Exactly why I'm struggling with justifying a Masters Degree.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Why so expensive?
- Thread starter statesman
- Start date
Exactly why I'm struggling with justifying a Masters Degree.
I agree that part of the driving cost are lawyers and liability, but another factor is the FAA itself. Certified aircraft have to be just that - certified. Everything that goes in must meet stringent airworthiness regulations by the FAA. Testing requires money to prove they meet the regulations. That drives the costs up. I was looking at a bunch of planes for sale (for fun because I definitely don't have the money) and wondered why there were so many "panel mount" handhelds of the Garmin 495. The answer I found out is because the 495 gets you map and XM weather for $2000 plus a small monthly fee whereas getting the weather on your normal panel mount GPS can cost almost 10x as much.
From articles I read, Cirrus, the #1 selling four seat plane over the last 10 or so years, barely makes a profit per plane because of the costs of construction. I have heard from a local Cessna Pilot Center that they don't make any money on 172s, even at the $400k price, but Cessna is committed to the product because they believe it trickles up to their jet sales in some fashion. I don't know how true that is, but Cessna is about the only aviation company to not go bankrupt every 10-15 years.
From articles I read, Cirrus, the #1 selling four seat plane over the last 10 or so years, barely makes a profit per plane because of the costs of construction. I have heard from a local Cessna Pilot Center that they don't make any money on 172s, even at the $400k price, but Cessna is committed to the product because they believe it trickles up to their jet sales in some fashion. I don't know how true that is, but Cessna is about the only aviation company to not go bankrupt every 10-15 years.
They do, however, lay off most of their employees regularly.
So how do you fix this? From a policy stand point?
For instance despite the recent debacle auto makers dont go out of business all the time, cars don't cost $400,000.... and WAY more people are injured and killed in auto accidents each year.
So if its the lawyers and insurance companies driving the costs, what laws could be changed to make GA more attainable? $400,000 for a 172 is way too much... even with the lawyers there has to be some form of public policy that could change that would bring the cost down.
For instance despite the recent debacle auto makers dont go out of business all the time, cars don't cost $400,000.... and WAY more people are injured and killed in auto accidents each year.
So if its the lawyers and insurance companies driving the costs, what laws could be changed to make GA more attainable? $400,000 for a 172 is way too much... even with the lawyers there has to be some form of public policy that could change that would bring the cost down.
It took public policy to limit the number of years that Cessna and other aircraft manufacturers are liable for a given aircraft afte it is manufactured. I believe the number is 17 years, but that is just from memory and may be wrong. I believe you are correct, additional legislation is necessary to help reduce the cost of liability insurance for aircraft manufacturers.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
When I was a (little) kid, a "normal" middle class guy could possibly own a plane if he could afford to have and use a 22' boat.
Now? I could buy a fucking yacht for what it would cost me to own anything beyond a C-152.
Now? I could buy a fucking yacht for what it would cost me to own anything beyond a C-152.
There was a period during the 80s and 90s where no one made small GA planes after Cessna lost a $400m lawsuit based on a faulty designed seat on a 1950 150. They all said "screw it" and stopped making planes until that liability limit came out. Why is there no broad use of FADEC or newer, more efficient engines? Because the cost to certify them is astronomical and the demand isn't there to really push for change. In our society cars have become essential so the government strikes a better balance in my opinion.
So true. If the same training requirements, liability requirements and regulations applied to boats as to airplanes there would be a lot fewer boats...
One word: Experimental. I want badly to get my own airplane someday, but Big Navy has spoiled me with T-45s and Prowlers, and I'll be damned if I spend almost six figures on a 172 if I could get an RV, Glasair or Yak for the same price.
You'll end with a lot better airplane that way assuming you find the right airplane. My Yak is Experimental, makes it way more affordable and it's a LOT more fun than a 172. And I've seen some incredible RV's and Glasairs at OSH every year, built by some very talented individuals.
I disagree. There are lots of affordable, decent performing aircraft out there for a "decent" price, and many of them have 4 seats. C172, PA28, AA-5x, A3x, etc. Now if you want to buy a NEW airplane, then sure, it's ridiculously expensive. But C-172s were $250K+ in the late '80's and mid-'90's, so it's not like it's anything new.
As for liablility...there's one big thing boats and cars can do that planes can't when a major system malfunctions: pull over and wait. I'm not saying things aren't overboard, but I would want my nav system/engine to be more thoroughly tested in my plane than I would in my car. Otherwise we might all as well be flying ultralights, who always randomly loose their engines.
SAME price? Hardly... I, myself, am seriously looking into buying a Glasair (fractional ownership with maybe 2-3 others) in the next 5-10 years. And I can tell you, depending on the exact avionics/interior you want, you can put together a VERY nice fully IFR Glasair for around 200K.... or about HALF the price of a new 172.
So a 250kt+ cruise TAS at FL240 with 3 legitimate Pax or 2 Pax and bags for 12-1500nm.... or a weak 130kt cruise at 15K ft (try getting CLOSE to that speed or altitude, and CERTAINLY not both) in a C-172 which can hold 2 Pax and a purse or 1 Pax and a couple of bags?
It's a simple choice.
Doesn't the FAA run the certification process? (i.e. the lawyers and insurance companies aren't involved in that part)
I dont think you would get many people that don't agree, but when a 172 costs significantly more than a new Ferrari there are some problems with the system.
Does Glassair make a 4 pax plane? If so, linky please. I've totally missed that. That's why I'm still lusting after my Lancair IVP w/ PT-6. She will be mine, oh yes, she will be mine.
Your first part is kind of what I was getting at with your second part. I'm not real smart on how the process works, but I have to believe there's more to it. Kind of like how GM got into trouble with their health care/union issue. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, just that there must be something we're not seeing. A Garmin/Dynon glass panel doesn't cost $100K, so why does the rest of the plane cost $350K? I know I'm missing something, and I'm not convinced it's lawyers.