The frustrating economics of aviation

"Jack" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:


...because it takes a year to become a pilot, people are
unwilling to spend $300,000 for an airplane. The time investment is far
more
expensive than the monetary cost. Always has been.

People for whom that is a problem do us all a favor by staying away from
aviation.

That may well be true, but it does impose a cost for the rest of us
nonetheless.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:


...because it takes a year to become a pilot, people are
unwilling to spend $300,000 for an airplane. The time investment is far
more
expensive than the monetary cost. Always has been.

People for whom that is a problem do us all a favor by staying away from
aviation.

Then again, that also may not be true. It would be interesting to know
whether pilots as a group contain a smaller percentage of bozos than
automobile drivers, for example. Back when I was riding regularly and
competing in the occasional triathlon I learned that bicyclists behave
little differently than they do when driving; you see the same idiots doing
the same idiotic things. I have no real good reason to believe that pilots
are any different. We still seem to have a significant number of us who fly
while under the influence of various substances, buzz their girlfriends'
houses, try to join the mile high club, etc. It may well be that the reason
we don't run into each other more often is because there are not very many
of us, not because we are trained to any particularly high level of skill or
judgment.

Another thought: an inordinate amount of flight training consists of the
equivalent of learning to parallel park a car -- and nothing has been done
about it. Airplanes continue to be difficult to land, maintain course and
altitude, and navigate. Why is that? It seems that little progress has been
made in more than fifty years. Even the so-called advanced technology
airplanes -- the Cirri, the Diamonds, the new Cessnas (and make no mistake,
just giving an airplane a plastic body does not in and of itself make it any
more advanced than a Cessna 140) -- have made most of their progress in the
area of navigation. They still are monstrously hard to control in flight and
even harder to land. One would think that flying could be made a lot easier
than it is now.

Unlike in medical malpractice, most aviation lawsuits are wrongful death
actions involving dead pilots. And guess who sues when a pilot dies: THE
FAMILIES of dead pilots, blaming the manufacturer for their beloved's death.
So if we want aviation economics to improve, we must prohibit our greedy
spouses and children from suing after we screw-up flying our planes.





"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Okay, we have gone 'round and 'round about why new airplanes cost so much:
low demand, liability, inefficient manufacturing, regulatory requirements,
etc. It is so daunting that Toyota appears to have scrapped its GA
project.

Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a
pilot. It takes most people about a year and $7,000 to learn to fly. Can
you
imagine what would happen to the boating industry if the government
imposed
similar regulatory requirements to learn to drive a boat? Most of getting
a
seaplane license, for example, is really demonstrating boating skills. You
are basically being required to get a very costly license in order to
drive
a kind of boat. What if everyone who drives a boat had to do that? Would
boating be safer? Would it be worth it? Would boating practically die out
as
aviation has?

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:

Okay, we have gone 'round and 'round about why new airplanes cost so
much....

[....]

Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a
pilot.

So you're saying that because it costs $7,000 to become a pilot, people
are unwilling to spend $300,000 for an airplane.

I think we need to keep looking.

I think that there is a matter of functionality vs. cost vs. benefit.

Getting the best use from an airplane needs a reasonable level of skill.
That would be a current and practised instrument pilot.
It would also need a airplane that's also reasonably well equipped for the
job in hand.

Next you need a reason to use the aircraft so much in order to get so well
skilled.

I know with me, my wife hates flying and can barely bring herself to travel
on airlines let alone go in a small plane. In 20 years she has only been
with me in a SEPL twice.

My son enjoys flying and may one day take it up himself but does enjoy IMC
so if we go anywhere, then it has to be VMC.

The only other alternative is to get a divorce get a new family who like
travelling. The problem with that is that those pesky lawyers would ensure
that I could not afford a $20,000 plane let alone a $300,000.

For me $300,000 is a big investment, there is no way I could sensibly
justify the spend. Also AVGAS is $6 a gallon so the $100 hamburger is nearer
a $300 one.

cb

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:00:43 GMT, (leslie)
wrote:

Forrester Research, the market research firm, predicts that by 2015
more than 489,000 US lawyer jobs -- about 8 per cent of the total,
will shift to lower-cost countries."

So they must be thinking that by 2015, we'll have six times the number of
lawyers that we have today.

I wonder upon what basis they make that conclusion.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:19:47 GMT, kontiki wrote:

I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing" prior
to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12 respected
and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the surrounding
area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or who
is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).

Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least one
person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be chosen
from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days to
consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be NON-frivolous
will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected as
frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000 or
an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is greater.

In many states, and Maine is one of them, a very similar process exists for
medical malpractice cases. The screening panels are also set up to allow
prompt payment of meritorious claims.

http://www.cga.state.ct.us/2003/olrd...003-R-0607.htm


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

kontiki wrote:

Flying is safer (per passenger mile) than traveling in cars, trains
and yes, even boats. The reason it has that record is in part because
the requirement are more stringent.

That is not what the statistics say, assuming you were talking about
general aviation, which was the main part of discussion in this thread
up to now. The following from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics:

(fatalities per 100 million passenger-miles - year 2001)

3.62 General Aviation (Includes all types of GA)
3.05 Motorcycle riders
0.79 Automobile occupants (Pedestrian fatalities not included.)
0.02 Passengers on trains (Grade crossing, trespassing fatalities not
included.)
0.02 Scheduled air carriers (2000 data used to avoid 9/11 fatality
count.)

As far as boats are concerned, it would depend on what segment of the
industry one wanted to compare, and what passenger-miles would be used.

In the case of cruise ships, there have been no fatalities in at least
the last decade from a casualty. There have been a number of people
falling overboard, plus people who simply succumb to natural causes.
Ferryboats also have a very low passenger fatality rate, and therefore
would fare well in a comparison.

Recreational boating is another story, with 681 fatalities reported in
2001, (GA had 562 fatalities, for comparison) but passenger-miles aren't
reported for recreational boats. (There are 60 times as many boats as
there are GA aircraft -- about 211,500 active general aviation aircraft,
and 12.9 million recreational boats -- if that helps people with a
perspective.)

"C J Campbell" wrote
Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a
pilot. It takes most people about a year and $7,000 to learn to fly.

Most of the cost of learning to fly is the airplane, so the $7,000 is
a total red herring - if planes were cheaper to own and operate, it
would cost a lot less. Why do the planes cost so much? People blame
lawyers, but that's bull**** really. The lawyers are just as present
in automotive and boating industries as they are in aviation. What's
the difference? Private aviation is regulated to a level unheard of
in private boating and private driving, and in fact in any other
private activity. In other words, the important difference is the
FAA.

The reason it takes a year is twofold: First, most of the students
don't have the time to devote to focused training, and don't focus
very well anyway. That's because the average student these days is a
lot closer to 47 than 17, and thus has a lot more distractions in his
life and doesn't learn as well as he did at 17. It's not that the 17
year old doesn't want to learn to fly - but he can't afford it unless
he's career track. The ones who are career track are not taking a
year to learn. Most of them aren't even taking a year to go from zero
to CFI/CFII/MEI. They mostly get the private in under a month.

Second, there's a lot of bull**** to learn. The airplanes are
obsolete, and have many quirky handling characteristics. Carb heat?
Mixture control? Why are they like that? Because the cost of
certifying something truly different is horrendous. In other words,
FAA.

The national airspace system is equally quirky. Lots of complex rules
and procedures to learn, many at odds with actual current practice.
Why? FAA.

The bottom line is that the biggest problem killing personal aviation,
making it dangerous, expensive, and not nearly useful enough - is the
FAA.

Can you
imagine what would happen to the boating industry if the government imposed
similar regulatory requirements to learn to drive a boat?

More to the point, can you imagine if private boats were regulated the
way private planes were? In other words, if there was an FAA for
private boats?

Most of getting a
seaplane license, for example, is really demonstrating boating skills.

Sure - and you can get that done in a weekend. And then you can't
rent a seaplane anywhere because the insurance companies know you
haven't actually learned what you need to know to safely operate the
seaplane. So in other words, not only do you go through the process -
but it's also a worthless process.

Would boating practically die out as aviation has?

I think you already know the answer to that. Regulate private boats
the way we regulate private airplanes, and pretty soon there will be
very few left.

Michael

C J Campbell wrote:

Airplanes continue to be difficult to land, maintain course and
altitude, and navigate.

[....]

They still are monstrously hard to control in flight and
even harder to land. One would think that flying could be
made a lot easier than it is now.

It could be, but at much greater cost and with the required technology
separating your already highly stressed, inadequately motivated,
under-trained, and relatively inexperienced human pilot even further
from a comprehension of, and facility with, the dynamics of flight.

Flying an aircraft is not for everybody and we ought to worry less about
fitting square pegs into round holes for the purpose of achieving
dubious economies of scale for those few who are well suited to the game.

What is the point of trying to make a Citabria handle like an F-16? Each
is already available to the appropriately qualified.


Jack

Yeah, funny thing... in 50 years I've never found an occasion to sue anyone.

Philip Sondericker wrote:
in article , Bruce Bockius at
wrote on 7/17/04 7:45 PM:



I've won a law suit or two - I bet you have too.


Nope. I've never ever sued anyone. Actually, I'd love to win a lawsuit, but
I suppose that would make me a tool of the greedy trial lawyers, eh?


I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that the Democrat's VP
candidate is ... a trial lawyer.


Huh? Plenty of people have mentioned it. Most of them lawyers.