Where is everyone?

[Jay Honeck]

A friend of mine flew his Cherokee Six from PA to MI last week, in
perfect weather, and told me that he was one of three GA planes on any
center or approach frequency for the entire flight...

Mary, the kids, and I flew (in absolute perfect VFR conditions) to
Springfield, IL this past Sunday. Cedar Rapids approach was dead (it
was us and a commuter), Quad Cities approach was dead (it was us and
one guy practicing approaches), Chicago Center was nearly dead (it was
us and a few airliners), Peoria Approach was utterly dead (it was just
us, for the entire time it took to cross his airspace), and
Springfield had only us in the pattern.

This on a picture-perfect, springtime weekend. In years past, those
frequencies would have been JAMMED with pilots looking for flight
following, picking up IFR approaches, etc.

We've got Unicom playing in the lobby here, and I haven't heard a
single plane all morning -- and it is again, perfect VFR today. Here
at the hotel, we had one fly-in guest last night (a very cool United
pilot who is re-tracing a Chicago-to-Los Angeles flight he made 30
years ago -- in the same Cessna 170 he flew in 1974!), and half a
dozen guys flew in over the weekend (thanks to a type-specific fly-in)
-- but those were the first fly-in guests we've had in several weeks.

I know gas prices are up, but fuel is still a (relatively) small part
of the cost of aircraft ownership. What else it going on here? Are
you guys flying less, too?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> I know gas prices are up, but fuel is still a (relatively) small part
> of the cost of aircraft ownership. What else it going on here? Are
> you guys flying less, too?

The majority of pilots are renters, so the direct operating costs
immediately rise with the costs of fuel and oil. Rental rates for a 172
are fast approaching $100/hour (wet) in most areas.
That is getting to be too much to bore holes in the sky.
I know I have restricted my flying to instrument currency and travel
trips only.

If I could write it off, I would fly more.

[Newps]

Our traffic count at BIL is the same now as it's been for a long time.
Sundays and Mondays are now and have always been our slowest days.




Jay Honeck wrote:

> A friend of mine flew his Cherokee Six from PA to MI last week, in
> perfect weather, and told me that he was one of three GA planes on any
> center or approach frequency for the entire flight...
>
> Mary, the kids, and I flew (in absolute perfect VFR conditions) to
> Springfield, IL this past Sunday. Cedar Rapids approach was dead (it
> was us and a commuter), Quad Cities approach was dead (it was us and
> one guy practicing approaches), Chicago Center was nearly dead (it was
> us and a few airliners), Peoria Approach was utterly dead (it was just
> us, for the entire time it took to cross his airspace), and
> Springfield had only us in the pattern.
>
> This on a picture-perfect, springtime weekend. In years past, those
> frequencies would have been JAMMED with pilots looking for flight
> following, picking up IFR approaches, etc.
>
> We've got Unicom playing in the lobby here, and I haven't heard a
> single plane all morning -- and it is again, perfect VFR today. Here
> at the hotel, we had one fly-in guest last night (a very cool United
> pilot who is re-tracing a Chicago-to-Los Angeles flight he made 30
> years ago -- in the same Cessna 170 he flew in 1974!), and half a
> dozen guys flew in over the weekend (thanks to a type-specific fly-in)
> -- but those were the first fly-in guests we've had in several weeks.
>
> I know gas prices are up, but fuel is still a (relatively) small part
> of the cost of aircraft ownership. What else it going on here? Are
> you guys flying less, too?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> A friend of mine flew his Cherokee Six from PA to MI last week, in
> perfect weather, and told me that he was one of three GA planes on any
> center or approach frequency for the entire flight...
>
> Mary, the kids, and I flew (in absolute perfect VFR conditions) to
> Springfield, IL this past Sunday. Cedar Rapids approach was dead (it
> was us and a commuter), Quad Cities approach was dead (it was us and
> one guy practicing approaches), Chicago Center was nearly dead (it was
> us and a few airliners), Peoria Approach was utterly dead (it was just
> us, for the entire time it took to cross his airspace), and
> Springfield had only us in the pattern.
>
> This on a picture-perfect, springtime weekend. In years past, those
> frequencies would have been JAMMED with pilots looking for flight
> following, picking up IFR approaches, etc.
>
> We've got Unicom playing in the lobby here, and I haven't heard a
> single plane all morning -- and it is again, perfect VFR today. Here
> at the hotel, we had one fly-in guest last night (a very cool United
> pilot who is re-tracing a Chicago-to-Los Angeles flight he made 30
> years ago -- in the same Cessna 170 he flew in 1974!), and half a
> dozen guys flew in over the weekend (thanks to a type-specific fly-in)
> -- but those were the first fly-in guests we've had in several weeks.
>
> I know gas prices are up, but fuel is still a (relatively) small part
> of the cost of aircraft ownership. What else it going on here? Are
> you guys flying less, too?

Unfortunately, yes. The two closest airports to me do not have
airplanes available for rent and one didn't even have fuel for nearly a
week. The Arrow owned by the club I belong to is falling apart (engine
past TBO and every flight generates 3 more things that don't work) and
with only 4 active members left I don't think the club has the resources
to buy a newer airplane. I'll likely quit the club at the end of June.
I raised the issue of upgrading the 67 Arrow a year ago and it fell on
deaf ears with the other members. I raised it again last week and the
membership has agreed to discuss this at our next meeting, but I found
out from the treasurer that rather than raise hourly rates the club has
been burning its capital fund which is now down to an amount that won't
even replace the run-out engine let alone the entire airplane. So, I'm
going to this meeting, but I fully expect to leave the club after the
meeting.

I'll likely go on inactive status until I can again afford my own
airplane, which will be a couple of years at least given the college
bills for my kids. I'm seriously considering starting a Rotorway kit as
I could fly that from my house, do my own maintenance and burn autogas.
I live 45 minutes from the airport where the club airplane is located
as we can't get a hangar at the nearer airport (which is still 30
minutes away). This is simply too far away given my available time and
the cost of gas to both drive to the airport and to fly. And even a
short fun flight takes nearly 4 hours.


Our local airports have been slowly dieing and you can easily go an hour
between operations on a sunny Saturday. Sad...


Matt

[Maxwell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>A friend of mine flew his Cherokee Six from PA to MI last week, in
> perfect weather, and told me that he was one of three GA planes on any
> center or approach frequency for the entire flight...
>
> Mary, the kids, and I flew (in absolute perfect VFR conditions) to
> Springfield, IL this past Sunday. Cedar Rapids approach was dead (it
> was us and a commuter), Quad Cities approach was dead (it was us and
> one guy practicing approaches), Chicago Center was nearly dead (it was
> us and a few airliners), Peoria Approach was utterly dead (it was just
> us, for the entire time it took to cross his airspace), and
> Springfield had only us in the pattern.
>
> This on a picture-perfect, springtime weekend. In years past, those
> frequencies would have been JAMMED with pilots looking for flight
> following, picking up IFR approaches, etc.
>
> We've got Unicom playing in the lobby here, and I haven't heard a
> single plane all morning -- and it is again, perfect VFR today. Here
> at the hotel, we had one fly-in guest last night (a very cool United
> pilot who is re-tracing a Chicago-to-Los Angeles flight he made 30
> years ago -- in the same Cessna 170 he flew in 1974!), and half a
> dozen guys flew in over the weekend (thanks to a type-specific fly-in)
> -- but those were the first fly-in guests we've had in several weeks.
>
> I know gas prices are up, but fuel is still a (relatively) small part
> of the cost of aircraft ownership. What else it going on here? Are
> you guys flying less, too?
> --

Might just be the usual period before the holiday. I don't have a feel for
the GA indicatiors, but I know the lakes have been slow around here the past
couple of weeks. But it always is before a summer holiday weekend like
Memorial Day.

Could be a trend too. I think I heard on CNN a week or so ago, that WalMart
reported the largest single month sales decline in 20 years or so.

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

> What else it going on here? Are you guys flying less, too?


I'm not, and the flying school at BFM has plenty of students according to
Mike, one of their CFI's.

However, on my recent trips light GA aircraft have seemed mighty scarce on the
frequencies from Florida to Texas.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" <> wrote

> I'm seriously considering starting a Rotorway kit as I could fly that
> from my house, do my own maintenance and burn autogas.
Check on the maintenance time and costs of flying a Rotorway, and also on
the TBR on the airframe, before you make up your mind.

Flying the rentals could look cheap by comparison.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <> wrote
>
>> I'm seriously considering starting a Rotorway kit as I could fly that
>> from my house, do my own maintenance and burn autogas.
> Check on the maintenance time and costs of flying a Rotorway, and also on
> the TBR on the airframe, before you make up your mind.
>
> Flying the rentals could look cheap by comparison.

Yes, I sent much this request to Rotorway last Sunday. No response yet.
Maybe that IS my answer.

For me, time and convenience trump the cost, but cost certainly matters.

Being able to walk out in your backyard and flying wherever you want
would be priceless. And building it would be as much fun as flying it!

Matt

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

>
> For me, time and convenience trump the cost, but cost certainly matters.
>
> Being able to walk out in your backyard and flying wherever you want would
> be priceless. And building it would be as much fun as flying it!

Exec's are waaayyyy cool. Every year at OSH, I make it a point to stop by the
tent and drool over the display.

One of these days....

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>> For me, time and convenience trump the cost, but cost certainly matters.
>>
>> Being able to walk out in your backyard and flying wherever you want would
>> be priceless. And building it would be as much fun as flying it!
>
> Exec's are waaayyyy cool. Every year at OSH, I make it a point to stop by the
> tent and drool over the display.
>
> One of these days....
>

I've been saying that for 15 years since I visited Van's on a west coast
vacation. At 47 I don't have many more "one of these days" left or it
will be too late! Starting to build something by 50 is my "drop dead"
date. :-)

I'd like an airplane, but I like my house and it is just too far from
the nearest airport and my land isn't really airport suitable. However,
a helicopter would be easy to accommodate.

Matt

[Kyle Boatright]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>>
>> For me, time and convenience trump the cost, but cost certainly matters.
>>
>> Being able to walk out in your backyard and flying wherever you want
>> would be priceless. And building it would be as much fun as flying it!
>
> Exec's are waaayyyy cool. Every year at OSH, I make it a point to stop by
> the tent and drool over the display.
>
> One of these days....
>
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM

4 different Exec's have been housed in the hangar next to mine over the
years. Two were converted to the Jet Exec configuration. The conventional
Exec's seemed to have a very bad ratio of flying time to maintenance time,
and the Jet Exec's were at least as bad, and both had serious powertrain
failures in the few hours they flew.

I never saw any of them leave the traffic pattern other than on a trailer.

If you want a helicopter, I suggest the Robinsons. I honestly don't believe
you'll get any utility whatsoever out of an Exec of any flavor...

KB

[Matt Whiting]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>>
>>> For me, time and convenience trump the cost, but cost certainly matters.
>>>
>>> Being able to walk out in your backyard and flying wherever you want
>>> would be priceless. And building it would be as much fun as flying it!
>> Exec's are waaayyyy cool. Every year at OSH, I make it a point to stop by
>> the tent and drool over the display.
>>
>> One of these days....
>>
>> --
>> Dan
>> C172RG at BFM
>
> 4 different Exec's have been housed in the hangar next to mine over the
> years. Two were converted to the Jet Exec configuration. The conventional
> Exec's seemed to have a very bad ratio of flying time to maintenance time,
> and the Jet Exec's were at least as bad, and both had serious powertrain
> failures in the few hours they flew.
>
> I never saw any of them leave the traffic pattern other than on a trailer.
>
> If you want a helicopter, I suggest the Robinsons. I honestly don't believe
> you'll get any utility whatsoever out of an Exec of any flavor...

That is interesting as your assessment is quite different than what I've
heard and read elsewhere. If they are really this bad, then their
current effort to certify the design should be a real problem.

Matt

[Jim Logajan]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> I'd like an airplane, but I like my house and it is just too far from
> the nearest airport and my land isn't really airport suitable.
> However, a helicopter would be easy to accommodate.

Here's another possibility:

http://www.personalblimp.com/

[BT]

>
> Unfortunately, yes. > I raised it again last week and the membership has
> agreed to discuss this at our next meeting, but I found out from the
> treasurer that rather than raise hourly rates the club has been burning
> its capital fund which is now down to an amount that won't even replace
> the run-out engine let alone the entire airplane. So, I'm going to this
> meeting, but I fully expect to leave the club after the meeting.
> >
> Matt

Sounds like fiscal irresponsibility to spend set aside engine rebuild funds
on something other than the engine.
Are there by-laws in this club? Does not sound like a club at all.

BT

[BT]

I flew 5 hours last Saturday.. 25 landings, matched by the same number of
take offs, granted it was paid for by someone else.
Yes, I was in the tow plane, and for a mere $25 tow fee to 2K AGL many
gliders flew for over an hour, some private owners going on 4-5 hour trips
covering many miles and reaching altitudes requiring supplemental oxygen and
returning.

BT


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>A friend of mine flew his Cherokee Six from PA to MI last week, in
> perfect weather, and told me that he was one of three GA planes on any
> center or approach frequency for the entire flight...
>
> Mary, the kids, and I flew (in absolute perfect VFR conditions) to
> Springfield, IL this past Sunday. Cedar Rapids approach was dead (it
> was us and a commuter), Quad Cities approach was dead (it was us and
> one guy practicing approaches), Chicago Center was nearly dead (it was
> us and a few airliners), Peoria Approach was utterly dead (it was just
> us, for the entire time it took to cross his airspace), and
> Springfield had only us in the pattern.
>
> This on a picture-perfect, springtime weekend. In years past, those
> frequencies would have been JAMMED with pilots looking for flight
> following, picking up IFR approaches, etc.
>
> We've got Unicom playing in the lobby here, and I haven't heard a
> single plane all morning -- and it is again, perfect VFR today. Here
> at the hotel, we had one fly-in guest last night (a very cool United
> pilot who is re-tracing a Chicago-to-Los Angeles flight he made 30
> years ago -- in the same Cessna 170 he flew in 1974!), and half a
> dozen guys flew in over the weekend (thanks to a type-specific fly-in)
> -- but those were the first fly-in guests we've had in several weeks.
>
> I know gas prices are up, but fuel is still a (relatively) small part
> of the cost of aircraft ownership. What else it going on here? Are
> you guys flying less, too?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-05-22 08:31:38 -0700, Jay Honeck > said:
>
> I know gas prices are up, but fuel is still a (relatively) small part
> of the cost of aircraft ownership. What else it going on here? Are
> you guys flying less, too?

Our planes are booked all the time. I have a hard time even scheduling
my own currency flights. And I have a lot of them: part 135, part 141,
instrument, etc.

I need a plane, if I can get the ways and means committee to approve one.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-05-23, BT > wrote:
> I flew 5 hours last Saturday.. 25 landings, matched by the same number of
> take offs, granted it was paid for by someone else.

I only did ten, but we only have about a dozen members in our glider
club anyway. We had awesome conditions where you could stay up all day.

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

[Matt Whiting]

BT wrote:
>> Unfortunately, yes. > I raised it again last week and the membership has
>> agreed to discuss this at our next meeting, but I found out from the
>> treasurer that rather than raise hourly rates the club has been burning
>> its capital fund which is now down to an amount that won't even replace
>> the run-out engine let alone the entire airplane. So, I'm going to this
>> meeting, but I fully expect to leave the club after the meeting.
>> Matt
>
> Sounds like fiscal irresponsibility to spend set aside engine rebuild funds
> on something other than the engine.
> Are there by-laws in this club? Does not sound like a club at all.

Sure, but they don't cover things like this. I've rarely seen bylaws
that have this level of detail. It is mostly club history and
convention going back many years I'm told (I joined just 3 years ago).
I never even thought about this before and thus hadn't asked the tough
questions or dug into the financials (most meetings don't even happen
due to lack of a quorum). I should have dug in sooner, but just never
envisioned this happening. I didn't join the club for a number of years
as it was glaringly mismanaged financially and was in debt. It was 8
months behind on its fuel bill to the FBO so something like that and I
was surprised they could still buy fuel. They had two airplanes and
sold one and got the bills paid up and had $30K in the bank. They also
got a new treasurer so I joined. I thought they had turned the corner,
but I guess old habits die hard...

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> However, on my recent trips light GA aircraft have seemed mighty scarce on the
> frequencies from Florida to Texas.

Interesting -- thank for the input, everyone.

I met the future of aviation yesterday -- a young man who was at the
inn with his new bride. They were celebrating his graduation from
college by spending the night in the Red Baron Suite, and partaking in
Movie Night.

He's an A&P, a CFI, and now a college grad. He loves to teach and
fly, his wife loves to fly with him, and it was wonderful to meet them
both. We spent a few hours together flying the sim and watching the
movie, and if we could only put something in the water that made about
3 million more just like him (and her), we'd be all set.

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Could be a trend too. I think I heard on CNN a week or so ago, that WalMart
> reported the largest single month sales decline in 20 years or so.

Our business is level which, considering the addition of three major,
government-funded hotels in our market, we consider a "victory".

Of course, this comes after four years of double-digit growth, so
suddenly going flat "feels" like losing...

I think gas prices are really, really hurting the "common man". I've
got housekeepers and desk staff who have seen a HUGE increase in their
driving expense, with no compensating increase in wages. This
shortfall has to be made up somewhere -- so I suspect we're seeing Wal-
Mart (and other stores) get hit by the back wash.

IMHO, the big-box restaurant chains ("Applebees" and such) will get
hit the worst in an economic downturn. That's where a lot of
discretionary American income gets ****ed away nowadays, and it'll be
the first thing eliminated.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gene Seibel]

On May 22, 10:31 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> A friend of mine flew his Cherokee Six from PA to MI last week, in
> perfect weather, and told me that he was one of three GA planes on any
> center or approach frequency for the entire flight...
>
> Mary, the kids, and I flew (in absolute perfect VFR conditions) to
> Springfield, IL this past Sunday. Cedar Rapids approach was dead (it
> was us and a commuter), Quad Cities approach was dead (it was us and
> one guy practicing approaches), Chicago Center was nearly dead (it was
> us and a few airliners), Peoria Approach was utterly dead (it was just
> us, for the entire time it took to cross his airspace), and
> Springfield had only us in the pattern.
>
A good portion of my flying over the last three years was travel to
jobsites. That has been reduced drastically, simply because that phase
of upgrades has been completed. Don't really know what is going to be
normal for us now. Gas prices are affecting our driving, but I believe
that as of now we will take most of the flights we would have
otherwise. We paid $3.29 a gallon to fill our pickup yesterday but
Airnav is showing prices of $3.05, $3.00, and $3.33 for avgas in
Kansas where we are flying this weekend. Flying vs driving is actually
a good deal right now.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[birdog]

Regarding the original question - are we flying less?

I was forced by health and age to stay on the ground for the last 20+ years.
I recently dropped by our local private grass strip where about 25 planes
are hangered. There was a single plane gassing up - no other activity on a
beautiful Sunday afternoon. Ran into a younger fellow I knew in my previous
life who commented that on a similar day back when I was still flying there
would always be several planes in the air, grinding out stop-and-goes or
just puttering around, whereas today the activity has virtually stopped.
There is even a 150 there that has been sitting outside for several years
and is virtually destroyed by the weather.

Why? My opinion, it's the expense. In the '60's and early 70's, our club
used to fly an old Champ for $4 an hour and a 172 for $16 an hour, wet. We
had an instructor in the club, and $300/$400 would get a beginner his
private. You could chug around in the Champ 'til your butt was numb, and
couldn't spend $20. The club was solvent and the hourly rates covered all
annual expenses. Upgrading required assessments - if memory serves, we paid
$1200 for the Champ and $8000 for the 172. We also had a Citabria that we
paid $5000 for. (All used, of course)

Compare that to the cost of a private ticket and the cost and expense of
owning and flying aircraft today. It's the younger guys who are most active,
and it's a major hill to climb for them to afford to participate.

I guess I'm just an old timer musing about the long dead past.

[Maxwell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Our business is level which, considering the addition of three major,
> government-funded hotels in our market, we consider a "victory".
>
> Of course, this comes after four years of double-digit growth, so
> suddenly going flat "feels" like losing...
>
> I think gas prices are really, really hurting the "common man". I've
> got housekeepers and desk staff who have seen a HUGE increase in their
> driving expense, with no compensating increase in wages. This
> shortfall has to be made up somewhere -- so I suspect we're seeing Wal-
> Mart (and other stores) get hit by the back wash.
>
> IMHO, the big-box restaurant chains ("Applebees" and such) will get
> hit the worst in an economic downturn. That's where a lot of
> discretionary American income gets ****ed away nowadays, and it'll be
> the first thing eliminated.
> --

I think so too. I think everyone tried to ignore the gas hikes last year and
continue business as usual as much as possible, hoping it would be
temporary. Then prices backed up a bit, and kind of reassured us. But this
time I think we are all having to admit to a serious problem, it's here to
stay, and people are starting to react.

Hopefully your business is specialized enough to fair better than most. But
I'm guessing most of us are in for a whole new ballgame, at least until post
election 2008.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> I think gas prices are really, really hurting the "common man". I've
> got housekeepers and desk staff who have seen a HUGE increase in their
> driving expense, with no compensating increase in wages. This
> shortfall has to be made up somewhere ...

Have them buy stock in Exxon. The money they are paying out in gas is going
into shareholders' pockets.

> IMHO, the big-box restaurant chains ("Applebees" and such) will get
> hit the worst in an economic downturn. That's where a lot of
> discretionary American income gets ****ed away nowadays, and it'll be
> the first thing eliminated.

Unfortunately, GA will probably go first.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

birdog writes:

> Why? My opinion, it's the expense. In the '60's and early 70's, our club
> used to fly an old Champ for $4 an hour and a 172 for $16 an hour, wet.

Well, exactly what year was this? If it was 1961, that would be $111 an hour
today, meaning that the hourly costs have not kept pace with inflation. But
if it was 1979, that would be $46 today, meaning that hourly costs have
dramatically outpaced inflation.

There are other considerations, though. People from the mid 60s to around the
beginning of the 1970s had more disposable income than they do today. Prices
have increased but wages have not kept pace, and since the 1970s the situation
has been gradually getting worse.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> Have them buy stock in Exxon. The money they are paying out in gas is
> going
> into shareholders' pockets.

Now you are a stock expert too.

>

> Unfortunately, GA will probably go first.

We know you are hoping.

>

Did it rain out the playground, or did you screw up and take double meds
again?

[BDS[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> There are other considerations, though. People from the mid 60s to around
the
> beginning of the 1970s had more disposable income than they do today.
Prices
> have increased but wages have not kept pace, and since the 1970s the
situation
> has been gradually getting worse.

In the mid-60s and early 70s people also did not have multiple cell phones
(one for each family member), cable/satellite TV, satellite radio, "starter"
homes the size of small castles, home entertainment centers, or 2 brand new
cars (one an SUV) in the driveway. Today these are all looked at as
"necessities", and they consume what would otherwise be disposable income.

BDS

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> In the mid-60s and early 70s people also did not have multiple cell phones
> (one for each family member), cable/satellite TV, satellite radio, "starter"
> homes the size of small castles, home entertainment centers, or 2 brand new
> cars (one an SUV) in the driveway. Today these are all looked at as
> "necessities", and they consume what would otherwise be disposable income.

The real disposable income for equivalent lifestyle has significantly
diminished for the dwindling middle class.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> BDS writes:
>
>> In the mid-60s and early 70s people also did not have multiple cell
>> phones
>> (one for each family member), cable/satellite TV, satellite radio,
>> "starter"
>> homes the size of small castles, home entertainment centers, or 2 brand
>> new
>> cars (one an SUV) in the driveway. Today these are all looked at as
>> "necessities", and they consume what would otherwise be disposable
>> income.
>
> The real disposable income for equivalent lifestyle has significantly
> diminished for the dwindling middle class.
>

You wish. We all make choices, yours is to whine.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-05-23 09:12:29 -0700, "BDS" > said:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote
>
>> There are other considerations, though. People from the mid 60s to around
> the
>> beginning of the 1970s had more disposable income than they do today.
> Prices
>> have increased but wages have not kept pace, and since the 1970s the
> situation
>> has been gradually getting worse.
>
> In the mid-60s and early 70s people also did not have multiple cell phones
> (one for each family member), cable/satellite TV, satellite radio, "starter"
> homes the size of small castles, home entertainment centers, or 2 brand new
> cars (one an SUV) in the driveway. Today these are all looked at as
> "necessities", and they consume what would otherwise be disposable income.
>
> BDS

Indeed, the standard of living is much higher today than it was when I
was a kid. When I was born the standard of living in the United States
was no better than what it is in many third world countries today.
Television was rare, but not unheard of. Houses outside of town still
didn't have indoor plumbing. The Philippines today reminded me a great
deal of the US 50 years ago, only with cell phones and computers.

The Congressional Budget Office has just published a study showing that
low-wage households had an income in 2005 that was more than third
higher than what they had in 1991, adjusted for inflation. That is,
even after you take out the effects of inflation, the poor have more
than a third higher income now than they did in 1991. Bet you don't see
that on the news much.

CNN is famous for saying that the middle class is losing ground. In
fact, the income of the middle class increased 18% over the same
period, adjusted for inflation. Gee, do you suppose that CNN will now
admit they were wrong?

The rich did get richer: the wealthiest fifth had a 55% gain in real income.

The interesting thing, though, was the study also tracked what happened
to actual families. The people who were poor in 1991 are not the same
people who are poor today. 'Poverty,' such as it is, is heavily
weighted towards the young. After all, the work force will always have
young people and new immigrants working at entry level jobs. They don't
stay there.

CBO found that surveys of the same families (as opposed to 'classes'
which people do not remain in) showed that inflation adjusted income
for the poorest families rose 45% from 2001-2003. The poor do not stay
poor unless they have no one working in that family. The poor tend to
be kids just out of school, new families, and new immigrants. Funny
thing, they tend to get promotions and better jobs over time. Bet CNN
doesn't report that, either.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> However, on my recent trips light GA aircraft have seemed mighty scarce on the
>> frequencies from Florida to Texas.
>
> Interesting -- thank for the input, everyone.
>
> I met the future of aviation yesterday -- a young man who was at the
> inn with his new bride. They were celebrating his graduation from
> college by spending the night in the Red Baron Suite, and partaking in
> Movie Night.
>
> He's an A&P, a CFI, and now a college grad. He loves to teach and
> fly, his wife loves to fly with him, and it was wonderful to meet them
> both. We spent a few hours together flying the sim and watching the
> movie, and if we could only put something in the water that made about
> 3 million more just like him (and her), we'd be all set.

I agree ... and send a few of them to my area!

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Could be a trend too. I think I heard on CNN a week or so ago, that WalMart
>> reported the largest single month sales decline in 20 years or so.
>
> Our business is level which, considering the addition of three major,
> government-funded hotels in our market, we consider a "victory".
>
> Of course, this comes after four years of double-digit growth, so
> suddenly going flat "feels" like losing...
>
> I think gas prices are really, really hurting the "common man". I've
> got housekeepers and desk staff who have seen a HUGE increase in their
> driving expense, with no compensating increase in wages. This
> shortfall has to be made up somewhere -- so I suspect we're seeing Wal-
> Mart (and other stores) get hit by the back wash.
>
> IMHO, the big-box restaurant chains ("Applebees" and such) will get
> hit the worst in an economic downturn. That's where a lot of
> discretionary American income gets ****ed away nowadays, and it'll be
> the first thing eliminated.


Yes, but many low income folks that I know (and I live in a low income
area) spend more each week on cigarettes, beer and lottery tickets than
on the increase in gasoline.

I drive 40 miles to work and back each day for roughly 200 miles per
week not counting trips out to lunch. I drive either my Sonata (29 MPG)
or my Chevy truck (17 MPG), but let's use the truck as the worst case.
The truck burns say 12 gallons/week for my commute. When gas was
$2/gallon this was $24/week. Now at $3.14 I pay $38/week. I'm not
saying that the extra $14/week goes unnoticed, but I know people who
spend far more than that each week on cigarettes alone, not counting
beer and lottery tickets. So, there are many places that can be cut
back, but most folks will give up cigarettes last, beer next to last and
lottery tickets right before the beer! :-)

And if I drive the Sonata (which I do when my daughter doesn't need our
other vehicle), the difference is only about $8/week. Hardly enough to
dramatically change my buying habits. And folks that live closer to
work have commensurately less of a change.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

birdog wrote:
> Regarding the original question - are we flying less?
>
> I was forced by health and age to stay on the ground for the last 20+ years.
> I recently dropped by our local private grass strip where about 25 planes
> are hangered. There was a single plane gassing up - no other activity on a
> beautiful Sunday afternoon. Ran into a younger fellow I knew in my previous
> life who commented that on a similar day back when I was still flying there
> would always be several planes in the air, grinding out stop-and-goes or
> just puttering around, whereas today the activity has virtually stopped.
> There is even a 150 there that has been sitting outside for several years
> and is virtually destroyed by the weather.
>
> Why? My opinion, it's the expense. In the '60's and early 70's, our club
> used to fly an old Champ for $4 an hour and a 172 for $16 an hour, wet. We
> had an instructor in the club, and $300/$400 would get a beginner his
> private. You could chug around in the Champ 'til your butt was numb, and
> couldn't spend $20. The club was solvent and the hourly rates covered all
> annual expenses. Upgrading required assessments - if memory serves, we paid
> $1200 for the Champ and $8000 for the 172. We also had a Citabria that we
> paid $5000 for. (All used, of course)

I think cost is part of the equation, but aviation has always been
expensive. Just for grins, I pulled up the inflation calculator at the
BLS web site and plugged in $16 for 1970, your number above for a 172.
The 2007 equivalent is $85.23. Guess what? Our local airport rents its
172 wet for ... drum roll please ... $85/hour!

I think it is cost, convenience (there are fewer small airports now),
availability of other activities, etc.


Matt

[Jose]

> CNN is famous for saying that the middle class is losing ground. In fact, the income of the middle class increased 18% over the same period, adjusted for inflation. Gee, do you suppose that CNN will now admit they were wrong?

Depends what you are measuring with respect to.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

>> If you want a helicopter, I suggest the Robinsons. I honestly don't
>> believe you'll get any utility whatsoever out of an Exec of any flavor...
>
> That is interesting as your assessment is quite different than what I've
> heard and read elsewhere. If they are really this bad, then their current
> effort to certify the design should be a real problem.

There's an owners' group; might be wortwhile checking with them:

http://www.rotorwayownersgroup.com/index.php?page=ntsb


--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Jon Kraus]

At this point I'd take the $3.14 a gallon... I just filled up today for
$3.59 for 87 unleaded. I still gave a wink to the Hummer guy next to me
as I topped off my Accord. :-)

I sold my partner my share of our Mooney a few months ago and I honestly
haven't missed it a bit. I gave aviation a fiar shot for over 6 years
and came to the conclusion that the expense wasn't worth the reward.
Then again it has only been a few months without flying. I am reserving
the right to change my mind at any time.

I do know that if I do go back to flying that renting will be the way to
go for me. I sure can do a lot with the 15 AMU's a year I was spending
on owning. YMMV

Jon

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Now at $3.14 I pay $38/week.

[rotor&wing]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Matt Whiting" wrote:

For me, time and convenience trump the cost, but cost certainly matters.

Being able to walk out in your backyard and flying wherever you want
would be priceless. And building it would be as much fun as flying it!
Exec's are waaayyyy cool. Every year at OSH, I make it a point to stop by
the tent and drool over the display.

One of these days....

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

4 different Exec's have been housed in the hangar next to mine over the
years. Two were converted to the Jet Exec configuration. The conventional
Exec's seemed to have a very bad ratio of flying time to maintenance time,
and the Jet Exec's were at least as bad, and both had serious powertrain
failures in the few hours they flew.

I never saw any of them leave the traffic pattern other than on a trailer.

If you want a helicopter, I suggest the Robinsons. I honestly don't believe
you'll get any utility whatsoever out of an Exec of any flavor...

That is interesting as your assessment is quite different than what I've
heard and read elsewhere. If they are really this bad, then their
current effort to certify the design should be a real problem.

Matt


rule for flying a rotorway: Never hover any higher than you're willing to fall.

[Matt Whiting]

Jon Kraus wrote:
> At this point I'd take the $3.14 a gallon... I just filled up today for
> $3.59 for 87 unleaded. I still gave a wink to the Hummer guy next to me
> as I topped off my Accord. :-)
>
> I sold my partner my share of our Mooney a few months ago and I honestly
> haven't missed it a bit. I gave aviation a fiar shot for over 6 years
> and came to the conclusion that the expense wasn't worth the reward.
> Then again it has only been a few months without flying. I am reserving
> the right to change my mind at any time.
>
> I do know that if I do go back to flying that renting will be the way to
> go for me. I sure can do a lot with the 15 AMU's a year I was spending
> on owning. YMMV

I would agree if renting was an option. However, of the three airports
within 35 miles of my house, none currently have aircraft available for
rent. The one sold its last rental 172 to a friend of mine and the
owner hasn't replaced it yet. I believe he will, but at the moment
renting isn't even an option. Sigh...

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> BDS writes:
>
>> In the mid-60s and early 70s people also did not have multiple cell
>> phones (one for each family member), cable/satellite TV, satellite
>> radio, "starter" homes the size of small castles, home entertainment
>> centers, or 2 brand new cars (one an SUV) in the driveway. Today
>> these are all looked at as "necessities", and they consume what would
>> otherwise be disposable income.
>
> The real disposable income for equivalent lifestyle has significantly
> diminished for the dwindling middle class.

IOW you haven't got enough to buy twinkies and coke


bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> Then again it has only been a few months without flying. I am reserving
> the right to change my mind at any time.

If you can go "a few months" without flying, you were never addicted.

Probably a good thing, with prices rising. At some point, we addicts
will have to make some hard choices.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Then again it has only been a few months without flying. I am reserving
>> the right to change my mind at any time.
>
> If you can go "a few months" without flying, you were never addicted.
>
> Probably a good thing, with prices rising. At some point, we addicts
> will have to make some hard choices.

That is true. I love to fly, ride motorcycles, shoot, and several other
things, but I am addicted to none of them. I can, and have, gone two or
more years without doing any one of them as circumstances of college or
work dictated. Being addicted to anything is a bad deal and causes poor
decision making. This is true whether the addiction is to your job,
your hobby or a drug.


Matt

[Jon Kraus]

Jay,

It wasn't just the rising fuel prices (my home airport is now almost
$5.00 per gallon), it was a combination of costs that did it for me. The
ridiculously high maintenance costs also stuck a thorn in my side.

Every time something little went wrong (which happens on a 30 year old
machine) it was four or five hundred dollars. And since I wasn't willing
to let maintenance items slide there were many times having to pony up
extra bucks. I know that is the price of doing business when owning and
I sucked it up with a smile for a few years.

You fly a LOT more than I do and your life is all about aviation. Mine
is not. I have other interests and like most folks only a limited
budget. Maybe you are correct and I was never addicted but I think I
was. It is possible to recover from addictions and I think that is what
happened to me. Nobody recovers from an addiction without pain and "a
moment of clarity", mine was the pain in the wallet and the realization
that I was only flying 50 hours a year.

Life is about experiences and I am glad I have owning an airplane as
part of mine. Good luck to everyone and fly safe.

Jon

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Then again it has only been a few months without flying. I am reserving
>>the right to change my mind at any time.
>
>
> If you can go "a few months" without flying, you were never addicted.
>
> Probably a good thing, with prices rising. At some point, we addicts
> will have to make some hard choices.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-05-23, birdog > wrote:
> Why? My opinion, it's the expense. In the '60's and early 70's, our club
> used to fly an old Champ for $4 an hour and a 172 for $16 an hour, wet. We

$16 hr wet in 1970 dollars is $85 wet in 2006 dollars.

The Bay Area Aero Club in Houston, which I used to be a member of, rents
its 172 out at $75 hr today. So the price in real terms has actually
fallen.

It's not cost. It's something else. A general change in society is more
likely. How many people have spent beyond their means compared to 1970?
Are people less interested in doing an activity that takes months of
preparation and has limited utility? I honestly don't think cost is any
more of a factor today than it was in 1970 - and in real terms, people
are better off, too.

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> I think gas prices are really, really hurting the "common man".
>> I've got housekeepers and desk staff who have seen a HUGE increase in
>> their driving expense, with no compensating increase in wages. This
>> shortfall has to be made up somewhere ...
>
> Have them buy stock in Exxon. The money they are paying out in gas is
> going into shareholders' pockets.
>
>> IMHO, the big-box restaurant chains ("Applebees" and such) will get
>> hit the worst in an economic downturn. That's where a lot of
>> discretionary American income gets ****ed away nowadays, and it'll be
>> the first thing eliminated.
>
> Unfortunately, GA will probably go first.

No, it won't fjukktard


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> BDS writes:
>
>> In the mid-60s and early 70s people also did not have multiple cell
>> phones (one for each family member), cable/satellite TV, satellite
>> radio, "starter" homes the size of small castles, home entertainment
>> centers, or 2 brand new cars (one an SUV) in the driveway. Today
>> these are all looked at as "necessities", and they consume what would
>> otherwise be disposable income.
>
> The real disposable income for equivalent lifestyle has significantly
> diminished for the dwindling middle class.
>

You're an idiot.


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jon Kraus wrote:
> Jay,
>
> It wasn't just the rising fuel prices (my home airport is now almost
> $5.00 per gallon), it was a combination of costs that did it for me.
> The ridiculously high maintenance costs also stuck a thorn in my side.
>

I'm sure yu are right Jon. At my home airport it is the homebuilts that are
flying and the flyers that are fixing them.

[Jay Honeck]

> That is true. I love to fly, ride motorcycles, shoot, and several other
> things, but I am addicted to none of them. I can, and have, gone two or
> more years without doing any one of them as circumstances of college or
> work dictated. Being addicted to anything is a bad deal and causes poor
> decision making. This is true whether the addiction is to your job,
> your hobby or a drug.

Oh, I agree whole-heartedly. Being addicted to flying has caused me
to:

- Make strange career choices (Example: Giving up a 20+ year career in
newspapers)
- Induce my wife to give up her career as a Medical Technologist
- Fly every few days for almost 13 years
- Put away far less $$ for my future grandchildren's beer fund than I
otherwise would have
- Create a crazy, aviation-themed hotel in Iowa (of all places!), just
so I can hang out with pilots all day long
- Give up golf
- Spend my summers at a tin shack on a hot asphalt taxiway, rather
than fishing at a cabin on a cool lake

God help me, it's also made me the happiest guy alive. What can I
do?

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> You fly a LOT more than I do and your life is all about aviation. Mine
> is not. I have other interests and like most folks only a limited
> budget. Maybe you are correct and I was never addicted but I think I
> was. It is possible to recover from addictions and I think that is what
> happened to me. Nobody recovers from an addiction without pain and "a
> moment of clarity", mine was the pain in the wallet and the realization
> that I was only flying 50 hours a year.

I agree that if you only fly less than 60 minutes per week, there is
*no* reason (well, no sane financial reason) to own an airplane. At
that level, renting is the only way to go, as much of a PIA as that
is.

> Life is about experiences and I am glad I have owning an airplane as
> part of mine. Good luck to everyone and fly safe.

Amen, brother. Keep in touch, and keep current, at the very least.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> It's not cost. It's something else. A general change in society is more
> likely. How many people have spent beyond their means compared to 1970?
> Are people less interested in doing an activity that takes months of
> preparation and has limited utility? I honestly don't think cost is any
> more of a factor today than it was in 1970 - and in real terms, people
> are better off, too.

A thought: The "Depression" generation is now mostly gone. *Those*
people knew what true hardship was, understood the value of a dollar,
and (if they were like my parents) absolutely feared going into debt.
My parents would eat dirt before borrowing money, after living through
the hardships of the 1930s.

They managed to instill that same fear in me -- but I suspect that
attitude has been diluted over time, thus explaining the huge debt
loads so many people are now comfortable bearing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Maxwell]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>> 4 different Exec's have been housed in the hangar next to mine over the
>> years. Two were converted to the Jet Exec configuration. The
>> conventional Exec's seemed to have a very bad ratio of flying time to
>> maintenance time, and the Jet Exec's were at least as bad, and both had
>> serious powertrain failures in the few hours they flew.
>>
>> I never saw any of them leave the traffic pattern other than on a
>> trailer.
>>
>> If you want a helicopter, I suggest the Robinsons. I honestly don't
>> believe you'll get any utility whatsoever out of an Exec of any flavor...
>
> That is interesting as your assessment is quite different than what I've
> heard and read elsewhere. If they are really this bad, then their current
> effort to certify the design should be a real problem.
>

A strong interest in homebuilt helos drew me to the PRA convention in Dallas
a few years ago. But after seeing EVERYTHING including the infamous Carter
Copter, trailered in, it certainly changed my perspective. The only fly in
craft I recall were a few gyros from the surrounding areas. Even folks from
100 miles or so, trailered in.

Based on the description of your location and desires, I'd rather consider 2
place ultralight, licensed as an experimental. With the right craft you
might be able to find a suitable storage and landing site much closer to
home. And the overall costs are a fraction.

[Maxwell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> That is true. I love to fly, ride motorcycles, shoot, and several other
>> things, but I am addicted to none of them. I can, and have, gone two or
>> more years without doing any one of them as circumstances of college or
>> work dictated. Being addicted to anything is a bad deal and causes poor
>> decision making. This is true whether the addiction is to your job,
>> your hobby or a drug.
>
> Oh, I agree whole-heartedly. Being addicted to flying has caused me
> to:
>
> - Make strange career choices (Example: Giving up a 20+ year career in
> newspapers)
> - Induce my wife to give up her career as a Medical Technologist
> - Fly every few days for almost 13 years
> - Put away far less $$ for my future grandchildren's beer fund than I
> otherwise would have
> - Create a crazy, aviation-themed hotel in Iowa (of all places!), just
> so I can hang out with pilots all day long
> - Give up golf
> - Spend my summers at a tin shack on a hot asphalt taxiway, rather
> than fishing at a cabin on a cool lake
>
> God help me, it's also made me the happiest guy alive. What can I
> do?
>


Drink two cool beers tonight, and plan flight for in the morning!!!!!!!

[Maxwell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> It's not cost. It's something else. A general change in society is more
>> likely. How many people have spent beyond their means compared to 1970?
>> Are people less interested in doing an activity that takes months of
>> preparation and has limited utility? I honestly don't think cost is any
>> more of a factor today than it was in 1970 - and in real terms, people
>> are better off, too.
>
> A thought: The "Depression" generation is now mostly gone. *Those*
> people knew what true hardship was, understood the value of a dollar,
> and (if they were like my parents) absolutely feared going into debt.
> My parents would eat dirt before borrowing money, after living through
> the hardships of the 1930s.
>
> They managed to instill that same fear in me -- but I suspect that
> attitude has been diluted over time, thus explaining the huge debt
> loads so many people are now comfortable bearing.


Kind of makes you wonder how much the average family was paying in interest
in 1965 as compared to today, even with inflation. Most people I know have
to be spending enough on just interest every month, to fly several hours.

Also, we talk about cell phones, computers, cable TV, home theater, etc.,
and their cost to the average budget. But consider the accessories the
average pilot considers a must today as well. When I started flying in 1970,
most of us carried a rotary flight computer, plotter, log book, fuel tester
and maybe flash light. Today we feel we have to have hand held GPS,
electronic flight computers, lap desks, noise canceling head phones,
intercom systems,etc, etc, etc. Flying still doesn't have to be as expensive
as many of us make it.

[Jim Logajan]

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> It's not cost. It's something else. A general change in society is
> more likely.

I can spend my spare time getting a pilot certificate or spend my spare
time reading Usenet and browsing the Internet. ;-)

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Drink two cool beers tonight, and plan flight for in the morning!!!!!!!

If he drinks beers tonight, he should not fly earlier than tomorrow evening.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> At
> that level, renting is the only way to go,
>

NOt at all. Group ownership (a partnership) is a very interesting
option.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> It's not cost. It's something else. A general change in society is
> more likely.

I think you are right. It is the lack of willingness to take part in
anything that doesn't lead to immediate satisfaction. I know that when I
started building my own plane the only thing that shocked people as much as
the idea of building a plane is that I would invest the multiple years
required to do it.

Since there has been talk of having to give up things in order to fly I did.
I gave up one thing to build my plane. I suspended my Country Club
membership and stopped playing golf. What I spent on golf and CC membership
and its associated costs has paid for my 601XL to be built. When I get
finished with the plane I might take golf up again but I probably won't
reactivate my membership.

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Drink two cool beers tonight, and plan flight for in the morning!!!!!!!
>
> If he drinks beers tonight, he should not fly earlier than tomorrow evening.
>
Bzzzz Wrong answer! Try looking up the regulations.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Drink two cool beers tonight, and plan flight for in the morning!!!!!!!
>
> If he drinks beers tonight, he should not fly earlier than tomorrow
> evening.
>

Clueless as usual. At least you are consistant. Alway the village idiot.

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> Bzzzz Wrong answer! Try looking up the regulations.

My observation had nothing to do with regulations; it was motivated by safety
considerations. Flying under the influence of many drugs, including ethanol,
is unsafe.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> John Theune writes:
>
>> Bzzzz Wrong answer! Try looking up the regulations.
>
> My observation had nothing to do with regulations; it was motivated by safety
> considerations. Flying under the influence of many drugs, including ethanol,
> is unsafe.
>
And what makes you think that there will be any effect from having 2
beers tonight when you want to fly tommorow?

[Jon Kraus]

A partnership is what I just got out of. For the amount of flying I was
doing it was exponentially more expensive than renting.

Jon

Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
> NOt at all. Group ownership (a partnership) is a very interesting
> option.
>

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> That is true. I love to fly, ride motorcycles, shoot, and several other
>> things, but I am addicted to none of them. I can, and have, gone two or
>> more years without doing any one of them as circumstances of college or
>> work dictated. Being addicted to anything is a bad deal and causes poor
>> decision making. This is true whether the addiction is to your job,
>> your hobby or a drug.
>
> Oh, I agree whole-heartedly. Being addicted to flying has caused me
> to:
>
> - Make strange career choices (Example: Giving up a 20+ year career in
> newspapers)
> - Induce my wife to give up her career as a Medical Technologist
> - Fly every few days for almost 13 years
> - Put away far less $$ for my future grandchildren's beer fund than I
> otherwise would have
> - Create a crazy, aviation-themed hotel in Iowa (of all places!), just
> so I can hang out with pilots all day long
> - Give up golf
> - Spend my summers at a tin shack on a hot asphalt taxiway, rather
> than fishing at a cabin on a cool lake
>
> God help me, it's also made me the happiest guy alive. What can I
> do?

Why do you want to do anything? :-) If it works for you...

For me, that would be the unhappiest of existences. I'm a "variety is
the spice of life" person. If I'm not involved in five things at any
given time I feel completely deprived, and I live to have a different
five every few years. Such a one dimensional life would drive me
absolutely nuts.


Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> I agree that if you only fly less than 60 minutes per week, there is
> *no* reason (well, no sane financial reason) to own an airplane. At
> that level, renting is the only way to go, as much of a PIA as that
> is.

There is more to owning an airplane than flying. I also love to work
on the airplane. Many would probably consider me sick, but I enjoy
even simple stuff like changing the oil (of my airplane). The engine
overhaul, etc I did in 2002 was hideously expensive, but the hundreds
of hours I spent taking stuff off the plane, putting it back together, etc
were one aspect of owning that I wouldn't want to give up.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> And what makes you think that there will be any effect from having 2
> beers tonight when you want to fly tommorow?

The burden of proof is upon anyone who claims otherwise. I would not fly with
a pilot who is on drugs.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Noel writes:

> There is more to owning an airplane than flying. I also love to work
> on the airplane. Many would probably consider me sick, but I enjoy
> even simple stuff like changing the oil (of my airplane). The engine
> overhaul, etc I did in 2002 was hideously expensive, but the hundreds
> of hours I spent taking stuff off the plane, putting it back together, etc
> were one aspect of owning that I wouldn't want to give up.

Those are also aspects of ownership that would strongly discourage anyone
interested in flying only.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[george]

On May 25, 4:15 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> John Theune writes:
> > And what makes you think that there will be any effect from having 2
> > beers tonight when you want to fly tommorow?
>
> The burden of proof is upon anyone who claims otherwise. I would not fly with
> a pilot who is on drugs.

You do not fly.
period.
for the real pilots in here 12 hours bottle to throttle worked for me

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> John Theune writes:
>
>> And what makes you think that there will be any effect from having 2
>> beers tonight when you want to fly tommorow?
>
> The burden of proof is upon anyone who claims otherwise. I would not fly with
> a pilot who is on drugs.
>
No actually the burden of proof is on the fool make the claim that far
exceeds any rational basis.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> John Theune writes:
>
>> And what makes you think that there will be any effect from having 2
>> beers tonight when you want to fly tommorow?
>
> The burden of proof is upon anyone who claims otherwise. I would not
> fly with a pilot who is on drugs.

Unless you took a boat when you went from the USA to France and you classify
"a pilot on drug" as someone that had a drink or two the night before and
then flew the next morning then it is likely you have.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > John Theune writes:
> >
> >> And what makes you think that there will be any effect from having 2
> >> beers tonight when you want to fly tommorow?
> >
> > The burden of proof is upon anyone who claims otherwise. I would not
> > fly with a pilot who is on drugs.
>
> Unless you took a boat when you went from the USA to France and you classify
> "a pilot on drug" as someone that had a drink or two the night before and
> then flew the next morning then it is likely you have.

If he took a boat, what makes you think the crew of the boat was any more
sober than the crew of anything else? Try googling for Exxon Valdez.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> Those are also aspects of ownership that would strongly discourage anyone
> interested in flying only.
>

As if you had a clue.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Unless you took a boat when you went from the USA to France and you classify
> "a pilot on drug" as someone that had a drink or two the night before and
> then flew the next morning then it is likely you have.

A pilot on drugs is a pilot whose piloting skill are being negatively impacted
by medications currently in his system, including illicit drugs and drugs of
addiction such as ethanol.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

> The real disposable income for equivalent lifestyle has significantly
> diminished for the dwindling middle class.

That's not true when you consider that money today can buy
extraordinarily fancy stuff compared to even just a few years ago. I
remember digital SLRs in 1998 were selling for USD 18000 while today
you can get a good one for less than a 1000. If you look at catalogues
from even 2001, you will laugh at the primitive camcorders that came
with floppy drives etc. Plus do not forget the internet, wikipedia and
google are priceless yet free.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> That's not true when you consider that money today can buy
> extraordinarily fancy stuff compared to even just a few years ago.

Like a gallon of gas, you mean?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On May 25, 7:50 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
> > Unless you took a boat when you went from the USA to France and you classify
> > "a pilot on drug" as someone that had a drink or two the night before and
> > then flew the next morning then it is likely you have.
>
> A pilot on drugs is a pilot whose piloting skill are being negatively impacted
> by medications currently in his system, including illicit drugs and drugs of
> addiction such as ethanol.

What's it matter to you , fjukktard? You don't fly.


Bertie
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On May 25, 5:16 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bob Noel writes:
> > There is more to owning an airplane than flying. I also love to work
> > on the airplane. Many would probably consider me sick, but I enjoy
> > even simple stuff like changing the oil (of my airplane). The engine
> > overhaul, etc I did in 2002 was hideously expensive, but the hundreds
> > of hours I spent taking stuff off the plane, putting it back together, etc
> > were one aspect of owning that I wouldn't want to give up.
>
> Those are also aspects of ownership that would strongly discourage anyone
> interested in flying only.
>

?How woul dyou know? you aren't interested in flying, are you?


Bertie
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On May 26, 12:35 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > That's not true when you consider that money today can buy
> > extraordinarily fancy stuff compared to even just a few years ago.
>
> Like a gallon of gas, you mean?
>

Doesn't take gas to fly, you stupid fjukktard.


Bertie
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

>
> Like a gallon of gas, you mean?
>

Non-sequitor.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Non-sequitor.

Fuel is an important component of the cost of living.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Unless you took a boat when you went from the USA to France and you
>> classify
>> "a pilot on drug" as someone that had a drink or two the night before and
>> then flew the next morning then it is likely you have.
>
> A pilot on drugs is a pilot whose piloting skill are being negatively
> impacted
> by medications currently in his system, including illicit drugs and drugs
> of
> addiction such as ethanol.
>

Totally irrelevant to the thread at this point. You're comprehension skills
suck!

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Non-sequitor.
>
> Fuel is an important component of the cost of living.
>

You're whining again puss.