan wrote:
I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical
general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about
the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that
is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of
4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the
cost of inflation, houses, or autos.


Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note:


http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_...onference_mate....


The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation,
so is missing explanations and references.


In 1971, the average family income was $9,870. [1]
The 1971 Cessna sold for USD$13,425 in the 172 version and USD$14,995
in the Skyhawk version.[2}


In 2010 the average family income was $46,242 [3]
A new 2010 Cessna Skyhawk costs about $297,000 [4]


THEREFORE...


In 1971 you'd pay 1.51 times the average annual salary
to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.


In 2010 you will pay 6.42 times your average annual
salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.


Any Questions??


---
Mark


1.http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=457822
2. wikipedia
3. U.S. census bureau
4.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4203648AAeYJkd


It has never been the "average family" that buys airplanes.

It has always been the people in the upper middle class and above, such
as doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers, business owners, etc.

In the early 70's I was going to school while working at an avionics shop..

A big percentage of the customers were engineers from the local, and now
defunct, aerospace plant.

There were no bricklayers or painters with airplanes, but the guys that
owned the construction companies were owners.

--
Jim Pennino


Yes, and really if you think about it anyone who becomes
a pilot and buys a plane...isn't average. Of course you're
smart enough to realize I pulled that data to reveal the
shift in American buying power.

---
Mark

  #8  
Old September 12th 10, 07:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes

On Sep 12, 11:51*am, a wrote:

cut

There is certainly private sector interest in battery technology, but
again, my wallet is going to stay in my pocket. The odds on some bets
just are not attractive, I am comfortable letting someone else take
the risks.


Oh, I didn't mean the lucrative opportunites in alternative
energy right now are from investment in fledgling companies.
I believe it's from government grants and subsidies to
explore this field, or from receiving investment money.

In this case it's better to receive than give. LOL!

You sound as tight as I am. I don't even give to
P.B.S. ;^)

---
Mark

  #9  
Old September 13th 10, 12:54 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes

Mark wrote:
On Sep 12, 1:16Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 12, 12:54Â*am, Jim Logajan wrote:
I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical
general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about
the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that
is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of
4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the
cost of inflation, houses, or autos.


Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note:


http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_...onference_mate...


The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation,
so is missing explanations and references.


In 1971, the average family income was $9,870. [1]
The 1971 Cessna sold for USD$13,425 in the 172 version and USD$14,995
in the Skyhawk version.[2}


In 2010 the average family income was $46,242 [3]
A new 2010 Cessna Skyhawk costs about $297,000 [4]


THEREFORE...


In 1971 you'd pay 1.51 times the average annual salary
to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.


In 2010 you will pay 6.42 times your average annual
salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk.


Any Questions??


---
Mark


1.http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=457822
2. wikipedia
3. U.S. census bureau
4.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4203648AAeYJkd


It has never been the "average family" that buys airplanes.

It has always been the people in the upper middle class and above, such
as doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers, business owners, etc.

In the early 70's I was going to school while working at an avionics shop.

A big percentage of the customers were engineers from the local, and now
defunct, aerospace plant.

There were no bricklayers or painters with airplanes, but the guys that
owned the construction companies were owners.

--
Jim Pennino


Yes, and really if you think about it anyone who becomes
a pilot and buys a plane...isn't average. Of course you're
smart enough to realize I pulled that data to reveal the
shift in American buying power.


Actually, your data has nothing to do with buying power, that is measured
by the CPI, not wages.

In terms of 1971 dollars versus 2010 dollars, the 2010 Skyhawk costs 3.5
times what the 1971 model cost.

Of course in the 1971 Skyhawk the engine was smaller, didn't have fuel
injection, and just about all the standard avionics in the 2010 model
was an option in the 1971 model, and some didn't even exist.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #10  
Old September 13th 10, 02:01 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes

Mark wrote:
On Sep 12, 7:54Â*pm, wrote:


Actually, your data has nothing to do with buying power, that is measured
by the CPI, not wages.


No matter. I've proven my point and there are other
sources to corroberate it.

In terms of 1971 dollars versus 2010 dollars, the 2010 Skyhawk costs 3.5
times what the 1971 model cost.


Um, why are you flip-flopping now? I'm the one asserting that the
ratio has changed to a rip-off price. You're the one asserting that
dollar per dollar the value is constant. Remember?


Ummm, no, I never said constant.

The closes thing to "constant" I said was that a decent used airplanes
still costs about the same as a good car.

Of course in the 1971 Skyhawk the engine was smaller, didn't have fuel
injection, and just about all the standard avionics in the 2010 model
was an option in the 1971 model, and some didn't even exist.


Well then, that must explain ( along with inflation ) why they've gone
from $15,000 to $300,000. Better radios.


Actually, from just under $85k to just under $300k in terms of CPI adjusted
dollar value.

And yes, about $100k of that increase is easily the better standard
equipment, which isn't just radios. Hell, even the paint is better.

So now you are down to about 1.5 times as expensive when you do an apples
to apples comparison.

Hardly the "ripoff" you keep ranting about.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Condor Tips Document Paul Remde Soaring 14 May 7th 08 08:13 PM
how do you document dates of ratings? Sylvain Piloting 5 September 30th 05 12:03 PM
Hi, GuyN2Latex here´s the document Steve Foley Aviation Marketplace 0 August 21st 04 11:43 PM
Need Pawnee Tech Document Roy Bourgeois Soaring 0 May 13th 04 05:25 PM
Hi, techtarget here´s the document Geo Silver Military Aviation 0 March 14th 04 04:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.