Just received my latest edition of COPA Magazine and one article reported that the GA fleet in Canada grew by just 34 planes or 0.12 percent in 2016. According to the article this was the lowest number recorded since 2000 and worse than the 2008-2010 recession. The article also noted that the demographics for recreational flying are poor: "As the flying population ages, it is also increasingly seen by younger people as something only done by older people."
Interesting to note that certified aircraft in particular are losing ground. In 2015 the country lost 103 certified planes and 161 more in 2016.
2016 could be just a bad year of course, or it could be an accelerating trend -- down. I'm guessing a lot of these machines are legacy products from the 1970s whose owners are either dying or no longer able to maintain them.
Personally I am not sure recreational flying has much of a future (at least in its current form) but I want to remain optimistic. Sooner or later though, cost is going to drive out the fun flyers. With prices closing in on $160-$200 on hour to rent a 172, you are really depending on a shrinking number of people (fanatics?) who can afford to fly. Or to be more precise, who want to be able to afford it at those rates.
The Beginning of the End for G.A. in Canada?
-
ScudRunner-d95
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:08 pm
I am not optimistic at all, the various governments has sucked GA dry with taxes and not reinvesting in infrastructure. Lawsuits and insurance has driven the costs to operate a simple light aircraft through the roof.
-
DeflectionShot
[quote]I am not optimistic at all, the various governments has sucked GA dry with taxes and not reinvesting in infrastructure. Lawsuits and insurance has driven the costs to operate a simple light aircraft through the roof. [/quote]
Yep sounds about right. Not to mention fuel costs. Add increasing air space complexity, piss poor customer service at most FTUs, escalating costs to get a basic PPL, expensive medicals, you get declining interest.
I do like attending my local COPA flight though...makes me feel like a teenager again and I'm 55 ;-).
Yep sounds about right. Not to mention fuel costs. Add increasing air space complexity, piss poor customer service at most FTUs, escalating costs to get a basic PPL, expensive medicals, you get declining interest.
I do like attending my local COPA flight though...makes me feel like a teenager again and I'm 55 ;-).
-
ScudRunner-d95
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:08 pm
I think what will save the day is more group aircraft ownership type deals, I am working on one at the moment more info to follow Scudrunners Flying Circus!
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
There are really two kinds of (light single-engine land) GA these days:
1) people flying ancient legacy certified aircraft
2) people flying quick-built RV's
Pick one. Vans figured out a way around the hideously
expensive aircraft certification requirement, and for the
most part, it's a nice airplane.
NB The rest of the homebuilt fleet is miniscule in
comparison to RV's.
Irony moment: for decades, the visionaries of the
homebuilt movement told us that the future of
homebuilts was composite with car engines.
Well, both of those tanked. The RV could have
been built in 1950. It's bent aluminum sheet
metal and a 4-banger Lycoming with fixed gear
and a fixed pitch prop.
Sure took the homebuilt movement a lot of
decades to circle all the way back to 1950.
1) people flying ancient legacy certified aircraft
2) people flying quick-built RV's
Pick one. Vans figured out a way around the hideously
expensive aircraft certification requirement, and for the
most part, it's a nice airplane.
NB The rest of the homebuilt fleet is miniscule in
comparison to RV's.
Irony moment: for decades, the visionaries of the
homebuilt movement told us that the future of
homebuilts was composite with car engines.
Well, both of those tanked. The RV could have
been built in 1950. It's bent aluminum sheet
metal and a 4-banger Lycoming with fixed gear
and a fixed pitch prop.
Sure took the homebuilt movement a lot of
decades to circle all the way back to 1950.
-
DeflectionShot
[quote]2) people flying quick-built RV's[/quote]
I like the [u]idea[/u] of RV quick-builds...I don't like the [u]reality[/u] of who's built them. I have this inescapable image in my head of some asshole in his junky workshop cutting corners with Canadian Tire parts or using fucking bondo to smooth out the vertical tail. Knowing how notoriously cheap some aviation types are, it doesn't instill me with a lot of confidence.
The Colonel probably has the expertise to pick out well-constructed RVs, I wouldn't have a clue.
[quote]I think what will save the day is more group aircraft ownership type deals, I am working on one at the moment more info to follow Scudrunners Flying Circus![/quote]
Like the sound of that...please keep us informed. I think the UK has a lot of these kinds of group ownership deals.
Another possible trend is a growth in commercial gliding operations. One of the reasons why people don't soar as much as they could is because of the non-profit club system we have here in Canada, also dominated by squabbling geriatrics. I'd love to get a my glider rating but I don't have enough time to hang around the glider club all weekend wearing a Tilly hat and developing a German accent just to get a fifteen minute training flight. Honestly, who has that kind of time? I think that makes me a [b]bad[/b] person. >:D
I like the [u]idea[/u] of RV quick-builds...I don't like the [u]reality[/u] of who's built them. I have this inescapable image in my head of some asshole in his junky workshop cutting corners with Canadian Tire parts or using fucking bondo to smooth out the vertical tail. Knowing how notoriously cheap some aviation types are, it doesn't instill me with a lot of confidence.
The Colonel probably has the expertise to pick out well-constructed RVs, I wouldn't have a clue.
[quote]I think what will save the day is more group aircraft ownership type deals, I am working on one at the moment more info to follow Scudrunners Flying Circus![/quote]
Like the sound of that...please keep us informed. I think the UK has a lot of these kinds of group ownership deals.
Another possible trend is a growth in commercial gliding operations. One of the reasons why people don't soar as much as they could is because of the non-profit club system we have here in Canada, also dominated by squabbling geriatrics. I'd love to get a my glider rating but I don't have enough time to hang around the glider club all weekend wearing a Tilly hat and developing a German accent just to get a fifteen minute training flight. Honestly, who has that kind of time? I think that makes me a [b]bad[/b] person. >:D
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]RV quick-builds[/quote]
I wouldn't buy anything but a quick-build. Less
to screw up.
Couple of guys near me bought a really nice RV,
had my buddy look at it. All the riveting in the
tail sucked. Had to be replaced. This makes
sense, because it's often the first kit that the
builder gets, and learns on.
An RV is a homebuilt, not a certified aircraft, so
a very detailed inspection is required before
purchase. Every one will be different.
I wouldn't buy anything but a quick-build. Less
to screw up.
Couple of guys near me bought a really nice RV,
had my buddy look at it. All the riveting in the
tail sucked. Had to be replaced. This makes
sense, because it's often the first kit that the
builder gets, and learns on.
An RV is a homebuilt, not a certified aircraft, so
a very detailed inspection is required before
purchase. Every one will be different.
-
David MacRay
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:00 pm
Correct me if this is wrong but...
I think the reason the RV is a bit closer to a certified aircraft, is all the parts are pre bent and drilled. Things fit well and just need a little care to assemble one in a consistent manner. That makes them a bit easier to build the way they are meant to be.
Other than lining up holes and riviting there are less things left to the builder, particularly parts requiring fabrication to make mistakes with, than some kits. A quick build will have more parts pre assembled, thus, less to do and as mentioned, "Less to screw up."
They are not inexpensive though. The kit alone can cost more than some very nice used certified aircraft. I believe the saying, "There are no bargains in aviation." applies again.
Flying has always been somewhat expensive. I remember several people telling me about getting a license for a pretty small fee back in the 1960s, they usually failed to elaborate on wages and how a decent used car could be bought for a few hundred dollars.
Regarding the original post. I wonder how other years compare. Did the ga fleet increase by significantly more most other years? I would think it might have been even less for a few years back in the 1980s, when Cessna was not building any light piston singles.
I think the reason the RV is a bit closer to a certified aircraft, is all the parts are pre bent and drilled. Things fit well and just need a little care to assemble one in a consistent manner. That makes them a bit easier to build the way they are meant to be.
Other than lining up holes and riviting there are less things left to the builder, particularly parts requiring fabrication to make mistakes with, than some kits. A quick build will have more parts pre assembled, thus, less to do and as mentioned, "Less to screw up."
They are not inexpensive though. The kit alone can cost more than some very nice used certified aircraft. I believe the saying, "There are no bargains in aviation." applies again.
Flying has always been somewhat expensive. I remember several people telling me about getting a license for a pretty small fee back in the 1960s, they usually failed to elaborate on wages and how a decent used car could be bought for a few hundred dollars.
Regarding the original post. I wonder how other years compare. Did the ga fleet increase by significantly more most other years? I would think it might have been even less for a few years back in the 1980s, when Cessna was not building any light piston singles.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]They are not inexpensive though. The kit alone can cost more than some very nice used certified aircraft.[/quote]
I might point out that the cost of the construction and
what it's worth when it's done, are almost entirely unrelated
(at least for low-volume labors of love).
You could take the engine, transmissions, driveshaft and
differential and all accessories and doo-dads out of your
truck, and chrome-plate them. You would have an enormous
amount of money in your truck - and it would be worth not
much more than stock, even though it would be really
something when you popped the hood, or put it on a lift.
The high price that completed RV's command is driven by
supply and demand. People want them. The volume of them
reflects the gross margin. So, the quick-build kit may not be
as unreasonably-priced as you might think. Many people are
voting with their wallets.
This kind of arithmetic is why we see so many older, low-end
aircraft virtually completely disappearing, because the cost
of restoration is more than what it's worth afterwards. You
need to get the shell for negative dollars to make that work.
Only a very high-end aircraft can justify a million-dollar
restoration, for example, taking years and all sorts of custom
made parts. And the market for $5M Spitfires and P-51's is
not very large - you couldn't sell tens of thousands of them
per year, obviously. You would be lucky to sell 10, because
of the Venn diagrams.
Two circles, with tiny overlap. One circle is the people with
the money for a $5M warbird. The other circle is the people
who can fly them without dying. The overlap is miniscule,
and that's your market.
Plenty of people lust after expensive airplanes, but few
people can afford them, and of that group, only a tiny
handful can safely fly them. You can count them on the
fingers of one hand (eg Kermit Weeks), actually.
You missed the Venn diagrams. I know you did.
Funny insight on the human condition: people who can
[i]afford [/i]nice airplanes are envied and hated. People who
can both [i]afford and fly[/i] nice airplanes are fucking Satan.
Generally, people are assholes. I would rather take the
dogs to the beach.
[img width=500 height=281][/img]
Go on and hate Steve Hinton. Hate and envy his son while
you're at it. Be jealous and spiteful towards people that work
hard and accomplish things.
Be a [b]Good Canadian[/b]. Get a job at TC. I'll be at the beach.
[img width=500 height=375][/img]
I might point out that the cost of the construction and
what it's worth when it's done, are almost entirely unrelated
(at least for low-volume labors of love).
You could take the engine, transmissions, driveshaft and
differential and all accessories and doo-dads out of your
truck, and chrome-plate them. You would have an enormous
amount of money in your truck - and it would be worth not
much more than stock, even though it would be really
something when you popped the hood, or put it on a lift.
The high price that completed RV's command is driven by
supply and demand. People want them. The volume of them
reflects the gross margin. So, the quick-build kit may not be
as unreasonably-priced as you might think. Many people are
voting with their wallets.
This kind of arithmetic is why we see so many older, low-end
aircraft virtually completely disappearing, because the cost
of restoration is more than what it's worth afterwards. You
need to get the shell for negative dollars to make that work.
Only a very high-end aircraft can justify a million-dollar
restoration, for example, taking years and all sorts of custom
made parts. And the market for $5M Spitfires and P-51's is
not very large - you couldn't sell tens of thousands of them
per year, obviously. You would be lucky to sell 10, because
of the Venn diagrams.
Two circles, with tiny overlap. One circle is the people with
the money for a $5M warbird. The other circle is the people
who can fly them without dying. The overlap is miniscule,
and that's your market.
Plenty of people lust after expensive airplanes, but few
people can afford them, and of that group, only a tiny
handful can safely fly them. You can count them on the
fingers of one hand (eg Kermit Weeks), actually.
You missed the Venn diagrams. I know you did.
Funny insight on the human condition: people who can
[i]afford [/i]nice airplanes are envied and hated. People who
can both [i]afford and fly[/i] nice airplanes are fucking Satan.
Generally, people are assholes. I would rather take the
dogs to the beach.
[img width=500 height=281][/img]
Go on and hate Steve Hinton. Hate and envy his son while
you're at it. Be jealous and spiteful towards people that work
hard and accomplish things.
Be a [b]Good Canadian[/b]. Get a job at TC. I'll be at the beach.
[img width=500 height=375][/img]
-
David MacRay
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:00 pm
I know you think I meant I should get an RV for free. There is a difference between I want, I need and I deserve. Sure I deserve to have Santa Claus bring me an RV-8, because I have been good.
You may not be but it seems you think I do not see the value in the Vans kits. I do.
The reason I quoted, "There are no bargains in aviation." was to say. There is almost always a reason a plane [u]seems[/u] inexpensive. Usually you will get better value buying a more expensive plane.
On the other hand, I have seen some mighty C-172s that made me laugh at the asking price. The owner thinks it's a plane they are not afraid to fly so, it should cost as much as the rest. 1956, engine on condition, original paint and interior, expensive radio from 1972.
Used Cessna prices were driven up by the cost of a new one. They actually sell new 172s I don't see the value in them, I believe it must be there for some people.
Even If I hit powerball, I don't think I could justify buying a brand new Cessna. I might buy an RV kit if I suddenly had a decent shop to build in. I agree there is good value in them.
You may not be but it seems you think I do not see the value in the Vans kits. I do.
The reason I quoted, "There are no bargains in aviation." was to say. There is almost always a reason a plane [u]seems[/u] inexpensive. Usually you will get better value buying a more expensive plane.
On the other hand, I have seen some mighty C-172s that made me laugh at the asking price. The owner thinks it's a plane they are not afraid to fly so, it should cost as much as the rest. 1956, engine on condition, original paint and interior, expensive radio from 1972.
Used Cessna prices were driven up by the cost of a new one. They actually sell new 172s I don't see the value in them, I believe it must be there for some people.
Even If I hit powerball, I don't think I could justify buying a brand new Cessna. I might buy an RV kit if I suddenly had a decent shop to build in. I agree there is good value in them.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 14 Replies
- 6907 Views
-
Last post by Chuck Ellsworth
-
- 0 Replies
- 1851 Views
-
Last post by Colonel
-
- 5 Replies
- 1750 Views
-
Last post by vanNostrum
