Just an observation: I see either lots of very cheap, small cars and expensive luxury SUVs.
I also see either „scraping the barrel“ planes or Cirrus models costing the equivalent of two family homes.
There’s less middle ground now. Effects of society so to say, that have consequences everywhere. I also think the reason for clubs dying in Austria is less time to participate and more individualistic lifestyles. The „together“ part is not as important (or can’t be as important due to societal effectd) to people anymore.
It’s so funny that this should be moved to Peter’s famous “political” thread
No matter how you look at it, there are reasons for everything. It’s a simple fact no one can deny. If you fail to understand the reasons, disagree, or whatever, who cares?
It’s a bit like being part of the solution or part of the problem when the solution for one person is a problem for another. 
GA, as with everything else in life, is about availability and bang for the buck. The exact cost isn’t really all that important, as long as it does not involve lots of unecessary nuisance and the perceived value is OK.
LeSving wrote:
No matter how you look at it, there are reasons for everything. It’s a simple fact no one can deny. If you fail to understand the reasons, disagree, or whatever, who cares?
You obviously fail to see the difference between the reasons and your perception. And when you don’t have the arguments then you simply conclude that other people don’t understand. No offense but you are the one who doesn’t understand.
LeSving wrote:
he exact cost isn’t really all that important, as long as it does not involve lots of unecessary nuisance and the perceived value is OK.
The cost is not important as long as other aspects of your life don’t suffer because of your spending to flying as all other people in this thread concluded. However, YMMV.
The figure of 150k income p.a. is a good guesstimate for the kind of income required for “EuroGA style” GA activity, i.e. 50 hrs/year of flying, including longer trips and ideally in an (co-)owned aircraft.
I am pleased to say that is incorrect (as stated).
My income is nowadays well below that figure, but I can fly the TB20 100, 200 or 300 hrs a year (actually currently about 150) without batting an eyelid.
What is the magic formula?
Not having an expensive lifestyle.
Way back, in fact until only a few years ago, I had 2 kids in private schools and that was costing 30k/year. I was also paying child maintenance, index linked and ending up at another 35k/year. Plus the ex’s mortgage (paid as spousal maintenance) at another 10k/year. So I needed to take home 75k after tax, and that assumes I didn’t eat, and slept in a tent. Luckily, after I got divorced, I had a few very good years in the business… and many years later the kids left full time education so the CM ended.
Had I not been divorced I would have been paying the same of course because no way would she have gone to work. I mean, be real, looking after a 5 bedroom house, pool, jacuzzi, 2 horses, and 3 acres is a full time job 
But this illustrates that if you load up your life with “stuff” you need a lot of money to run it all. And it is hard to get that sort of money from any normal job.
Compared with all that, the total cost of living with Justine in our house half a mile down the road is peanuts: around 20k which frankly one could cover with two State pensions, give or take a little
The problem is the expectations of today’s “young people” are high and expensive. You get married, mortgage yourself up to your neck, the children are more or less automatic which produces a quantum leap in living costs, compounded by the woman usually stopping working (or going part time), 2 cars, and quickly you need best part of 100k before tax to keep all the balls in the air. To do expensive hobbies like flying or skiing (the costs of those two are similar if you do several ski trips a year) you then need 150k.
The problem is that almost nobody earns 150k without climbing and brown-nosing their way up some hard and stressful corporate “middle management” ladder.
There are several obvious ways to get a lot more money to spend on hobbies, without killing yourself:
The „together“ part is not as important (or can’t be as important due to societal effectd) to people anymore.
That’s been the social trend everywhere for decades. I think that GA may be fairly unique in the % of participants who are only just hanging (financially) in the activity, and this produces a lot of pressure inside organisations. Clubs fall apart, syndicates fall apart.
MedEwok wrote:
The figure of 150k income p.a. is a good guesstimate for the kind of income required for “EuroGA style” GA activity, i.e. 50 hrs/year of flying, including longer trips and ideally in an (co-)owned aircraft.
It is for Switzerland but does not have to be elsewhere. Generally here, I can see that my own plane costs me roughly 1000 Euros a month. That is what I need to be able to spend with a close to 55 year old plane. That on the other hand should be possible also for someone with less.
MedEwok wrote:
Ultimately I’d say if a hobby is too expensive for a medical doctor with a nice income then it is too expensive to survive as anything but a very niche activity.
Well… it depends on how you do it and in what intensity. Most people fly roughly 12 hours a year or so, that is about 1 hour per month in average or a couple of hours each summer and then dead in the winter. That still should be affordable but you need to watch what you get for your money. There are planes which are much cheaper to operate than others.
MedEwok wrote:
Why does it cost about 150€ to operate a 100 hp aircraft for an hour when it costs only about 30€/h to operate a car with a stronger, more sophisticated internal combustion engine with a comparable top speed and which also needs MUCH more infrastructure to operate it? That’s the question the GA industry as a whole needs to address.
I agree. And I think that the answer to that may well be that ownership has to be promoted over renting. Owners will try to operate cheaper and put some pressure on the maintenance facilities rather than clubs or schools who can charge what they want. Also the monopoly situations in Avionics and parts have to be addressed as well as engine technology in particular needs a MASSIVE upgrade. If some of the ideas about certification and development requirements go in the right direction for privately operated planes then we might see a change there but I won’t hold my breath.
Most people fly roughly 12 hours a year or so
I am sure there are places where 12 is the annual average, but
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Owners will try to operate cheaper and put some pressure on the maintenance facilities rather than clubs or schools who can charge what they want.
There is some truth in this. Different club members have different opinions on maintenance standards, if they have any opinions at all which in most cases they don’t but simply trust the club officers to do the right thing. Thus by necessity a club has to maintain its aircraft to higher standards than an individual owner does. On the other hand, there are more heads to share maintenance costs so I don’t think ownership will be cheaper in the end. To me, the main argument for ownership is not reduced cost but better availability and the possibility of getting an aircraft that suits your tastes.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Thus by necessity a club has to maintain its aircraft to higher standards than an individual owner does
I don’t even think that is the main thing. In a club, nobody but the board ever sees the maintenance costs and will read up on the issue. And as you say, as there are more heads and more importantly hours to share the cost, people will simply read the price list and get on with it.
As a private owner I do not want my plane maintained to a lesser standard but I will try to find efficient ways of doing things, such as sourcing parts, such as finding the best shop for what I want to do, such as comparing market prices e.t.c. and often directly address the maintenance organisation about cost.
Airborne_Again wrote:
To me, the main argument for ownership is not reduced cost but better availability and the possibility of getting an aircraft that suits your tastes.
That goes without any question yes.
Peter wrote:
any owner who flies 12hrs/year needs to pick a different hobby, because the DOC will be astronomical
Doesn’t depend on the owners flying time but the flying time of the airplane. If the airplane has enough hours, the cost is not excessive.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I don’t even think that is the main thing. In a club, nobody but the board ever sees the maintenance costs and will read up on the issue.
Sure they do — when the financial report and budget proposal are presented at every Annual General Meeting. Whether members care much is another question. Probably not if they feel that the board and officers generally do a good job. Personally (and I say this as chairman of a 100+ member club) I’d like them to care more.
Peter wrote:
What is the magic formula?Not having an expensive lifestyle.
I think this is pretty much the key to this.
Or at least thinking about where you direct your funds that you do have.
I’ve managed to get a few of my friends into flying. Well at least starting their PPL. A lot of people who would possibly enjoy it are either not really aware of how accessible it can be or fun / useful. I think also the time commitment of doing the exams puts a number off. A good friend of mine raced through the flying element in a few intense visits and got up to being ready to do solo cross country, but has barely passed an exam. It needs a certain amount of perseverance to get through to the really enjoyable bits and lots of extra regulation and gold plating doesn’t really help that.
