Aviation is too expensive

"H.J." wrote:
You can rent a Ferrari for $200 PER DAY. Has anybody ever rented a C-172 for
$200 per day? A ferrari has more horsepower, higher Vne, and is more
complex. And, yes, a typical car is more complex than a typical plane - a
car has numerous moving suspension parts and transmission parts, water
cooling, etc.

Let's keep it an "apples-to-apples" discussion.
Forget rental cost. How much does a Ferrari cost to buy? $300k? $500K?
Both are mostly hand-made, hence the high price of acquisition.
Then there is maintenance... the mechanic's education, tools, cost of
replacement parts, etc.
Same GM part for a Chevy and a Cadillac, do you pay the same price from
each dealer's parts department?

"Jay Honeck" wrote
Two words... supply and demand.

It's liability, too. Everyone tags on "x" percent, just to cover their
perceived risks.

Let's all get real. Supply and demand and economies of scale? Then
why does the top end RADAR for a small boat cost less than $2000, new?
They don't sell any more of those than they do small airplane RADAR
sets.

For that matter, why does an autopilot for an experimental cost $1500,
new? There are fewer experimentals flying than certified aircraft.

Liability? The same laws, lawyers, judges and juries apply whether
we're talking certified aircraft, homebuilt, or boat.

No, let's be real. The real enemy is our government - specifically
the FAA. They're the reason we're struggling to keep 40 year old
technology going rather than getting new stuff at a fraction of the
cost.

Michael

"H.J." writes:

I get your point about the roller coaster, but no, Relatively
speaking a C-172 is way too expensive. A C-172 is sort of the
average Ford Taurus of the sky.

Ford sells hundreds of thousands of Taurus's every year, so the
overhead cost of design, certification, administration, and (mainly)
running the manufacturing facilities gets spread around; even then, I
think that Ford is currently losing a few hundred dollars on every one
that goes out the door.

Cessna sold, at most, a few dozen 172's last year. There are probably
guys building canoes in their basements who have more turnover than
that.


All the best,


David

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

If aviation were cheap enough for everybody,
imagine how long you would have to wait
to get a takeoff clearance. Every taxiway would
look like San Carlos Airport at 11am on a Saturday.

If a 1978 Piper didn't have to have an annual
inspection, parts would be falling on people's
heads like they do from a broken down car.

Who needs GPS? I am perfectly happy with
VOR and NDB. The Cirrus SR-22 has lots of
all-glass fancy avionics but they are
crashing left and right--probably because
people are staring at the computer screen
instead of looking out the darn window.

If general aviation did not kill as many
people as it does, then more people would
fly (fewer would be discouraged).
Imagine how difficult it would be to
get flight following or a bay tour transition.
So many little planes to dodge in the narrow
airspace allotted for us -- think sunol
intersection, KGO, coyote hills area.

Luckily the FAA doesn't require pilots
to carry insurance, unlike motor vehicles.
Who wants to pay $10K for a $100K per seat
policy--insufficient to cover lost wages,
medical bills, legal bills, and pain and
suffering associated with an accident.

Ted

"H.J." wrote:

What's wrong with general aviation?

An old crapper Piper from 1978 costs over $50,000. A nice one cost $180,000.
These are relic machines with instrument panel lights and loose door handles
worse than any yugo ever had. I'd say an old Cherokee from 1978 should be
worth about as much as a V.W. from the same time period: $2500. Especially
considering the absurd yearly expenses required to keep one legal. If a v.w.
bug had to have an annual inspection that costs what a GA aircraft
inspection does, nobody would pay a cent for one.

A hiker's GPS runs $199 while an aviation version costs $1,999.

Why does an aviation spark plug cost over $20??? It's just a plug! It should
cost $1.99 for a good one! A far more complex product with dozens of
precision parts - a digital watch - can go for as little as $5.99 at
Walmart.

Why does the 36" fiberglass pan of a Warrior (the chin part where the carb
intake is on the nose) cost 5,000 freaking dollars???? It is only glass and
glue, after all. There is no structural support or anything like that
involved.

Fuel is $2.65 for self serve 100LL! Does it have pure gold flakes in it? Why
isnt it $1.50?

Maybe modern pilots are just money bags who dont care about costs.

Ted Huffmire writes:

Luckily the FAA doesn't require pilots to carry insurance, unlike
motor vehicles. Who wants to pay $10K for a $100K per seat
policy--insufficient to cover lost wages, medical bills, legal
bills, and pain and suffering associated with an accident.

Transport Canada does require Canadian pilots to carry liability
insurance, and fortunately, it's not that expensive. When I bought my
Warrior last December, I was an 85-hour pilot with no ratings, and my
total cost for CAD 1,000,000 combined liability (USD 720,000) is only
CAD 515/year (USD 370) -- it's hull insurance that costs all the
money.

I'd be surprised if liability insurance is any more expensive down in
the U.S.


All the best,


David

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

Actually getting a pilot license isn't any harder than getting Microsoft
Certified (MCSE), or getting a real estate license. (speaking effort-wise
and time-wise)

What limits the numbers of new pilots is the insane cost. Guys would buy
planes like they buy Harleys if the price of ownership wasn't so high.

It seems like the guys who have 'made' it into aviation are sort of numbed
down, or brainwashed or something. They are forced to abide by a very
complicated system of laws and expenses that dont make sense. But since it's
always been that way, they just accept it. Then after they land and drive
out of the airport in their
triple-airbag-26-cpu-antilock-brake-digitally-monitored-emission-active-susp
ension-awd-1.60-per-gallon-fuel-sipping-$30,000-window-sticker-SUV, they
dont even realize the irony of it.

The strange part is, the pilots etc who could benefit the most from
'thinking outside of the box' are here in this group defending $2.62/gal gas
and $50K junk-heap-aircraft as if their pride depends on it or something.
The pilot orgs seem to be the same.

I heard Rutan once mention that if he could have seen into the future from
the 1960's and seen the current state of aviation in the 1990's - basically
the same old technology and performance born of 1960s, he would have
thought that some nuclear holocost had occured that had frozen progress in
it's tracks.

There's no (technological) reason we couldn't have $35,000 200 kt.
Auto-fuel-burning composite aircraft with fully digital glass cockpits RIGHT
NOW! So that means the reason aviation is an overpriced, antique junk club
is because of the PILOTS themselves who protect this outdated aviation
environment by telling me that 'Fuel is cheaper than milk or european fuel
so it's ok.' Or blaming ecomomies-of-scale etc.








"Half the guys in town" wouldn't be able to fly one. It takes a
particular
commitment and motivation to learn to fly a plane. Even if aviation were
less expensive, you wouldn't have 100 million (or so) pilots in the U.S.

Beyond that, there may be a bit of the chicken/egg thing going on, but
there
are lots of other reasons why aviation is expensive too. It's just not
true
that, if overnight you could reduce the price point of 4-seater piston
aviation to match that of a typical family sedan, there'd be no
economy-of-scale problem.

In article ,
Ted Huffmire wrote:

If general aviation did not kill as many
people as it does, then more people would
fly (fewer would be discouraged).

By that reasoning, there should be very few people driving cars, given
the number of people killed on the road.

--
Larry Fransson
Aviation software for Mac OS X!
http://www.subcritical.com

"Larry Fransson" wrote in message
...
By that reasoning, there should be very few people driving cars, given
the number of people killed on the road.

Why do you say that? Automobiles kill a much smaller percentage of the
participants than aviation does.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Larry Fransson" wrote in message
...
By that reasoning, there should be very few people driving cars, given
the number of people killed on the road.

Why do you say that? Automobiles kill a much smaller percentage of the
participants than aviation does.

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.

"H.J." wrote in message
...
Actually getting a pilot license isn't any harder than getting Microsoft
Certified (MCSE),

I disagree...at least with flying your required to show *SOME* level of
competance. I've fired more MCSE's for not know squat than I care to
mention

(speaking effort-wise and time-wise)

well ok....

What limits the numbers of new pilots is the insane cost. Guys would buy
planes like they buy Harleys if the price of ownership wasn't so high.

agreed.

It seems like the guys who have 'made' it into aviation are sort of numbed
down, or brainwashed or something. They are forced to abide by a very
complicated system of laws and expenses that dont make sense. But since
it's
always been that way, they just accept it. Then after they land and drive
out of the airport in their

triple-airbag-26-cpu-antilock-brake-digitally-monitored-emission-active-susp
ension-awd-1.60-per-gallon-fuel-sipping-$30,000-window-sticker-SUV, they
dont even realize the irony of it.

agreed.


---stuff clipped here---

There's no (technological) reason we couldn't have $35,000 200 kt.
Auto-fuel-burning composite aircraft with fully digital glass cockpits
RIGHT
NOW! So that means the reason aviation is an overpriced, antique junk club
is because of the PILOTS themselves who protect this outdated aviation
environment by telling me that 'Fuel is cheaper than milk or european fuel
so it's ok.' Or blaming ecomomies-of-scale etc.


Well economies of scale and supply/demand BOTH play large parts in the
equation...but, I agree, there are definite problems. The Alternator on my
fathers Cherokee 6 is identical to the one on my brothers Dodge
truck...except the model number has an "A" tagged on the end. Specs are the
same, but the price is $200 different. (even has the Chrysler logo on
it...grrr).

I blame *some* of this on the manufacturers charging what the market will
bear. But the reason you don't have a C-172 selling for $40k is liability.

Yes the auto industry fights the same fight, but most jurors and judges
drive cars. They understand that things break and even though an occasional
lawsuit gets ridiculous against the auto giants, for the most part the
judgments and awards make sense. Now you and I can look at an accident
report from the NTSB and think "well that guy screwed up" or "man that was a
flaw in the plane" (Monday morning quarterback style). But look at the
jurors handing out money based on the judgment that if the airplane crashed,
somebody has to pay. I personally would be scared S***less to produce a
product to go in a Certified plane. If I created a widget to go on your
panel and it EVER stopped working....I'm liable...even on a 50 year old
plane.

In the late 80's, after Cessna stopped producing GA aircraft, I read an
interview with the CEO (I think) of Cessna. He mentioned that Cessna could
build a C152 and sell it for a nice profit for $15,000 (1987 dollars).
Everything else in the price was pure liability insurance. (I can't
remember if I have the exact numbers, but their close)

The ridiculousness of the $480 million suit against Cessna proves the point.
As I said in another post. Airplanes=$$$$ in most peoples minds.