It may be thread drift, but what I'm getting at, is the companies that innovate and reduce costs whilst increasing the efficiency of their products, are the ones who are successful for longer periods of time.
I note the old line about, "sales levels of light aircraft aren't sufficient to introduce robot manufacturing".
Well, perhaps if some company had the wheelbarrow-sized cojones to introduce robotic manufacturing, the cost of the 172, or its modern equivalent, just might halve - and then more people could afford them, production would increase substantially, and cover the cost of the robotics - and GA might once again flourish.
It's unfortunate, but the following is a typical story of innovation stifled. An innovative Australian company produces a stunningly effective rotary valve for F1 engines - and the controllers of F1 racing pass new engine design regulations, effectively banning the new rotary valve, such is its inherent efficiency.
The F1 head honchos, just like the manufacturing corporations, prefer to keep the status quo in place.
Unfortunately, this innovative company, Bishop Innovation, went into liquidation in 2015 - no doubt due to one its sources of income drying up, and probably because no manufacturer was prepared to risk anything, to put the Bishop Rotary Valve into everyday production engines.
Auto Technology - the Bishop rotary valve.