GA in decline since 1968 .. or .. 1979.

[Jim Logajan]

File this under "old news":

The number of student pilots in the U.S. peaked in 1968, declined for a
while before climbing to its highest (and last) peak in 1979. The highest
total number of pilots peaked the next year and has been declining since
then:

http://www.aopa.org/special/newsroom/stats/pilots.html

(Since 2002 there have been more CFIs than students.)

In 1980 there was 1 pilot for every 274 people.
In 2006 there was 1 pilot for every 502 people.

(Population of U.S. for 2006 rounded to 300,000,000 and for 1980 taken from
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States )

[muff528]

>
> In 1980 there was 1 pilot for every 274 people.
> In 2006 there was 1 pilot for every 502 people.
>

Looks like pilots are almost twice as efficient as they
were back in the 20th century :-)

[Mutts]

Article about this very thing........

Up, Up and ... Never Mind
http://www.flyingaggies.org/flightline/article.php?story=20070426095240585&mode=print


I now its popular to blame cost for the decline. Yes, it is a factor I
know.

Perhaps it is the growth of our overly risk aversioned culture too.

Or the fascination with aviation most of us have had since kids is
failing to connect with younger folks today.

Less GA airports is not a big help either!


On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:23:32 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>File this under "old news":
>
>The number of student pilots in the U.S. peaked in 1968, declined for a
>while before climbing to its highest (and last) peak in 1979. The highest
>total number of pilots peaked the next year and has been declining since
>then:
>
>http://www.aopa.org/special/newsroom/stats/pilots.html
>
>(Since 2002 there have been more CFIs than students.)
>
>In 1980 there was 1 pilot for every 274 people.
>In 2006 there was 1 pilot for every 502 people.
>
>(Population of U.S. for 2006 rounded to 300,000,000 and for 1980 taken from
>here:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States )

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-06-19, Mutts > wrote:
>
>
> Article about this very thing........
>
> Up, Up and ... Never Mind
> http://www.flyingaggies.org/flightline/article.php?story=20070426095240585&mode=print
>
> I now its popular to blame cost for the decline. Yes, it is a factor I
> know.

If you correct the costs from the 1960s to today's with inflation,
you'll find the cost in real terms hasn't changed.

What has changed is as noted risk aversion, but also there's lots more
things people want to spend money on (such as more than $1500 year on
television, probably $2000 a year on a cell phone plan or two, servicing
the car loan and the consequential full insurance cover you need with a
loan, people choosing to buy McMansions with the consequent high
heating/AC costs etc). So at the end of the day there's less left over
for flying.

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

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2007-06-19, Mutts > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Article about this very thing........
>>
>> Up, Up and ... Never Mind
>> http://www.flyingaggies.org/flightline/article.php?story=20070426095240585&mode=print
>>
>> I now its popular to blame cost for the decline. Yes, it is a factor I
>> know.
>
> If you correct the costs from the 1960s to today's with inflation,
> you'll find the cost in real terms hasn't changed.

Do you have some stats to support that?

(Off the top of my head from a sporatic memory)

For example, when I learned to fly, in the late 70's, a 172 went $18-20 an
hour. Today, it's $120 an hour.

Inflation has certainly not been a factor of six in that intervening time.

A 1993 Beech F33A went $130-140k - now an A36 goes around a $Million$.

What has dropped is avionics and probably overall maint labor costs. These,
though, are not enough to offset the acquision and operating costs.

--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:05:14 +0000 (UTC), Dylan Smith >
wrote:

>On 2007-06-19, Mutts > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Article about this very thing........
>>
>> Up, Up and ... Never Mind
>> http://www.flyingaggies.org/flightline/article.php?story=20070426095240585&mode=print
>>
>> I now its popular to blame cost for the decline. Yes, it is a factor I
>> know.
>
>If you correct the costs from the 1960s to today's with inflation,
>you'll find the cost in real terms hasn't changed.

No, I can't agree with that. Back when I was a freshly-minted Air Force 2nd
Lieutenant, a brand-new 172 cost about 150% of my annual salary. Now, thirty
years later, a brand-new 172 would cost *more* than 150% of my salary... despite
decades of career growth and raises that reflect experience, not just cost of
living increases.

Ron Wanttaja

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-06-19, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>> If you correct the costs from the 1960s to today's with inflation,
>> you'll find the cost in real terms hasn't changed.
>
> Do you have some stats to support that?

It's difficult to compare exact like for like, but, reposting from an
earlier message, comparing club prices of 1970 with club prices of 2007:

(on the decline of GA)
<snip>
On 2007-05-23, birdog > wrote:
> Why? My opinion, it's the expense. In the '60's and early 70's, our
> club
> used to fly an old Champ for $4 an hour and a 172 for $16 an hour,
> wet.

And my reply:

$16 hr wet in 1970 dollars is $85 wet in 2006 dollars.

The Bay Area Aero Club in Houston, which I used to be a member of, rents
its 172 out at $75 hr today. So the price in real terms has actually
fallen.
<snip>

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ - an RPI calculator.

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

[Mutts]

Here is an inflation calculator, no idea how accurate it is..........

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/



On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 06:30:01 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
>> On 2007-06-19, Mutts > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Article about this very thing........
>>>
>>> Up, Up and ... Never Mind
>>> http://www.flyingaggies.org/flightline/article.php?story=20070426095240585&mode=print
>>>
>>> I now its popular to blame cost for the decline. Yes, it is a factor I
>>> know.
>>
>> If you correct the costs from the 1960s to today's with inflation,
>> you'll find the cost in real terms hasn't changed.
>
>Do you have some stats to support that?
>
>(Off the top of my head from a sporatic memory)
>
>For example, when I learned to fly, in the late 70's, a 172 went $18-20 an
>hour. Today, it's $120 an hour.
>
>Inflation has certainly not been a factor of six in that intervening time.
>
>A 1993 Beech F33A went $130-140k - now an A36 goes around a $Million$.
>
>What has dropped is avionics and probably overall maint labor costs. These,
>though, are not enough to offset the acquision and operating costs.

[Mutts]

Your probalby right.

Priorities and sacrifice.

People probably just gotta have all the crap instead.
Dreams of flight? what does that mattter when you have to have a hip
car, cool flip phone, home enterntainment system,
gotta have a computer, gaming system, eat out a lot, see all the
movies, etc etc.

And none of that challenges you, it is all instantly gratifying.
Jeez, I mean even model airplanes can be purchased pre-built these
days.

I built models of nearly everything that ever flew as a kid.

I dont know. Maybe it is indeed too many things now to spend money on
instead.

the population is growing, yet pilots are not.

I mean kids still are drawn to it, I was at an airshow last weekend
and this teen was prattling off things he knew about warbirds to his
Dad, who seemed to not know. So I think it was all the kids deal to be
at the airshow which is great.


It still is a special thing no matter what, Ill mention something or
people see stuff in my office and I always get that look and question
"your a pilot?" and lots of questions, some even I have taken up.
But none of those folks have wanted to learn themselves.




On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:05:14 +0000 (UTC), Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>On 2007-06-19, Mutts > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Article about this very thing........
>>
>> Up, Up and ... Never Mind
>> http://www.flyingaggies.org/flightline/article.php?story=20070426095240585&mode=print
>>
>> I now its popular to blame cost for the decline. Yes, it is a factor I
>> know.
>
>If you correct the costs from the 1960s to today's with inflation,
>you'll find the cost in real terms hasn't changed.
>
>What has changed is as noted risk aversion, but also there's lots more
>things people want to spend money on (such as more than $1500 year on
>television, probably $2000 a year on a cell phone plan or two, servicing
>the car loan and the consequential full insurance cover you need with a
>loan, people choosing to buy McMansions with the consequent high
>heating/AC costs etc). So at the end of the day there's less left over
>for flying.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2007-06-19, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>>> If you correct the costs from the 1960s to today's with inflation,
>>> you'll find the cost in real terms hasn't changed.
>>
>> Do you have some stats to support that?
>
> It's difficult to compare exact like for like, but, reposting from an
> earlier message, comparing club prices of 1970 with club prices of 2007:
>
> (on the decline of GA)
> <snip>
> On 2007-05-23, birdog > wrote:
>> Why? My opinion, it's the expense. In the '60's and early 70's, our
>> club
>> used to fly an old Champ for $4 an hour and a 172 for $16 an hour,
>> wet.
>
> And my reply:
>
> $16 hr wet in 1970 dollars is $85 wet in 2006 dollars.
>
> The Bay Area Aero Club in Houston, which I used to be a member of, rents
> its 172 out at $75 hr today. So the price in real terms has actually
> fallen.
> <snip>

What year is that 172? When I was renting them in the 1979-1981 range, it
was maybe a year old model.

Try that today.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Mutts" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Here is an inflation calculator, no idea how accurate it is..........
>
> http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Not very accurate: it pertains mostly to consumer items in a very wide
scope.

A better "barometer" is the Federal Reserve money supply. Neither, though,
account for areas in which technology plays a big part in LOWERING costs.

For example: in 1954, my parents bought a brand new 21" B&W TV. It cost $375
at the time. It was the equivalent of the biggest TV's today. A typical TV
in those days was 13" at best.

My daughter, who just went out on her own, bought a 34" widescreen LCD (or
something thin, flat panel) and paid $329.

As mentioned below, contrast was a dual Nav-Com set went for 25 years ago
(Collins Microline, for example: $5000 if IRC), compared to what Garmin
offers.

> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 06:30:01 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 2007-06-19, Mutts > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Article about this very thing........
>>>>
>>>> Up, Up and ... Never Mind
>>>> http://www.flyingaggies.org/flightline/article.php?story=20070426095240585&mode=print
>>>>
>>>> I now its popular to blame cost for the decline. Yes, it is a factor I
>>>> know.
>>>
>>> If you correct the costs from the 1960s to today's with inflation,
>>> you'll find the cost in real terms hasn't changed.
>>
>>Do you have some stats to support that?
>>
>>(Off the top of my head from a sporatic memory)
>>
>>For example, when I learned to fly, in the late 70's, a 172 went $18-20 an
>>hour. Today, it's $120 an hour.
>>
>>Inflation has certainly not been a factor of six in that intervening time.
>>
>>A 1993 Beech F33A went $130-140k - now an A36 goes around a $Million$.
>>
>>What has dropped is avionics and probably overall maint labor costs.
>>These,
>>though, are not enough to offset the acquision and operating costs.
>

[Gatt]

"Mutts" > wrote in message
...

> I now its popular to blame cost for the decline. Yes, it is a factor I
> know.
>
> Perhaps it is the growth of our overly risk aversioned culture too.
>
> Or the fascination with aviation most of us have had since kids is
> failing to connect with younger folks today.

It's the cost and the bureaucracy. My wife and I are college graduate
thirtysomethings making above the national income average and the cost of an
airplane, maintenance, storage, insurance are simply prohibitive.

Bottom line: Can't afford it. Or maybe I can, but with the cost of homes
blowing through the roof we can't afford both, and I discovered that I had
as much fun with my wife and friends out on the Columbia River on my $4,000
boat for $25 in fuel than I had flying, and I don't have to worry about some
bureaucracy crawling up my ass about whether the friends contributed to
fuel, what the "intent" of the boating trip was, etc.

> Less GA airports is not a big help either!

Wasn't a factor for me at all. Each time I've hung up the jacket and quit
flying for a couple of years at a time, it was directly related to the cost.

-c