Aviation is too expensive

"Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" writes:

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!

It's not cheap, and it's definitely not the same as buying a mountain
bike or an ATV, but ownership is doable for a typical middle class
person who's motivated enough. For example, a good 1960's Cherokee
140 will run maybe USD 35,000. It will cost somewhere around USD
7,000-10,000/year to own and operate the plane, depending on how much
it flies and where it's kept, though there can be a lot of volatility
in any given year due to maintenance surprises.

A lot of people who want to fly can afford that kind of flying by
themselves. For people who cannot, a partnership drastically reduces
the overhead -- split that 140 three ways, and an awful lot of
not-even-close-to-rich people can afford to fly. Partnerships are
also better for the plane, since a plane that flies more tends to last
longer and have fewer problems than a plane that sits around.

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!

I respectfully disagree on this point -- pilots don't mind practicing
on sims, but the point of flying is to be up in the air and/or to go
places.


All the best,


David

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

"Gary L. Drescher" wrote

Rather than per hour, perhaps a more fair metric would be "fatality
rate per effective distance traveled". Even in my slow Cessna 172 a
good rule of thumb is that I can get from point A to point B about 3
times faster than driving. On safety grounds alone, it might tip the
balance in favor of GA over driving.

It doesn't, though. If you do a google search for the previous threads here
on this topic, you'll find data that has been cited to support the
conclusion that the fatality rate per hour is around 15 times greater for
GA, and per mile it's around 8 times greater for GA. By either measure, GA
is roughly an order of magnitude more dangerous.

OK thanks for the stats, sobering though they might be. But: consider
that planes generally get from A to B in more of a straight line than
cars (thus my words "per effective distance traveled" quoted above and
the factor of 8 you cite becomes more like 4 or 5. Then the fact that
a 172 is statistically one of the safest planes around, and maybe
we're talking close to a wash in safety between driving and flying?

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

David Megginson wrote:
"Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" writes:


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!


It's not cheap, and it's definitely not the same as buying a mountain
bike or an ATV, but ownership is doable for a typical middle class
person who's motivated enough. For example, a good 1960's Cherokee
140 will run maybe USD 35,000. It will cost somewhere around USD
7,000-10,000/year to own and operate the plane, depending on how much
it flies and where it's kept, though there can be a lot of volatility
in any given year due to maintenance surprises.

A lot of people who want to fly can afford that kind of flying by
themselves. For people who cannot, a partnership drastically reduces
the overhead -- split that 140 three ways, and an awful lot of
not-even-close-to-rich people can afford to fly. Partnerships are
also better for the plane, since a plane that flies more tends to last
longer and have fewer problems than a plane that sits around.




That's of course a valid point, David, and perhaps that indeed explains
the trend towards such partnerships or, indeed, flying clubs and
fractional ownerships. So too, I tend to think of the single ownership
thing [I mean going out and buying a plane today and not having had one
on hand for some years or even inheriting one] and I find this to be
more and more of a fruitless effort as costs to escalate. What PPL would
place a value on their life versus cost of a TCAS yet when one spots the
tags for those items...whew! No wonder there are more 'portable' Garmins
being sold then CP mounted big ticket mates so to speak.

Then too, it's not even so much the moan of "ohhhhh those prohibitive
FBO labor costs" [although I am the FIRST to defend the axiom that
competent work doesn't come cheap!] but likewise the av parts themselves
be that a simple spark plug or avionics which [and I'll no doubt catch
some flak for this] 'because' they are aviation bound suddenly carry
price tags often triple or more the cost! Sort of like the $270 hammer
syndrome and $400 coffee pot or, when I was in the military some moons
ago, paint it OD, define it as 'mil spec', 'quadruple' the price ...
and sell it to Uncle Sam!


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!


I respectfully disagree on this point -- pilots don't mind practicing
on sims, but the point of flying is to be up in the air and/or to go
places.




Absolutely agree, David, but alas, that is not always economically
doable if only 'due' to such escalating and spiraling costs. That's the
proverbial rub! Sure, there is the axiom that says 'when there is a
will, there is a way' but that depends on the goal..and the costs involved.

But then, in fairness and as you duly point out, perhaps the wave of the
future will be more and more partnership deals if only because folks
find themselves in the same boat as individual 'new' plane ownership or
pre-owned but in need of big bucks updating becomes so pricey [and the
rather hefty associated costs of course] that one staggers under the
weight of the numbers!

Regards,

Doc Tony

All the best,


David

Steve House wrote:
"Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" wrote in message
...

snip

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?


At least up here in the Northland, prizes, lottery and gambling winnings
aren't considered taxable income, yet. shhhhh Get your new plane in a
prize drawing and the tax man doesn't cometh.



Ahhhh! That's refreshing news! Alas, Steve, we have a governor here that
is so desperate for coin of the realm that he wants to tax garage sale
items and he just may put his revenue spies into peeking into recorded
Ebay deals for a piece of the pie. Right now, however, he is involved in
a sort of Custer-like jihad with the Native Americans demanding a piece
of the normal state tax --and-- state surcharge taxes pie from what the
NA's make 'within' their sovereign nations a la tobacco [internet sales
inclusive] and BINGO sales.

Hey! Win a lottery in my state over $600 and they with-hold 20% at the
get-go splitting that freebie dough pot with Uncle Sam. But then, this
is the same governor and his brain-trust who says that folks with fancy
cars and AIRPLANES 'should' pay a luxury tax because, after all, even if
you own a piece of an [gasp!] airplane, you must be filthy rich, yes?

Doc Tony

PS-- How's this though... an amigo uses his own plane to fly small
portable albeit donated generators to folks way up north when the big
ice storm hit some years ago and these folks were WEEKS without power.
OK, he claims PART of that fuel expense on his state tax form and it
bounces back --why--- well, the state rejected a 'charitable expense
deduction' because the guy 'volunteered' his services, so, tough!

How's that for a 'help thy neighbor' kick in the keester? Shades of our
friend 'Calvera' [Eli Wallach] in the great flick, "The Magnificent
Seven", to wit, "Generosity! That was my first mistake!" :-)

Gently extracted from the mind of jim rosinski;


"Gary L. Drescher" wrote

Rather than per hour, perhaps a more fair metric would be "fatality
rate per effective distance traveled". Even in my slow Cessna 172 a
good rule of thumb is that I can get from point A to point B about 3
times faster than driving. On safety grounds alone, it might tip the
balance in favor of GA over driving.

It doesn't, though. If you do a google search for the previous threads
here on this topic, you'll find data that has been cited to support the
conclusion that the fatality rate per hour is around 15 times greater for
GA, and per mile it's around 8 times greater for GA. By either measure, GA
is roughly an order of magnitude more dangerous.

OK thanks for the stats, sobering though they might be. But: consider
that planes generally get from A to B in more of a straight line than
cars (thus my words "per effective distance traveled" quoted above and
the factor of 8 you cite becomes more like 4 or 5. Then the fact that
a 172 is statistically one of the safest planes around, and maybe
we're talking close to a wash in safety between driving and flying?

I'm not too sure about that. GA includes turbine aircraft. And they are highly
utilized with safety records comparable to commercial aviation.

What is not clear to me is the real risks of my flying a few hundred miles in
a 172 versus driving to the same destination. Or for that matter, 10hrs of
local flying vs 10hrs of scuba diving vrs 10hrs of x-country skiing vrs 10hs
on a motorcycle or some other outdoor hobby.

-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

Steve House wrote:

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, I don't. Most of the people I know wouldn't buy one if it cost $5,000.

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

Steve House wrote:

At least up here in the Northland, prizes, lottery and gambling winnings
aren't considered taxable income, yet. shhhhh Get your new plane in a
prize drawing and the tax man doesn't cometh.

Hope you guys can keep it that way. Here, I would owe 33% of the value to
the IRS, 6% of the value to the New Jersey income tax people, and another
6% of the value for the State usage tax. If I won the AOPA Waco ($250,000
value) and couldn't sell it within 6 weeks, I'd have to declare bankruptcy.

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

Newps writes:

If you look at the accident stats of a 182 and subtract out night
flying, flying into bad weather while VFR and all IMC flight on an IFR
flight plan the safety record is virtually the same as driving. So
day VFR flight is about as safe as it gets.

Don't forget to subtract out impaired driving, joyriding, driving in
heavy rain or fog, driving on icy roads, driving while distracted
(cell phone, radio tuning, kids, etc.), speeding, and dangerous
passing from the driving stats as well. To be fair, you would leave
in any fatalities caused in *other* cars, since they had no control
over the behaviour of the accident driver.


All the best,


David

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

Gently extracted from the mind of David Megginson;


Newps writes:

If you look at the accident stats of a 182 and subtract out night
flying, flying into bad weather while VFR and all IMC flight on an IFR
flight plan the safety record is virtually the same as driving. So
day VFR flight is about as safe as it gets.

Don't forget to subtract out impaired driving, joyriding, driving in
heavy rain or fog, driving on icy roads, driving while distracted
(cell phone, radio tuning, kids, etc.), speeding, and dangerous
passing from the driving stats as well. To be fair, you would leave
in any fatalities caused in *other* cars, since they had no control
over the behaviour of the accident driver.

It's a fair comparison. I'm usually willing to wait several days to get a nice
VFR day. But then I don't have a tight schedule to keep.


-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

"Newps" wrote in message
news:KKuZa.114264$uu5.15644@sccrnsc04...
If you look at the accident stats of a 182 and subtract out night
flying, flying into bad weather while VFR and all IMC flight on an IFR
flight plan the safety record is virtually the same as driving. So day
VFR flight is about as safe as it gets.

My recall is that light plane VFR was the overwhelming source for crashes
(and all the boneheaded moves) -- that the accident rate under IFR dropped
by several orders of magnitude.