Glad somebody pointed out the legal pitfalls!
It's not only lawsuits, but all the paperwork required for parts and accessories, which sometimes leads to ridiculous situations where the very same product in the same packaging costs £ 60 when replaced on an airplane versus £ 5.75 when bought for a car. The difference? A letter/DIN A4 sized sheet of paper that confirms that the product may be used on an aircraft. All the bureaucrats, pencil pushers and clerks who check/verify the documents must be paid, and so must the administrators who need to justify their existence by inventing new regulations, controls, formats, etc., from time to time. For the manufacturing companies, engineers and mechanics who need to obtain all the seals, stamps and signatures that are required in order to be allowed to produce, distribute, sell and check/maintain the accessories, components and parts of an airplane, the additional costs have to be passed on to the customer -- which is possible because airplanes and flying are "either for multi-national corporations or millionaires who have the money". The 1000% price difference for the brake pads are just one of many examples.
Nevertheless, car manufacturers are regulated and have to go through all kinds of tests and verifications in every country as well. This brings us to the more important factor of economies of scale and scope, which somebody else mentioned briefly before.
When looking at automobiles, we are looking at a mass market that is served by only twenty companies in the world (when we look at individual corporations/industrial trusts, not at brands). American cars would be out of the market by now, was it not for the tax payer's bail-out in 2008, which leaves the French, Germans, Italian, Japanese and Koreans. Of course there are a few luxury and sports cars, but they are merely exotic footnotes in comparison to the twenty manufacturers that dominate the world market. Given the development costs of a new car, somewhere between 3-5 billion dollars, car manufacturers cannot afford a real flop, at least not more than once, because it takes an enormous volume of sales to recover the costs and make a profit in a highly competitive environment. In conjunction with technical restrictions like aerodynamics (wind resistance, not flying :), this is one of the major reasons why manufacturers don't come up with revolutionary novelties and cars look more and more the same -- the risk of failure is too high for daring experiments. On the bright side, the costs of research & development, production, marketing and so on are divided among hundreds of thousands of customers around the globe, so each driver only pays a tiny amount of the fixed and sunk costs.
With airplanes, the situation is the other way round. It appears as if anybody who ever studied a couple semesters of aeronautical engineering sooner or later starts hammering together their own experimental, light, sports or however-you-want-to-call-it aircraft. There are literally hundreds of small and smallest garage manufacturers that sell kits, plans, airplanes or mixes thereof, in more countries than ever had a car production throughout history. When visiting their websites, these guys proudly announce that 5 of their models are flying and another 2 being built around the globe. This means nothing more and nothing less than 7 customers maintaining the entire enterprise, from paying for the company's premises (rent, gas, electricity) to the engineers' and secretary's salaries, the owners profit expectations, and so on.
Furthermore, since there are not enough sheep for too many wolves, all the hundreds or thousands of tiny 'wing-plumbers' lack the intellectual and final resources to invest in and carry out the research & development necessary to take advantage of all the new materials, compounds, gluing/screwing/bonding techniques, electronic and computer devices, etc., that are discovered and developed every day. In fact, the handful of employees per company couldn't even read all the technical and scientific publications that become available every day even if they were delivered to their doorsteps for free. The result can be seen clearly: most of the thousands of airplanes out there are pretty much the same, look pretty much the same and offer rather primitive comfort and features in comparison to what one would expect in a congruently priced automobile (with the exception of corporate business jets, of course). Since they are all designed and manufactured by separate entities, however, they all have to go through all the steps for tests, certifications and permissions, they all need to negotiate separately with providers and distributors, airports, and so on. Of course it's just the umptienth iteration of the same wing profile, combination of instruments, motor/navigation/... configuration that we have seen a thousand times before, but still.
'Everyone for himself' leads to a non-realization of economies of scope (investigation, research & development, negotiation, overhead), to dragging a leg in terms of technological progress, comfort, convenience, features and so on. It also leads to the non-realization of economies of scale, because the numbers produced of each model do not justify investments in automated production lines featuring robots like the car industry uses them, leading to high costs per piece and a ton of sunk, fixed and production costs on the price tag of each plane, divided among very few customers who can afford the luxury. This keeps many people from thinking about getting a pilot licence in the first place; why would you invest a couple dozen thousand dollars for books, videos, classes and training if you will never be able to afford to use it afterwards, at least not as long as the wife has a say in the matter? In a vicious circle, reducing the number of potential customers obviously leads to a reduction of the number of actual customers, which keeps the prices high, which leads to fewer customers ...
When asked about aviation, most people think of Airbus, Boeing, commercial airlines and the military. Maybe there are a couple who remember the names of Bell, Cessna and Piper, but that's about it. Since the masses fly economy and since the results of flight accidents are so devastating and spectacular, while car accidents are hardly reported unless it's an aristocratic blonde with her lover in Paris, the masses demand -- rightfully -- that safety should come as close to 100% as possible. We can also assume that, due to the fact that the high costs inevitably give flying an elitist image, many think that "the fewer of those spoiled, drunken millionaires are fooling around up there, the less can fall on my childrens' heads". That's exaggerated, but together with some unconscious envy à la "I'm stuck in traffic, so why should these rich guys get a break?", the overwhelming majority of the election cattle does probably not consider general, private aviation a necessity, let alone a priority. Being honest, there can be no denying that the noise, fuel consumption, surface sealing, etc., etc., are justified and valid concerns, which the aviation industry has yet to offer a satisfying answer to.
The very limited number of experimental/light/sports/... aircraft and their pilots/mechanics/owners has an impact on the political weight in the public discussion. Investments in infrastructure or, heaven forbid, added comfort and convenience, pledges for less bureaucracy and a reasonable relation between prices and paperwork have a hard time to get heard in the overwhelming noise of so many other issues that so many more people are affected by. If the masses take notice at all, it's usually due to some multinational corporation's lobbying to push some outrageous, scandalous privilege for their own benefit through legislation. The hundreds or thousands of small manufacturers and stakeholders cannot only not keep up with the deep pockets of the dozen big ones, they also get hit by the negative badwill caused by the scandalous initiatives of corporate white-collar criminals and their political lackeys. Scattered and splintered into hundreds and thousands of individuals, sport pilots lack the money, organization and time to differentiate themselves and promote their own interests, which are seldom the same as those that the big guys try to enforce on the public.
Possible Approaches towards a Solution
A theoretical first step to more efficiency might consist in a systematization of knowledge, for instance a database of engineering and technical data, so that the same motor, wing profile, instrument, etc., etc, isn't tested and submitted for permission for the 354678th time. It would also help to lower production costs if designers could just 'assemble' the umptienth reiteration of their next plane from what has already been done a hundred times before. Obviously, nobody wants to work for free, so expecting that manufacturers enter their data into such a database for free is somewhat idealistic.
The next level might consist in manufacturers working together in cooperations, for instance ten small kit cutters paying a specialist in material techniques or the like. Given that many engineers are not blessed with language or people skills, this might require more negotiating and work ethos than what we encounter in today's working place in practice. Nevertheless, based on personal connections established at air shows or the like, a good lawyer and some mutual goodwill might pave the way for a couple of these cooperations.
Ultimately, though, the general aviation industry will have to go through a process that all industries go through when the market conditions become intense, technological progress slower or more expensive and external pressures (legal, ecological, technical) tougher: consolidation.
In order to grab the attention of larger parts of the population, larger parts of the population need to develop an interest in flying. To make the elitist hobby accessible, prices must come down while safety, organization, comfort and convenience need to be improved. Given it's medical requirements and the consequences of accidents, nobody wants a traffic congestion in the air as we have it on the ground, but there is still a lot of potential that is not and will not be realized in the current situation with hundreds of garage manufacturers. With technical progress in so many different areas (synthetic fuels, compound/synthetic materials and their properties and reactions, computation, electronics, law, ecology) it will become more and more difficult for individualists to compete with larger teams.
Those who are smart will start looking for cooperations with like-minded partners rather sooner than later, in order to combine their talents and strengths while balancing their weaknesses. Not every genius engineer is good at marketing and vice versa. A reduced number of me-too products will lead to higher volumes of sales for fewer but more distinguishable models. Instead of having to concentrate on the essentials like getting a plane up in the air and through regulation, more specialized designers and engineers can work together on the same model, improving interior design, comfort and convenience, noise and energy consumption like we see in the car or computer industry. New ideas and approaches can only blossom when people think outside the box, which is only possible when the daily bread and butter is accounted for. From interior designers to sound engineers, from "business during flight" experts to electrical, light, computer, network and communication specialists, a leap ahead in aviation can only occur when it's no longer just about sticking a motor into a tube and screwing a wing to it. New markets will only emerge if private flying is competitive with cars, subways, busses and high-speed trains from a business perspective, or luxurious, comfortable, convenient, fun and entertaining from a hobby point of view.
These challenges cannot be mastered in the current multitude of nearly identical, rudimentary and rather basic products. Mergers and acquisitions will eventually occur, as it is a fundamental law of economics that any maturing industry moves from many small and week contestants to a few dozen bigger, stronger competitors. Leading the pack is usually better than following behind -- it remains to be seen which role the current manufacturers of experimental, light and sports aircraft prefer.
Sorry for the long sermon,
KARSTEN KEESE
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:33:05 -0600, Dwayne <masterdr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Though I agree with most of what you said, one of the biggest problems manufacturers are facing, are lawsuits.
The Lawsuits civilians place upon aircraft manufacturers is overwhelming. I do not know the percentage of liability cost per airplane is, but I would not be surprised if it is extremely high. Maybe in the 80 percentile for a SWAG?
Even for the AP or IA, there is high risk. If that plane goes down from engine trouble, who is to blame? Who wants answers? Who wants perfection, 100 percent trouble free flights?
And these questions are still pressed upon the manufacturing and maintenance of an airplane, even when it was the pilots fault all along!
Dwayne
--- On Wed, 2/16/11, Cajun Wes <wesleymarceaux@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Cajun Wes <wesleymarceaux@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group SPL training - is a "club" ELSA possible?
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 8:49 AM
Ya Know??, I may be wrong in my thinking but, looking at the price of an LSA and looking at the price of one of the least expensive automobiles today, I see a big difference in price and a big difference in safty and engineering.. There is no way that any of the LSA craft for sale today at the rediculas prices listed, can come close to the value of the simplest auto.. Yet these simple autos must meet all the standard safty features required by the Federal Government. Yet these companies make money. An LSA craft is nothing different in any way than any other aircraft available on the market today,,with the exception,, that it is just a little lighter than usual and not as advanced..Actually speaking ,,they are made of modern materials that are supposed to be as safe or better than the older heavy metal craft made yesteryear..but I wonder.? Looking at the prices of these LSA craft,,I see nothing but uncontroled greed and a total lack of ethics and morality by the companies and those who sell them. Pound for pound and design for design,, there is no justification for the price of these craft, other than those listed. Even the lightest car out weights any LSA craft and more design work and safty features are included in the price. Yet none of these autos sell for anywhere close to $70 thousand dollars unless one goes to exotic and unnecessary models that fan the ego. One might say that Cars are a modern day necessity and an airplane is not but a toy made for fun.. I would say that is not true for some. When cars were first introduced they were far from being a necessity and the prices Mr. Ford asked for was only a little more than the price of a new horse and wagon of the day.. Looking at the price of an LSA and the price of instruction along with it's incedental cost,,, it has turned into nothing more than the old system that existed before the Ultralight movement.. So what is the Advantage here?? None I'd say,,just more of the same old,same old stuff and soon even LSA's will be a thing of the past..Killed by Greed and over pricing,,,over controlled and too many self important chiefs protected by the Government demanding gratuity.............I am saddened and disappointed at the thought.. Cajun Wes |
No comments:
Post a Comment