AOPA Turbine Pilot Magazine - March 2013 - 14

LETTERS
Waypoints

Why do airplanes
cost so much?

By Thomas B. haines
Editor in Chief

Facing GA’s fiscal realities

Tom haines

is an active general
aviation pilot and
has owned his
Bonanza A36 for
more than 10 years.

as aoPa PresidenT Craig Fuller suggests in “Strength
in Purpose,” on page 28, 2013 is a pivotal year for general aviation. While the severity of the “fiscal cliff” is
uncertain at this writing, there is no doubt that in the
first quarter of the new year we must come to grips with
the fiscal reality of today’s economy.
In general aviation, we face our own fiscal realities.
Avgas prices are at near-record highs—both historically
and from a “real cost” standpoint. While many of the
other costs we pay in aviation are separated from the
act of flying, the price at the pump hits us between the
eyes after every flight. Hangar and tiedown fees, annual
inspections, insurance, and other costs are usually paid
while sitting at the kitchen table when we wish we were
flying. The price of a fill-up haunts us standing at the airplane. Did I really just spend $350?
A few years ago, when avgas was about $2.75 a gallon,
I received a fuel bill from my FBO for $250. I called them
up and told them that if they could fit that much fuel
(about 90 gallons) into my Bonanza (it holds 74 usable
gallons), I would pay for it. I heard some paper shuffling
and then, “Oh, a Baron was by for fuel. Its N number is
close to yours.” Today, with a typical fill-up now costing me $350 or more, I would welcome a $250 top-off.
I’m as chagrined as the next pilot at $6 avgas, but
the price is not completely off the scale from a historic
standpoint. Looking back 40 years to 1972, avgas cost
about 75 cents a gallon. Over the years, the price has
fluctuated dramatically, but tracking the high and low
spreads over those years, the price in constant 2011 dollars has hovered between $4 and $6. So, we’re near the
upper edge of what avgas cost in round numbers four
decades ago when you account for inflation. The same
can be said for the cost of an hour’s time with a quality flight instructor, maintenance services, and aviation
insurance—maybe even hangar rents and tiedown fees.
While $6 avgas is a challenge, where costs really
run off the rails is in the price of new airplanes. The
rising price of airplanes has far outstripped inflationary increases. A new Cessna 172 Skyhawk cost about
$15,000 in 1972. Today a Skyhawk costs about $310,000,
but includes a larger engine and better avionics and
safety systems. All things being equal and adjusted for
inflation, a Skyhawk ought to cost about $83,000 today;
or closer to $100,000 if you want to account for the
engine upgrade and better avionics. The reasons for the
delta between then and now are many,and none of them

are, I believe, because manufacturers are getting rich on
producing piston-powered airplanes. In fact, those manufacturers are struggling to remain in business.
The average age of an airplane in the fleet is more
than 40 years. Yes, they last a long time, but we must
infuse new airplanes into the fleet for the future. The
number of airplanes produced fell from more than 17,000
in 1977 to 1,950 in 2011, fewer than 900 of them pistonpowered. That 1977 number wasn’t healthy either, as it
resulted in softening of the market, but no industry can
survive long on fewer than 2,000 units a year.
Aircraft manufacturers frequently cite the cost and
complexity of certification as a reason for high retail
costs and the reason that we don’t see much innovation
in certified aircraft. Meanwhile, Experimental airplanes
benefit from highly capable and low-cost avionics and
such safety enhancements as angle-of-attack systems.
If the certified companies are correct, one thing we
can do is simplify FAA certification requirements for
light airplanes, which are governed by Part 23 of the regulations. The exceptions are Light Sport aircraft, which
are built to industry-established guidelines. Even the
FAA agrees that Part 23 regulations have become too
complicated and expensive. As more and more complex
GA aircraft have been developed, the FAA has applied
the ever-more complex certification requirements for
those airplanes on any new aircraft. So a simple hedgehopping, fixed-gear piston-powered airplane gets
dumped into the same bucket as a twin-engine, pressurized light jet meant to fly at 45,000 feet.
AOPA joined forces with the FAA and other aviation associations to establish an aviation rulemaking
committee that will outline a new way to certify light
airplanes while maintaining the safety we expect from
certified airplanes. The FAA has been surprisingly supportive of the effort and it is moving at a good clip. You
will read more about the Part 23 ARC in coming months,
so pay attention and be informed because it will determine the future of the fleet.
There are plenty of issues facing us, but if we can
make a meaningful difference in the value equation for
new aircraft—lower prices or more utility, or both—we’ll
go a long ways in improving the future of GA.
AOPA
EmAIL thomas.haines@aopa.org

social

“I do not buy the argument that the astronomical prices of new airplanes has to do
with certification costs. Aircraft like Haines’s
Bonanza have been certified for decades. The
legacy manufacturers are pricing themselves
out of existence (e.g., Mooney). Beechcraft
is next in line. Could it be that if the current
prices were lower, many, many more would
be sold and they could survive?”
Alan Maurer, AOPA 437795, Osprey, Florida

Follow on twitter.com/tomhaines29

16 | AOPA PILOT January 2013

Matthew Benidt,
AOPA 6014548
Phoenix, Arizona

Bruce Landsberg responds: Having been a young pilot (I learned
to fly in college) and a CFI, I
understand your enthusiasm,
but this is a performance activity and we need to call things as
they are. The numbers speak.

Winterize yourself

Dave Hirschman’s article
included a paragraph detailing the difficulties of using
touchscreen avionics in an
open-cockpit airplane (“P&E:
Ownership”).
How did “touchscreen” and
“open cockpit” end up in the
same article, much less the same
sentence? Six round gauges, a
14 | AOPA PILOT March 2013

wire on a float, and lots of blank
wood or aluminum should be
all you want in an open cockpit. Having flown Stearmans
in subfreezing conditions on a
number of occasions, I heartily
agree with the rest of the article.
Make sure that paper chart
doesn’t slip out of your gloved
hand—it will leave the cockpit so fast you won’t even
see it go.
John McMurray,
AOPA 1294390
Burkburnett, Texas

HANGAR TALK

forward, because of a fear of
youthful exuberance. The
enthusiasm and exuberance
of today’s young pilots should
be courted, mined, and used
for the benefit of aviation progression. And ultimately to
accomplish AOPA’s mission
today: introduce new people to
aviation and grow the base of
pilots so that GA can continue
to innovate, inspire, and—
maybe, just maybe—bring out
a little more youthful exuberance in all of us.

Why do airplanes
cost so much?

Thanks for Tom Haines’ article about the cost of airplanes
(“Waypoints”). He made some
great points. One cost not mentioned, however, is the loss in
value of aircraft after they fly off
the showroom floor. For years
many manufacturers overproduced, over-financed, and
over-hyped their newest products to the detriment of current
owners. It wasn’t uncommon

When hot-rodders
brag about car
performance, they
at least have the
decency to back
up the talk with an
actual race. With this
issue, AOPA Pilot
introduces “Fly Offs,”
magazine articles
and videos in which
we pair competitive airplanes in a
series of side-byside evaluations.
“Pilots love to boast
about how fast their
airplanes fly, how quickly they climb, and
how short they land,” says AOPA Pilot
Senior Editor Dave Hirschman. “Fly Offs
lets them prove it, wing tip to wing tip,
with no excuses and no nonsense.” OK,
there is some nonsense, but that’s mostly
limited to Hirschman and Flight Training

for someone to plop down three
hundred grand in the mid-2000s
for a state-of-the-art airplane,
only to find that in a few short
years their “investment” was
now worth a fraction of what
they were ever lead to believe.
OEMs like to point to “unforeseen” circumstances such as
$100 per barrel of oil and an
overall economic slowdown, but
they too have plenty of blame.
It’s incumbent upon manufacturers to help preserve the value
of already-sold aircraft so that
those same owners will return.
Their short-term sales goals
have become a long-term nightmare. The owners who once
were so excited about the prospects of general aviation and
aircraft ownership have been
burned and may be reluctant to
ever buy a new aircraft again.
Chris Kirk,
AOPA 1222667
Edgerton, Missouri

We welcome your comments.
Editor, AOPA PIlot, 421 Aviation
Way, Frederick, Maryland 21701
or email (pilot@aopa.org). Letters may be edited for length
and style before publication.

Editor Ian Twombly in their summary
of our first “Fly Off: Van’s Aircraft RV–7
versus Mustang Aeronautics Mustang II”
on page 68.
Losing a state-of-theart airliner operated
by one of the world’s
most experienced
airlines, while in
cruise flight, is almost
as unthinkable as the
sinking of the Titanic,
says AOPA Foundation President Bruce
Landsberg (“Safety Pilot Landmark
Accident: When Nothing Makes Sense,”
page 74). “Very few thought the manner
in which Air France Flight 447 crashed
was possible these days. The failure of
a triple-redundant system, crew confusion resulting from automatic systems
designed to simplify things, and a most
basic airmanship mistake truly make this
a Landmark Accident.”

http://www.twitter.com/tomhaines29

AOPA Turbine Pilot Magazine - March 2013

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of AOPA Turbine Pilot Magazine - March 2013