Gloom

[Jay Honeck]

Mary and I just returned from a wonderful weekend at the Cherokee
Pilots Association national fly-in, held annually in Osage Beach,
Missouri, at the Tan-Tar-A resort. We had a wonderful time, catching
up with old friends, and making new ones. We bought some cool stuff
from the vendors, gave away some hotel certificates to CPA members,
and I enjoyed a marvelous Father's Day flight home.

So why the gloom?

After four straight years of strong growth, attendance at this
fabulous fly-in took a sudden, breath-taking tumble. Some organizers
were saying it was down 35%, some were privately saying 40% -- but
there was no denying the fact that the airport was ready for FAR more
aircraft than showed up. There were many, many ready-but-empty tie
downs, and the dinner crowd was a shadow of prior years.

More alarmingly, there were NO Cherokee 140s to be judged for "Best
Cherokee 140" at the show. That is NOT a mis-print -- I really said
there were NONE. In prior years, Cherokee 140s have naturally made up
the vast majority of fly-in attendees (since they were built in the
greatest numbers), but this year not a single one (other than Art
Matson's highly modified AMR&D experimental 140) showed up.

Not a single one! It was absolutely scary.

Over dinner and drinks, those of us who did show up (and there were
over 75 Arrows, Archers, Pathfinders, Dakotas, Lances and Saratogas)
debated what had happened to the "entry level" Cherokees?

The general consensus, after too many gin & tonics, was that the entry-
level Cherokee owners were the owners who were barely able to afford
ownership in the first place, and have been most devastated by the
recent 25% increase in fuel costs. In other words, they were the
"canaries in the bird cage", and have died first and quickest, to
serve as a warning to us all...

Then, just as we had recovered from the shock of this stark
realization, we were "treated" to the keynote speaker at the fly-in,
the new CEO of Piper, James Bass. (Read more about him here:
http://www.cherokeeflyin.com/html/keynote.html)

In his speech, Mr. Bass touted the fact that Piper had gone back to
its original name (no more "New Piper" nonsense), had returned to
profitability, and recovered from the three hurricanes that had
devastated their Vero Beach facilities. All good things, indeed, and
each announcement was met with enthusiastic applause.

Then things went downhill.

He went on to state that Piper would no longer be able to provide
parts support for "ancient" aircraft, and tossed out a "maximum" age
of 25 years. Of course, the room was packed with people flying planes
that were, on average, 30 years old -- so the room became silent at
this quasi-announcement. (No one is quite sure if he was really
"announcing" this change, or if he was just floating the idea...)

He also stated that Piper was not interested in licensing the rights
to build parts for older planes, because they would still be liable
for them -- and everything in their business was now dictated by
product liability.

Then Bass went on to spend half an hour trumpeting the new PiperJet,
which has supposedly already racked up 180 firm orders. With a whiz-
bang PowerPoint presentation, he went on to outline the features of
this $2+ million jet to a room full of Cherokee pilots -- all of whom
only wanted to hear about piston singles.

He then drove the stake in further by stating unequivocably that Piper
would NOT be entering the Light Sport market, thus confirming (to most
attendees) that Piper was on the verge of completely abandoning their
piston single line.

To say that this guy made no friends in Osage Beach would be an
understatement. Although no one was impolite, the post-speech
questions were quite pointed and blunt, and it was quite obvious that
no one was hearing what they had wanted to hear.

One guy in particular asked about building and supported piston
singles over wasting $100 million in company funds building a
vaporware jet, and Bass replied "So are you saying that we should
continue building piston singles at a loss, and go out of business?"
-- to which the questioner testily responded "No, you should build
piston singles that people want, at a PROFIT."

God almighty, folks, as if the writing wasn't on the wall enough, this
fly-in has proved to me that our beloved GA is teetering at the abyss.
I looked around the ballroom, at all these gray-haired old guys
wearing brightly-colored, aviation themed Hawaiian shirts, and
realized that I was possibly witnessing the end of an era. Between
"User Fees" on one side, fuel costs on the other, and an aging pilot
community, I don't know anymore what to think or do.

I sincerely hope the fly-in rebounds strongly next year, and that this
downturn is merely a momentary pause, before we see some explosive
growth in GA. I hope Oshkosh this year is bigger and better than
ever, and that everyone who isn't flying now will muster the will (and
the funds) to attend AirVenture. I pray that OSH doesn't suffer the
same kind of decline that we've seen at Sun N Fun and now the Cherokee
Pilots Association fly-in.

Mary and I will keep on keeping on, flying as often and as far as we
can, spreading the good word of aviation, and we will continue to
strive to create the ultimate fly-in destination at our aviation-
themed hotel -- but after this weekend I surely can't help but feel
like we're seeing the last days of "common-man" pilot/owners in
America...

Get out there and FLY, people!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
>
>
> He also stated that Piper was not interested in licensing the rights
> to build parts for older planes, because they would still be liable
> for them -- and everything in their business was now dictated by
> product liability.

That, and recent rumblings about shops' declining to service >18-yr. old
aircraft convinced me to buy a nearly new 182 rather than a 15-yr. old
Bonanza.

Are we the last generation of light GA private flyers? It's starting to look
like it.


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Harry[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> So why the gloom?
>
> The general consensus, after too many gin & tonics, was that the entry-
> level Cherokee owners were the owners who were barely able to afford
> ownership in the first place, and have been most devastated by the
> recent 25% increase in fuel costs. In other words, they were the
> "canaries in the bird cage", and have died first and quickest, to
> serve as a warning to us all...
>
>
>
> God almighty, folks, as if the writing wasn't on the wall enough, this
> fly-in has proved to me that our beloved GA is teetering at the abyss.
> I looked around the ballroom, at all these gray-haired old guys
> wearing brightly-colored, aviation themed Hawaiian shirts, and
> realized that I was possibly witnessing the end of an era. Between
> "User Fees" on one side, fuel costs on the other, and an aging pilot
> community, I don't know anymore what to think or do.
>
>
> Get out there and FLY, people!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Jay, I'm one of those "gray-haired old guys" albeit, I don't wear the
"brightly-colored, aviation themed Hawaiian shirts." HAHA

Seriously, I am retired and I now live on what is affectionally called the
"fixed income". When I first started flying several years ago, I could
afford it without any problems. However, with the increase in fuel costs
raising the rental price on the C-172, I rent, I just can't fly as much now
as I want to. You may be right. We may becoming to the end of an era. Oh,
BTW, buying a C-172 for me is absolutely out of the financial equation.

I won't be flying in but, I'll be looking for you and the others at Oshkosh!

Best,

Harry
PP-ASEL
San Antonio, TX

[Jay Honeck]

> I won't be flying in but, I'll be looking for you and the others at Oshkosh!

Good to hear, Harry -- I'm sure we'll have a cold one on ice for ya!

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

[Jay Honeck]

> That, and recent rumblings about shops' declining to service >18-yr. old
> aircraft convinced me to buy a nearly new 182 rather than a 15-yr. old
> Bonanza.

Oh, I don't think we'll have to worry too much about spare parts for
planes like Cherokees and Bonanzas for a good, long time, even if
Piper and Beech bailed out. All you have to do is look at the
plethora of interior plastic suppliers to see what happens when the
OEMs price themselves too high in an area that everyone needs/
wants.

Still, it's truly disturbing to see that the CEO of Piper has done the
cold, hard math, and concluded that General Aviation is no longer
worth pursuing. If Bass is really as smart as everyone says he is
(and his reputation at Sony and General Electric is pristine), we're
in for a long, hard road.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Helen]

Jay, it's not technically a Piper, but you ought to check out the new
SportCruiser we rent and sell:

> http://www.chesapeakesportpilot.com/sales.htm
> http://www.chesapeakesportpilot.com/

This plane is what Piper would have come up with if they had entered the
light sport market. It is seriously roomy, fast, quiet, and burns just
3gph with Piper handing and custom panel. We're renting it at $85/h
factory new.

IMHO, Piper is foolish for not going into this market. We've had our
school open for just under two months and are picking up students from 4
states at a rate of a half dozen a week. We are struggling to add
planes and instructors fast enough to keep up with the demand. We've
had the SportCruiser for a matter of weeks and already it is booking up
solid.

Piper's future in piston GA may be doomed, but certainly GA itself. The
LSA market will see to that.

Helen


Jay Honeck wrote:
> Mary and I just returned from a wonderful weekend at the Cherokee
> Pilots Association national fly-in, held annually in Osage Beach,
> Missouri, at the Tan-Tar-A resort. We had a wonderful time, catching
> up with old friends, and making new ones. We bought some cool stuff
> from the vendors, gave away some hotel certificates to CPA members,
> and I enjoyed a marvelous Father's Day flight home.
>
> So why the gloom?
>
> After four straight years of strong growth, attendance at this
> fabulous fly-in took a sudden, breath-taking tumble. Some organizers
> were saying it was down 35%, some were privately saying 40% -- but
> there was no denying the fact that the airport was ready for FAR more
> aircraft than showed up. There were many, many ready-but-empty tie
> downs, and the dinner crowd was a shadow of prior years.
>
> More alarmingly, there were NO Cherokee 140s to be judged for "Best
> Cherokee 140" at the show. That is NOT a mis-print -- I really said
> there were NONE. In prior years, Cherokee 140s have naturally made up
> the vast majority of fly-in attendees (since they were built in the
> greatest numbers), but this year not a single one (other than Art
> Matson's highly modified AMR&D experimental 140) showed up.
>
> Not a single one! It was absolutely scary.
>
> Over dinner and drinks, those of us who did show up (and there were
> over 75 Arrows, Archers, Pathfinders, Dakotas, Lances and Saratogas)
> debated what had happened to the "entry level" Cherokees?
>
> The general consensus, after too many gin & tonics, was that the entry-
> level Cherokee owners were the owners who were barely able to afford
> ownership in the first place, and have been most devastated by the
> recent 25% increase in fuel costs. In other words, they were the
> "canaries in the bird cage", and have died first and quickest, to
> serve as a warning to us all...
>
> Then, just as we had recovered from the shock of this stark
> realization, we were "treated" to the keynote speaker at the fly-in,
> the new CEO of Piper, James Bass. (Read more about him here:
> http://www.cherokeeflyin.com/html/keynote.html)
>
> In his speech, Mr. Bass touted the fact that Piper had gone back to
> its original name (no more "New Piper" nonsense), had returned to
> profitability, and recovered from the three hurricanes that had
> devastated their Vero Beach facilities. All good things, indeed, and
> each announcement was met with enthusiastic applause.
>
> Then things went downhill.
>
> He went on to state that Piper would no longer be able to provide
> parts support for "ancient" aircraft, and tossed out a "maximum" age
> of 25 years. Of course, the room was packed with people flying planes
> that were, on average, 30 years old -- so the room became silent at
> this quasi-announcement. (No one is quite sure if he was really
> "announcing" this change, or if he was just floating the idea...)
>
> He also stated that Piper was not interested in licensing the rights
> to build parts for older planes, because they would still be liable
> for them -- and everything in their business was now dictated by
> product liability.
>
> Then Bass went on to spend half an hour trumpeting the new PiperJet,
> which has supposedly already racked up 180 firm orders. With a whiz-
> bang PowerPoint presentation, he went on to outline the features of
> this $2+ million jet to a room full of Cherokee pilots -- all of whom
> only wanted to hear about piston singles.
>
> He then drove the stake in further by stating unequivocably that Piper
> would NOT be entering the Light Sport market, thus confirming (to most
> attendees) that Piper was on the verge of completely abandoning their
> piston single line.
>
> To say that this guy made no friends in Osage Beach would be an
> understatement. Although no one was impolite, the post-speech
> questions were quite pointed and blunt, and it was quite obvious that
> no one was hearing what they had wanted to hear.
>
> One guy in particular asked about building and supported piston
> singles over wasting $100 million in company funds building a
> vaporware jet, and Bass replied "So are you saying that we should
> continue building piston singles at a loss, and go out of business?"
> -- to which the questioner testily responded "No, you should build
> piston singles that people want, at a PROFIT."
>
> God almighty, folks, as if the writing wasn't on the wall enough, this
> fly-in has proved to me that our beloved GA is teetering at the abyss.
> I looked around the ballroom, at all these gray-haired old guys
> wearing brightly-colored, aviation themed Hawaiian shirts, and
> realized that I was possibly witnessing the end of an era. Between
> "User Fees" on one side, fuel costs on the other, and an aging pilot
> community, I don't know anymore what to think or do.
>
> I sincerely hope the fly-in rebounds strongly next year, and that this
> downturn is merely a momentary pause, before we see some explosive
> growth in GA. I hope Oshkosh this year is bigger and better than
> ever, and that everyone who isn't flying now will muster the will (and
> the funds) to attend AirVenture. I pray that OSH doesn't suffer the
> same kind of decline that we've seen at Sun N Fun and now the Cherokee
> Pilots Association fly-in.
>
> Mary and I will keep on keeping on, flying as often and as far as we
> can, spreading the good word of aviation, and we will continue to
> strive to create the ultimate fly-in destination at our aviation-
> themed hotel -- but after this weekend I surely can't help but feel
> like we're seeing the last days of "common-man" pilot/owners in
> America...
>
> Get out there and FLY, people!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

> Still, it's truly disturbing to see that the CEO of Piper has done the
> cold, hard math, and concluded that General Aviation is no longer
> worth pursuing. If Bass is really as smart as everyone says he is
> (and his reputation at Sony and General Electric is pristine), we're
> in for a long, hard road.


F*** him.

I'm going to keep flying until they pry my cold, dead etc...

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

As I mentioned to my A&P this afternoon, GA has one foot in the grave
and the other on ice. Remember the fuel chart showing 100LL
deliveries with a steady decline over the last decade or so? We
supposedly have over 400 aircraft at my field and there were about 150
ops today, with 84 of those from 42 T&Gs.

If the FAA gets their way with user fees and higher fuel taxes, the
other foot is gone.

Ron Lee

[Jay Honeck]

> IMHO, Piper is foolish for not going into this market.

Agree 100%. They claim there is "no margin" in LSA aircraft, but I
don't believe it.

> We've had our
> school open for just under two months and are picking up students from 4
> states at a rate of a half dozen a week.

Contrast this with our local FBO's attitude toward Light Sport:

We recently had a guest who was interested in pursuing his dream of
flying, and wanted to go Light Sport. I told him that I'd see if I
could find an LSA instructor and aircraft in which he could train.

My first call was naturally to our local FBO, whose response was blunt
and telling: "We don't mess with that ****."

Our FBO, like so many others, only provides flight training because
it's a requirement of their contract with the city. In the absence of
that contract, they would close their flight school in a heartbeat,
preferring to cater to the King Air and Citation crowd...

Our guest found an instructor and aircraft at a smaller, nearby
airport, so the story doesn't end entirely sadly. But it's just SO
frustrating to see the skies over Iowa City slowly becoming empty
thanks to people in the industry who simply don't understand that
without an active, proactive interest in flight training EVERYTHING
stops in about ten years.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> He went on to state that Piper would no longer be able to provide
> parts support for "ancient" aircraft, and tossed out a "maximum" age
> of 25 years.

That's a familiar number. Isn't that the age at which liability ends,
or somesuch?

> everything in their business was now dictated by
> product liability.

There you go.

> Mary and I will keep on keeping on, flying as often and as far as we
> can, spreading the good word of aviation

How much flying would you be doing if you could not write off any of it?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> What are they selling that has returned them to profitability?

Apparently the Malibu, Meridian, and Cherokee Six.

> I hope the infusion of cash from Honda to build the PiperJet isn't being
> called "profit". That would spell the end of the company in a very short
> time.

I don't think so. Bass is estimating that the PiperJet will require a
$100 million dollar investment over the next ten years. He also
claims that they can make money selling them from the very first one
-- which, of course, doesn't factor in a return on his investment.

> >I don't know anymore what to think or do.
>
> Sure, you do. But, denial is a powerful thing. If someone can't spring for
> a new $.5M piston single they'll be forced to either buy into a plane with
> a very short operative lifetime due to a lack of replacement parts or fold
> their tent. I hate to add to the gloom, but the picture has looked bleak
> for a couple of years, now. The only hope is that LSA can fill in the gap
> between reasonably priced used singles and new planes that are out of
> reach for most GA pilots.

I agree, although the cost of LSAs is certainly no bargan. You can
buy a VERY nice Cherokee 140 for half of what the cheapest LSA is
going for nowadays.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> But it's just SO
> frustrating to see the skies over Iowa City slowly becoming empty
> thanks to people in the industry who simply don't understand that
> without an active, proactive interest in flight training EVERYTHING
> stops in about ten years.

Ever think of starting an FBO? You've got your motel going, why not
attach an FBO to it and devote more of your time to aviation?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Then things went downhill.

Not to start a Cessna vs. Piper debate(!), but I have to contrast your report on Piper's strategy with the
reports from the Cessna Pilots Association fly-in held in Wichita a few weeks ago. I wasn't there
personally, so this is just second-hand, but the reports have been very positive, with Cessna hosting
factory tours, demonstrations, and seminars, both at Wichita and at their single engine manufacturing
facility in Independence. There was also lots of positive buzz about their LSA and NGP prototypes and
business plans. So, is Piper's strategy really indicative of the industry as a whole, or just one company's
direction?

Mike

[Peter Dohm]

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
> > But it's just SO
> > frustrating to see the skies over Iowa City slowly becoming empty
> > thanks to people in the industry who simply don't understand that
> > without an active, proactive interest in flight training EVERYTHING
> > stops in about ten years.
>
> Ever think of starting an FBO? You've got your motel going, why not
> attach an FBO to it and devote more of your time to aviation?
>
> Jose
> --

You could even ask about a "through the fence agreement."

Stranger things have happened.

Peter

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-17 22:10:31 -0400, Helen > said:

> Jay, it's not technically a Piper, but you ought to check out the new
> SportCruiser we rent and sell:
>
>> http://www.chesapeakesportpilot.com/sales.htm
>> http://www.chesapeakesportpilot.com/
>
> This plane is what Piper would have come up with if they had entered
> the light sport market. It is seriously roomy, fast, quiet, and burns
> just 3gph with Piper handing and custom panel. We're renting it at
> $85/h factory new.
>
> IMHO, Piper is foolish for not going into this market. We've had our
> school open for just under two months and are picking up students from
> 4 states at a rate of a half dozen a week. We are struggling to add
> planes and instructors fast enough to keep up with the demand. We've
> had the SportCruiser for a matter of weeks and already it is booking up
> solid.
>
> Piper's future in piston GA may be doomed, but certainly GA itself.
> The LSA market will see to that.
>
> Helen
>>

You are absolutely correct in my opinion. It's aircraft like this that
will save General Aviation if indeed, after the lawyers, and the
government have finished with it, there is anything left of General
Aviation to be saved.
These airplanes are marvels of design and engineering. They have
entered the market at exactly the right time. Now, if the lawyers can
only keep their greedy hands out of the pockets of the manufacturers
causing that 85 an hour to go to 185 an hour to cover fear of
litigation costs, GA just might have a chance.
Dudley Henriques

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:
> [...]
> In his speech, Mr. Bass touted the fact that Piper had gone back to
> its original name (no more "New Piper" nonsense), had returned to
> profitability, and recovered from the three hurricanes that had
> devastated their Vero Beach facilities. All good things, indeed, and
> each announcement was met with enthusiastic applause.
>
What are they selling that has returned them to profitability?

[...]
> Then Bass went on to spend half an hour trumpeting the new PiperJet,
> which has supposedly already racked up 180 firm orders. With a whiz-
> bang PowerPoint presentation, he went on to outline the features of
> this $2+ million jet to a room full of Cherokee pilots -- all of whom
> only wanted to hear about piston singles.
>
I hope the infusion of cash from Honda to build the PiperJet isn't being
called "profit". That would spell the end of the company in a very short
time.

[...]
> God almighty, folks, as if the writing wasn't on the wall enough, this
> fly-in has proved to me that our beloved GA is teetering at the abyss.
> I looked around the ballroom, at all these gray-haired old guys
> wearing brightly-colored, aviation themed Hawaiian shirts, and
> realized that I was possibly witnessing the end of an era. Between
> "User Fees" on one side, fuel costs on the other, and an aging pilot
> community, I don't know anymore what to think or do.
>
Sure, you do. But, denial is a powerful thing. If someone can't spring for
a new $.5M piston single they'll be forced to either buy into a plane with
a very short operative lifetime due to a lack of replacement parts or fold
their tent. I hate to add to the gloom, but the picture has looked bleak
for a couple of years, now. The only hope is that LSA can fill in the gap
between reasonably priced used singles and new planes that are out of
reach for most GA pilots.

Neil

[Jay Honeck]

> Not to start a Cessna vs. Piper debate(!), but I have to contrast your report on Piper's strategy with the
> reports from the Cessna Pilots Association fly-in held in Wichita a few weeks ago. I wasn't there
> personally, so this is just second-hand, but the reports have been very positive, with Cessna hosting
> factory tours, demonstrations, and seminars, both at Wichita and at their single engine manufacturing
> facility in Independence. There was also lots of positive buzz about their LSA and NGP prototypes and
> business plans. So, is Piper's strategy really indicative of the industry as a whole, or just one company's
> direction?

Oh, there's no doubt that Cessna is in GA for the long haul -- but
they *already have* their jet(s). They probably make more profit on
a single Citation than on ten (or more?) Skyhawks, and that's what
Piper is aiming at.

Difference is (as has been the case since the 1940s), Piper is way
behind the marketing curve. They needed to have a light jet 25 years
ago.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[James Sleeman]

On Jun 18, 1:06 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> He then drove the stake in further by stating unequivocably that Piper
> would NOT be entering the Light Sport market, thus confirming (to most
> attendees) that Piper was on the verge of completely abandoning their
> piston single line.

Seems to me that Piper is Piper in name only, it's a brand with
recognition and that's what the company is going to trade on. By
showing distinct disinterest in the LSA market they have, whether they
wanted to or not, basically written themselves out of piston single
GA.

LSA (and the equivalents in other countries) is, without any shadow of
a doubt, the way that GA for recreational flyers (and flying school
fleets) is going, any company that doesn't see that is going to be
left behind.

10 years from now, I expect that the large majority of recreational
and student pilots will behind the stick of an LSA, traditional GA
isn't going to be cost effective for too much longer.

[EridanMan]

Hey Jay...

Its really striking to read this after I just got back from watching
the sun set 2000 feet over Point Reyes (the Western-Most point in
California).

I Bought my bird/passed my check ride at 24, I'm now 25. Being a
pilot in my generation (The "boomerang generation"... how's that for a
distinction) has been a weird experience. Let me put it this way -
when I told my highschool friends that I had just purchased an
aircraft, the reaction I received was... well, frankly, about akin to
that I would I have expected if I had told them I had just been
selected as an astronaut. Its not that they didn't respect it. It
was just that, for this generation, so sheltered by parents who never
wished for them to feel rough ground on their feet, the concept of any
one of their peers taking on a roll with so much risk and
responsibility attached was _literally_ beyond their capacity to
comprehend. "You WHAT?!" "Isn't that dangerous?" "Don't you get
scared?" "That's so cool... I wish I could do that..." The response
ranges from horror to disbelief to jealousy... the only attitude sadly
missing is "cool, how can I get into that?" The idea that flying an
aircraft is an option available to them simply does not exist.

I don't know whether the issue is bad publicity on the part of GA, or
whether it's just a testament to the pathetic nature of my
generation. I'm betting on the latter.

But either way... I mourn it.

The Piper CEO's words bother, but do not surprise me. It's right
along the same lines as my generation's sentiments- that the future of
aviation (and hence the money) lies with the privilidged few. That
the concept that the every day man who possesses the passion and
desire can fly and should be supported in doing so is being lost.
Every day the dream of flight moves further towards that available
only towards the privileged upper echelon.

The young blood is out there... I know many of them... but not nearly
enough. I just wish I knew what I could do about it.

I wish I knew that there was something I could do about it.

But in the end all I can say is screw it. Screw my generation, screw
the affluence-chasing new CEO piper... In the end all that matters is
that I can go watch the sun set from 2000 feet over the Pacific Ocean
on a whim...

And wow, it was beautiful.

-Scott

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> He went on to state that Piper would no longer be able to provide
> parts support for "ancient" aircraft, and tossed out a "maximum" age
> of 25 years. Of course, the room was packed with people flying planes
> that were, on average, 30 years old -- so the room became silent at
> this quasi-announcement. (No one is quite sure if he was really
> "announcing" this change, or if he was just floating the idea...)

Quite surprising, given that the average age of small GA aircraft is above 30
these days (around 35, I think).

> Get out there and FLY, people!

On whose dime?

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Our guest found an instructor and aircraft at a smaller, nearby
> airport, so the story doesn't end entirely sadly. But it's just SO
> frustrating to see the skies over Iowa City slowly becoming empty
> thanks to people in the industry who simply don't understand that
> without an active, proactive interest in flight training EVERYTHING
> stops in about ten years.

For GA pilots flying for pleasure, maybe. But a lot of people care only about
aviation as transportation, and that will still be alive and well in ten
years, I suspect.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Our guest found an instructor and aircraft at a smaller, nearby
>> airport, so the story doesn't end entirely sadly. But it's just SO
>> frustrating to see the skies over Iowa City slowly becoming empty
>> thanks to people in the industry who simply don't understand that
>> without an active, proactive interest in flight training EVERYTHING
>> stops in about ten years.
>
> For GA pilots flying for pleasure, maybe. But a lot of people care
> only about aviation as transportation, and that will still be alive
> and well in ten years, I suspect.
>

Who cares what you think? You don't fly


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> He went on to state that Piper would no longer be able to provide
>> parts support for "ancient" aircraft, and tossed out a "maximum" age
>> of 25 years. Of course, the room was packed with people flying
>> planes that were, on average, 30 years old -- so the room became
>> silent at this quasi-announcement. (No one is quite sure if he was
>> really "announcing" this change, or if he was just floating the
>> idea...)
>
> Quite surprising, given that the average age of small GA aircraft is
> above 30 these days (around 35, I think).


Soi what? You don't fly anyway

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> I hope the infusion of cash from Honda to build the PiperJet isn't being
> called "profit". That would spell the end of the company in a very short
> time.

In today's world of anonymous and institutional shareholders, a very short
time is the only kind of time--nobody plans for the long term. The objective
is to make maximum profits in minimum time. If a company ceases to do that,
it is carved into pieces and sold. Nobody cares about what the company
produces or how long it lives; it's just an interchangeable profit machine
that is dismantled and discarded once it ceases to produce profits quickly
enough.

That's the way all large public corporations are being managed these days, and
the results for society are always the same.

[Mxsmanic]

EridanMan writes:

> But in the end all I can say is screw it. Screw my generation, screw
> the affluence-chasing new CEO piper... In the end all that matters is
> that I can go watch the sun set from 2000 feet over the Pacific Ocean
> on a whim...

In part, you illustrate the problem: Aviation is attainable for you because
you are so passionate about it that you are willing to sacrifice many other
things to have it. But most people aren't that way, and aviation is so
cripplingly expensive that anyone who doesn't have a very single-minded
interest in it--or a fat bank account--cannot see it as a practical option.
That's the real problem for GA, not any fear of flying.

However, I do agree that the fearfulness of society as a whole today is
remarkable and worrisome, the result of decades of high-tech media propaganda
cashing in on paranoia and FUD. Unfortunately, fearful people are very easily
manipulated and controlled, and tend to make only irrational decisions when
allowed to act on their own.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> I hope the infusion of cash from Honda to build the PiperJet isn't
>> being called "profit". That would spell the end of the company in a
>> very short time.
>
> In today's world of anonymous and institutional shareholders, a very
> short time is the only kind of time--nobody plans for the long term.
> The objective is to make maximum profits in minimum time.

Never a prob for you, eh bankrupt boi?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> EridanMan writes:
>
>> But in the end all I can say is screw it. Screw my generation, screw
>> the affluence-chasing new CEO piper... In the end all that matters
>> is that I can go watch the sun set from 2000 feet over the Pacific
>> Ocean on a whim...
>
> In part, you illustrate the problem: Aviation is attainable for you
> because you are so passionate about it that you are willing to
> sacrifice many other things to have it.


Also helps if you're not bankrupt####

Bertie

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-06-18, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> I agree, although the cost of LSAs is certainly no bargan. You can
> buy a VERY nice Cherokee 140 for half of what the cheapest LSA is
> going for nowadays.

Looking at the LSA earlier in the thread - if I had the choice of going
in and buying one of those with three other people, versus outright
owning a Cherokee 140, I'd buy the LSA in a heartbeat. The LSA mentioned
earlier in the thread looks so damned sexy, and burns about 1/3rd of the
fuel of a Cherokee 140 and probably goes as fast.

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

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-06-18, Mike Adams > wrote:
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>> Then things went downhill.
>
> Not to start a Cessna vs. Piper debate(!)

I've always heard this about Piper - giving pilots interested in the
company the cold shoulder, but if you go to the Cessna factory they'll
give you a tour. Indeed, we did just that - we happened to be passing
the area in a pair of (ancient) Cessnas (a 1951 C170, and a 1946 C140),
and we turned up un-announced - they were very pleased to see us at the
factory and gave us a tour. After all, we could one day be future
customers. So out of Piper and Cessna, who's selling all the light GA
stuff? Not hard to guess.

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

[kontiki]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Our guest found an instructor and aircraft at a smaller, nearby
> airport, so the story doesn't end entirely sadly. But it's just SO
> frustrating to see the skies over Iowa City slowly becoming empty
> thanks to people in the industry who simply don't understand that
> without an active, proactive interest in flight training EVERYTHING
> stops in about ten years.

Becoming empty? I thought all this GA activity was causing ATC
to work overtime... and flight delays of commercial jets???

Oh my ... could the FAA be full of sh!# like other government
agencies?

[kontiki]

EridanMan wrote:
>
> I Bought my bird/passed my check ride at 24, I'm now 25. Being a
> pilot in my generation (The "boomerang generation"... how's that for a
> distinction) has been a weird experience. Let me put it this way -
> when I told my highschool friends that I had just purchased an
> aircraft, the reaction I received was... well, frankly, about akin to
> that I would I have expected if I had told them I had just been
> selected as an astronaut. Its not that they didn't respect it. It
> was just that, for this generation, so sheltered by parents who never
> wished for them to feel rough ground on their feet, the concept of any
> one of their peers taking on a roll with so much risk and
> responsibility attached was _literally_ beyond their capacity to
> comprehend. "You WHAT?!" "Isn't that dangerous?" "Don't you get
> scared?" "That's so cool... I wish I could do that..." The response
> ranges from horror to disbelief to jealousy... the only attitude sadly
> missing is "cool, how can I get into that?" The idea that flying an
> aircraft is an option available to them simply does not exist.
>

This is the kind of mentality public education likes to breed...
easily intimidated, little creativity, lemming-like acceptance,
intolerant of individualism. That makes for a mere easily controlled
population... who won't tend to develop any aspirations. No
child left behind... no child allowed to get ahead.

[AJ]

Jay:

Strange as it sounds, the LSA designation could be a door through
which future pilots can join the ranks. Younger crowds simply can't
juggle the expense of raising families, paying mortgages and flying,
while the older crowd has already paid off most of those bills and can
funnel cash to their flying pursuits.

The unfortunate thing is this: Pilot groups spend more time paying
lobbyists and fighting the Government than marketing flying to the
general public. the result is that the forces that wat to tax us out
of existence are the ones that define us to the public, and when we
die out, nobody will care. Our numbers will get older and die off,
and that will be that.

We must make the general public know that the little airport in town
is necessary to them (not to us -- we know how important it is), and
how becoming a pilot can be within their reach. If we define
ourselves as necessary, and not just an old folks' vanity group, we
will have allies to help fight to lower or eliminate user fees, bring
the overall cost of general aviation down, and swell our ranks with
people who still have their prostate.

Unless we get off our collective butts, the "writing on the wall" will
be carved on GA's tombstone.

AJ Harris

[Doug Vetter]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> So why the gloom?

Like most people, I think this has been in the works a long time.
Aviation has traditionally been the province of the wealthy. We're just
seeing the owner population decline more rapidly due primarily to the
doubling of gas prices and maintenance costs over the past 5 years. The
FUD regarding user-fees hasn't helped either.

As far as the LSAs go, they may be the future for the $100-hamburger
guys, but for anyone that really wants to get anywhere and carry
anything, they are by design woefully inadequate. If they keep the
"average guy" (defined apparently by someone who has the means and
desire to spend $85K+ on a flying grocery cart) at the airport, then
great -- I welcome them. At the current prices, however, LSAs only
delay the inevitable for the same reason that traditionally-certified GA
aircraft are no longer an option for joe average -- price. LSAs would
be a good deal only if priced less than 50K, since then literally anyone
with a job other than cleaning toilets could afford them.

Regarding the Piper problem, this is clearly spoken by a CEO that has
been dealt a stacked deck and is trying to run the numbers on aviation
-- something we all know won't end well The problem with Piper is that
it lacks the financial clout to fight lawsuits because they failed to
diversify. Years ago they killed the Cheyenne line -- the very aircraft
that could have kept them awash in money and helped fund the development
of small jets. The Piper VLJ is a good idea for Piper's financial
future, but it's about 30 years too late to the party. Cessna is the
model here. Build piston aircraft more or less at a loss, but make it
up on the aircraft targeted at the commercial markets that can support
higher margins (i.e. turboprops & jets). Make no mistake...this is not
a failing of GA in particular but that of Piper's inept management over
the years.

In spite of GARA, liability is still the single biggest threat to the
success of GA. The only thing that will save aviation is further,
drastic Tort reform. We need to limit lawsuits of ANY kind in aviation
to 7 years, strictly limit who can sue (e.g. one plaintiff per action)
and limit the maximum award to something reasonable like $250K per
incident. Once the money supply dries up, so will the ambulance-chasing
attorneys. The ripple effect will ultimately reduce the cost of flying.

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, ATP/CFI

http://www.dvatp.com
--------------------

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> nobody plans for the long term.

Why are you applying your habits to all of mankind?

[Jay Honeck]

> I've always heard this about Piper - giving pilots interested in the
> company the cold shoulder

Actually, Bass made a point of mentioning that he tries to meet each
and every Piper customer on the factory floor.

He is *very* focused on employee and customer relations -- he's just
taking the company in a direction that I won't be able to follow.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> In spite of GARA, liability is still the single biggest threat to the
> success of GA. The only thing that will save aviation is further,
> drastic Tort reform.

I didn't mention it, but Bass spent a large portion of his speech
discussing precisely this.

He says it's gotten so crazy that lawsuits are now being pressed for
more and more bizarre reasons, like the passenger didn't "feel right",
or they were "scared" -- and Piper must defend itself against each and
every one of them, at great expense.

The older I get, the more convinced I am that we MUST go to a "loser
pays" system, or we will never regain any sanity in our legal system.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

EVERYTHING
> > stops in about ten years.
>
> For GA pilots flying for pleasure, maybe. But a lot of people care only about
> aviation as transportation, and that will still be alive and well in ten
> years, I suspect.

Perhaps -- but the majority of professional pilots are still trained
-- and hired by -- your local airport.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Kevin Clarke]

AJ wrote:
> We must make the general public know that the little airport in town
> is necessary to them (not to us -- we know how important it is), and
> how becoming a pilot can be within their reach. If we define
> ourselves as necessary, and not just an old folks' vanity group, we
> will have allies to help fight to lower or eliminate user fees, bring
> the overall cost of general aviation down, and swell our ranks with
> people who still have their prostate.
>
>

I love to fly. I love the fact that I have achieved something that was a
lifelong dream of mine. I started at 40 yrs old. Now I'm 43. I'm as
passionate about this as anybody however...

I do not get this argument. I would like to understand it. But why is
the little podunk airport important? 3B3 Sterling, Mass, offers very
little to the local economy, if anything. KFIT, my home base, offers
very little to the local economy, a couple of shops, a restaurant, a few
commercial flights (Part 135) per week. Are they that big a deal? KORH
is vastly underutilized, it is 30 minutes away by car. So seriously, I
do not understand the argument about saving every airport.

KC

[Peter Dohm]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> > I've always heard this about Piper - giving pilots interested in the
> > company the cold shoulder
>
> Actually, Bass made a point of mentioning that he tries to meet each
> and every Piper customer on the factory floor.
>
> He is *very* focused on employee and customer relations -- he's just
> taking the company in a direction that I won't be able to follow.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
The problem is that he is taking his company in a direction that very few
existing customers, and still fewer new customers can follow.

It's not a Cessna vs Piper debate, it's Cessna vs All-Those-Schmucks!

There really is a lot more to the entry level through executive jet concept
than brand loyalty. There is also service center loyalty, which I suspect
is much stronger.

I really think that it's a shame, since I prefer low wing aircraft

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> EridanMan wrote:
> >
> > I Bought my bird/passed my check ride at 24, I'm now 25. Being a
> > pilot in my generation (The "boomerang generation"... how's that for a
> > distinction) has been a weird experience. Let me put it this way -
> > when I told my highschool friends that I had just purchased an
> > aircraft, the reaction I received was... well, frankly, about akin to
> > that I would I have expected if I had told them I had just been
> > selected as an astronaut. Its not that they didn't respect it. It
> > was just that, for this generation, so sheltered by parents who never
> > wished for them to feel rough ground on their feet, the concept of any
> > one of their peers taking on a roll with so much risk and
> > responsibility attached was _literally_ beyond their capacity to
> > comprehend. "You WHAT?!" "Isn't that dangerous?" "Don't you get
> > scared?" "That's so cool... I wish I could do that..." The response
> > ranges from horror to disbelief to jealousy... the only attitude sadly
> > missing is "cool, how can I get into that?" The idea that flying an
> > aircraft is an option available to them simply does not exist.
> >
>
> This is the kind of mentality public education likes to breed...
> easily intimidated, little creativity, lemming-like acceptance,
> intolerant of individualism. That makes for a mere easily controlled
> population... who won't tend to develop any aspirations. No
> child left behind... no child allowed to get ahead.

Precisely!

And phrased much better that the diatribe that I was tempted to write.

Peter

[Gary[_2_]]

On Jun 18, 2:30 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> On whose dime?

Get a job.

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck writes:

>
>> Get out there and FLY, people!
>
> On whose dime?

I don't know any pilots looking for handouts, so the answer would be on my
dime.

In your case, you're 'pretending to fly' on the electric company's dime.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:06:38 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote in om>:

[Report of low attendance at the Cherokee Pilots Association national
fly-in snipped]

Thanks for the data point.

As I recall, the cost of fuel makes up the major portion of the cost
of aircraft ownership and operation. For those pilots who have
budgeted fixed amounts for aviation, that can only translate into
fewer hours flown. And that's what the airlines and large corporate
airliner manufacturers want.

As long as the government continues to subsidize profiteering oil
companies, and fails to impose a windfall profits tax and/or price
controls as was done in the '70s, the cost of living will increase in
proportion to the obscene oilmens' profits. And don't forget, that
our government is letting our currency, the US dollar, continue its
plunge in value, thus further reducing the purchasing power of US
workers. So while baby Bush and the sheiks hug and kiss, the American
populace loses ground on the financial front, and Halliburton moves to
Dubai to escape taxation on their non-competitive government contract
profits.

Welcome to the land of government of the people, by the corporations,
and for the corporations. And thanks for voting for that sniveling
nepotistic who is squandering our hard earned tax dollars at the rate
of $3 billion a week on a pointless war while irrationally supporting
the right of a zygote to Constitutional protections, irrationally
obstructing embryonic stem cell research, and embarrassing our once
proud nation on the world stage with his ineffectual illiteracy and
shallow comprehension. Maybe the corrupt Congress will right things.
:-)

[Jay Honeck]

> I do not get this argument. I would like to understand it. But why is
> the little podunk airport important? 3B3 Sterling, Mass, offers very
> little to the local economy, if anything. KFIT, my home base, offers
> very little to the local economy, a couple of shops, a restaurant, a few
> commercial flights (Part 135) per week. Are they that big a deal? KORH
> is vastly underutilized, it is 30 minutes away by car. So seriously, I
> do not understand the argument about saving every airport.

Just curious: How many long cross-country flights have you made with
your family?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:49:49 -0700, James Sleeman
> wrote in
. com>:

>10 years from now, I expect that the large majority of recreational
>and student pilots will behind the stick of an LSA,

Or a sailplane.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Kevin Clarke wrote:
> AJ wrote:
>> We must make the general public know that the little airport in town
>> is necessary to them (not to us -- we know how important it is), and
>> how becoming a pilot can be within their reach. If we define
>> ourselves as necessary, and not just an old folks' vanity group, we
>> will have allies to help fight to lower or eliminate user fees, bring
>> the overall cost of general aviation down, and swell our ranks with
>> people who still have their prostate.
>>
>>
>
> I love to fly. I love the fact that I have achieved something that
> was a lifelong dream of mine. I started at 40 yrs old. Now I'm 43.
> I'm as passionate about this as anybody however...
>
> I do not get this argument. I would like to understand it. But why is
> the little podunk airport important? 3B3 Sterling, Mass, offers very
> little to the local economy, if anything. KFIT, my home base, offers
> very little to the local economy, a couple of shops, a restaurant, a
> few commercial flights (Part 135) per week. Are they that big a deal?
> KORH is vastly underutilized, it is 30 minutes away by car. So
> seriously, I do not understand the argument about saving every
> airport.
> KC

An airport, even a small one, provides a surprising amount economic impact
to a community. I found this report about a very small airport in Washington
state. They estimate that this airport with only 6 aircraft based there
contributes more than $1mil to the economy.

The report is short and shouldn't take long for you to read.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/94A8DA72-7A1F-4771-B0E1-3EB73A6932AA/0/OR_Forks.pdf

[Jose]

> In spite of GARA, liability is still the single biggest threat to the success of GA. The only thing that will save aviation is further, drastic Tort reform. We need to limit lawsuits of ANY kind in aviation to 7 years

How would you protect the innocent against valid claims? Or do you aver
that no claims are valid?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> I do not get this argument. I would like to understand it. But why is the little podunk airport important? 3B3 Sterling, Mass, offers very little to the local economy, if anything.

3B3 makes all the other airports more valuable, just as they make 3B3
valuable. (imagine how useless 3B3 would be if there were no other
airports)

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jose wrote:
>> In spite of GARA, liability is still the single biggest threat to
>> the success of GA. The only thing that will save aviation is
>> further, drastic Tort reform. We need to limit lawsuits of ANY kind
>> in aviation to 7 years
>
> How would you protect the innocent against valid claims? Or do you
> aver that no claims are valid?
>
> Jose

Loser pays.

[Jose]

>> How would you protect the innocent against valid claims? Or do you
>> aver that no claims are valid?
> Loser pays.

Attractive on the surface, but that means deeper pockets can take the
risk much more easily than shallow pockets. Then, the mere =threat= of
a lawsuit has a dampening effect proportional to the pockets making the
thread, and inversely proportional to the pockets receiving it.

That's a serious flaw.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jose wrote:
>>> How would you protect the innocent against valid claims? Or do you
>>> aver that no claims are valid?
>> Loser pays.
>
> Attractive on the surface, but that means deeper pockets can take the
> risk much more easily than shallow pockets. Then, the mere =threat=
> of a lawsuit has a dampening effect proportional to the pockets
> making the thread, and inversely proportional to the pockets
> receiving it.
> That's a serious flaw.
>
> Jose

Sorry but the legal system should be able to be used as a get rich quick
program. Actually there is a much better program that I would propose but
there is no way in hell it would ever get passed.

In my plan there would be the outcomes of any civil litigation.

Plaintiff wins
Plaintiff loses
Plaintiff's lawyer pays all costs because this suit is so without merit that
it is stupid. After any lawyer gets three of these they are dis-barred.

There is a judge in DC that is suing for $54Mil because a dry cleaner lost
his pants. That's right a judge. This case actually made it to court without
being thrown out. If you can look at that case and not say that tort reform
is needed then you live in a different world than I do.

http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/004005.php

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> Sorry but the legal system should be able to be used as a get rich
> quick program.

Obviously, I should have written SHOULDN'T in the above.

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-18 12:35:27 -0400, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> said:

> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>> Sorry but the legal system should be able to be used as a get rich
>> quick program.
>
> Obviously, I should have written SHOULDN'T in the above.

Thank GOD! For a minute there I thought you were a lawyer.
:-))))
Dudley Henriques

[bdl]

On Jun 18, 10:09 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> As long as the government continues to subsidize profiteering oil
> companies, and fails to impose a windfall profits tax and/or price
> controls as was done in the '70s, the cost of living will increase in
> proportion to the obscene oilmens' profits. And don't forget, that
> our government is letting our currency, the US dollar, continue its
> plunge in value, thus further reducing the purchasing power of US
> workers. So while baby Bush and the sheiks hug and kiss, the American
> populace loses ground on the financial front, and Halliburton moves to
> Dubai to escape taxation on their non-competitive government contract
> profits.
>

Oh great. Price controls. So now I won't be able to buy avgas at ANY
price. My bird has short enough legs without having to ferry gas too.

bdl
9093K

[El Maximo]

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...

> 3B3 makes all the other airports more valuable, just as they make 3B3
> valuable. (imagine how useless 3B3 would be if there were no other
> airports)

Lots of gliders at 3B3. Most don't land anywhere else.

[bdl]

On Jun 17, 8:06 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Mary and I just returned from a wonderful weekend at the Cherokee
> Pilots Association national fly-in, held annually in Osage Beach,
> Missouri, at the Tan-Tar-A resort. We had a wonderful time, catching
> up with old friends, and making new ones. We bought some cool stuff
> from the vendors, gave away some hotel certificates to CPA members,
> and I enjoyed a marvelous Father's Day flight home.

Appreciate the report Jay. I had intended to go to last year's
shindig, but by the time I got around to doing anything about it there
wasn't any more room at Tan-Tar-A for the fly-in (I don't remember the
details, but basically what I do remember, was that I was "too late"
and was kicking myself).

This year, I didn't hear about it until I happened by one of your
posts, and then realized that it was father's day weekend. It wasn't
always on father's day weekend was it? I certainly don't remember
that from previous years. For some reason I thought it was later in
June. Combine that with the fact that I have a pre-planned family get
away at the the Lake of the Ozark's the following weekend and it just
didn't "fit" for me this year.

To further your gloom, it was also the WACO fly-in at 1H0 this
weekend. And while there were plenty of airplanes on the ramp, it was
not up to previous years. I haven't gotten the details from the
regulars on the field yet as to if the overall numbers were up/down,
but I suspect they were down.

While fuel costs have certainly curtailed some flying, I find my
biggest issue with planning a long cross country is the local
attractions/transportation. I've gone to Tan-Tar-A for a weekend trip
before with the wife and kid and we had a blast, but we were basically
locked into the resort. A one day car rental was over $80 (before
taxes) from the front desk, and $50-60 at the FBO. That quickly
destroy's the value proposition versus driving 3 hours.

Basically I "need" someone at the remote destination, or it has to be
a major city with decent car rentals (and no exhorbitant FBO
surcharges!) in which case I likely have to pay an exhorbitant price
for fuel.

As to OSH, I'll be there this year, (and hope to make it to the R.A.P
party for the first time), but it looks like I'm driving as my other
partners are getting their chance to fly the trip this year.

Brian

[Jose]

> Sorry but the legal system should [not] be able to
> be used as a get rich quick program.

I agree (as corrected). But I am not proposing that it should, nor am I
proposing that the present system is not flawed.

> Plaintiff wins
> Plaintiff loses
> Plaintiff's lawyer pays all costs because this suit is so without merit that
> it is stupid. After any lawyer gets three of these they are dis-barred.

This has some merit, but I would add

4: Defendent's lawyer pays all costs because their defense tactics are
so without merit that it is stupid and is only used to make it difficult
to bring legitimate suits against big corporations. Microsoft comes to
mind, as does Sony. (google "Sony Rootkit")

> There is a judge in DC that is suing for $54Mil...

So? The problem isn't in the ability to bring suit, but in whether or
not it's taken seriously upon investigation.

> This case actually made it to court without
> being thrown out.

Were the clothes damaged? That is a legitimate tort. Only after the
facts are determined are the damages decided. In general, they cannot
be more than requested, but can be less. (Maybe this should be
reconsidered)

Was he =awarded= anything ridiculous?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Lots of gliders at 3B3. Most don't land anywhere else.

No matter, its existance makes the other airports valuable anyway. Not
many people drive on some roads, but the other roads still connect to them.

And if 3B3 didn't exist, those gliders would be elsewhere, or would not
fly. That's something too.'

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Montblack]

("Gig 601XL Builder" wrote)
> After any lawyer gets three of these they are dis-barred.


The American Bar Association is for the lawyers.

The Public Legal Pannel needs to be for us citizens.

Here's how it works: A jury rules on what cases go to court.

Five people are appointed ...(per county, state, whatever)
Five people are picked .........(like a jury pool)
One person is randomly chosen as alternate, each day.

Some basic training would be required - 2 nights per week/ 10 weeks

Six month term, after training.

They hear requests to go to court Mon-Wed-Sat(!)
(8am-10am) and (7pm-9pm)

Tue-Thur (same times) are for deliberations.

6-3 vote, your case moves forward.

You get up to 10 request (per case) to be ruled (voted) on. This goes
through, this does not, this is ok, this is outrageous, etc.

There, it's like putting the Supreme Court at the beginning of the process.


Paul-Mont

[Nathan Young]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:04:15 GMT, Kevin Clarke >
wrote:

>AJ wrote:
>> We must make the general public know that the little airport in town
>> is necessary to them (not to us -- we know how important it is), and
>> how becoming a pilot can be within their reach. If we define
>> ourselves as necessary, and not just an old folks' vanity group, we
>> will have allies to help fight to lower or eliminate user fees, bring
>> the overall cost of general aviation down, and swell our ranks with
>> people who still have their prostate.
>>
>>
>
>I love to fly. I love the fact that I have achieved something that was a
>lifelong dream of mine. I started at 40 yrs old. Now I'm 43. I'm as
>passionate about this as anybody however...
>
>I do not get this argument. I would like to understand it. But why is
>the little podunk airport important? 3B3 Sterling, Mass, offers very
>little to the local economy, if anything. KFIT, my home base, offers
>very little to the local economy, a couple of shops, a restaurant, a few
>commercial flights (Part 135) per week. Are they that big a deal? KORH
>is vastly underutilized, it is 30 minutes away by car. So seriously, I
>do not understand the argument about saving every airport.

The direct impact of the aviation economy (mechanic jobs, pilot shops,
restaurants on field) is important, but not nearly as important as the
role aviation plays in the national transportation infrastructure.

We (as taxpayers) fund the development of Interstates, highways, and
rural roads. Any individual road is not that important, but connected
together - they allow efficient transport of goods and services
throughout our country.

Airports need to be viewed in the same manner. Any single airport
does not matter that much, but when viewed in aggregate, the entire
system is invaluable to our ability to quickly deliver goods/services
throughout the country.

-Nathan

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:07:22 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

> concluded that General Aviation is no longer worth
> pursuing

This may not have been decided quite as simplistically as you seem to
feel. Perhaps the conclusion was that Piper could not afford to catch up
with the likes of Cessna, Cirrus, whatever the company name is that builds
the Columbia 350/400, etc.

I was at a certain very large company a number of years ago that (1) spent
a lot of money on getting certain compilers developed and certified but
(2) chose to keep them out of the market because they couldn't compete
with the more lithe firms delivering equivalent products.

If it makes you feel better, the markets for those compilers still exist
(though there is plenty of linguistic competition {8^) and the company
that made that choice no longer exists (though the name lives on in a
rather ghoulish way {8^).

- Andrew

[john smith]

Jose wrote:
>> But it's just SO
>> frustrating to see the skies over Iowa City slowly becoming empty
>> thanks to people in the industry who simply don't understand that
>> without an active, proactive interest in flight training EVERYTHING
>> stops in about ten years.
>
> Ever think of starting an FBO? You've got your motel going, why not
> attach an FBO to it and devote more of your time to aviation?

The answer is as follows:

Q: How do you make a small fortune in aviation?

A" Start with a large one.

[john smith]

AJ wrote:
> Strange as it sounds, the LSA designation could be a door through
> which future pilots can join the ranks. Younger crowds simply can't
> juggle the expense of raising families, paying mortgages and flying,
> while the older crowd has already paid off most of those bills and can
> funnel cash to their flying pursuits.

That is the way things have been for the last 60 years.
What has changed is the competition for the surplus dollars.
As fuel prices rise, the cheap airfares are disappearing, making GA more
attractive on a per seat cost per flight basis.

[john smith]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> As I recall, the cost of fuel makes up the major portion of the cost
> of aircraft ownership and operation. For those pilots who have
> budgeted fixed amounts for aviation, that can only translate into
> fewer hours flown.

Actually, (in my case) it is not.
As a renter, the hourly portion of the rate for fuel is perhaps 40% of
the total hourly rental cost. As I pay a wet rate, any fuel I add to the
aircraft does not cost me anything additional. I am reimbursed/credited
to my account any fuel costs I pay.
When one subtracts out the hourly fuel cost from the hourly rental rate,
the airplane is relatively rather inexpensive, given the fixed
acquisition costs.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Perhaps -- but the majority of professional pilots are still trained
> -- and hired by -- your local airport.

That can--and probably will--change in the future.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:49:49 -0700, James Sleeman
> wrote:
>
> >10 years from now, I expect that the large majority of recreational
> >and student pilots will behind the stick of an LSA,
>
> Or a sailplane.

Or a simulator. No, I'm not joking.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jose wrote:
>> Sorry but the legal system should [not] be able to
>> be used as a get rich quick program.
>
> I agree (as corrected). But I am not proposing that it should, nor
> am I proposing that the present system is not flawed.
>
>> Plaintiff wins
>> Plaintiff loses
>> Plaintiff's lawyer pays all costs because this suit is so without
>> merit that it is stupid. After any lawyer gets three of these they
>> are dis-barred.
>
> This has some merit, but I would add
>
> 4: Defendent's lawyer pays all costs because their defense tactics
> are so without merit that it is stupid and is only used to make it
> difficult to bring legitimate suits against big corporations. Microsoft
> comes to mind, as does Sony. (google "Sony Rootkit")
>
>> There is a judge in DC that is suing for $54Mil...
>
> So? The problem isn't in the ability to bring suit, but in whether or
> not it's taken seriously upon investigation.
>
>> This case actually made it to court without
>> being thrown out.
>
> Were the clothes damaged? That is a legitimate tort. Only after the
> facts are determined are the damages decided. In general, they cannot
> be more than requested, but can be less. (Maybe this should be
> reconsidered)
>
> Was he =awarded= anything ridiculous?
>
> Jose

Read some of the links on the site I posted and you decide. But unless,
before the dry cleaner lost the pants, he used them to beat the judge there
is no way this claim is worth $54mil.

[Gary[_2_]]

On Jun 18, 3:06 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > >10 years from now, I expect that the large majority of recreational
> > >and student pilots will behind the stick of an LSA,
>
> Or a simulator. No, I'm not joking.

Joking, no. Wrong, yes.

[ktbr]

Montblack wrote:

>
> The Public Legal Pannel needs to be for us citizens.
>
> Here's how it works: A jury rules on what cases go to court.
>
> Five people are appointed ...(per county, state, whatever)
> Five people are picked .........(like a jury pool)
> One person is randomly chosen as alternate, each day.
>
I concur... but these people should have more stringent
credentials than just being a *voter*. For a person to
be eligable to be on this panel they should:

1) Have no criminal record.
2) Have a job, or had a job and be retired.
3) Not be collecting a government check for subsistance
other than a Social Security or retirement check.
4) Not be a party in any pending lawsuit or legal action.

> Some basic training would be required - 2 nights per week/ 10 weeks
>
If the people meet the simple criterai above, minimal
training will be neded and a fair decision will be probable.

> Six month term, after training.
>
Like it.

> They hear requests to go to court Mon-Wed-Sat(!)
> (8am-10am) and (7pm-9pm)
>
> Tue-Thur (same times) are for deliberations.
>
> 6-3 vote, your case moves forward.
>
> You get up to 10 request (per case) to be ruled (voted) on. This goes
> through, this does not, this is ok, this is outrageous, etc.
>
> There, it's like putting the Supreme Court at the beginning of the process.
>

This is all excellent. We should do this today, why wait.
People would immediately see lower prices for goods and
services for everything.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Gig 601XL Builder" wrote)
>> After any lawyer gets three of these they are dis-barred.
>
>
> The American Bar Association is for the lawyers.
>
> The Public Legal Pannel needs to be for us citizens.
>
> Here's how it works: A jury rules on what cases go to court.
>
> Five people are appointed ...(per county, state, whatever)
> Five people are picked .........(like a jury pool)
> One person is randomly chosen as alternate, each day.
>
> Some basic training would be required - 2 nights per week/ 10 weeks
>
> Six month term, after training.
>
> They hear requests to go to court Mon-Wed-Sat(!)
> (8am-10am) and (7pm-9pm)
>
> Tue-Thur (same times) are for deliberations.
>
> 6-3 vote, your case moves forward.
>
> You get up to 10 request (per case) to be ruled (voted) on. This goes
> through, this does not, this is ok, this is outrageous, etc.
>
> There, it's like putting the Supreme Court at the beginning of the
> process.
>
> Paul-Mont


Good idea and you could pay them each $100K per year and the state would
still get of cheap.

[john smith]

The Little French Girl stopped by this weekend.
She will be moving bases from Boston to Chicago as of July 1 and is
hoping to make it to the Big Show at the end of July.
During the course of our discussions, she related the pressing need for
regional airline pilots and the desperation measures some companies are
taking.

Take a look at http://airlinepilotcentral.com for the requirements the
different companies have.

Then look at the pay rates for the various companies.
And we wonder why young people don't want to be pilots?

$18/hour x 80 hours/month = $1440/month

$1440/month x 12 months/year = $17,200/year (before taxes)

Unless you are living with your parents, you're not going to make it on
your own.

Next look at the incrimental pay increases as one gains seniority each
year. Not many big step-ups, are there?

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...


> Or a simulator. No, I'm not joking.

I find it interesting that you are the only poster here who thinks a
simulator can replace primary flight instruction.

I suspect a correlation between that belief and a complete lack of primary
flight instruction.

[Kevin Clarke]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> I do not get this argument. I would like to understand it. But why is
>> the little podunk airport important? 3B3 Sterling, Mass, offers very
>> little to the local economy, if anything. KFIT, my home base, offers
>> very little to the local economy, a couple of shops, a restaurant, a few
>> commercial flights (Part 135) per week. Are they that big a deal? KORH
>> is vastly underutilized, it is 30 minutes away by car. So seriously, I
>> do not understand the argument about saving every airport.
>>
>
> Just curious: How many long cross-country flights have you made with
> your family?
>
me, none. If you remember from a bygone thread, my wife won't fly w/ me.
I fly a few times a year to BHB from KFIT and a few time around Southern
New England. 5o-75 hrs /year.

KC

[Paul kgyy]

I was a P28 owner that did not attend the CPA event this year, but as
many others have stated, it was because of a scheduling conflict
(wedding). There's always been something in June.

My overall opinion is that piston airplanes are just too expensive for
what they are capable of doing, including the Cirrus and Columbia
portfolio. $500,000 for a single engine airplane? $500,000???
$75,000 for a LSA that has government limitations that have nothing to
do with performance capabilities.

So - most of us opt for used airplanes, only to find out that over a
period of several years it's easy - nay - mandatory, to spend much
more on maintenance than the airplane is worth.

As a result, a lot of people who fly used airplanes are just sort of
scraping along to keep it going. All it takes is one expensive event
to cause a sale. Often it's an AD. The Arrow series had a $3000 SB
this year for many of us. Hidden damage shows up when fixing minor
problems, e.g. the poor guy who discovered spar corrosion that totaled
the plane. I know of one flier at KGYY who stopped flying when his
hangar rent went up $50 a month - that was his limit.

Having stated a problem, I have to admit that I haven't a clue how to
make a new airplane for $100,000 that carries 4 people in relaxed
comfort with reasonable noise levels at 200 knots. I assume that the
certification and litigation costs are major contributors to the
problem, but even a high end kit plane with first class avionics can
easily set you back $150K. Another part of the problem is that the
manufacturing volume isn't there to spread development costs over
millions of units.

[Kevin Clarke]

Nathan Young wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:04:15 GMT, Kevin Clarke >
> wrote:
>
>
>> AJ wrote:
>>
>> ...
>
> Airports need to be viewed in the same manner. Any single airport
> does not matter that much, but when viewed in aggregate, the entire
> system is invaluable to our ability to quickly deliver goods/services
> throughout the country.
>
> -Nathan
>
Thanks, I'll buy this argument that makes sense. It is a variation on
the network effect.

KC

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Kevin Clarke wrote:

> me, none. If you remember from a bygone thread, my wife won't fly w/
> me. I fly a few times a year to BHB from KFIT and a few time around
> Southern New England. 5o-75 hrs /year.
>
> KC

Which is why, over 20 years ago in my pre-marriage days, any fourth or fifth
date I went on included a flight with me. This had two effects. First, it
impressed the hell out of 18-22 year old girls and more importantly it
disqualified those that were either too scared to go or didn't like when
they did.

This is one of the reasons I've been married to the same lady for going on
22 years. She also thought the t-shirt I picked up that said, "My Ex Wanted
Me To Quit Flying" was funny.

[Jose]

>>> Ever think of starting an FBO? You've got your motel going, why not attach an FBO to it and devote more of your time to aviation?
>> The answer is as follows:
> Q: How do you make a small fortune in aviation?
> A" Start with a large one.

Yes, but I found a great way to double your money.

Fold it in half and put it back in your pocket. :)

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skylune]

On Jun 18, 2:41 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> EridanMan writes:
> > But in the end all I can say is screw it. Screw my generation, screw
> > the affluence-chasing new CEO piper... In the end all that matters is
> > that I can go watch the sun set from 2000 feet over the Pacific Ocean
> > on a whim...
>
> In part, you illustrate the problem: Aviation is attainable for you because
> you are so passionate about it that you are willing to sacrifice many other
> things to have it. But most people aren't that way, and aviation is so
> cripplingly expensive that anyone who doesn't have a very single-minded
> interest in it--or a fat bank account--cannot see it as a practical option.
> That's the real problem for GA, not any fear of flying.
>
> However, I do agree that the fearfulness of society as a whole today is
> remarkable and worrisome, the result of decades of high-tech media propaganda
> cashing in on paranoia and FUD. Unfortunately, fearful people are very easily
> manipulated and controlled, and tend to make only irrational decisions when
> allowed to act on their own.

Sometimes, fearful Americans move to France, where they receive
coddling and can play video games all day on their computer.

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Unfortunately, fearful people are very easily
> manipulated and controlled, and tend to make only irrational decisions
> when
> allowed to act on their own.

The voice of experience speaks!

[Montblack]

("john smith" wrote)
> The Little French Girl stopped by this weekend.
> She will be moving bases from Boston to Chicago


She's getting closer...!


Paul-Mont
"Oui" "Oui"

[Nathan Young]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:52:15 GMT, Kevin Clarke >
wrote:

>Nathan Young wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:04:15 GMT, Kevin Clarke >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> AJ wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>> Airports need to be viewed in the same manner. Any single airport
>> does not matter that much, but when viewed in aggregate, the entire
>> system is invaluable to our ability to quickly deliver goods/services
>> throughout the country.
>>
>> -Nathan
>>
>Thanks, I'll buy this argument that makes sense. It is a variation on
>the network effect.

Good analogy. I like it.

-Nathan

[Montblack]

("ktbr" wrote)
> 1) Have no criminal record.
> 2) Have a job, or had a job and be retired.
> 3) Not be collecting a government check for subsistance
> other than a Social Security or retirement check.
> 4) Not be a party in any pending lawsuit or legal action.


I'm ok with a wide variety of people serving - if they can keep up in the
training phase.

The "training" phase is where we weed out the dreamers (and the not quite
able to grasp some core ideas) people, and the people who won't do the work
necessary to finish the training class ...and pass the test. Hey, kinda like
a (mini) bar exam!

So I'm pretty stringent on the back end and more open on the front end.
You're the reverse.


Paul-Mont

[john smith]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Read some of the links on the site I posted and you decide. But unless,
> before the dry cleaner lost the pants, he used them to beat the judge there
> is no way this claim is worth $54mil.

Surprisingly, this is a case that even the trial lawyers trade
association is saying should not have made it to trial.
(Then again, it is the judge and not a trial attorney who is
representing himself in this case.)

[Jose]

>> Was he =awarded= anything ridiculous?

> Read some of the links on the site I posted and you decide. But unless,
> before the dry cleaner lost the pants, he used them to beat the judge there
> is no way this claim is worth $54mil.

The links seem to be long on opinion and short on facts, and the trial
is not over yet. No matter. Everyone is being silly in this case; the
pity is it costs real people real money.

Suing is still a gamble, not on whether you win or lose, but on whether
you can intimidate the other party into folding. A loser pays system
would not address the intimidation part, since the (significantly)
richer party can afford the loss but may well choose to proceed anyway,
hoping to chicken the other party out.

OF course the claim above is not worth $54 million. I don't think
anybody, including the claimant, believes it is.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[xyzzy]

On Jun 17, 9:06 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> Get out there and FLY, people!

I appreciate learning info like this,even though I don't really want
to know it.

I love flying, but unless I ever come into some kind of mad money, I
will always be a club pilot and/or renter, with its huge cost
advantages but huge drawbacks in the areas of availability and control
of your own aviation destiny.

I am flying to Oshkosh for the first time this year but I have a
sneaking suspicion in the back of my mind that given the way aviation
is going, Oshkosh 2007 may be my last hurrah of aviation. On the one
hand I hope not, but besides accumulating more ratings I don't see
much to drive to me to keep flying given the expense and the high
percentage of my flying time and budget that goes to staying
proficient to allow me to take hypothetical trips that never seem to
happen for whatever reason -- weather, schedule, etc. In six years of
flying I have taken exaclty two long distance x-country trips where I
got full utility and enjoyment out of my years of investment, and they
were great. Far more have been cancelled. Oshkosh will be the
third. Maybe I should look more closely at light sport. Maybe the
IFR rating isn't worth the trouble and money I went through to get it
and what it takes to keep it current. I was thinking of going for my
commercial but I have to ask why? To become an instructor in my
retirement from the cube farm, but will there be anyone left to
instruct by then?

AOPA may be doing us a service by warning about the doom coming with
the FAA's next authorization bill, but I suspect I'm not the only one
who finds that the AOPA propaganda is more effective at being
discouraging than galvanizing action. Not trying to start a poltical
flame war but it's clear we have an administration that listens to no
one, and will do whatever it wants to no matter the evidence, public
opinion and consequences, or alternatively you could say they stand by
what they think is right come what may, but either way it's clear that
what they are bent on doing is destroying GA with this year's FAA
"reforms" and their drive to privatize.

I do think clubs will be the salvation of aviation, or at least the
life support system that keeps it limping along for several more
years. It's really the only way the "everyman" that you refer to can
afford to keep flying.

[Tater]

On Jun 17, 8:06 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> The general consensus, after too many gin & tonics, was that the entry-
> level Cherokee owners were the owners who were barely able to afford
> ownership in the first place, and have been most devastated by the
> recent 25% increase in fuel costs. In other words, they were the
> "canaries in the bird cage", and have died first and quickest, to
> serve as a warning to us all...

I've been accused of being a troll over this, but didn't i mention
something about aircraft prices being out of reach of the general
public, and that would be a major factor in the decline of GA?

Just how much is an "entry level" cherokee?

dont give me just a dollar price, give me a percentage of a persons
average income versus 20 years ago.

[Dan Luke]

"Larry Dighera" wrote:

> As I recall, the cost of fuel makes up the major portion of the cost
> of aircraft ownership and operation.

Depends on how much capital you have tied up in the airplane and how much you
fly. For me, the cost of money is by far the largest expense.


[snip]


> Welcome to the land of government of the people, by the corporations,
> and for the corporations. And thanks for voting for that sniveling
> nepotistic who is squandering our hard earned tax dollars at the rate
> of $3 billion a week on a pointless war while irrationally supporting
> the right of a zygote to Constitutional protections, irrationally
> obstructing embryonic stem cell research, and embarrassing our once
> proud nation on the world stage with his ineffectual illiteracy and
> shallow comprehension. .

Yes, our fearless leader is a feckless idiot; even conservative commentators
are now saying so. But he's merely a figurehead: look behind the curtain for
the real bad guys.

> Maybe the corrupt Congress will right things

Maybe pigs will fly.


--
Dan

"Almost all the matter that came out of the Big Bang was two specific sorts;
hydrogen, and stupidity."

-Robert Carnegie in talk.origins

[Peter Dohm]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Larry Dighera" wrote:
>
> > As I recall, the cost of fuel makes up the major portion of the cost
> > of aircraft ownership and operation.
>
> Depends on how much capital you have tied up in the airplane and how much
you
> fly. For me, the cost of money is by far the largest expense.
>
>
The cost of money, or of having it tied up, and the cost of storage seem to
be the two biggest problems for the owners personally known to me. OTOH,
fuel seems to be more of a verbalized annoyance--which converts readily to a
hamberger (or omelet, depending on the time of day) flight to an airport
with less expensive fuel.

[Ken Finney]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> IMHO, Piper is foolish for not going into this market.
>
> Agree 100%. They claim there is "no margin" in LSA aircraft, but I
> don't believe it.
>
>> We've had our
>> school open for just under two months and are picking up students from 4
>> states at a rate of a half dozen a week.
>
> Contrast this with our local FBO's attitude toward Light Sport:
>
> We recently had a guest who was interested in pursuing his dream of
> flying, and wanted to go Light Sport. I told him that I'd see if I
> could find an LSA instructor and aircraft in which he could train.
>
> My first call was naturally to our local FBO, whose response was blunt
> and telling: "We don't mess with that ****."
>
> Our FBO, like so many others, only provides flight training because
> it's a requirement of their contract with the city. In the absence of
> that contract, they would close their flight school in a heartbeat,
> preferring to cater to the King Air and Citation crowd...
>
> Our guest found an instructor and aircraft at a smaller, nearby
> airport, so the story doesn't end entirely sadly. But it's just SO
> frustrating to see the skies over Iowa City slowly becoming empty
> thanks to people in the industry who simply don't understand that
> without an active, proactive interest in flight training EVERYTHING
> stops in about ten years.

Forgive me, as I'm not a pilot (yet). I've spent way too much time thinking
about the interrelation of lots of things lately, which feeds into this
discussion. If "aviation" were so important to pilots, you'd think that
they'd be willing to invest their time into it. I go to lots of fly-ins and
it is always the same(with a few exceptions): decrepit airports, and GHOFs
(Gray-Haired-Old-Farts) complaining about the Government, health care, price
of avgas, price of mogas, and what-ever suits their fancy to complain about
at the moment. At every fly-in there is always the small group of people
actually doing the work, but they are in the minority. And given the
demographics of the situation, it is all but terminal, which was the reason
for SP/LSA in the first place. Yet if you go back into the SP/LSA history,
you'll find lots of comments that it wasn't needed, that things
(demographically) were just fine as they were. Regarding the cost of LSAs,
considering that a brand new Savannah (painted, engined, and avioniced) is
less than $65K and that there are a lot of new cars/trucks in the road that
sell for more than half of that, the cost ratio of cars/trucks versus
airplanes hasn't changed that much (for a starter/LSA airplane, at least)
over
the decades.

So, what are the reasons behind the decline of (small) GA?

1. I can accept, to a limited point, fuel cost. But the cost of mogas
is identical to the cost of mogas last year (I assume avgas is somewhat
similar),
yet there is a big dropoff in activity. I keep coming back to demographics,
and that many of the pilots are not flying as much because of their age.
But that shouldn't amount to such a drop off in a single year. Over a
decade
though, it will be a killer.

2. Other interests. Everyone is familiar with "AIDS" (Aviation Induced
Divorce Syndrome), and this might be the opposite of it. Pilots still have
the same amount of hours in the day, so what are they spending their time
on? Most sectors of the ecomony have been booming, so they probably are
spending more hours on the job, and more hours recuperating from it. But
those hours spent recuperating aren't being spent doing hanger flying, at
least from what I've seen. As TV viewership is going down, they aren't
spending it watching TV either. Internet surfing probably has a significant
effect. I think demographics enters here as well. Taking care of the aging
spouse, visiting friends "who don't go out as much anymore", and going to
see the grandkids in rehab (again) are huge time-sinks.

3. Architecture. I think this has more to do with it than most people
realize. Most airports I visit hadn't see much construction activity or
maintenance since Johnson was President, if not earlier. They aren't
inviting places. Mentally, people will unconsciously not go to places that
aren't inviting when there is an alternative.

4. In events over the last couple of days, I'm convinced this is the
killer: Retirement. People my parent's age (I'm 48, but my parents were
both 44 when I was born) just assumed they would work until they died.
Their concept of "retirement" was that they could work less, if they wanted
to. People my age are focused on retirement as perhaps their greatest goal
in life. Make enough money, and put enough of it away, that you can afford
to retire by 55 at the latest. If you assume you are going to retire at 55
and live until 85, you have to put a lot of money away, money that can't be
spent on actually living your life in the present (like buying a plane and
flying). If, on the other hand, you assume something like: cut down to 32
hours a week at 55, 24 hours a week at 62, 20 hours at 65, and 16 hours a
week at 67 and beyond, the math works out a lot differently. What makes all
this really sad, is that a lot of people that put a lot of it away have lost
it, where an airplane would have been a better investment.

So, what needs to be done?

First of all, GA needs to reach out. I had never been in anything smaller
than a 737 until just a few years ago, and didn't even know what GA was.
I've just helped Arlington put together a flyer for why non-pilots should
come to the Arlington Fly-in; they had never thought about before. Note:
I've heard more than a few pilots complain that "Fly-ins are for pilots, the
rest of the folks should just stay away!". "Fly-ins" are a really bad term
from a marketing standpoint, why would anyone who wasn't a pilot want to
attend a fly-in, and why would they even be expected to know what a fly-in
was in the first place? I think "Aviation Fair" is a much better term, but
I'm not going to fight the battle. On all the signs I make for fly-ins, the
first words below "Fly-In" are "Everyone Welcome!". Invite the local Scout
troops (or summer school or church school, etc) out to the airport and give
them a show-and-tell. Invite their parents to come as well (I know of some
people that live within 3 miles of a fairly busy field that didn't even know
that it was there). Scouts are having trouble finding places to camp
anymore, why not let them camp at the airport? Issue press releases about
Angel Flights, etc. Take a reporter up for a flight. Think guerilla
marketing.

Second of all, airports need to be inviting. Have your local FBO/EAA
chapter/whatever "adopt" the airport from the government agency, and put up
the signs just like the "This street adopted by..." signs. Fix the damn
potholes, clean up the potato chip bags clinging to the chainlink fence.
Make sure the restroom/portapotty is clean. Put in that wifi connection.
Make
the CTAF available on a Part 15 FM transmitter and/or leaky coax so people
can sit in their cars outside the fence and listen. You can even stream it
over the web. Does your airport even have an AOPA Airport Support
Network representative? Have a website that lists events at the airport,
have a sign
at the airport as well. Paint the buildings! Do the sheriff's deputies
know
they can make potty stops at the airport? Build more hangers, even if
people are going to store RVs in them, build foot and car traffic at the
airport. Put up picnic tables!

Finally, everyone in GA needs to market GA, something that isn't easy
for a lot of people. Do you have a license plate frame that says "My
Other Car is a Cessna" (or appropriate)? How about one that says
:"Ask Me How You Can Learn to Fly!"? Know the questions people
are going to ask, and have answers for them. I was just at the dentist and
got a hygienist there interested in attending Arlington.

Many people are going to say "Why should I have to do any of this crap,
I just want to fly!" And that is the rub. Unless GA people are willing to
do the little things, more than they should "have to", the future has
already
been written. The old adage in business is "If you don't take care of your
Customers, your competitors will." It has always easier to keep a Customer
than to earn a new one. GA has been on the defensive for way too long,
fighting at best what can called a tactical retreat. The reason to fight a
tactical retreat is to regroup and counter-attack when the time is right.
The time will never be righter than it is right now. The House has said
there
will be no user fees. Time to galvanize. Send thank you notes to the
Congress critters who vote against user fees. But be part of the solution.

[Jay Honeck]

> Forgive me, as I'm not a pilot (yet). I've spent way too much time thinking
> about the interrelation of lots of things lately, which feeds into this
> discussion. If "aviation" were so important to pilots, you'd think that
> they'd be willing to invest their time into it.

Bravo for an outstanding post.

Sadly, it's one I might have written myself, five or ten years ago.
(Check the archives -- I probably did!) Back then, I was the new guy
at the airport, frustrated by the inertia and lack of enthusiasm
amongst pilots, and wondering why no one was *doing* anything.

As time has gone on, however, and I've tried various and sundry things
(you may not know it, but I've taken love of aviation about as far as
one can in the real world, up to and including creating an aviation
themed hotel at our airport), I've grown increasingly cynical and
weary of the battle. Pilots just won't do much of anything (other
than fly), even if its in their best interest.

And getting pilots to agree to ANYTHING is like herding cats. Almost
by definition, we pilots are a bunch of independent, contrarian cusses
who rarely (if ever) admit to "following" anyone. They are leaders,
not followers, and if that means they walk alone, well, so be it.

This attitude, while not without merit, doesn't lead to the
construction of any kind of a political coalition. In today's touchy-
feely consensus building society, the strong silent types don't get
much done. In fact, they are looked upon as "loners" or, worse,
psychopaths, and are thus marginalized.

I'm afraid that, rightly or wrongly, people view us pilots as off-the-
wall, slightly crazy people. (I'd have to agree, in many cases.)
This hasn't helped our cause, of course, and tend to steer people away
from aviation.

Still, this same attitude is/was prevalent toward motorcycling, and
yet they have managed to thrive. (Although I've heard sales of cycles
is way down in the last few years.) I wonder if motorcycling (often
seen as very similar to flying) hasn't siphoned some interest away
from flying? It's certainly more affordable.

Anyway, great post. Food for thought.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> >> I do not get this argument. I would like to understand it. But why is
> >> the little podunk airport important?

<snip>

> > Just curious: How many long cross-country flights have you made with
> > your family?
>
> me, none. If you remember from a bygone thread, my wife won't fly w/ me.

I believe this is why you see so little utility in small-town
airports. Until you've been on a bunch of long cross-country flights
with your family, and flown into small-town America from coast to
coast, it's really hard to appreciate their essential nature.

Most of our trips utilize these smaller, less used airports, and it is
always a delight to visit them. This is where "real" America still
exists, and their existence allows us, as pilots, to drop in almost
anywhere across this vast continent.

All of this is, of course, aside from all the vital financial aid your
airport brings to your community. Everything from "Flight for Life"
helicopters, to charters, to little guys like us think of your airport
as your "Front Door" -- and, quite frankly, we don't go to towns that
don't have airports.

Of course, if the pilot community continues to dwindle, there won't be
enough of us flying to bring $$$ into those small towns, and those
airports will simply close. And THEN flying in America will really
have lost it's merit.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> This is one of the reasons I've been married to the same lady for going on
> 22 years. She also thought the t-shirt I picked up that said, "My Ex Wanted
> Me To Quit Flying" was funny.

Amen, brother. Mary and I just celebrated our 22nd anniversary while
at the Cherokee fly-in. Neither of us could have picked a better way
to celebrate our big day.

She flew in, I flew out.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> The cost of money, or of having it tied up, and the cost of storage seem to
> be the two biggest problems for the owners personally known to me. OTOH,
> fuel seems to be more of a verbalized annoyance--which converts readily to a
> hamberger (or omelet, depending on the time of day) flight to an airport
> with less expensive fuel.

You will notice one thing about successful aircraft owners. (By
"successful" I mean that they actually FLY their planes often.)

They do not consider the cost of ownership in their equations at all.
They have factored the expense of purchasing, storing, and maintaining
their aircraft into their budgets, after which they regard it as a
zero-cost affair, only considering fuel as the cost of flying.

It's a form of mental illness, really, but it works.

:-)

The LEAST successful owners I know are the ones who run spreadsheets
on the "cost of money" and fixed expenses, because they are the ones
who constantly fret over the fact that they could have bought a nice
vacation home at the lake, rather than an airplane.

Which is the reason you'll hear so many of us bitching about the
increased cost of fuel so loudly. It's the only expense we really
"see" anymore.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Just how much is an "entry level" cherokee?
>
> dont give me just a dollar price, give me a percentage of a persons
> average income versus 20 years ago.

I don't know an average person's income versus 20 years ago, but I do
know that you can buy a nice Cherokee 140 for about $30K.

That's less than my Ford Econoline van cost new, so I don't think it's
an outrageous expense nowadays.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> because they are the ones
> who constantly fret over the fact that they could have bought a nice
> vacation home at the lake, rather than an airplane.

.... a vacation home they probably use two weeks out of the year.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Gary writes:

> Joking, no. Wrong, yes.

I hope I'm wrong. But remember that a key driver of serious simulation is a
lack of resources needed to fly for real, and so the more people who cannot
fly for real, the more who will resort to simulators. And simulation is doing
very well, even if real GA is not.

[Mxsmanic]

El Maximo writes:

> I find it interesting that you are the only poster here who thinks a
> simulator can replace primary flight instruction.

Most people here are pretty set in their ways.

If all of your aviation is in a simulator, you don't need any other
instruction. And if you lose your medical (or if any one of a hundred other
things come up to impede your ability to fly for real), that's where all your
aviation is going to be.

[Mxsmanic]

Skylune writes:

> Sometimes, fearful Americans move to France, where they receive
> coddling and can play video games all day on their computer.

Not really. Fearful people don't move at all. They just watch CNN and fear
terrorists who don't exist, and they sign away their freedoms one after
another in the hope that they'll be more secure. Eventually they end up
neither secure nor free.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Skylune writes:
>
>> Sometimes, fearful Americans move to France, where they receive
>> coddling and can play video games all day on their computer.
>
> Not really. Fearful people don't move at all.

Like you


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gary writes:
>
>> Joking, no. Wrong, yes.
>
> I hope I'm wrong. But remember that a key driver of serious
> simulation is a lack of resources needed to fly for real,

Oxymoron. here's no such thng as Serious simulation,

Fjukwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> El Maximo writes:
>
>> I find it interesting that you are the only poster here who thinks a
>> simulator can replace primary flight instruction.
>
> Most people here are pretty set in their ways.
>
> If all of your aviation is in a simulator,


No aviation takes place in a sim, fjukkwit.


Bertie



>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Perhaps -- but the majority of professional pilots are still trained
>> -- and hired by -- your local airport.
>
> That can--and probably will--change in the future.
>

No, it won't.moron


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:49:49 -0700, James Sleeman
>> wrote:
>>
>> >10 years from now, I expect that the large majority of recreational
>> >and student pilots will behind the stick of an LSA,
>>
>> Or a sailplane.
>
> Or a simulator. No, I'm not joking.
>

No, we know you're not joking. That 's what makes you 'special'

Bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> > The Little French Girl stopped by this weekend.
> > She will be moving bases from Boston to Chicago
>
> She's getting closer...!

Settle down there, big fella. You'll scare her away from OSH!

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

[Montblack]

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
>> She's getting closer...!

> Settle down there, big fella. You'll scare her away from OSH!


You mean - "Settle down there, Mr Big!" :-)


Paul-MONT
(Katy) "Boon, I think I'm in love with a retard."
(Boon) "Is he bigger than me?"

Animal House (1978)

[Montblack]

("Ken Finney" wrote)
> and going to see the grandkids in rehab (again) are huge time-sinks.


I know it's not funny but I chuckled.

Nice post.

If there were one thing to point to, I would point to a loss of overall
spirit, mostly due to "liabilities" fatigue.


Paul-Mont .....allegedly

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Still, this same attitude is/was prevalent toward motorcycling, and
> yet they have managed to thrive. (Although I've heard sales of cycles
> is way down in the last few years.)

sales are down? I was under the impression that sales were up.
The fixation on the price of gas has increased interest in motorcycles.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> But remember that a key driver of serious simulation is a
> lack of resources needed to fly for real
>

No, it isn't. You are a case in point.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter R.]

On 6/19/2007 12:17:16 AM, Jay Honeck wrote:

> I don't know an average person's income versus 20 years ago, but I do
> know that you can buy a nice Cherokee 140 for about $30K.

As you know, but for the benefit of those who don't own, operating costs for
older aircraft become more of a barrier than acquisition cost.

--
Peter

[Jay Honeck]

> sales are down? I was under the impression that sales were up.
> The fixation on the price of gas has increased interest in motorcycles.

Sorry, that wasn't very specific. I've heard sales of *touring*
motorcycles are down.

Pretty much the same age-group as flying, in my experience.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter R.]

On 6/19/2007 12:13:40 AM, Jay Honeck wrote:

> Which is the reason you'll hear so many of us bitching about the
> increased cost of fuel so loudly. It's the only expense we really
> "see" anymore.

Really? Cracked exhaust pipes, cracked spinners, recurring ADs for
dye-penetrant spar inspections, engine overhauls, prop overhauls, etc., etc,
etc. are also pretty visual and recurring expenses. :)

--
Peter

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jose wrote:
>>> Was he =awarded= anything ridiculous?
>
>> Read some of the links on the site I posted and you decide. But
>> unless, before the dry cleaner lost the pants, he used them to beat
>> the judge there is no way this claim is worth $54mil.
>
> The links seem to be long on opinion and short on facts, and the trial
> is not over yet. No matter. Everyone is being silly in this case;
> the pity is it costs real people real money.
>
> Suing is still a gamble, not on whether you win or lose, but on
> whether you can intimidate the other party into folding. A loser
> pays system would not address the intimidation part, since the
> (significantly) richer party can afford the loss but may well choose
> to proceed anyway, hoping to chicken the other party out.

Not much of a gamble at all in this case. Filing fees for a civil action in
DC are $120.00. He is his own lawyer. The only people out any real money is
the defendant.

The one plus is that the judge who filed the suit is probably not going to
keep his job. He is up for re-appointment soon.

>
> OF course the claim above is not worth $54 million. I don't think
> anybody, including the claimant, believes it is.
>
> Jose

Then he lied in court documents and should be prosecuted.

[Peter Dohm]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> > The cost of money, or of having it tied up, and the cost of storage seem
to
> > be the two biggest problems for the owners personally known to me.
OTOH,
> > fuel seems to be more of a verbalized annoyance--which converts readily
to a
> > hamberger (or omelet, depending on the time of day) flight to an airport
> > with less expensive fuel.
>
> You will notice one thing about successful aircraft owners. (By
> "successful" I mean that they actually FLY their planes often.)
>
> They do not consider the cost of ownership in their equations at all.
> They have factored the expense of purchasing, storing, and maintaining
> their aircraft into their budgets, after which they regard it as a
> zero-cost affair, only considering fuel as the cost of flying.
>
> It's a form of mental illness, really, but it works.
>
> :-)
>
> The LEAST successful owners I know are the ones who run spreadsheets
> on the "cost of money" and fixed expenses, because they are the ones
> who constantly fret over the fact that they could have bought a nice
> vacation home at the lake, rather than an airplane.
>
> Which is the reason you'll hear so many of us bitching about the
> increased cost of fuel so loudly. It's the only expense we really
> "see" anymore.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
Taking the items in reverse order:

I don't personnally know any of the owners who fret over the other toys they
could have bought instead of an aircraft, so I won't attempt to address that
issue. However, the spreadsheet issue is an interesting one--especially
with regard to new aircraft and, to a slightly lesser extent, late model
used aircraft. It is outside my areas of expertise, but was a large part of
the reason for my vociferous critisism of Mr. Bass at Piper. However, an
initial spreadsheet analysis is a traditional way to make a decision to own
or rent--despite the obvious problems.

Getting back to the questions of fixed vs variable costs, there a lot of
people who use their airplanes for business, or to facilitate business, and
who choose to do so from after tax income--usually because itis less than
half of their flying. That obviously does not pass a management class
analysis; but it often works better than concepts that do. The important
point is that, for them, the fixed costs were fully justified and amortized
by the business use--and only the variable costs remain. It is also a much
easier way to deal with the need for proficiency and currency.

Yes, I know that means most of the owners do not meet your definition of
successfull; but, despite their ****ing and moaning, their presence does
continue to further the cause of GA.

Peter

[xyzzy]

On Jun 19, 8:42 am, "Peter R." > wrote:
> On 6/19/2007 12:17:16 AM, Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> > I don't know an average person's income versus 20 years ago, but I do
> > know that you can buy a nice Cherokee 140 for about $30K.
>
> As you know, but for the benefit of those who don't own, operating costs for
> older aircraft become more of a barrier than acquisition cost.

Right. For example I've run the numbers on various AOPA sweepstakes
planes and come to the conclusion that I couldn't afford one even it
it was given to me.

Acquisition cost of a very low-end plane may be comparable to a high-
end car. But the cost of keeping it is way out of the ballpark. In
six years of owning my Lexus, which cost about the same to acquire as
an entry-level used Cherokee, I've only had to spend $1K on
maintenance once -- a 90K service that included a new timing belt and
water pump. My "required annual" is a state emissions inspection at
$30 a pop. And I don't have to rent a place to keep it. And it
costs a lot less to insure than... well, you get the picture. Saying
that a plane costs about the same as a high-end vehicle is simply
wrong. It's way more. Not even close.

[Gene Seibel]

On Jun 18, 11:13 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> You will notice one thing about successful aircraft owners. (By
> "successful" I mean that they actually FLY their planes often.)
>
> They do not consider the cost of ownership in their equations at all.
> They have factored the expense of purchasing, storing, and maintaining
> their aircraft into their budgets, after which they regard it as a
> zero-cost affair, only considering fuel as the cost of flying.
>
> It's a form of mental illness, really, but it works.

I fly because of the joy it brings me. I will continue to fly when I
can, and consider myself very blessed to have been able to fly 3000
hours in the last 30 years. I will not let gas prices steal my joy. I
will not let fretting about the future of GA steal my joy. I will
consider each hour I fly in the future to be even more precious than
the last because of its increasing scarcity. I refuse to participate
in the gloom.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Gatt]

"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...

> First of all, GA needs to reach out. I had never been in anything smaller
> than a 737 until just a few years ago, and didn't even know what GA was.


Thoughtful post, Ken. Thinking about this stuff is a great way to propel me
through a non-flying day.

In terms of reaching out, I wholeheartedly agree. In Troutdale the EAA used
to do a small airshow. Nothing fancy except for the occasional P-51 or
search and rescue demonstration, but the FBOs all gave reduced-rate
introductory rides. People lined up in front of the FBO for discovery
flights right along the show line and there would be two or three Cessnas
ready to go as soon as the performance aircraft stopped and the field
reopened. The CFIs worked their tail off that day flying people who'd just
seen the other edge of general aviation. The FBO had the barbeque fired up
and it didn't seem like a 100,000 person event where people were pretty much
treated like cattle. Good fun every year--you didn't watch a bunch of
multimillion-dollar military jets screeching around; you saw experimentals,
gyrocopters and things that seemed accessible to the average person. One
summer it just stopped happening.

Maybe it's time to polish the brass and bring back the mystique and glory of
simply flying a Cessna around the pattern instead of filling giant airshows
with Truckasaurus, drag-racing semis and Blue Angels.

-c

[Peter R.]

On 6/19/2007 10:28:33 AM, Gene Seibel wrote:

> I refuse to participate in the gloom.

Right, but by failing to be motivated by this "gloom" have you become an
unwilling participant in GA's possible extinction?

--
Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ken Finney" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > First of all, GA needs to reach out. I had never been in anything
smaller
> > than a 737 until just a few years ago, and didn't even know what GA was.
>
>
> Thoughtful post, Ken. Thinking about this stuff is a great way to propel
me
> through a non-flying day.
>
> In terms of reaching out, I wholeheartedly agree. In Troutdale the EAA
used
> to do a small airshow. Nothing fancy except for the occasional P-51 or
> search and rescue demonstration, but the FBOs all gave reduced-rate
> introductory rides. People lined up in front of the FBO for discovery
> flights right along the show line and there would be two or three Cessnas
> ready to go as soon as the performance aircraft stopped and the field
> reopened. The CFIs worked their tail off that day flying people who'd
just
> seen the other edge of general aviation. The FBO had the barbeque fired
up
> and it didn't seem like a 100,000 person event where people were pretty
much
> treated like cattle. Good fun every year--you didn't watch a bunch of
> multimillion-dollar military jets screeching around; you saw
experimentals,
> gyrocopters and things that seemed accessible to the average person. One
> summer it just stopped happening.
>
> Maybe it's time to polish the brass and bring back the mystique and glory
of
> simply flying a Cessna around the pattern instead of filling giant
airshows
> with Truckasaurus, drag-racing semis and Blue Angels.
>
> -c
>
>
Very well said.

Peter

[texasflyer]

On Jun 19, 7:45 am, "Peter R." > wrote:
> On 6/19/2007 12:13:40 AM, Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> > Which is the reason you'll hear so many of us bitching about the
> > increased cost of fuel so loudly. It's the only expense we really
> > "see" anymore.
>
> Really? Cracked exhaust pipes, cracked spinners, recurring ADs for
> dye-penetrant spar inspections, engine overhauls, prop overhauls, etc., etc,
> etc. are also pretty visual and recurring expenses. :)
>
> --
> Peter

I've been flying the same 35 year old spamcan for over half a decade
now, and haven't had to deal with any of those such maintenance
nightmares. In fact, I've only had to replace the exhaust muffler once
as the biggest repair expense since purchaing the plane and that was
only about $800 above what usually amounts to be about a $500 annual
each year. If you buy the *right* vintage spamcan and get a very
thorough pre-purchase inspection to weed out buying a possible lemon
or junkheap aircraft that'll eat your lunch in repairs, you can avoid
the nightmares. Right now, it's a buyer's market too, and if you're
shopping for a used spamcan, you can pick the cream of the crop.

The thing that has curtailed the my pleasure flying the most is indeed
fuel costs. And not just the price of avgas, but the price of gas for
my car too. I have a fixed income and have only X dollars to spend on
any kind of gasoline each week, whether for the road or the air. Both
kinds of gasoline have virtually almost doubled in price over the past
couple years or so, and I still need the same number of gallons to
drive to and from work, so my gas money that was once used for
pleasure flying is now necessary to put into my vehicle to get me to
my job each day. My flying has been literally cut in half because of
this higher operating cost for any fuel-burning vehicles.

[Ken Finney]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Forgive me, as I'm not a pilot (yet). I've spent way too much time
>> thinking
>> about the interrelation of lots of things lately, which feeds into this
>> discussion. If "aviation" were so important to pilots, you'd think that
>> they'd be willing to invest their time into it.
>
> Bravo for an outstanding post.
>
> Sadly, it's one I might have written myself, five or ten years ago.
> (Check the archives -- I probably did!) Back then, I was the new guy
> at the airport, frustrated by the inertia and lack of enthusiasm
> amongst pilots, and wondering why no one was *doing* anything.
>
> As time has gone on, however, and I've tried various and sundry things
> (you may not know it, but I've taken love of aviation about as far as
> one can in the real world, up to and including creating an aviation
> themed hotel at our airport), I've grown increasingly cynical and
> weary of the battle. Pilots just won't do much of anything (other
> than fly), even if its in their best interest.
>

< snip >

Yes, I know, you are one of the good guys.

[Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address)]

Kevin Clarke wrote:
> I do not get this argument. I would like to understand it. But why is
> the little podunk airport important? 3B3 Sterling, Mass, offers very
> little to the local economy, if anything. KFIT, my home base, offers
> very little to the local economy, a couple of shops, a restaurant, a few
> commercial flights (Part 135) per week. Are they that big a deal?
> KC

On the expense side to the argument you could say that the airport is
keeping taxes down. It pays some taxes to the town and uses very little
resources.

That big flat area of land is probably very desirable a residential
developer. I'm not sure how much land 3B3 sits on, but say they put 150
homes on 100 acres. If each home pays about $3,600/year in property
taxes, and has on average one school age child, that development is a
big money loser for the town since it costs Sterling $6,570 per year per
student (publicschoolreview.com). New homes are often purchased by young
families. Also, the costs for the town go way up if there's more than
one child in the family while property taxes don't change.

I see the Board of Education in Sterling wanted a 13.5% increase this
year, and the Selectmen wanted to hold it down to _only_ 9.9%. Since
Sterling now has about 1400 K-12 students (from city-data.com) Adding
another 150 students would make that 9.9% increase budget go up to a
10.6% increase, assuming a linear increase and new facilities aren't
needed.

This is only the education numbers. There are all the other service
needs residential development creates like road maintenance, police/fire
protection, library, tax collector services, etc.

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Another indication of the reducued flying.

http://www.centennial-airport.com/PDF/Ops.pdf

Ron Lee

[Ken Finney]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> >> I do not get this argument. I would like to understand it. But why is
>> >> the little podunk airport important?
>
> <snip>
>
>> > Just curious: How many long cross-country flights have you made with
>> > your family?
>>
>> me, none. If you remember from a bygone thread, my wife won't fly w/ me.
>
> I believe this is why you see so little utility in small-town
> airports. Until you've been on a bunch of long cross-country flights
> with your family, and flown into small-town America from coast to
> coast, it's really hard to appreciate their essential nature.
>
> Most of our trips utilize these smaller, less used airports, and it is
> always a delight to visit them. This is where "real" America still
> exists, and their existence allows us, as pilots, to drop in almost
> anywhere across this vast continent.
>
> All of this is, of course, aside from all the vital financial aid your
> airport brings to your community. Everything from "Flight for Life"
> helicopters, to charters, to little guys like us think of your airport
> as your "Front Door" -- and, quite frankly, we don't go to towns that
> don't have airports.
>
> Of course, if the pilot community continues to dwindle, there won't be
> enough of us flying to bring $$$ into those small towns, and those
> airports will simply close. And THEN flying in America will really
> have lost it's merit.

While I think small airports are really important, your "trying to get
pilots to agree to do anything is like trying to herd cats" remark comes to
mind. Where I plan on doing most of my flying, there is a small town
airport about every 20 to 30 miles along the only highway. The towns along
that highway work together on a lot of things, but if there ever was an
attempt by the airports to work together, it failed. Consequently, there is
no critical mass, one fly-in (there were 2 only a couple of years ago), and
the biggest of the airports appears to have the least going on.

I think they'd be a lot better off if:
1. They formed a regional coordination board.
2. Promoted the area as a fly-in vacation spot.
3. Decided which type of business worked best at each area, and promoted
those businesses to relocate there.
4. Had a regional Fly-in that rotated between the airports.

[Barney Rubble]

Ok, I'll bite, how do you come to this conclusion? Oh, I just realized where
you're coming from. I know, they'll get all their ratings, certificates and
experience by sitting in front of a computer and fiddling with a game.
Sounds like a great plan. NEXT.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Perhaps -- but the majority of professional pilots are still trained
>> -- and hired by -- your local airport.
>
> That can--and probably will--change in the future.

[El Maximo]

"Barney Rubble" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, I'll bite, how do you come to this conclusion?

"Take a man, and remove reason and accountability"

- Melvin Udall

[Ken Finney]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Another indication of the reducued flying.
>
> http://www.centennial-airport.com/PDF/Ops.pdf
>

Actually, that looks pretty good. Flying was down significantly in 2006
over 2005 (which likely was caused by fuel prices), but hasn't dropped much
in 2007 over 2006.

[Gatt]

"Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address)" > wrote in
message ...

> That big flat area of land is probably very desirable a residential
> developer.

Was talking to NWPilot yesterday (he has a new story to tell!) about
Evergreen air park in Vancouver which was closed down after decades of
operation, for rampant housing development. I started thinking "This is an
echo of what the tribal Americans must have felt. Their functional way of
life crowded and closed out by a few people making big money off clueless
immigrant masses."

At some point, people have to draw the line and decide that land developers
and the officials they pay off don't always get to dictate what happens to
our communities or we will end up flying on the functional equivalent of
indian reservations. All we have to do is look to American history to see
what happened to the Seminole and the Cherokee (Pun intended) to see one
possible future.

-c

[Blanche]

Andrew Gideon > wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:07:22 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> concluded that General Aviation is no longer worth
>> pursuing
>
>This may not have been decided quite as simplistically as you seem to
>feel. Perhaps the conclusion was that Piper could not afford to catch up
>with the likes of Cessna, Cirrus, whatever the company name is that builds
>the Columbia 350/400, etc.
>
>I was at a certain very large company a number of years ago that (1) spent
>a lot of money on getting certain compilers developed and certified but
>(2) chose to keep them out of the market because they couldn't compete
>with the more lithe firms delivering equivalent products.
>
>If it makes you feel better, the markets for those compilers still exist
>(though there is plenty of linguistic competition {8^) and the company
>that made that choice no longer exists (though the name lives on in a
>rather ghoulish way {8^).

Digital?
CDC?
Univac?
Honeywell?

[Ken Finney]

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address)" > wrote in
> message ...
>
>> That big flat area of land is probably very desirable a residential
>> developer.
>
> Was talking to NWPilot yesterday (he has a new story to tell!) about
> Evergreen air park in Vancouver which was closed down after decades of
> operation, for rampant housing development. I started thinking "This is an
> echo of what the tribal Americans must have felt. Their functional way of
> life crowded and closed out by a few people making big money off clueless
> immigrant masses."
>
> At some point, people have to draw the line and decide that land
> developers and the officials they pay off don't always get to dictate what
> happens to our communities or we will end up flying on the functional
> equivalent of indian reservations. All we have to do is look to American
> history to see what happened to the Seminole and the Cherokee (Pun
> intended) to see one possible future.
>
> -c
>

http://members.tripod.com/airfields_freeman/WA/Airfields_WA_SW.html

I never went to Evergreen, but it was poorly located to deal with urban
sprawl (e.g. it couldn't have been more in the prime area for development if
they tried). But I wonder what might have happened if they had tried to
bring in a bunch of businesses that needed the airport to survive?

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
Blanche > wrote:

> Andrew Gideon > wrote:
> >On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:07:22 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> >> concluded that General Aviation is no longer worth
> >> pursuing
> >
> >This may not have been decided quite as simplistically as you seem to
> >feel. Perhaps the conclusion was that Piper could not afford to catch up
> >with the likes of Cessna, Cirrus, whatever the company name is that builds
> >the Columbia 350/400, etc.
> >
> >I was at a certain very large company a number of years ago that (1) spent
> >a lot of money on getting certain compilers developed and certified but
> >(2) chose to keep them out of the market because they couldn't compete
> >with the more lithe firms delivering equivalent products.
> >
> >If it makes you feel better, the markets for those compilers still exist
> >(though there is plenty of linguistic competition {8^) and the company
> >that made that choice no longer exists (though the name lives on in a
> >rather ghoulish way {8^).
>
> Digital?
> CDC?
> Univac?
> Honeywell?

Data General?

[Gatt]

"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...

> http://members.tripod.com/airfields_freeman/WA/Airfields_WA_SW.html
>
> I never went to Evergreen, but it was poorly located to deal with urban
> sprawl (e.g. it couldn't have been more in the prime area for development
> if they tried). But I wonder what might have happened if they had tried
> to bring in a bunch of businesses that needed the airport to survive?

The housing explosion here...

Household income must be $80,000 to buy a house in the Portland/Vancouver
area now. In 2001 you could get a pretty decent ~1800sq ft house in the
area for under $150,000. Now it's about $300,000. A lot of developers and
house-flippers made great money but the problem is, the working class can't
afford to buy houses out there so there are over-priced apartments springing
up all around. If you were to do a short approach at Evergreen now you'd
have to make sure you didn't clip the red beacon light on the roof of the
apartment complex, or the traffic liht.

Meanwhile, of course, there aren't really any new jobs, let alone
aviation-dependent ones. Freightliner closed down production and moved it
to Mexico and HP and Intel sort of expand and contract. Lots of jobs for
TGI Friday and Target employees, pavers, carpenters, etc, but those jobs
don't rent Cessnas and the developers make a lot more money off a thousand
immigrants than a few dozen private pilots.

Grew up here. If I leave, I won't be able to afford to come back.
-c

[Ken Finney]

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ken Finney" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> http://members.tripod.com/airfields_freeman/WA/Airfields_WA_SW.html
>>
>> I never went to Evergreen, but it was poorly located to deal with urban
>> sprawl (e.g. it couldn't have been more in the prime area for development
>> if they tried). But I wonder what might have happened if they had tried
>> to bring in a bunch of businesses that needed the airport to survive?
>
> The housing explosion here...
>
> Household income must be $80,000 to buy a house in the Portland/Vancouver
> area now. In 2001 you could get a pretty decent ~1800sq ft house in the
> area for under $150,000. Now it's about $300,000. A lot of developers
> and house-flippers made great money but the problem is, the working class
> can't afford to buy houses out there so there are over-priced apartments
> springing up all around. If you were to do a short approach at Evergreen
> now you'd have to make sure you didn't clip the red beacon light on the
> roof of the apartment complex, or the traffic liht.
>
> Meanwhile, of course, there aren't really any new jobs, let alone
> aviation-dependent ones. Freightliner closed down production and moved it
> to Mexico and HP and Intel sort of expand and contract. Lots of jobs for
> TGI Friday and Target employees, pavers, carpenters, etc, but those jobs
> don't rent Cessnas and the developers make a lot more money off a thousand
> immigrants than a few dozen private pilots.
>
> Grew up here. If I leave, I won't be able to afford to come back.
> -c
>

I think the median price in Seattle is now $444,000. Sigh.

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
xyzzy > wrote:

> Acquisition cost of a very low-end plane may be comparable to a high-
> end car. But the cost of keeping it is way out of the ballpark. In
> six years of owning my Lexus, which cost about the same to acquire as
> an entry-level used Cherokee, I've only had to spend $1K on
> maintenance once -- a 90K service that included a new timing belt and
> water pump. My "required annual" is a state emissions inspection at
> $30 a pop. And I don't have to rent a place to keep it.

How much is the value of your garage or your driveway? Some people
actually do have to rent or buy garage space or parking spaces. How
does the cost of money effect your conclusion?

> And it
> costs a lot less to insure than... well, you get the picture.

I pay only slightly more to insure my airplane than my car.

> Saying
> that a plane costs about the same as a high-end vehicle is simply
> wrong. It's way more. Not even close.

I think it's closer than you think it is.

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

[Gatt]

"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...

>> Grew up here. If I leave, I won't be able to afford to come back.
>
> I think the median price in Seattle is now $444,000. Sigh.

We're all just a big suburb of Los Angeles now. That's what happens when
these developer-friendly magazines decide your city is "America's most
liveable." There goes the neighborhood.

-c

[El Maximo]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> xyzzy > wrote:
>
>> Acquisition cost of a very low-end plane may be comparable to a high-
>> end car. But the cost of keeping it is way out of the ballpark.

>
> I think it's closer than you think it is.
>

Something else to consider is depreciation.

What was the value of the Lexus six years ago?
What was the value of a low-end Cherokee six years ago?
What are they both worth today?

[Jay Honeck]

> I think they'd be a lot better off if:
> 1. They formed a regional coordination board.
> 2. Promoted the area as a fly-in vacation spot.
> 3. Decided which type of business worked best at each area, and promoted
> those businesses to relocate there.
> 4. Had a regional Fly-in that rotated between the airports.- Hide quoted text -

All good ideas. I think the reason we don't see airports working more
closely together is because of the way our gummint sets up the
competition for "grants".

At least in Iowa, if Grinnell gets $100K, that's $100K that Iowa City
won't ever see. This creates a quasi-adversarial relationship
between them, and creates a disincentive for the type of cooperation
you describe.

To work around that, Iowa has set up a "Fly Iowa" airshow that rotates
around the state, from airport to airport. Some years it's pretty
good, many years it's pretty lame -- but it *does* move the spotlight
around a bit.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> We're all just a big suburb of Los Angeles now. That's what happens when
> these developer-friendly magazines decide your city is "America's most
> liveable." There goes the neighborhood.

Ha! That's exactly what's happening in Iowa City, on a smaller
scale. Our town has made somebody's "Top Ten List of Best Small
Cities in America" every year now, and the influx of people seems to
be never-ending and accelerating.

Good for our business. Bad for our way of life...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Barney Rubble writes:

> Ok, I'll bite, how do you come to this conclusion?

As the salaries of pilots diminish and the glamour of the job dwindles, it
will become harder and harder to find pilots, especially given the continuing
expansion of commercial aviation. Thus, shortcuts will be found to producing
pilots quickly, and more and more will be produced by specialized schools
quickly and efficiently. There's no inherent reason why a commercial airline
pilot need ever fly anything besides a commercial airliner (or equivalent
simulator), even for training.

[Mxsmanic]

Gatt writes:

> Maybe it's time to polish the brass and bring back the mystique and glory of
> simply flying a Cessna around the pattern instead of filling giant airshows
> with Truckasaurus, drag-racing semis and Blue Angels.

The problem is, even for some people who are otherwise interested in aviation,
the idea of flying a tiny plane around the pattern is neither mystical nor
glorious, it's just boring.

[Jay Honeck]

> I fly because of the joy it brings me. I will continue to fly when I
> can, and consider myself very blessed to have been able to fly 3000
> hours in the last 30 years. I will not let gas prices steal my joy. I
> will not let fretting about the future of GA steal my joy. I will
> consider each hour I fly in the future to be even more precious than
> the last because of its increasing scarcity. I refuse to participate
> in the gloom.

Well said, as always, Gene -- but I fear we can no longer exist in our
little bubble of joy. There are too many enemies afoot, all trying
to pop our bubbles, for us to simply go on whistling in the dark. We
need to act!

But you're right about the gloom -- for me, it's always short-lived,
and easily dispelled by my next flight!

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

[Jay Honeck]

> Something else to consider is depreciation.
>
> What was the value of the Lexus six years ago?
> What was the value of a low-end Cherokee six years ago?
> What are they both worth today?

This is VERY important. Recently, the market has reversed, and our
planes have depreciated fairly sharply. (Atlas has lost roughly 25%
of his value in the last three years.)

However, if you look at history, these little "blips" happen. In 2002
I sold my Warrior -- to a friend, who was getting a very good deal --
for 22% MORE than I paid for it, just four years earlier.

Granted, with that airplane I had turned a turd into a cherry, but the
point still stands -- an aircraft holds its value much better than any
luxury car.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gatt writes:
>
>> Maybe it's time to polish the brass and bring back the mystique and
>> glory of simply flying a Cessna around the pattern instead of filling
>> giant airshows with Truckasaurus, drag-racing semis and Blue Angels.
>
> The problem is, even for some people who are otherwise interested in
> aviation, the idea of flying a tiny plane around the pattern is
> neither mystical nor glorious, it's just boring.
>



You're an idiotl

And you're not interested in avaition


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Barney Rubble writes:
>
>> Ok, I'll bite, how do you come to this conclusion?
>
> As the salaries of pilots diminish and the glamour of the job
> dwindles, it will become harder and harder to find pilots, especially
> given the continuing expansion of commercial aviation. Thus,
> shortcuts will be found to producing pilots quickly, and more and more
> will be produced by specialized schools quickly and efficiently.
> There's no inherent reason why a commercial airline pilot need ever
> fly anything besides a commercial airliner (or equivalent simulator),
> even for training.
>


Wow, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
clueless, clueless,



Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:00:29 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote in . com>:

>
>Good for our business. Bad for our way of life...

Which is more important?

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Barney Rubble writes:
>
>> Ok, I'll bite, how do you come to this conclusion?
>
> As the salaries of pilots diminish

Not happening yet....

> and the glamour of the job dwindles

Wrong again. Airline pilots still get laid on a frequent basis.

> There's no inherent reason why a commercial airline
> pilot need ever fly anything besides a commercial airliner (or equivalent
> simulator), even for training.

Wrong. There are plenty of reasons. You simply choose to ignore them because
they don't support your (extremely limited) point of view.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

john smith wrote:
>
>> Digital?
>> CDC?
>> Univac?
>> Honeywell?
>
> Data General?

It sounds like a trip through Massachusetts...

[Peter R.]

On 6/19/2007 8:34:56 PM, "Gatt" wrote:

> We're all just a big suburb of Los Angeles now. That's what happens when
> these developer-friendly magazines decide your city is "America's most
> liveable." There goes the neighborhood.

Didn't happen in our town when it was named in the top ten of one of those
lists. Unfortunately it would take a lot more than an entry on some list to
reinvigorate the economy of upstate New York.

--
Peter

[xyzzy]

On Jun 19, 7:13 pm, Bob Noel >
wrote:
> In article om>,
>
> xyzzy > wrote:
> > Acquisition cost of a very low-end plane may be comparable to a high-
> > end car. But the cost of keeping it is way out of the ballpark. In
> > six years of owning my Lexus, which cost about the same to acquire as
> > an entry-level used Cherokee, I've only had to spend $1K on
> > maintenance once -- a 90K service that included a new timing belt and
> > water pump. My "required annual" is a state emissions inspection at
> > $30 a pop. And I don't have to rent a place to keep it.
>
> How much is the value of your garage or your driveway?

the marginal cost of having a garage or driveway over the fact that I
have to have a place to live anyway? zero.

> Some people
> actually do have to rent or buy garage space or parking spaces. How
> does the cost of money effect your conclusion?

Not sure what you mean by that, are you saying I have to pay a cost of
moneyto own a car but not a plane?
>
> > And it
> > costs a lot less to insure than... well, you get the picture.
>
> I pay only slightly more to insure my airplane than my car.
>
> > Saying
> > that a plane costs about the same as a high-end vehicle is simply
> > wrong. It's way more. Not even close.
>
> I think it's closer than you think it is.

I'd like to be convinced of that so I could buy the airplane I've
always wanted but in fact is isn't. Not by a long shot. Not if the
airplane costs are honestly accounted for, which in my experience
almost no airplane owner does.

[xyzzy]

On Jun 19, 9:39 pm, "El Maximo" > wrote:
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > In article om>,
> > xyzzy > wrote:
>
> >> Acquisition cost of a very low-end plane may be comparable to a high-
> >> end car. But the cost of keeping it is way out of the ballpark.
>
> > I think it's closer than you think it is.
>
> Something else to consider is depreciation.
>
> What was the value of the Lexus six years ago?
> What was the value of a low-end Cherokee six years ago?
> What are they both worth today?

I bought my car used so while it has depreciated less than it could
have but it has depreciated significantly. This is an area where the
airplane formerly held an advantage, however that advantage is
reversing, and given the state of aviation I wonder how hard it would
be to unload a Cherokee right now, without significantly underpricing
it.

[El Maximo]

"xyzzy" > wrote in message

> I'd like to be convinced of that so I could buy the airplane I've
> always wanted but in fact is isn't. Not by a long shot. Not if the
> airplane costs are honestly accounted for, which in my experience
> almost no airplane owner does.
>

I don't account for what I spend on beer either. Some numbers are best left
unknown.

[Jose]

> Good for our business. Bad for our way of life...

Which is more important? Aye, there's the rub.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> The problem is, even for some people who are otherwise interested in aviation,
> the idea of flying a tiny plane around the pattern is neither mystical nor
> glorious, it's just boring.

This is not the case, in my experience. I've heard it called all
sorts of things, from "breath-taking" to "terrifying" -- but never
"boring".

Boredom in the pattern only comes later, after many hours in the air.
To combat this boredom, we LEAVE the pattern, often...

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

[Jose]

> the marginal cost of having a garage or driveway over the fact that I
> have to have a place to live anyway? zero.

If your house had no garage and no driveway, what would its resale value
be compared to now, considering that all the other houses probably have one?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> >Good for our business. Bad for our way of life...
>
> Which is more important?

Ah, therein lies the rub. Without business, we have no way of life,
so I suspect we'll have to continue to "suffer" through this growth
period...

It's amazing, though, the number of long-term corporate stays (30 days
or longer) we've turned away lately. I could easily keep twice as
many suites filled at this time of year, thanks to all the folks
moving to town and looking for homes.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> Without business, we have no way of life.

And if there's no decent way of life, there's no point to business.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Without business, we have no way of life.
>
> And if there's no decent way of life, there's no point to business.

What, you don't eat?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

>>> Without business, we have no way of life.
>> And if there's no decent way of life, there's no point to business.
> What, you don't eat?

I can pick your statement apart the same way. Obviously we're referring
to priorities in cartoon form. It is the purpose of business to provide
for a good way of life (for all), not the other way around. Often those
who are already battling alligators in the swamp forget this, and see
business as its own justification. This thinking leads to the strip
malling of America.

That was my only point.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> The problem is, even for some people who are otherwise interested in
> aviation,
> the idea of flying a tiny plane around the pattern is neither mystical nor
> glorious, it's just boring.

How would you know, you have clearly never done it. Gee, what else have you
given advice on from a position of having no experience?

[Jay Honeck]

> I can pick your statement apart the same way. Obviously we're referring
> to priorities in cartoon form. It is the purpose of business to provide
> for a good way of life (for all), not the other way around. Often those
> who are already battling alligators in the swamp forget this, and see
> business as its own justification. This thinking leads to the strip
> malling of America.
>
> That was my only point.

Sorry, we jumped from micro to macro here, and I didn't keep up.

In the larger sense, I certainly agree with you. However, it's easy
to make the point that there really is no "macro-economics" -- our
economy is really just a bunch of individuals trying to make the best
possible decisions for their families.

In the end, THAT can result in the "strip-malling of America" -- but I
haven't heard of any better alternatives to capitalism.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith[_2_]]

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> All good ideas. I think the reason we don't see airports working more
> closely together is because of the way our gummint sets up the
> competition for "grants".
> At least in Iowa, if Grinnell gets $100K, that's $100K that Iowa City
> won't ever see. This creates a quasi-adversarial relationship
> between them, and creates a disincentive for the type of cooperation
> you describe.

Welllll..... not exactly.

For GA airports, the local entity fronts 5%, the state fronts 5% and the
FAA provides the remaining 90%.

The state aviation organization solicitics requests from each airport
for grants in aid for projects they would like to perform. As part of
this process, the local entity must decide if it has the money to pay
for its share of the project.

The state organization then puts together its list of the most necessary
for safety and local economic reasons and submits it to the FAA for
cosideration. The amount of money the state legislature will give the
state aviation organization to pay for the state's share of the project
is also factored in to the total request the state organization will
make.

The FAA, after much deliberation, comes back with a lump sum AIP
grant-in-aid to the state organization.

The state organization then divies up its grant dollars to the local
airports for their projects based on a ranking of all the project
requests.

[john smith[_2_]]

In article
>,
"El Maximo" > wrote:

> Wrong again. Airline pilots still get laid on a frequent basis.

By "getting laid on a frequent basis", did you mean "screwed"?

[El Maximo]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>

<drivel snipped>

>
> How would you know, you have clearly never done it. Gee, what else have
> you given advice on from a position of having no experience?

I think the last count was several hundred thousand items.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:11:37 +0000, B A R R Y wrote:

> john smith wrote:
>>
>>> Digital?
>>> CDC?
>>> Univac?
>>> Honeywell?
>>
>> Data General?
>
> It sounds like a trip through Massachusetts...

Swell. You guys have found a new layer of gloom with which to depress me.

- Andrew

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> It sounds like a trip through Massachusetts...

Or Stepford.

[Mxsmanic]

El Maximo writes:

> Not happening yet....

Airline captains don't make what they used to.

> Wrong again. Airline pilots still get laid on a frequent basis.

So do convicts in prison.

[Mxsmanic]

john smith writes:

> By "getting laid on a frequent basis", did you mean "screwed"?

Two different things. The first is disappearing, the second is becoming the
norm.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> This is not the case, in my experience. I've heard it called all
> sorts of things, from "breath-taking" to "terrifying" -- but never
> "boring".

Select a completely random cross-section of the population and take them up,
and see what they say. Especially after the novelty wears off, I daresay many
of them will very rapidly get tired of flying rectangles in the sky.

[Ken Finney]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I can pick your statement apart the same way. Obviously we're referring
>> to priorities in cartoon form. It is the purpose of business to provide
>> for a good way of life (for all), not the other way around. Often those
>> who are already battling alligators in the swamp forget this, and see
>> business as its own justification. This thinking leads to the strip
>> malling of America.
>>
>> That was my only point.
>
> Sorry, we jumped from micro to macro here, and I didn't keep up.
>
> In the larger sense, I certainly agree with you. However, it's easy
> to make the point that there really is no "macro-economics" -- our
> economy is really just a bunch of individuals trying to make the best
> possible decisions for their families.
>
> In the end, THAT can result in the "strip-malling of America" -- but I
> haven't heard of any better alternatives to capitalism.

Families do tend to complicate things. I've met an awful lot of happy
single people that used to be unhappy, until they changed careers to do what
they wanted to do. I've met an awful lot of unhappy people with families
that couldn't change careers because they had a family to support.

On another subject, demographics, the following was posted to
rec.aviation.homebuilt. It is great news, but kinda demonstrates the
graying of GA...

"It is a real pleasure to announce that one of our local EAA
homebuilders, Frank Varnum, made his first flight in his new RV4. N13MJ's
first flight was uneventful. No leaks. No problems.
Frank, 90 years old, and his little brother Gordon, 87, built the RV
over the last several years. No beginner, Frank has about 25,000 hrs, and
started his airline career as a co-pilot in a Boeing Flying boat for Pan Am.
I think he was flying 707's across the pond when he retired, about the time
I graduated from 6th grade. He is a kick to talk to. The EAA flight advisor
that did the safety brief is 88. (as an aside, the flight advisor was chief
instructor for the Army Air Corp, at Luke Field during the war, while my
father was there as a cadet)
I have a couple of pictures, but so far have been unable to get them to
post to alt.binaries.pictures.aviation. I'll keep trying, and let you know."

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> This is not the case, in my experience. I've heard it called all
>> sorts of things, from "breath-taking" to "terrifying" -- but never
>> "boring".
>
> Select a completely random cross-section of the population and take them
> up,
> and see what they say. Especially after the novelty wears off, I daresay
> many
> of them will very rapidly get tired of flying rectangles in the sky.

You're backpedaling again. You specifically mentioned people with an
interest in aviation.

Try to keep up with you B.S., huh.

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>
> So do convicts in prison.

Do you know this from personal knowledge, or are you extrapolating again?

[xyzzy]

On Jun 20, 10:00 am, "El Maximo" > wrote:
> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
> > I'd like to be convinced of that so I could buy the airplane I've
> > always wanted but in fact is isn't. Not by a long shot. Not if the
> > airplane costs are honestly accounted for, which in my experience
> > almost no airplane owner does.
>
> I don't account for what I spend on beer either. Some numbers are best left
> unknown.

Those are aviation words of wisdom!

[[email protected]]

On Jun 20, 2:35 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> Select a completely random cross-section of the population and take them up,
> and see what they say. Especially after the novelty wears off, I daresay many
> of them will very rapidly get tired of flying rectangles in the sky

You are so ignorant, it's pathetic. There are 27,000,000 GA hours in
the U.S., and only 16% are Instructional, and a small fraction of that
(in just primary training, not advanced ratings) are practice
landings. Plus, the general public knows little of what an airport
pattern is.

F--

[Bob Noel]

In article m>,
xyzzy > wrote:

> > How much is the value of your garage or your driveway?
>
> the marginal cost of having a garage or driveway over the fact that I
> have to have a place to live anyway? zero.

not around here. People actually pay more money for a house with
a garage than without.

>
> > Some people
> > actually do have to rent or buy garage space or parking spaces. How
> > does the cost of money effect your conclusion?
>
> Not sure what you mean by that, are you saying I have to pay a cost of
> moneyto own a car but not a plane?

No, you have to pay money to own a driveway and/or garage

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

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> > It sounds like a trip through Massachusetts...
>
> Swell. You guys have found a new layer of gloom with which to depress me.
>
> - Andrew

lotsa of stuff in taxachusetts to be gloomy about. More taxes, Ma$$port,
even more taxes.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> "It is a real pleasure to announce that one of our local EAA
> homebuilders, Frank Varnum, made his first flight in his new RV4. N13MJ's
> first flight was uneventful. No leaks. No problems.
> Frank, 90 years old, and his little brother Gordon, 87, built the RV
> over the last several years.

Now THAT is cool.

If I'm not sitting in a wheelchair drooling at their age(s), I'll be
happy.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

>> ...It is the purpose of business to provide
>> for a good way of life (for all), not the other way around...
> Sorry, we jumped from micro to macro here, and I didn't keep up.

No, we didn't jump, but they are all related.

> our economy is really just
> a bunch of individuals trying to make the best
> possible decisions for their families.

True to some extent. Part of that economy however are the rules we
agree to do business by, grudgingly or not.

> In the end, THAT can result in the "strip-malling of America" -- but I
> haven't heard of any better alternatives to capitalism.

I'm not proposing one. However, unrestrained capitalism will lead to
the strip malling of America, and that is most assuredly a Bad Thing.
In order to protect us against unrestrained capitalistic interests
(which include big glaring "buy this" signs, high rises replacing
airports and forests, sewage pipes into the river, and software that
secretly does stuff behind your back), capitalism must be restrained
sometimes. The capitalists that are thus forced to be more reasonable
do not like this and have bad things to say about the eco-nazis, wealthy
airport nuts, enemies of innovation, and conspiracy theorists who are
protecting what amounts on the one hand to their own special intersts,
but which in the aggregate are the foundation of the good life we all
want for ourselves.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> B A R R Y writes:
>
>> It sounds like a trip through Massachusetts...
>
> Or Stepford.
>

But fortunatle not through that convulted mess you cal a mind


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> El Maximo writes:
>
>> Not happening yet....
>
> Airline captains don't make what they used to.
>
>> Wrong again. Airline pilots still get laid on a frequent basis.
>
> So do convicts in prison.
>



Ahh, wishful thinkng form the bankruptcy boi#





Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> john smith writes:
>
>> By "getting laid on a frequent basis", did you mean "screwed"?
>
> Two different things. The first is disappearing, the second is
> becoming the norm.
>

How would you know?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> This is not the case, in my experience. I've heard it called all
>> sorts of things, from "breath-taking" to "terrifying" -- but never
>> "boring".
>
> Select a completely random cross-section of the population and take
> them up, and see what they say. Especially after the novelty wears
> off, I daresay many of them will very rapidly get tired of flying
> rectangles in the sky.
>

How would you know?

You don't fly and you never will


Not ever



Bertie

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-06-17 18:33:10 -0700, "Harry" > said:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> So why the gloom?
>>
>> The general consensus, after too many gin & tonics, was that the entry-
>> level Cherokee owners were the owners who were barely able to afford
>> ownership in the first place, and have been most devastated by the
>> recent 25% increase in fuel costs. In other words, they were the
>> "canaries in the bird cage", and have died first and quickest, to
>> serve as a warning to us all...
>>
>>
>>
>> God almighty, folks, as if the writing wasn't on the wall enough, this
>> fly-in has proved to me that our beloved GA is teetering at the abyss.
>> I looked around the ballroom, at all these gray-haired old guys
>> wearing brightly-colored, aviation themed Hawaiian shirts, and
>> realized that I was possibly witnessing the end of an era. Between
>> "User Fees" on one side, fuel costs on the other, and an aging pilot
>> community, I don't know anymore what to think or do.
>>
>>
>> Get out there and FLY, people!
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>
> Jay, I'm one of those "gray-haired old guys" albeit, I don't wear the
> "brightly-colored, aviation themed Hawaiian shirts." HAHA
>
> Seriously, I am retired and I now live on what is affectionally called the
> "fixed income". When I first started flying several years ago, I could
> afford it without any problems. However, with the increase in fuel costs
> raising the rental price on the C-172, I rent, I just can't fly as much now
> as I want to. You may be right. We may becoming to the end of an era. Oh,
> BTW, buying a C-172 for me is absolutely out of the financial equation.

And even if you want one and can afford one you can't have it! Cessna
is down to a single production line for its entire current piston
single fleet. The other lines in the factory have been converted to
production of the Mustang or "experimental" aircraft. Not that I have
anything against the LSA or other new Cessnas, you understand -- it is
just that the resources for the 172, 182, and 206 are no longer there.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> That, and recent rumblings about shops' declining to service >18-yr. old
>> aircraft convinced me to buy a nearly new 182 rather than a 15-yr. old
>> Bonanza.
>
> Oh, I don't think we'll have to worry too much about spare parts for
> planes like Cherokees and Bonanzas for a good, long time, even if
> Piper and Beech bailed out. All you have to do is look at the
> plethora of interior plastic suppliers to see what happens when the
> OEMs price themselves too high in an area that everyone needs/
> wants.
>
> Still, it's truly disturbing to see that the CEO of Piper has done the
> cold, hard math, and concluded that General Aviation is no longer
> worth pursuing. If Bass is really as smart as everyone says he is
> (and his reputation at Sony and General Electric is pristine), we're
> in for a long, hard road.

The Piper Jet is a general aviation airplane. It is just a different
class of general aviation!

Matt

[Montblack]

("Gatt" wrote)
> At some point, people have to draw the line and decide that land
> developers and the officials they pay off don't always get to dictate what
> happens to our communities or we will end up flying on the functional
> equivalent of indian reservations. All we have to do is look to American
> history to see what happened to the Seminole and the Cherokee (Pun
> intended) to see one possible future.


I'm seeing hangar casinos in the near future.


Paul-Mont

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> How would you know?

Friends in the industry.

[Mxsmanic]

El Maximo writes:

> Do you know this from personal knowledge, or are you extrapolating again?

Extrapolating, like the post to which I responded.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Friends
>

A good one!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gatt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> The problem is, even for some people who are otherwise interested in
>> aviation,
>> the idea of flying a tiny plane around the pattern is neither mystical
>> nor
>> glorious, it's just boring.
>
> This is not the case, in my experience. I've heard it called all
> sorts of things, from "breath-taking" to "terrifying" -- but never
> "boring".

I for damned sure can't think of a minute I've spent in (an actual) pattern
that I would describe as "boring."

-c

[Gatt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:00:29 -0700, Jay Honeck >
> wrote in . com>:
>
>>
>>Good for our business. Bad for our way of life...
>
> Which is more important?

I put quality of life before business, personally. Otherwise, those of us
here who are not commercial pilots would not continue to engage in aviation.
'Cause it sure as hell isn't about making a profit.

-c

[Gatt]

"El Maximo" > wrote in message
...
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> So do convicts in prison.
>
> Do you know this from personal knowledge, or are you extrapolating again?

Simulator?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> How would you know?
>
> Friends in the industry.
>
I don't believe you, fjukktsard.


You don't have any frineds in any industry.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> El Maximo writes:
>
>> Do you know this from personal knowledge, or are you extrapolating
>> again?
>
> Extrapolating, like the post to which I responded.
>

Too easy

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic,
>
>> Friends
>>
>
> A good one!
>

Maybe there's an aerospace character in 'the Sims'



Bertie

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Helen > wrote:

>Piper's future in piston GA may be doomed, but certainly GA itself. The
>LSA market will see to that.
>
>Helen

I don't see LSA as the savior of GA.

Ron Lee

[Taylor Hughes]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:06:38 -0700, Jay Honeck >
> wrote in om>:
>
> [Report of low attendance at the Cherokee Pilots Association national
> fly-in snipped]
>
> Thanks for the data point.
>
> As I recall, the cost of fuel makes up the major portion of the cost
> of aircraft ownership and operation.

You've never owned an airplane, have you?

>
>
> As long as the government continues to subsidize profiteering oil
> companies, and fails to impose a windfall profits tax and/or price
> controls as was done in the '70s, the cost of living will increase in
> proportion to the obscene oilmens' profits. And don't forget, that
> our government is letting our currency, the US dollar, continue its
> plunge in value, thus further reducing the purchasing power of US
> workers. So while baby Bush and the sheiks hug and kiss, the American
> populace loses ground on the financial front, and Halliburton moves to
> Dubai to escape taxation on their non-competitive government contract
> profits.

Umm, sorry to break up your little tantrum with facts, but Halliburton is
moving to Dubai because that is where the oil is today. That's exactly
what happened when the oil companies moved their headquarters to Texas.
Profits made from U.S. of America will still be taxed by U.S. of America,
just like any other company in the world. What specific companies would
you like to see contracted instead?


>
>
> Welcome to the land of government of the people, by the corporations,
> and for the corporations. And thanks for voting for that sniveling
> nepotistic who is squandering our hard earned tax dollars at the rate
> of $3 billion a week on a pointless war while irrationally supporting
> the right of a zygote to Constitutional protections,

> irrationally
> obstructing embryonic stem cell research

Relax. There are bans on stem cell research. There are only bans on
using federal tax dollars, which a few phrases above you were claiming
were being spent too often anyway.

[Taylor Hughes]

Taylor Hughes wrote:

> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:06:38 -0700, Jay Honeck >
> > wrote in om>:
> >
> > [Report of low attendance at the Cherokee Pilots Association national
> > fly-in snipped]
> >
> > Thanks for the data point.
> >
> > As I recall, the cost of fuel makes up the major portion of the cost
> > of aircraft ownership and operation.
>
> You've never owned an airplane, have you?
>
> >
> >
> > As long as the government continues to subsidize profiteering oil
> > companies, and fails to impose a windfall profits tax and/or price
> > controls as was done in the '70s, the cost of living will increase in
> > proportion to the obscene oilmens' profits. And don't forget, that
> > our government is letting our currency, the US dollar, continue its
> > plunge in value, thus further reducing the purchasing power of US
> > workers. So while baby Bush and the sheiks hug and kiss, the American
> > populace loses ground on the financial front, and Halliburton moves to
> > Dubai to escape taxation on their non-competitive government contract
> > profits.
>
> Umm, sorry to break up your little tantrum with facts, but Halliburton is
> moving to Dubai because that is where the oil is today. That's exactly
> what happened when the oil companies moved their headquarters to Texas.
> Profits made from U.S. of America will still be taxed by U.S. of America,
> just like any other company in the world. What specific companies would
> you like to see contracted instead?
>
> >
> >
> > Welcome to the land of government of the people, by the corporations,
> > and for the corporations. And thanks for voting for that sniveling
> > nepotistic who is squandering our hard earned tax dollars at the rate
> > of $3 billion a week on a pointless war while irrationally supporting
> > the right of a zygote to Constitutional protections,
>
> > irrationally
> > obstructing embryonic stem cell research
>
> Relax. There are bans on stem cell research.

Oops, should read, there are no bans on doing stem cell research, doh!


> There are only bans on
> using federal tax dollars, which a few phrases above you were claiming
> were being spent too often anyway.