Aviation is too expensive

Jeff

Just ran some figures for a study I'm doing. US averaged over 115
fatalities a day (that's about 42,000 a year) on highway in last year
data is available. (2002 or+ so). They are always a year or two behind
releasing data since it takes time to collect for year and compile the
stats.

Some other stats: 2.5 truck drivers die each day on highway.

1.6 are killed each day working on farm.

Some place I've see how many die making
love each day.

Guess you pays your money and take your chances G


Big John
Couch potato with a cold beer and chips. Safest place I can find.


On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:32:10 -0500, "Jeff Franks"
wrote:

Yup. If cars had the same fatality rate per hour as GA, the US would have
more than half a million automobile deaths per year.


Where did you get this stat? I've heard it both ways... and would like to
have a credible source rather than "well I heard..."

Thanks

Mutts wrote:

What would the comparison be if we only looked at "safe" drivers
and "safe" GA pilots.

It's hard enough to work out a comparison or accident rates between items
that are measured in hours traveled versus items measured in miles traveled
without bogging it down with some arbitrary exclusions based on personal
value judgements.

George Patterson
They say that nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is,
death doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.
Will Rogers

Big John wrote:

Guess you pays your money and take your chances G

Nobody gets out alive.

George Patterson
They say that nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is,
death doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.
Will Rogers

G.R. Patterson III wrote in message The NTSB keeps track of stranded
airboaters?

Yes, unless you're from New Jersey.

D. (swamp monster)

"Steve House" wrote in message
...
Cessna and other manufacturers could sell a whole lot more product and
begin
to realize some of those economies of scale if they'd drop the price to
about 20% of what is is today, don't you think? 25 kilobucks may be low,
but something in the range of the price of a BMW or Mercedes would be
affordable to a lot of people. Driving about the GTA it seems like
there's
just one hell of a lot of people around who can afford and are willing to
pay 50 to 75 kilobucks for a car. If the market for 172's and 182's was,
say, 5000 or even just 1000 units per year instead of a couple of dozen,
all
other per unit cost factors being equal to what they are today, I wonder
what that would do to the financial picture. Would be very intersting to
see
what the economists call the elasticity of demand curve that relates
market
price to consumer demand. Of course, the other side of the coin is whether
there would be enough room in the sky for all the flight operations that
could result.

I wonder how many people don't fly because of the expense, versus how many
don't because they consider small planes "scary"?

I know (at least on a professional level) around 20 people that a worth well
over $1million and six that are worth around $50-100M, and TWO of them fly
(both of these for their businesses).

Everybody (pretty much) HAS to drive (hence the automobile economy of scale)
but very few HAVE to fly. There's a big difference between "want to" and
"have to".

"Steve House" wrote in message:
Cessna and other manufacturers could sell a whole lot more product and
begin
to realize some of those economies of scale if they'd drop the price to
about 20% of what is is today, don't you think? 25 kilobucks may be low,
but something in the range of the price of a BMW or Mercedes would be
affordable to a lot of people. Driving about the GTA it seems like
there's
just one hell of a lot of people around who can afford and are willing to
pay 50 to 75 kilobucks for a car. If the market for 172's and 182's was,
say, 5000 or even just 1000 units per year instead of a couple of dozen,
all
other per unit cost factors being equal to what they are today, I wonder
what that would do to the financial picture.

Gee, I wonder why Cessna has never thought of this.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Robert Henry" wrote:
I think there's also something to be said about NOT being 1 of 600 of
300M,
as opposed to 1 of 42,600 of 300M.

The mathematical absurdity of that idea is spectacular, but you topped it
with this thundering oxymoron:

Self-delusional or not, the logic works
for me.

Whew!
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Steve House" writes:

Cessna and other manufacturers could sell a whole lot more product
and begin to realize some of those economies of scale if they'd drop
the price to about 20% of what is is today, don't you think?

No -- the annual cost of owning, maintaining, and flying the plane
would still keep people away. For example, if I won a Piper Malibu in
a raffle tomorrow (tax-free), I still would not be able to afford to
keep it even at $0 purchase price unless I brought in an awful lot of
partners, and I'd need a lot of training to learn to fly it safely.

For many other people, the same applies even to an entry-level plane
like a 172 or Cherokee (which is right at my budget limit of CAD
10K/year). There's also the time that you have to invest in training
and currency to be a safe pilot -- even if the plane and training were
dirt cheap (and how much less could we pay flight instructors without
forcing them onto welfare?), a lot of people simply couldn't spare the
time and attention.

Note also that that price cut supposes that the avionics, engine,
propeller, etc. that make up a big part of the plane's cost have all
also come down in price by 80%. In that case, a lot of people would
just take their existing planes and put in that $2000 Garmin 530, a
$4000 factory-new Lycoming engine, etc.

Note that I'm not saying that flying cannot or should not get cheaper
-- there may be an avionics revolution just around the corner, for
example, that will give us all full IFR glass cockpits with real-time
weather display for under USD 5000, and someone may soon come out with
a much cheaper STC'd replacement engine for the Lycomings and
Continentals we currently use. I'll be thrilled if that happens, but
I wouldn't expect the pilot population to increase all that much.

Driving about the GTA it seems like there's just one hell of a lot
of people around who can afford and are willing to pay 50 to 75
kilobucks for a car. If the market for 172's and 182's was, say,
5000 or even just 1000 units per year instead of a couple of dozen,
all other per unit cost factors being equal to what they are today,
I wonder what that would do to the financial picture.

It wouldn't help much. As I mentioned, a lot of the cost of a new
plane is the components (engine, avionics, etc.) and those are already
selling in much higher numbers. Cessna over-optimistically projected
1000 planes/year when they revived the 172 in the 1990's, so the
initial pricing was already based on that. To get any real economies
of scale, you'd need to bump that up by another couple of orders of
magnitude, and I just don't believe that there are that many people
out there with the skill, time, and interest to be pilots.

Fortunately, we pilots have a lot of other options. You can get a
very decent 25-year-old four-seater plane for much less than the price
of a new luxury car, and properly-maintained used airplanes are safe
and comfortable -- there are many light planes from the 1930's and
1940's still in the air. In that respect, an airplane is a lot more
like a house than a car. My house was nearly 60 years old when I
bought it, but I didn't worry that it wasn't new; in fact, it's much
better built than the new houses going up in the burbs these days.

There are also ultralights, owner-maintenance (in Canada, anyway), and
homebuilts, for people who are willing to assume extra risk and extra
flight restrictions in exchange for significant cost savings. I get
the feeling sometimes that every second pilot past retirement has an
RV in some stage of construction in his or her garage.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

The mathematical absurdity of that idea is spectacular, but you topped it
with this thundering oxymoron:

The point was at 12 o'clock, 1/2 mile, 40,000 feet higher, SR 71.

I'm guessing you missed it completely.



Oh well.

David Megginson wrote:
"Steve House" writes:


Cessna and other manufacturers could sell a whole lot more product
and begin to realize some of those economies of scale if they'd drop
the price to about 20% of what is is today, don't you think?


No -- the annual cost of owning, maintaining, and flying the plane
would still keep people away. For example, if I won a Piper Malibu in
a raffle tomorrow (tax-free), I still would not be able to afford to
keep it even at $0 purchase price unless I brought in an awful lot of
partners, and I'd need a lot of training to learn to fly it safely.



Agree! And not too many places suddenly become that beneficent that
'they' will foot the tax bill which can get considerable considering the
cost of new birds these days and the fact that as soon as one takes
delivery of their prize, the fed and state tax folks immediately have
their hand extended [with requisite grin] for their cut of your good
fortune. Then, once possession of the prize takes place, hey, even if
you're ATP rated, would you take off without having the bird insured?
And then, upon flying off with your prize, well, where is 'home'...I
mean for the bird...and 'that' ONGOING cost. And we're talking field
tie-down in most cases versus hanger space where, in some localities and
climates, you'll need Bill Gates bucks to ante-up! In advance, thank
you. Then we have fuel costs of course and normal maintenance and
then...and then....and then....well, you get the picture.

So folks say, hey, forget the pipedream of winning a new bird and tax
free yet and figure they'll go the old familiar road of locating a
used..ehhh...make that pre-owned...172 or, hey, the venerable 150/152
and build-up so to speak UNTIL they check out the prices! Whew!

Point? I agree...while owning is nice, it's also expensive. VERY
expensive. Tell you what...I'm going to make a prediction...[are you
listening old amigo, Jim Fisher?]--you'll see the day that eventually
the level of SIMULATOR flying and I'm talking MOTION type albeit if only
limited to simple four axis down/up, left/right but limited if only to
create a system that can be affordable linked to high level flight
simulation that can be constructed and flown within the home basement!
Scoff if you will but let me lay this one on you--- you like
multi-engine or even jets or helos...yes?.....now can you AFFORD these
kinds of real McCoy birds and their upkeep? Well, can you?

I won't even go into the matter of required FAA ratings for same! I'm
here to tell you that in my opinion, you will see various and presently
FAA ticket holders including your basic PPL single-donkey SEL types
taking another hard look at simulated flight if only as an adjunct to
the real thing [and learning experience] when the shekels are just not
there [now or down the line] for the real McCoy. Or rentals become out
of sight unless one is a practicing neurosurgeon or is already in the av
field. Or family considerations [or loss of that Class 'whatever' med!]
dictate such alternatives. What's the old chestnut for those who want
their own bird [and ratings] but have, as an example, a growing family,
to wit, "They have a very bad habit, they like to eat!" Home mortgages
and vehicle [often multi-vehicle] payments ET AL notwithstanding.


Doc Tony

What's that? Nope! 'Not' medical...academic...translation: no V-tail
Bonanza...nor a Cirrus SR22 either! Wouldn't mind though...hey...you got
350 thou' plus to lend at zero interest for let's say 50 years or so? ;-)



For many other people, the same applies even to an entry-level plane
like a 172 or Cherokee (which is right at my budget limit of CAD
10K/year). There's also the time that you have to invest in training
and currency to be a safe pilot -- even if the plane and training were
dirt cheap (and how much less could we pay flight instructors without
forcing them onto welfare?), a lot of people simply couldn't spare the
time and attention.

Note also that that price cut supposes that the avionics, engine,
propeller, etc. that make up a big part of the plane's cost have all
also come down in price by 80%. In that case, a lot of people would
just take their existing planes and put in that $2000 Garmin 530, a
$4000 factory-new Lycoming engine, etc.

Note that I'm not saying that flying cannot or should not get cheaper
-- there may be an avionics revolution just around the corner, for
example, that will give us all full IFR glass cockpits with real-time
weather display for under USD 5000, and someone may soon come out with
a much cheaper STC'd replacement engine for the Lycomings and
Continentals we currently use. I'll be thrilled if that happens, but
I wouldn't expect the pilot population to increase all that much.


Driving about the GTA it seems like there's just one hell of a lot
of people around who can afford and are willing to pay 50 to 75
kilobucks for a car. If the market for 172's and 182's was, say,
5000 or even just 1000 units per year instead of a couple of dozen,
all other per unit cost factors being equal to what they are today,
I wonder what that would do to the financial picture.


It wouldn't help much. As I mentioned, a lot of the cost of a new
plane is the components (engine, avionics, etc.) and those are already
selling in much higher numbers. Cessna over-optimistically projected
1000 planes/year when they revived the 172 in the 1990's, so the
initial pricing was already based on that. To get any real economies
of scale, you'd need to bump that up by another couple of orders of
magnitude, and I just don't believe that there are that many people
out there with the skill, time, and interest to be pilots.

Fortunately, we pilots have a lot of other options. You can get a
very decent 25-year-old four-seater plane for much less than the price
of a new luxury car, and properly-maintained used airplanes are safe
and comfortable -- there are many light planes from the 1930's and
1940's still in the air. In that respect, an airplane is a lot more
like a house than a car. My house was nearly 60 years old when I
bought it, but I didn't worry that it wasn't new; in fact, it's much
better built than the new houses going up in the burbs these days.

There are also ultralights, owner-maintenance (in Canada, anyway), and
homebuilts, for people who are willing to assume extra risk and extra
flight restrictions in exchange for significant cost savings. I get
the feeling sometimes that every second pilot past retirement has an
RV in some stage of construction in his or her garage.


All the best,


David