Note to the World’s Best Readers / Listeners – You now have the option to listen to the Aviation Minute podcast or read the text below. If you receive Jetwhine via e-mail, you can click here to listen as well.
One obstacle to learning to fly these days is that so many of the GA training fleet is old … and many definitely look their age. It wasn’t that long ago that I cancelled a nighttime demo flight for a prospective student because I noticed that some of the old Cessna’s interior lights were inoperative. And early Cessnas didn’t offer much cockpit lighting to begin with to see the instruments.
Then I found a few bruises outside that had been covered with Duct-Tape and I just said no. A few years earlier, I’d tried to check out in an old Piper down in Florida that looked like it hadn’t been washed in 20 years. It flew OK, but after spending the money to fly it, I decided to pass on putting my family into it.
I’m not the only instructor nor renter that’s ever faced this situation either.
I was pretty excited last week to see a canary yellow Cessna 152 sitting outside of the south door of the AOPA building at AirVenture. The airplane was part of AOPA’s 152 reimagined project to encourage more people not only to learn to fly, but to also get back into the air at a relatively low cost. The airplane at Oshkosh had been rebuilt inside and out … new paint, new interior — even those cheapie plastic parts Cessna used were all new. The engine had been rebuilt and reset to zero time and the airplane had new Garmin avionics including a GPS installed.
This practically new Cessna 152 can be had for $99,000, or $89,000 for a Cessna 150. AOPA chose Aviat in Afton Wyoming to handle the refurbishment work and you can pick the color scheme when you order one.
Yeah but …
Now before you cough at the $99,000 figure, don’t forget that a Cessna 162 Skycatcher, a much less capable airplane, was selling for $150,000 brand new before Cessna cancelled production last year. The price of a brand new 172 can easily top $300,000.
What I think should make the reimagined 150 and 152 even more tantalizing to someone trying to build time with two or three other pilots, or a flight school after a rugged inexpensive airplane, is that it costs just a tad over 60 bucks an hour to operate … including the fuel. AOPA’s even willing to finance 70% of the purchase.
Of course, you could go out and find your own used 150 or 152 for much less than $99,000. You’d need to find a company to strip it all down bare for the inspection, replace all the interior bits, hang a new motor on it and add the fresh instruments and avionics. Could you do it for less than $99 grand? Probably. But I think that’s a lot of work, especially for someone new to aviation.
There will be plenty of experienced pilots out there ready to tell you about all the other airplanes you can find for less money, but if those airplanes were such a great deal, I’d have to ask why more people aren’t buying them. AOPA doesn’t make a dime on these airplanes either.
Think about this … if four wanna-be pilots came up $7500 each, they could build a lot of flight time for not a whole lot of money, especially in a time when the magic 1,500 hour ATP limit seems unreachable. Personally, I like this idea. But if you have a better one, let me know.
You’ll find more info about the 152 reimagined at AOPA.org where I’m sure you’re already a member.
That’s all for the Aviation Minute this time. Don’t forget to share your Aviation Minute link with a friend.
Rob Mark, Publisher
Thank you for including the text!
I’m trying to get my head around the value built into this $90k c152. I personally have a mental block when the avionics cost more than the airframe. But is the breakdown something like 20k airframe, 10k paint, 10k interior, 20k engine, 30K glass panel ? It seems like you are saying compare the overall to a new c172, sky catcher, etc. but why buy anew airplane to learn to fly in ? Part of the reason FBO trainers look the way they do is student pilots beat the crap out of them learning to land….do you really need a glass panel for a private license ? Is a c152 stable enough to be a good instrument training platform ? It’s not complex so you’d need to train for the commercial in something else…this just doesn’t hang together for me as a good value proposition… What am I missing…?
I guess it depends upon how you calculate value Dave.
Plenty of people base that on looks alone and a Cessna 150 with 10,000 on the airframe might still run pretty well, but it looks like hell.
As I said, you could find an airframe yourself and do all the work for less, but the only glass in this airplane I know about is the GPS.
I’m no economist, but if you looked back at what a 150 cost 35 years ago and looked at how the cost would have risen over that time, I’ll bet you be darn close to $90K.
Do I like spending that kind of money for a plane people are going to beat up? Heck no. But what is the alternative when people say they don’t want to fly junk?
I don’t like the fact that the 2004 Volvo I bought brand new in 2004 for $29,000 would now cost me about $38,000 to replace, but the value is the issue I sometimes become upset with, not just the price.
Is there five times as much value inside the C150 that there was 35 years ago? Good question. But I also think that how we as instructors or flight school operators deliver that learn-to-fly experience has a lot to do with the value as well.
BTW, I’m headed up to Traverse City next month for that seaplane rating …
This will be an interesting story line to watch over the next few years. You make a good case from the CFI point of view. I guess I’m not in the target market. I hope this is a successful program for getting more people to fly.
Glad to hear you are pursuing the seaplane rating. Traverse city is a great place to do it, as there are calm inland lakes, and traverse bay which has bigger water. I flew up there last summer and had a blast. Have fun !
The used ‘150 should be around 12K for the hull (if it needs rebuilding) 20K for the engine (get a rotax that feeds on avgas for 31K turbo or better yet, for under $20 you can get a new 912 that is not certified that works just like the certified one, except it’s cheaper. Plastic prop 2K . I-pad with AHRS for less than $2500. Interior 5K. Paint, 7K. So, 48-50K with 10k in labor. With profit you are getting close to 70-80K. There has to be a better way. What is the airframe limit on a c-150? Can you put 8,000 hrs on it?
We serious need to review certification. This reminds me of the cost of compliance and complexity that limits innovation. Look at the auto industry, defined to death. Stability and traction control, abs, airbags, all designed to make a safer experience, but motorcycles are still allowed with none of the above. Most of the airframes out there are 30+ years old. They are no safer than when they were first built.
Look I don’t mean to be negative but this is the reason GA is dieing. Learning to fly is a luxury now. The real reason this wont work is the 152 is NOT a viable platform for 99K. A 152 is a one person airplane in a lot of locations or on hot days. The useful load is not changed much by fancy paint and is limited at best. Without spending a bunch on avionics it’s not an instrument trainer. The 152 is not a cross country airplane for the most part it’s slow its cheaper to drive than a 5gal hour at $6.00gal for 90 miles. A new plane should not cost $359,000. Until everyone stops ignoring the truth that prices are not realistic we are going to end up with no GA.
I am one of those who had to give up flying years ago, for several reasons.
Cost was a big one but the 3rd class medical was another one. Available time and available airplanes to fly were others. I sincerely hope this 150-152 program works. It will surely be a good thing for many of the old airplanes out there, some not being used at all now. Since I have retired the possibility of affording to fly has definitely not improved and then advanced age has also become an issue. So if you can support this program go for it! It looks like a really good one!
Cost of a 1978 Ferarri was about $30K on the higher end at the time. My AA5-B tiger was purchased for $28K. A C-172 was about $22K. Today a Ferarri California was just under $200K, while the average is more like $280. The C-172 should be more like $200K as it is the exact same plane it was before, while the glass panel should have lowered the price of avionics by an order of magnitude. (a mechanical HSI rebuilt is $8,000,). The engine hasn’t changed much in 40 years and should be using off the shelf controls with 87 unleaded Autofuel containing 10% alcohol just like every car has used for the last decade.
If this is the C-152 I looked at at OSH, and I believe it is. It certinally has not been well looked at mechanically. The first thing I check on a Cessna to learn if it has been truly well maintained is the slop between the two control wheels. This yellow C-152 had what I consider excessive slop. Hold one wheel steady and gently rotate the other, this aircraft had a lot of slop between the two wheels. Who ever worked on it should have replaced the universal joints, up graded them if possiable and checked the tension of the connecting chain.
Fresh paint won’t make the aircraft fly better but less loosness in the controls will. That is one of the benifits of almost all the LSA aircraft, they use push rods in the control systems and seldom have noticable slop. They really are a joy to fly.
But the real problem that everyone kinda smooths over is the cost of ownership driving away potential pilots. There are a small amount of people that think that’s a good price. The majority, not so much. I own a Cessna 150M. Bought it 4 years ago for $17,500 and it has 550 hrs on the engine, 7500 on the airframe. I’ve done a pre-buy and 3 annuals. I’ve dropped $10,000 into it easily on upgrades and maintenance. Could I make it pretty and nice dropping another 25K in it?? Sure!!! Better than 90K? Sure!! But still, to own a plane is expensive. If someone came out with a 2 seat as nice and pretty as an Icon A5 for UNDER 50K ready to fly, they would have to crank them out like the Model T to keep up with demand and there would be plenty of people becoming pilots. Keeping flying expensive is the bane of our existence.
There is no pictures so I can’t tell. Is this a glass panel airplane? If so, is that an STC? Are these IFR capable?
In my mind, I would never buy an LSA because you can’t take them IFR.
What about just buying a Van’s experimental slightly used, say an RV6 with just a few hundred hours on it in the neighborhood of $60,000.
Thanks
So, once you’ve spent the $99k, what is the market value of the airplane? Is it still somewhere between $15-30k if you total the plane? Since its still a C152, probably. So, your accountant would tell you its a rotten deal. What you have to do is rationalize that you can’t beat that price for a “new” airplane and you need to fly the bejesus out of it because that is where the value is.
I truly hope this succeeds but aside from good marketing and a reasonably nice airport environment, it needs instructors who truly know how to instuct and a lot of students to make the entire formula work.
And while we’re at it, how about a rule exemption that makes the C15x an LSA?
How much do you weigh Rob? I am 6 foot and 200 pounds . if you are the same then with the average Cessna 150 we will have about 60 lbs of useful load left to be legal. About one hour 15 minutes in the air with reserves. Not much. And today the FAA has directed their examiners not to fly in aircraft that are beyond their gross weight even slightly.
Until recently I have poo-pooed these ideas of rebuilding old Cessnas to compete with new. If you totally rebuild an old Cessna, going beyond replacing the engine, interior and avionics, it gets very expensive. I am talking replacing cables, pulleys, wiring engine controls, hinges, etc. Everything except the bare metal airframe. Until recently this was not economically practical. However with the dramatic raise in new aircraft prices by Cessna the table has flipped. With a new 172 costing 410K with G1000 rebuilding older 172s is starting to make sense.
Rebuilding older 150/152 aircraft still doesn’t make sense. They are a one purpose aircraft, training, and were designed to accommodate an earlier generation, that on average were smaller and lighter.
Rebuilding 1968 and up 172s makes more sense, The cost to rebuild is not significantly higher than a 150/152. With it’s higher gross weight it can serve dual purpose both as a trainer and as a rental aircraft on the flight line. Operating costs are slightly higher due to a bit higher fuel burn but not really significant.
I have yet to encounter a firm that says they are restoring any Cessna to like new condition that is really doing that and that includes Aviat.
John Frank
Cessna Pilots Association
Mr. Mark, as mentioned so many times, cost is the big killer of G.A. First, there is the initial cost just to get the PPL, add in renter’s insurance, or owner’s, then, maybe, just maybe, you can finally find the money, (no loose change here,) just to buy a used, fairly beat up, mid time two or four seat plane, add in fuel, maintenance, and all of sudden, flying is no longer affordable for anyone, except the big money types. Expendable income is rapidly getting to be a thing of the past, and spending on personal enjoyment is not really an option.
Then the problem of a friendly airport environment comes into the picture, with so many communities closing airports, to redevelop the area into either business sites, or low/middle income housing.
Until we, as the aviation community, can expand our horizons, and attract the youth of today and tomorrow, offer them an enjoyable change of pace, where they can learn a new, useable skill, or just some way to actually get out ad have fun, at a reasonable cost, nothing is going to change, except for the worse.
“The had been rebuilt and rest to zero time.” The airframe was also rebuilt but it was NOT reset to zero time. Why not? Because Aviat is NOT the 150/152 type certificate holder – Cessna Aircraft Company is the type certificate holder. Therefore, Aviat CANNOT legally reset the airframe to zero time – only Cessna Aircraft Company can do so. Why did AOPA choose Aviat rather than Cessna Aircraft Company for this venture?
Even Cessna can’t zero time an airframe. There is no way to back fatigue cycles out of metal short of total disassembly and reheat treat of each individual piece.
In the 100 series SIDs Cessna says the 100 series aircraft have an expected service life of 30,000 hours if properly maintained.
John Frank
Cessna Pilots Association
First of all, let’s not get too focused on my use of the term “zero time.” I’m not a mechanic and I sure don’t even pretend to be, but I added that in because I thought that was a fact.
But I was referring to the engine, not the airframe.
I’m going to dig back into my notes and figure out why you all think I’m nuts for making that statement, but before I do that I want to address Robert Mudd’s earlier comment about the jiggle in the control wheels because I think that’s a higher priority.
I’m going to ask the Aviat and AOPA folks about that control issue right now to learn the answer since like Robert, I would expect that to be a part of the update. Again though, I’m not a mechanic, only a pilot.
More in a bit.
Rob
“There’s a lot of money in aviation.”
Surely, that’s because a lot of us are putting it there, rather than taking it out. I trained briefly in a Texas Taildragger conversion C-15x, and we checked the early panel-mount GPS with the POH supplement that stated that, “given the same engine as the C172, expect airspeed about 10% higher with the conversion.”
I wasn’t calling you Shirley… but there was that mission…
The topic of why the aircraft chosen wasn’t a C172 is one I heard at AirVenture and I honestly don’t know the answer to that one. Even though I’m about the same size as I was when I instructed in 150/152s many years ago (sorry John Frank) the airplane is tight.
Rather than pick apart 150/152/172, I think we’re missing something in this discussion.
Most of you reading this understand the logistics of another airplane as Douglas and Greg mentioned about cost and value. I to would have to question the value of the airplane with the work completed wondering if it would lose 20% rolling out the door like a car.
We know how to find an old bird and get it back to near decent running condition like Douglas mentioned or are wise enough in the ways of the industry to find a gem like Andrew.
Most new pilots are not. I’m not saying they should ignore the cost, but if one of you is faster on the calculations than I am, take that $20,000 figure for a new 152 from 1978 for instance and tell us what the actual value of those same dollars would be today.
Of course that doesn’t account for all the value of course. That’s why I said the instructor or the school needs to add some value to make the machine worthy.
Give me an alternative though … other than updating a 172 rather than a 152 that will serve as a decent trainer once it’s put back in a condition that a new student won’t turn their nose up?
The consumer price index is about 3.6 times higher today than it was at this time in 1978. Using the CPI as a reference for inflation puts the inflation adjusted cost of a $20,000 c152 in 1978 dollars at around $72,000 today.
Many years ago I started out with a basic Piper Cub J3 in East Africa, later on I owned three other J3’s. I flew for a Bush pilot Operation and later on an Airline in the South Pacific. To be honest I really learned the basics of everything in a J3. Life and flying became easier with each upgrade in aircraft and type ratings.
Today private flying is becoming prohibitive with Avgas alone at very near $6 a gallon in California. Maybe it is time to go back to basics and learn in a simpler tail wheel aircraft. The Kiddie Wheel in the front was added by both Piper and Cessna to simplify the art of taxiing and initial control on take off & landing.
I recently watched a Video program on the production of aluminum car bodies by Tesla, using unit construction and pressing of all panels that were eventually assembled to make a quite complex automobile. If some enterprising manufacturer were to adapt and finance such a design and construction system to making a light weight all metal training aircraft, perhaps a competitive modern training aircraft could be produced.
The Cessna 162 Skycatcher failed because its unit cost and profit margins were unacceptable in comparison to Cessna high end factory unit costs with what they could ask for their Twin Jet Business Series of aircraft.
To make a serious modern trainer you need newer production methods and a dedicated factory and efficient mass unit parts production and assembly. No one wants to make the investment effort that Tesla did with their electric cars. We do not need an electric airplane, I am not suggesting that but there are plenty of 100 – 125 h.p. proven aircraft motors available. basic radios and Nav Gear.
Keep the cost down to the level required to produce the PPL/CPL level of Pilots. Pathetically I read an article in some Magazine like AOPA or Flying that the industry had produced some 1,100 or so new aircraft units last year, forty years ago American Aircraft manufacturers were making and selling almost 17,000 units per annum. Over regulation killed the Industry dead by 1980. Taxes and over Regulations are the death of any industry.
Common sense leaps out the window in Government regulations instituted by the Nanny State. If you create a bureaucracy to write regulations they well do so 8 hours a day for years on end.
This program is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
You’re not going to attract people into aviation by squeezing them into a flying floor board. The C150/152, while a good 1-person airplane, is too prohibitive of a platform. Useful load is near non-existent. AOPA is and has been fishing for a “solution” to increasing the pilot population from selling wine to auctions to crazy ideas like revamping a junker with fresh paint & parts.
At the end of the day, the reason why people aren’t getting into aviation is: COST.
Period.
Hey, John Frank, if Cessna can’t zero time an airframe, why can Lycoming and TCM zero time an engine? I was not talking about fatigue cycles – I was talking about the market value of the product. If I understand the FAR’s correctly, the type certificate holder CAN zero time their products as long as everything is returned to new (not overhaul) limits. My concern is that Aviat is not using the new limits to determine whether or not components can be reused. This may explain why someone noticed excessive “slop” between the two control wheels.
It is funny that people keep telling me how useless the 150/152 is or was. We used the darned things for years with 2 1/2 hours of fuel each time we went out and we managed to stay under gross.
That said though, the cost issue is of course very important as @williamAirways and few others have mentioned.
As Dave Montgomery pointed out yesterday, in today’s dollars, the same airplane would certainly be priced in the $70s. Is asking $89K worth for the updating worth it? I think the company needs to be paid for their time and effort. If that’s too much, buy a 172 and do the work yourself.
My point is that very few people are making that effort and new pilots don’t even know what they don’t know.
But isn’t the real issue that the value of people’s wages and disposable income has not kept even close to the increase in prices?
I don’t think that’s aviation’s fault, but it is an obstacle that needs to be overcome lest the industry become a playground for the wealthy.
So how do we fix that?
Rob, I think the industry has been a playground for the wealthy since the turn of the century. For the same amount of money, one can participate in a world of recreational activities that do not require in comparison:
1. the huge upfront investment in training
2. the huge upfront commitment to study
3. the continuing maintenance costs to one’s proficiency
4. the cost of maintaining the airplane
5. the cost of insuring the airplane
I’m sure the list is longer than this. It’d be interesting to do a survey as to who actually are airplane owner. See what they do for a living. I’m pretty sure you’re not going to see too many folks who isn’t making a very healthy six figure salary.
A buddy of mine bought a PA28 following all the advice of buying an airplane. Post purchase, he discovered a hairline crack in the crank case. The more the A&P dissected the engine, the more problems they found. Bottom line, he’s looking at more or less a new engine in parts. That’s another $20,000+ on top of the original purchase price that wasn’t expected. The plane has not been flown since purchase (coming on 5 months now).
SCUBA, hunting, bowling, fishing, traveling the world, etc. There are activities that simply do not require as much of an investment. One has to have sufficient disposable income to get involved with aviation, and a lot of disposable income to own an airplane.
Having been a private pilot for a little over 4 years now I see a couple of thing wrong with this project and GA in general. 90K is a lot of money for the average working person today. If they are going to move up to the airlines then it might be worth looking at for some local flying. Being a little on the larger size, my 8 year old grandson and I fit OK but I’m a little cramped. To do any IFR training, only if your 5’6” and 150 Lbs. Cross country, the same applies. If you got into flying for fun, forget it, there’s not enough plane. Beside where can you go. GA is not for the average person. You better have a lot of money to enjoy going to get a burger 20 minutes away. I see many people at the airport that own planes and don’t fly them. Many don’t have the time or money. I think if AOPA really wants to get people in the air they need to relook at the real situation.
Some of these answers are truly pathetic. Things could always be worse though … you might loose your license tomorrow.
Go back and listen to the podcast again. I said let me know if you have a better idea … not one that’s worse.
OK, Rob, let’s review your podcast a bit. What you said was: “Think about this … if four wanna-be pilots came up $7500 each, they could build a lot of flight time for not a whole lot of money, especially in a time when the magic 1,500 hour ATP limit seems unreachable. Personally, I like this idea. But if you have a better one, let me know.”
That $7500 x 4 just covers the down payment. Remember that the example of flying the “reimagined” Cessna for less than $65/hour is based on 700 flight hours per year. Do you really think that four wanna-be pilots are going to collectively fly 700 hours per year consistently for the next 15 years?
Maybe you are expecting the initial group of pilots to sell their shares to another group of wanna-be pilots after they accumulate the 1500 hours needed to get their ATP ratings. Will that new group of wanna-be pilots be willing to continue to make $600 – $700/month loan payments on an airplane that now has approximately 6000 hours (1500 x 4) on it (not counting the hours prior to its rebirth)?
A better idea is a product that will retain a reasonable proportion of its purchase price – not one that the banks will only finance for 70% of the purchase price and then only for flying clubs that have been in existence for at least three years (without a personal guarantee).
I don’t have a better solution than anyone else because there is simply no magic way to make low volume, high-cost, heavily-regulated products such as recreational airplanes profitable for the producer AND affordable for the consumer. However, I applaud the 100+ LSA manufacturers who are willing to try. Maybe one of them will actually find a workable solution since they are subject to ASTM consensus standards rather than FAA design regulations.
Maybe a way to look at this is as an exercise in defining aviation’s value proposition. What are the jobs to be done that people can accomplish through being a pilot, owning an airplane, etc. What are the pain points in getting a specific job done ? What are the gains in getting those jobs done. Then how do you tailor offers to get a person to the position of getting a specific job done, reducuning or eliminating pains, increasing or maximizing gains, through an offer of products or services.
Maybe the reimagined c152 is a product that reduces a pain ( cost of ownership) or increases a gain (the status of owning a nice looking airplane) for people seeking to solve a job to be done ( learning to fly, or building time toward a career in aviation).
It’s not a silver bullet, but it may be part of an offer to satisfy some segments of the aviation market.
It seems like the responses have identified a lot of people who have jobs to be done for which this plane does is not a viable part of an offer to solve their needs.
I’m afraid I don’t have a quick fix answer to how we increase disposable income across the board. How do we identify jobs to be done, pains, gains and offers that are attractive to people for whom disposable income is a constraint ? Financing is an obvious one, but what is the gain ?
One could make many lists of these in theory. Then there’d be a need to test an tweak them to see what was viable, what resonated with different segments in the marketplace.
One could spend a life doing that….and it would not be a wasted life….
Let’s face it, the real problem is that there is simply no mission for flying airplanes for the average person.
The average person gets their PP or Sport license and that’s the only mission they are ever going on.
After that, there is no further point to flying for many of these people. With the cost and time commitment being so high, people are spending there limited dollars elsewhere.
Perhaps Rob can define his target audience. If you’re asking how we can get the folks who makes over $250,000 gross income (single), that’s one thing. If you are targeting those who make less than $100,000 gross income into the aviation game, that’s quite another story.
So who are you actually targeting with your desire to get more people into aviation? Those with money only needs motivation. Those without money needs…well…money.
So here’s an idea. Network with the 1%, get them to buy 1,000 single engine airplanes, and donate them to a 501(c)(3) that I’ll create for the sole purpose of providing education in aviation. The participants need only pay for fuel/oil, maintenance, landing fees, training materials, repairs when they damage the airplane, and renter’s insurance. Or, we can have the 1% pay for all of that too as part of their donation to the 501(c)(3). After certification, well, I guess you got a problem with keeping people in aviation because they *still* have to come up with money to continue their flying!
You want ideas? Start with getting people to donate a good sum of money towards this end game of getting folks into aviation. At the end of the day, as the three amigos said, “no dough, no show.”
Another point I’d like to bring up is, flying piston single engine airplane has a real financial limitation. I just looked up a flight with jetBlue from SWF to MCO for travel on 9/26 return on 9/28 (your typical weekend away).
The cheapest fare (regardless of time of travel) is $634.98 round trip! My C172 rents out at $160/hour wet. That’ll get me just shy of 4 hours of flying. Let’s subtract 0.4 for start/taxi/run-up and taxi/ramp and I have 3.6 hours of flying. At 115 TAS, that’ll get me 414 NM, or 48.1% of the way there. Sure, I can share the cost with another person, but that still means over twice the amount of time to get there (without a fuel stop which I’ll need), effectively leaving me with 1 full day at Orlando to enjoy my time vs. 3 hours each way with jetBlue. And if the weather is poor, I’ll likely need two fuel stops.
Is there really a question as to why most people don’t get into personal flying? I’m a pilot and I’d rather take jetBlue than to haul myself for over 15 hours over 3 days to enjoy 1 day at destination at a handsome price of $2,400 renting a C172.
William your 2 posts pretty much sum it up.
Your first post is creative, at least you are taking a legit stab at trying to define and solve the problem.
Your second post is accurate too, you really have to love flying to do that mission as there is simply no economics that support it. You forgot to mention a few things, you will need to pay to hangar or tie down the airplane.
No mission eh?
Forget the money for just a second which I know is tough and tell me what the mission for non-professional pilots was 25 years ago?
As for comparing flying the C172 with a JetBlue flight, of course it’s not going to be as cheap, but your comparing apples to oranges I think.
If there’s no longer any fun and no purpose to flying for anyone unless we are able to roll back the prices to 1975 levels, then you’d probably be as bored flying a cheap airplane as one that’s more expensive wouldn’t you?
What happened to fun … is there supposed to be some of that in there somewhere?
Rob unfortunately the price tag for “just fun” is too high for the average ordinary person, you know, the person who is never ever going to read this post.
If you want to have just fun, you can easily do that in a trike or a glider for far cheaper in my opinion.
Rob, I agree with Tom that the cost of “fun” is too steep. BUT…I go back to my original question to you. Just who are you targeting as your audience who can afford to get into aviation? Are you talking about the 20-somethings that won’t be able to pay off their college debt until the age of 40? Or are you talking about trust fund babies where money literally grow on trees?
Folks who want to have “fun” in an airplane do not have to go through the expense, time commitment to study, and the hassles of maintaining their proficiency regularly. They can just call a local flight school, arrange for a flight, and call it a “discovery flight” day.
I made this point in the past. For $200, I can get an hour of dual instruction in an airplane for me; maybe take one friend with. For the same $200, I can get a lot of people together over a grill and have a great day drinking beers and grilling the swine. Or, for the same $200, I can do a number of other “fun” activities that doesn’t require me to sit in front of a book on a sunny, fair weather day trying to learn aerodynamics and regulations.
So who are you targeting exactly? Without knowing your target, it’s hard to come up with any ideas that would have any hope of success.
I actually wasn’t avoiding your question @WilliamAirways … just got a bit caught up in the emotion of realizing that something we all love seems to be crumbling before our very eyes. Your initial point though is quite valid.
Like so many things today though, it pretty tough not to look at the destruction of America’s middle class and ask that same question about price. Tennis lessons aren’t cheap, nor is Disney World, nor even skiing any longer.
The real problem is that as some of you have mentioned, there are plenty of people who would still love to learn to fly but can’t squeeze the cash out of their budgets. I have a daughter in college and trust me I’m squeezed right now. I couldn’t begin over again if I needed to at the moment either.
Going back to the point of the story – The 152 Re-Imagined … the only way they can get the cost down to that $60 or so an hour is for someone else to buy the airplane which is why flying clubs will become more critical to aviation I think.
Assume for a minute that you could do $60 an hour for a 152 or $75 for a 172. Would no one be able to afford that either? I think those who are interested would.
To your point about the audience … I think some of this learn to fly marketing is going to fall to airports and flight schools. They’ll need to begin more outreach to capture people’s interest enough to visit the place.
Those with the interest and the means of those who arrive will need to be found the same way we sell anything to anyone, by hard work. And it’s obviously much harder than it used to be.
I think we need to stop focusing on the fact that it’s too expensive to fly right now … and I’m not denying it is expensive.
Like the flying club piece though, I think we need to figure out ways to make that cost lower to people who can afford it, knowing full well there aren’t as many of them out there as there used to be.
Imagine for a minute that $60 an hour figure multiplied by 60 which is about what it might take someone working hard to get their license. That’s $3600 plus another $2,000 for the instructor.
If so many young folks can go out and lease hot cares for $400-$500 a month, are you telling me someone who is interested couldn’t make numbers like that work?
I’m still wondering if its the cost issue or cost vs. interest issue we’re fighting here.
Hi Rob, I didn’t think you were avoiding the question of audience. I just think it’s an important aspect that needs clarification for the discussion at hand.
To your point about the $400-500/month hot car payment, I can answer that pretty easily. Chicks. When was the last time you saw a Cirrus pull up to valet at a steakhouse with a hot chick in it? I’m pretty sure I’ll get flack from the females for this but let’s face it, chicks dig hot cars and the guy who drives it (maybe). For the guy, it’s an investment that produces a visible status and demonstration of financial prowess (real or implied). Your average high school kid isn’t going to be pulling up to the parking lot in a Cirrus or Pilatus, or even a Skyhawk or Warrior. But they will pull up in that Mustang or Corvette or whatever the kids these days think is hot. I’m pretty sure it’s still the case today…no girl is going to get on the back of a Huffy when she can ride in a Mustang. $500/month divided by 30 days is $16.60 per day. So that car payment is and can be justified.
Getting a driver’s license here in NY requires a 5 hour course, a written exam consisting of 20 retarded multiple choice questions, and a pathetic road test. In other words, if you have a pulse, you can get a driver’s license. A driver’s license will afford you the ability to go to work, grocery shopping, take your date out, and memorable road trips with your friends. Our infrastructure fully supports a car as a practical and affordable means of transportation. It is a necessity in most parts of this country. It is a rite of passage to adulthood. Pilot’s certificate? Not so much. You don’t see runways next to Walmarts and shopping malls, do you?
I think we need to face the fact that aviation has catered to, and always will cater to, those with the means to afford the activity. Given the rise in cost with respect to fuel, maintenance, avionics requirements, in addition to perpetual proficiency expenses, it is not an activity for your average Joe/Jane. And it is starting to squeeze out those who are already in it. That said, I believe our audience is not “everyone” but those with a lot of disposable income, and time to dispose that income.
Flying clubs is a solution if *properly executed*. But it’s not easy to run a functional flying club. Once that club gets past a certain number of members, you need firm management to keep it running legally and seamlessly. There is a cost associated with that; be it in hired help or dedicated individuals in the club with the time and aptitudes to support the required responsibilities. How much of that cost will add to the hourly rate of that club airplane? I don’t really see flying clubs as *the* solution, rather it’s *a* solution.
With respect to airplanes, I see maintenance costs as a real killer of flying clubs. When you have club members who simply are there to “fly cheap” and carry the “renter mentality”, they are going to beat the crap out of your cherished flying club airplane. Poor training will also lead to this behavior. The law of primacy tells us that once a pilot is poorly trained, it is very difficult to turn that around. This increases maintenance costs and down time on the airplane, causing financial and scheduling problems. And it brings into the mix a rather nasty line of business. How do you get rid of these members? What if they retaliate from a legal stand point? They don’t have to win, they just need to bleed your club’s treasure chest in attorney fees to cripple it. I’ve seen how a good club can be brought to its knees by a few bad apples due to membership ignorance and apathy.
So assume that folks use the partnership model. Will each partner be able to fork out $5000 for an expensive avionics upgrade? Or an engine overhaul/replacement? If not, you got a nice airplane sitting on the ramp developing rust. I’ve seen partnerships go south because of financial burdens to one or more members. At best, the partners pay enough to keep the airplane “available” but they rarely fly it because they’ve spent all their money on tie downs, insurance, inspections, repairs, etc. on the plane.
So while dressing up a C150/152 in new threads sounds like a novel idea, there are some real world issues that exists outside of the physical airplane. Having an affordable airplane is only one aspect. We can’t ignore the other issues surrounding airplane ownership, pilot certification, recurrent costs, etc. By no means is attracting people into aviation an easy business. We don’t have jokes like, “How do you make a small fortune in aviation? Start with a big one.” for no reason. Aviation is expensive. There’s a reason why only the rich can afford to fly in Gulfstreams/Citations/Falcons. Do you think those manufacturers are targeting us folks who can barely fly single pistons, or even the general masses? Their sales teams are targeting the 1%. And we would do well to know who we can target.
@WilliamAirways, you have done a good job of explaining who is NOT the audience for the C150/152 Reimagined but I’m still a bit fuzzy about who IS the audience.
1. It’s not young men and women unless they were born into wealth.
2. It’s not old men and women because many of us cannot meet the 3rd class medical requirements (FAA form 8500-8 requires us to divulge any problems that we have ever had regardless of how long ago they occurred).
3. It’s not the family man or woman who is struggling with mortgage payments, car payments, buying food and clothing, etc.
4. It’s not the 1% who can afford an airplane for legitimate company business.
Flying clubs and co-ownership help to make airplane ownership more affordable. However, it is rare to find a group of people in one geographic location who have both the desire and the means to own an airplane.
From the numbers I have seen, it appears to be less expensive to rent from an FBO than it is to own an airplane for almost anyone who flies less than 100 hours/year.
In my opinion, there are only a couple of scenarios that will increase pilot training to any significant level:
1. A major world conflict which would require our government to train new pilots.
2. The airlines need pilots so badly that they are willing to help subsidize pilot training up to and including an ATP rating.
I think both the military and the airlines would probably choose something other than a C150/152, but I can envision a need for some kind of new/refurbished primary training aircraft if/when one of these two scenarios materializes.
Neither of these scenarios will provide an opportunity for us oldsters to return to the cockpit but we need to be thankful for past opportunities and be willing to help the younger generation fulfill their dreams.
I have enjoyed the discussion about how much money it costs to fly, the target group, and the cost of a good trainer. I like what the man said who learned in a J3 cub. Sell the product with simple, easy on the pocketbook, older, yes, if mechanically sound, taildraggers, and or older but updated Cessna 150s.
This is my point. If one markets high dollar airplanes as those one learns to fly then the target realizes that he cannot afford to fly. But show new potential pilots that mechanically sound older airplanes can be used to learn the basics and when PPL in hand, go to the upgrade. There are many older Cessnas and Pipers out there in the aviation community that will teach a person the basics. One can always upgrade to more high dollar airplanes after the hook is planted. I guess I am different, I do not care if the airplane has all the fancy gagdets and new avionics, as long as it is airworthy. I am not an instructor, but I will advise anyone desiring to get their license, to go away from the concrete in the city and find that grass runway out in the country and learn to fly the airplane from someone who is not needing steak on the table every night.
I have a 1964 Cessna 150 that flys better than the ones that I learned in back in 1975. There are plenty of older airplanes out there that do not have all the high dollar avionics—–we are talking trainers here, that are excellent for that purpose. As far as a cross country or a hundred dollar hamburger, teach the joy of getting above terra firma, you know, fly around, look around, the real joy of just flying the airplane, not forgetting the skills one learns. I agree, aviation is very expensive for those with a limited income. I do not golf, nor have an expensive race car, or go to the Bahamas to scuba dive. I choose flying as my fun activity and set aside the money earned over the years into an escrow account for just that one purpose. The goal: get people interested in flying so that they will set aside the funds to do what they enjoy. It would be wonderful to be able to afford a high dollar machine, but learning to fly should be the motivation, not selling the new fancy avionic-rich airplane. Get the people into the cockpit, teach them to fly, and get their interest up to the point that they set aside the funds to buy that overpriced Cessna.
“I think we need to face the fact that aviation has catered to, and always will cater to, those with the means to afford the activity.” @williamairways
And what activity doesn’t cater to the people who can afford it?
I’m sorry but I still don’t believe that flying is only for the rich. Sure we need to figure out ways to keep the hourly cost down and I think many of the flying clubs are trying.
Maybe it is not the only answer, but “an” answer as others have mentioned.
But @williamairways … gotta tell you that you’re borderline cynic here. I’m with Patrick. If you want to fly, there are ways to do it that don’t involve a $500K SR-22 or a Gulfstream.
Sounds like you’ve “lost that lovin feelin,” to me dude.
“And what activity doesn’t cater to the people who can afford it?”
If you’re going to speak generally, then you’re right. But there are costs associated with any activity; some are more affordable than others.
Running
Cost: $200 – sneakers, shorts, socks, shirt
Basketball
Cost: $250 – ball, sneakers, shorts, socks, shirt
Clearly, you can’t get very far for the same amount of money in aviation. So am I being cynical or realistic?
While you state that flying is not only for the rich, I say, flying is not accessible to your inner city folks who live in the projects while struggling to get out of their ghetto existence. It is not accessible to the single mom that has to work two jobs and still take care of her kids afterwards. It is not accessible to those who have been unemployed and seeking jobs for the past 2 years. There are a lot of people who can’t afford to drop $200/hour on a flight and CFI. $200 is groceries for a family of 4 for a week. So how do you justify starving your family for an hour of selfish pleasure?
So again, it comes down to just who is our target audience? As Mr. Morse pointed out, it may work out to be cheaper to rent than own or be a part of a flying club/partnership. I’ve seen flying club members pay monthly dues for years and never touch the plane. Why? I think it’s because they want to feel like they have access to a plane. Yet, they never take advantage of it. I don’t get why people would do this vs. just renting. It costs these club members more just to squat than to rent when they really do want to fly. So while being in a flying club with one of these C150/152’s is fine, are these people really going to fly often or are they just going to pay monthly dues and wipe the airplane down once in a while over beers? Is success measured by people getting set up in a flying club with these planes but can’t afford to fly much? What’s your definition of success?
And yes, while this idea of dressing up old equipment is novel, it’s only one aspect to the total solution. You can have 1,000 C150/152 all souped up ready to fly. But who are you going to get to fly them? I instruct out of a flight school and freelance. I see who my clients are. They are the doctors and lawyers and business owners who have disposable income; and I won’t say they have a lot of it as I hear them tell me how expensive flying is but they love it. Now why would doctors and lawyers say flying is expensive? Aren’t they the well paid members of society? What I don’t see are the folks working across the street at Starbucks jumping in these planes.
My point is that there are many, many other activities that doesn’t cost nearly as much as aviation. So yes, we cater to a certain clientele with a certain amount of disposable cash in the bank. You have to wonder why people enjoy going to the bars drinking beers and watch soccer and football instead of lining up out the flight school doors fighting for a plane to fly. What is so appealing about the sports bar activity vs. flying airplanes? Or _____ vs. flying airplanes?
Incidentally, I just read a blog on AvWeb and there was an interesting link that I’d like you to look at and consider as part of this discussion. Clearly, having an airplane, even if it’s affordable, suffers from the ancillary costs like fuel, maintenance, etc.
http://tinyurl.com/lob63gp and http://tinyurl.com/qf4khl3
It would seem that people are consuming less avgas year over year. I don’t think I’ve lost that loving feeling as I do love to fly. But love doing something and the ability to afford to do what one loves are two very separate concerns, especially in aviation.
It seems like the Ciffs Notes version of @williamAirways rant above is that the private GA aviation is a niche, not a mass, market. And the task of business people in this space is to identify and mine those niches.
What are the niches and what is the value proposition that GA can offer those niches ?
For example, how to we identify people with means, who want to become pilots, mechanics, aircraft owners, renters, etc ? How do we identify people with means who want to invest in themselves to develop the skills to fly ? What are the benefits, and costs of learning to fly ( and not just monetary benefits and costs ?)
Maybe for the aviation market, potential customer “wants” are more important drivers than needs…
Interesting point Dave, as is @williamairway’s. No doubt things have changed in the past 40 years since I can remember seeing our local Cessna distributorship airport at LaPorte Ind., bathed in single and twin engine aircraft as far as the eye can see.
But while no one doubts flying along with everything else these days is more expensive than it was four decades ago, perhaps in addition to your questions Dave, someone can tell me why so many people were attracted to flying in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. Was it only because flying was cheap?
It’s only the perspective of today that offers us the chance to see flying as cheaper “then than now,” right?
So why did so many people want to fly in “the old days” @williamAirways?
Last fall, Redbird’s Skyport sold 100LL for $1/gallon for the first two weeks of October. “The idea is to test whether the cost of flying had either a direct or indirect or even a cumulative effect on the fact that there’s a lot less flying going on,” said Redbird’s CEO Jerry Gregoire.
“The theory is that people don’t fly as much as they used to because it’s so expensive to fly. We’ve seen a lot of initiatives going on, mostly the alphabet groups, to encourage people to come back to flying. But we’re not getting any measureable (sic) data on whether any of that stuff is working,” he added.
Redbird figures that its gas-too-cheap-to-believe experiment will illuminate opinions on both sides of the cost-as-driver divide. “So we have this laboratory here and we have this ability to test by pulling one of the levers to see what happens,” Gregoire said. The laboratory, of course, is Redbird’s Skyport facility, where the company has been developing new, simulator-centric training programs and attempting to drive its programs with experimental data that can be applied to a larger market.
“So we decided to pull the fuel lever and make fuel very, very affordable and see what happens,” Gregoire said.
My recollection is that they originally planned to conduct this experiment for the entire month of October but they were forced to discontinue it after 2 weeks due to logistical problems. I don’t recall the exact figures but I believe that they expected to sell 4 times as much fuel as normal but actually sold many times more than that amount in just 2 weeks. The obvious conclusion is that the cost of avgas is a very strong driver affecting the number of hours pilots are flying.
When I got my PPL in 1969, avgas was less than $1/gallon. Flying my A150K was nearly as inexpensive as driving my car. Automobiles have become much more fuel-efficient during the last 4 decades but the same cannot be said for airplanes.
The small volume of avgas produced compared to other refinery products along with the fact that there is only one remaining producer of TEL have combined to make the price of 100LL increase disproportionately.
Wouldn’t it make more sense for AOPA to test market aircraft that do not require 100LL? I’d rather see them do more to promote the development of more modern propulsion systems including electric-powered aircraft with sufficient battery capacity to support the training mission.
This is another one of those threads that have some of the best and brightest minds responding. Some of you have the ability to sum up the issues in just a few short eloquent sentences.
First, I want to respond to Dave Montgomery. I am in full agreement with your cliff notes version of what what you said. I believe its the value proposition that is the real problem. I’ve said it before several comments above. What is my mission after I get my license? This is the real problem. There is no mission, almost no point to flying after getting my license. Anyone can save up some money and then go out and get a pilot license. But what happens when that money is spent and the license is in your hands? Now what do I do? I can only have so many hamburgers before I’m bored.
Dave also goes on to theorize that potential customer wants in aviation might be more important than customer needs when targeting customers. This theory could be correct. But if it is correct, than we are basically ruling out value as a legitimate sales factor. And if that’s true, than maybe aviation should stop marketing getting your license and instead market ‘be a fighter pilot for a day’ or ‘do acrobatics for a day’ or ‘land a seaplane in the water for a day’. Basically, stop driving the need to have a pilots license as a first step. Maybe getting a pilots license should be a second step if a person sees additional value in doing so after having a bunch of fun with a licensed pilot at the controls.
Second I agree with Stephen Morse about the power plants. 100LL seems to be stuck in the middle. New LSA type of airplanes can run on gasoline, in some cases with ethanol I think. That’s great for weekend flying when you go around in circles. Personally, I think diesel might be the way to go, especially for those who want A to B transportation.
“…tell me why so many people were attracted to flying in the 70?s, 80?s and 90?s.”
I’m not sure about the late 70’s to mid 80’s. Didn’t all these GA manufacturers shut down aircraft production for many years?
As with all things, when it’s new, people are drawn to them. Remember the Atari 2600? Boy was that a killer invention…but then people got tired of it and moved on to Intelevision. Then it was ColecoVision, rivaled by the Commodore 64. Later, the modern gaming consoles emerged and are still with us today.
You know how the gaming industry is killing it out there? They innovated and gave what their audience wanted (more action, better graphics, speedier performance, networking capabilities, team play, sex, etc.). The industry also managed to keep the games cheap. A $50-70 title can entertain you for hundreds to thousands of hours, or more. That’s quite a value proposition. This is yet another competitive activity vs. flying airplanes. I’ve also started to notice on my Facebook feed that a lot of people are very into flight simulators; more like obsessed. They’re buying real (used) jet components to rig it to their PC’s. Why sim when you can fly for real?
Remember when the iPhone came out and everyone was all “woo, ahh” over it? Now folks are waking up to Apple not innovating and still charge a crap load for their less than latest/greatest in technologies. And they lost a ton of customers to Android…
Aviation is losing people’s interest because of numerous issues that we have already covered ad nauseam:
1. COST
2. Limited utility and capability of light GA airplanes
3. Demands that the individual to have money, intelligence, commitment, discipline, dedication, passion, and time to study and train
No doubt there are other roadblocks than these three items. In my opinion, the “old days” of aviation had sexy appeal. It was new. It was unbelievable. The national airspace system was a lot less complicated to navigate. The airplanes were a lot less complicated to fly. I found this article that may shed some light as well:
http://airfactsjournal.com/2011/11/when-was-general-aviations-golden-age/
Looks like someone back in 2011 also contemplated when the heydays of GA *was*.
Don’t get me wrong here. People are interested in aviation. I believe, based on my observations, that they see aviation as synonymous to bungee jumping or climbing Mount Everest. It’s a bucket list item. They find a cheap Groupon, try it, and cross “flying” off their list; especially when they “discover” in these discovery flights just how ridiculously expensive it is to add flying into their lives. So is it really a surprise that most people can’t get involved with aviation? Is there really a surprise that the pilot population in the USA is less than 1% of the country’s total population? I believe that there will always be a select few that will continue to incorporate aviation into their lives; those with the serious financial means to do so.
And there is also a large population of people who just are not interested in aviation (even if they do have the financials to support the activity). It always surprises me when I meet people who aren’t interested in flying. But they’re out there.
P.S. To Mr. Montgomery’s point, I picked up one of those large sized glossy print magazines at Atlantic Aviation this weekend. After paging through it cover to cover, I asked myself: “Who can afford a week on a luxury yacht for $249,000?” THESE are the people we need to attract! They have the cash to enter, and sustain aviation.
William Airways, your little essay is the kind of article I want to read in Flying Magazine. Something that makes people really think and discuss solutions to problems. Why don’t I ever read anything like you write in magazines?
Well done.
I think want is a more powerful driver than need, in aviation.
Did the Wright Brothers need to build a flying machine , or want to ?
Did the US need to go to the moon before the end of the 1960s, or want to ?
Did Lindbergh need to fly to Paris, or want to ?
I didn’t need to learn to fly. I wanted to. There is no monetary benefit to me. I want the challenge of learning, to feel the pride of making a smooth cross wind landing, the thrill of flying taildraggers on to rural grass strips, to see the fall colors in Wisconsin with my wife. I wanted to meet, and associate with aviators because I find them to be smart, curious and thoughtful people, for the most part.
I want the ability to make trips up to 300 miles of my home with my wife and kids, without fighting Chicago traffic…
There are a lot more wants than needs for me.
I have little patience with simulated experience. The can be great learning devices for learning procedures and practicing steps sequentially. I find it tedious. It doesn’t engage all my senses. There’s no skin in the game.
I agree that cheaper fuels would have a significant impact on GA. But it’s not a short term possibility.
I’m going to side with Dave on this one guys. I believe people who want to learn to fly will learn to fly.
And yes, I know that means there will be those in the inner city do not have the means or the opportunity … but I also know people within the inner city who are still trying to make that happen. AOPA Pilot had a good story this past issue about just that idea. Then there are guys like Robin Petgrave from Celebrity Helicopters in Compton Calif. He came from nothing and to this day is still trying to give as many kids their start in the industry.
I believe part of the future may well rest with individuals or very small, closely-knit groups of people who are willing to take the time to garner people’s interest.
I’m just curious @williamAirways … who do you think would be the persons or organizations to head up the marketing effort to corral the wealthy folks? I think the job is really ours for the asking and I still don’t believe it’s all about cost to the people who really want to fly badly enough. Like you said though, there are fewer and fewer people who do.
“…who do you think would be the persons or organizations to head up the marketing effort to corral the wealthy folks?”
Well…in my infant years of ignorance, I thought this was the job of AOPA. But then I realized all they are is a self serving organization that’s more about the transfer of membership funds to executive compensation packages than doing real advocacy. Their second mission was to send out as much junk mail as humanly possible…at the membership’s expense, of course.
No organization really does a good job at reaching out to increase the pilot population. AOPA had Adam Smith before they kicked him to the curb. I had high hopes with Adam Smith. I’m going to guess Adam isn’t a winemaker and that’s why they punted him from the 50 yard line.
So to answer your question, I think we’re screwed in this area. As Dave indicated, those who “want” to do this, will do this. And until we find a more proactive way of attracting the right people into aviation, we’ll continue to be reactive by sitting in our flight schools and club houses waiting for these “wants” to show.
Some things I’ve observed…
In businesses I’ve worked in, it seems like have a mindset that you want “attract and keep” good customers is good way to start.
Because aviation is a niche market, and learning to fly is a highly personalized service, I think personal referrals from existing or former students is a significant source of “people in the door”.
There’s a trust factor that needs to be developed with the students, on many levels. There’s a high drop out rate among flight students too. I think Aopa did a study a while back outlining the reasons why people quit. Lack of a support group is a big factor.
When I learned to fly, I talked to a bunch of Dads at my son’s little league baseball games, and two of them went on to get their ppl and own small airplanes. Interestingly, they both hated my instructor and trained at other flight schools, but that was the “keep” part of getting and keeping,..
There’s a flying club near Chicago, Leading Edge, that seems to do the “getting and keeping”, pretty well. They have a first Saturday of the month club
breakfast. It appears to be very well attended.
I suggest looking at what other highly personal services do to attract customers and out a aviation spin in it. And I know that’s hard work, but that’s growing the business.
I’m Katie Pribyl with AOPA and I would like to provide some additional thinking behind this project.
First, we didn’t launch this idea ever thinking it was going to be the “silver bullet” – the answer to all of GA’s problems. But while a refurbished 150/152 might not be for everyone, we think there are thousands of pilots out there who would like affordable access to a nicely refurbished, like-new airplane that their spouse or friend feels comfortable in. These aren’t cross country machines and we know that. But they are great for training (which has been proven since thousands upon thousands of pilots have trained in 150/152s) and they are equally perfect for an affordable and easy 30-45 minute flying fix in an airplane that isn’t old and raggedy.
We didn’t intend for these airplanes to be owned by individuals – we think they are best fit for communities of pilots – large or small. When owned and operated in a community – like flying clubs, partnerships or flight schools – we think refurbished airplanes will allow many more people to afford to fly and become engaged in general aviation in ways that are impossible through singular aircraft ownership.
There has been a lot of talk on this thread about how the rising costs of flying have forced pilots to hang up their headsets or sell their airplanes. Its unfortunately true. But what if those same pilots had an opportunity to co-own or be a part of a club where responsibility for owning and maintaining a totally refurbished, like-new aircraft falls on a group of pilots, rather than the individual? Where the costs can be kept down around $65/hour in a flying club where 8-10 pilots fly it around 700 hours per year (which we think is reasonable based on the feedback we’ve received through our flying clubs initiative). For a 4-person partnership flying around 300 hours per year, you are looking at $74/hour. Seem worth the effort to try?
That’s what we’re doing – we’re trying. Since there isn’t a single answer to making GA more affordable and accessible, it is incumbent upon all of us to find and promote solutions and be positive about ways for people to start flying and then stay actively engaged in aviation.
I have had the privilege of flying the refurbished 152 that was in our booth at AirVenture. When I put her away in the hangar after that 30 minute quick fix, I had a huge smile on my face and I felt great. It was fun, it was easy and the fuel bill came to $15. For some pilots, that level of flying and staying active is very satisfying to them.
We think this can be a positive, fun initiative that keeps more people up in the air. It may or may not work, but we think it’s an idea worth testing. Either way, we’ll keep you posted on our progress. And who knows, the next refurbished airplane just might be a 172!
For anyone who wants more detailed information on the refurbishment process for the 150/152s (it is extensive), please view this page on Aviat’s website. http://aviataircraft.com/aviat_aircraft_reimagined.html.
Blue skies,
Katie
AOPA
Katie, will Aopa measure how many are sold, and to what kind of buyer, in a year, 2 years, 5 years ? I’ve only been an Aopa member since 1998, so my experience is limited. I can’t recall Aopa ever reporting progress on programs like this, or the program to get former pilots flying again.
I think we’d all love to know about, and praise, successful programs.
Wow, an official AOPA public response. I gotta tell you, I can’t recall a member of AOPA ever responding to public opinion like this before outside of their magazine. So kudos for that.
Now that I have your ear so to speak, I would simply just like to say that I wish AOPA was more of a grass roots style organization. These last few years, at least to me, I don’t feel like AOPA represents my interests anymore. That’s why I joined EAA. I’m more drawn now to private aviation vs. general aviation.
Thanks for checking in Katie. And since I’m a member of Leading edge Flying Club at KPWK, I can tell you that our members look forward to our monthly meetings. We also go out of our way to be sure everyone knows everyone else each month specifically so the new folks don’t end up hiding in the corner wondering what everyone else is talking about.
I never had anything like that when I grew up, but the comments we get are 98% positive so we’ll keep doing what we’re doing I think. We can’t fix the world, but we can affect our little piece of it I think.
On the 152 topic though, I do agree with Katie that it was never meant to be a silver bullet. It’s one answer and as I said a couple of days ago, I think success will come in small local groups of dedicated flyers who “want” people to experience flying.
Katie and I both spent a portion of our lives being paid to fly and I can tell you it really does lose something after awhile. I love flying for fun just because well … it’s fun.
We need a little trainer like a 152 at our place, but if not this airplane we need another soon. I think one push we need to make at our place is to begin holding seminars for investors who may or may not want to learn to fly, but see a market in need of an asset they’ll use, but simply cannot afford to capitalize alone.
So we’ll see I guess.