Will LSAs Fuel a New Growth in Aviation?

I don't know if there are any statistics on exactly who is buying light airplanes these days, but anecdotally, it sure seems to be a different kind of buyer than it was when my dad owned airplane dealerships (Cessna and Piper) in Southern California in the 1970s. Back then, new airplane buyers were not a whole lot different from new car buyers, except that they liked airplanes.

Today, everything is different, and people who sell airplanes, at least those who've been selling airplanes long enough to remember, know that.

As you might know, I fly a Cirrus SR22; it's been my main ride now for a while. For about the past five years, I've been a customer of two excellent shared ownership operators, AirShares Elite, when I was back in the New York area, and now PlaneSmart, in Central Texas. I am, as you might also know, a big fan of the shared ownership concept. It's not cheap, but you get a lot of airplane for the money, and you get the kind of management experience that totally spoils you.

The point, is, I've been around the Cirrus community for a while now, and I've seen what kinds of pilots are buying these airplanes. They are not the same kinds of pilots who used to buy airplanes from my dad. And, I should point out, the airplanes are different, too. They're more sophisticated and much, much more expensive. A typical new Cirrus is a half-million-dollar-plus ride. A brand new 182 today costs about $350,000.  that my dad would have sold in 1977 was around $35,000. That's a ten-fold increase in price. Even adjusted for inflation, that Skylane costs a lot more, about three times as much as it would have in 1977. Granted, you get a lot more, G1000 and satellite weather, but it's still essentially a Skylane. And you can't buy a new Skylane today for $100,000. So, the people buying single-engine airplanes today from Cessna and Cirrus are different kinds of poeple than the ones who bought during the heyday of GA back in the 1970s, when the big three were turning out many thousands of airplanes a year. Cessna in both 1973 and 1974 built more that a thousand 182s a year. And it was only one of many models the company offered, and not even the most popular.

Those days are gone. Why? It's not hard to figure. In part it's because of the economics of flying. It's more expensive, and as something gets more expensive, fewer people can afford to do it. And there's no doubt that the level of interest in light airplanes has declined over the years, as the huge number of WWII-era customers that fueled the growth of the industry in the 1970s have aged. So the smaller number of people buying the much more expensive airplanes of today are not enthusiasts by and large, but successful professionals with a transportation need.

So what about LSAs? Where do they fit in?

It's hard to say. But as both Cessna and Cirrus have discovered, withe the successful launches of their light sport offerings, there's substantial interest in affordable, light two-place airplanes.

Will they energize the training market? To some degree, it's likely that they will, though how much is hard to say. They will make training cheaper and more appealing, but they won't come close to making it as affordable as it was in 1977, when you could get your private ticket in a brand new airplane for less than $2,000 at my dad's school.

Also, there's the open question of where pilots will go from the Skycatcher or the SRS. One of the great features of the Sport Pilot rating is that it's upgradeable, so new pilots of LSAs can, after they put in some time, become pilots of Part 23 airplanes relatively painlessly and move up to faster, more capable four-seaters.

But in terms of the market, moving up isn't easy. If Cessna and Cirrus are selling their littlest airplanes for around $100,000 each, that's still a big initial investment, and the move to even an SR20 or 172SP, at $200,000 or more, is still a quantum leap financially for most customers. In 1977, by contrast, a small increase in purchase price could get you a lot more airplane.

My conclusion is that even though the small airplane industry still thinks in terms of the heyday, there are few if any parallels between the eras. It's a brave new world out there.

Will LSAs fuel growth in the industry? They already have. But that growth is and will remain incremental. The driving force will continue to be new high-earning pilots who want an airplane as a high-end transportation tool that they can fly themselves. And they're probably going to keep on training how they are now, in the high-performance airplane that they just bought.

I just don't see how an LSA is going to factor into that equation.

What they will do is lower the cost of training and give pilots who can't pass their medical a great option. But will they be the first step in getting pilots to step up to bigger, faster models? The numbers just don't support that argument.

Comments

[Bryan Kutcher]

I would like to support your argument and also raise a few questions, but first here are a few facts I found online:

Shipments of Airplanes Made in U.S. - 1978 17,811; 2006 3,146

Number of Active Pilots - 1980 827,071; 2006 597,109

That is approximately a 27.8% decrease from 1980 to 2006 in the number of active pilots in the U.S.

The amount of sport and recreational licenses in 2005 accounted for .1% of private pilots. In 2006, this amount jumped 180% to .5% of the total of private pilots.

In 1977, the cost of flying supposedly was $2,000; therefore, accounting for inflation as you did in the cost of a new airplane earlier in your blog, that same $2,000 has now become $6,920.21 in 2006. I know for a fact (because I actually kept track of this) that in order to get my private pilots license it cost somewhere around $5,500. Even still, many people are right around $6,000 today.

You are most certainly correct as to how much a new Skylane costs. But I would like to figure out how much these new avionics cost that are being put in the new airplanes and discount them.

It is definately a new world out there and a lot has changed since 1977. I agree that partnerships or shared ownerships are the way to go when moving up to bigger planes, but I do think that LSAs will at least cut down on the costs of getting a license because it is in these planes where we learn the basics of visual and instrument flight: straight & level, turns, climbs, descents, and the constant-speed series and constant-rate series, as well as wind correction. When moving up, we have a solid base to work off of and thus MAYBE less hours in these larger aircraft.

LSAs have already fueled growth in the general aviation industry, it is still early and consider that a majority of the pilots currently flying are between 40 and 70 years old (maybe 35) and learned themselves in 152s and 172s. It will take time, but I think that LSAs will definately continue to give general aviation what it needs to remain a fresh, cool thing to do (most importantly for young people).

I will dive into this subject further, I just wanted to show some facts I found and agree with most of what was said above in the first blog.

Happy Landings!

[Mike Friedman]

Unfortunately it seems to me that the LSA aircraft available today only go to prove the point that flying is a rich mans sport.

I purchased my used Piper Tomahawk 5 years ago for $13,000. It was a big decision for that price, and the thought of $100,000 and up for something slightly smaller, less comfortable and only marginally faster is impossible. Even after a top overhaul and certifying the plane for IFR I've spend maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of the cost of an LSA plane. Assuming I was beginning my training, the extra few bucks for the standard private license is more than offset by the lower price of a good used aircraft.

I've only flown one or two LSA planes, but I found them very uncomfortable and could not see flying them any distance. (I'm 6'2", so maybe they're not as bad for some folks.) Also, the ones I have flown handle more like ultralights with crude controls and feel. Compared again to my Tomahawk which is roomy, fairly comfortable and flies pretty much the same as various 4 place Piper, Cessna and Beech products. I've flown my Tomahawk up and down the entire east coast from New Hampshire to Florida (and of course west to Oshkosh!) with two people and lots of baggage room. The LSA's didn't have room for my flight bag, let alone a weeks worth of camping gear for a typical Oshkosh or Sun 'n Fun trip.

While I have to admit that good used planes are becoming hard to find, they are still out there and the best entry for "Joe Average" into aviation.

People like me fly because we love to fly, not for business or any other "legitimate" reason. Until the LSA planes get down to the cost of nice new car (or used 20 year old Piper) they will do no good at all bringing new blood into aviation.

Happy Flying!

[a.murgatroyd]

One of the big attractions for LSA's is the reduced medical requirements for those who can no longer maintain a PPL medical. It has totally re-vitalised recreational flying in New Zealand, where literally hundreds of older pilots have returned to flying as a result, but the introduction of a new Rec. pilot licence might now see a return to the more standard GA aircraft, which can now be flown to LSA ( Microlight in NZ ) rules with the driver's lic. medical, viz. only day VFR, 1 pax. etc. Time will tell.

[Mike d.]

One thing that bugs me about the writers for Flying is that they all seem to have blinders on when it comes to general aviation.
The industry is dying, LSA's will not save it either.

With regards to Mr. Goyer, I respectfully disagree on his analysis. Mr. Goyer, speak the truth in your magazine! You need to be sounding the alarm, and not brushing over the decay with flowery articles on LSA's.

Regards.
KFRG via KDTO

[Dave G]

I doubt LSAs will fuel growth. Flight schools will by them but for $50K (half the price of a Skycatcher) a rec. pilot can by a Cub or Citabria and do some real recreational flying.

[papabeagle]

Well, my fear is that LSA will become the default standard because operating costs for larger aircraft will become prohibitive. When you look at the price of parts,maintenence, fuel, insurance, etc for larger aircraft the LSA's really look attractive. Of course, there is the capital cost of a new LSA, although there are quite a few used ones depreciating on the market for sale. Basically, I think we'll look a lot like europe in the near future, lsa's for all except the mega rich, who can fly a skylane or bonanza. My E33 will become beer cans, I'm afraid- Papabeagle