That means more people want to keep their airplane, a sign that aviation is more valuable to people. If there were tons of airplanes for sale, that would be a bad indication. The OEMs would be struggling, people would be leaving GA, aircraft values would be dropping.


As I said, Chip isn't making enough money doing deals is his definition of "critical". For the rest of us, it means our planes are more valuable and in demand.

It is sort of like saying there is a "critical" housing situation in Palo Alto, CA because the houses are so valuable and few are selling.

Mike C.

IMO using housing as an example is a poor choice and actually proves Chip's point. New/young people are being priced out of aviation in the same way they're being priced out of housing. Having an active resale pipeline is critical to pass down airplanes as existing owners move up or move out of flying. If airplanes stop changing hands the system freezes up, just like housing is frozen in many parts of the country. People want to sell for sky-high prices but no one can afford to pay those prices so they stay put. I fear that the cure for aviation is the same as it is for housing, and that is for the Boomers to start dying off. But then that will create a glut of inventory and is also not a sign of a healthy community.

I think people are getting wrapped up into the "big tent" definition of general aviation. While overall "GA" has increased, I think what people are saying is the "common person" GA has definitely decreased.

Let's exclude "fleet" operations such as flight schools.

Of course jet and TP sales are up. Rich are getting richer, and the entry level of those aircraft have come down, and so you see a relative increase in sales & operations, along with participation in 91k fractional shares. The excess from this segment is what lets Mike C and others play in a category they might not otherwise want or have the ability to play in.

That has allowed a migration away from fussy, hard to fly, hard to maintain (relatively speaking) piston twin equipment. But it's not a zero sum game as some are proposing, but the net negative for the lower end of the category is outsized from the upper end.

The turbine end of GA has a LOT of money to spend, and they have not yet reached the limit of what they will bear. Sure, we have some who are frugal, but every jet or TP that is flying returns more money to the ancillary services such as maintenance, hangar space, FBO services, etc. The turbine crowd has way more means to pay for those services, which means the higher profit margin means not only do all segments pay more, but those services are becoming increasingly unavailable to the piston fleet. You see airports "clear cutting" practically all hangar & tie down space to make room for corporate sized hangars, because that is where the money is, and to be clear, they will fill it at any price they set. That moves the piston fleet out to the outlying airports which were already under a squeeze because of field closures.

Complex piston singles and twins are a PITA to operate these days. Something like a T210, with spar issues, gear issues, turbo issues is just a much higher level of hassle than it used to be, for whatever combination of issues: parts, fuel, MX, etc. Same goes 2x for most piston twins. People who need that level of transportation will ether pay up for a turbine if they have the means, or go without if they don't. In either case, the ability for personal GA to "piggyback" on commercial piston ops makes a bad deal worse. Folks who are already operating in the turbine space are going to say "too bad, so sad" while they eat their FBO catering, and the experimental crowd will chime in with their smug old refrain of "well, build it yourself", not realizing that you've just eliminated 95% of the people who you probably need to help champion your causes.

Every day removes more from the fleet, and the potential revenue abilities for providers decreases. The loss of "4th tier" airports has removed the ability of the low end GA to find cost solutions such as lower cost care & feeding as well as more convenient access.

Guys like Chip and Mike, who are really the same side of the same coin despite their voluminous protestations with each other, roll into an FBO and see a lot of turbines turning and line guys running around and saying "hey GA things are booming" doesn't play at 80% of the airfields where the towns and counties are having a really hard time funding airports even with the Feds paying 90% of the bill. Some are to the point they can't even pay the postage on the check the FAA sends their way....the FAA sends a notice to cut some trees, and they can't even afford that so they close the field.

Meanwhile the schools do what they always do, pay highly inflated prices for new aircraft, passing that cost along to hapless students, or they soak up what little is remaining in the used aircraft, and run them until the tires fall off, thereby also removing those from the fleet as well.

Best,
Rich

Rich has it quite right from what I am seeing too.

We have to come to grips with the fact that an average person could not afford to fly an airplane with the capabilities of a 210 or Bonanza. They used to be reserved for the Surgeon Doctors and similar income level. And above them Piston Twins like 310s 414, 421!

For a while vintage versions of both became "Affordable". Until age caught up. And the higher income bracket bought Cirrus. Or went to Turbines.

But we are moving back to where the "Affordable airplane" is not a 4 place but should fall somewhere in the Aeronca Champ, J-3, Taylorcraft category. Except even kits with all items in that category are well over 100K.

The 172 is just too far gone even in used market to be considered anymore. Demand from the flight schools has pushed them up. Same for 150/152 in decent shape. We had the same issue in the 1980s early 90s so we used Tripacers. They were cheap with life left and we flew the heck out of them. But now they all need restoration which will be well over 100K.

So if someone wants an airplane easy to fly, tricycle gear with basic VFR com GPS and ADSB in/out. Electric start, Alternator. Useful load for 2 and bags. 3 hr range with reserve. 100 knot cruise. 6 GPH. Ready for non ethanol fuel if 100LL goes away. Something made in this century. All metal. Not a homebuilt. In current production so parts are available and factory support. Insurance is available. Room for two 200lb people to sit.

Just a solid airplane that might live in a tie down if needed for economy.

What do you buy under 80K at less than 25 years age. Nothing exists.

So we are forced to work down from there. Explain to a new student that the only options are. Hand propping. No electrical system? no parts? No factory? 60-80 year old fabric covered airframes? Sailplanes, Powered parachutes. An airplane built by someone in their garage second hand?

It's not a lot of good options for the average non mechanic person to take.

The last year I have had almost every annual inspection for fixed gear 4 cylinder singles require work over 5K just to keep the airplane airworthy. And this is spacing it out so every annual is going to be probably that or more for 5 years or more but the airplanes still need ADSB Out, Paint, interiors, engines, prop overhauls, glass, new wheels brake due to corrosion, all plastics, baffles shot, exhaust. etc. They are just used up but can't limp on any longer without major work. These are not high time examples. All under 4000 hrs total time.

Then add in insurance, hangar, fuel, to the mix. It's 10K to keep a 150 per year and do some flying. The pool shrinks pretty fast of who wants to do this once they get through the challenge of solo or a license. They can buy a pontoon boat or off road side by side and go have fun that afternoon and put it away at home in the winter.

Our little airport in Northeast PA went from 88 customers for Tiedowns, hangars, maintenance in Quickbooks spring 2020 to 35 in spring of 2024. I'll have to update the active list for 2025 here shortly.

It is supply and demand. High demand means a strong market.

New/young people have always been priced out of "typical" aviation. This is not a new thing.

A Cessna 172 was $12,500 in 1970. Median house price in 1970 was $17,000.

Median house price today is $417,000. Scaling that, a 1970 172 buyer would need $306,000 today. That's plenty to buy a decent airplane.

You can get into ultralights, gliders, experimentals, for under the price of a car. It is all about your priorities. I don't know how many people I meet driving $100+K cars and living in $700K McMansions who say "I can't afford an airplane". Okay...

The "aviation is dying" sentiment goes way back. We are actually living in a very robust time for personal aviation. If you went back 40 years, 1985 when lots of people thought personal aviation was nearly dead, and told people back then what aviation looks like in 2025, they would not believe how wonderful it is now.

Mike C.

It is the demographic. In rural depressed rust belt areas. A 300K airplane is not going to work.

And maybe they just shouldn't fly or find alternate types of aviation. But I am in an area where sailplane clubs were very popular in the 1980s. And many many have closed up. Including the Schweizer factory.

In the 1970s, a $12,500 172 didn't work in many places in the country, either.

Aviation will never be open to everyone, but there are far more people it is open to now than before, if they want to do it.

The USA has 23,800,000 millionaires. Any of them could fly if they want to.

Mike C.

It's geographical, not global.

Sam who works in my office just purchased a Cessna 182, he has to tie it down, outside at an airport over an hour away from the office, because that is the only ramp space he can find! There's five airports closer to us than the one he is currently based at.

If you show me an area where things are booming, people are moving there and houses are going up in value - but GA is dying and the airport can't afford to cut down trees, I'll change my mind.

I think a lot of it is perception, if your airport is dying, it feels like all airports are dying. I travel to airports, large and small, all over the country. Yes, I have seen some airports that are dead, but the towns are dead as well. I would guess that 95% of the airports I go to are booming, but that is perception as well, because if the airport attracts turbine aircraft, the area is probably doing well.

As far as turbine aircraft using up all of the bandwidth, I think that is somewhat true, but overall turbine aircraft keep GA alive. Just like the rich pay the vast majority of taxes, turbine aircraft bear the cost and vast majority of the support required to keep private aviation going.

As Mike said, a fraction of the people who can afford aircraft actually buy them.

The rich get richer... isn't that the American way? We should all be thankful for the opportunities we have, both the finances and the freedom to fly.

Just to compare

1970 Cessna 172 $12,500

1970 Chevrolet Malibu 1970 $2,976 X 4 = $11,904

1970 Cadillac Eldorado started at $7000 X 4 = 28,000


2024 Malibu $26,000- $31,000 X 4 = $104,000 to $124,000

2024 Cadillac CT4 starts at $34,000 X 4 = $136,000

2024 172 $450-$600,000.

Locally I have seen a surge in interest in aviation careers, probably fueled by airline demand.

The U.S. population has grown over 50% since 1980 and the pilot population has paradoxically declined significantly. It appears to me that the overall health of general aviation is not really booming.

As Mike said, there is a significant portion of the population that have more than enough money to afford flying. Typical flight school has aircraft built 40+ years ago. Probably not very appealing to many of those folks. Thank goodness some new designs have been introduced in the past quarter century!

If GM was sued every time someone died in a Malibu crash, the Malibu would probably cost half a mil too!

Not quite sure what you are saying here. Relative cost of new cars today vs aircraft. Pretty much new cars have come down in relative price since the 1960's-70's and with a lot more reliability/features.

I pulled 1959-2020 from this GAMA spreadsheet and then added in 2021-2024 for U.S. manufacturers from their annual reports.



Attached are those data by year. When I hear "GA is dying," I hear that the surplus of piston aircraft manufactured in the 1960s and 1970s are disappearing, and there isn't a replacement. That's true. There's no replacement.

The result is that flying gets more expensive, because there are fewer and fewer examples of aircraft from 3-4 decades earlier available for purchase. Those peaks will continue to erode.

If you don't have older, cheaper airplanes to buy, the only people who will be flying are those who can afford the newer, nicer ones, and the clear result is that the demographics of the 'average' pilot will trend toward higher and higher net-worth individuals, which also tends to trend for major cities; it's why you can find a hangar in the middle of nowhere, but you're driving 50+ miles away for the luxury of a tie-down rental.

GA isn't dying, but the GA you once knew is.

I'll just regurgitate the same post I've made many times. Textron knows where the price point is, and what the market will support. They've priced the 172 at a half mil not because of lawsuits, but because that is where the market is.

They could cut the price by 2/3s, and the only people who'd be buying 172s in any significant number are the same people who are paying full retail right now....the LARGE flight schools. If they cut the price, they'd just be cutting their own throat. They might pick up a few dozen units on the margin, but that's it.

The public at large has neither the time nor patience to deal with GA flying. Societal changes have made everyone move on. Mom or dad no longer has all day to blow at the airport. There's travel sports, dancing, gymnastics and 800 other things with the kids, plus dealing with office calls, because everyone is on the hook for work 24/7, and you're kidding yourself if their work compensates them for that other than not giving a bad performance review. There's all the family cell phones, the McMansion, cable TV, interwebs, oh, and trying to save for retirement, school for the kids and health care.

Full plate. Far different than Pops in 1970 paying $250/mo for a 2400 sqft on a slab with just electric, phone and water. Used Tempest in the carport, B & W TV in the living room. $5 registration for little league, and everyone got accepted to State U for a pittance.

Aviation, especially GA, has lived in the fringes of affordability since they tossed the first one down the sand dune. The fringe of affordability fluxes with the relative well being of the populace at large. But what has never changed is the time suck, and unfortunately time is the one item most folks don't have these days. Spare time has been declining since the 70's (not coincidentally, "productivity" in the US is exactly the mirror image), and it's on a bad vector

Those who grind it out for a W-2 don't see that spare time coming back any time soon.

Best,
Rich

Agree 100% Rich. Someone at Textron has the job to know just how much the market will pay for an airplane, and that's what they charge. But it is within reason --- there's still a Piper salesperson out there who wants to eat lunch. Competition is a good thing.

I'll correct one part of my earlier statement. "GA is dying" isn't fair; instead, "GA is evolving." The audience is changing rapidly as the boomers cycle out of the cockpit, but it's a long trail indicator as GA decline from the 1980s will continue to have an impact.

But the next generation are going to have a harder time getting in as the total number of used aircraft decreases year-over-year. That still has some time to get worse before it flattens out.