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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'd say it's the overall economies of scale in most things that the US has.

Can someone please think of some disadvantages of flying in America?

I've flown there a lot and in my experience there are no disadvantages.

Actually, just the opposite. It's for that reason that airports are disappearing, not being built. As soon as people move in around the airport, it's operating hours shrink, it's uses shrink, and eventually it disappears. It's a big problem in the US.

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.

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.

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).

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 :p

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

That is actually the reason that the United States fought a war and became the United States in the first place.

Just not about aviation, of course.

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.

I don't agree with this, and if this is your perception i would say you have the wrong friends and you meet the wrong people. But i can believe your reaction since you indeed live in a very narrow left minded country.

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!

Although semantically incorrect, I can see what you're trying to tell. 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.

(Warning - imminent thread drift!)

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 :sad:

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.

Hehe, at least i live on the 'right' side of the (TBO) country...

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!

I suspect it is substantially down to economies of scale.

The basic infrastructure of the US is higher scale an hence cheaper (cost of services, buildings, cars, trucks), the labour force is more productive (output per unit labour) and because the people who are not 'in the labour force' receive significantly less benefits, the total cost/unit labour allows the worker to be paid more (and hence buy more stuff driving scale). This country scale advantage means that all of the inputs to running any business are cheaper.

In terms of utilization, I doubt your club aircraft have any significant night activity vs the US and even if your aircraft are busy, the amount of GA in the UK is tiny compared to somewhere like California (1/2 the population size but 80% of the GDP) so the overall scale in the economy for aviation is huge.

Of course the dead hand of over regulation (which is a general feature of the difference in productivity) is always present.

Disadvantages of flying in America
 

I can think of a some disadvantages from my own experience flying in Florida several years ago.

1. Most rental aircraft seem not to have facilities for using headsets, with many pilots preferring to use a hand held mike. Very difficult to hear loudspeaker over the engine noise.

2. Air traffic speak much too quickly for us poor Brits and tend to rush you.
3. They use a lot of non-standard (for the rest of the world) terminology.

I cant think of any other disadvantages.:{

There are certainly significant downsides to training in the USA. I did my IR there.

The radio takes anything up to a few days to get used to especially if you are bad with foreign languages :) They are also quite casual on the radio. But then the ATC in the rest of Europe, especially the more southern bits, can sound like they just crawled out of the swamp, compared to the perfect queens english of the UK IFR sectors.

Most rental aircraft seem not to have facilities for using headsets

That suprises me, not my experience at all. Most people wouldn't be able to fly like that.

I think America's biggest single gain is the utility value of GA, which is directly the result of

- lots of runways
- lots of instrument approaches (no ATC needed)
- a practical private IR

and each one of these supports the other. Take out any one of them and the whole system will fall apart. If e.g. they made tower ATC mandatory for an IAP like the UK has, loads of places would lose their IAP immediately. If they brought in a Euro-style airline-pilot IR, 99% of American private pilots would chuck it right in.

Everything else, like the $100 burger runs which GA everywhere does plenty of, lives on the back of the infrastructure. There was plenty of tail-wheel stuff where I was flying but if it wasn't for the commercial/business/training activity they wouldn't have an airport.

Here (UK) we love to complain about everything:

For example: nimbys complain about noise around a local airfield, airfield operator panics, restricts hours, restricts visitors, invokes Strict PPR by phone.. etc....By contrast in the USA should the same thing happen, they would just install a noise monitor. You bust it and you get warned, bust it again and you get fined or banned. Don't bust it and no one minds, come and go as you please.....

That is just one example, no doubt there are many more....

As a mechanic and inspector in the USA, I can tell you that maintenance standards here are as strict, if not far more strict and exacting as anywhere else. We are quite particular about our maintenance, and the standards behind it. That's from the legal stance. What an individual operator does, of course, may be another matter. Most operators tend to be held to, and to uphold, high standards of maintenance.

Plus' vs Minus'
 

UK
1) Available from many clubs, generally poor selection of overbooked, worn out aircraft with questionable old avionics.
2) Fuel at around $11.50 per gallon.
3) Landing fees at airfields and airports.
4) Mandatory 'Handling' fees at airports.
5) HUGE swathes of controlled airspace with NO ENTRY for VFR flights.
6) Lousy weather, especially between October and April.
7) VAT at 17.5% added to everything.
8) Neighbours who would rather see you without aviation.
9) Stiffling Aviation Authority with exorbitant charges. (No experimental category).
10) Overcharged parts and accessories.
11) Excellent ATC.
12) Generally high quality maintenance.
13) Very helpfull local CAA regional offices.
14) Expensive and often poor hangarage.
15) Fantastic scenery
16) Mandated, overpriced insurance.

US
1) Generally, a better selection of aircraft, both asthetically and equipment levels.
2) Fuel at lower rates (Orlando Apopka £3.86 per gallon)
3) No landing fees
4) 'Mandatory handling'???
5) Relatively small Class B and C and the 18000 ft VFR limit.
6) Much better average weather.
7) VAT???
8) Neighbours who would rather partake in aviation.
9) FAA well established without numerous name or rule changes for change's sake.
10) Parts and accessories at correct rates.
11) Excellent ATC
12) Generally high quality maintenance.
13) Very helpfull FSDO's
14) Plentiful hangarage, including individual 'T' hangars at reasonable rates.
15) Fantastic scenery
16) Non-mandated, affordable insurance
17) Unicom
18) Pilot operated landing lights

And most importantly;

Light aviation has been and is seen by the general public as a fringe hobby for the wealthy in the UK. (aka hunting with horses and hounds etc)

Light aviation has been and is seen by the general public as an accepted part of the American way of life. (aka Bud lite, Chevrolet's etc)

camlobe

Red tape and we elected a money juicing bastard of a prime minister. Sorry did I say 'elected'? :\

I've never found that people think flying is a hobby for the wealthy.

I work in education - not particularly well paid - in a very working class area. No-one seems to be surprised that I can afford to fly. They may be surprised that I want to do it or can do it, but that's all.

I live in a fairly well off area and it is just accepted, though seen as a bit of a novelty.

PS slight thread creep - The British Prime Minister is the MP who can 'command a majority in the House of Commons'; he or she, rightly or wrongly, has never been elected as PM.

That is not correct. Most airfields are owned by the local communities.

OFBSLF is correct, but they are heavily or completely subsidized by the FAA. I understand, that if a local community wishes to close a local airfield that has received FAA subsidies, then that money must be paid back to the FAA. In some cases it is this 'debt' that prevents airfields, built years ago in the country but now surrounded by housing, from being taken over for or by developers.:D
Regards,
White Bear.

In some cases yes. Heavily or completely...no.

During WW II the US went through a massive increase in airport construction and flight training, especially in states like Arizona and Florida.
Airports that were transferred to municipal control or simply sold to the county for the token $1.
So the infrastructure was simply there for people to use.
The state of Florida has 80+(!) public airports and an additional 70-80 private strips airports and air parks where people live with an airplane in the garage.

Flying is so much more "normal" in the US the it is in Europe, virtually everybody that you meet has a relative that either holds a license or even owns an airplane.

As a new poster to this site fron OZ I would also guess much of the different attitude between the UK and USA is the fact that most of the GA makes of aircraft are American therefore it has a much bigger lobby to govt re employment, overseas trade/ earnings etc. Also the USA like here is a continent made for air travel with travel times slashed compared to surface travel. The UK on the other hand is made for railways. Short distances between heavily populated centres. No doubt why the rail network is so popular over there.

MT,

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. In a country the size of the US, aviation is a way of life. It takes me 2 days to drive to see my sister in Ontario, or 5 hours in my aeroplane. Drive, or fly that long in the UK and you'd fall off the edge, or run out of landing options. As a hobby it is not the cheapest, but it doesn't have the bank-balanace-busting capability that flying does in the UK.

As for the red tape issue - there's less in aviation here than there is in the UK, but still plenty to go around. And red tape in other parts of life here, there's no shortage :bored:

I think the FAA attitude to homebuilding is more of a "if you design something that will kill you, well, thats your problem", whereas the CAA's attitude "We can't let you design or fly something incase it might kill you", which is surprising in a country where litigation, insurance and suing controls virtually everthing.

[QUOTE]It takes me 2 days to drive to see my sister in Ontario, or 5 hours in my aeroplane. Drive, .. .. .. that long in the UK and you'd fall off the edge, .. .. ..[QUOTE]

I dont know about that - it is said there have been some people who have spent two days on the M25 and never got to where they were going.

I don't think there are any disadvantages in USA. We had a student come to Canada to finish his CPL opposed to doing it in Germany. He finished it in 9 weeks. 0 hours to 200 hours with his CPL in hand. The only difference I think there is compared to Canada and USA (yes, they're both better than doing it in the UK) is that you learn spins in Canada. And if you're above 4000 ft with an engine failure in USA, odds are you'll find an airport to land at within gliding distance.
Though if you come just north of Washington into British Columbia and to Victoria International Airport at night, you can watch it light up for free! No landing fees either. Its so bright its blinding.

However, coming from the UK doesn't seem like it would be that much cheaper.
I have a friend that came from UK to Canada to get his CPL from PPL. He came atleast 3 times, but he worked for an airline so it wasn't too expensive. But I was told that his conversion to JAA costed $1200 per exam and there was more than 10 exams. Doesn't seem like it pays off in the end.

I have a question tough, what with pilots who get their IR or CPL in the USA like in Arizona, and have never fly in a cloud... ?

Does that makes them practical capable of flying into heavy IMC ?

I have a question tough, what with pilots who get their IR or CPL in the USA like in Arizona, and have never fly in a cloud... ?
Does that makes them practical capable of flying into heavy IMC ?

Yes.

IR training, whether FAA or JAA, is almost entirely done in VMC, with the LH pilot's vision being obscured with some device. So he can't see out anyway.

Another thing is that IR training is very very hard. Most of mine (FAA IR) was on partial panel (AI & DI covered up so only the TC, airspeed & doing timed turns with the compass), flying approach after approach down to minima, no enroute segment to have a rest, weeks of utter exhaustion. In practice, one would be flying a well equipped plane, with an autopilot, and if one got a real emergency (and a loss of most of your instrument is an emergency) one would not create extra work for oneself. A well equipped plane makes a huge difference and all serious IFR pilots have one.

Another thing is that when IFR one rarely flies in cloud. The enroute section is VMC on top. If it wasn't, you will generally collect ice because Eurocontrol airway MEAs usually place you above the 0C isotherm. One spends a lot more time in cloud flying "VFR" ;) around the UK than when flying airways. On my last long trip, about 30hrs IFR, I logged less than 5 mins instrument time.

In the long run, your original training fades into the distance and you are only as good as your last flight :) That's why the FAA IR rolling currency is a good thing - you have to do 6 approaches in the last 6 months. The US safety record is good.

USA
 

No disadvantages in US! Just keep an eye open for traffic.

I can think of one major disadvantage of flying in the US.

It can be very boring, the same landscape for hours.
And some small airfields can be a little unwelcoming, I was even asked if I'm a terrorist once when I was looking for the FBO.