kwif – in my experience that is a very fair summary. Also in my experience the exception is those with very well developed private practices and those at the top of their field who have earnings potential very considerably in excess of those numbers.
Those figures are surprisingly low. In Ireland a hospital consultant earns €225k from the public system, and are allowed to treat private patients in public hospitals on top of that.
For me, working in a university works out pretty well for flying. Our busy time is October to April when the weather sucks, then I have plenty of flexibility in summer. Flying takes up pretty much all of my discretionary money (approx 30% of net income) with the exception of a nice bottle of wine a month and a few Michelin restaurant visits a year.
I don’t know how you reached this conclusion.
Which one? 
Also in my experience the exception is those with very well developed private practices and those at the top of their field who have earnings potential very considerably in excess of those numbers.
And those are the people you hopefully go to when you get private stuff done, having asked around people in the business for their recommendations…
But we still don’t see them much in GA. I really think they don’t have the time flexibility – even if they were so inclined.
Fact is, perhaps with very few exceptions like being a CEO etc, you have to be self-employed or own your own company to be able to afford the higher ends of aviation. I’m talking owning Cirri, TBM’s, jets etc. I think this is true in Europe and equally true in the US, perhaps with the exception of the medical profession. Dick Karl, contributor to Flying magazine was, I think, a heart surgeon. He owned a Cheyenne for decades and just upgraded to a Premier. As far as I know, he did not have his own clinic or specialist shop, but was employed and was presumably well remunerated enough to be able to afford such capable aircraft. Good for him!
As for why we don’t see more aviation ownership at the top levels, it’s something we’ve touched upon before here. It’s not a money problem or even a time problem, I think, but rather a perception problem. Europe views such ownership differently than the US and few want to be in the crosshairs of that social and moral morass. It’s simply not kosher in Europe to be a jet owner no matter how hard you worked for it.
I think Dick is an oncologist.
Some of my customers at work sign their emails ‘CEO and founder’ or similar… when you google map the address it’s a garage in north London
I wonder what the very wealthy do, e.g. luxury yacht owners. Buy/charter a small jet and be carried as passengers? I can’t image them spending 50 hours in a small cockpit being told they’re doing it wrong. Other than buying a plane to learn on, is initial training offered on anything more ‘luxury’ than an SR22?
+1 for msgr in post 28
Only my observation, but I think the best bet for having both money and time relatively quickly is to become a ‘guru’ in some field that has demand. You can do this either within a large organization, or independently. Basically, people tend to leave you alone if you have some hard to obtain skill that they rely on and have difficulty obtaining elsewhere. Obviously to do this you need to develop some individual skill and knowledge set beyond the norm.
Owning and running a business is fine, but it tends to involve managing people and customers, both of which tend to need your continuous attention. I think you do this because you want to be involved in the business, because you like it. Maybe some day you’ll sell the business and have both money and time.
Management within somebody else’s company is not the way to get money and time simultaneously unless you’re lucky enough to work for a long period in one place that is making money, are effective, and let others do the life consuming ego-driven political stuff. Then you might find the right management niche (and the right people) to obtain some of the positive features of being a ‘guru’. I feel fortunate in that regard.
Capitaine wrote:
Other than buying a plane to learn on, is initial training offered on anything more ‘luxury’ than an SR22?+1 for msgr in post 28
I don’t think people are normally trained on anything fancier than a Cirrus, except maybe some military pilots, but there was a guy who apparently did his whole course in a Citation.
In principle I think most flight schools in the US could start you in a piston twin, or possibly even a King Air, given that most of the larger ones offer AMEL ratings. I’m not sure how the insurance end of it would work, since most pilot training assumes ASEL→IR→AMEL, but if you’re in that category it seems surmountable to get an extra rider or something.
redRover wrote:
In principle I think most flight schools in the US could start you in a piston twin
I know a guy who did that, probably about 1970, and claims to have never flown a single. The plane was owned by his employer and was ‘free’, the instructor was a company pilot/employee.
Could you do it in EASA land? As a PPL I think not, but there was a quick route into ATPL, with no time in a single or even piston twin – is it still possible? You cant even train in a MEP as far as I am aware otherwise.
