Lots of planes, little flying

[bwilson4web]

Hi,

Today I found a hangar and went over my Dragonfly project. But the A&P I spoke with twice mentioned, 'We have lots of planes, no hangars, and little flying.'

I thought about it later and remembered when I flew my Cherokee 140 at eight gallons/hour, I was sensitive to fuel costs but back in 1976-80, prices were just twice auto gas, $2.50-3.00 / gal. My Dragonfly will burn four gallons per hour and cost just as much as the Cherokee . . . I can afford to go fly. But given current 100LL prices, the Cherokee would have been a problem.

Could the GA problem be little more than the direct operational cost of fuel?

Bob Wilson

[DanChief]

Fuel is one factor.

So is the gradual loss of an entire generation of pilots (many beneficiaries of the original, generous GI Bill), aging of the fleet, threat of legal action at every turn, loss of small airfields, deregulation of airlines (and the attendant reduction in fares making personal business flying less cost effective), and overall lack of tolerance for hobbies that require significant time and money before "paying off" and the fact that anyone is flying today is encouraging.

[Joe LaMantia]

In answer to your question, "Could the GA problem be little more than the direct operational cost of fuel?" My answer is no. I think Dan has hit on some of the drivers, but the real cause is the overall state of America.
We are in a transition period moving from the 40 plus years of global dominance to something less. What we have been experiencing across all sectors of American life is the fall out of this change. We have a political system that has failed to plan for the impacts of the global economy and chooses to "let the market" balance things. We are the only country in the world that takes this position, and China is benefiting greatly. General Aviation will survive and grow in China, we will see GA look more like it did in the 1930's when one sector could afford the latest equipment and the rest built their own, by hand in a garage. Not trying to be "political" but were not getting anywhere following what worked in the past.

Joe

[Jim Hann]

Bob,

100LL in our area runs from 5.23 to 8.14, so less than to more than double auto gas which was 3.17 on my drive home from work this morning. So I really don't think the cost of gas matters. It is all the other factors above. LSA and Sport Pilot have created a very small increase but it is lost in the great reduction of the overall fleet.

Jim

[Mike Switzer]

I haven't flown much this year, and it all comes back to lack of time & money - and the lack of time is due to lack of money as we are running with less hired help this year & I am picking up the slack. Our club flying hours are down across the board, almost everyone has cut back on what they are spending on flying.

[Mike Switzer]

I have heard from a few mechanics about lots of planes coming in for annual with less than 10 hours since the last one

[martymayes]

I believe the whole motivation behind development of auto fuel STC's was strictly economic, so yes, I'd say the cost of fuel has a huge impact on recreational flying.

When the US and global economies recover, expect serious competition for gasoline. We'll pay what people in other parts of the world pay and it won't be cheap. LSA's will certainly become more popular with their low(er) fuel consumption.

[Mike M]

fuel cost? heck, flying today co$t$ exactly what it did when i started in '68, 10% more than i make. could be the problem is mulitfaceted. time away from family, drop in real income per hour worked, family not interested in the hobby, seen all the local airports, nothing to do when y'get there but eat a pancake breakfast or burger, not enough vacation time to take that dream trip, increased worry about busting a popup TFR, competing hobbies (you can drink a beer and fish from a boat), etc, etc. why pay so much and devote so much to something that's getting old? also, i think some is changing times. take a young eagle flying! even the most jaded video game multimedia addict sees flight through NEW EYES and so will you. maybe ought to followup with the YE's that really kaboom and take those kids flying a few more times - that'll spark y'all up!

[Bill]

Flying has always been expensive, but fewer can afford it today. New data released by the Census Bureau today shows that in 2010, the median (typical) U. S. household headed by a person aged 65 or older had a net worth that is 47 times greater than a household headed by a person under the age of 35. In 1984, the first year that the Census Bureau started measuring wealth broken down by age, and what I think of as part of the "Golden Age" of general aviation (remember how busy the airports were then, all the students taking lessons, etc.) the ratio was only 10 to 1. Younger people were much more likely to have the means to afford to fly back then, and they did (me among them). Fast forward to today, and the median net worth for younger households under 35 is $3,662 and a staggering 37 percent of those have a net worth less than zero. How can anyone afford to fly under those circumstances?

By taking younger persons flying, which I have done, we are unlikely to see a significant number of them become members of the flying community because of the dismal financial factors shown above. One could suppose we could experience a higher rate of return on our introduction to aviation flights by giving older people introductory flights and I believe that EAA has thinking about doing exactly that. I'm not sure what they will call the "age-challenged eagles" program (one could make up a number of amusing alternatives), but I doubt that it will make much of an impact.

Historically, approximately every 5 to 10 years, one or the other of the aviation alphabet groups has tried such a thing. One of them was called "Be a Pilot" or some such thing and I've forgotten the names of the others principally because they had virtually no effect. Unfortunately, the "age-challenged eagle" program is like to meet a similar fate for two main reasons.

First, older individuals are less likely to start or to finish pilot training than the younger pilot candidates. I know that at my age, if I had to start over again, I'd be less likely to start for a number of reasons and less likely to finish since tolerance of the irritations of flight training wains with age.

Second, due to higher mortality rates, and possible medical and insurance problems for the older pilot, they will have less of an impact on the size of the pilot population over time. If a younger pilot starts flying at age 30, he or she could have 30 or 40 years of flying to look forward to. For the older pilot starting when they're in the 50's or 60's, this might be 10 years or so.

Consequently, I don't see any improvement to the present situation on the horizon. I'd like to see the availability and promotion of experimental aircraft for younger people used to attempt to improve the situation, but that doesn't seem to be happening in any effective way.

[Frank Giger]

[W]e will see GA look more like it did in the 1930's when one sector could afford the latest equipment and the rest built their own, by hand in a garage. Joe

This is my thinking as well.

There will always be exceptions to the rule, like a small business owner figuring out that flying himself to a business meeting is a financial winner in time and convenience, but the trend is to the very high end and the very low end of cost of aircraft (relative, of course - aviation will never be cheap).

Things could change this, though. A dramatic increase in commercial aviation fares or some sort of restriction on automobiles (say if electrics get mandated for them, limiting their range and speed) could upset the balance; this is really unlikely.