PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)
-   -   GA booming in the USA (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/623772-ga-booming-usa.html)

Dick Smith 22nd Jul 2019 03:24

GA booming in the USA
 
I recently received this message from an Australian friend in the USA.

ďGeneral aviation flying in the United States is up substantially Ė mostly due to flight training of pilots hoping to go to the airlines. Right now airline hiring is up considerably and airline salaries are as well. It is a bonanza.Ē
It is so totally different in Australia.

Horatio Leafblower 22nd Jul 2019 03:40

The VET-FEE system in Australia totally distorts the market and, like all these schemes, allows people with little or no aptitude to rack up enormous debts doing training for a qualification that they might or not have any aptitude for.

Has the FAA grounded the GA-8 Airvan over there, Dick?

Squawk7700 22nd Jul 2019 04:53

I was told by an airline pilot friend that owner/pilots in the USA, get significant tax breaks for owning their aircraft. Supposedly they only have to attend and display in at least one airshow and in return, they can depreciate their aircraft and claim expenses against it. Iím talking big expenses such as on ex-fighter jets, DC 3ís and the like...

If this is correct, which I would assume it is, Iíd be interested to know if thatís contributing to the boom and if so, how it works.....


Jeps 22nd Jul 2019 05:10

What Horatio says in on point. Even if you look at the sausage factories, they are churning so few CPLs out.

no_one 22nd Jul 2019 06:22


Originally Posted by Squawk7700 (Post 10524662)
I was told by an airline pilot friend that owner/pilots in the USA, get significant tax breaks for owning their aircraft. Supposedly they only have to attend and display in at least one airshow and in return, they can depreciate their aircraft and claim expenses against it. Iím talking big expenses such as on ex-fighter jets, DC 3ís and the like...

If this is correct, which I would assume it is, Iíd be interested to know if thatís contributing to the boom and if so, how it works.....


I am not an expert but I think that what you are talking about is that historical aircraft available for public display get an exemption for "Use tax" and "Property Tax" that many states over there have. See for instance this description:
https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/ahs_exemption.htm

It varies from state to state but I dont think that you can claim operating expenses as deductions....

TBM-Legend 22nd Jul 2019 06:52

All true Dick. My friend has an MRO in Van Nuys and Texas and has his hands full. Flying clubs are growing using the shared aircraft to meet the needs of many pilots and friends...

Okihara 22nd Jul 2019 07:14

Is the situation really all that different in Australia? Aerodromes like Moorabbin seem to suffer no shortage of domestic or foreign students. A number of schools have recently been massively growing their fleet of aircraft. Maybe that's just Moorabbin though.

Denied Justice 22nd Jul 2019 07:20

Soooooooooo - What's everyone going to do when CASA and the Airport Operators have finished their destruction of GA in this country by over regulation and outrageous airport operating costs,

RIP - Australian General Aviation (A painful death)

machtuk 23rd Jul 2019 00:27

You would have to have been living under a rock not to know that Australia is going one way with GA & the States going the opposite way!
Last year when I was in Texas doing a course speaking to the course attendees about private ownership & costs etc as well as GA in general they where astounded how our regulator is killing off GA especially in a country roughly the same geographical size as our land mass meaning GA ought to be booming!
One of the biggest stumbling blocks apart from CASA themselves is that we have such a small population & that we are a minority group when it comes to GA, most of the general public have zero idea about light planes & think we few who own & or fly are just wealthy!
We haven't got a chance, the prosperity just isn't there:-(
One thing the FAA is an administration, our so called minders are an Authority languishing under the 'safety' umbrella at all costs!:-(

RIP GA, a once great industry where there was hope, a future something to plan for, glad I had the opportunity to experience a once great Nation when it came to aviation-(

Squawk7700 23rd Jul 2019 01:50

Aussie aircraft fleet circa 15,000
US fleet circa 215,000

Aus population, circa 25 million
US population, circa 328 million

Aus has ~7% aircraft versus population.
US is 7.6%

Have I got those numbers right?



Okihara 23rd Jul 2019 06:03


Originally Posted by Squawk7700 (Post 10525558)
Aussie aircraft fleet circa 15,000
US fleet circa 215,000

Aus population, circa 25 million
US population, circa 328 million

Aus has ~7% aircraft versus population.
US is 7.6%

Have I got those numbers right?

Probably so but that's not the whole picture of population distribution. One should also account for the percentage of urbanisation. Australia is one of the most urbanised countries, more so than the US in fact (from the "Australia State of the Environment 2016 Report", 90% of the population living in just 0.22% of the land area). In simple terms, a higher percentage of the population in Australia lives in urban areas where one could venture to say that GA is of little to no help. There is however some political will to offload major cities to the benefit of the likes of Ballarat, Bendigo, Shepparton, etc, esp. with recent waves of immigrants. I would expect that larger population centres scattered throughout the country would benefit GA in the medium term through increased business developments.

Okihara 23rd Jul 2019 06:11

Compare with urbanisation in the US (national average 80% but as low as just 38% in some states): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbani..._United_States

Squawk7700 23rd Jul 2019 08:20


Originally Posted by Okihara (Post 10525635)
Compare with urbanisation in the US (national average 80% but as low as just 38% in some states): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbani..._United_States


Well.... based on your stats then, Australia is far more advanced per head in Aviation than the USA, because with the 80% urbanization with no use for aircraft (or as you put it), we are pretty much at an equivalent with our aircraft population per head.

If our population was more dispersed, aviation would conceivably grow even more.

I believe Iím correct in saying that Australia also has more helicopters per head than any other country in the world (and if not, is certainly close to it)

Maybe things arenít that bad here, thereís just less people living here !






Lead Balloon 23rd Jul 2019 09:52

Ah statistics.

According to the FAA, there were 25,212,000 general aviation hours flown in the USA in 2018.

Let’s round the numbers and say that Australia has 1/22nd of the population of the USA.

24,212,00 divided by 22 = 1,680,000.

According to BTRE, in 2017 (the most recently-available stats) “general aviation hours flown by VH-registered aircraft [in Australia] decreased by 3.6 per cent to 1.20 million hours”. 25% less than in the USA.

Please define your terms, Squawk.

Anyone who’s been around for a while can remember the amount of work that used to be done by GA that is no longer being done by GA, in and out of aerodromes that are now veritable ghost towns. That outcome is a consequence of many things, but foremost amongst them is the inexorably increasing complexity and consequent cost of the regulatory regime, administered mainly by a variety of people - some out of their depth but (dangerously and blissfully) unaware of that fact, others on a crusade to save the world and believing they are doings so, and yet others on an ego trip - and also amongst them is the sell off or abandonment of aerodrome infrastructure by the Commonwealth. (“Common Wealth” - that’s what it used to be. Sad really.)

Squawk7700 23rd Jul 2019 10:49

So an equivalent number of aircraft, but 25% less hours flown.

Does an overly zealous regulator cause pilots/owners/operators to fly 25% less or is it because the majority of flights take place within the J curve, on arguably shorter flights?

Arenít statistics great.

Vag277 23rd Jul 2019 10:50

You need to add RAAus hours for a true picture

Vag277 23rd Jul 2019 10:55

Nearly 314,000 in 2017

Okihara 23rd Jul 2019 11:20

Sorry Lead and other folks, with all due respect, I believe there's a mistake in your calculation:


Ah statistics.
According to the FAA, there were 25,212,000 [OK, let's assume that figure] general aviation hours flown in the USA in 2018.
Let’s round the numbers and say that Australia has 1/22nd [[b]Incorrect: US population is 327m, Aus population is 25m, ratio is 1/13] of the population of the USA.
24,212,00 divided by 22 = 1,680,000.
With the correct ratio, one has 25,212,000 / 13 = 1.94m hours
According to BTRE, in 2017 (the most recently-available stats) “general aviation hours flown by VH-registered aircraft [in Australia] decreased by 3.6 per cent to 1.20 million hours”. 25% less than in the USA.
And adding another 314,000 RA hours to the VH ones, that's 1,200,000 + 314,000 ≅ 1,500,000 hours flown, or a 23% decrease per capita over the US [somehow Squawk7700 got the right figure].

With 90% of the population in Australia being urbanised vs. 80% in the US, I'd further normalise the ratio to 23% * 80/90 ≅ 20%, because the dispersion of the population in Australia is such that fewer people live in rural areas.

Of course a truer picture of the reality would have to account for what one really understands by "GA is booming". Flight training to foreigners for instance is one field that largely benefits GA in terms of hours flown but will certainly not help GA uniformly across the country.

Okihara 23rd Jul 2019 11:30

The combination of higher urbanisation in Australia with lower overall population also has a more insidious consequence: there are also fewer places with sizable populations to fly to. The business gravity centres are concentrated in Melbourne and Sydney with few other places left that would warrant travelling with a small aircraft. It's perhaps no surprise that the Sydney-Melbourne route is one of the world's busiest air routes with 54,102 flights in 2018 according to OAG.com. By comparison, you'd have to New York-Toronto is just at 17,038 flights while the first US domestic route is Los Angles-San Francisco with 35,365.

On the eastern seaboard of the US, the destinations within a 2/3 hour radius are just countless. That's no surprise that their infrastructure is also spot on.

Squawk7700 23rd Jul 2019 11:34

My calcs werenít by accident !


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:34.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.