On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:30:07 GMT, "Ken Finney"
wrote in :

It was a
decent article, but the tone I got from it was "this is what other people,
other people who are rich, do". Once you say an airplane costs $400K, most
readers will forever consider GA as something "others" do, not something
they can do.

As another poster to this message thread indicated, the cost figures
used seem unrealistically inflated. (Someone should bring this to the
attention to the author of the article.)

Because the article was primarily about the utility of GA for
_business_ use, I feel that discussing recreational aviation would
have been beyond the scope of that article, even though it may have
lent a more objective perspective on costs, as you suggest.