Why does America do it better?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does America do it better?
Simple question, but one that I can't work out myself. Why is GA so much better in the USA than it is in the UK? Airports seem much more welcoming to GA traffic over there, everything is so much cheaper over there and clubs seem to have more modern fleets than here.
I was browsing some websites of US flying clubs/schools and I was shocked to see rental Cessna 172SP's at around 50 quid an hour. I pay £150 for an hour in one here.
So why is it so much better over there?
I was browsing some websites of US flying clubs/schools and I was shocked to see rental Cessna 172SP's at around 50 quid an hour. I pay £150 for an hour in one here.
So why is it so much better over there?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airports subsidised from local/national taxation.
Avgas 1/4 of the cost.
Land 1/4 (say) of the UK cost.
Widespread instrument approaches.
No need for tower ATC for instrument approaches.
Area ATC can provide IAP service without invoicing the airport for it.
Much more accessible IR, resulting in a much higher level of GA activity.
Much higher activity resulting in higher asset utilisation.
Greater public tolerance for aircraft.
No Class A (i.e. VFR OK) everywhere below 18,000ft.
Class D transit implicit with a 2-way radio contact.
Class C/B similarly easy.
Most sizeable towns have a runway, and fuel.
Large unified market (no Customs)
No PPR.
No landing fees.
Few parking fees.
Large unified airspace (most Americans never have to go "foreign").
Decent comprehensive free weather services.
Pilot briefings available free over the phone.
Easy IFR flight plans (none of the Eurocontrol crap, hours spent working out a 200nm route in Europe).
Comprehensive enroute radar service.
etc
Avgas 1/4 of the cost.
Land 1/4 (say) of the UK cost.
Widespread instrument approaches.
No need for tower ATC for instrument approaches.
Area ATC can provide IAP service without invoicing the airport for it.
Much more accessible IR, resulting in a much higher level of GA activity.
Much higher activity resulting in higher asset utilisation.
Greater public tolerance for aircraft.
No Class A (i.e. VFR OK) everywhere below 18,000ft.
Class D transit implicit with a 2-way radio contact.
Class C/B similarly easy.
Most sizeable towns have a runway, and fuel.
Large unified market (no Customs)
No PPR.
No landing fees.
Few parking fees.
Large unified airspace (most Americans never have to go "foreign").
Decent comprehensive free weather services.
Pilot briefings available free over the phone.
Easy IFR flight plans (none of the Eurocontrol crap, hours spent working out a 200nm route in Europe).
Comprehensive enroute radar service.
etc
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a few stabs at a possible answer:
Fuel tax is MUCH lower. Not just aviation fuel, all fuel.
It's one culture and language througout the continent. Travel is much more common.
There's far more free space on the surface. Places are farther apart. This means that the airspace above is far less crowded and thus easier to divide.
Most airfields are owned by the FAA and included in aviation fuel is a surcharge for use of FAA facilities like ATC and airfields. Thus no landing fees.
The Americal culture has more admiration for high achievers, whereas in Europe, when you do something extrordinary (like getting a pilots license and a plane) you are seen as a snob or a showoff or something. So if you get a PPL and your own personal airplane in the US to beat the traffic or travel for business, people will think "that's clever", whereas in Europe they'll call you a showoff or something.
After WWII, most of the industry throughout Europe was wrecked and needed a long time to get back to speed in producing essential stuff. At the same time in the US, the war industry was fully ramped up and looking for war-like stuff to produce for civilian use. Cars, motorbikes, airplanes and such were very logical.
Fuel tax is MUCH lower. Not just aviation fuel, all fuel.
It's one culture and language througout the continent. Travel is much more common.
There's far more free space on the surface. Places are farther apart. This means that the airspace above is far less crowded and thus easier to divide.
Most airfields are owned by the FAA and included in aviation fuel is a surcharge for use of FAA facilities like ATC and airfields. Thus no landing fees.
The Americal culture has more admiration for high achievers, whereas in Europe, when you do something extrordinary (like getting a pilots license and a plane) you are seen as a snob or a showoff or something. So if you get a PPL and your own personal airplane in the US to beat the traffic or travel for business, people will think "that's clever", whereas in Europe they'll call you a showoff or something.
After WWII, most of the industry throughout Europe was wrecked and needed a long time to get back to speed in producing essential stuff. At the same time in the US, the war industry was fully ramped up and looking for war-like stuff to produce for civilian use. Cars, motorbikes, airplanes and such were very logical.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's really no buying an airplane in the US to beat traffic, but then a typical commute or trip in a light airplane in the US would have crossed the UK several times. Expense is relative.
Years ago my first student came from Germany. He flew to the US, we managed to get him through his private pilot certificate in 30 days, and then he rented an airplane and toured around the country with his girlfriend. He included the cost of flying her over, and both of them flying home, in the total expenses, and it was still less than he would have spent just to get the private, in Germany (or the UK, I suspect).
It's relative, none the less. Prices are five times now what they were twenty years ago, and were I to start flying today, I could never afford it.
A typical commute to go see my children is a ten hour drive. (only about four hundred miles direct, but I have to drive around the Grand Canyon to get there). Flying would be faster, but I can't afford it. I can't afford to rent an airplane to take my kids for a flight, certainly not to own an airplane. I fly for a living, largely because I could never have afforded, and still can't afford, an airplane. In fact, that was originally my purpose in flight instructing; I couldn't afford to fly any more, and I wanted to be able to keep flying.
So far as subsidized airports and flying...communities are responsible for their own expenses. If a town wants an airport, they build an airport. However, airports don't get built here. Existing ones are maintained, or more and more, destroyed. Most airports can be traced back 60 years or more, and they disappear each year. The federal government does match or contribute some funds to some improvements, but most of what goes into an airport comes locally. It's made up in transient fees, landing fees, tie down fees, fuel flowage fees, hangar rentals, and taxes.
Wide open spaces is relative, too. In the Eastern US, it's very crowded, with a lot of airspace issues. In the central and western US, you can fly for hours and never talk to a soul or see a runway or airport. Much of the airspace in the west is uncontrolled (though a lot of it is defense airspace, too).
The issue is much bigger, of course; it goes back to the basic economic structure for the country and the political climate. The US doesn't have nearly the tax that the UK or much of Europe does; the government doesn't provide as much, and the burden is more on the individual. In the case of funding, it's a hot topic right now, with a big political battle being fought regarding user fees. Nobody here wants to see the airspace of the cost structure turned into another europe, any more than anybody really wants handgun control, socialized medicine, or anything else we perceive as threats to freedom.
The airspace and the cost structure here just hasn't been messed up yet. Give it time. It will.
Over the past few years, a gradual change has taken place in everything from weather reporting in the US to airspace, to align it with the european model. Most who have watched this change from the US would probably agree that it's going the wrong direction...it's not the system here that's a mess.
Years ago my first student came from Germany. He flew to the US, we managed to get him through his private pilot certificate in 30 days, and then he rented an airplane and toured around the country with his girlfriend. He included the cost of flying her over, and both of them flying home, in the total expenses, and it was still less than he would have spent just to get the private, in Germany (or the UK, I suspect).
It's relative, none the less. Prices are five times now what they were twenty years ago, and were I to start flying today, I could never afford it.
A typical commute to go see my children is a ten hour drive. (only about four hundred miles direct, but I have to drive around the Grand Canyon to get there). Flying would be faster, but I can't afford it. I can't afford to rent an airplane to take my kids for a flight, certainly not to own an airplane. I fly for a living, largely because I could never have afforded, and still can't afford, an airplane. In fact, that was originally my purpose in flight instructing; I couldn't afford to fly any more, and I wanted to be able to keep flying.
So far as subsidized airports and flying...communities are responsible for their own expenses. If a town wants an airport, they build an airport. However, airports don't get built here. Existing ones are maintained, or more and more, destroyed. Most airports can be traced back 60 years or more, and they disappear each year. The federal government does match or contribute some funds to some improvements, but most of what goes into an airport comes locally. It's made up in transient fees, landing fees, tie down fees, fuel flowage fees, hangar rentals, and taxes.
Wide open spaces is relative, too. In the Eastern US, it's very crowded, with a lot of airspace issues. In the central and western US, you can fly for hours and never talk to a soul or see a runway or airport. Much of the airspace in the west is uncontrolled (though a lot of it is defense airspace, too).
The issue is much bigger, of course; it goes back to the basic economic structure for the country and the political climate. The US doesn't have nearly the tax that the UK or much of Europe does; the government doesn't provide as much, and the burden is more on the individual. In the case of funding, it's a hot topic right now, with a big political battle being fought regarding user fees. Nobody here wants to see the airspace of the cost structure turned into another europe, any more than anybody really wants handgun control, socialized medicine, or anything else we perceive as threats to freedom.
The airspace and the cost structure here just hasn't been messed up yet. Give it time. It will.
Over the past few years, a gradual change has taken place in everything from weather reporting in the US to airspace, to align it with the european model. Most who have watched this change from the US would probably agree that it's going the wrong direction...it's not the system here that's a mess.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would list the following as the main reasons
Exchange rate. At $2.10 per £ it is way out of line with costs. Its driven by the low interest rates on the US which are there to stimulate the economy. (Brits flying in the US are just one part of the economy).
Fuel taxes are lower
VAT here is 17.5%. Sales tax in the US is typically 0 to 8.5% depending on the state.
US airports are partly funded by fuel tax. Over here Gordon just stuffs the tax in his packet and then reminds you that you have to pay VAT on the landing fee! Our government puts nothing into GA.
Utilisation is generally higher in the US as the weather is better in the southern half.
FAA rules for maintenance are much less costly than over here. The CAA/EASA think that policing everything (and charging for it) makes GA safer. The accident statistics would indicate otherwise.
But I think the fundamental reason is that GA in the US is a right, in the UK/Europe its considered to be a privilege.
Exchange rate. At $2.10 per £ it is way out of line with costs. Its driven by the low interest rates on the US which are there to stimulate the economy. (Brits flying in the US are just one part of the economy).
Fuel taxes are lower
VAT here is 17.5%. Sales tax in the US is typically 0 to 8.5% depending on the state.
US airports are partly funded by fuel tax. Over here Gordon just stuffs the tax in his packet and then reminds you that you have to pay VAT on the landing fee! Our government puts nothing into GA.
Utilisation is generally higher in the US as the weather is better in the southern half.
FAA rules for maintenance are much less costly than over here. The CAA/EASA think that policing everything (and charging for it) makes GA safer. The accident statistics would indicate otherwise.
But I think the fundamental reason is that GA in the US is a right, in the UK/Europe its considered to be a privilege.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As much as anything, it's a cultural difference. For example, in the States a community is proud if it has an airport. Here, people buy houses next to airports then complain when they hear an aeroplane.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For example, in the States a community is proud if it has an airport. Here, people buy houses next to airports then complain when they hear an aeroplane.
I should like to say, however, that I'd disagree that the US is "doing it right." Just differently. I'd disagree that the US does it better.
The US is a bigger place. More infrastructure, more aircraft, more capability, and lower costs overall. But not necessarily better. Less expensive doesn't mean better. There are great opportunities, a lot of freedom in what you can fly and where you can fly it, and when. But there are indeed downsides.
While yes, I realize this is a private pilot forum (and I'm posting here because being a private pilot to me is what aviation is about), many pilots who undertake flight training do so with the idea of flying professionally. Many don't make it. For those who do, in the US, it can mean ten or twenty years of near starvation. A position in Europe that requires 300 hours has required four or five thousand hours of experience for US pilots in the past. I worked with a young man in the middle east this past year who was put out that he wasn't flying bigger and faster equipment, and I was shocked that anybody let him near an airplane at all. He had virtually no experience, but kept pointing out that in his home country airline pilots routinely had less than him.
Whereas a pilot in the UK or France or Italy or Greece can go get a job, during much of my career, if I wanted such a job I'd have to put in five to ten times the effort and have 20 times the experience, just to be considered. It's definitely a different world. Presently, things are different; pilots are hiring into regional airlines in the US with 300 hours...which I find objectionable and disgusting but that's really beside the point. Traditionally that's not the case.
The rentals that are available outside the US just aren't to be found most places in the US. When I lived in Australia, gypsy moths and tiger moths were available for rent. You'll not find anything like that in the US. Another thread on the Slingsby Firefly indicates another type you just won't find available in the US. You can find Cessnas galore, and pipers, and mooneys. You can find a lot of Katanas any more...and of course the usual variety of twins, mostly seminoles and senecas and the occasional Cessna 310.
Private pilots can't fly for hire in the US...no loopholes allowing aerial photography or flying skydivers. Private pilots can't fly for compensation either.
Air legislation is more simple, flight plans are easier. Night isn't necessarily IFR, though a lot of places (west, particularly) it's certainly instrument conditions once the sun goes down.
And don't forget actual mountains...though some consider them advantages, some disadvantages. All you want.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've not tried flying here, have you 
Big landing fees, approach fees, expensive fuel, airports which are mostly closed by about 5pm at this time of year. It's rubbish.
I've flown across the States at night turning on runway lights with my radio, fuelling with my credit card - it's pretty amazing.
Despite flying for a living here in the UK, I still go on holiday to the States to fly, just because I love the way flying works over there.
Big landing fees, approach fees, expensive fuel, airports which are mostly closed by about 5pm at this time of year. It's rubbish.
I've flown across the States at night turning on runway lights with my radio, fuelling with my credit card - it's pretty amazing.
Despite flying for a living here in the UK, I still go on holiday to the States to fly, just because I love the way flying works over there.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You lot have all got it wrong because you are concerning yourself with the detail. The detail doesnt really matter, it is the overall sense of the people which determines the detail.
At heart it is far simpler:
In America the philosophy is we the people can and will do this (whatever this may be),
whereas, here, the philosophy is you the people wont do it.
It pervades every part of our society, and it takes a great deal before we are prepared to say enough is enough (the poll tax riots for example).
(Unfortunately in America I sense things are sadly changing in the wrong direction - you guys need to do something about it, otherwise you will end up like us).
At heart it is far simpler:
In America the philosophy is we the people can and will do this (whatever this may be),
whereas, here, the philosophy is you the people wont do it.
It pervades every part of our society, and it takes a great deal before we are prepared to say enough is enough (the poll tax riots for example).
(Unfortunately in America I sense things are sadly changing in the wrong direction - you guys need to do something about it, otherwise you will end up like us).
I agree with Fuji Abound. In fact, it was along the lines of what I was said but refrained from so doing because I didn't want to get overexcited 
But what the heck.
I'm fed up with the British Nanny State. It worsens by the year. There are more laws each year. More restrictions. Ewan McGregor made a comment during his documentary called Long way Down whilst motorcycling through Africa along the lines of how wonderful it was to be in cultures where you are free of endless red tape and could do what you please. I know what he means.
Back in Blighty, the red tape is unbelievable and none of it makes this country a nicer place to live in. Just look at what's happening to Oban Airport.
It's probably all down to the parliamentary democracy we live in. Isn't it ironic that only Communist states are more dictatorial and are bigger fans of red tape?! It seems to me that our version of democracy only encourages Politicians to fight for the lowest common denominator as it's policies which will garner votes that dominate the political landscape. Small interest groups like aviation will lose out. More little airfields will close, GA costs will spiral, yet tickets to Ibiza will come free with packets of Walkers Cheese and Onion.
RANT OVER
But what the heck.
I'm fed up with the British Nanny State. It worsens by the year. There are more laws each year. More restrictions. Ewan McGregor made a comment during his documentary called Long way Down whilst motorcycling through Africa along the lines of how wonderful it was to be in cultures where you are free of endless red tape and could do what you please. I know what he means.
Back in Blighty, the red tape is unbelievable and none of it makes this country a nicer place to live in. Just look at what's happening to Oban Airport.
It's probably all down to the parliamentary democracy we live in. Isn't it ironic that only Communist states are more dictatorial and are bigger fans of red tape?! It seems to me that our version of democracy only encourages Politicians to fight for the lowest common denominator as it's policies which will garner votes that dominate the political landscape. Small interest groups like aviation will lose out. More little airfields will close, GA costs will spiral, yet tickets to Ibiza will come free with packets of Walkers Cheese and Onion.
RANT OVER
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In America the philosophy is we the people can and will do this (whatever this may be),
whereas, here, the philosophy is you the people wont do it.
whereas, here, the philosophy is you the people wont do it.
Just not about aviation, of course.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets face facts here.
America just does it better, period.
Example, when I received my FAA ATPL in 1966, it did not cost anything for the written test, nor for the two FAA inspectors who administered the flight test...all five hours of it. Not to mention the four hour oral exam.
Although, the air carrier inspector asked me to please bring a DC-6 next time as he found the AeroCommander just a tad crowded...I did him one better later on, brought a B707. No complaints then, and no cost for the FAA inspector then, either.
And, lets us not forget, the FAA does quite a service for other governments as well.
Example.
Years ago, while flying in the far east, my First Officer asked why there was an FAA Sabreliner parked on the ramp.
Very simple.
They were checking the navaids.
The local government only paid for the crews HOTAC.
The navaid flight check service...FOC.
I kid you not.
America just does it better, period.
Example, when I received my FAA ATPL in 1966, it did not cost anything for the written test, nor for the two FAA inspectors who administered the flight test...all five hours of it. Not to mention the four hour oral exam.
Although, the air carrier inspector asked me to please bring a DC-6 next time as he found the AeroCommander just a tad crowded...I did him one better later on, brought a B707. No complaints then, and no cost for the FAA inspector then, either.
And, lets us not forget, the FAA does quite a service for other governments as well.
Example.
Years ago, while flying in the far east, my First Officer asked why there was an FAA Sabreliner parked on the ramp.
Very simple.
They were checking the navaids.
The local government only paid for the crews HOTAC.
The navaid flight check service...FOC.
I kid you not.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Americal culture has more admiration for high achievers, whereas in Europe, when you do something extrordinary (like getting a pilots license and a plane) you are seen as a snob or a showoff or something. So if you get a PPL and your own personal airplane in the US to beat the traffic or travel for business, people will think "that's clever", whereas in Europe they'll call you a showoff or something.
I would like to say i have been several times in the US and besides the Mooney and some other minor things, most of the USA sucks bigtime, just gimme Europe! At least we have style and taste!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But i can believe your reaction since you indeed live in a very narrow left minded country.
(Warning - imminent thread drift!)
Pompey till I die
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 51
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
USA
I've just got back from my first ever holiday to the good ol US of A. I thought it rocked, I loved it out there, it was awesome.
But it is a good question. Why is it 2hours of brand new C172 hire (which was fully IFR equipped and even had autopilot) costs £130 where as a 1970s (80s if I'm lucky) aircraft costs £160 an hour here in the UK ? That is over twice as expensive.
Looking at the differences in fuel price and considering a burn rate of 9G\hour the UK costs me £42.35 in fuel. At $1 a litre in the US, we're talking £17.01 for the fuel.
So the aircraft rental is 160-42.35 = £117.65 an hour, whilst the US is £47.99 an hour. If we take taxes out of that then the UK price is £100\hour and the US is around £44.15 an hour.
I can't believe this is economies of scale. My club aircraft are always busy, that's why you have to book. So something radical is effecting the prices.
The only thing I can think is that we are far more stringent on safety and our aircraft are maintained (maybe CAA taxed) more than the US ? Certainly a license which costs £160 in the UK (and is free in the US) would suggest that we've got a very expensive CAA here which is greatly increasing costs ?
Or we're flying US aircraft which have been imported, with all spares having to be shipped from the US (subject to import duty etc) ?
Certainly £65/hour flying is something we can only dream of here in the UK
PS Let's try and keep on topic and not have a whole bunch of "if you are paying xxx £/h flying then you're an idiot and I only pay yyy £/h" posts. I'm very interested to know why it's so much cheaper in the land of the free.
But it is a good question. Why is it 2hours of brand new C172 hire (which was fully IFR equipped and even had autopilot) costs £130 where as a 1970s (80s if I'm lucky) aircraft costs £160 an hour here in the UK ? That is over twice as expensive.
Looking at the differences in fuel price and considering a burn rate of 9G\hour the UK costs me £42.35 in fuel. At $1 a litre in the US, we're talking £17.01 for the fuel.
So the aircraft rental is 160-42.35 = £117.65 an hour, whilst the US is £47.99 an hour. If we take taxes out of that then the UK price is £100\hour and the US is around £44.15 an hour.
I can't believe this is economies of scale. My club aircraft are always busy, that's why you have to book. So something radical is effecting the prices.
The only thing I can think is that we are far more stringent on safety and our aircraft are maintained (maybe CAA taxed) more than the US ? Certainly a license which costs £160 in the UK (and is free in the US) would suggest that we've got a very expensive CAA here which is greatly increasing costs ?
Or we're flying US aircraft which have been imported, with all spares having to be shipped from the US (subject to import duty etc) ?
Certainly £65/hour flying is something we can only dream of here in the UK
PS Let's try and keep on topic and not have a whole bunch of "if you are paying xxx £/h flying then you're an idiot and I only pay yyy £/h" posts. I'm very interested to know why it's so much cheaper in the land of the free.
Last edited by PompeyPaul; 14th Nov 2007 at 10:37.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And normally I would be offended, but in this case... The way Belgium politics is heading, pretty soon you'll be living in that same "narrow left minded" country too.
Hehe, at least i live on the 'right' side of the (TBO) country...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your replies guys. It seems we could learn a lot from the Americans regarding GA. And I agree with what Mikehotel152 says about red tape in this country, it's getting ridiculous now. At my flying school the manager wanted some people to clean the aircraft in return for some extra cash or a discount on flying. However, the health and safety guys had other ideas and deemed it too dangerous!