Airplane prices are ridiculous

Mark wrote:
On Sep 10, 12:12Â*pm, wrote:

So why, relatively speaking, were planes so much cheaper
back in the 1970's? Â*I don't think it was supply and demand
but I could be wrong.

They weren't.

A decent, used, lower end airplane both then and now costs about the same
as a high end car.

Oh, sure, in absolute dollars they were a lot cheaper then, but so was
everything else.

My understanding is that the RATIO has not been maintained,
as I've already stated and RELATIVELY speaking planes cost
more today than in the 1970's.

It is rather trivial to find both the current price and the 70's price
for things.

Why don't you do that and let us know what numbers you come up with?


Of course, airplanes are never going to be mass produced in millions per
year by robots.

Maybe not but with globalization of the world economy I
wouldn't be suprised to see China step up to the plate and
fill this niche.

What niche?

The sector of people who don't want to pay more than
50K.

There are lots of airplanes available for under $50k, just not new.

However many new cars are now pushing $50k.

The equipment to do robotic building costs big bucks that can only be
payed for by huge volumes.

Yes I am familiar with this, as I worked for Lockheed during
the 70's and 80's.

Yeah, and I worked for Lockheed in the 60's.

Lockheed never automatted anything to the extent car makers have.

Even if the price for a new Cessna/Cirrus/Piper were the same as a new car,
the percentage of people owning airplanes would not change very much simply
because most people are not interested in owning an airplane.

I'm sure that there are MANY people who would own an
airplane today if they could get one for $24,900.

You CAN get one for $24,900, which BTW is less than most decent new cars
and trucks cost now.

The bottom line is there is no huge market for airplanes at any price which
means the building of them will never be automatted like cars are.

While I wouldn't expect a company to try and crank out planes
as if they were toyotas, I think the cheap international labor
market could make available a reasonably priced new craft
for the geneneral aviation market.

You do know that a big chunk of the new LSA aircraft are coming out of
former Soviet block Eastern European nations don't you?

They may be cheaper than the Cessna LSA, but not by anywhere near the order
of magnitude you are whining about.

Â* From a stand-point of profitablility I'm sure

Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft among others have found a
nice balance of optimum profit by producing just enough
inventory to keep the prices where they want them without
having to tool up and mass produce. Labor would be their
largest overhead and human resource management is
always volatile.

Utter nonsense.

Wrong. Generally speaking your highest on-going overhead
is labor. With any successful business, at some time the
idea of expansion is entertained, and while your actual sales
very well may increase (the reason for examining expansion)
very likely your profits may decrease.

The point went right over your head.

See the next sentence and try again.

All the airplane makers have been struggling just to survive for a
decade
or so now.

Agreed, with many going bankrupt but it isn't due
to lack of demand. (you know...supply/demand)

Gibberish; if there were demand companies wouldn't be going bankrupt and
the remaining companies fighting so hard to keep alive with a diminished
market.

Back to the Chinese... Â*this short video gives a nice little
tutorial on the state of electric airplanes and China's
contribution. Just think, no oxygen required.

Electric airplanes are toys.

Precisely what was said about the telephone..."Just a toy".

You mean as opposed to the gasoline telephone?

BTW, electric transportation of any kind is a toy unless you have an
onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwyyQ1BckK0

In term of cost, the best time to buy stuff is when the economy is
down
and people are dealing.

No doubt and people are selling everything these days,
especially in Florida where houses are 1/2 (or less)
their former price. Most anywhere you can find a boat,
travel trailor, or motorcycle for bargain prices and people
are selling 120K airplanes for 80K. Problem is, after a
year or so most of those toys just end up sitting in the
garage and the 80K plane is STILL overpriced.

What are you, 15?

No need for insults. I'm 55, became financially
independent at age 40, and I didn't do it by throwing
away money on impulse spending.

So quit whinning and get a job to pay for an airplane or buy a used one
for $25k.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark wrote:
On Sep 10, 12:23Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:

A shrinking market,

Why do you think the market is shrinking? Â*I think it's
growing.

Then your thinking is clouded.

The market has been shrinking for a couple of decades,
but I believe there is a resurgence of interest at this time.

Your thoughts are not reflected by sales figures.

The sales numbers are out there for anyone to see and the market is shrinking
in all sectors from GA to airliners.

Yes sales are off. Interest is still high.

And from what market study did you get that information?

The liability is on the manufacturer and liability insurance costs big
money.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Insurance companies are
robber-barons. Look at the spread sheets. ( A.I.G.) So,
basically, GREED is driving up the cost of planes.

Nope, basically a litigious society winning suites for airplanes built
over two decades ago are driving up the cost of planes and driving parts
makers out of business.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 10, 7:46*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 10, 12:12*pm, wrote:

So why, relatively speaking, were planes so much cheaper
back in the 1970's? *I don't think it was supply and demand
but I could be wrong.

They weren't.

A decent, used, lower end airplane both then and now costs about the same
as a high end car.

Oh, sure, in absolute dollars they were a lot cheaper then, but so was
everything else.

My understanding is that the RATIO has not been maintained,
as I've already stated and RELATIVELY speaking planes cost
more today than in the 1970's.

It is rather trivial to find both the current price and the 70's price
for things.

That's not my objective.

Why don't you do that and let us know what numbers you come up with?

Actually people other than me have already done
this with regard to General Aviation and it's a fact that
planes were more accessable to the public back in
the 1970's. I'm merely recounting from memory what
I've already read.



Of course, airplanes are never going to be mass produced in millions per
year by robots.

Maybe not but with globalization of the world economy I
wouldn't be suprised to see China step up to the plate and
fill this niche.

What niche?

The sector of people who don't want to pay more than
50K.

There are lots of airplanes available for under $50k, just not new.

Yeah, but not low wing, light-sport, cross-country ones,
unless you want something made in 1945.

However many new cars are now pushing $50k.

The equipment to do robotic building costs big bucks that can only be
payed for by huge volumes.

Yes I am familiar with this, as I worked for Lockheed during
the 70's and 80's.

Yeah, and I worked for Lockheed in the 60's.

Neat. I was in Marietta.

Lockheed never automatted anything to the extent car makers have.

You CAN'T make planes the way you make cars.

Even if the price for a new Cessna/Cirrus/Piper were the same as a new car,
the percentage of people owning airplanes would not change very much simply
because most people are not interested in owning an airplane.

I'm sure that there are MANY people who would own an
airplane today if they could get one for $24,900.

You CAN get one for $24,900, which BTW is less than most decent new cars
and trucks cost now.

Which one is a light sport, low-wing, cross-country plan that
I can fit my 6'3" self into?

The bottom line is there is no huge market for airplanes at any price which
means the building of them will never be automatted like cars are.

While I wouldn't expect a company to try and crank out planes
as if they were toyotas, I think the cheap international labor
market could make available a reasonably priced new craft
for the geneneral aviation market.

You do know that a big chunk of the new LSA aircraft are coming out of
former Soviet block Eastern European nations don't you?

Of course. Czechoslovakia is a leader.

They may be cheaper than the Cessna LSA, but not by anywhere near the order
of magnitude you are whining about.

They aren't cheaper.


* From a stand-point of profitablility I'm sure

Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft among others have found a
nice balance of optimum profit by producing just enough
inventory to keep the prices where they want them without
having to tool up and mass produce. Labor would be their
largest overhead and human resource management is
always volatile.

Utter nonsense.

Wrong. Generally speaking your highest on-going overhead
is labor. *With any successful business, at some time the
idea of expansion is entertained, and while your actual sales
very well may increase (the reason for examining expansion)
very likely your profits may decrease.

The point went right over your head.

I understood your point.

See the next sentence and try again.

All the airplane makers have been struggling just to survive for a
decade
or so now.

Agreed, with many going bankrupt but it isn't due
to lack of demand. (you know...supply/demand)

Gibberish; if there were demand companies wouldn't be going bankrupt and
the remaining companies fighting so hard to keep alive with a diminished
market.

My point went right over your head.

The ---- demand is there, but not at those prices.

Back to the Chinese... *this short video gives a nice little
tutorial on the state of electric airplanes and China's
contribution. Just think, no oxygen required.

Electric airplanes are toys.

Precisely what was said about the telephone..."Just a toy".

You mean as opposed to the gasoline telephone?

No, I mean it's a fledgling technology that has aspects
of superiority if developed.


BTW, electric transportation of any kind is a toy unless you have an
onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity.

You must read up on bullet trains.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwyyQ1BckK0

In term of cost, the best time to buy stuff is when the economy is
down
and people are dealing.

No doubt and people are selling everything these days,
especially in Florida where houses are 1/2 (or less)
their former price. Most anywhere you can find a boat,
travel trailor, or motorcycle for bargain prices and people
are selling 120K airplanes for 80K. Problem is, after a
year or so most of those toys just end up sitting in the
garage and the 80K plane is STILL overpriced.

What are you, 15?

No need for insults. I'm 55, *became financially
independent at age 40, and I didn't do it by throwing
away money on impulse spending.

So quit whinning and get a job to pay for an airplane or buy a used one
for $25k.

Ha ha, it isn't a matter getting the money, but one
of refusing to waste it.

Ok, so where it that light-sport, low-wing, cross
country plane produced after 1990 for 25K? I'll
take two.

---
Mark


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Sep 10, 7:53*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 10, 12:23*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
A shrinking market,

Why do you think the market is shrinking? *I think it's
growing.

Then your thinking is clouded.

The market has been shrinking for a couple of decades,
but I believe there is a resurgence of interest at this time.

Your thoughts are not reflected by sales figures.

Yes, and you want to know why? Because the planes
are overpriced.

The sales numbers are out there for anyone to see and the market is shrinking
in all sectors from GA to airliners.

Yes sales are off. *Interest is still high.

And from what market study did you get that information?

It's a culmulative understanding from multiple sources,
and partially driven by baby boomers who now have
interest in the LSA market. I've also been to 3 different
flight schools in the last year, and reading extensively
from AOPA and other sources. Yes it's my opinion, and
I find it trivial to dig up hard numbers. Market studies
are usually agenda driven.

The liability is on the manufacturer and liability insurance costs big
money.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Insurance companies are
robber-barons. *Look at the spread sheets. *( A.I.G.) *So,
basically, GREED is driving up the cost of planes.

Nope, basically a litigious society winning suites for airplanes built
over two decades ago are driving up the cost of planes and driving parts
makers out of business.

So you're saying tort reform would entice companies like
Arion aircraft and Piper sport to stop asking 135,000.00?

Heh. Thanks for your input Jim. I'll look into it.

---
Mark

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark wrote:
On Sep 10, 7:46Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 10, 12:12Â*pm, wrote:


It is rather trivial to find both the current price and the 70's price
for things.

That's not my objective.

It is what you are bitching about.

Why don't you do that and let us know what numbers you come up with?

Actually people other than me have already done
this with regard to General Aviation and it's a fact that
planes were more accessable to the public back in
the 1970's. I'm merely recounting from memory what
I've already read.

No, you are refusing to look at any real numbers and just pulling stuff
out of your butt.

There are lots of airplanes available for under $50k, just not new.

Yeah, but not low wing, light-sport, cross-country ones,
unless you want something made in 1945.

The light sport classification has only been around for a couple of years.

There are a few certificated airplanes built prior to that that are light
sport eligable, however there weren't any GA built in 1945 as there was
this other thing called WWII that interrupted civil production.

Used LSA's can be had for not much more than $50k.

You CAN'T make planes the way you make cars.

Sure you could if the volume were high enough to pay for the machinery, but
it isn't, and isn't ever going to be.

Which one is a light sport, low-wing, cross-country plan that
I can fit my 6'3" self into?

Since LSA is a new catagory, there are no old LSA airplanes, but used ones
a couple of years old can be had you can fit into for around $80k.

Since you are financially independent, if you got a job and saved for a
couple of years, you could easily buy one cash, especially since as the
years go by the early ones only get cheaper.

You do know that a big chunk of the new LSA aircraft are coming out of
former Soviet block Eastern European nations don't you?

Of course. Czechoslovakia is a leader.

They may be cheaper than the Cessna LSA, but not by anywhere near the order
of magnitude you are whining about.

They aren't cheaper.

Of course they are and a simple search shows them to be so.

Electric airplanes are toys.

Precisely what was said about the telephone..."Just a toy".

You mean as opposed to the gasoline telephone?

No, I mean it's a fledgling technology that has aspects
of superiority if developed.

Airplanes, electric motors, and batteries have all been around for about
a hundred years.

There is nothing "fledgling" about any of the technology.

BTW, electric transportation of any kind is a toy unless you have an
onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity.

You must read up on bullet trains.

Trains can get power from the rails; they don't have to carry their energy
source.

Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy
source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
electricity.

Better?

So quit whinning and get a job to pay for an airplane or buy a used one
for $25k.

Ha ha, it isn't a matter getting the money, but one
of refusing to waste it.

Excuses are like belly buttons; eveyone has one.

Ok, so where it that light-sport, low-wing, cross
country plane produced after 1990 for 25K? I'll
take two.

Once again, the light sport catagory is new so the oldest airplanes are
only a few years old.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark wrote:
On Sep 10, 7:53Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 10, 12:23Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
A shrinking market,

Why do you think the market is shrinking? Â*I think it's
growing.

Then your thinking is clouded.

The market has been shrinking for a couple of decades,
but I believe there is a resurgence of interest at this time.

Your thoughts are not reflected by sales figures.

Yes, and you want to know why? Because the planes
are overpriced.

No, it is because most people have no interest what so ever in owning an
airplane and in fact a very large number of people are scared of "little"
airplanes.

Yes sales are off. Â*Interest is still high.

And from what market study did you get that information?

It's a culmulative understanding from multiple sources,
and partially driven by baby boomers who now have
interest in the LSA market.

Mostly because the operating costs are low and you don't need to be able
to pass a medical.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark writes:

So why, relatively speaking, were planes so much cheaper
back in the 1970's? I don't think it was supply and demand
but I could be wrong.

Most things were cheaper in the 1970s, relatively speaking. As I recall,
American buying power peaked not long before the first oil crisis in 1973. It
has been drifting downwards ever since.

Maybe not but with globalization of the world economy I
wouldn't be suprised to see China step up to the plate and
fill this niche.

Private pilots are rare even in the countries with the strongest private
aviation sectors. I don't know if China has any private pilots at all. The
Chinese like huge markets, and I doubt that there is a huge market for any
kind of private aircraft today, inside or outside China.

Mark writes:

I'm sure that there are MANY people who would own an
airplane today if they could get one for $24,900.

I disagree.

It's very simple to get a license to drive a car. It's very expensive and
complicated to get a license to fly an airplane. And the regulatory burden
doesn't stop with the initial certification--everything about aviation is
heavily regulated. Most people aren't anywhere near interested enough in
flying to deal with all that red tape. Even if aircraft were free, relatively
few people would be flying.

Agreed, with many going bankrupt but it isn't due
to lack of demand. (you know...supply/demand)

What is it due to, then?

Mark writes:

You must read up on bullet trains.

Electric trains are different from electric airplanes, because the source of
power is not being carried with the vehicle in an electric train. You can have
a massive, fixed power plant producing electricity for the train, and all the
train needs is some transformers and motors. That option doesn't exist with
aircraft, which must carry the entire power plant aboard. Worse yet, aircraft
are much more sensitive to weight than trains.

Mark writes:

Why do you think the market is shrinking? I think it's
growing.

Lots of reasons, which might include:

- Reduced buying power
- Greater choice of leisure-time activities (travel, computers, etc.)
- Loss of the glamour associated with aviation due to mass-market air travel
- Diminished willingness to take risks in a society that is more and more
fearful about everything (thank the media for that)
- Ever-increasing risks of litigation of all kinds
- Paranoia over the "dangers" of aviation, instrinsic and extrinsic
- Ever-increasing regulatory restrictions and burden

Back around 1970 or so, it wasn't that far-fetched to consider an airplane for
the family. It was kind of like buying a nice boat to use at the local lake.
But today things have changed, and having one's own airplane is considered
more exotic, more inaccessible, and more bizarre than it used to be.

With insurance I just can't see this being a factor that
would drive up the price of planes, and really do you
suppose that many pilots find themselves as defendents?

Insurance is expensive, and the greater the amount of litigation, the higher
the premiums go. Insurance is a concern for airplane manufacturers, airports,
airplane owners, and airplane pilots. They all have to pay and pay, lawsuits
are a constant menace, and even a single lawsuit can raise premiums beyond
reach.

How so? Yes certification is expensive but that money
goes to the flight school.

Certification of an airplane has nothing to do with flight school. When every
nut and bolt must be certified and traced, it gets very expensive to build an
airplane.

That's why there are no truly new engine designs, and very few overall changes
to private aircraft. (Airliners have changed more, but there's a lot more
money available to pay for the certification.)

Wait a second. I would dare say that MANY lawsuits
stem from car related incidents and FEW lawsuits are
incurred (proportionally speaking) with private pilots in
single engine planes.

The incidence of lawsuits per capita or per trip is much higher for aircraft,
especially in dollar terms.