Peter wrote:
Is this what people here expected?
Not really. We’re not only talking the top 10% income bracket here and that did surprise me.
What was specified with “other”?
Updated results as of tonight:
We’re not only talking the top 10% income bracket here and that did surprise me
I would think that outside the rental scene that is what I would expect. One can do flying on less but only with a significant personal-life sacrifice (my usual silly comment about keeping one’s trousers done up saving you a lot of money 
) and in reality most participants are fairly normal people with a “life”, so more money is needed. In Europe one takes home roughly 50-60% of one’s gross pay – unless earning too little to do any flying.
In the rental scene, one can fly as little as one wants. Below 12hrs every 2 years you just need to renew with an examiner. And the schools/clubs will probably enforce some rather higher currency requirement for solo rental…
And the general level of EuroGA participation is likely to correlate with commitment to flying, so one isn’t going to get a broad sample all the way down to 0h/year.
Just checked, in France you are in the top 10% when you earn more than 3125€ per month, post tax…..
To me, this study shows you have to be in the top 10% to own a plane (as said above, 1000€/month is a minimum).
Jujupilote wrote:
Just checked, in France you are in the top 10% when you earn more than 3125€ per month, post tax…..
To me, this study shows you have to be in the top 10% to own a plane (as said above, 1000€/month is a minimum).
Hmm, do we have the slightest idea how many in the survey are actually making money by using GA?
As in using the plane for work and business?
Jujupilote wrote:
Just checked, in France you are in the top 10% when you earn more than 3125€ per month, post tax…..
In Sweden, the top ten earn approximately €4200 post tax. Surprisingly large difference.
If anybody is still under the impression that newly built LSA or microlight aircraft hold value relative to their original price, resulting in low cost of ownership for moderate income buyers, here’s a 920 hr Sportcruiser for sale at the equivalent of Euro 48,000 ($54,900). This one would have sold new for something like $135K including sales tax.
This Sportcruiser has seen about $500/month depreciation plus perhaps $100/month average in property tax (for the US owner) over the 13 years of ownership. Better per month than the 2009 Tecnam P2002 I posted earlier (in post 54), because it’s three years older and closer to being bottomed out… but still the same circa $90K total loss. Microlights have depreciated worldwide to market competitiveness with other used aircraft, good for today’s used buyer, but somebody has taken the loss to get them there.
I couldn’t care less how others run their financial lives as long as they enjoy themselves self sufficiently, but at the moment I’m glad I’m not rapidly losing my purchase cost while enjoying my own aircraft and I’m happy I’m not restricted to a €3125 or €4200 per month post tax income: if either were the case I’d be unable to fund investments that will eventually allow me to fly into old age while simultaneously reducing monthly (salary) income dramatically and eliminating the need for further investment expenses – which is the goal. I have a good income but it’s the spread between income and costs that allows for fun right now, and avoiding depreciation is therefore a basic philosophy with me.
