Airplane prices are ridiculous

Mark writes:

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

I'm sure there are many people who are interested in flying their own
airplanes, but either their interest isn't great enough for them to overcome
all the many obstacles to flying for fun, or they just don't have the money
for it.

The situation is likely to only get worse.

Yes sales are off. Interest is still high.
Conclusion: The friggin' planes cost too much.

It's not just the cost of the airplanes. It's all the overhead associated with
flying in general. You cannot simply buy a plane, jump in, and fly around.

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.

Only in part. And in any case, greed isn't likely to disappear.

Reminiscent of the FDA.

Exactly. That's why so many orphan drugs fall by the wayside. Those orphan
drugs are a lot like private airplanes.

Mark writes:

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

It would reduce prices somewhat, just as it induced manufacturers to start
building private airplanes again after liability crises some years ago.

On Sep 10, 9:30*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
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.

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. *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.

I wrote something about this a while ago, paraphrasing here


I use general aviation a lot, and own a Mooney built 30 some years
ago. I think the
opportunities for general aviation have been going down, as measured
by the size of the fleet, the number of pilots, and hours flown -- all
generally available information -- since about the 70s. Fuel costs
will keep rising, the demand
for oil products is overtaking overtaking supply, increased regulation
will add artificial costs that have to paid for with real dollars, and
the need for physical travel will probably decline with increasing
digital communication. I see this happening now -- decision makers
that I used to visit are happier to take a virtual meeting than a
real one, and the coming generation is better at that kind of
communication than we are.

A for electric airplanes, it's going to be a long time before anything
weighing 6 pounds and occupying 231 cubic inches will hold the amount
of easily controlled energy a gallon of av-gas does.

OK, think like a manager. Do a strategic plan. We start with a SWOT
analysis -- strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Do you
hear of any venture capitalists lining up to invest in general
aviation? It's a weak and declining market, the threats are commercial
aviation and digital communications, virtual travel. The strength for
non hobby SEL is, economic door to door travel time in the 200 to say
700 or 900 mile range is probably faster in an M20J than other
methods. The door to door time means deciding when to travel on your
own schedule, not an airline's. That also means if a business meeting
ends early or late, I can still be wheels up 15 minutes after getting
to the airport, and I can use an outlier airport if it's closer to
where I'm going. And the opportunity? When companies like Mooney and
Cessna and the like, managed by people whose careers depend on being
on top of things, are struggling, there simply isn't much
opportunity.

I'm not going to bother looking it up, but would probably bet the
average in use SEL general aviation airplane is at least 25 years old.
If true that does not say much for the state of the art, does it?

I can hear my grand children, in an oil poor world a couple of decades
from now, saying "Granddad A, you flew your own airplane? Why?"

On Sep 10, 9:30*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
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.

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.

So you're saying the decline in aviation sales is due to:

1) fear
2) lack of interest

I won't implore you to provide a "market survey" to
cooberate your opinion but my opinion is that general
aviation is simply pricing itself out of business.


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.

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

I agree 100%

---
Mark

--
Jim Pennino

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

- Show quoted text -

Mxsmanic wrote:
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.

The Chinese have only recently legalized private flying.

Last I heard there was only a small handfull of GA aircraft in China.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 10, 9:27*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 10, 7:46*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 10, 12:12*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.

No, I am digging into the numbers to shed light on
the disproportion buying power in an attempt to examine
reasons why the prices are ridiculous. Keep in mind,
I'm examining this as a discussion topic.

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.

I've read this already, and the fact is planes are priced
disproportionately relative to current incomes as compared
to decades earlier. Jim this information is available and
derived from real numbers. If you believe I'm wrong then
give me those REAL NUMBERS you are referring to.


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..

Yes I realize this, but many old planes are now included
in the category.

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.

Well, I was just ballparking that date. Off the top of my
head the Ercoupe comes to mind, or a Piper J-3.

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

Yes and they aren't worth it, IMHO.

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.

Even building C-141's and C-5a's you still had to have a
lot of hand work and inspections that wouldn't be done on
an automobile.

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

There are MANY old LSA planes, or planes which now fit into
that category and you know what?... the prices have now
gone up to fit the market demand.

, but used ones
a couple of years old can be had you can fit into for around $80k.

Yes. Not worth it to the general public.

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.

Well, I wouldn't use the Cessna 162 "flycatcher" as
the gold standard. That is a perfect example of the rip-off
I'm discussing here.

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.

Then you must read about graphene, nano-technology,
supercapacitors and all the work that is being done in this
field. It's only a matter of time.

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.

The Soviets and the U.S. have already tired nuclear flight.
It only works if you omitt the lead shield as the Russians
did. The Russians all died.

Better?

Yes symantically correct, but still out of sync with
the future.

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.

a. it's not worth the price man.
b. like the rest of the country I'm on a spending
freeze for all but the most exquisite bargain.

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.

Except for the 1946 models, like this one:
http://www.global-air.com/global/g06219.htm

---
Mark

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark wrote:
On Sep 10, 9:27Â*pm, wrote:
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.

No, I am digging into the numbers to shed light on
the disproportion buying power in an attempt to examine
reasons why the prices are ridiculous. Keep in mind,
I'm examining this as a discussion topic.

No, you aren't digging into anything, you are just arm waving.

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. Â*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.

I've read this already, and the fact is planes are priced
disproportionately relative to current incomes as compared
to decades earlier. Jim this information is available and
derived from real numbers. If you believe I'm wrong then
give me those REAL NUMBERS you are referring to.

What is the price of a new 1970 Cessna 172 in 2010 dollars and the 2010
price for a Cessna 172?

Current income is irrelevant.

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.

Yes I realize this, but many old planes are now included
in the category.

No, there is not.

Few old airplanes meet the weight limit.

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.

Well, I was just ballparking that date. Off the top of my
head the Ercoupe comes to mind, or a Piper J-3.

Some Ercoupes and some J-3's, but not all.

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

Yes and they aren't worth it, IMHO.

To you.

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.

Even building C-141's and C-5a's you still had to have a
lot of hand work and inspections that wouldn't be done on
an automobile.

No airplane has ever been built with the level of automattion of car makeing.

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

There are MANY old LSA planes, or planes which now fit into
that category and you know what?... the prices have now
gone up to fit the market demand.

Yeah, the price of the few old airplanes that meet LSA requirement has gone
up.

But most old airplanes don't meet the LSA standards.

, but used ones
a couple of years old can be had you can fit into for around $80k.

Yes. Not worth it to the general public.

The general public doesn't care about airplanes or have any desire to own
one.

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.

Well, I wouldn't use the Cessna 162 "flycatcher" as
the gold standard. That is a perfect example of the rip-off
I'm discussing here.

"rip-off"?

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

In any case, that has nothing to do with the fact that the foreign airplanes
are not anywhere near the order of magnitude cheaper that you are whinning
about.

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.

Then you must read about graphene, nano-technology,
supercapacitors and all the work that is being done in this
field. It's only a matter of time.

No, it is a matter of basic physics.

Absent Star Trek technology it is just not possible to achieve the energy
density of gasoline with stored electricity.

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.

The Soviets and the U.S. have already tired nuclear flight.
It only works if you omitt the lead shield as the Russians
did. The Russians all died.

And that changes my statement how?

Better?

Yes symantically correct, but still out of sync with
the future.

Nope, in sync with reality.

Wishing for miracle science is not going to make it happen.

The fact that you even mentioned capacitors shows you haven't a clue of
the physics involved.

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.

a. it's not worth the price man.

To you.

b. like the rest of the country I'm on a spending
freeze for all but the most exquisite bargain.

I'm thinking about buying a newer airplane.

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

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

Except for the 1946 models, like this one:
http://www.global-air.com/global/g06219.htm

1946 is not after 1990.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark wrote:
On Sep 10, 9:30Â*pm, wrote:
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? Â*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.

So you're saying the decline in aviation sales is due to:

1) fear
2) lack of interest

No I'm saying the general public, most people, the mass market, has no
interest in owning an airplane.

Sales are shrinking mostly because we are in an economic downturn, not because
airplanes are "overpriced", whatever that means.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 11, 1:02*am, wrote:

No, you aren't digging into anything, you are just arm waving.

Incorrect

What is the price of a new 1970 Cessna 172 in 2010 dollars and the
2010
price for a Cessna 172?

You said this was trivial data.

Yes I realize this, but many old planes are now included
in the category.

No, there is not.

Few old airplanes meet the weight limit.

Incorrect

Yes and they aren't worth it, IMHO.

To you.

IMHO means "in my humble opinion",
FYI. (for your information)

No airplane has ever been built with the level of automattion of car makeing.

Incorrect. See...WWII. That's exactly what they did.

Since LSA is a new catagory, there are no old LSA airplanes

There are MANY old LSA planes, or planes which now fit into
that category and you know what?... the prices have now
gone up to fit the market demand.

Yeah, the price of the few old airplanes that meet LSA requirement has gone
up.

You just said "there are NO old LSA airplanes".

But most old airplanes don't meet the LSA standards.

I never said they did.

, but used ones
a couple of years old can be had you can fit into for around $80k.

Yes. Not worth it to the general public.

The general public doesn't care about airplanes or have any desire to own
one.

Find the matching word. (hint, starts with a "G")

1. general aviation
2. general public


Well, I wouldn't use the Cessna 162 "flycatcher" as
the gold standard. That is a perfect example of the rip-off
I'm discussing here.

"rip-off"?

Yes, a great big rip-off.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

No. I don't want one. I don't like high wing planes.
I like the piper sport, the arion lightning, the
MySky MS-1, etc.

In any case, that has nothing to do with the fact that the foreign airplanes
are not anywhere near the order of magnitude cheaper that you are whinning
about.

HUH? I'm the one that said foreign planes aren't cheaper,
and you've been saying they are. Make up your mind.

Then you must read about graphene, nano-technology,
supercapacitors and all the work that is being done in this
field. *It's only a matter of time.

No, it is a matter of basic physics.

It's a matter of atomics and combining the right
materials.

Absent Star Trek technology it is just not possible to achieve the energy
density of gasoline with stored electricity.

It's only a matter of time.

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.

The Soviets and the U.S. have already tired nuclear flight.
It only works if you omitt the lead shield as the Russians
did. The Russians all died.

And that changes my statement how?

By virtue of the fact that it can't be done.

Better?

Yes symantically correct, but still out of sync with
the future.

Nope, in sync with reality.

Yes, today's reality.

Excuses are like belly buttons; eveyone has one.

a. it's not worth the price man.

To you.

Wrong. The reality that LSA's are overpriced is an
echoing theme all across the aviation community.

b. like the rest of the country I'm on a spending
* *freeze for all but the most exquisite bargain.

I'm thinking about buying a newer airplane.

I'm thinking about ****ing Pamela Anderson.

Except for the 1946 models, like this one:
http://www.global-air.com/global/g06219.htm

1946 is not after 1990.

Which...is why I haven't bought an Ercoupe. I'm really
not comfortable with possible hidden metal fatigue in
an antique plane, as I've already stated: Many of
us don't want to fly an antique.

--
Mark

--
Jim Pennino

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

Um, the Arion Lightning is available for just under US$94k.[1]
It can be flown at 138 mph to any airfield in the U.S.

A 2010 Aston Martin Rapide has a list price of US$200k.
A 2010 Dodge Viper has a list price of US$91k.

The fastest either of those two sports cars can be driven on highways in
the U.S. is 80 mph.[3]

A Sonex aircraft (low wing, two person, metal construction) could be
built for under US$40k and be flown at 170 mph to any airfield in the
U.S.

A 2010 Porsche Boxster has a list price of US$48k and is limited to 80
mph (and typically less) on U.S. roads.

The limiting factor of airplanes is that they only take you from one
airfield to another. Ground transportation is needed at both ends. This
is, in my view, the aspect that limits the utility of airplanes.

[1] http://www.flylightning.net/images/p...ht%20Sport.pdf
[2] http://www.automotive.com/new-cars/p...rts/index.html
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_l..._United_States
[4] http://www.sonexaircraft.com/aircraft/sonex.html
[5] http://www.sonexaircraft.com/kits/pricing.html