4 ms·
> "the sky is only accessible to a fraction of the one percent" Really? How many people want or need exclusive ownership? Unless I want to hour build for an A
by oldcynic 9y ago
> "the sky is only accessible to a fraction of the one percent"
Really?
How many people want or need exclusive ownership? Unless I want to hour build for an ATPL, or have time off for holiday, only a few hours flying a month is likely. That's to enjoy flying as a hobby.
A citizen seeking easy travel, rather than love of flying, would likely log even fewer hours. They may well prefer an air taxi or charter to ownership of a little used aircraft.
A part share, or rental for $100/hr (chock to chock) is about as easy to reach as a cheaper car. That is plenty for a few hundred hours a year, so why bother with outright ownership? Most GA pilots are miles away from the 1%, with pretty regular jobs and wages. There's plenty of flying schools that will get you a PPL for around $5k or so, all in with books, tests and 40hrs. That's all pretty affordable - should you want it.
So what regulations should go to unleash this pent up demand for more aircraft?
Honestly, I don't see it. At all.
- brudgers 9y agoAt $100/hr a week's travel by plane is $16,800 in rental fees. That's about two orders of magnitude more than a car rental (in my market). The price of used aircraft suggest that the demand for aircraft is high. Framing availability in terms of "need" is irrelevant when talking about supply and demand. Few people need a 4x4 pickup, Tesla, or Lexus. Flying as a hobby reflects the "the sky as a highway for sports cars" restrictions not the demand. Even as a hobby the number of recreational boats suggests that there may be an order of magnitude of unmet hobbyist interest. This is not to mention that the costs prevent practical use of private aircraft for practical transportation (the cheap car analogy).