I guess the topic inflation etc. is too far off-topic. There’s many other statistics than the the one you used though – and while the “Statitstisches Bundesamt” is a Federal Institution it is completely independent from the government. Certainly it does not publish the numbers the government likes to see.
Airplane prices are hardly a good example to prove (any) point on inflation.
atmilatos wrote:
Only for professional use.
The majority of Greek people use custom made RC-planes, drones, and not only one or two.
You need a certificate of airworthiness etc. Not free of course, plus you must pay every year after the initial check-approval…
I really feel sorry about what happens in Greece and is getting worst.
Not to mention about the registration requirements and the flight plans requests prior from each flight.
You must show your a@@s to ΥΠΑ(HCAA), register, give your VAT details(wonder why) etc etc…
Personal I don’t need to send a flight plan even when flying full-size aircrafts in UK.
Not to mention the exemption and ability to fly FPV(RC-models at 1.000 feet) http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/1226.pdf
I don’t know what comes next here in the UK but at least they should copy paste the good things now and enjoy life. Life is short anyway.
The good thing is, the majority of people in Greece use common sense, they fly safe and they don’t need parenting.
Admin, sorry for the off topic but I’m fed up with the Greek stupidity which comes from above.
From here
MedEwok wrote:
Still Peter’s above post holds several valid arguments.
Not really. The only valid point is ownership in itself, independent of what it is you own. You purchase something, keep it in good condition while you have it, sell it for whatever the market is willing to pay. Depending on what it is, you can get more or less than you paid for it. The “glitch” is you need a lot of capital up front, and bind it for 10 years. That capital can be used to invest in something that is much more lucrative than an GA airplane. A one to one comparison would be if both started out with the same capital, one purchased a plane, the other rented in a club and invested the money in housing or a lucrative up and coming business or something. The real cost for Peter, is the lost opportunity of using the capital in a more lucrative way.
Otherwise you have to do as Silvaire, purchase already depreciated stuff that works just fine. Keep it in good condition, and as time goes by, you are likely to get more for it than what you payed. This can be done with old stuff, if you use it relatively seldom, the stuff is made relatively simple and durable, and you have means to fix it up without paying an arm and a leg. But it cannot be done with new stuff no matter what (except if your time frame is 100 years or something)
The real, and only, value of new stuff is it can (ideally) be used 24/7 without creating unscheduled added cost. The cost is the depreciated value as time goes by, as well as any eventual lost income due to unscheduled downtime. The value of depreciated stuff is it can be used every now and then without further depreciation. The “cost” is the low availability, it cannot be used 24/7 without major unscheduled added cost, or lots of maintenance per useful hour. The point is that this particular “cost” is pretty much irrelevant and negligible for simple and straightforward recreational vehicle that is used every now and then and mostly fixed by the owner, while the cost of depreciation of new stuff is not. It doesn’t take much added complexity before old depreciated stuff becomes useless for any purpose though (old piston twins). Eventually all airplanes end up as nothing but showpieces in airshows and fly ins at best, maintained and flown by enthusiasts.
The point of all this, is private GA is a recreational activity first and foremost. The industry, certainly the certified industry, have not discovered this yet by the looks of it, and certainly not EASA. They still keep producing aircraft as if they are used commercially as “taxis” or privately as no nonsense cars. The focus is on 24/7 “efficient usage pattern”. In a well driven club, or a school, they are excellent though, but in private recreational GA it’s just an incredible waste of money. The value as a private recreational vehicle isn’t really there before it is fully depreciated (as such is is really good value, IF you know how to handle it). Microlight and experimental on the other hand, are recreational aircraft from the ground up (LSA not so much).
In some way, aeroclubs are indeed holding back GA. They are holding back the private GA industry from switching to “recreation mode”.
LeSving once you will have used aviation for recreation properly e.g. flying around South Africa or island-hopping in the Caribbean you’ll understand the actual recreational value of having a plane that works as a no-nonsense car, as opposed to waiting three days on a strip in the middle of nowhere for someone to show up with a magneto or what not.
Speaking of “recreation” – have you ever seen an RV up close? What makes it “recreational” in your opinion?
The main contributing reason you can study on this forum: ultra-conservatism.
A person (charlatan?) like Elon Musk runs around a stage, promises the moon and >100k people make a deposit on a non existing car because they think it delivers salvation. In aviation, people seem to remember too well how terribly wrong this can go (Eclipse, Icon) and revert to ultra-conservatism. Can’t be trusted if the engine design is newer than 1940. Can’t be as good as a C150 which is perfect etc.
Without a bit of optimism and risk-taking, it is very hard to do anything new. We suffer a bit from Stockholm syndrome here — we think those old designs are good but the fact is that we just can’t get our hands on what a 2017 design should look like. Similar to people behind the Iron Curtain who waited for 10 years to get the most desirable thing on earth — a car that was garbage by world standards even before it came to market.
Eventually things will change and there will be winners. The predominant US vendors are losing on airframes and propulsion but are still doing well in avionics.
Silvaire wrote:
The problem right now is a huge number of perfectly serviceable aircraft that can be bought for a fraction of the price, and do the job well.
There are millions of perfectly serviceable cars that can be bought for a fraction of the price, and do the job well. And yet people with the required funds tend to go for the newest models. I could fulfil my driving needs with a car costing 1/10 of what I paid without even looking terribly cheap but I chose to get the latest and greatest because I like modern stuff. Yes, it helps that a new car doesn’t cost $1m with an almost identical older model offered for $50k…
I’d like to buy a 1966 Jaguar, made in high volume and very interesting to me… but I can’t justify the $100-150K that a nice one sells for. When I was a kid the same fully restored car was $30K. 1970s and newer cars that aren’t increasing in value because unlike aircraft built in the same 1970s-on period, they weren’t made to be maintained indefinitely and aren’t in fact very serviceable after a few years, they are throw aways. I’ve bought and thrown away my share and it alienates me to do so.
Yes, I think the volume of planes produced by Textron and etc is enough to make up for attrition. In the US there are a huge number of old aircraft that were produced post war, more than anybody needs, and the best of them will keep flying for quite a long time to come. There just isn’t a need for a lot of new aircraft, just attrition plus a few that do what the existing ones won’t do: Vans ($90K new and high performance), LSA (mostly Cubs and there aren’t enough old Cubs to meet demand) and Cirrus (you know better than I what they do).
Achima – I’ve noticed it’s a very German thing to hate on Elon Musk and Tesla. Maybe because he’s killing the German top end market completely and it hits at the core of German self image – used to being top dog in cars and not questioned about it (his cars outsell all the German luxury manufacturers cars combined here in the US). Now, for the first time in decades, they’ll actually have to compete and innovate again, something they’ve not really had to do. Everyone wins if you ask me. Tesla will bring everyone kicking and screaming into the electric world, whether they like it or not.
A 1980s Golf is perfectly serviceable and will be for decades. It was not designed as a throw away. A 1966 Jaguar needs an incredible amount of constant maintenance and was made from poor quality metal.
It’s just that a 2017 Golf is so much better than a 1980 Golf and people are willing to spend the €30k it costs instead of picking up a serviceable 1980 model for 300 €.
You think the Cubans believe the 1950s US cars are the best ever built and therefore happily continue using them with no interest in modern cars?
@AdamFrisch I think Elon Musk is a big mouth, I prefer a bit more modesty. His cars are a great achievement but he’s running on investors’ money and has been burning cash forever. For every car he delivers, investors add something like $20k on top. So by all means, he has not built a business yet. Let him do that. Until then my view of him remains critical.
I’ve been driving all electric cars for several years (who else here has?). I did not buy a Tesla because I do not like huge cars that weigh 2 tons and I think the Model S (and especially the super ugly monster X) are rather conventional technology. The Model 3 would have been an option but it’s not available and I don’t see a need to make deposits for cars that might become available to me 3 years later.
PS: The Chevrolet Bolt is more innovative than the Tesla in my view. Unfortunately GM is missing the big mouth marketeer?
