We could have inexpensive aircraft. They do not violate the laws of
physics. However it probablly does violate laws of human nature.

You must have, first, a large potential market. Consider: Wichita.

In the benighted Kingdom of Sedgwick, no one flies. The overwhelming
vast majority of aircraft plant employees do not have a pilot's
license. They would not take flying lessons if you offered it for free.
They have no desire to fly and if you as much as made the employees
ride in one or quit many would quit and flip burgers at Spangles' for
spite. (For those who don't know Spangles is a factorial-of-cheesy fast
food outfit with turkey gyros (pronounced like the spinning wheel toy
or navaid), Western Onion burgers that taste like Amway laundry soap,
and blow-molded Elvis and MM statues that light up in the center of the
dining room.) In fact many more people in the state of Kansas with
pilot's licenses reside in Johnson County, a putridly yuppified area
outside Kansas City, MO developed to evade the Pendergasts. It has no
aviation jobs to speak of and a lower overall population than Wichita.

Expand Wichita to most of the nation. In case you haven't noticed,
most people don't want to fly.

Secondly, the existing pilot base likes its exclusivity. They will do
anything if push comes to shove to keep it their little fiefdom.
Attempts to make it more accessible will be quietly thwarted from
within if they threaten to make any serious change to this status.

Thirdly, the government wants to keep most of the population grounded
as well, for obvious reasons. Control of the population, a military
monopoly on modern aviation, there are in fact a lot of reasons.

When the population doesn't want to fly, the currently flying subset
doesn't want them flying anyway, and the government perfectly happy
they don't fly either, it's no wonder venture capital is allergic to
personal aviation.

> We could have inexpensive aircraft. They do not violate the laws of
> physics. However it probablly does violate laws of human nature.
>

Actually you're full of crap. Lots of people want to fly and its the cost
that keeps them away. Lots of people like to travel for fun, to see family,
or have to go for business, and the airline experience these days stinks.
Offer a new C182 that runs on diesel for $60k purchase or rents for $30/hour
and the world would beat a path to your door.

"turbo" > wrote in message
...
>> We could have inexpensive aircraft. They do not violate the laws of
>> physics. However it probablly does violate laws of human nature.
>>
>
> Actually you're full of crap. Lots of people want to fly and its the cost
> that keeps them away. Lots of people like to travel for fun, to see
> family,
> or have to go for business, and the airline experience these days stinks.
> Offer a new C182 that runs on diesel for $60k purchase or rents for
> $30/hour
> and the world would beat a path to your door.

The guy made a decent case. You could have disagreed politely, and I bet you
would have in a face to face...

KB

don't feed the troll


> wrote in message
ups.com...
> We could have inexpensive aircraft. They do not violate the laws of
> physics. However it probablly does violate laws of human nature.
>
> You must have, first, a large potential market. Consider: Wichita.
>
> In the benighted Kingdom of Sedgwick, no one flies. The overwhelming
> vast majority of aircraft plant employees do not have a pilot's
> license. They would not take flying lessons if you offered it for free.
> They have no desire to fly and if you as much as made the employees
> ride in one or quit many would quit and flip burgers at Spangles' for
> spite. (For those who don't know Spangles is a factorial-of-cheesy fast
> food outfit with turkey gyros (pronounced like the spinning wheel toy
> or navaid), Western Onion burgers that taste like Amway laundry soap,
> and blow-molded Elvis and MM statues that light up in the center of the
> dining room.) In fact many more people in the state of Kansas with
> pilot's licenses reside in Johnson County, a putridly yuppified area
> outside Kansas City, MO developed to evade the Pendergasts. It has no
> aviation jobs to speak of and a lower overall population than Wichita.
>
> Expand Wichita to most of the nation. In case you haven't noticed,
> most people don't want to fly.
>
> Secondly, the existing pilot base likes its exclusivity. They will do
> anything if push comes to shove to keep it their little fiefdom.
> Attempts to make it more accessible will be quietly thwarted from
> within if they threaten to make any serious change to this status.
>
> Thirdly, the government wants to keep most of the population grounded
> as well, for obvious reasons. Control of the population, a military
> monopoly on modern aviation, there are in fact a lot of reasons.
>
> When the population doesn't want to fly, the currently flying subset
> doesn't want them flying anyway, and the government perfectly happy
> they don't fly either, it's no wonder venture capital is allergic to
> personal aviation.
>

> In the benighted Kingdom of Sedgwick, no one flies. The overwhelming
> vast majority of aircraft plant employees do not have a pilot's
> license.

Maybe it's because they know how these planes are made! ;^)

"turbo" > wrote in message
...
> > We could have inexpensive aircraft. They do not violate the laws of
> > physics. However it probablly does violate laws of human nature.
> >
>
> Actually you're full of crap. Lots of people want to fly and its the cost
> that keeps them away.

That and the inability to handle an aircraft. Many people can't drive worth
a ****, how well do you think they'd on on flight training?

> Lots of people like to travel for fun, to see family,
> or have to go for business, and the airline experience these days stinks.
> Offer a new C182 that runs on diesel for $60k purchase or rents for
$30/hour
> and the world would beat a path to your door.

Yeah, and if your mother was a male, she'd be your dad.

There is such a vehicle -- they're called ultralights. I don't see people
beating a path there.

Reality check time!!

This is usually their excuse, in point of fact.

I don't doubt the first year or two they'd sell several thousand a
year-but after the first thirty thousand the demand would peter out
worldwide. The number of active pilots wouldn't drastically expand.
They would be on the other side of the production curve in a few years.

The former WarPac nations make some nifty small airplanes they can
never seem to market here-apparently in Europe they are standard
category aircraft-and the demand is short of the supply even there.

There is a demand but it's small.

JohnH wrote:
> > In the benighted Kingdom of Sedgwick, no one flies. The overwhelming
> > vast majority of aircraft plant employees do not have a pilot's
> > license.
>
> Maybe it's because they know how these planes are made! ;^)

I've been to the Cessna factory in Independence, KS. I think you're
on to something there :-))

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

That was douchebag Russ Meyer's idea. Build an aircraft plant in the
middle of nowhere, then refuse to hire locals for lack of aircraft
experience. He probably did it so he could spin off the recip line to a
gullible foreign corporation-I recall Toyota being discussed.

"John Galban" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
> JohnH wrote:
> > > In the benighted Kingdom of Sedgwick, no one flies. The overwhelming
> > > vast majority of aircraft plant employees do not have a pilot's
> > > license.
> >
> > Maybe it's because they know how these planes are made! ;^)
>
> I've been to the Cessna factory in Independence, KS. I think you're
> on to something there :-))
>

Union shop?

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> That was douchebag Russ Meyer's idea. Build an aircraft plant in the
> middle of nowhere, then refuse to hire locals for lack of aircraft
> experience. He probably did it so he could spin off the recip line to a
> gullible foreign corporation-I recall Toyota being discussed.
>

I'd love it if Toyota built them instead of Cessna.

Even better would be Honda.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

wrote:
> That was douchebag Russ Meyer's idea. Build an aircraft plant in the
> middle of nowhere, then refuse to hire locals for lack of aircraft
> experience.
<snip>

When I was there (around the time they were cranking out Millenium
Editions), it seemed to me that the factory was doing quite well hiring
people who lacked aircraft experience. The ramp was crammed with
airplanes awaiting repair that had just rolled out of the factory door.
I hear they've gotten better lately.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

"John Galban" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> wrote:
> > That was douchebag Russ Meyer's idea. Build an aircraft plant in the
> > middle of nowhere, then refuse to hire locals for lack of aircraft
> > experience.
> <snip>
>
> When I was there (around the time they were cranking out Millenium
> Editions), it seemed to me that the factory was doing quite well hiring
> people who lacked aircraft experience. The ramp was crammed with
> airplanes awaiting repair that had just rolled out of the factory door.
> I hear they've gotten better lately.

A moment ago you implied that quality sucked -- now you've reversed
yourself?

Matt Barrow wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>That was douchebag Russ Meyer's idea. Build an aircraft plant in the
>>middle of nowhere, then refuse to hire locals for lack of aircraft
>>experience. He probably did it so he could spin off the recip line to a
>>gullible foreign corporation-I recall Toyota being discussed.
>>
>
>
> I'd love it if Toyota built them instead of Cessna.
>
> Even better would be Honda.

Ha, ha, ha ... that's funny. I had a new Honda once (84 Accord). Won't
make that mistake again.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> >>
> >
> >
> > I'd love it if Toyota built them instead of Cessna.
> >
> > Even better would be Honda.
>
> Ha, ha, ha ... that's funny. I had a new Honda once (84 Accord). Won't
> make that mistake again.

1984 was, I believe, the first year that Honda led the JD Powers customer
satisfaction survey (which they then led for 18 years), so what were you
doing different?

I had an '86 Accord; put 109K miles on it in four years - brake pads at 54K,
new tires at 68K and oil changes. I've had two Hondas and three Acura's
since. The only reason I bought a 4-Runner is that Honda didn't have a SUV
(that wasn't a dressed up Isuzu Rodeo) at the time. The 4-Runner is a 2002,
has 65K miles and the only thing I've had done on it is oil changes. When
this one gets traded next year, it'll be replaced by a Pilot (no pun
intended).

When my wife & I car-shopped for her car last fall we thought about a Benz
or BMW, but the dealers were arrogant, and I was sorta ****ed at the
Germans, so we stayed with Acura and she got an RL. Too early to tell on
that one.

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I'd love it if Toyota built them instead of Cessna.
>>>
>>>Even better would be Honda.
>>
>>Ha, ha, ha ... that's funny. I had a new Honda once (84 Accord). Won't
>>make that mistake again.
>
>
> 1984 was, I believe, the first year that Honda led the JD Powers customer
> satisfaction survey (which they then led for 18 years), so what were you
> doing different?

My 84 lost the cam and all 16 rocker arms at less than 80,000 miles ...
and the zone office rep said that I hadn't maintained the engine
properly. After sending him a copy of my log book which I keep for all
of my vehicles (yes, ground as well as air) which showed all maintenance
and that I'd used a premium oil even (Mobil 1), he sent a second letter
saying that 80,000 miles of engine life was within Honda's
"manufacturing tolerance." Sorry, but that is the only auto engine I've
owned in 30 years of car ownership that didn't easily make 100,000
miles. And the only other engine that didn't last until I got rid of
the vehicle was a 1971 VW Beetle engine that began to leak so bad that I
had to tear it down with about 105,000 on it to replace the seals.

I haven't yet owned a Toyota, but friends who had owned both favor
Toyota's by a fairly significant margin.

Matt

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
> When my wife & I car-shopped for her car last fall we thought about a Benz
> or BMW, but the dealers were arrogant, and I was sorta ****ed at the
> Germans, so we stayed with Acura and she got an RL. Too early to tell on
> that one.


Check out the recent article in (April 2005) Automobile magazine about the
quality problems at Mercedes, Audi and VW:

LOSING THE LUSTER By Richard Feast
"German automakers were once synonymous with great quality. What happened?"

(Montblack again...)
Consumers are starting to drop their assumption of quality with the German
cars (BMW and maybe Porsche are the exceptions). Owners are dealing with the
everyday realities that the Germans are putting out crap these days -
compared to their competition.

Even the German car owners, when polled, rated Toyota, Honda, Lexus, etc
high - while dropping the Benz. Audi and VW lines down around the
neighborhood of your Hyundais and Pontiacs for quality.

Odd thing is, Mercedes agrees and says it's working on the problem.


Montblack
Still miffed at Accura for dropping names and going with what letters?
Numbers?

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "John Galban" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> >
> > wrote:
> > > That was douchebag Russ Meyer's idea. Build an aircraft plant in the
> > > middle of nowhere, then refuse to hire locals for lack of aircraft
> > > experience.
> > <snip>
> >
> > When I was there (around the time they were cranking out Millenium
> > Editions), it seemed to me that the factory was doing quite well hiring
> > people who lacked aircraft experience. The ramp was crammed with
> > airplanes awaiting repair that had just rolled out of the factory door.
> > I hear they've gotten better lately.
>
> A moment ago you implied that quality sucked -- now you've reversed
> yourself?

I don't see how I reversed myself. The obviously bad quality
resulted in a rampful of planes that needed repair before they could be
test flown. It was obvious to me that Cessna was indeed hiring people
who lacked aircraft experience.

Oh, I think I see. When I said they were doing quite well hiring
those people, I didn't mean they were doing a quality job. I meant
they weren't having a problem hiring inexperienced workers.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

> > Offer a new C182 that runs on diesel for $60k purchase or rents for
> > $30/hour
> > and the world would beat a path to your door.
>

As a "poor' pilot, I will add this. So much of the problem is also
"destination costs". So many new pilots get their ticket and scrape up
enough cash to fly in the local area for fun every now and then in a
rental. But to fly XC means car rentalk at the destination. And that is
why I rarely take the family anywhere in a plane. I could squeeze out
the rental money for the plane and balance it with gas savings from not
using the car and time saved, etc,. But when I have to add in the car
rental expense ... it just doesn't work. This is a big reason so many
new pilots get tired of just doing local site seeing flights after a
while and stop flying all together. :(

turbo wrote:
>
> Offer a new C182 that runs on diesel for $60k purchase or rents for $30/hour
> and the world would beat a path to your door.

If pigs could fly they'd be pigeons.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

"Edward Todd" > wrote in message
...
>> > Offer a new C182 that runs on diesel for $60k purchase or rents for
>> > $30/hour
>> > and the world would beat a path to your door.
>>
>
> As a "poor' pilot, I will add this. So much of the problem is also
> "destination costs". So many new pilots get their ticket and scrape up
> enough cash to fly in the local area for fun every now and then in a
> rental. But to fly XC means car rentalk at the destination. And that is
> why I rarely take the family anywhere in a plane. I could squeeze out
> the rental money for the plane and balance it with gas savings from not
> using the car and time saved, etc,. But when I have to add in the car
> rental expense ... it just doesn't work. This is a big reason so many
> new pilots get tired of just doing local site seeing flights after a
> while and stop flying all together. :(

I have to agree with you here...

I'm not a dirt poor pilot, but in my case my time resources are not
limitless.

One of the things that puts limits on my flying is that I can not afford to
get stuck somewhere. I work Thursday to Monday and fly commercially every
weekend. And just like everybody else, I still have to find the time to pay
the bills, etc except that I don't come home from the office every night
'cause I'm on the road each weekend in a hotel.

When I get home on Monday I'm usually cooked from flying all day (how's that
for irony...?) so that leaves Tuesdays and Wednesdays for flying. If I can
fly on Tuesday, I can afford to take a longer flight because I could (I
hope) get home on Wednesday.

But, if I book a plane on a Wednesday, then I HAVE to be back on the ground
on Wednesday because I will have a commercial flight to catch on Thursday or
I miss work and I don't get paid (or, seeing as I'm self employed, the
possibility of getting canned is very real if I miss a gig due to getting
held up somewhere.)

I find myself more or less alternating between a "practice flight" one week
and a more challenging (1.5 to 2.5 hours each way...it's relative) XC the
next.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ