Even Less Gloom?

[Mike Granby]

>From elsewhere to someone else from someone who was there...

===============

George:

The next time you bring something over from the CPA, bring THE WHOLE
THING, please. Had you bothered to wait a little bit, you would have
found that you were reading Jay's opinion, not a real news story.

The official statement from Piper was posted by none other than me.
Yeah, me. I spent most of Tuesday morning hiding from my boss so I
could work the phones, call Piper and deal with aviation magazine
editors because Jay waited 24 hours before he wrote down his
thoughts,
and GOT THE STORY WRONG. When Phil Boyer gets working the issue, you
know it's getting a lot of attention.

Now, for the speech. I was there. In fact, my job (volunteer job) at
the National Cherokee Fly In (which evidently NONE of you attended)
is
to find, invite, and 'handle' the keynote speaker every year. Jay's
summary of his speech is COMPLETELY his opinion of what Jim Bass
said.
I heard a different speech. We were both eating the same chicken and
drinking the same iced tea, and we all heard a different speech. So
did
everyone I called on Tuesday morning to make sure I wasn't going
whacko.

Problem is, I spent Sunday flying 4 + hours back to Lock Haven to see
the Piper Museum before I went home, Jay flew 1 hour back to Iowa and
had time to post his OPINIONS. His opinions are his, and he's
entitled
to them. But, they ain't what Bass said. Jay's a wonderful guy and I
look forward to seeing he and Mary every year, but he's NOT a
reporter.
He didn't take notes during the speech.

Bass did say that he expected the useful life of 'future' aircraft to
be
less than 50 years. But, he wouldn't put a specific timeframe on it,
and the comment was in context of the discussion of the PiperJet. He
did say 25 years, but that was during a discussion of the average age
of
the Piper fleet. He was (quite rudely) challenged on that number,
which
he says comes directly from the insurance company, who oughta know,
since they collect $ 2-3 M a year in premiums from Piper against
lawsuits from those same airframes.

The sad part here is that the CEO is a great guy (albeit not so great
a
public speaker) who is completely an engineer. He's into QA, customer
satisfaction, and building new planes. He spoke about the subjects I
asked him to, based on input from the organizing committee. He's
doing
a great job bringing the quality level up to meet customer
expectations,
while introducing new products, which Piper hasn't done since God
knows
when. Look at Cirrus and Cessna, and then look at the Piper website.
EVERY SINGLE ONE of Piper's airframe designs is over 20 years old.
I'd
say the guy has his priorities right - get good new airplanes out the
door, and keep the company solvent. That company can (as he said in
his
speech, but it wasn't reported) pull out the machines and crank out
parts for older planes. They won't be cheap, he said, but we can do
it.

So, relax, get over it (as others said), and remember: There are no
editors on the Internet. Think about that before you start forwarding
messages from chat boards. As others have noted, if it ain't in the
mainstream press (like AvWeb), it's probably not for a reason.

Jane Fonda never handed the POW notes to the guards in Hanoi, the
Arizona Highway Patrol never found a JATO-powered pickup truck jammed
in
a hillside, and Jim Bass never said he was cutting off parts for
Cherokees at 25 years.

Thanks,

Dennis

Dennis B. Boykin IV
Chairman
Leesburg Executive Airport Commission

[Peter R.]

On 6/21/2007 8:03:59 PM, Mike Granby wrote:

> The next time you bring something over from the CPA, bring THE WHOLE
> THING, please. Had you bothered to wait a little bit, you would have
> found that you were reading Jay's opinion, not a real news story.

Hilarious. It seems as if Jay needs to brush up on his note taking skills,
given is E.F. Hutton reputation (when he posts, people listen...er...read) in
the aviation world.

--
Peter

[Jim Logajan]

"Peter R." > wrote:
> On 6/21/2007 8:03:59 PM, Mike Granby wrote:
>
>> The next time you bring something over from the CPA, bring THE WHOLE
>> THING, please. Had you bothered to wait a little bit, you would have
>> found that you were reading Jay's opinion, not a real news story.
>
> Hilarious. It seems as if Jay needs to brush up on his note taking
> skills, given is E.F. Hutton reputation (when he posts, people
> listen...er...read) in the aviation world.
>

Several questions from a neutral observer, trying to determine if Jay
really "GOT THE STORY WRONG":

1) The quoted text appears to be the work of Dennis B. Boykin IV, not Mike
Granby. So who really authored this and why wasn't it originally addressed
to the forum on which Jay posted?

2) Jay also reported no Cherokee 140s showed up at the CPA. Is that also in
dispute?

3) Is it now claimed that Bass did not spend half an hour on a Powerpoint
presentation to a room full of Cherokee pilots, ignoring the alleged
demographics of his audience?

4) Did or did not Bass state that Piper is not going to entering the light
sport market? Did Jay get this wrong?

5) Is it claimed that there was no pointed or blunt post-speech questions
of the specific nature that Jay mentioned?

I can't see how the answers to the above vary depending on one's "opinion"
but I suppose in some minds that is possible.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "PR" == Peter R > writes:

PR> On 6/21/2007 8:03:59 PM, Mike Granby wrote:
>> The next time you bring something over from the CPA, bring THE
>> WHOLE THING, please. Had you bothered to wait a little bit, you
>> would have found that you were reading Jay's opinion, not a
>> real news story.

PR> Hilarious. It seems as if Jay needs to brush up on his note
PR> taking skills, given is E.F. Hutton reputation (when he posts,
PR> people listen...er...read) in the aviation world.

Or readers need to brush up on their BS detection skills. Which is
easy with Jay, he's kinda like Bill Clinton. How do you know when Jay
is full of BS? When he's posting.
--
Don't gamble; take all your savings and buy some good stock and hold
it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don't go up, don't buy it.
Will Rogers

[Jay Honeck]

> The official statement from Piper was posted by none other than me.
> Yeah, me. I spent most of Tuesday morning hiding from my boss so I
> could work the phones, call Piper and deal with aviation magazine
> editors because Jay waited 24 hours before he wrote down his
> thoughts,
> and GOT THE STORY WRONG.

I have spoken with Dennis, on the Cherokee Chat, and I appreciate his
delicate position as the man who cajoled Bass into speaking at the
Cherokee Pilots Association convention.

I have also spoken with the people who sat at my table during Bass'
speech -- and I also spent several hours after the speech with folks
in the bar. We all heard the same thing.

Which isn't to say that Dennis got it wrong. As I've stated over and
over, it was impossible to tell from his speech whether Bass was
merely floating the idea of limiting parts support to newer aircraft,
or whether he was actually announcing that this was to be Piper's new
policy.

Bass is a bean-counter, NOT a skilled public speaker, and none of us
was able to precisely parse what he was trying to say. However, in
the context of his further statements that, no, Piper would NOT
license the production of older Piper parts to other companies (if
they were to stop production themselves) what else could one possibly
conclude?

This much is clear: No one disputes the fact that Bass said that PIper
would absolutely NOT license the production of older, out-of-
production parts to any outside company, due to liability issues.
This was said in the context of his previous, breath-taking assertions
(so ineloquently stated) that Piper did not wish to support 25-year-
old aircraft indefinitely, and was in answer to a question from a
member of the crowd who had obviously heard the exact same thing I
did.

In my opinion, the asking of the question is proof-positive that Bass
said what he said -- otherwise, why would anyone even ask the
question? And why would Bass answer the way he did, if Piper had
every intention of continuing parts support? .

Here's the bottom line: Bass probably didn't say what he meant to
say. God knows we've all been victimized by similar circumstances.
His company spokesperson has clarified Piper's position, and it is in
our favor.

As far as I'm concerned, that's a "Good Thing".
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> However, in
> the context of his further statements that, no, Piper would NOT
> license the production of older Piper parts to other companies (if
> they were to stop production themselves) what else could one possibly
> conclude?

Is there a tape?

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

[Montblack]

("Jose" wrote)
> Is there a tape?


Some time the next day, at the hotel's front desk....
Some time the next day, at Piper headquarters.....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/Rosemary_woods.jpg
Hmm? They're both in on it.

Oh my God! Jay is selling the Inn ...and buying Piper Pistons!


Paul-Mont

[Mike Granby]

On Jun 21, 10:39 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:

> 1) The quoted text appears to be the work of Dennis B. Boykin IV,
> not Mike Granby. So who really authored this and why wasn't it
> originally addressed to the forum on which Jay posted?

Someone (George) posted something about Jay's story on the CPA
website, and someone else (Dennis) replied. I posted the reply here so
that others might see another side of the story.

[Mike Granby]

On Jun 21, 11:21 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Bass is a bean-counter, NOT a skilled public speaker

Why do you say he's a bean-counter? Does he have an accountancy
background, as opposed to the engineering one that Mr Boykin cites. Or
do you simply assume that anyone running a corporation must be a bean-
counter?

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Here's the bottom line: Bass probably didn't say what he meant to
> say. God knows we've all been victimized by similar circumstances.
> His company spokesperson has clarified Piper's position, and it is in
> our favor.

What was clarified is the "current, public" message the company wants
conveyed. Whether this is their "position" or not is something else.
I'll bet what you heard was the real internal position, but they simply
haven't decided yet how and when to make that position public.


> As far as I'm concerned, that's a "Good Thing".

I'd say it is too soon to tell one way or the other.

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> > Bass is a bean-counter, NOT a skilled public speaker
>
> Why do you say he's a bean-counter? Does he have an accountancy
> background, as opposed to the engineering one that Mr Boykin cites. Or
> do you simply assume that anyone running a corporation must be a bean-
> counter?

Although he is an engineer, Mr. Bass' background at Sony Corp. and
General Electric is managerial. It is well known that he was brought
into Piper to "slash & burn" in order to save the company.

>From my corporate days in the newspaper world, we had a name for guys
like him: "hit man". These guys are brought in to do whatever it
takes to save the company, and bad things happen in his wake. (If
you're an employee; if you're an investor, he's a savior.)

Mind you, I'm not averse to ANY of this. I fully understand what it
means to run a company, and that Piper needed to be saved. If
building bizjets (or microwave ovens, for that matter) is the way out
of bankruptcy, so be it.

But then don't come to a gathering of piston single owners (I.E.: The
Cherokee Pilots Association annual convention), and trumpet the fact
that we attendees are no longer "Job One" in the company. It was in
poor taste, and made a lot of people angry -- which I'm sure was NOT
the impression Bass (or Dennis Boykin) wanted.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter R.]

On 6/21/2007 10:39:47 PM, Jim Logajan wrote:

> 1) The quoted text appears to be the work of Dennis B. Boykin IV, not Mike
> Granby. So who really authored this and why wasn't it originally addressed
> to the forum on which Jay posted?

No offense intended, but I had no problem immediately detecting that Mike was
reposting someone else's text from another board.

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

On 6/21/2007 10:55:55 PM, Bob Fry wrote:

> Or readers need to brush up on their BS detection skills.

Those of you on the opposite side of the political fence as Jay may believe
all of his posts are BS, but in my case I don't immediately discount his
on-topic aviation posts as BS. I have met him in person and he doesn't strike
me as the type who has the motivation or the time to post pure BS.

Naturally we all see the world through our own personal biases so that is the
type of filtering I apply to everyone's posts, including his and yours.

--
Peter

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> and that Piper needed to be saved
>

They have been?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mike Granby]

On Jun 22, 10:19 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Although he is an engineer, Mr. Bass' background at Sony
> Corp. and General Electric is managerial. It is well known
> that he was brought into Piper to "slash & burn" in order
> to save the company.

First, you're not going to find anyone running a company like that
without some managerial background, so by that token, anyone running a
company large enough to require such experience is a bean counter,
which seems to devalue the term somewhat. Second, while it may be well
known, can you produce some cites to support the assertion that he's a
hatchet man?

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Although he is an engineer, Mr. Bass' background at Sony Corp. and
> General Electric is managerial. It is well known that he was brought
> into Piper to "slash & burn" in order to save the company.

I don't know that he's "slashing & burning," but it appears that for the
first time in years (decades?) Piper may actually have a direction that
doesn't lead to bankruptcy. It should be clear to everyone that the
status quo of building the same 30 year old piston designs year after
year isn't going to cut it.

It also appears that Mr. Bass has fostered good will with those whom he
leads. That is not a typical characteristic of a "slash & burn"
executive.


JKG

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> In article om>,
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> Although he is an engineer, Mr. Bass' background at Sony Corp. and
>> General Electric is managerial. It is well known that he was brought
>> into Piper to "slash & burn" in order to save the company.
>
> I don't know that he's "slashing & burning," but it appears that for
> the first time in years (decades?) Piper may actually have a
> direction that doesn't lead to bankruptcy. It should be clear to
> everyone that the status quo of building the same 30 year old piston
> designs year after year isn't going to cut it.
>
> It also appears that Mr. Bass has fostered good will with those whom
> he leads. That is not a typical characteristic of a "slash & burn"
> executive.
>
>
> JKG

I don't see how basing their future on a VLJ that will just be one among
many in a yet unproven market is a good idea.

[Marco Leon]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> Or readers need to brush up on their BS detection skills. Which is
> easy with Jay, he's kinda like Bill Clinton. How do you know when Jay
> is full of BS? When he's posting.

Are you sure you have the right Jay? I don't see how anyone can come to that
conclusion having any meaningful level of participation in this forum.

Maybe you've been saving that Bill Clinton analogy and just couldn't hold it
in any longer...

Marco

[Jay Honeck]

> It also appears that Mr. Bass has fostered good will with those whom he
> leads. That is not a typical characteristic of a "slash & burn"
> executive.

Yes, Mr. Bass spent much of his speech telling us how wonderful his
labor relations were now, even to the point of breaking the union.
(They supposedly voted themselves out of existence, because they are
now so happy.)

In the very next segment of his speech, however, he complained about
the absurdly high cost of doing business in Florida (thanks to those
pesky hurricanes) -- and made it quite clear that he was willing (and
planning) to move Piper, lock, stock, and barrel, to whatever state
offered him the most "incentives". (AKA: "Bribes")

Now, you tell me how his wonderful labor relations skills jibe with
the fact that he is willing to rip all 1100 jobs out from under his
employees, and move the company to Mississippi, if they pay him the
most money?

Even *I* was appalled -- and remember, I'm writing this as a
conservative Republican, who (a) doesn't believe in unions, and (b)
believes that customers -- not employees -- come first.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> It also appears that Mr. Bass has fostered good will with those whom he
>> leads. That is not a typical characteristic of a "slash & burn"
>> executive.
>
> Yes, Mr. Bass spent much of his speech telling us how wonderful his
> labor relations were now, even to the point of breaking the union.
> (They supposedly voted themselves out of existence, because they are
> now so happy.)
>
> In the very next segment of his speech, however, he complained about
> the absurdly high cost of doing business in Florida (thanks to those
> pesky hurricanes) -- and made it quite clear that he was willing (and
> planning) to move Piper, lock, stock, and barrel, to whatever state
> offered him the most "incentives". (AKA: "Bribes")
>
> Now, you tell me how his wonderful labor relations skills jibe with
> the fact that he is willing to rip all 1100 jobs out from under his
> employees, and move the company to Mississippi, if they pay him the
> most money?

It is very simple. A company that is constantly teetering on bankruptcy
or, worse yet as with Piper, continually into and out of bankruptcy,
isn't all that nice to employees. Moving the company to a place with a
better business environment that allows a more stable and profitable
company is better for all concerned in the long run. Sure, it is
painful for those currently at Piper who don't wish to move, but in the
long run it is best for company, employees AND customers.

I think Lock Haven would be a nice location for Piper! :-)

Matt

[Ken Finney]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> It also appears that Mr. Bass has fostered good will with those whom he
>> leads. That is not a typical characteristic of a "slash & burn"
>> executive.
>
> Yes, Mr. Bass spent much of his speech telling us how wonderful his
> labor relations were now, even to the point of breaking the union.
> (They supposedly voted themselves out of existence, because they are
> now so happy.)
>
> In the very next segment of his speech, however, he complained about
> the absurdly high cost of doing business in Florida (thanks to those
> pesky hurricanes) -- and made it quite clear that he was willing (and
> planning) to move Piper, lock, stock, and barrel, to whatever state
> offered him the most "incentives". (AKA: "Bribes")
>
> Now, you tell me how his wonderful labor relations skills jibe with
> the fact that he is willing to rip all 1100 jobs out from under his
> employees, and move the company to Mississippi, if they pay him the
> most money?
>
> Even *I* was appalled -- and remember, I'm writing this as a
> conservative Republican, who (a) doesn't believe in unions, and (b)
> believes that customers -- not employees -- come first.

America works best when you say "Yes, Union. Yes!"

[Montblack]

("Ken Finney" wrote)
> America works best when you say "Yes, Union. Yes!"


I hear you Ken.


Paul-Mont
http://davidgardiner.net/The_Ballad_of_Joe_Hill.mp3
I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night,
alive as you and me.
Says I "But Joe, you're ten years dead"
"I never died" said he,
"I never died" said he.

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:10:18 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote:

>> It also appears that Mr. Bass has fostered good will with those whom he
>> leads. That is not a typical characteristic of a "slash & burn"
>> executive.
>
>Yes, Mr. Bass spent much of his speech telling us how wonderful his
>labor relations were now, even to the point of breaking the union.
>(They supposedly voted themselves out of existence, because they are
>now so happy.)
>
>In the very next segment of his speech, however, he complained about
>the absurdly high cost of doing business in Florida (thanks to those
>pesky hurricanes) -- and made it quite clear that he was willing (and
>planning) to move Piper, lock, stock, and barrel, to whatever state
>offered him the most "incentives".

Last time I heard him talking about this kind of stuff was when I was
at Simcom for my Malibu training and he was having some off-the cuff
musings about the analysis of where to put the jet plant due to cost
of facilities, lack of room, and anticipated difficulties in finding
the additional skilled employees that will be needed for jet assembly
in the VRB area. Since it's also been said that the 25 year comments
were also in the context of future airframe (composite?) life
expectency, perhaps context has been lost. It seemed like staying in
VRB for the piston/Meridian line (which seemed quite active when I was
there, with a number of Meridian, Mirage and Saratogas in various
stages of assembly, with the occasional Seminole and Seneca sprinkled
in. I can't say that to my eye there appeared to be any excess room
for airframes which could have been in process if they wanted to be
building any more right now) wouldn't be that big an issue.

But that's just my two cents.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> > It also appears that Mr. Bass has fostered good will with those whom
> > he leads. That is not a typical characteristic of a "slash & burn"
> > executive.
> >
> >
> > JKG
>
> I don't see how basing their future on a VLJ that will just be one among
> many in a yet unproven market is a good idea.

There is significant interest and demand already in the small jet/VLJ.
With the innovation happening in the industry, no one can wait until the
market is "proven," for by that time it will be too late. That's the
huge problem with the piston business--Piper missed the boat big-time
years ago.



JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
> In the very next segment of his speech, however, he complained about
> the absurdly high cost of doing business in Florida (thanks to those
> pesky hurricanes) -- and made it quite clear that he was willing (and
> planning) to move Piper, lock, stock, and barrel, to whatever state
> offered him the most "incentives". (AKA: "Bribes")
>
> Now, you tell me how his wonderful labor relations skills jibe with
> the fact that he is willing to rip all 1100 jobs out from under his
> employees, and move the company to Mississippi, if they pay him the
> most money?

Who says that he's planning to leave the employees? Bass has to do
what's best for the business, and if that means move the business,
that's what it means. It also means that Piper should offer most, if
not all, employees an opportunity to move as well, and retain their
jobs. If an employee chooses not to go, that's their choice.

Employees ALWAYS come first in business--at least if you want them to
put your customers first. If you don't treat your employees well,
chances are that they won't treat your customers well.

I have a huge problem with corporate welfare, but it isn't going away.
If you don't take it, your competition is going to take it, and then
you're at a competitive disadvantage.


JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Ken Finney" > wrote:
> > Even *I* was appalled -- and remember, I'm writing this as a
> > conservative Republican, who (a) doesn't believe in unions, and (b)
> > believes that customers -- not employees -- come first.
>
> America works best when you say "Yes, Union. Yes!"

It may work best for YOU, but not for the consumer.

Personally, I have no problem with employees who want to organize.
However, I do have a problem with the huge bias of labor laws toward the
unions that shut out competition (non-union workers). Unions are
nothing but big corporations that sell a service--labor--and are granted
a government monopoly when workers vote to become represented by a
union. It's a lose-lose between the consumers who have to pay more, and
the high-quality union workers who cannot be rewarded based on merit.
For the unions themselves, the lazy union workers (of which there are
many), it's a win, at least until the company you work for goes bankrupt.


JKG

[Jay Honeck]

> Who says that he's planning to leave the employees? Bass has to do
> what's best for the business, and if that means move the business,
> that's what it means. It also means that Piper should offer most, if
> not all, employees an opportunity to move as well, and retain their
> jobs. If an employee chooses not to go, that's their choice.

Don't get me wrong -- I agree 100% with what you're saying. If an
airport in (fill in the sunbelt state) offered me ten million bucks to
move our operation, I'd be there tomorrow.

That's corporate welfare, and -- as long as it's there -- Bass would
be crazy not to jump all over it.

But, given that attitude, you can't then say how "great" Piper's (and
Bass's) labor relation skills are. When the time comes he's not going
to lose ten minutes of sleep over his decision to uproot 1100 families
(nor should he, in my opinion) -- and that's just the facts.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> If an
> airport in (fill in the sunbelt state) offered me ten million bucks to
> move our operation, I'd be there tomorrow.
>
> That's corporate welfare, and -- as long as it's there -- Bass would
> be crazy not to jump all over it.

What's the difference between that and airport subsidies? In both
cases, the idea is that the added commerce brought to the area offsets
the direct costs.

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

[[email protected]]

Ah, Matt, Pennsylvania is part of the rust belt for a reason.

There is a strong union tradition there, both among steel workers and
miners. You will find very few labor intensive companies moving TO
Pennsylvania, and many moving away from there. Too bad, there's a
wonderful hard working labor force there, especially in the coal
regions of central/eastern PA.

It was a long time ago, but the children and grandchildren of the
"Molly McGuires" (spelling?) still pass along the oral history of
labor relations by explosive during the 30's, and John L Louis is
still a hero to many. By the way, I'd agree reform was badly needed in
that era.

My husband, who had in fact relocated a company or its divisions
several times, avoided PA even though he was born there. He had been
considered a 'gun-slinger', but not with his current employees here in
North Carolina.

I hope Piper finds a happy home. It's worth remembering, though, that
the failure of one general aviation company just means there's a
bigger market for those companies that are left. We did own an Arrow,
but are really big Mooney fans now (but why the heck did they hang a
540 cubic inch engine on the front of the newer ones, the IO 360 that
pulls along our 201 does very well?).

That's my fairly uninformed 2 cents worth.

Tina

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> In article >,
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>> It also appears that Mr. Bass has fostered good will with those whom
>>> he leads. That is not a typical characteristic of a "slash & burn"
>>> executive.
>>>
>>>
>>> JKG
>>
>> I don't see how basing their future on a VLJ that will just be one
>> among many in a yet unproven market is a good idea.
>
> There is significant interest and demand already in the small jet/VLJ.
> With the innovation happening in the industry, no one can wait until
> the market is "proven," for by that time it will be too late. That's
> the huge problem with the piston business--Piper missed the boat big-
> time years ago.
>
>
>
> JKG

The problem with the interest and demand for the VLJ market is that a
significant portion of it comes from yet another unproven market, on demand
air taxi.

[Jay Honeck]

> What's the difference between that and airport subsidies? In both
> cases, the idea is that the added commerce brought to the area offsets
> the direct costs.

In theory, there is a codified process that any airport grants must go
through. This supposedly weeds out the unworthy or unnecessary.

I've not seen any "cast in stone" procedures for obtaining corporate
welfare. Often the deciding factor seems to be "Who gave whom the
biggest political donation" during the last election...

For a great example of this, check out the last three hotels built in
the Iowa City market. One was built ENTIRELY with taxpayer money ($60
million!), one was built with a TIF (tax incremental financing --
basically paying no taxes for 20 years), and one was an organized
crime casino/hotel.

That's 500 gummint-built hotel rooms, in this itty-bitty market. Not
that I blame the guys who got it -- hey, I'd take it, too -- but the
fact that it is available to those who "bought" the biggest politician
really, REALLY sucks.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>>> It also appears that Mr. Bass has fostered good will with those whom
>>>> he leads. That is not a typical characteristic of a "slash & burn"
>>>> executive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> JKG
>>>
>>> I don't see how basing their future on a VLJ that will just be one
>>> among many in a yet unproven market is a good idea.
>>
>> There is significant interest and demand already in the small jet/VLJ.
>> With the innovation happening in the industry, no one can wait until
>> the market is "proven," for by that time it will be too late. That's
>> the huge problem with the piston business--Piper missed the boat big-
>> time years ago.
>>
>>
>>
>> JKG
>
> The problem with the interest and demand for the VLJ market is that a
> significant portion of it comes from yet another unproven market, on
> demand air taxi.

And in 1981, PC's were an "unproven market" :~)

Hell, in the early 60's, COMPUTERS were un "unproven market".

The biggest impediment to Air Taxi, so far, has been scheduling and
logistics. You might dig into Google to find the computer models that are
comoing out to provide such logistical support information.

Most any successful market is CREATED, it just doesn't wander into
existance. Is there a _demand_ for "Air Taxi"? Preliminary feedback show
there certainly is.

[K Baum]

On Jun 22, 8:07 pm, Jonathan Goodish > wrote:
> > America works best when you say "Yes, Union. Yes!"
>
> It may work best for YOU, but not for the consumer.

not true. It is too simplistic to blame consumer issues on organized
labor.


> Personally, I have no problem with employees who want to organize.

Amen brother! ;)

> However, I do have a problem with the huge bias of labor laws toward the
> unions that shut out competition (non-union workers). Unions are
> nothing but big corporations that sell a service--labor--and are granted
> a government monopoly when workers vote to become represented by a
> union.

You are assuming closed shop negotiations. Why should non union
workers ride the coatails of the union guys?

> It's a lose-lose between the consumers who have to pay more, and
> the high-quality union workers who cannot be rewarded based on merit.

why are you assuming consumers lose? Let me explain, I have been union
for 16 years (ALPA), and just the safety issues that ALPA has
addressed in this time has been worth the cost of my dues. Would you
trust the FAA to implement safety inititaves by themselves? Look at
the recent crap that went on at Jet Blue (Duty time violations). That
would have never happened at an ALPA carrier. If you are paying a
little extra for a ticket, you can rest assured the added level of
safety is worth it. Now how does the consumer lose here?

> For the unions themselves, the lazy union workers (of which there are
> many), it's a win, at least until the company you work for goes bankrupt.

Ah, the old "Blame labor for management follies". A quick look at
recent airline bankruptcies will put this one to bed.
>
> JKG

Respectfully, KB

[john hawkins]

Hey! We have the best government can buy ( quote mark twain). Even the tree
huggers have learned its better to buy the property than to wine at the
government and hope they will pass bills to save the tree.
Found a group of like minded hotel entrepreneurs who can " support" local
politicians to get some government welfare for all of you


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
Snip
..
>
> That's 500 gummint-built hotel rooms, in this itty-bitty market. Not
> that I blame the guys who got it -- hey, I'd take it, too -- but the
> fact that it is available to those who "bought" the biggest politician
> really, REALLY sucks.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Found a group of like minded hotel entrepreneurs who can " support" local
> politicians to get some government welfare for all of you

The thought of sucking from the gummint teat sickens me, quite
frankly. I'd rather close.

No, we'll just keep on being the best damned hotel in the market.
None of their stupid gummint welfare can change the fact that most
hotels just plain suck at customer service -- and THAT is our big
edge.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> The thought of sucking from the gummint teat sickens me, quite
> frankly. I'd rather close.

Oh?

> That's 500 gummint-built hotel rooms, in this itty-bitty market. Not
> that I blame the guys who got it -- hey, I'd take it, too --

Hmmmm.

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

[Jose]

>> What's the difference between that and airport subsidies? In both
>> cases, the idea is that the added commerce brought to the area offsets
>> the direct costs.
>
> In theory, there is a codified process that any airport grants must go
> through. This supposedly weeds out the unworthy or unnecessary.
>
> I've not seen any "cast in stone" procedures for obtaining corporate
> welfare. Often the deciding factor seems to be "Who gave whom the
> biggest political donation" during the last election...

The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is
no difference. In practice, there is. This "codified process" sure
didn't save Meigs (and it's the same coming and going). "Who gave whom"
seems to be the way things work in business too.

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 thought of sucking from the gummint teat sickens me, quite
> > frankly. I'd rather close.
>
> Oh?
>
> > That's 500 gummint-built hotel rooms, in this itty-bitty market. Not
> > that I blame the guys who got it -- hey, I'd take it, too --
>
> Hmmmm.

A moment of hyperbole, I'm afraid. Just trying to make myself feel
better by justifying the dishonorable acts of the corporate whores.

I've never taken any money from the gummint, for anything. Don't like
banks much, either, although they are occasionally necessary.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"K Baum" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 22, 8:07 pm, Jonathan Goodish > wrote:
>> > America works best when you say "Yes, Union. Yes!"
>>
>> It may work best for YOU, but not for the consumer.
>
> not true. It is too simplistic to blame consumer issues on organized
> labor.

That's not the point he's making (that it's _strictly_ union caused).

>
>
>> Personally, I have no problem with employees who want to organize.
>
> Amen brother! ;)
>
>> However, I do have a problem with the huge bias of labor laws toward the
>> unions that shut out competition (non-union workers). Unions are
>> nothing but big corporations that sell a service--labor--and are granted
>> a government monopoly when workers vote to become represented by a
>> union.
>
> You are assuming closed shop negotiations. Why should non union
> workers ride the coatails of the union guys?

Maybe because they're typically a bunch of thugs who do generate a few
bennies at a obscene cost?

>
>> It's a lose-lose between the consumers who have to pay more, and
>> the high-quality union workers who cannot be rewarded based on merit.
>
> why are you assuming consumers lose? Let me explain, I have been union
> for 16 years (ALPA), and just the safety issues that ALPA has
> addressed in this time has been worth the cost of my dues. Would you
> trust the FAA to implement safety inititaves by themselves?

Yes.

How many have ALPA rejected in terms of "full employment"?

> Look at
> the recent crap that went on at Jet Blue (Duty time violations). That
> would have never happened at an ALPA carrier.


Absolute BS.

> If you are paying a
> little extra for a ticket, you can rest assured the added level of
> safety is worth it. Now how does the consumer lose here?

By assuming the unions are interested primarily in safety.

>
>> For the unions themselves, the lazy union workers (of which there are
>> many), it's a win, at least until the company you work for goes bankrupt.
>
> Ah, the old "Blame labor for management follies". A quick look at
> recent airline bankruptcies will put this one to bed.

Oh, like United?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"john hawkins" > wrote in message
. net...
> Hey! We have the best government can buy ( quote mark twain). Even the
> tree huggers have learned its better to buy the property than to wine at
> the government and hope they will pass bills to save the tree.

Actually, they found it's better to let the government confiscate the trees.

> Found a group of like minded hotel entrepreneurs who can " support" local
> politicians to get some government welfare for all of you

Everyone lining up at the government trough.

OINK! OINK!

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Found a group of like minded hotel entrepreneurs who can " support" local
>> politicians to get some government welfare for all of you
>
> The thought of sucking from the gummint teat sickens me, quite
> frankly. I'd rather close.
>
> No, we'll just keep on being the best damned hotel in the market.
> None of their stupid gummint welfare can change the fact that most
> hotels just plain suck at customer service -- and THAT is our big
> edge.

Not only hotels, Jay.

First they abused their employees. Them they abused thier customers. All
that was left was the stock/shareholders, and we're seeing that, from the
90's (Enron), to now (Apple, HP), even those folks are quite vulnerable to
the "Management Class".


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

[Jose]

> I've never taken any money from the gummint, for anything.

You deduct any of the costs of flying?

I can't.

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

[Paul kgyy]

>
> I've never taken any money from the gummint, for anything.
> --

You've never taken a tax deduction for mortgage interest?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> I've never taken any money from the gummint, for anything.
>
> You deduct any of the costs of flying?
>
> I can't.
>
Could that possibly be due to your not deriving any income from your
flying activities on which you pay taxes? Tax deductions are not
necessarily "...taking money *from* the..." gov't; just not paying more
than your due.

Neil

[Jim Logajan]

Paul kgyy > wrote:
>>
>> I've never taken any money from the gummint, for anything.
>> --
>
> You've never taken a tax deduction for mortgage interest?

That's keeping one's _own_ hard-earned income.

[Jose]

> Could that possibly be due to your not deriving any income from your
> flying activities on which you pay taxes?

It could be. I have my own business too and am familiar with tax rules.
However, I also know that with the right setup (and Jay certainly has
the right setup) one can excercise considerable discretion as to how one
allocates "business purpose" and how much "ancillary pleasure" one can
derive at government expense through that allocation.

Perhaps I could become the "flying tutor" and get the government to pay
for some spectacular cross country trips. And even get money back for
my "tax loss".

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

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> >
>> I've never taken any money from the gummint, for anything.
>> --
>
> You've never taken a tax deduction for mortgage interest?

That was his money to begin with, silly boy.

[Jose]

>>You've never taken a tax deduction for mortgage interest?
> That was his money to begin with, silly boy.

Same is true for tax deductions and abatements given to businesses in
order to relocate. That's one thing Jay complains about (in others)

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> Could that possibly be due to your not deriving any income from your
>> flying activities on which you pay taxes?
>
> It could be. I have my own business too and am familiar with tax
> rules. However, I also know that with the right setup (and Jay
> certainly has the right setup) one can excercise considerable
> discretion as to how one allocates "business purpose" and how much
> "ancillary pleasure" one can derive at government expense through
> that allocation.
>
I also am self-employed ("celebrating" my 30th year this summer), and am
familiar with the tax code. In my experience, while there are some savings
from deducting travel expenses, it's unlikely that I could justify flying
on that basis alone.

> Perhaps I could become the "flying tutor" and get the government to
> pay for some spectacular cross country trips. And even get money
> back for my "tax loss".
>
Well, if your students are spread around, you may be able to recover some
of your costs. OTOH, it might be interesting if you are a tutor of
geography or, better, cartography! ;-)

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

>>> You've never taken a tax deduction for mortgage interest?
>> That was his money to begin with, silly boy.
>
> Same is true for tax deductions and abatements given to businesses in
> order to relocate. That's one thing Jay complains about (in others)
>
I thought he was complaining about construction of new hotels at
taxpayer's expense?

Neil

[Jose]

> I thought he was complaining about construction of new hotels at
> taxpayer's expense?

He's complaining about that too. (and IMHO, government should not in
general be =doing= business). However, tax abatements to encourage
business to move here (or there) end up with the business sucking the
government teat, and me feeding it. It's just the same.

In reality, we all suck the government teat (ever use a library?) and
the government sucks our teats (1040 anyone?) so the distinction between
one kind of taxpayer expense and another, which may be more cleverly
hidden in the tax code, is rather moot.

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

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> Perhaps I could become the "flying tutor" and get the government to pay
> for some spectacular cross country trips.

reducing your tax liability isn't at all the same as having the government
pay.

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

[Jose]

> reducing your tax liability isn't at all the same
> as having the government pay.

What's the difference? It works out the same.

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

[K Baum]

On Jun 25, 7:09 am, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
>
> That's not the point he's making (that it's _strictly_ union caused).

Matt, I have lurked on this list on and off for years and I have read
a few of your posts. You seem to like to berate and flame the airline
guys alot. I dont know why you have this chip on your shoulder,maybe
you were turned down by an airline, or maybe you like to think you
know more than airline guys. Judging by your post, I would
respectfully submit that you havent spent much time, if any, at the
controlls of an airliner.

>
>
>
> Maybe because they're typically a bunch of thugs who do generate a few
> bennies at a obscene cost?

I have never been approached by a thug. ALPA stresses professionalism.
If the non union pilots benifit, why shouldnt they help out?
>
>
>
>
> How many have ALPA rejected in terms of "full employment"?

Is this your beef?
>
> > Look at
> > the recent crap that went on at Jet Blue (Duty time violations). That
> > would have never happened at an ALPA carrier.
>
> Absolute BS.

75 years ago (When flying the line was really dangerous) ALPA realized
that the best contract in the world was meaningless if you werent
around to enjoy it. So they formed a safety department and they have
had a hand in every safety inovation and procedure and accident
investigation for the past 75 years. A couple of recent examples where
the FAA overhauled certain rules and procedures (Based on ALPA input)
are LASHO and the Whitlow Ruling. Could you be more specific with your
"Absolute BS" statement. At what union carrier (ALPA, APA, IPA CPA)
were the pilots specifically told by managment that they would be
requiered to ignore flight time/duty time regs?
>
> > If you are paying a
> > little extra for a ticket, you can rest assured the added level of
> > safety is worth it. Now how does the consumer lose here?
>
> By assuming the unions are interested primarily in safety.

Matt, read the above paragragh again.

>

> > Ah, the old "Blame labor for management follies". A quick look at
> > recent airline bankruptcies will put this one to bed.
>
> Oh, like United?

???????

Respectfully, K B

[Jim Logajan]

Jose > wrote:
>> reducing your tax liability isn't at all the same
>> as having the government pay.
>
> What's the difference? It works out the same.

There is an upper limit on how much you can gain by way of tax reductions,
but an absurdly higher limit on what you can gain by way of government
handouts.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:
>
> In reality, we all suck the government teat (ever use a library?) and
> the government sucks our teats (1040 anyone?) so the distinction
> between one kind of taxpayer expense and another, which may be more
> cleverly hidden in the tax code, is rather moot.
>
One of the primary reasons to have a government is to provide for the
common good. Libraries fall under that category, just as do other items of
our physical infrastructure. Hotels do not fall under that category, nor
do farm subsidies for crops not being grown or bridges to nowhere. Let's
not get confused, here.

Neil

[Jose]

> There is an upper limit on how much you can gain by way of tax reductions,
> but an absurdly higher limit on what you can gain by way of government
> handouts.

So, it's just a matter of quantity? If I suck only a little bit, then
it doesn't matter how I do it.

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

[Jose]

> One of the primary reasons to have a government is to provide for the
> common good. Libraries fall under that category, just as do other items of
> our physical infrastructure. Hotels do not fall under that category, nor
> do farm subsidies for crops not being grown or bridges to nowhere. Let's
> not get confused, here.

I agree with the basic premise, but reasonable arguments can be made
that the other items =do= fall under that category. I may not
necessarily agree with them, but there isn't a sharp line between direct
and indirect providing for the common good (nor is there agreement what
the common "good" is). It can be argued that aiding commerce is a
"common good", and for that we give tax breaks to encourage businesses
to relocate here so that the added business they bring, and the
multplier effect, end up raising more revenue than we give up directly.
The argument (for or against) is equally valid for airports as it is
for trains and hotels.

And if one of the things that makes our nation great is abundant food,
then preventing the collapse of the =system= (by letting prices fall too
low) does arguably fall under that category too.

Tax deductions =do= constitute "sucking on the government teat", since
the line between use and abuse is so fuzzy.

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

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"K Baum" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 25, 7:09 am, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
>>
>> That's not the point he's making (that it's _strictly_ union caused).
>
> Matt, I have lurked on this list on and off for years and I have read
> a few of your posts. You seem to like to berate and flame the airline
> guys alot.

Really? Of the top of my head I can't remember discussing airline folks AT
ALL.


> I dont know why you have this chip on your shoulder,maybe
> you were turned down by an airline, or maybe you like to think you
> know more than airline guys. Judging by your post, I would
> respectfully submit that you havent spent much time, if any, at the
> controlls of an airliner.

Never even considered working for airlines...or even flying commercially.

>> Oh, like United?

Rest of your pompous, FOS "guesstimate" snipped

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> One of the primary reasons to have a government is to provide for the
>> common good. Libraries fall under that category, just as do other
>> items of our physical infrastructure. Hotels do not fall under that
>> category, nor do farm subsidies for crops not being grown or bridges
>> to nowhere. Let's not get confused, here.
>
> I agree with the basic premise, but reasonable arguments can be made
> that the other items =do= fall under that category. I may not
> necessarily agree with them, but there isn't a sharp line between
> direct and indirect providing for the common good (nor is there
> agreement what the common "good" is).
>
I agree that the general public is confused about "the common good", and
that politicians have long played on this situation to abuse us with pork.
But, the line is visible if not sharp, should one choose to see it.

> It can be argued that aiding
> commerce is a "common good", and for that we give tax breaks to
> encourage businesses to relocate here so that the added business they
> bring, and the multplier effect, end up raising more revenue than we
> give up directly.
>
In the proper application, there is no public tax money *spent* on such
aids. That is quite different from using public money to build things that
are then privately owned.

> The argument (for or against) is equally valid
> for airports as it is for trains and hotels.
>
Airports are general and available to the public, just as are roads and
publicly owned transportation systems serve the common good. Have you ever
seen a publicly owned hotel, and if so, how does that work?

> And if one of the things that makes our nation great is abundant food,
> then preventing the collapse of the =system= (by letting prices fall
> too low) does arguably fall under that category too.
>
Farmers compete in the market just as any other business. If they can't
make money growing one crop, they should grow some other crop. Paying them
to not grow crops is an undeserved handout in a free market economy.

> Tax deductions =do= constitute "sucking on the government teat", since
> the line between use and abuse is so fuzzy.
>
A tax deduction is a reduction in liability; you get to keep your money
rather than receive a handout. If one is an advocate of a flat tax system
then it might seem as though there isn't much difference, but one of the
few ways a flat tax could work would be to reduce the tax liability
further than the amount of deductions one is entitled to under the current
system.

Neil

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> Tax deductions =do= constitute "sucking on the government teat",

I doubt we will ever agree on this point.

>...since the line between use and abuse is so fuzzy.

And your justification for equating the two is horrifying.

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

[El Maximo]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..


> Tax deductions =do= constitute "sucking on the government teat", since the
> line between use and abuse is so fuzzy.

Like deducting real estate taxes? Let's see. I get a job, make some money,
and use it to pay real estate taxes. Now, you think I should also pay income
tax on money I never got to use because the government took it away?

[Jose]

> I agree that the general public is confused about "the common good", and
> that politicians have long played on this situation to abuse us with pork.
> But, the line is visible if not sharp, should one choose to see it.

Yes, it's visible. People just disagree on where it is.

> In the proper application, there is no public tax money *spent* on such
> aids. That is quite different from using public money to build things that
> are then privately owned.

You mean, like the weather service? (it's going in that direction).
FSS? (it's already there). AMTRAK (let's not even go there!) But in
any case, tax money not collected due to abatements counts as "spent"
too, because it has to be collected from elsewhere (us) to make up the
difference.

> Airports are general and available to the public, just as are roads and
> publicly owned transportation systems serve the common good. Have you ever
> seen a publicly owned hotel, and if so, how does that work?

Good point. But trains are privately owned and serve the public. Why
should airports, highways, and libraries not have the same model?

> Farmers compete in the market just as any other business. If they can't
> make money growing one crop, they should grow some other crop.

Cocaine and tobacoo come to mind. And I don't know enough about the
subsidies to argue intellegently about them in specific (though that has
never stopped me! :) but I believe the theory is that if all the
cropland was planted, prices would drop and nobody would survive.
Assuming this is true, I have other solutions for the problem.

On a smaller scale, something similar happened in California where all
the apple orchards were replaced by vinyards. While I'm not advocating
forcing people to grow apples, I'm not sure I would want the entire
country to be planted in tobacco instead of wheat. There would be no
food and everybody would be chain smoking. Public good? (yes, an
oversimplification)

> A tax deduction is a reduction in liability; you get to keep your money
> rather than receive a handout.

In theory.

If I decide that I will have all my students meet at the next airport
over, and I fly there the long way (filing IFR and getting vectored from
here to kingdom come), and I therefore deduct most of my flying and most
of my airplane purchase against my tutoring income (carrying forward, of
course), is this a legitimate business expense or am I sucking the
government teat?

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:
>
> You mean, like the weather service? (it's going in that direction).
> FSS? (it's already there).
>
Pork.

> AMTRAK (let's not even go there!).
>
If you haven't "gone there", you should. Some of the most pleasurable
vacations taken by my wife and me incorporated first-class travels on
AmTrak. We crossed the country on each of the routes. Also, for many
citizens, it is the most practical way to cover long distances. AmTrak
*is* a public service either way, and I don't mind my tax dollars going to
support it.

> But in
> any case, tax money not collected due to abatements counts as "spent"
> too, because it has to be collected from elsewhere (us) to make up the
> difference.
>
Oh? What is "the difference" that needs to be made up in the case of
properly administered tax breaks? Usually, there is an *increase* in the
actual money in the coffers due to the taxes of those employed by such
companies.

>> Airports are general and available to the public, just as are roads
>> and publicly owned transportation systems serve the common good.
>> Have you ever seen a publicly owned hotel, and if so, how does that
>> work?
>
> Good point. But trains are privately owned and serve the public. Why
> should airports, highways, and libraries not have the same model?
>
Privately owned trains are for-profit businesses, not a public service.
Certainly, the line isn't that fuzzy to you?

>> Farmers compete in the market just as any other business. If they
>> can't make money growing one crop, they should grow some other crop.
>
> Cocaine and tobacoo come to mind. And I don't know enough about the
> subsidies to argue intellegently about them in specific (though that
> has never stopped me! :) but I believe the theory is that if all the
> cropland was planted, prices would drop and nobody would survive.
> Assuming this is true, I have other solutions for the problem.
>
The reality is that it would sort itself out in short order, given the
mortgages that must still be paid. Most farmers aren't stupid people.

> On a smaller scale, something similar happened in California where all
> the apple orchards were replaced by vinyards. While I'm not
> advocating forcing people to grow apples, I'm not sure I would want
> the entire country to be planted in tobacco instead of wheat. There
> would be no food and everybody would be chain smoking. Public good?
> (yes, an oversimplification)
>
I really can't see any of the above happening, Jose. It's likely that the
ability to transport apples globally reduced the profitability in
California below what the land values and subsequent taxes could support.
Vinyards produce a crop that is not as directly tied to market forces, as
the price of a bottle of wine is not linearly related to the cost of
grapes. California farmers did the prudent thing, given that the Sonoma
and other areas are producing world-class wines that have created a demand
for grapes. Perhaps the decline in the popularity of Boones Farm Apple
wine played a role, as well. ;-)

>> A tax deduction is a reduction in liability; you get to keep your
>> money rather than receive a handout.
>
> In theory.
>
> If I decide that I will have all my students meet at the next airport
> over, and I fly there the long way (filing IFR and getting vectored
> from here to kingdom come), and I therefore deduct most of my flying
> and most of my airplane purchase against my tutoring income (carrying
> forward, of course), is this a legitimate business expense or am I
> sucking the government teat?
>
You'd likely wind up sucking the government teat from behind bars, because
travel expenses don't work that way. ;-)

Neil

[Jose]

>> the weather service? ... FSS?
> Pork.

So? That doesn't invalidate my premise. In fact, it supports it.

>>AMTRAK (let's not even go there!).
> If you haven't "gone there", you should. Some of the most pleasurable
> vacations...

So? Whether you (or anybody) enjoys AMTRAK doesn't change the fact that
it is a case of public dollars going to a private enterprise.

> Oh? What is "the difference" that needs to be made up in the case of
> properly administered tax breaks? Usually, there is an *increase* in the
> actual money in the coffers due to the taxes of those employed by such
> companies.

.... and an increase in demand for public services due to those same
employees. And "properly administered" is a pretty big loophole.

> Privately owned trains are for-profit businesses, not a public service.
> Certainly, the line isn't that fuzzy to you?

But if they serve the public good, they are (by your definition) a
proper role of government too. The public good can be served both by
private business and by government business and by many flavors in
between. A legitimate argument can be made that =no= enterprise that
can be adequately served by private business should be the the role of
government. FSVO "adequately". And that's the rub.

> The reality is that it would sort itself out in short order, given the
> mortgages that must still be paid. Most farmers aren't stupid people.

Maybe half of them will go out of business and the farmland will be
turned into airports and condos. The other half will survive.

> It's likely that the ability to transport apples
> globally reduced the profitability

It's more likely that wine is just more profitable.

> [deducting aviation as a tutoring expense...] You'd likely wind
> up sucking the government teat from behind bars, because
> travel expenses don't work that way. ;-)

"Reasonable and necessary". This is subject to interpretation. A
business owner does not have to pick the cheapest or most efficient mode
of transport. It just can't be "extravagant". I would argue that using
an airplane to visit my far flung clients of education is similar to
using an airplane to visit my far flung clients in sales. Free flying.
Why not?

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

[Jose]

>>...since the line between use and abuse is so fuzzy.
> And your justification for equating the two is horrifying.

Ok. =Some= tax deductions constitute sucking on the government teat.
Others are quite legitimate. Less horrified?

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

[K Baum]

On Jun 26, 9:32 am, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:

>
>
> >> Oh, like United?
>
> Rest of your pompous, FOS "guesstimate" snipped

Matt, you are making uninformed snide comments without any explination
to back them up, and you are calling ME
pompus???????????????????????? ;)
> --
> Matt Barrow
> Performance Homes, LLC.
> Cheyenne, WY

[Morgans[_2_]]

"K Baum" > wrote

> Matt, you are making uninformed snide comments without any explination
> to back them up, and you are calling ME
> pompus???????????????????????? ;)

Don't worry about it. Matt is an equal opportunity insulter.
--
Jim in NC

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

>>> AMTRAK (let's not even go there!).
>> If you haven't "gone there", you should. Some of the most pleasurable
>> vacations...
>
> So? Whether you (or anybody) enjoys AMTRAK doesn't change the fact
> that it is a case of public dollars going to a private enterprise.
>
When did AmTrak become a private enterprise?

>> Privately owned trains are for-profit businesses, not a public
>> service. Certainly, the line isn't that fuzzy to you?
>
> But if they serve the public good, they are (by your definition) a
> proper role of government too.
>
That's YOUR opinion. I don't recall positing anything of the kind, and to
be more direct, for-profit businesses are not a public service, even if
their operations provide some benefit to the public. I think I'm beginning
to see why you think the line is fuzzy.

>> The reality is that it would sort itself out in short order, given
>> the mortgages that must still be paid. Most farmers aren't stupid
>> people.
>
> Maybe half of them will go out of business and the farmland will be
> turned into airports and condos. The other half will survive.
>
Your basis for thinking this is...?

>> It's likely that the ability to transport apples
>> globally reduced the profitability
>
> It's more likely that wine is just more profitable.
>
Curious that you omitted my statement to this effect, which refutes your
notion that farmers would go out of business and that farmland would be
turned into "airports and condos". Didn't happen in CA, and it's unlikely
to happen elsewhere.

>> [deducting aviation as a tutoring expense...] You'd likely wind
>> up sucking the government teat from behind bars, because
>> travel expenses don't work that way. ;-)
>
> "Reasonable and necessary". This is subject to interpretation.
>
The issue is not whether the trip is necessary, it's how the travel
expense deduction is set up.

> A
> business owner does not have to pick the cheapest or most efficient
> mode of transport. It just can't be "extravagant".
>
Perhaps you should review the tax code on this one.

> I would argue
> that using an airplane to visit my far flung clients of education is
> similar to using an airplane to visit my far flung clients in sales.
> Free flying. Why not?
>
Try it and we'll see how it works out for you. Perhaps, with good
behavior, you could still participate in R.A.P. from the Fed Pen computer?
;-)

Neil

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"K Baum" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 26, 9:32 am, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> >> Oh, like United?
>>
>> Rest of your pompous, FOS "guesstimate" snipped
>
> Matt, you are making uninformed snide comments without any explination
> to back them up, and you are calling ME
> pompus???????????????????????? ;)

Shall we go back to your guesses about my desires, my jealosies, or my
posting history (I think you're confusing me with Matt Whiting)? Why? Seeing
that you're apparently nothing but a typical union thug, who should I
bother?

Pompous, union thug, I should note!

{plonk}

Oh, yes; FoS, as well.
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[K Baum]

On Jun 27, 10:49 am, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
>
> Shall we go back to your guesses about my desires, my jealosies, or my
> posting history (I think you're confusing me with Matt Whiting)? Why? Seeing
> that you're apparently nothing but a typical union thug, who should I
> bother?

Matt, why do you post a response and say why should I bother ?????? It
seems your main desire is to flame and bait people on this list (Much
like that MX individual). Should we call you MXMatt ? ;). An
unfortunate side effect of your posts is that it shows a Grand Canyon
between what you think you know about flying and what you actually
understand. I cant say for sure what you are jealous of but you have a
real hard on for those who have worked the past 75 years to make your
flying safer.
>
> Pompous, union thug, I should note!

MxMatt, Ive been called alot of things, but never this! You are
clever.
>
> {plonk}

plonk yourself you zainy rascal !!
>
> Oh, yes; FoS, as well.

And a Fos, you FoWgiE to you to.

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

???????????

[Jose]

> When did AmTrak become a private enterprise?

It didn't. I was mistaken. I thought it was a government entity taken
private, but it was more like the other way around (but not quite).

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> When did AmTrak become a private enterprise?
>
> It didn't. I was mistaken. I thought it was a government entity
> taken private, but it was more like the other way around (but not
> quite).
>
In that light, I still recommend that you take advantage of a public
service provided for the common good. It is a very educational experience.

Neil

[Don Tabor]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:35:24 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>Recently, Jose > posted:
>
>>> When did AmTrak become a private enterprise?
>>
>> It didn't. I was mistaken. I thought it was a government entity
>> taken private, but it was more like the other way around (but not
>> quite).
>>
>In that light, I still recommend that you take advantage of a public
>service provided for the common good. It is a very educational experience.

Experience is said to be the best teacher, other than that it
eventually kills all of its students.

Yeah, going anywhere over 50 miles by Amtrak is going to be VERY
educational.

Don

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Don Tabor > posted:

> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:35:24 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote:
>
>> Recently, Jose > posted:
>>
>>>> When did AmTrak become a private enterprise?
>>>
>>> It didn't. I was mistaken. I thought it was a government entity
>>> taken private, but it was more like the other way around (but not
>>> quite).
>>>
>> In that light, I still recommend that you take advantage of a public
>> service provided for the common good. It is a very educational
>> experience.
>
> Experience is said to be the best teacher, other than that it
> eventually kills all of its students.
>
No one gets out of life alive. ;-)

> Yeah, going anywhere over 50 miles by Amtrak is going to be VERY
> educational.
>
Having traveled thousands of miles on AmTrak, I highly recommend it. It's
a heck of a lot better experience than I've had on any airline.

Neil

[Don Tabor]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:50:59 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>> Yeah, going anywhere over 50 miles by Amtrak is going to be VERY
>> educational.
>>
>Having traveled thousands of miles on AmTrak, I highly recommend it. It's
>a heck of a lot better experience than I've had on any airline.
>
>Neil

Really?

Having traveled once from Richmond, VA to New Orleans by Amtrak, I'd
rather drive than do it again. I would have saved 18 hours each way
even if I stopped for 8 hours sleep.

It was only about $50 cheaper than flying round trip and used up 3
days of vacation.

Faster trains wouldn't have helped because the train had to stop at
every town with a Post Office.

Never Again!

Don

[El Maximo]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
et...

>>
> Having traveled thousands of miles on AmTrak, I highly recommend it. It's
> a heck of a lot better experience than I've had on any airline.

I recently went in for a colonoscopy, I highly recommend it. It's
a heck of a lot better experience than I've had on any airline.

</sarcasm>

[Neil Gould]

Recently, El Maximo > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>
>>>
>> Having traveled thousands of miles on AmTrak, I highly recommend it.
>> It's a heck of a lot better experience than I've had on any airline.
>
> I recently went in for a colonoscopy, I highly recommend it. It's
> a heck of a lot better experience than I've had on any airline.
>
Mine is scheduled next month (after my next airline trip). I'll probably
agree with your comparison, as well.
>
> </sarcasm>
>
Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Don Tabor > posted:

> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:50:59 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, going anywhere over 50 miles by Amtrak is going to be VERY
>>> educational.
>>>
>> Having traveled thousands of miles on AmTrak, I highly recommend it.
>> It's a heck of a lot better experience than I've had on any airline.
>>
>
> Really?
>
> Having traveled once from Richmond, VA to New Orleans by Amtrak, I'd
> rather drive than do it again. I would have saved 18 hours each way
> even if I stopped for 8 hours sleep.
>
There are faster ways to go anywhere than to travel by train (or by ship).
Kinda misses the point of the experience, though.

Neil

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"El Maximo" wrote:

airline.
>
> I recently went in for a colonoscopy, I highly recommend it. It's
> a heck of a lot better experience than I've had on any airline.

Just had mine & agree completely, no sarcasm intended.

At least I was unconscious during the most painful and humiliating parts of
the experience, which is better than I can say about my last airline flight.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Don Tabor]

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 16:22:52 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>> Having traveled once from Richmond, VA to New Orleans by Amtrak, I'd
>> rather drive than do it again. I would have saved 18 hours each way
>> even if I stopped for 8 hours sleep.
>>
>There are faster ways to go anywhere than to travel by train (or by ship).
>Kinda misses the point of the experience, though.

You mean the jerking, bumping, swaying and noise?

Don


Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

[Jay Honeck]

> >Kinda misses the point of the experience, though.
>
> You mean the jerking, bumping, swaying and noise?

Hee hee! Agreed.

My parents used to LOVE that part of train travel. They said the
bumping, swaying and noise made for a great night's sleep.

And my grandfather worked for Santa Fe, so trains were in my family
blood.

Personally, I think trains are cool (one of my fondest memories is of
taking the Santa Fe Super Chief from Chicago to LA as a child), but
I'll fly any time over them. Too slow and clunky to make them viable
cross-country transportation.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

>>> Kinda misses the point of the experience, though.
>>
>> You mean the jerking, bumping, swaying and noise?
>
> Hee hee! Agreed.
>
If that's how you really feel, why you would fly on anything smaller than
a 747 puzzles me.

> Personally, I think trains are cool (one of my fondest memories is of
> taking the Santa Fe Super Chief from Chicago to LA as a child), but
> I'll fly any time over them. Too slow and clunky to make them viable
> cross-country transportation.
>
For those with the resources to fly, travel by train *is the point of the
trip*, not "getting somewhere" fast. The Santa Fe Super Chief is still a
great experience (we took that one about 5 years ago). You get to see the
country from a historical perspective, since the railroad tracks seldom
pass through the suburbs. More importantly, one gets the chance to meet
and chat with people that you wouldn't normally encounter. There is no
comparison between those folks and the obnoxious jerks that think their
airline ticket entitles them to make everyone else's experience miserable.

In a similar vein, when I choose to fly spam-cans I'm not in a hurry to
get somewhere. To the contrary... I want to *prolong* the experience. So,
I fly Warriors, Archers, 172s, etc. I'm not interested in "faster" planes
that guzzle twice as much fuel to get me somewhere 30 minutes sooner.
YMMV.

Neil

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Don Tabor" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:50:59 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, going anywhere over 50 miles by Amtrak is going to be VERY
>>> educational.
>>>
>>Having traveled thousands of miles on AmTrak, I highly recommend it. It's
>>a heck of a lot better experience than I've had on any airline.
>>
>>Neil
>
> Really?
>
> Having traveled once from Richmond, VA to New Orleans by Amtrak, I'd
> rather drive than do it again. I would have saved 18 hours each way
> even if I stopped for 8 hours sleep.

Quite! From 1994 thru 98 I had to do quite a bit of airline travel and it
was, by and large, pretty decent (except AmericaWorst/USScare).

With the interstate highways having mostly 75MPH speedlimits (read:85-90
cruising), in the west, you can beat any Amtrak. And you get to stop WHERE
you want, WHEN you want. Or, if you're one of those touchy-feeley, let's all
cram together for a group hug, well then Amtrak is probably just your speed.
:~)

Now, if sightseeing is your thing, one of those scenic rail trips would be
much superior to the Amtrak cattle-cars.

Then, too, some people like cattle-cars...at least for everyone else.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "El Maximo" wrote:
>
> airline.
>>
>> I recently went in for a colonoscopy, I highly recommend it. It's
>> a heck of a lot better experience than I've had on any airline.
>
> Just had mine & agree completely, no sarcasm intended.
>
> At least I was unconscious during the most painful and humiliating parts
> of the experience, which is better than I can say about my last airline
> flight.
>

Yeah (sigh!) ...the more they need it, the more they've stopped serving
booze.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> >Kinda misses the point of the experience, though.
>>
>> You mean the jerking, bumping, swaying and noise?
>
> Hee hee! Agreed.
>
> My parents used to LOVE that part of train travel. They said the
> bumping, swaying and noise made for a great night's sleep.
>

Yeah...sleep...uh huh, sure.

Our parents were much more....um, savvy...than we realize.

They were, however, very discreet.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Neil Gould" wrote:

> I'm not interested in "faster" planes

What!?!?!!!

Heretic!

Don't you know there's no such thing as a fast enough airplane? ;^)


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[AES]

In article >,
"Neil Gould" > wrote:

> For those with the resources to fly, travel by train *is the point of the
> trip*, not "getting somewhere" fast. The Santa Fe Super Chief is still a

In the U.S., that is. Just got back from 3 weeks in Germany -- 4
successive business trips on ICEs up and down the length of the
country. G-d, they live better there than we do.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"AES" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>
>> For those with the resources to fly, travel by train *is the point of the
>> trip*, not "getting somewhere" fast. The Santa Fe Super Chief is still a
>
> In the U.S., that is. Just got back from 3 weeks in Germany -- 4
> successive business trips on ICEs up and down the length of the
> country. G-d, they live better there than we do.

So move there.

[crickets chirping]

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Dan Luke > posted:

> "Neil Gould" wrote:
>
>> I'm not interested in "faster" planes
>
> What!?!?!!!
>
> Heretic!
>
> Don't you know there's no such thing as a fast enough airplane? ;^)
>
If I'm being shot at, my priorities change. ;-)

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Matt Barrow > posted:
>
> With the interstate highways having mostly 75MPH speedlimits
> (read:85-90 cruising), in the west, you can beat any Amtrak. And you
> get to stop WHERE you want, WHEN you want. Or, if you're one of those
> touchy-feeley, let's all cram together for a group hug, well then
> Amtrak is probably just your speed. :~)
>
If you're driving, you have to concentrate on the other inhabitants of the
road, and can't sit back with a cool one and watch the scenery. We
travelled in their first-class cabins, which are quite comfortable. With
their vacation packages, you can also get off and book yourself on another
train. We spent a week in Santa Fe, a few days in Flagstaff (where there
are some hard-core train addicts), and then continued on to L.A.

> Now, if sightseeing is your thing, one of those scenic rail trips
> would be much superior to the Amtrak cattle-cars.
>
If cattle cars are your concern, NOTHING compares to flying coach. But,
you'll beat AmTrak by a good margin. ;-)

Neil