Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: Aviatinon Spending and the Economy

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,718
    Frank, for a "deserted" airport, how did it manage to get such a long and pristine looking runway?

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,236
    Oh, NASCAR keeps up the paving for the big money charter jets that come in twice a year. They also cut the grass around the field at the exact same schedule.
    The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Giger View Post
    Oh, NASCAR keeps up the paving for the big money charter jets that come in twice a year. They also cut the grass around the field at the exact same schedule.
    Good for you, that's a major perk. Surprised the runway isn't an oval. 😊😉🛫

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    282

    Angry Back on topic

    40 years ago we were making >15,000 airplanes a year; now we make 600. 40 years ago labor was cheap and machining was expensive. Today machining is relatively inexpensive and labor is VERY expense. Our airplanes are still designed for the old days. If you think a Cirrus is modern, you might want to check a calendar to see what decade you’re in. The youth today can afford a lot, but they’re not interested in my father’s or grandfather’s airplane. Nor am I. Would you be flying out of your armchair to get to the car dealer to buy a brand new $40K 1975 Chevy “Impala”?

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    65
    I began flying in earnest back in 1968. I purchased a C-140 in 1969 which I flew all over the West Coast for a year before selling to fullfill my military obligation. After returning from Vietnam I bought a C-120 while stationed at Ft. Lewis.

    I think I'm correct in my observation over nearly five decades that not only has the cost increased beyond the reach of the average wage earner, but also a severe decrease in interest and enthusiasm for flight and aircraft ownership has caused a steady decline in GA. The cost relation of my first Cessna was $1850 while my house in Dublin was $28000 with a 13% mortgage interest. With a $400000 mortgage today, that 15-1 ratio would be the equivalent of a $26666 airplane. Indeed, you can still buy a 70 year old C-120-40 for that price but it takes a certain enthusiast to make that purchase.

    At my airport we have two busy jump centers and the traffic of young jumpers is a steady parade in front of my hangar which displays an RV4 and a sweet little Pitts S1S. In three years I have yet to experience one of these 20-30 year olds stop by and inquire about these homebuilts. I would welcome a visit but their interest is not there.

    Cheers, Hans

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by saber25 View Post
    ... but their interest is not there. Cheers, Hans
    I whole-heartedly agree with you. There is no interest from the younger generations. They see airplanes as an expensive luxury toy. In reality new airplanes were rarely luxury toys ... including today. Used airplanes may fit that category for some people. Small airplanes (including business jets) were and are business tools, hence the Cessna 180/185/190/195s being nicknamed "Businessliners". A mid-size business jet may be $20M, but that resource saves the company more than that in executive time (payroll). On the smaller side, doctors, real estate personnel, oilmen, etc. can expand their operations areas with an airplane.) Most of the small Cessnas fly supplies in Alaska. More than my 2 cents worth

  7. #27
    DaleB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    KMLE
    Posts
    654
    There are some interesting parallels to be made there.

    In 1969, a C-120 or C-140 was probably considered a nice little airplane. In much the same way, a Honda or Kaw 400 would have been a perfectly fine motorcycle and a 2500 square foot house was a big, fancy place suitable for a family of 7 or 8.

    Today -- 2500 square feet is just slightly more than "cozy", a "real" motorcycle does 180 in third gear (or weighs in at half a ton, depending on your criteria), and a little Cessna like that is something most adults could barely wedge themselves into. Airplanes within the financial means of most people are not really viable for transportation, and something with utility - like a 182 or Cirrus - is prohibitively expensive to own and operate. People get into my RV-12, which is more-or-less reasonably cheap to own and operate by today's standards, and it scares the hell out of most of them. They've been in SUVs and airliners their entire lives.
    Measure twice, cut once...
    scratch head, shrug, shim to fit.

    Flying an RV-12. I am building a Fisher Celebrity, slowly.

  8. #28
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,948
    The unfavorable economics of General Aviation are a consequence of other factors, not the reason for its decrease.

    Through WWII, only the major roads were paved. Driving any distance meant hours on dusty (or muddy) dirt roads; doing it in the summer in many areas meant a hot, sticky, dusty trip. Often the way was rough, too, since dirt roads tend to get potholed and washboarded. There were few "expressways"; most major roads went right through every town on the way, which meant you ended up repeatedly slowing and stopping for traffic lights/stop signs.

    In these circumstances, even a J-3 looked good. You could drive 200 miles in the heat and dust in six or seven hours... or fly in the smooth, cool air above it for three. Something like a Stinson? Pure luxury. Most airports were turf, and that was fine for the old taildraggers of the day.

    Then, in the 1950s, came the Interstate Highway System. It was intended as a high-speed transportation corridor for the military in time of war. No more dust, no more stopping. No more rough, washboard roads. You could maintain a speed close to what that J-3 could manage, and do it even if the weather was less than clement. True, you couldn't necessarily go direct to your destination. But the whole point about major metropolises is that MANY people live there...so the good roads were there for a lot of people.

    When I was a kid, we'd drive ~200 miles from home to the farm where my Dad grew up. The interstate made a tremendous difference...until we got to the point where we had to turn off I-94 and head north for 40 miles on a county road. Today, most of those roads are paved, too.

    At the same time, cars got better. The smoother roads meant a better ride, and car manufacturers could tweak the suspensions to get a pretty smooth trip on the new roads. By the late '60s, air conditioning was getting less and less of a luxury accessories. By the late '60s, air conditioning was even standard on one brand of cars. Cruise control made long trips even easier.

    At this point, it was getting harder for General Aviation to compete. The Cessna 172s of the era were a bit faster than the old J-3, but many of the advantages of air travel were fading. The trip to my Dad's old homestead was three hours by car, vs. ~1:30 for the Cessna, and you didn't waste time loading the car THEN transferring it to the Skyhawk. There weren't any hard-surface runways near Wing, North Dakota. Dad's Pontiac could plunge ahead in just about any weather. Sure, there were dirt portions of the trip, but you could roll the windows up and crank on the AC. The door-to-door times were MUCH more equivalent, and if you bought something large, you could just strap it on the roof to get it home.

    There were faster light airplane available. But the prices went up pretty steeply, and unless the distances were really far, they weren't that big of an advantage.

    Now...add THAT to the revolution in commercial air travel in the 1970s. It used to be that there were relatively few flights, and the air fares were pretty steep. There are lots of arguments against the deregulation that caused such a big change, but the fact is that flights got cheaper and easier to catch. A round-trip ticket from Los Angeles to New York City was about $170 in 1960; you can find it for ~$300 today. That's, basically, only doubled over a period where the median income increased by a factor of ten.

    It used to be that you could market the upscale GA aircraft to the business traveler. Now, though, the infrastructure is there to whisk the businesswoman hundreds or thousands of miles for really not that much money.

    So there it was. The improvements in cars and roads reduced the private utility of small aircraft, while the rise of commercial air travel lured away the business traveler. Lower demand for small aircraft meant fewer were built...and the prices, naturally went higher, and the investment money for improvements in the breed were harder to find. Couple that with the financial crises of the 70s and 80s, and the gas shortages over the same period, and it's not surprising the bottom dropped out of the GA market. And, basically, has stayed out.

    Ron Wanttaja

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    The unfavorable economics of General Aviation are a consequence of other factors,... <snip>...And, basically, has stayed out.

    Ron Wanttaja
    This follows the same logic I posted on another forum years ago. Clearly a brilliant synopsis.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    The unfavorable economics of General Aviation are a consequence of other factors ,,, it's not surprising the bottom dropped out of the GA market. And, basically, has stayed out. Ron Wanttaja
    If everything is so bleak (and has been for 40 years), why are you (and others on this forum) still involved? Personally, I for one, would like to see it improved. There is still a niche range for small general aviation airplanes (too many to list). The interstates may have a speed limit of 75mph, but in any metro area it's more like 35-40mph when you (and millions of others) want to travel. A great example of this is LA to Las Vegas with straight line interstate between the two and frequent airline flights, too.

    To borrow a little from Ken Blanchard, "Our cheese has moved." Unless we go in search of new cheese, we will perish. Aviation today is UAVs, drones, quadcopters, etc. Why aren't we capitalizing on these technologies? Everything that is currently being accomplished by these vehicles can also be safely accomplished by manned vehicles, too. .. and more efficiently.

    Yes, sorry, I am on my soapbox ... but I am trying to "light a fire", inspire, etc.

    I am a long time EAAer and even worked directly for Paul P. to start my working aviation career. My dad took a swim near Cherbourg, France due to a German submarine torpedoing and sinking the troop ship he was on. But WWII, Korean and Vietnam era aviation doesn't excite me (I do appreciate all who fought and perished for our freedoms).

    We need to do something today to make our industry great and relevant again!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •