Coming back from Eastern Canada we stopped at an uncontolled airport,
well it was a class E zone. But the story is, as the ramper was gassing
me up he asked if we would be departing right away and I said, "Yes as
soon as we pay." He replied to me, "That would be great as the little
kid has been there for an hour and hasn't seen much action". Looking
over was a little boy with his nose and fingers poking throught he chain
link fence. His mother some 20 feet away sitting on a large rock in an
decorative garden. Both baking in the hot sun. So when the ramper was
done gassing and went in to the FBO I went over and invited them out to
see the plane. Of course they told me they arn't allowed to and I said
sure you are, now. Just go into that building and I will bring you out.
Everytime I do this the people are afraid to enter the FBO even.

So while I paid my wife showed them the plane and let the boy sit in the
front. Sit in the back. Answer questions, look and touch. See it up close.

This made thier day. And mine. I always do this as it is important to
pause from our rushed schedules sometimes. That day, I arranged with the
ramper, (not busy otherwise) to stay with them airside to watch us
depart. I made it clear though after we left they would have to go back
to their observation post as they are not allowed airside, unescorted.
And I made it clear that the ramper knew I advised them of what was
expected, so he wouldn't be on the spot.

I do this allot. When you look over to the fence and see sometimes a
whole family watching from a crummy spot, what else can you do???? And
they never even expected me to be friendly. There has always been a
stunned moment, like they were looking into some headlights?

It's almost as satisfying as flying. I can't describe it, but I do
encourge it, if you are able to steal 10 or 15 minutes out of a busy
day. It is well worth it for all concerned.

John

<snip good stuff>

John,

That is a great story. I have offered to take people for a trip around the
circuit; to date noone has taken my up on it. It is common at my local
airport the see people hanging out by the fence as you taxi in/out. The
kids always wave and of course I wave back.

I want to make people as excited about flying as I am. I did get to allow
a kid the opportunity to sit the the pilots seat and answer some questions
once. He was very grateful and was really happy about it. He said that he
had hung out a lot at the airport, but noone ever let him sit in the plane.
It felt really great to be able to let him do that. Since there were no
adults (parents) around, I thought better about asking if he wanted a ride
around the circuit.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

On Aug 20, 3:06 pm, The Visitor > wrote:
> Coming back from Eastern Canada we stopped at an uncontolled airport,
> well it was a class E zone. But the story is, as the ramper was gassing
> me up he asked if we would be departing right away and I said, "Yes as
> soon as we pay." He replied to me, "That would be great as the little
> kid has been there for an hour and hasn't seen much action". Looking
> over was a little boy with his nose and fingers poking throught he chain
> link fence. His mother some 20 feet away sitting on a large rock in an
> decorative garden. Both baking in the hot sun. So when the ramper was
> done gassing and went in to the FBO I went over and invited them out to
> see the plane. Of course they told me they arn't allowed to and I said
> sure you are, now. Just go into that building and I will bring you out.
> Everytime I do this the people are afraid to enter the FBO even.
>
> So while I paid my wife showed them the plane and let the boy sit in the
> front. Sit in the back. Answer questions, look and touch. See it up close.
>
> This made thier day. And mine. I always do this as it is important to
> pause from our rushed schedules sometimes. That day, I arranged with the
> ramper, (not busy otherwise) to stay with them airside to watch us
> depart. I made it clear though after we left they would have to go back
> to their observation post as they are not allowed airside, unescorted.
> And I made it clear that the ramper knew I advised them of what was
> expected, so he wouldn't be on the spot.
>
> I do this allot. When you look over to the fence and see sometimes a
> whole family watching from a crummy spot, what else can you do???? And
> they never even expected me to be friendly. There has always been a
> stunned moment, like they were looking into some headlights?
>
> It's almost as satisfying as flying. I can't describe it, but I do
> encourge it, if you are able to steal 10 or 15 minutes out of a busy
> day. It is well worth it for all concerned.
>
> John

Our airport is fenced but the parking lot is about 20 feet above the
level of the runway/tie downs. It very common to see a dad out there
with his son waiting to watch a plane take off or land. You can see
almost the entire airport from the parking lot.

"The Visitor" > wrote in message ...
>
> It's almost as satisfying as flying. I can't describe it, but I do encourge it, if you are able to steal 10 or 15
> minutes out of a busy day. It is well worth it for all concerned.
>
> John
>


Excellent, good job! Do you fly Young Eagles also?

"The Visitor" > wrote in message
...
> Coming back from Eastern Canada we stopped at an uncontolled airport, well
> it was a class E zone. But the story is, as the ramper was gassing me up
> he asked if we would be departing right away and I said, "Yes as soon as
> we pay." He replied to me, "That would be great as the little kid has been
> there for an hour and hasn't seen much action". Looking over was a little
> boy with his nose and fingers poking throught he chain link fence.


This post reminds me of the smell of avgas and tall, sunbaked grass; the
gentle rattle of the breeze through the windsock after the departing
aircraft has vanished into the sky; the satisfied smile you feel when you
leave an airport after a perfect day.

I was that kid once. Thank you!

-c

On Aug 20, 5:06 pm, The Visitor > wrote:
> Coming back from Eastern Canada we stopped at an uncontolled airport,
> well it was a class E zone. But the story is, as the ramper was gassing
> me up he asked if we would be departing right away and I said, "Yes as
> soon as we pay." He replied to me, "That would be great as the little
> kid has been there for an hour and hasn't seen much action". Looking
> over was a little boy with his nose and fingers poking throught he chain
> link fence. His mother some 20 feet away sitting on a large rock in an
> decorative garden. Both baking in the hot sun. So when the ramper was
> done gassing and went in to the FBO I went over and invited them out to
> see the plane. Of course they told me they arn't allowed to and I said
> sure you are, now. Just go into that building and I will bring you out.
> Everytime I do this the people are afraid to enter the FBO even.
>
> So while I paid my wife showed them the plane and let the boy sit in the
> front. Sit in the back. Answer questions, look and touch. See it up close.
>
> This made thier day. And mine. I always do this as it is important to
> pause from our rushed schedules sometimes. That day, I arranged with the
> ramper, (not busy otherwise) to stay with them airside to watch us
> depart. I made it clear though after we left they would have to go back
> to their observation post as they are not allowed airside, unescorted.
> And I made it clear that the ramper knew I advised them of what was
> expected, so he wouldn't be on the spot.
>
> I do this allot. When you look over to the fence and see sometimes a
> whole family watching from a crummy spot, what else can you do???? And
> they never even expected me to be friendly. There has always been a
> stunned moment, like they were looking into some headlights?
>
> It's almost as satisfying as flying. I can't describe it, but I do
> encourge it, if you are able to steal 10 or 15 minutes out of a busy
> day. It is well worth it for all concerned.
>
> John

Nice. You are creating a lot of warm fuzzies for aviation, and no
doubt some future pilots as well.

This is so outstanding!!

This may sound weird but, seeing as it's only been since February of
'04 that I took that first step into the FBO, prior to that, *I* was
that kid at the fence for the previous 30-ish years...

Wish I'd have known (or met) someone like you many, many years
earlier.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:06:10 -0400, The Visitor
> wrote in
>:

[Heart warming story snipped]

Well done, John!

I would guess you have created indelible memories in the minds of many
would be aviators.

> It's almost as satisfying as flying. I can't describe it, but I do
> encourge it, if you are able to steal 10 or 15 minutes out of a busy
> day. It is well worth it for all concerned.

We need to clone John, and get one of him stationed at every airport
fence in America. Within 15 years, the airports would be booming
again.

Great job -- and thanks for sharing the story!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Blueskies wrote:
Do you fly Young Eagles also?
>

Not yet. There is a group at my airport that does this, as well as a Big
Brother and Big Sister Airlift thing.

At my airport there is an airside deck with plastic chairs. People are
afraid to try to enter the building (flying school) let alone go on to
the deck and sit down. I find them at the parking lot fence by the
ramp.I have put a few fathers and sons on that deck. They get to sit
down, sip a soda and have a much better view of things.

We take so much of aviation for granted so easily. Especially the little
things like just getting up close to an airplane. And yes at some
airports it has resulted in inquires about sight seeing and discovery
flights. Not my intention though.

Such as one airport (SW Ontario area) an operator said to me, "Oh I
didn't know they were waiting for you." (Wife and I actually just were
going into town for lunch and shopping that day.) Well it seems obvious
if somebody is watching planes for the fun of it, and you are in the
business, what are you doing leaving them at the fence? That day, Ethan
and his family really were waiting for us.

The mother and son I mentioned; when my wife asked if he wanted to climb
up and sit in front he replied, "No, I don't think you should be walking
on the wings of an airplne." (Seneca) So she briefed him on how to get
in and to stay on the black wing walk. When he got in and looked aft he
exclaimed, "Wow, there's a back!"

As a safety note, my plane, like many, is festooned with static wicks.
Approaching the beast, I point them out, and urge the parents to keep
the children away from them for obvious reasons.

When you put the son in the front of the plane, watch dad. He looks very
happy but sometimes, a wee bit envious..... ;)

The Visitor wrote:
> Blueskies wrote:
> Do you fly Young Eagles also?
>>
>
> Not yet. There is a group at my airport that does this, as well as a
> Big Brother and Big Sister Airlift thing.
>
> At my airport there is an airside deck with plastic chairs. People are
> afraid to try to enter the building (flying school) let alone go on to
> the deck and sit down. I find them at the parking lot fence by the
> ramp.I have put a few fathers and sons on that deck. They get to sit
> down, sip a soda and have a much better view of things.

This always ****es me off. An airport authority or FBO goes to the trouble
of putting in a observation deck or the like and then fails to put up a sign
that calls it such and and says it is open to the public.

On Aug 21, 11:27 am, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> The Visitor wrote:
> > Blueskies wrote:
> > Do you fly Young Eagles also?
>
> > Not yet. There is a group at my airport that does this, as well as a
> > Big Brother and Big Sister Airlift thing.
>
> > At my airport there is an airside deck with plastic chairs. People are
> > afraid to try to enter the building (flying school) let alone go on to
> > the deck and sit down. I find them at the parking lot fence by the
> > ramp.I have put a few fathers and sons on that deck. They get to sit
> > down, sip a soda and have a much better view of things.
>
> This always ****es me off. An airport authority or FBO goes to the trouble
> of putting in a observation deck or the like and then fails to put up a sign
> that calls it such and and says it is open to the public.

A lot of places have closed those observation areas. I seem to
remember at least place had done so way before 9/11. Sad, when
growing up, no trip to Miami was complete without a visit to the
observation deck at MIA. Lots of Connies, DC-6s, and a few of the
very new 707's and DC-8's . . . .

take care . . .

John

Jay Honeck > wrote:

>> It's almost as satisfying as flying. I can't describe it, but I do
>> encourge it, if you are able to steal 10 or 15 minutes out of a busy
>> day. It is well worth it for all concerned.
>
>We need to clone John, and get one of him stationed at every airport
>fence in America. Within 15 years, the airports would be booming
>again.
>
>Jay Honeck

GA activity at my airport with over 400 planes is not great. Perhaps
100 plus ops a day where a T&G counts as two ops.

What is the general status of GA activity around the country?

Ron Lee

> GA activity at my airport with over 400 planes is not great. Perhaps
> 100 plus ops a day where a T&G counts as two ops.
>
> What is the general status of GA activity around the country?

Our airport has been much more active this last month, after a VERY
down period. From January through June, I'll bet flying was down 30%
from the year prior -- but starting right before Oshkosh things really
started to pick up.

I'm hopeful that it will continue, as people come to grips with $4-per-
gallon avgas....
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56933
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

("Ron Lee" wrote)
> What is the general status of GA activity around the country?


In the spring and summer of 1999, 2000 and 2001, I could sit outside (with
my scanner) and watch plane after plane fly over the house. We are on a line
between the Gopher VOR and the end of runway 09/27 - two miles from the
threshold. Weekends were especially busy.

These past few years, nothing, nadda, zip (for hours at a time) is more the
norm.

Sad.


Paul-Mont
Minneapolis/ St Paul
VFR Terminal Area Chart (TAC)
http://skyvector.com/#24-117-3-1530-580
(GEP) 085 --> off the Gopher Vortac, starts (precisely) over "our" house.

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 03:52:52 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote:

> What is the general status of GA activity around the country?

I've noticed a lot less people flying since avgas went up and they
started wasting perfectly good corn squeezins by putting it in
unleaded gasoline...

Ron Lee wrote:
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>
>>> It's almost as satisfying as flying. I can't describe it, but I do
>>> encourge it, if you are able to steal 10 or 15 minutes out of a busy
>>> day. It is well worth it for all concerned.
>>>
>> We need to clone John, and get one of him stationed at every airport
>> fence in America. Within 15 years, the airports would be booming
>> again.
>>
>> Jay Honeck
>>
Anecdotal of course, but ops seem down at KFIT. I'd guess maybe 75% of
what it was 2 yrs ago. The guys over at the flight school note also that
the number of new students they are getting is down. I don't know how
they stay in business.

Take someone (a non-pilot) flying.

KC

Ron Lee wrote:
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>>> It's almost as satisfying as flying. I can't describe it, but I do
>>> encourge it, if you are able to steal 10 or 15 minutes out of a busy
>>> day. It is well worth it for all concerned.
>> We need to clone John, and get one of him stationed at every airport
>> fence in America. Within 15 years, the airports would be booming
>> again.
>>
>> Jay Honeck
>
> GA activity at my airport with over 400 planes is not great. Perhaps
> 100 plus ops a day where a T&G counts as two ops.
>
> What is the general status of GA activity around the country?

It is all but dead at some local airports and somewhat alive at others,
but not great. The airport where I learned to fly, N38, has an FBO that
sells fuel, but no longer has maintenance services, instruction,
aircraft rental or even consistent pilots and aircraft to fly scenic
tour rides. These were all there until about 8 years ago when the
long-time operator retired.

7N1 is in better shape, but it just underwent a renovation like N38 did
about 8-10 years ago and I'm hoping it doesn't suffer the same fate.
N38 went downhill shortly after the renovation as hangars were torn
down, etc., and not all of the promised new ones were built. 7N1 is
facing a somewhat similar problem now. It seems easy to get money for
the runway improvements and lights, but hard for maintenance buildings
and hangars.

ELM is quite GA hostile now, at least for anything less than kerosene
burners. Hangars are being torn down and existing hangars not
maintained. I haven't checked lately, but I don't think the current FBO
(there have been 3 different ones in the last 5 years or so) rents
aircraft any longer or has flight instruction or maintenance available.
And fuel costs are incredible (100LL is more than $5/gallon). They
have a great building and cater will to transient pilots, but there is
no real local GA support.

I'm not real optimistic about GA in this area longer term. 7N1 is the
only bright spot at all and the operate there isn't too far from
retirement. I fear that when he does retire, the fate will follow N38.

Matt

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I'm hopeful that it will continue, as people come to grips with $4-per-
> gallon avgas....
> --

Come to grips? That is pretty cheap.

Typical price in Canada 1.37 to 1.50 per litre, so multiply that by 3.8

Take off six cents per dollar for the exchange.

Yes, I would come to grips pretty easily with that.

John

> GA activity at my airport with over 400 planes is not great. Perhaps
> 100 plus ops a day where a T&G counts as two ops.
>
> What is the general status of GA activity around the country?
>
> Ron Lee

My flying club has had to take on more members just to keep the fleet
flying as much as it used to with fewer members. Everybody is flying
less due to the cost rising while their incomes are not keeping up.

Dean

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:54:58 -0400, The Visitor
> wrote in
>:

>Typical price in Canada 1.37 to 1.50 per litre

Have you noticed a decrease in GA activity in Canada?

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> GA activity at my airport with over 400 planes is not great. Perhaps
>> 100 plus ops a day where a T&G counts as two ops.
>>
>> What is the general status of GA activity around the country?
>
> Our airport has been much more active this last month, after a VERY
> down period. From January through June, I'll bet flying was down 30%
> from the year prior -- but starting right before Oshkosh things really
> started to pick up.
>
> I'm hopeful that it will continue, as people come to grips with $4-per-
> gallon avgas....

Try $10 per gallon AVGAS - you may say you will quit then but the old bug
wont let go of you. Rational people don't do GA.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Our airport has been much more active this last month, after a VERY
> down period. From January through June, I'll bet flying was down 30%
> from the year prior -- but starting right before Oshkosh things really
> started to pick up.
>
> I'm hopeful that it will continue, as people come to grips with $4-per-
> gallon avgas....

Let's see: at $185 or so an hour operating cost at about 15-16gph, another
dollar a gallon is an increase of about 8% in operating costs.

Get a grip! :~)

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>>> It's almost as satisfying as flying. I can't describe it, but I do
>>> encourge it, if you are able to steal 10 or 15 minutes out of a busy
>>> day. It is well worth it for all concerned.
>>
>>We need to clone John, and get one of him stationed at every airport
>>fence in America. Within 15 years, the airports would be booming
>>again.
>>
>>Jay Honeck
>
> GA activity at my airport with over 400 planes is not great. Perhaps
> 100 plus ops a day where a T&G counts as two ops.
>
> What is the general status of GA activity around the country?
>
> Ron Lee


My day job is outside of flying but it is gas powered and does use
discretionary income, in many ways it parallels GA in demographics. Business
for us is kind of flat this year and in my industry it is down on the whole
so I don't think it is just GA. I haven't had much time to fly this year as
well and I have been spending more of my income on other things but man the
bug is biting hard. The local FBO has mainly new G1000 Skyhawks and I think
it is time to get current and rated in one of those!

--------------------------------------------
DW

On Aug 23, 8:55 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:54:58 -0400, The Visitor
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >Typical price in Canada 1.37 to 1.50 per litre
>
> Have you noticed a decrease in GA activity in Canada?

Yup. Transport Canada says that in some areas of the country
flight training is down 50%. At the airport where I learned to fly in
the early '70s there used to be three flight schools; two were busy
enough and the third did some float training. The tiedown area was
covered in airplanes. Now there's one flight school with a couple of
Katanas, and both were tied down off in a corner the other day when I
was there. Maybe a quarter of the old number of airplanes tied down
outside, with a few more in hangars. No kids at the fence. And this in
a city that has seen the population double in that time.
There just isn't the interest in it anymore. Too many other
forms of entertainment, both the electronic kind and things like ATVs
and a bunch of other machines we didn't have in the '70s. The dollars
that used to go into flying now go into home theaters, jetskis, quads,
computers and Xboxes. And SUVs. And second and third and fourth
vehicles. Into $50,000 home renovations. Into trips to exotic places.
You can only afford so many things, and when so much is
available, the dollars get spread a lot thinner.

Dan

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:22:13 -0700, wrote
in om>:

>On Aug 23, 8:55 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:54:58 -0400, The Visitor
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>> >Typical price in Canada 1.37 to 1.50 per litre
>>
>> Have you noticed a decrease in GA activity in Canada?
>
> Yup. Transport Canada says that in some areas of the country
>flight training is down 50%. At the airport where I learned to fly in
>the early '70s there used to be three flight schools; two were busy
>enough and the third did some float training. The tiedown area was
>covered in airplanes. Now there's one flight school with a couple of
>Katanas, and both were tied down off in a corner the other day when I
>was there. Maybe a quarter of the old number of airplanes tied down
>outside, with a few more in hangars. No kids at the fence. And this in
>a city that has seen the population double in that time.
> There just isn't the interest in it anymore. Too many other
>forms of entertainment, both the electronic kind and things like ATVs
>and a bunch of other machines we didn't have in the '70s. The dollars
>that used to go into flying now go into home theaters, jetskis, quads,
>computers and Xboxes. And SUVs. And second and third and fourth
>vehicles. Into $50,000 home renovations. Into trips to exotic places.
> You can only afford so many things, and when so much is
>available, the dollars get spread a lot thinner.
>
> Dan

Does this mean that NavCanada will be forced to increase its
privatized ATC fees as a result of their operating costs being spread
over a smaller number of users?

Apparently they think there is more, not less, flying occurring, so
given your report, the increase must be a result of airline traffic
not GA:


http://www.navcanada.ca/NavCanada.asp?Language=en&Content=ContentDefinitionFiles\Newsroom\NewsReleas es\2007\nr0731.xml
NAV CANADA reports May and June traffic figure

(Ottawa, July 31, 2007) - NAV CANADA today announced its traffic
figures for May and June 2007, as measured in weighted charging
units for enroute, terminal and oceanic air navigation services,
in comparison to the same months in 2006.

The traffic in May and June increased by an average of 4.5 per
cent and 5.2 per cent, respectively, compared to the same months
in 2006.

Fiscal year-to-date traffic was 4.6 per cent higher than in fiscal
year 2006. NAV CANADA’s fiscal year runs from September 1 to
August 31. ...




http://www.navcanada.ca/NavCanada.asp?Language=en&Content=ContentDefinitionFiles\Newsroom\NewsReleas es\2007\nr0712.xml
NAV CANADA reduces service charges by 4% on August 1

(Ottawa, July, 12, 2007) - NAV CANADA today announced that it
would be proceeding with reductions in its customer service
charges totalling 4 per cent effective August 1, 2007.

This will include a 3 per cent reduction already announced, that
will come into effect August 1, 2007, one month ahead of the
original proposed date of September 1, 2007. In addition, the
Company has decided to add a temporary 1 per cent reduction for
the period August 1, 2007 to August 31, 2008. ...

With the reduction announced today, overall NAV CANADA service
charges will have grown only six per cent since they were fully
implemented in 1999 - an estimated 14 percentage points below the
growth in inflation. ...

Details:

http://www.navcanada.ca/ContentDefinitionFiles/Newsroom/newsreleases/2007/nr0712_12_en.pdf

S Green wrote:
>
> Rational people don't do GA.


Or boating, or classic cars, or art collecting, or horse ownership, or
competitive show dogs, or race cars, or custom motorcycles, or $20,000
custom bicycles...

Chess or dominoes at the local park, whittling, needlepoint, local
hiking, bird watching in the backyard, etc... are much cheaper.

Personal interests are rarely rational.

Can't say I have really. For those that have dropped out, many more have
come in. Lessons are very busy, new hangars selling very well. The
airports that are slow, have always been slow. And perhaps they have
slowed down and I am not there to see it. Southern Ontario seems very busy.


Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:54:58 -0400, The Visitor
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>
>>Typical price in Canada 1.37 to 1.50 per litre
>
>
> Have you noticed a decrease in GA activity in Canada?
>

Nav Canada will increase thier fees alright. The have a lot of money at
risk in equity backed commercial paper and it isn't looking too good for
them.

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:22:13 -0700, wrote
> in om>:
>
>
>>On Aug 23, 8:55 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:54:58 -0400, The Visitor
> wrote in
>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Typical price in Canada 1.37 to 1.50 per litre
>>>
>>>Have you noticed a decrease in GA activity in Canada?
>>
>> Yup. Transport Canada says that in some areas of the country
>>flight training is down 50%. At the airport where I learned to fly in
>>the early '70s there used to be three flight schools; two were busy
>>enough and the third did some float training. The tiedown area was
>>covered in airplanes. Now there's one flight school with a couple of
>>Katanas, and both were tied down off in a corner the other day when I
>>was there. Maybe a quarter of the old number of airplanes tied down
>>outside, with a few more in hangars. No kids at the fence. And this in
>>a city that has seen the population double in that time.
>> There just isn't the interest in it anymore. Too many other
>>forms of entertainment, both the electronic kind and things like ATVs
>>and a bunch of other machines we didn't have in the '70s. The dollars
>>that used to go into flying now go into home theaters, jetskis, quads,
>>computers and Xboxes. And SUVs. And second and third and fourth
>>vehicles. Into $50,000 home renovations. Into trips to exotic places.
>> You can only afford so many things, and when so much is
>>available, the dollars get spread a lot thinner.
>>
>> Dan
>
>
> Does this mean that NavCanada will be forced to increase its
> privatized ATC fees as a result of their operating costs being spread
> over a smaller number of users?
>
> Apparently they think there is more, not less, flying occurring, so
> given your report, the increase must be a result of airline traffic
> not GA:
>
>
> http://www.navcanada.ca/NavCanada.asp?Language=en&Content=ContentDefinitionFiles\Newsroom\NewsReleas es\2007\nr0731.xml
> NAV CANADA reports May and June traffic figure
>
> (Ottawa, July 31, 2007) - NAV CANADA today announced its traffic
> figures for May and June 2007, as measured in weighted charging
> units for enroute, terminal and oceanic air navigation services,
> in comparison to the same months in 2006.
>
> The traffic in May and June increased by an average of 4.5 per
> cent and 5.2 per cent, respectively, compared to the same months
> in 2006.
>
> Fiscal year-to-date traffic was 4.6 per cent higher than in fiscal
> year 2006. NAV CANADA’s fiscal year runs from September 1 to
> August 31. ...
>
>
>
>
> http://www.navcanada.ca/NavCanada.asp?Language=en&Content=ContentDefinitionFiles\Newsroom\NewsReleas es\2007\nr0712.xml
> NAV CANADA reduces service charges by 4% on August 1
>
> (Ottawa, July, 12, 2007) - NAV CANADA today announced that it
> would be proceeding with reductions in its customer service
> charges totalling 4 per cent effective August 1, 2007.
>
> This will include a 3 per cent reduction already announced, that
> will come into effect August 1, 2007, one month ahead of the
> original proposed date of September 1, 2007. In addition, the
> Company has decided to add a temporary 1 per cent reduction for
> the period August 1, 2007 to August 31, 2008. ...
>
> With the reduction announced today, overall NAV CANADA service
> charges will have grown only six per cent since they were fully
> implemented in 1999 - an estimated 14 percentage points below the
> growth in inflation. ...
>
> Details:
>
> http://www.navcanada.ca/ContentDefinitionFiles/Newsroom/newsreleases/2007/nr0712_12_en.pdf

On Aug 24, 4:03 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> Does this mean that NavCanada will be forced to increase its
> privatized ATC fees as a result of their operating costs being spread
> over a smaller number of users?
>
> Apparently they think there is more, not less, flying occurring, so
> given your report, the increase must be a result of airline traffic
> not GA:
>

The middle class, once a vast section of the population, is
shrinking. The airplanes they flew--the older, plain-panel VFR stuff--
doesn't use NavCanada services. No transponder, no IFR flight, not
even many flight plans.
In place of that shrinking middle class we have a growing
wealthy class that flies airplanes that cost as much or more than a
house, and those things use all of NavCanada's services. At the other
end of the scale are most of those that used to be middle class, now
the working poor, who, through various changes in the economy, find
themselves making little more than they did 25 years ago, which is a
lot less when adjusted for inflation. Lots of jobs with no benefits,
jobs that are part-time, non-union, temporary. And wiith little
opportunity for advancement. College or university becomes more and
more important.

Dan

writes:

> The middle class, once a vast section of the population, is
> shrinking. The airplanes they flew--the older, plain-panel VFR stuff--
> doesn't use NavCanada services. No transponder, no IFR flight, not
> even many flight plans.
> In place of that shrinking middle class we have a growing
> wealthy class that flies airplanes that cost as much or more than a
> house, and those things use all of NavCanada's services. At the other
> end of the scale are most of those that used to be middle class, now
> the working poor, who, through various changes in the economy, find
> themselves making little more than they did 25 years ago, which is a
> lot less when adjusted for inflation. Lots of jobs with no benefits,
> jobs that are part-time, non-union, temporary. And wiith little
> opportunity for advancement. College or university becomes more and
> more important.

An excellent summary of why GA is in trouble. The threshold of income that
makes GA as a hobby practical has gone from middle or lower middle class to
upper class, cutting out a huge chunk of the potential flying population.

Of course, these effects are not limited to aviation.

> In place of that shrinking middle class we have a growing
> wealthy class that flies airplanes that cost as much or more than a
> house, and those things use all of NavCanada's services. At the other
> end of the scale are most of those that used to be middle class, now
> the working poor, who, through various changes in the economy, find
> themselves making little more than they did 25 years ago, which is a
> lot less when adjusted for inflation. Lots of jobs with no benefits,
> jobs that are part-time, non-union, temporary. And wiith little
> opportunity for advancement. College or university becomes more and
> more important.
>
> Dan

Dan,

Even college educated workers are sliding down the pay scale. Unless
you own your own business, or have climbed reasonably high on a
corporate ladder, odds are you have seen a significant decline is your
inflation-adjusted income since 2000. Lots of layoffs and offshoring
in the past 7 years that is driving down incomes. Energy costs are
soaring and with that other staples go up as well. Housing costs have
gone up quite a bit since 2000 as well.

Its getting to the point where you need to own substantial real-estate
and have a lot of money invested so that you can have enough passive
income to live well. Most people don't have the seed capital to do
much of that.

Dean

Fwiw, and I've only been flying a year and a half now, but if
anything, I've been watching the Bay Area GA community growing
stronger since I started. The other day I got talking with the San
Carlos (SQL) Manager, and he mentioned that they are now on track to
break 200k operations this year, well above the 170k they saw last
year, in fact, they're now well past the threshold where their
contract tower is supposed to be replaced with an official FAA tower
here shortly (not entirely sure what that means, I'm just quoting).

Among my social circle (young, bay area tech dorks), there has been a
_sharp_ upswing of interest in GA in the past year. When I first
started flight training, my co-workers and friends could hardly
comprehend that was something a person could even do. Now, a year and
a half later, I'm giving two or so bay tours a week to various friends
and acquaintances, and I know at least three others who are actively
working towards their PPL, and when the topic comes up at social
gatherings, you here lots of "Oh yeah! I have a friend who does that!
I've been thinking about getting started myself.", a sentiment that I
never heard when I started flying.

So yeah, take it for what its worth... but to say the GA worlds news
is _ALL_ bleak is certainly an over-generalization.

EridanMan writes:

> Fwiw, and I've only been flying a year and a half now, but if
> anything, I've been watching the Bay Area GA community growing
> stronger since I started. The other day I got talking with the San
> Carlos (SQL) Manager, and he mentioned that they are now on track to
> break 200k operations this year, well above the 170k they saw last
> year, in fact, they're now well past the threshold where their
> contract tower is supposed to be replaced with an official FAA tower
> here shortly (not entirely sure what that means, I'm just quoting).
>
> Among my social circle (young, bay area tech dorks), there has been a
> _sharp_ upswing of interest in GA in the past year. When I first
> started flight training, my co-workers and friends could hardly
> comprehend that was something a person could even do. Now, a year and
> a half later, I'm giving two or so bay tours a week to various friends
> and acquaintances, and I know at least three others who are actively
> working towards their PPL, and when the topic comes up at social
> gatherings, you here lots of "Oh yeah! I have a friend who does that!
> I've been thinking about getting started myself.", a sentiment that I
> never heard when I started flying.
>
> So yeah, take it for what its worth... but to say the GA worlds news
> is _ALL_ bleak is certainly an over-generalization.

How much do you make per year?

> Even college educated workers are sliding down the pay scale. Unless
> you own your own business, or have climbed reasonably high on a
> corporate ladder, odds are you have seen a significant decline is your
> inflation-adjusted income since 2000.

Owning your own business doesn't insulate you from the effects of a
down economy. If anything, it accentuates the effect, and makes the
impact more immediate.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck writes:

> Owning your own business doesn't insulate you from the effects of a
> down economy. If anything, it accentuates the effect, and makes the
> impact more immediate.

Owning your own business insulates you from corporate management decisions
that can put an instant end to your career and income. It's unusual to lose
_all_ your clients and _all_ your revenue at once when you're running your own
business, but it's routine to lose all your income at once when you are laid
off from a job working for someone else.

By most metrics my social circle is quite wealthy, but not
'extraordinarily' so. Upper middle class engineers.

For the past five years, my strata has been obsessed with real
estate. All spare resources dedicated to latching on to every-
increasing property values. This past year, that has utterly died...
Those of us who still have not bought have realized we will not be
buying for a few years until housing prices return to some semblance
of sanity (fundamentals), and even those who did buy are cashing out
now while they're still above water.

The result has been more funds available for something other than real-
estate among my local upper-middle-class peers. For many of them,
this is the first time in their life they've had any income
'surplus,', having been dragged by the real estate boom from basically
the start of their professional careers. Take a surplus of money, add
an engineer mentality that _adores_ its toys and loves 'out there'
hobbies and experiences, and I think the resurgence of aviation in
Silicon Valley is hardly surprising.

I'm in NO WAY saying that this particular region is indicative of the
rest of the country, nor do I believe that the growth in bay area
Aviation can in any way offset losses throughout 'bread and butter'
America. I'm just saying that the picture isn't _ALL_ bleak.

wrote in
:

> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:25:49 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>
>>How much do you make per year?
>
> You never give up.
>

Anyone making more than ten cents per hour is rich to MXmoron.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:25:49 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>
>>How much do you make per year?
>
> You never give up.

If you have to ask.........

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:19:50 -0400, The Visitor
> wrote:

>Can't say I have really. For those that have dropped out, many more have
>come in.

My other expensive hobby is opera. The opera newsgroups are always
moaning that the audience is dying--just look at them! They're all so
old!

What they neglect to factor in is that there is an endless supply of
old farts to go to the opera, that they're living longer, that they
have more money, and that they're about to be joined by the Baby
Boomers. Almost all the performances I go to are sold out, at least in
the expensive seats.

In the first half of the 20th century there were three classes: poor,
middle, and upper. Then by the 1950s plumbers and auto workers were
making more money than teachers, so we changed working class to middle
class, so we had underclass, middle class, and wealthy.

Gradually however the (temporary) forces that made American workers so
valuable began to disappear with the economic recovery first of
Europe, then of Japan and the Asian Tigers, and now of China, India,
and the rest.

However, it's still true that a Detroit autoworker earns $75 an hour
including bennies. So for an hour of work he can take a 45 minute
lesson at my local airport.

Amazingly enough, a Tennessee autoworker on "Japanese" cars earns
almost as much. He too can well afford to take flying lessons.

I was young in the 1940s and graduated from college in the 1950s. The
minimum wage was 45 cents an hour, and lessons cost $7 an hour. That's
about the same ratio as today.

I suspect the main reason folks can't afford flying is that they're
spending so much on swimming pools, whole house air conditioning, and
trips with the kids to Disney World, none of which existed for us in
1954.

And speaking of the 1950s--gasoline was 29.9 cents a gallon. That was
actually MORE expensive by earning power than $3.60 gas is today. Try
to hire a college student today for the price of two gallons of gas!

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

EridanMan writes:

> For the past five years, my strata has been obsessed with real
> estate. All spare resources dedicated to latching on to every-
> increasing property values.

Sounds like a stratum of gamblers, eager to get something for nothing.

The best reason for buying land is to have it, not to resell it.

> This past year, that has utterly died...
> Those of us who still have not bought have realized we will not be
> buying for a few years until housing prices return to some semblance
> of sanity (fundamentals), and even those who did buy are cashing out
> now while they're still above water.

Land speculation, like the stock market, is legalized gambling.

> The result has been more funds available for something other than real-
> estate among my local upper-middle-class peers. For many of them,
> this is the first time in their life they've had any income
> 'surplus,', having been dragged by the real estate boom from basically
> the start of their professional careers. Take a surplus of money, add
> an engineer mentality that _adores_ its toys and loves 'out there'
> hobbies and experiences, and I think the resurgence of aviation in
> Silicon Valley is hardly surprising.

That's the key: a surplus of money. Something that most people in the U.S. no
longer have. The vast middle class that once existed and had enough extra
cash to do interesting things is being driven out of existence, and what
remains are the very wealthy and those living at subsistence levels--very
similar to the late 19th century, in fact.

> I'm in NO WAY saying that this particular region is indicative of the
> rest of the country, nor do I believe that the growth in bay area
> Aviation can in any way offset losses throughout 'bread and butter'
> America. I'm just saying that the picture isn't _ALL_ bleak.

There will always be someplace where GA is healthy. But unless those areas
don't plan to ever undertake flights anywhere else, you do need a certain
critical mass of GA in order to justify and/or pay for infrastructure.

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 03:52:52 GMT, Ron Lee wrote:

> What is the general status of GA activity around the country?

Down.

According to statistics kept by the FAA, the number of private pilots is
down from 299,000 to 236,000 and the average age of the pilots is rising.

The number of student pilots is down by about a third since 1990, from
129,000 to 88,000.

--
Dallas

Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in
:


>
> I suspect the main reason folks can't afford flying is that they're
> spending so much on swimming pools, whole house air conditioning, and
> trips with the kids to Disney World, none of which existed for us in
> 1954.
>

Lot's of other "must have" things we now spend money on which add up.
Cable TV, Starbucks, DSL, cell phones, HD TV's, home theater systems,
iPods, Blackberries, lawn service, etc.

>



--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Airbus writes:

> It's not the purported "disappearance" of the middle class that has
> affected GA. People have more reay cash than ever for luxury items. The
> insurance companies have killed off the flight schools and rentals in all
> but the most prosperous locations. The general liabilityconsciosness of
> our society has affected mentalities, and the fuel crunch has done the
> rest.

People who seem to have ready cash in what remains of the middle class are
living on credit. Eventually their lines of credit will run out, especially
if they find that their homes and real estate are no longer worth as much as
the outstanding debt they've secured with them.

It may also be a question of bang for the buck. Perhaps general aviation is
only a cost-effective hobby for those with a fanatical interest in aviation.
For others, the prospect of overcoming a long line of admininstrative and
regulatory obstacles and then paying $200 an hour just to fly around the
neighborhood may simply not be worth it.

It's not the purported "disappearance" of the middle class that has
affected GA. People have more reay cash than ever for luxury items. The
insurance companies have killed off the flight schools and rentals in all
but the most prosperous locations. The general liabilityconsciosness of
our society has affected mentalities, and the fuel crunch has done the
rest.

I wish I could believe otherwise, but I think it is an unrcoverable flat
spin. . .

Cubdriver wrote:

> My other expensive hobby is opera.

One of my favorite Opera stories; you might have heard it; others might
get a kick out of it.

La Scala is the premier opera house in the world. Located in Milan
Italy, the audiences there are the most critical in the world.
A new tenor was about to make his debut at La Scala and was extremely
nervous singing to the La Scala audience for the first time.

He sang his heart out that night in Puccini's Turandot, finishing Nessun
Dorma to the audience rising as one to their feet screaming
at the top of their collective lungs........"AGAIN!!!! AGAIN!!!!

Tears filling his eyes, the young tenor begged for silence and faced the
standing crowd saying,
"Please.....please!!! I'm overwhelmed. You are so kind. .Thank you!!
Thank you so very much, from the bottom of my heart I THANK YOU!!!!"
The audience screamed once more;
"Again!!!! AGAIN!!!! And this time you stupid tone deaf son-of-a bitch-
DO IT RIGHT!!!!"

--
Dudley Henriques

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 22:53:07 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> wrote:

>Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in
:
>
>
>>
>> I suspect the main reason folks can't afford flying is that they're
>> spending so much on swimming pools, whole house air conditioning, and
>> trips with the kids to Disney World, none of which existed for us in
>> 1954.
>>
>
> Lot's of other "must have" things we now spend money on which add up.
>Cable TV, Starbucks, DSL, cell phones, HD TV's, home theater systems,
>iPods, Blackberries, lawn service, etc.
>
>>

One other "must have" thing today is ..... an attorney.



Kirk
PPL-ASEL

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 22:53:07 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> wrote:

>Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in
:
>
>
>>
>> I suspect the main reason folks can't afford flying is that they're
>> spending so much on swimming pools, whole house air conditioning, and
>> trips with the kids to Disney World, none of which existed for us in
>> 1954.
>>
>
> Lot's of other "must have" things we now spend money on which add up.
>Cable TV, Starbucks, DSL, cell phones, HD TV's, home theater systems,
>iPods, Blackberries, lawn service, etc.
>
>>

And let's not forget about insurance.....



Kirk
PPL-ASEL

In rec.aviation.piloting, on Sun 26 Aug 2007 08:41:56p, Kirk Ellis
> wrote:

> One other "must have" thing today is ..... an attorney.

Remington, Smith & Wesson, attorneys at law.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> People who seem to have ready cash in what remains of the middle class are
> living on credit.

By not qualifying the word people, you are stating that ALL People who seem
to have ready cash in what remains of the middle class are living on credit.

I seem to have ready cash in hand, but I am not living on credit. I guess
that means I'm not middle classs.

TRUE and TRUE cannot imply FALSE.

TRUE: I have ready cash in hand.

FALSE: I am living on credit.

FALSE: I am 'in what remains of middle class'

I wonder if you consider yourself middle class.

El Maximo writes:

> By not qualifying the word people, you are stating that ALL People who seem
> to have ready cash in what remains of the middle class are living on credit.

No, I'm not giving a percentage or proportion at all. A large part of the
so-called middle class is doing this, however.

> I seem to have ready cash in hand, but I am not living on credit. I guess
> that means I'm not middle classs.

That's possible.

> I wonder if you consider yourself middle class.

Not currently, as I make too little money. I was part of the lower middle
class in childhood and moved to the upper middle class after I started working
at certain points, and I was briefly in the upper class. All of this in terms
of SES, of course. During my upper class years I probably could have afforded
some flying (although I probably would not have qualified in other ways), but
it never occurred to me. I like aviation but have always taken for granted
that I could never be a pilot.

Today, however, much of the "middle class" is in fact near a subsistence
level. They buy small consumer trinkets to relieve the stress of not having
much money overall, or they buy more things on credit for the same reason, and
live from day to day rather than plan for an (uncertain) future. There is
very little savings because there is very little certainty for the future (you
could be hospitalized for something minor and suddenly lose 30 years of
savings paying for it--so why save at all?).

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> El Maximo writes:
>
>> By not qualifying the word people, you are stating that ALL People who
>> seem
>> to have ready cash in what remains of the middle class are living on
>> credit.
>
> No, I'm not giving a percentage or proportion at all. A large part of the
> so-called middle class is doing this, however.

You wrote "People". Not "Some People", Not "a large part of the people".

Again, True cannot imply false. By your statement, if one is part of the
group named "People", they must be included.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> El Maximo writes:
>
>> By not qualifying the word people, you are stating that ALL People
>> who seem to have ready cash in what remains of the middle class are
>> living on credit.
>
> No, I'm not giving a percentage or proportion at all. A large part of
> the so-called middle class is doing this, however.
>

Clueless ****


Bertie

> Sounds like a stratum of gamblers, eager to get something for nothing.
>
> The best reason for buying land is to have it, not to resell it.
>
> Land speculation, like the stock market, is legalized gambling.

I can't disagree.

> That's the key: a surplus of money. Something that most people in the U.S. no
> longer have. The vast middle class that once existed and had enough extra
> cash to do interesting things is being driven out of existence, and what
> remains are the very wealthy and those living at subsistence levels--very
> similar to the late 19th century, in fact.

Again, by and large, I can't disagree.

> There will always be someplace where GA is healthy. But unless those areas
> don't plan to ever undertake flights anywhere else, you do need a certain
> critical mass of GA in order to justify and/or pay for infrastructure.

I would love to see a study done on the proportion of local to
transient operations at 'small town' GA airports over the past few
decades. It seems to me these days that these small town airports
exist more and more to attract and cater to give the Urbanite GA
flyers incentive to come and spend their money, rather than to support
their own local GA ecosystem.

At all too many rural airstrips these days, It seems a majority of the
'local' aircraft on the flight-line are clearly no-longer airworthy...
At field after field, I see dozens of aircraft just sitting on the
ramp rotting and sheltering weeds, and the _only_ time I hear any
traffic on CTAF, it's other transients moving through.

Being young (both in age, and especially as a pilot), I have no idea
how 'new' of a development this is... but its certainly striking.

"EridanMan" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> Sounds like a stratum of gamblers, eager to get something for nothing.
>>
>> The best reason for buying land is to have it, not to resell it.
>>
>> Land speculation, like the stock market, is legalized gambling.
>
> I can't disagree.

I've yet to see land for free, which would be required in order to get
something for nothing. And I strongly disagree that the best reason for
buying land is to have it. In fact, I see no good reason to simply 'have'
land.

Calling investment "legalized gambiing" is simply Anthony's envy showing
through again.

>> That's the key: a surplus of money. Something that most people in the
>> U.S. no
>> longer have. The vast middle class that once existed and had enough
>> extra
>> cash to do interesting things is being driven out of existence, and what
>> remains are the very wealthy and those living at subsistence levels--very
>> similar to the late 19th century, in fact.
>
> Again, by and large, I can't disagree.

I suggest that if the middle class is, in fact, dissappearing, they are
moving into the upper class. All one need do is note the record levels of
home ownership and college student applications.

Anyone suggesting that the decline in aviation is due to most people in the
United States lacking cash had obviously never seen hundreds of $20K+ Harley
Davidsons riding by to raise cash for the cause of the day. But, again,
Anthony isn't in the United States, so really has no basis for comparison.

EridanMan writes:

> I would love to see a study done on the proportion of local to
> transient operations at 'small town' GA airports over the past few
> decades. It seems to me these days that these small town airports
> exist more and more to attract and cater to give the Urbanite GA
> flyers incentive to come and spend their money, rather than to support
> their own local GA ecosystem.
>
> At all too many rural airstrips these days, It seems a majority of the
> 'local' aircraft on the flight-line are clearly no-longer airworthy...
> At field after field, I see dozens of aircraft just sitting on the
> ramp rotting and sheltering weeds, and the _only_ time I hear any
> traffic on CTAF, it's other transients moving through.

Perhaps it's just a reflection of a more general distribution of wealth.
Those who can easily afford to fly may be the wealthy urbanites with good
professional jobs, whereas rural populations may have lower average incomes
and thus might not be able to easily afford flying.

As to why aircraft sit and rust, I'm not sure. Maybe people get over the
"honeymoon" period of being new pilots and then lose interest. Or maybe the
expense makes it impossible for them to keep up with flying, and they
gradually forget about it.

Are these rusting aircraft just at the rural airports, or are they at other
airports? Maybe it's just cheaper to let an aircraft sit at a rural airport,
whereas it might be expensive at a larger GA airport where you have to pay a
lot for a place to park whether you regularly fly or not.

Somehow I find the image of a little plane sitting in the weeds and rusting
away to be very sad. Ready and willing to fly, but nobody wants to take it
out for a spin.

El Maximo writes:

> I've yet to see land for free, which would be required in order to get
> something for nothing.

The something for nothing part comes from buying land at price X, and then
expecting to turn around and sell it at price X+Y. The Y is something for
nothing. It's gambling, and it not only destabilizes and inflates a market
but hurts those who actually want land (or any other non-imaginary asset) for
some useful purpose, such as building a house and raising a family.

> And I strongly disagree that the best reason for buying land is to have
> it. In fact, I see no good reason to simply 'have' land.

It doesn't serve much purpose if you don't do something with it. If all you
do is trade it, you're effectively gambling.

> Calling investment "legalized gambiing" is simply Anthony's envy showing
> through again.

Anyone who knows the stock market well has nothing to envy. It's a casino.
People who don't realize that are heading for some very unpleasant
experiences. The stock market trades nothing but worthless paper, and it
depends on the principle of the "greater fool" for its continued existence
(i.e., the assumption that there will always be someone more foolish than you
who is willing to pay even more than you did for a worthless piece of paper).

> I suggest that if the middle class is, in fact, dissappearing, they are
> moving into the upper class. All one need do is note the record levels of
> home ownership and college student applications.

The upper class is not expanding as fast as the middle class is disaappearing;
most people formerly in the middle class are sinking to subsistence levels.

Home ownership and college attendance are hardly characteristic of the upper
class. Lots of people in the middle class own homes, barely. And going to
college is so routine that it's not really worth much any more.

> Anyone suggesting that the decline in aviation is due to most people in the
> United States lacking cash had obviously never seen hundreds of $20K+ Harley
> Davidsons riding by to raise cash for the cause of the day.

You could buy a dozen of them for the cost of one new, small GA aircraft.

You can pretend that GA is just fine, and let it die a slow death, or you can
acknowledge that it needs support, and try to promote it.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> The something for nothing part comes from buying land at price X, and then
> expecting to turn around and sell it at price X+Y. The Y is something for
> nothing.

No comment..... It's just too easy.

> It's gambling, and it not only destabilizes and inflates a market
> but hurts those who actually want land (or any other non-imaginary asset)
> for
> some useful purpose, such as building a house and raising a family.

That's not what you wrote. You said the best reason to buy land is to have
it. You did not mention building on it.

Your exact words were "The best reason for buying land is to have it, not to
resell it."


>> And I strongly disagree that the best reason for buying land is to have
>> it. In fact, I see no good reason to simply 'have' land.
>
> It doesn't serve much purpose if you don't do something with it.

Again, that's not what you wrote.

> You can pretend that GA is just fine, and let it die a slow death, or you
> can
> acknowledge that it needs support, and try to promote it.

I never said it was fine. I simply believe that your assesment of the
decline of GA is completely wrong.

> I've yet to see land for free, which would be required in order to get
> something for nothing.

Absolutely no offense intended, but that is a somewhat puerile and
simplistic over-generalization.

You can hardly argue that all of those real-estate "investors" who
were riding the bubble with Option-ARMs, ignoring the terms of their
mortgage on simple faith that prices would magically rise and grant
them "free equity" was anything but dangerously naive "something for
nothing" gambling. The land of course wasn't free, but their
'guaranteed equity' sure as hell was, especially if they did nothing
to actually increase the economic value of the property.

> And I strongly disagree that the best reason for buying land is to have it. In fact,
> I see no good reason to simply 'have' land.

True real-estate investment involves purchasing land which you know
(or believe) will gain in inherent economic value over the life-time
of your investment. This process usually takes decades, as the
economic value of land tends to ebb and flow with the macro-growth of
urban areas. Thus, rational real-estate investment usually involves
holding land for decades.

> Calling investment "legalized gambiing" is simply Anthony's envy showing
> through again.

The "Investment" you speak of is a completely different animal, and is
no more investment than any other form of bubble. During bubble
economics, the price of commodities is set not by its true economic
value, but its perceived economic value- that is, high prices beget
more high prices, regardless of the fundamentals. What no real-estate
"investment" seminar will tell you, however, is that each and every
dime of value above the fundamental economic value of the land is
speculative, and absolutely no more real than a dime in a stock, or a
dime in a hedge fund.

> I suggest that if the middle class is, in fact, dissappearing, they are
> moving into the upper class. All one need do is note the record levels of
> home ownership and college student applications.

You can of course make that suggestion to your hearts content, but
merely suggesting it does not make it true. By and large, the
statistics do bear out Anthony's assertion.

Record levels of home ownership are a ludicrous metric, given the
record levels of dangerously unsafe lending that occurred over the
past seven years. I'm curious to see how you would support that
record levels of college student applications equates to a growing
upper-middle class. What it tells me is that more and more people
feel compelled to go to college because there is the very real sense
that the only jobs still available in the united states are
professional jobs that require high-levels of education. The lower
skilled, traditionally blue-collar middle class jobs have evaporated.

> Anyone suggesting that the decline in aviation is due to most people in the
> United States lacking cash had obviously never seen hundreds of $20K+ Harley
> Davidsons riding by to raise cash for the cause of the day. But, again,
> Anthony isn't in the United States, so really has no basis for comparison.

It isn't hard to look at cost of aviation against the mean income
curve to see that aviation is quickly climbing out of the reach of the
mean American's salary. Simply because your local region or socio-
economic strata has a glut of discretionary income (as mine does) says
nothing of aviations affordability to the common man.

I know its a common hobby here to bash everything Anthony says, and I
certainly understand how he chafes people on here. But to generalize
that everything he says is false is both fallacious and unnecessarily
personal.

"EridanMan" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> Sounds like a stratum of gamblers, eager to get something for nothing.
>>
>> The best reason for buying land is to have it, not to resell it.
>>
>> Land speculation, like the stock market, is legalized gambling.
>
> I can't disagree.
>
>> That's the key: a surplus of money. Something that most people in the
>> U.S. no
>> longer have. The vast middle class that once existed and had enough
>> extra
>> cash to do interesting things is being driven out of existence, and what
>> remains are the very wealthy and those living at subsistence levels--very
>> similar to the late 19th century, in fact.
>
> Again, by and large, I can't disagree.
>
>> There will always be someplace where GA is healthy. But unless those
>> areas
>> don't plan to ever undertake flights anywhere else, you do need a certain
>> critical mass of GA in order to justify and/or pay for infrastructure.
>
> I would love to see a study done on the proportion of local to
> transient operations at 'small town' GA airports over the past few
> decades. It seems to me these days that these small town airports
> exist more and more to attract and cater to give the Urbanite GA
> flyers incentive to come and spend their money, rather than to support
> their own local GA ecosystem.
>
> At all too many rural airstrips these days, It seems a majority of the
> 'local' aircraft on the flight-line are clearly no-longer airworthy...
> At field after field, I see dozens of aircraft just sitting on the
> ramp rotting and sheltering weeds, and the _only_ time I hear any
> traffic on CTAF, it's other transients moving through.
>
> Being young (both in age, and especially as a pilot), I have no idea
> how 'new' of a development this is... but its certainly striking.
>

I see the same thing, but reach a different conclusion. I see the same
rotting airplanes, but see it as the airport not offering anything to
transients, so the only people there are the locals. If I were a transient,
I'd avoid the small town airports as much as possible, if for no other
reason than to make sure I could get fuel.

> Perhaps it's just a reflection of a more general distribution of wealth.
> Those who can easily afford to fly may be the wealthy urbanites with good
> professional jobs, whereas rural populations may have lower average incomes
> and thus might not be able to easily afford flying.

This is certainly my theory and impression, but I have only my
observations to support it, no real data.

> As to why aircraft sit and rust, I'm not sure. Maybe people get over the
> "honeymoon" period of being new pilots and then lose interest. Or maybe the
> expense makes it impossible for them to keep up with flying, and they
> gradually forget about it.

You underestimate the fundamental and visceral pull of aviation to
most pilots. It goes far beyond the rational.

My counterpoint would be, for those cashing out the only logical
solution would be to sell the aircraft, even for scrap. I cannot
imagine many people "forget" the 30-120 dollars a month they pay for
ramp space. There is absolutely no economic value to an aircraft
rotting on a tarmac, if they have merely 'lost interest', then
obviously they should get whatever capital they could back out of
their investment, or at least temper their loss.

Instead, when I see an aircraft rotting on a flightline, what I see is
hope. Someone who can no longer afford to fly, but hopes against all
rationality that "some-day" their circumstances will improve and they
can return to the air.

Thus, to me, aircraft sitting on a flight line are indicative of the
financial state of the local flying population, rather than a
testament to their collective interest in aviation. If they lost
interest, they planes wouldn't be on the flight line any further. The
fact that they're still there indicates that the interest remains, but
the ability has faltered.

> Are these rusting aircraft just at the rural airports, or are they at other
> airports? Maybe it's just cheaper to let an aircraft sit at a rural airport,
> whereas it might be expensive at a larger GA airport where you have to pay a
> lot for a place to park whether you regularly fly or not.

This is certainly a fair point. I know there are a great deal more
derelicts sitting on the HWD flight line than there are on the SQL
flight line, 60 and 115/month tiedown fees respectively. (The
airports are otherwise a mere 5nm from each other, although SQL sits
in a far more affluent part of the region). In either case, we're
talking a tiny fraction of the total aircraft on field, no where near
the levels you'll find at some of the region's rural airports.

I'm sure its some combination of the two.

> Somehow I find the image of a little plane sitting in the weeds and rusting
> away to be very sad. Ready and willing to fly, but nobody wants to take it
> out for a spin.

Either neglect or naive hope in the face of simple financial reality,
it is a tremendously sad thing to witness, I agree.

> I see the same thing, but reach a different conclusion. I see the same
> rotting airplanes, but see it as the airport not offering anything to
> transients, so the only people there are the locals. If I were a transient,
> I'd avoid the small town airports as much as possible, if for no other
> reason than to make sure I could get fuel.

Ironically, the airports where I find the most derelicts are the same
airports that generally offer the cheapest gas. If the pumps are
working that is;)

But I certainly see your point.

> > The something for nothing part comes from buying land at price X, and then
> > expecting to turn around and sell it at price X+Y. The Y is something for
> > nothing.
>
> No comment..... It's just too easy.

Unless there is a specific, GDP related economic justification for Y
beyond a simple "Its what someone is willing to pay for it", Anthony
is correct.

The Visitor wrote:
>, "That would be great as the little kid has been there for an hour and hasn't seen much action".
>John
Excellent post.
I was that little kid too. Never had the offer of an "upclose" but didn't
matter to me at the time.
Now I still might occasionally park in the FBO lot fence eating my lunchtime
sammich when I'm on the road.
Alongside the other kids with their fingers in the fence.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200708/1

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
>>> I've yet to see land for free, which would be required in order to
>>> get something for nothing.
>>
>>The something for nothing part comes from buying land at price X, and
>>then expecting to turn around and sell it at price X+Y. The Y is
>>something for nothing.
>
> I see you know nothing about "investing" either.



Which would explain why he went bankrupt.


Bertie

Nomen Nescio writes:

> I see you know nothing about "investing" either.
> The "Y" is a profit for the assumption of risk.

What risk? That the land will slide into the sea?

> Wrong again.
> Buying at lows and selling at highs moderates a market.

Buying and selling pieces of paper without any intrinsic value is nothing but
a game of chance.

> I trade stocks and options for a living so I kinda know the stock market.

And you have a vested interest in pretending that it's not gambling.

> I've made money every single month for the past 15 years with ONE
> EXCEPTION...........September, 2001.

You can only make money over the long term with the stock market if the
economy in general is expanding, and even then, it's not a sure thing, because
the stock market has no fixed connection to anything else.

> Actually, people who believe that are heading for some very unpleasant
> experiences. I think that most people would rather be me than you.

You mean lucky rather than unlucky? I don't doubt that.

> Some of that "worthless paper" is currently paying me a monthly dividend
> that annualizes to over 20%. Oh, and it's appreciated 25% over the past
> 6 months.

Tomorrow it might pay nothing. You really don't know.

> Most of the "upper class" went to college and own a home.

True of much of the middle class, also.

> Your perspective comes from the bottom of the ladder. Everything looks
> to be a LONG way up from where you are.

I've been at both ends of the ladder.

EridanMan writes:

> You underestimate the fundamental and visceral pull of aviation to
> most pilots. It goes far beyond the rational.

I'm sure that pull exists for some pilots ... but presumably they are not the
ones allowing their aircraft to rust on the field.

> My counterpoint would be, for those cashing out the only logical
> solution would be to sell the aircraft, even for scrap. I cannot
> imagine many people "forget" the 30-120 dollars a month they pay for
> ramp space. There is absolutely no economic value to an aircraft
> rotting on a tarmac, if they have merely 'lost interest', then
> obviously they should get whatever capital they could back out of
> their investment, or at least temper their loss.

Perhaps the rental is a psychological crutch, allowing them to believe that
someday they'll fly again, when in fact they probably never will. Selling or
giving up the space would be an admission that they really aren't going to fly
again.

> Instead, when I see an aircraft rotting on a flightline, what I see is
> hope. Someone who can no longer afford to fly, but hopes against all
> rationality that "some-day" their circumstances will improve and they
> can return to the air.

Probably true in some cases. In other cases, it might be an unwillingness to
admit that the initial thrill of aviation is gone.

> Thus, to me, aircraft sitting on a flight line are indicative of the
> financial state of the local flying population, rather than a
> testament to their collective interest in aviation. If they lost
> interest, they planes wouldn't be on the flight line any further. The
> fact that they're still there indicates that the interest remains, but
> the ability has faltered.

No doubt for some it's a question of having enougn money to pay for the
parking spot, but not enough to actually fly. But it seems that would be a
slender slice of the total population.

> Either neglect or naive hope in the face of simple financial reality,
> it is a tremendously sad thing to witness, I agree.

I sometimes attach personalities to objects--rather like the island of
unwanted toys. I suppose it can be rationalized as the reflection of the
people who built the aircraft, in the hope that someone would fly it.

Nomen Nescio writes:

> It's becoming quite obvious why you're broke.

You haven't answered my question: What risk?

> Why do you think there is no "intrinsic value"?

Because you cannot do anything with a piece of paper. All you can do is sell
it, and you can only do that if someone is willing to buy it.

In contrast, you can use land to grow food, to support a home, and so on.

Dealing in things with no intrinsic value is inherently risky. It is nearly
as risky to speculate on the potential market value of things that do have
intrinsic value, beyond that intrinsic value. History has shown the truth of
this again and again, but there are always people who will not or cannot
learn.

> Not at all. I advise people against doing what I do quite often. If someone
> thinks it's "gambling", they will lose money.

If someone thinks it's safe investment, he may still lose money ... because
it's actually gambling.

> The truth is.....It's hard work.

So is handicapping horses at the track. But it's still gambling.

> If you think I'm throwing darts at the Wall Street Journal, you don't know
> any more about successful investing than you do flying.

You don't have to throw darts. Roulette wheels are no less random when you
pick a number than they are when you don't.

> Wrong again. It's connected to EVERYTHING else.

No, it's connected to nothing at all. It's a big psychological game. Nothing
tangible supports it. That's the danger in it, as multiple stock market
crashes have shown.

> Most people, like you, can't see the connections.

People like me do not imagine connections that don't exist. The intrinsic
value of stock you hold is no greater than the recycling value of the paper on
which it is printed. All the rest is speculation, and risk.

> If you need "luck", you won't have any.
> But, yea, the harder I work....the luckier I get.

If you've been lucky so far, you might delude yourself into thinking that it's
not luck.

> Actually, I do.

Would you bet your family's lives on it?

> At best, you've been a couple of steps higher than you are now.

Many steps higher, actually.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> I see you know nothing about "investing" either.
>> The "Y" is a profit for the assumption of risk.
>
> What risk? That the land will slide into the sea?
>
>> Wrong again.
>> Buying at lows and selling at highs moderates a market.
>
> Buying and selling pieces of paper without any intrinsic value is
> nothing but a game of chance.
>
>> I trade stocks and options for a living so I kinda know the stock
>> market.
>
> And you have a vested interest in pretending that it's not gambling.
>
>> I've made money every single month for the past 15 years with ONE
>> EXCEPTION...........September, 2001.
>
> You can only make money over the long term with the stock market if
> the economy in general is expanding, and even then, it's not a sure
> thing, because the stock market has no fixed connection to anything
> else.
>
>> Actually, people who believe that are heading for some very
>> unpleasant experiences. I think that most people would rather be me
>> than you.
>
> You mean lucky rather than unlucky? I don't doubt that.
>
>> Some of that "worthless paper" is currently paying me a monthly
>> dividend that annualizes to over 20%. Oh, and it's appreciated 25%
>> over the past 6 months.
>
> Tomorrow it might pay nothing. You really don't know.
>
>> Most of the "upper class" went to college and own a home.
>
> True of much of the middle class, also.
>
>> Your perspective comes from the bottom of the ladder. Everything
>> looks to be a LONG way up from where you are.
>
> I've been at both ends of the ladder.
>

Yes, but when you were at the top it was only when you wereon your way
to the bottom.


Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> It's becoming quite obvious why you're broke.
>
> You haven't answered my question: What risk?
>
>> Why do you think there is no "intrinsic value"?
>
> Because you cannot do anything with a piece of paper. All you can do
> is sell it, and you can only do that if someone is willing to buy it.
>
> In contrast, you can use land to grow food, to support a home, and so
> on.
>
> Dealing in things with no intrinsic value is inherently risky. It is
> nearly as risky to speculate on the potential market value of things
> that do have intrinsic value, beyond that intrinsic value. History
> has shown the truth of this again and again, but there are always
> people who will not or cannot learn.
>
>> Not at all. I advise people against doing what I do quite often. If
>> someone thinks it's "gambling", they will lose money.
>
> If someone thinks it's safe investment, he may still lose money ...
> because it's actually gambling.
>
>> The truth is.....It's hard work.
>
> So is handicapping horses at the track. But it's still gambling.
>
>> If you think I'm throwing darts at the Wall Street Journal, you don't
>> know any more about successful investing than you do flying.
>
> You don't have to throw darts. Roulette wheels are no less random
> when you pick a number than they are when you don't.
>
>> Wrong again. It's connected to EVERYTHING else.
>
> No, it's connected to nothing at all. It's a big psychological game.
> Nothing tangible supports it. That's the danger in it, as multiple
> stock market crashes have shown.
>
>> Most people, like you, can't see the connections.
>
> People like me do not imagine connections that don't exist. The
> intrinsic value of stock you hold is no greater than the recycling
> value of the paper on which it is printed. All the rest is
> speculation, and risk.
>
>> If you need "luck", you won't have any.
>> But, yea, the harder I work....the luckier I get.
>
> If you've been lucky so far, you might delude yourself into thinking
> that it's not luck.

it's not,


>
>> Actually, I do.
>
> Would you bet your family's lives on it?
>
>> At best, you've been a couple of steps higher than you are now.
>
> Many steps higher, actually.

And now you're at the bottom, where you belng, bankruptcy boi


bertie



>

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> EridanMan writes:
>
>> You underestimate the fundamental and visceral pull of aviation to
>> most pilots. It goes far beyond the rational.
>
> I'm sure that pull exists for some pilots ... but presumably they are
> not the ones allowing their aircraft to rust on the field.
>
>> My counterpoint would be, for those cashing out the only logical
>> solution would be to sell the aircraft, even for scrap. I cannot
>> imagine many people "forget" the 30-120 dollars a month they pay for
>> ramp space. There is absolutely no economic value to an aircraft
>> rotting on a tarmac, if they have merely 'lost interest', then
>> obviously they should get whatever capital they could back out of
>> their investment, or at least temper their loss.
>
> Perhaps the rental is a psychological crutch, allowing them to believe
> that someday they'll fly again, when in fact they probably never will.
> Selling or giving up the space would be an admission that they really
> aren't going to fly again.

Something that will never happen to you since you will never fly to begin
with

Ever

Bertie
>

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
>
> Lost all your mama's money on dot com's?
>

No. He lost all of his own money (for the short time he actually had some)
on the dot coms. As far as I can tell, he figured out that HTML was pretty
easy, and got himself a big fat contract with a dot com that wanted him in
France. I don't know how long he was living large, but after reading what
he's written, it seems pretty clear that he landed hard, and without a
cushion.

Usenet Rulez > wrote in news:Xns999BA7C757040perv@
130.133.1.4:

> Bertie the Bunyip > skrev i news:Xns999B9499A5AF2****upropeeh@
> 207.14.116.130 i rec.aviation.piloting den on 29 aug 2007 03:48:23p
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Nomen Nescio writes:
>>>
>>>> It's becoming quite obvious why you're broke.
>>>
>>> You haven't answered my question: What risk?
>>>
>>>> Why do you think there is no "intrinsic value"?
>>>
>>> Because you cannot do anything with a piece of paper. All you can
do
>>> is sell it, and you can only do that if someone is willing to buy
it.
>>>
>>> In contrast, you can use land to grow food, to support a home, and
so
>>> on.
>>>
>>> Dealing in things with no intrinsic value is inherently risky. It
is
>>> nearly as risky to speculate on the potential market value of things
>>> that do have intrinsic value, beyond that intrinsic value. History
>>> has shown the truth of this again and again, but there are always
>>> people who will not or cannot learn.
>>>
>>>> Not at all. I advise people against doing what I do quite often. If
>>>> someone thinks it's "gambling", they will lose money.
>>>
>>> If someone thinks it's safe investment, he may still lose money ...
>>> because it's actually gambling.
>>>
>>>> The truth is.....It's hard work.
>>>
>>> So is handicapping horses at the track. But it's still gambling.
>>>
>>>> If you think I'm throwing darts at the Wall Street Journal, you
don't
>>>> know any more about successful investing than you do flying.
>>>
>>> You don't have to throw darts. Roulette wheels are no less random
>>> when you pick a number than they are when you don't.
>>>
>>>> Wrong again. It's connected to EVERYTHING else.
>>>
>>> No, it's connected to nothing at all. It's a big psychological
game.
>>> Nothing tangible supports it. That's the danger in it, as multiple
>>> stock market crashes have shown.
>>>
>>>> Most people, like you, can't see the connections.
>>>
>>> People like me do not imagine connections that don't exist. The
>>> intrinsic value of stock you hold is no greater than the recycling
>>> value of the paper on which it is printed. All the rest is
>>> speculation, and risk.
>>>
>>>> If you need "luck", you won't have any.
>>>> But, yea, the harder I work....the luckier I get.
>>>
>>> If you've been lucky so far, you might delude yourself into thinking
>>> that it's not luck.
>>
>> it's not,
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Actually, I do.
>>>
>>> Would you bet your family's lives on it?
>>>
>>>> At best, you've been a couple of steps higher than you are now.
>>>
>>> Many steps higher, actually.
>>
>> And now you're at the bottom, where you belng, bankruptcy boi
>>
>
>
> Here in Sweden Fosters doesnt taste good no more, because of its
> popularity some local brewery makes it, can't you talk to someone in
> charchrge about it?


I'lll have a word. But I can't see how they could have anything but
improve the taste of fosters.
>
> Perhaps AC/DC could do something about it and by the way,a AC/DC in
> norhtern Europe wouldnt hurt.
>
>
ell, they survived the Vjikings...


bertie

"EridanMan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Perhaps it's just a reflection of a more general distribution of wealth.
>> Those who can easily afford to fly may be the wealthy urbanites with good
>> professional jobs, whereas rural populations may have lower average
>> incomes
>> and thus might not be able to easily afford flying.
>
> This is certainly my theory and impression, but I have only my
> observations to support it, no real data.

Come out west and see all the ranchers and farmers with their aircraft.

With the coming boom in corn prices, those hayseeds will be getting all the
money from you cityslickers. :~)


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

>
>"EridanMan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>> Perhaps it's just a reflection of a more general distribution of wealth.
>>> Those who can easily afford to fly may be the wealthy urbanites with good
>>> professional jobs, whereas rural populations may have lower average
>>> incomes
>>> and thus might not be able to easily afford flying.
>>
>> This is certainly my theory and impression, but I have only my
>> observations to support it, no real data.
>
>Come out west and see all the ranchers and farmers with their aircraft.
>
>With the coming boom in corn prices, those hayseeds will be getting all the
>money from you cityslickers. :~)

Just realize that the ethanol scam won't last forever.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:

> Just realize that the ethanol scam won't last forever.
>

I don't know about that. The ethanol stupidity is reaching critical mass
faster than the human caused global warming stupidity did.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Ron Lee wrote:
>
>> Just realize that the ethanol scam won't last forever.
>>
>
> I don't know about that. The ethanol stupidity is reaching critical mass
> faster than the human caused global warming stupidity did.

But not as fast as the "human caused global warming causes everything" did!

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/