If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes
I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical
general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of 4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the cost of inflation, houses, or autos. Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note: http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_...rcraftGAMA.pdf The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation, so is missing explanations and references. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes
On Sep 12, 7:26*am, Mark wrote:
On Sep 12, 12:54*am, Jim Logajan wrote: I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of 4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the cost of inflation, houses, or autos. Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note: http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_...onference_mate... The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation, so is missing explanations and references. In 1971, the average family income was $9,870. [1] The 1971 Cessna sold for USD$13,425 in the 172 version and USD$14,995 in the Skyhawk version.[2} In 2010 the average family income was $46,242 [3] A new 2010 Cessna Skyhawk costs about $297,000 [4] THEREFORE... In 1971 you'd pay 1.51 times the average annual salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk. In 2010 you will pay 6.42 times your average annual salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk. Any Questions?? --- Mark 1.http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=457822 2. wikipedia 3. U.S. census bureau 4.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4203648AAeYJkd This is one way to do the analysis: what is being overlooked is income distribution among households. A person on the business side of general aviation would not give a damn about the 'average' household but would want to know how many people constitute his market. There are more relatively poor single family units than there were in the 70s. In the 70s the US had, I think, a more robust middle class, and general aviation in some form was within reach of what might have been called the 'upper middle' class. Never the less, your ratios do tell a worthwhile story. I think the general decline in g a as measured by fleet size and number of active pilots is a consequence both of social change and economics. I really enjoy flying as do my pilot friends, but the consensus among us older pilots at least is that general aviation's best days were 20 or 30 years ago, and we would not expect much of a return on money invested in this market segment. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes
On Sep 12, 8:38*am, a wrote:
On Sep 12, 7:26*am, Mark wrote: On Sep 12, 12:54*am, Jim Logajan wrote: I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of 4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the cost of inflation, houses, or autos. Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note: http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_...onference_mate.... The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation, so is missing explanations and references. In 1971, the average family income was $9,870. [1] The 1971 Cessna sold for USD$13,425 in the 172 version and USD$14,995 in the Skyhawk version.[2} In 2010 the average family income was $46,242 [3] A new 2010 Cessna Skyhawk costs about $297,000 [4] THEREFORE... In 1971 you'd pay 1.51 times the average annual salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk. In 2010 you will pay 6.42 times your average annual salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk. Any Questions?? --- Mark 1.http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=457822 2. wikipedia 3. U.S. census bureau 4.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4203648AAeYJkd This is one way to do the analysis: what is being overlooked is income distribution among households. A person on the business side of general aviation would not give a damn about the 'average' household but would want to know how many people constitute his market. You would need an average income of everyone who actually purchased a plane in 1971. That was the actual market, then do the same for today and ratio those against their respective purchase prices. That that would be 100% accurate. However, anyone who talks with an old-timer doesn't need that data to see what's happened. Planes cost more than they used to. (dollar per dollar) There are more relatively poor single family units than there were in the 70s. Very much so, and the upper 3% of society averaged against the other 97% give a distorted picture. In reality there are millions and millions of people making less than 20K/year. None of them can buy an airplane today. In the 70s the US had, I think, a more robust middle class, and general aviation in some form was within reach of what might have been called the 'upper middle' class. Never the less, your ratios do tell a worthwhile story. Well...it's the "Walmart syndrome". They are the world's largest importer of Chinese goods. This was the beginning of manufacturing going overseas. Then, remember Ross Perot and NAFTA? http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...s_perot_right/ The trading borders fell, and contributed to the problem. And finally our own government, through taxation, punishes American companies for trying to make a profit. Ergo...manufacturing goes overseas and middle-class begins the big shrink. Now the aviation market has an elite customer base of the upper eschelon, and is most profitable by selling fewer planes at a higher price. cut ... but the consensus among us older pilots at least is that general aviation's best days were 20 or 30 years ago, and we would not expect much of a return on money invested in this market segment. I said that a resurgence in GA is underway, and I maintain that position. This opinion isn't based on U.S. sales and fleet numbers, but on observations in the global arena. The number of new pilots in countries such as Iran and South America are very much on the upswing and should the global financial environment change for the better we in U.S. aviation are bound to benefit. Safe money today is in the LSA market, barring an outright depression. (imho). --- Mark |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes
On Sep 12, 9:27*am, Mark wrote:
On Sep 12, 8:38*am, a wrote: On Sep 12, 7:26*am, Mark wrote: On Sep 12, 12:54*am, Jim Logajan wrote: I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of 4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the cost of inflation, houses, or autos. Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note: http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_...onference_mate... The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation, so is missing explanations and references. In 1971, the average family income was $9,870. [1] The 1971 Cessna sold for USD$13,425 in the 172 version and USD$14,995 in the Skyhawk version.[2} In 2010 the average family income was $46,242 [3] A new 2010 Cessna Skyhawk costs about $297,000 [4] THEREFORE... In 1971 you'd pay 1.51 times the average annual salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk. In 2010 you will pay 6.42 times your average annual salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk. Any Questions?? --- Mark 1.http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=457822 2. wikipedia 3. U.S. census bureau 4.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4203648AAeYJkd This is one way to do the analysis: what is being overlooked is income distribution among households. A person on the business side of general aviation would not give a damn about the 'average' household but would want to know how many people constitute his market. You would need an average income of everyone who actually purchased a plane in 1971. That was the actual market, then do the same for today and ratio those against their respective purchase prices. That that would be 100% accurate. *However, anyone who talks with an old-timer doesn't need that data to see what's happened. Planes cost more than they used to. (dollar per dollar) There are more relatively poor single family units than there were in the 70s. Very much so, and the upper 3% of society averaged against the other 97% give a distorted picture. In reality there are millions and millions of people making less than 20K/year. None of them can buy an airplane today. In the 70s the US had, I think, a more robust middle class, and general aviation in some form was within reach of what might have been called the 'upper middle' class. Never the less, your ratios do tell a worthwhile story. Well...it's the "Walmart syndrome". *They are the world's largest importer of Chinese goods. This was the beginning of manufacturing going overseas. Then, remember Ross Perot and NAFTA?http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...s_perot_right/ The trading borders fell, and contributed to the problem. And finally our own government, through taxation, punishes American companies for trying to make a profit. Ergo...manufacturing goes overseas and middle-class begins the big shrink. Now the aviation market has an elite customer base of the upper eschelon, and is most profitable by selling fewer planes at a higher price. cut ... but the consensus among us older pilots at least is that general aviation's best days were 20 or 30 years ago, and we would not expect much of a return on money invested in this market segment. I said that a resurgence in GA is underway, and I maintain that position. *This opinion isn't based on U.S. sales and fleet numbers, but on observations in the global arena. *The number of new pilots in countries such as Iran and South America are very much on the upswing and should the global financial environment change for the better we in U.S. aviation are bound to benefit. Safe money today is in the LSA market, barring an outright depression. *(imho). --- Mark My views of general aviation are limited by my direct experience, and that is in the US domestic airspace. Global influences will certainly be a factor, and energy availability, Egs per ml or BTUs per gallon will also be a limit. Nothing comes close to packing the controlled energy in a gallon of oil based fuel, and for GA to be an alternative to airlines or longer distance surface travel there will most likely have to be enough endurance on board for a 1000 km flight. In the next decade we'll probably see batteries that can propel small cars a few hundred miles. Although my airplane, flown conservatively, can give me 20 miles to a gallon of 100 octane low lead, the weight of the batteries to provide the same energy, now and in the next 10 years, will not effectively replace the 33 gallons of gas I carry in each wing. There are a bunch of people a lot smarter than I am working on the electrochemical properties of batteries, but my knowledge of the underlying chemistry and physics suggest any gains will be incremental. Converting carbon to carbon dioxide and hydrogen to water is a remarkably effective source of energy, and the best sources of that carbon and hydrogen in transportable form is oil. Maybe some genius will figure out an energy efficient way of liquefying coal to accomplish the same kinds of results, or turning other forms of energy into liquid hydrogen, but in terms of providing venture capital, it's likely wallets are going to remain in pockets. Waving one's hands about emerging technologies does create a breeze, but it takes more than that to spring funding for development. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes
On Sep 12, 9:50*am, a wrote:
On Sep 12, 9:27*am, Mark wrote: On Sep 12, 8:38*am, a wrote: On Sep 12, 7:26*am, Mark wrote: On Sep 12, 12:54*am, Jim Logajan wrote: I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of 4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the cost of inflation, houses, or autos. Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note: http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_...onference_mate... The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation, so is missing explanations and references. In 1971, the average family income was $9,870. [1] The 1971 Cessna sold for USD$13,425 in the 172 version and USD$14,995 in the Skyhawk version.[2} In 2010 the average family income was $46,242 [3] A new 2010 Cessna Skyhawk costs about $297,000 [4] THEREFORE... In 1971 you'd pay 1.51 times the average annual salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk. In 2010 you will pay 6.42 times your average annual salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk. Any Questions?? --- Mark 1.http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=457822 2. wikipedia 3. U.S. census bureau 4.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4203648AAeYJkd This is one way to do the analysis: what is being overlooked is income distribution among households. A person on the business side of general aviation would not give a damn about the 'average' household but would want to know how many people constitute his market. You would need an average income of everyone who actually purchased a plane in 1971. That was the actual market, then do the same for today and ratio those against their respective purchase prices. That that would be 100% accurate. *However, anyone who talks with an old-timer doesn't need that data to see what's happened. Planes cost more than they used to. (dollar per dollar) There are more relatively poor single family units than there were in the 70s. Very much so, and the upper 3% of society averaged against the other 97% give a distorted picture. In reality there are millions and millions of people making less than 20K/year. None of them can buy an airplane today. In the 70s the US had, I think, a more robust middle class, and general aviation in some form was within reach of what might have been called the 'upper middle' class. Never the less, your ratios do tell a worthwhile story. Well...it's the "Walmart syndrome". *They are the world's largest importer of Chinese goods. This was the beginning of manufacturing going overseas. Then, remember Ross Perot and NAFTA?http://www.truthdig..com/report/item...s_perot_right/ The trading borders fell, and contributed to the problem. And finally our own government, through taxation, punishes American companies for trying to make a profit. Ergo...manufacturing goes overseas and middle-class begins the big shrink. Now the aviation market has an elite customer base of the upper eschelon, and is most profitable by selling fewer planes at a higher price. cut ... but the consensus among us older pilots at least is that general aviation's best days were 20 or 30 years ago, and we would not expect much of a return on money invested in this market segment. I said that a resurgence in GA is underway, and I maintain that position. *This opinion isn't based on U.S. sales and fleet numbers, but on observations in the global arena. *The number of new pilots in countries such as Iran and South America are very much on the upswing and should the global financial environment change for the better we in U.S. aviation are bound to benefit. Safe money today is in the LSA market, barring an outright depression. *(imho). --- Mark My views of general aviation are limited by my direct experience, and that is *in the US domestic airspace. Global influences will certainly be a factor, and energy availability, Egs per ml or BTUs per gallon will also be a limit. Nothing comes close to packing the controlled energy in a gallon of oil based fuel, and for GA to be an alternative to airlines or longer distance surface travel there will most likely have to be enough endurance on board for a 1000 km flight. In the next decade we'll probably see batteries that can propel small cars a few hundred miles. Although my airplane, flown conservatively, can give me 20 miles to a gallon of 100 octane low lead, the weight of the batteries to provide the same energy, now and in the next 10 years, will not effectively replace the 33 gallons of gas I carry in each wing. *There are a bunch of people a lot smarter than I am working on the electrochemical properties *of batteries, but my knowledge of the underlying chemistry and physics suggest any gains will be incremental. Converting carbon to carbon dioxide and hydrogen to water is a remarkably effective source of energy, and the best sources of that carbon and hydrogen in transportable form is oil. Maybe some genius will figure out an energy efficient way of liquefying coal to accomplish the same kinds of results, or turning other forms of energy into liquid hydrogen, but in terms of providing venture capital, it's likely wallets are going to remain in pockets. *Waving one's hands about emerging technologies does create a breeze, but it takes more than that to spring funding for development.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Research into alternative renewable energy is a hot ticket right now being backed by the current administration. That can be lucrative in itself. My research on this got dumped onto a flash drive when I switched computers and I've not revisited it in months but three things stick in my mind. 1) the efficent electrolysis of water now possible by very low voltage with the use of specific enabling catylists. The molecular seperation creates current, isolates hydrogen for use, and upon recombination creates current again. This work by MIT makes it possible to do this with 12V DC, i.e., solar panels. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Water...de-91275.shtml 2) Lithium Nanotitanate, state of the art batteries. http://www.growthconsulting.frost.com/web/images.nsf/0/CF3363569E7FD0B5652571F6001CBF4B/$File/TI%20Alert-Power.htm 3) Graphene, and it's incredible ultracapacity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene By now I'm sure this is all old news and new gains are being made. The batteries we will use won't be the heavy lead batteries of the past, but tiny light-weight ones perfect for aviation. Just as computers used to take up entire buildings to do what today's cell phone's can do, batteries will be tiny and super powerful. Electric motors have also seen significant new discoveries recently too which make them smaller and more powerful. --- Mark |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes
On Sep 12, 11:29*am, Mark wrote:
On Sep 12, 9:50*am, a wrote: On Sep 12, 9:27*am, Mark wrote: On Sep 12, 8:38*am, a wrote: On Sep 12, 7:26*am, Mark wrote: On Sep 12, 12:54*am, Jim Logajan wrote: I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of 4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the cost of inflation, houses, or autos. Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note: http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_...onference_mate... The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation, so is missing explanations and references. In 1971, the average family income was $9,870. [1] The 1971 Cessna sold for USD$13,425 in the 172 version and USD$14,995 in the Skyhawk version.[2} In 2010 the average family income was $46,242 [3] A new 2010 Cessna Skyhawk costs about $297,000 [4] THEREFORE... In 1971 you'd pay 1.51 times the average annual salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk. In 2010 you will pay 6.42 times your average annual salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk. Any Questions?? --- Mark 1.http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=457822 2. wikipedia 3. U.S. census bureau 4.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4203648AAeYJkd This is one way to do the analysis: what is being overlooked is income distribution among households. A person on the business side of general aviation would not give a damn about the 'average' household but would want to know how many people constitute his market. You would need an average income of everyone who actually purchased a plane in 1971. That was the actual market, then do the same for today and ratio those against their respective purchase prices. That that would be 100% accurate. *However, anyone who talks with an old-timer doesn't need that data to see what's happened. Planes cost more than they used to. (dollar per dollar) There are more relatively poor single family units than there were in the 70s. Very much so, and the upper 3% of society averaged against the other 97% give a distorted picture. In reality there are millions and millions of people making less than 20K/year. None of them can buy an airplane today. In the 70s the US had, I think, a more robust middle class, and general aviation in some form was within reach of what might have been called the 'upper middle' class. Never the less, your ratios do tell a worthwhile story. Well...it's the "Walmart syndrome". *They are the world's largest importer of Chinese goods. This was the beginning of manufacturing going overseas. Then, remember Ross Perot and NAFTA?http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...s_perot_right/ The trading borders fell, and contributed to the problem. And finally our own government, through taxation, punishes American companies for trying to make a profit. Ergo...manufacturing goes overseas and middle-class begins the big shrink. Now the aviation market has an elite customer base of the upper eschelon, and is most profitable by selling fewer planes at a higher price. cut ... but the consensus among us older pilots at least is that general aviation's best days were 20 or 30 years ago, and we would not expect much of a return on money invested in this market segment. I said that a resurgence in GA is underway, and I maintain that position. *This opinion isn't based on U.S. sales and fleet numbers, but on observations in the global arena. *The number of new pilots in countries such as Iran and South America are very much on the upswing and should the global financial environment change for the better we in U.S. aviation are bound to benefit. Safe money today is in the LSA market, barring an outright depression. *(imho). --- Mark My views of general aviation are limited by my direct experience, and that is *in the US domestic airspace. Global influences will certainly be a factor, and energy availability, Egs per ml or BTUs per gallon will also be a limit. Nothing comes close to packing the controlled energy in a gallon of oil based fuel, and for GA to be an alternative to airlines or longer distance surface travel there will most likely have to be enough endurance on board for a 1000 km flight. In the next decade we'll probably see batteries that can propel small cars a few hundred miles. Although my airplane, flown conservatively, can give me 20 miles to a gallon of 100 octane low lead, the weight of the batteries to provide the same energy, now and in the next 10 years, will not effectively replace the 33 gallons of gas I carry in each wing. *There are a bunch of people a lot smarter than I am working on the electrochemical properties *of batteries, but my knowledge of the underlying chemistry and physics suggest any gains will be incremental. Converting carbon to carbon dioxide and hydrogen to water is a remarkably effective source of energy, and the best sources of that carbon and hydrogen in transportable form is oil. Maybe some genius will figure out an energy efficient way of liquefying coal to accomplish the same kinds of results, or turning other forms of energy into liquid hydrogen, but in terms of providing venture capital, it's likely wallets are going to remain in pockets. *Waving one's hands about emerging technologies does create a breeze, but it takes more than that to spring funding for development.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Research into alternative renewable energy is a hot ticket right now being backed by the current administration. That can be lucrative in itself. My research on this got dumped onto a flash drive when I switched computers and I've not revisited it in months but three things stick in my mind. 1) the efficent electrolysis of water now possible by very * * low voltage with the use of specific enabling catylists. * * The molecular seperation creates current, isolates * * hydrogen for use, and upon recombination creates * * current again. This work by MIT makes it possible to * * do this with 12V DC, i.e., solar panels.http://news.softpedia.com/news/Water...Easy-by-Revolu... 2) Lithium Nanotitanate, state of the art batteries. * *http://www.growthconsulting.frost.co...CF3363569E7FD0... 3) Graphene, and it's incredible ultracapacity.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene By now I'm sure this is all old news and new gains are being made. The batteries we will use won't be the heavy lead batteries of the past, but tiny light-weight ones perfect for aviation. Just as computers used to take up entire buildings to do what today's cell phone's can do, batteries will be tiny and super powerful. *Electric motors have also seen significant new discoveries recently too which make them smaller and more powerful. --- Mark Electrolysis of water can be quite efficient, but of course one puts more energy into the process than is available in the resultant hydrogen. It has the advantage of allowing stationary power plants to provide a mobile fuel. Storage and transportation is a formidable task, and I think energy density is very low compared to hydrocarbons. That the primary energy comes from solar power directly, or coal is fairly meaningless. Energy density it a key requirement. I submit the notion that government advocacy and funding as opposed to private sector financing tells you all you need to know about the likelihood of success. If the ROI was there BP and others would be pouring money into it. The oil companies know about oil depletion and don't want to be overtaken by alternatives. There is certainly private sector interest in battery technology, but again, my wallet is going to stay in my pocket. The odds on some bets just are not attractive, I am comfortable letting someone else take the risks. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes
On Sep 12, 1:16*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote: On Sep 12, 12:54*am, Jim Logajan wrote: I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of 4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the cost of inflation, houses, or autos. Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note: http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_...onference_mate.... The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation, so is missing explanations and references. In 1971, the average family income was $9,870. [1] The 1971 Cessna sold for USD$13,425 in the 172 version and USD$14,995 in the Skyhawk version.[2} In 2010 the average family income was $46,242 [3] A new 2010 Cessna Skyhawk costs about $297,000 [4] THEREFORE... In 1971 you'd pay 1.51 times the average annual salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk. In 2010 you will pay 6.42 times your average annual salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk. Any Questions?? --- Mark 1.http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=457822 2. wikipedia 3. U.S. census bureau 4.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4203648AAeYJkd It has never been the "average family" that buys airplanes. It has always been the people in the upper middle class and above, such as doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers, business owners, etc. In the early 70's I was going to school while working at an avionics shop.. A big percentage of the customers were engineers from the local, and now defunct, aerospace plant. There were no bricklayers or painters with airplanes, but the guys that owned the construction companies were owners. -- Jim Pennino Yes, and really if you think about it anyone who becomes a pilot and buys a plane...isn't average. Of course you're smart enough to realize I pulled that data to reveal the shift in American buying power. --- Mark |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes
On Sep 12, 11:51*am, a wrote:
cut There is certainly private sector interest in battery technology, but again, my wallet is going to stay in my pocket. The odds on some bets just are not attractive, I am comfortable letting someone else take the risks. Oh, I didn't mean the lucrative opportunites in alternative energy right now are from investment in fledgling companies. I believe it's from government grants and subsidies to explore this field, or from receiving investment money. In this case it's better to receive than give. LOL! You sound as tight as I am. I don't even give to P.B.S. ;^) --- Mark |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes
Mark wrote:
On Sep 12, 1:16Â*pm, wrote: Mark wrote: On Sep 12, 12:54Â*am, Jim Logajan wrote: I was pretty sure that I'd seen somewhere that the price of typical general aviation airplanes were, relative to median annual income, about the same ratio as they had always been. I'm still not sure whether that is true, but according to GAMA, another number, the historical price of 4 seat entry level airplanes (among others) has risen faster than the cost of inflation, houses, or autos. Pages 11 to 19 of this GAMA document are of particular note: http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_...onference_mate... The document appears to be PDF coversion of a PowerPoint presentation, so is missing explanations and references. In 1971, the average family income was $9,870. [1] The 1971 Cessna sold for USD$13,425 in the 172 version and USD$14,995 in the Skyhawk version.[2} In 2010 the average family income was $46,242 [3] A new 2010 Cessna Skyhawk costs about $297,000 [4] THEREFORE... In 1971 you'd pay 1.51 times the average annual salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk. In 2010 you will pay 6.42 times your average annual salary to get a new Cessna Skyhawk. Any Questions?? --- Mark 1.http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=457822 2. wikipedia 3. U.S. census bureau 4.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4203648AAeYJkd It has never been the "average family" that buys airplanes. It has always been the people in the upper middle class and above, such as doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers, business owners, etc. In the early 70's I was going to school while working at an avionics shop. A big percentage of the customers were engineers from the local, and now defunct, aerospace plant. There were no bricklayers or painters with airplanes, but the guys that owned the construction companies were owners. -- Jim Pennino Yes, and really if you think about it anyone who becomes a pilot and buys a plane...isn't average. Of course you're smart enough to realize I pulled that data to reveal the shift in American buying power. Actually, your data has nothing to do with buying power, that is measured by the CPI, not wages. In terms of 1971 dollars versus 2010 dollars, the 2010 Skyhawk costs 3.5 times what the 1971 model cost. Of course in the 1971 Skyhawk the engine was smaller, didn't have fuel injection, and just about all the standard avionics in the 2010 model was an option in the 1971 model, and some didn't even exist. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes
Mark wrote:
On Sep 12, 7:54Â*pm, wrote: Actually, your data has nothing to do with buying power, that is measured by the CPI, not wages. No matter. I've proven my point and there are other sources to corroberate it. In terms of 1971 dollars versus 2010 dollars, the 2010 Skyhawk costs 3.5 times what the 1971 model cost. Um, why are you flip-flopping now? I'm the one asserting that the ratio has changed to a rip-off price. You're the one asserting that dollar per dollar the value is constant. Remember? Ummm, no, I never said constant. The closes thing to "constant" I said was that a decent used airplanes still costs about the same as a good car. Of course in the 1971 Skyhawk the engine was smaller, didn't have fuel injection, and just about all the standard avionics in the 2010 model was an option in the 1971 model, and some didn't even exist. Well then, that must explain ( along with inflation ) why they've gone from $15,000 to $300,000. Better radios. Actually, from just under $85k to just under $300k in terms of CPI adjusted dollar value. And yes, about $100k of that increase is easily the better standard equipment, which isn't just radios. Hell, even the paint is better. So now you are down to about 1.5 times as expensive when you do an apples to apples comparison. Hardly the "ripoff" you keep ranting about. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Condor Tips Document | Paul Remde | Soaring | 14 | May 7th 08 08:13 PM |
how do you document dates of ratings? | Sylvain | Piloting | 5 | September 30th 05 12:03 PM |
Hi, GuyN2Latex here´s the document | Steve Foley | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 21st 04 11:43 PM |
Need Pawnee Tech Document | Roy Bourgeois | Soaring | 0 | May 13th 04 05:25 PM |
Hi, techtarget here´s the document | Geo Silver | Military Aviation | 0 | March 14th 04 03:55 AM |