It is costly fuel. Right?

[neo]

Like cars, mass production of personal plane is possible. Mass training
of pilots who can work on pay equal to pay of car-driver is possible.
But still i do not see planes in sky.

Reason is costly fuel. Am i right?

[Marco Leon]

You are right Neo. You ARE the "one!"

[Robert M. Gary]

No, the reason is crashing and dieing. Most people don't want to fly
around in little planes. In addition, small planes are not reliable
transportation in the sense the public is looking for. The type of
weather you can drive your car in is far beyond the ability of even the
best jets.

-Roebrt

[John T]

Airplanes are costly, much much more than any auto. Insurance is costly.
Training is costly, and there is no "mass training" along the likes of
drivers ed classes. Aviation is expensive overall simply because of
lower numbers of planes and people involved.

[Peter Duniho]

"neo" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Like cars, mass production of personal plane is possible. Mass training
> of pilots who can work on pay equal to pay of car-driver is possible.
> But still i do not see planes in sky.
>
> Reason is costly fuel. Am i right?

No. Fuel expense affects the costs of practically everything we do. In
that respect, the effects of fuel costs are equal for any industry or
product you'd care to compare. In another respect, depending on the
proportion of the costs of fuel to other costs involved, fuel can be more or
less of a problem. But it's still not a "make or break" situation.

Aviation has never been a "mass participation" industry, even when fuel
costs were extremely low (and frankly, on an inflation-adjusted basis, fuel
costs aren't all that high today).

Probably the biggest problem keeping the participation in aviation down is
the large personal barrier to participation itself. It's relatively
difficult to become a pilot, compared to other activities competing for the
same dollars. Reduced participation does of course relate back to overall
costs, but margins are pretty tight in the aviation business, mitigating
somewhat the lack of economy of scale.

If and when aviation is reduced to buying an airplane and pushing the button
that hooks it into the global navigation and control system, allowing a
person to get from Point A to Point B with no intervention on their own and,
most importantly, with significantly reduced formalized training, then
perhaps you'll see more airplanes in the sky. Until then, people will
continue to spend their extra $30,000-$80,000 (or more) on their cars and
other stuff, excluding aviation entirely.

Of course, that said, any discussion regarding the true reason for lack of
participation in aviation is going to be large part conjecture. We've been
'round this topic many times before in this newsgroup, and I'm sure we'll
see a wide variety of differing opinions here too.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"John T" > wrote in message
...
> Airplanes are costly, much much more than any auto. Insurance is costly.
> Training is costly, and there is no "mass training" along the likes of
> drivers ed classes. Aviation is expensive overall simply because of lower
> numbers of planes and people involved.

Your post is circular. You describe all of the costs, as if that's an
answer to why participation is low. Then you state that the costs exist
because of low participation.

You've got a whole "chicken and egg" thing going there...

[Skylune]

No. Most people realize recreational GA is a very expensive hobby which
requires continual training and dedication in order to not wind up like a
dead Kennedy. Unless one is proficient and dedicated enough to get their
IFR cert, GA is a pretty damned unreliable form of transportation.

The majority of small planes you see on sunny weekends are flown by pilots
flying around in circles just for the fun of it, or looking for someplace
to land (like a hamburger stand.) Most people with discretionary dollars
would rather spend them elsewhere.

The upcoming price increases (new or raised landing fees, tie-down fees,
etc.) due to reduction of federal tax subsidies to GA will also hurt the
business, because it is currently heavily subsidized by commercial air
passengers and taxpayers in general.

The AOPA does its best to misinform people of the supposed benefits of GA
(see GA Serving America website, which abounds with misinformation and
propaganda designed to get people to foolishly sign up for flight
training. Most who do quickly realize the real state of affairs and
wisely quit.)

So
Virtually no private pilot will agree that GA is subsidized (despite the
facts), or that pollution, increasing populations around formerly rural
airstrips, etc. is a problem affecting. They will blame politicians,
insurers, lawyers, anti-pollution, anti-noise, and anti-GA activists for
the industry's problems. They want the world to revert to 1955,
consistent with the level of technology of their planes.

[B A R R Y]

Skylune wrote:

>
> The majority of small planes you see on sunny weekends are flown by pilots
> flying around in circles just for the fun of it, or looking for someplace
> to land (like a hamburger stand.)

Unlike boats, classic cars, or motorcycles cruising by. <G>

[Chris W]

neo wrote:
> Mass training
> of pilots who can work on pay equal to pay of car-driver is possible.

I don't believe that is true. People have tried to create programming
languages that can be read and understood by non programmers, they have
all been wasting their time. Programming, like flying an airplane, is a
skill that can not be mastered by everyone. This is not meant to be an
insult to anyone. We all have different talents, while some can be
developed, others can not. You need to learn what you can do well, want
you can't, and take advantage of that. Most of the people on the road
can't even drive, do you really think those people could learn to fly
and be even close to safe?


--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Peter Duniho]

"Chris W" > wrote in message
news:OvIcg.50682$9c6.16340@dukeread11...
> neo wrote:
>> Mass training
>> of pilots who can work on pay equal to pay of car-driver is possible.
>
> I don't believe that is true. People have tried to create programming
> languages that can be read and understood by non programmers, they have
> all been wasting their time. Programming, like flying an airplane, is a
> skill that can not be mastered by everyone.

It's unclear what you mean. Someone who uses a programming language is a
"programmer".

We haven't gotten to the point where computer languages are trivial for
anyone to use. But keep in mind that human beings have a pretty hard time
using *human* languages too.

Computer languages certainly HAVE become much easier to use, and much more
"foolproof" (inasmuch as anything can be foolproof, which is to say "not
much"). I personally would argue that a really good programmer needs to
understand the minute details of how computers operate, but languages like
Java and C#, never mind technologies like PHP, ASP, Javascript, and Ajax,
have opened programming to a much broader range of people. They make it
easy to do things that used to be quite complicated, and restrict the
"programmer" in ways that avoid the most common and dangerous errors.

Likewise, aviation has gotten MUCH easier since its inception, and while
progress is slow, there's no reason to believe it's impossible to make it
available to "the masses". To state that "Most of the people on the road
can't even drive, do you really think those people could learn to fly and be
even close to safe" seriously underestimates technology's ability to remove
obstacles from the path of the unwashed masses.

And yes, when that day comes, flying will be just as annoying a pasttime as
driving can be.

Pete

[Jim Macklin]

No, you're wrong. Mass production of airplanes has never
happened. During WWII, we came close, actually built 10-
15- maybe 30,000 of the same basic model, in four years.
Total production by England, Canada, Germany, Italy, and of
course the USA, was still not equal to the production of one
assembly line for one model of Chevy in one year.


Aviation fuel costs more because it is only about 7/10 of
one percent of the refined fuels and it requires special
handling, certification and storage.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"neo" > wrote in message
ups.com...
| Like cars, mass production of personal plane is possible.
Mass training
| of pilots who can work on pay equal to pay of car-driver
is possible.
| But still i do not see planes in sky.
|
| Reason is costly fuel. Am i right?
|

[Tater Schuld]

"neo" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Like cars, mass production of personal plane is possible. Mass training
> of pilots who can work on pay equal to pay of car-driver is possible.
> But still i do not see planes in sky.
>
> Reason is costly fuel. Am i right?
>

nope. but the other replies I've seen haven't explained my point of view on
the issue.

first, when a car gets a flat, you can stop anywhere to fix it. kind of hard
to do while at 5000 ft.

because of that reason, airplanes need to be 99% perfect at all times. this
ramps up the time for inspection, construction, design, and all the other
"little things" that get multiplied when you get to the finished product of
a vehicle.

look at design issues for safety wire. no such thing exists for cars. and
safety wire is on just about everything on airplanes, and needs to be
removed and installed whenever a part is changed, moved, or altered.

if cars had to go through the same thing, cars would last for 100 years but
garage costs would be about $500/hr instead of $150/hr.

[Steve Foley]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

> The majority of small planes you see on sunny weekends are flown by pilots
> flying around in circles just for the fun of it, or looking for someplace
> to land (like a hamburger stand.) Most people with discretionary dollars
> would rather spend them elsewhere.
>
> The upcoming price increases (new or raised landing fees, tie-down fees,
> etc.) due to reduction of federal tax subsidies to GA will also hurt the
> business, because it is currently heavily subsidized by commercial air
> passengers and taxpayers in general.

I don't think 'the upcoming price increases' will hurt 'the majority of
small planes you see on sunny weekends'.

Very simply, I will not land at towered airports, nor will I file flight
plans or use flight following. This will not greatly change my flying
habits. I don't frequent towered fields. I'll go there if I have a need. I
don't usually get flight following unless I'm flying near or thorugh
controlled airspace.

I fly from a privately owned field. If the present fuel tax is replaced by
user fees, my costs will actually decrease. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure
any user fees will be in addition to fuel texes.


> The AOPA does its best to misinform people of the supposed benefits of GA
> (see GA Serving America website, which abounds with misinformation and
> propaganda designed to get people to foolishly sign up for flight
> training. Most who do quickly realize the real state of affairs and
> wisely quit.)

In my opinion AOPA is a lobbying group. They wouldn't be doing a very good
job if they didn't try everything under the sun to promote their agenda.
They're very good at what they do.


>
> So
> Virtually no private pilot will agree that GA is subsidized (despite the
> facts)

It certainly is, but even without recreational GA, most of the
infrastructure would still be needed. I truely believe that the incremental
cost of recreational GA to 'the system' is small.


>, or that pollution,

But the airlines claim that GA uses so little fuel that it needs to change
the billing model. So how much pollution can it produce when it uses so
little fuel? (In reality, It would be a good idea if pollution could be
reduced, but I gotta argue first)


increasing populations around formerly rural
> airstrips, etc.

Caveat Emptor !


> They will blame politicians,
> insurers, lawyers, anti-pollution, anti-noise, and anti-GA activists for
> the industry's problems.


Everything is the fault of lawyers and insurance companies!!!

They want the world to revert to 1955,
> consistent with the level of technology of their planes.

Just don't take away my GPS

[Peter Duniho]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:yGJcg.1039$JL5.923@trndny03...
> "Skylune" > wrote in message
> lkaboutaviation.com...
>> [snipped]

Please, do not feed the troll.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:CUJcg.4429$nA2.1171@trndny01...
> But Skyloon is one of the better trolls. I kinda like him.

I can't make you do anything, of course. However, I'll point out that what
he's good at is *trolling*. Not at actually writing anything that makes
sense, or even which is truthful.

If you value trolling as an art, by all means encourage him. It's your
right to do so. I'll suggest you keep in mind that people who habitually
encourage trolling may find themselves just as filtered as the trolls are.

> Besides, even trolls need to eat.

Only if they are to survive. I see no reason for us to provide for that
"need".

Cancer cells need to eat to survive too, but we invest a great deal of
medical research in ways to kill them, including by starvation. Their "need
to eat" does not mean we "need to feed". Likewise trolls.

Pete

[Skylune]

by "Steve Foley" > May 23, 2006 at 08:03 PM


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
>
> Please, do not feed the troll.
>

But Skyloon is one of the better trolls. I kinda like him.

Besides, even trolls need to eat.

<<

;-). Well, this "troll" actually likes to fly in the right seat of small
planes. Its just that I think it should occur in a more environmentally
and fiscally responsible way. And, of course, I detest Boyer...

[Skylune]

by "Peter Duniho" > May 23, 2006 at 01:10 PM


"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:CUJcg.4429$nA2.1171@trndny01...
> But Skyloon is one of the better trolls. I kinda like him.

I can't make you do anything, of course. However, I'll point out that
what
he's good at is *trolling*. Not at actually writing anything that makes
sense, or even which is truthful.,.

<<

LOL. You reject the factual data I post from US Bureau of Transporatation
statistics, testimony from president of ATA, etc. etc. as not truthful.

Fine, Duniho, live in your AOPA fantasy land.;-)

[gatt]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> No, the reason is crashing and dieing. Most people don't want to fly
> around in little planes.

Maybe. I didn't fly around in little planes for five years between the time
I got my private and the time I started working on my Instrument because I
couldn't afford it. I remember renting a '152 for $29 /hr in 1990.
Almost double that now.

I'd also attribute the cost of the airplanes due to regulation,
certification requirement, etc. Who wants to spend $60,000-$80,000 for a
four-place airplane built in 1973?

People cash and die on motorcycles and little not-rods just fine. Just
earning the license to fly can cost more than a new economy car.

-c

[gatt]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...

> We haven't gotten to the point where computer languages are trivial for
> anyone to use.

Where the language is, the logic hasn't necessarily. In the end, it's still
a lot of math.
Quite a bit like flying in that regard.

-c

[gatt]

"Tater Schuld" > wrote in message
...

> first, when a car gets a flat, you can stop anywhere to fix it. kind of
> hard to do while at 5000 ft.

(Point of note...it's a lot harder to get a flat at 5,000 feet. ;> )

-c

[Kobra]

> Your post is circular. You describe all of the costs, as if that's an
> answer to why participation is low. Then you state that the costs exist
> because of low participation.

Actually, he's describing a positive feedback system that negatively affects
aviation.

Kobra

[Robert M. Gary]

> People cash and die on motorcycles and little not-rods just fine. Just
> earning the license to fly can cost more than a new economy car.

Asking a pilot to ride in a small plane is different than the general
public. You can't honestly think that the average person in the U.S. is
as comfortable in a small plane as in a hot-rod.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

I don't think its the inspections that make planes so expensive, I
think its the way they are designed. Older cars continue to run because
they are made out of heavy, solid materials. An airplane is made out of
thin sheets of aluminum that will crack at some point. Its the effort
to make planes light that makes them break more often. Stuff on planes
is safety wired because its lighter than using heavier bolts and nuts.
Cars don't break down because bolts come undone because they have
heavier hardware. Important bolts on cars are usually also pressed on
as well as cotter pinned. Pressing aluminum probably won't have the
same effect.

-Robert

[Steve Foley]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>However, I'll point out that what he's good at is *trolling*. Not at
>actually writing anything that makes sense, or even which is truthful.

I have to disagree with this. He actually makes sense, but he wraps it in
such inflamatory language it's difficult to dig out the message.

> If you value trolling as an art, by all means encourage him. It's your
> right to do so. I'll suggest you keep in mind that people who habitually
> encourage trolling may find themselves just as filtered as the trolls are.

Just to make it easier, I haven't changed my name or email address in since
I started posting back in 199?, so blocking me once is all you ever need to
do.

>
>> Besides, even trolls need to eat.
>
> Only if they are to survive. I see no reason for us to provide for that
> "need".
>

Sorry, I forgot the :).

[Peter Duniho]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
> I have to disagree with this. He actually makes sense, but he wraps it in
> such inflamatory language it's difficult to dig out the message.

Disagree all you like. I've seen enough of his posts quoted in other posts
to know that he posts untrue statements on a regular basis.

[Grumman-581]

On Tue, 23 May 2006 13:45:09 -0400, "Skylune"
> wrote:
<snip-anti-aviation-dribble>

Ignore Skylune... He's just ****ed that he was stupid enough to buy a
house right under the flight path of aircraft near some airport... Of
course, he doesn't have balls enough to tell us where he lives so that
we could perhaps avoid his house if at all possible... Or maybe
motivate us to get that relief tube STC.. <evil-grin>

[Skylune]

by "Peter Duniho" > May 23, 2006 at 05:40 PM


"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
> I have to disagree with this. He actually makes sense, but he wraps it
in
> such inflamatory language it's difficult to dig out the message.

Disagree all you like. I've seen enough of his posts quoted in other
posts
to know that he posts untrue statements on a regular basis.


<<

Yeah, the Federal Bureau of Transporation statistics on the contributions
of AVgas taxes to the Aviation Trust Fund are just bull****.

For reality, you must listen to the ex-TV executive's wisdom.

[Skylune]

by Grumman-581 > May 24, 2006 at
01:05 AM


On Tue, 23 May 2006 13:45:09 -0400, "Skylune"
> wrote:
<snip-anti-aviation-dribble>

Ignore Skylune... He's just ****ed that he was stupid enough to buy a
house right under the flight path of aircraft near some airport... Of
course, he doesn't have balls enough to tell us where he lives so that
we could perhaps avoid his house if at all possible... Or maybe
motivate us to get that relief tube STC.. <evil-grin>

<<

it is scary that people such as yourself have license to fly over homes,
schools and businesses. But, your attitude is not uncommon, and will
ultimately result in greater restrictions on GA. <bemused smirk>

[John T]

Not really. The reason autos are relatively cheap are sheer numbers.
There are 10 of millions if not 100s of millions of autos on the road.
Sheer numbers produced keeps the price "low". Probably something like
over a 100,000 new cars are produced each year (guessing), while only a
few thousand (at best, another guess) GA planes and experiementals are
built each year. Another example is engines. Auto engines can be built
and sold for a few thousand bucks because of the economies of scale.
Aviation engines, OTOH, cost about $25,000 and up new, simply because so
few are made compared to auto engines.

All comes down to economy of scale.

[Peter Duniho]

John T" > wrote in message
...
> Not really. The reason autos are relatively cheap are sheer numbers. [...]

What "Not really"? If you want to disagree, quote what you disagree with.
Otherwise, I have to assume you disagree with my statement that your post is
circular, which is completely true. You use one particular state of reality
to explain a different state of reality, and then turn around and use that
different state of reality to explain the first. That's called "circular
logic" (or "tautology" if you like), and it doesn't hold water.

The fact that economies of scale affects the cost of autos and airplanes
both has very little to do with the reason for participation numbers in
each. The participation numbers do affect cost. You cannot claim that the
cost significantly affects participation numbers.

There are a host of other factors involved that are much more significant,
and this can be seen by looking at a variety of aspects, including...

* Even people living on the edge financially find a way to afford a car.
People generally will engage in the use of autos even when doing so is an
economic hardship. Cost of autos could go up significantly without
affecting participation (and it has).

* There ARE relatively inexpensive ways to be involved in flying.
Someone with a few grand to spend each year on it could do it. In spite of
this, participation numbers are low.

As far as your over-simplified explanation of aviation costs goes...

> [...] Another example is engines. Auto engines can be built and sold for a
> few thousand bucks because of the economies of scale. Aviation engines,
> OTOH, cost about $25,000 and up new, simply because so few are made
> compared to auto engines.

It is NOT "simply because so few are made compared to auto engines". Yes,
making more would help costs. But aviation engines and auto engines are not
comparable. Not in design, not in government regulation, and not in
application. There are a lot of auto engines out there that would be
foolish to put into an airplane.

The bottom line: there are a host of other reasons, unrelated to cost, that
hinder participation numbers in aviation. Get rid of those reasons, and
participation would increase dramatically and costs would correspondingly
decrease. If aviation were as essential a component of daily life in our
culture as autos, the price would be comparable.

Now, as it happens, many of the reasons participation is low in aviation are
pretty much immutable. They have to do with things that are inherent in the
activity. So the above statement is theoretical. But it's a lot more
related to reality than your implication that if only we could reduce the
cost, enough people would participate to support a cost as low as the point
to which we reduced it.

Pete

[Doug]

There were over 11 MILLION cars manufactured in the USA last year. 11
MILLION. And yes, only a few thousand airplanes.

[Jim Macklin]

Google for "annual auto production" and you'll see that BMW
plans to build 1.2 million cars this year, Honda has plants
in several countries, each build more than a million cars
yearly.
There are over 200 million cars and 50 million big trucks on
the road in the USA. They build cars by the millions. They
build airplanes in dozens, 500 airplanes is a boom year.



"John T" > wrote in message
...
| Not really. The reason autos are relatively cheap are
sheer numbers.
| There are 10 of millions if not 100s of millions of autos
on the road.
| Sheer numbers produced keeps the price "low". Probably
something like
| over a 100,000 new cars are produced each year (guessing),
while only a
| few thousand (at best, another guess) GA planes and
experiementals are
| built each year. Another example is engines. Auto engines
can be built
| and sold for a few thousand bucks because of the economies
of scale.
| Aviation engines, OTOH, cost about $25,000 and up new,
simply because so
| few are made compared to auto engines.
|
| All comes down to economy of scale.
|

[Matt Barrow]

"John T" > wrote in message
...
> Training is costly, and there is no "mass training" along the likes of
> drivers ed classes.

Which is the genesis of the old cliché, "Where'd you learn to drive, Monkey
Wards?".

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-05-24, John T > wrote:
> All comes down to economy of scale.

The (lack of) economies of scale in GA are not the root cause though -
they are just one result of the root causes.

The main root cause is that 99% of humanity find being in the air a
frightening and unpleasant experience to varying degrees - from mild
anxiety at the one end to sheer terror at the other. Flying a light
aircraft will NEVER have mass appeal, even if you solved all the
infrastructure problems.

Flying is a very unnatural thing for humans to do - we are land
creatures. Only a few of us are weird enough that we are air creatures.
That will always be the case.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Chris W]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> The main root cause is that 99% of humanity find being in the air a
> frightening and unpleasant experience to varying degrees - from mild
> anxiety at the one end to sheer terror at the other.

what magic hat did you pull your 99% number from? There is no way the
number is that high. I would bet 50% is more like it and there is no
way it is any higher than 75%. The to main reasons there aren't more
people involved in GA are 1)Financial cost (both real and perceived) and
2)the cost in time. If the time cost could be reduced somewhat, and the
financial cost reduced significantly, you would see a lot more people
interested in GA. Another thing which I believe is a significant
contributing factor is the level of regulation by the government, how
significant I can't say. That is in as much as people don't like the
government telling them what and how to do things. Of course the
government regulation is one of the major contributors to reason number
1 too.


--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-05-26, Chris W > wrote:
> number is that high. I would bet 50% is more like it and there is no
> way it is any higher than 75%. The to main reasons there aren't more
> people involved in GA are 1)Financial cost (both real and perceived) and
> 2)the cost in time.

Non pilots I know all know that I will take them flying at the slightest
excuse. Almost no one takes it up even though it will cost them nothing
in money and perhaps 45 minutes of their time. My experience is hardly
unique. Most people I know tell me that they just don't enjoy flying -
they find flying in an airliner an experience that brings on anxiety,
let alone a light aircraft.

The ones who I do convince to go for a quick sightseeing flight show
signs of anxiety at the slightest bump.

Most people just do not want to be in the air. They only fly on the
airlines because it's the only practical way to go that sort of
distance. A significant minority of people I know won't even get on an
airliner and would rather spend 4 hours on the boat on rough seas than
45 minutes on an airliner to get off the island.

The majority of the population doesn't like flying - it's just the way
it is. If you love flying there are always ways to go flying for the
sake of it for very little money - but so few people love flying that
even the cheap ways of flying are not exactly mainstream.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Chris W]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2006-05-26, Chris W > wrote:

>
> Non pilots I know all know that I will take them flying at the slightest
> excuse. Almost no one takes it up even though it will cost them nothing
> in money and perhaps 45 minutes of their time. My experience is hardly
> unique. Most people I know tell me that they just don't enjoy flying -
> they find flying in an airliner an experience that brings on anxiety,
> let alone a light aircraft.

I don't know of any of my friends that have even the slightest anxiety
about flying on airliners. I know of a few that are hesitant to fly in
small planes. No where near 99%.... not even 50% though. Most however,
look at flying as simply a means to get from point a to point b and
don't see much point if it isn't a lot faster than driving. I also know
that the vast majority of my friends, even those that are fairly well
off would say the expense is one of the biggest reasons for not flying
if they even had an interest. Granted you may be able to find ways to
fly with out spending a lot of money but few know or would even believe
that.



> The majority of the population doesn't like flying - it's just the way
> it is.

Just because most of your acquaintances are irrational pansies, doesn't
mean that 99% of those on the planet are. No offense but if 99% of the
people you know have anxiety about flying on airlines, they are
irrational pansys. It would be my guess that they mostly just don't
care about aviation. If they don't like flying the airlines it is
probably due to all the crap you have to go through just to get to the
plane, the annoying person you may be sitting next to, or just the
cramped seating, and has nothing to do with actually flying.


--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-05-28, Chris W > wrote:
>> The majority of the population doesn't like flying - it's just the way
>> it is.
>
> Just because most of your acquaintances are irrational pansies, doesn't
> mean that 99% of those on the planet are.

Most people ARE irrational, though. Pilots probably the most. I think
it's hardly rational for me to fly a single engine plane over the North
Irish Sea to, say, Bristol when I can do it for quarter of the cost and
in half the time on the commerical airlines. For most pilots, it's an
emotional decision (the love of flying) to fly light planes - certainly
not a rational one! The vast majority of people on this planet do not
have that emotional love of flying, and I still submit the majority of
people find flying something that generates anxiety - because we are not
creatures of the air. Prove me wrong.

> care about aviation. If they don't like flying the airlines it is
> probably due to all the crap you have to go through just to get to the
> plane

The thing is that's not true here. Where I live, I can check in for my flight
half an hour before it leaves, there is a simple X-ray/metal detector
that's been standard for decades, and often no ID check apart from
seeing the credit card that was used to book the flight online. Flying
is VASTLY more convenient to get anywhere off this small island than any
other kind of method of travel. For example, going to Bristol, you check
in half an hour before the flight goes, then get on a flight that lasts
a little more than an hour. The other method is to go on the boat - a 4
hour ferry trip followed by another 4 hours on the train (and it's more
expensive than flying). Yet a small but significant minority would
choose the ferry on the roughest weather the North Irish Sea can throw
at them over an airline flight on a calm day. (Note I said MINORITY
here, but it's significant enough to be noticed).

As for the rest - yes, they do find flying something that makes them
anxious. I was on a B747 flying out of Houston, and we hit some of the
normal Houston afternoon thermals - the kind of thing you fly a glider
in, nothing serious - but they do cause sharp jolts and make the
airliner's wings flex. Half the plane's passengers squeaked on one of the
bigger bumps. As far as I can tell, that's pretty normal.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de