> Safety is primarily achieved by limiting access and hence use.
lol. No, safety is achieved by having strong licencing, both for pilots and aircraft, maintenance requirements, such as engine checks every x hours and so forth, and investigation into accidents. Any of the general citizenry can sign up to get a PPL, and in the US it is quite cheap and easy to do so. Long may it remain so. Even so, GA is considered dangerous, and can have impact on your ability to get life insurance. The main cause of GA deaths is pilot error.
You can get easier access and lighter touch regulations simply by going for a plane in the light sport category. That has an even poorer safety record than GA.
The 'light sport' category exactly supports the analogy to sports cars. Two seats and an impractical cargo capacity.
The limiting factor for citizen access to the sky is aircraft availability not pilot licensure. A Cessna 172's engine is slightly more sophisticated than an air-cooled VW's but the same basic 1930's technology. A new one starts at $70,000 because there is only a single source. There is only a single source because FAA regulations create a moat. Again, there are only 210,000 non-carrier aircraft in the US, the sky is only accessible to a fraction of the one percent by regulatory intent.
$70,000 is also the price of a Lexus or Infiniti or other entry-level luxury car. When you're on the highway surrounded by BMWs and Mercedes E-classes, that's the sort of people who, if flying was something they wanted to do, could have purchased an airplane instead, by your very own metric.
In fact, let's extend this a bit further. You say a Cessna is in a moat because it's the only supplier.... of Cessnas. BMW is the only supplier of BMWs! That's ridiculous reasoning. There are other GA and even light sport aircraft available - Piper and FlightDesign and Zenith and Bristell all sell aircraft. And they're all in the same price range, leading one to believe that maybe aircraft manufacture isn't as cheap as you're making it out to be.
$70,000 is about the price of a new four cylinder Lycoming O-320 engine for a Cessna 172 (traditionally among the least expensive production aircraft). Airframe, avionics, and installation not included. The alternative to a Lexus is a pile of metal on a pallet not an aircraft.
The high price of the O-320 engine reflects FAA regulations that require the use of a Lycoming O-320 in every Cessna 172...and actually a specific version of the O-320 engine for each minor variant of the Cessna 172. There's no second source for Cessna 172 engines by regulation...by regulation there's no second source for engine parts either. The supply is restricted.
Light sport aircraft are by regulation impractical as ordinary transportation. The allowable gross weight and one passenger restrictions insure that. It's like arguing that a YZ250 is a reasonable alternative to a Civic.
> "the sky is only accessible to a fraction of the one percent"
Really?
How many people want or need exclusive ownership? Unless I want to hour build for an ATPL, or have time off for holiday, only a few hours flying a month is likely. That's to enjoy flying as a hobby.
A citizen seeking easy travel, rather than love of flying, would likely log even fewer hours. They may well prefer an air taxi or charter to ownership of a little used aircraft.
A part share, or rental for $100/hr (chock to chock) is about as easy to reach as a cheaper car. That is plenty for a few hundred hours a year, so why bother with outright ownership? Most GA pilots are miles away from the 1%, with pretty regular jobs and wages. There's plenty of flying schools that will get you a PPL for around $5k or so, all in with books, tests and 40hrs. That's all pretty affordable - should you want it.
So what regulations should go to unleash this pent up demand for more aircraft?
At $100/hr a week's travel by plane is $16,800 in rental fees. That's about two orders of magnitude more than a car rental (in my market). The price of used aircraft suggest that the demand for aircraft is high. Framing availability in terms of "need" is irrelevant when talking about supply and demand. Few people need a 4x4 pickup, Tesla, or Lexus.
Flying as a hobby reflects the "the sky as a highway for sports cars" restrictions not the demand. Even as a hobby the number of recreational boats suggests that there may be an order of magnitude of unmet hobbyist interest. This is not to mention that the costs prevent practical use of private aircraft for practical transportation (the cheap car analogy).
lol. No, safety is achieved by having strong licencing, both for pilots and aircraft, maintenance requirements, such as engine checks every x hours and so forth, and investigation into accidents. Any of the general citizenry can sign up to get a PPL, and in the US it is quite cheap and easy to do so. Long may it remain so. Even so, GA is considered dangerous, and can have impact on your ability to get life insurance. The main cause of GA deaths is pilot error.
You can get easier access and lighter touch regulations simply by going for a plane in the light sport category. That has an even poorer safety record than GA.