Low prices on the used airplane markets, a chance to attract more pilots to ownership?

what_next wrote:

After a very short time, one finds out that the big cost factor is not buying the aeroplane, but operating and maintaining it.

Yes. That is why I keep telling people not to spend their whole budget on buying but leave enough for flying. Depending on the airframe and the hours you do, a good budget is needed. Fixed costs plus what you actually plan (or achieve) to fly. My own total costs per year have been between 18 and 20k, that is all included for between 60 and 90 hrs. One person who operates an Arrow told me that he puts aside 1000 CHF/900Euros per month for the fixed costs and pais the fuel e.t.c. on the spot.

what_next wrote:

An old/cheap one, maintained to current standards, can be sold for almost the same money that it was purchased for

Again yes. What needs to be said is that certain investments will influence the sale value, others won’t. A plane which has recent TBO’s done will definitly fetch more than one which runs on condition. I also think that for most people it is important that planes are bought in a “fly away” condition. Projects definitly are for experienced buyers who know what they want and can do.

what_next wrote:

In my experience, old/cheap aircraft that are well maintained are not less reliable than new ones.

I agree. The key is maintenance and care.

Peter wrote:

my impression is that “old” SEP prices have halved since 2002 when I was looking at some Archers.

I would think that is about accurate. When I was last following the market in the late 90ties, I could not find a single good traveller for much below 100k CHF. Yes, there were the oddball offers when even then a Seneca I was sold for 30k CHF (and I missed that, I think I would have bought it if I had known as I was flying it at the time and loved it) but generally, I can’t remember any Arrows, Mooneys or Beeches for less than a lot more than today.

AdamFrisch wrote:

The costs and scare tactics are way overblown. Also, once they become owners, they also normally become owners for life.

I do think that is true and is the very thing I have to dispell with simple figures.

I once did a sort of improvised “seminar” years ago on ownership and the first thing I asked that crowd of 10 was what their estimates were on the cost of planes and ownership. ALL of them were off the mark by double to tripple. ALL of them said their sources were the then still very popular local pilots coffeeshop round tables. Some claimed that they had actually tried to verify the figures with actual owners and were told “none of their business”. That I can still see today and it is counterproductive yet maybe a Swiss thing, as people here are very reluctant to talk money.

When I became an owner again in 2009, I faced quite some hostility over it by some people both in the work and private environment. After my trip to BG in 2011 I decided to go into the offensive and open my books. That basically stopped the hostilities immediately as quite some found that their own hobbies are more expensive both in terms of acquisition and maintenance. 2 of those guys have Winnebago like campers and both paid a lot more to buy and almost similar to run their machines.

tmo wrote:

– I don’t really care much for how much time is left on the engine, because:

For someone who buys his 2nd or 3rd plane I agree. I think however for a first time buyer, it is important that he gets a quicker satisfaction by being able to fly immediately without having to worry for a 2-3 month standing time while engine and prop are done. Other than that, you are right. I am much less concerned about a run out engine and prop than about massive avionic upgrades.

tmo wrote:

– a 8k33 radio will be mandatory after Jan 1, 2018

Thank you. I have to admit as mine has 8.33 already I did not eally bother to find this out.

tmo wrote:

thank you VERY MUCH for posting this!

You are welcome

USFlyer wrote:

You get what you pay for…buying an old, cheap aircraft comes with plenty of maint. nightmares…and potential safety issues.

Honestly, I think the most important part in ANY purchase is a thorough and well done pre-purchase inspection by a professional who knows what he is talking about. That will in most cases alleviate such problems. It is very important to know what problems are and if there are any to then educate yourself about them and see if you want to live with them or not. In today’s market the choice is HUGE, there is no need to buy a potential maintenance nightmare.

Silvaire wrote:

I think encouraging individual ownership is the best way to promote and protect aviation, as well it being (1) a lot of fun and (2) what most people really want to do anyway, if they can learn how to do it affordably.

I fully agree. That is why I am trying to do what I am doing.

Arun wrote:

I could imagine that prospective PPLs are put off by airframes having the same age as them ;-)

Some certainly are. I think it depends strongly on what they have done their training and previous flying.

I had one newbie PPL who came to me and said, nothing older than 10 years. That translates into quite a bit of $$$. I then showed him a picture.

“You mean something like that?” “Yea, that is more like it!!”

Now that airplane was built in the year Neil Armstrong stepped onto the moon…. But it had an attractive paintjob and with it to the uneducated eye a good ramp presence. He now flies a 30 year old Bonanza as far as I know. Some people do mistake “old” with “shagged out”. I think it is MUCH more important how a plane has been taken care of. Even a not optimal paint job does not necessarily reflect a technically bad airplane.

Thanks for your contributions, also those who came directly via PM. Keep them coming.

what_next wrote:

This is a point about which I am not so sure. In this country (maybe that’s different elsewhere) car manufacturers sell less and less cars to younger people.

That is something I see in the cities. Mobility and other equal time share companies grow exponentially. Yet, in the agglomerations as well as on the country side kids can’t wait to drive and to get their own car. In the very cooperation my house is situated, ALL of the +18 kids were driving several weeks after their birthdays and got cars immediately thereafter.

I also think the purpose of flying and driving is different. Driving is every day work, commuting as well as freedom for the youngsters who don’t live in the city. Flying is a different thing. Having worked in Flight Simulation for almost 20 years as a editor for a fs magazine, we had tons of teenagers who came into this hobby with the prospect of being airline pilots, most of them got stuck somewhere in between the selection and PPL. Those with PPL almost all go on flying and find the club conditions not to their liking. I got 4 of those flying my plane now, 2 of them would want to buy their own ride once they are financially able to.

what_next wrote:

This generation will not like aircraft ownership and the necessary devotion to one activity either.

I am not sure. I have seen quite a few youngsters who are capable and willing to comit to one activity with frevor and dedication. Not only in flying but also elsewhere. True, they are less than the average generation iphone teen, but flying never has been for the big masses. The most criticism I hear from the youngsters involved in aviation is that a) it is too expensive (until they are shown where to fly so they CAN afford it) and b) that it is dominated by good old boys who treat the youngsters like cockroaches rather then clients and whose idea of club flying means to go fly around the circuit and then blabber for 4 hours over beer. Those clubs who do offer more perspectives also get more youngsters involved.

Peter wrote:

If you get a young person today who is determined to succeed and do stuff “right” they will wipe the floor with the others.

Ain’t that the truth! Now what would be essential is to make flying more attractive to them again so those who have one foot in take the plunge.