The frustrating economics of aviation

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote
tscottme wrote:
The adviocates of Rec Pilot thought it would produce a flood of new
students.

They would have been right if the proposal had passed as originally written.

I doubt it. It would have allowed some old guys to keep flying a
while longer, and that's about it. Getting a medical is a non-issue
for 99% of those under 45. That's not exactly the future of aviation.

If the final version
of the Sport Pilot rule contains a requirement for a medical certificate, few people
will bother with that one either.

Nonsense. The real issue that keeps sport aviation small is not the
medical requirement - it's the cost of the airplane. The sport pilot
certificate itself is pretty meaningle - but a category of aircraft
that you don't have to build yourself that don't have to be FAA
certified is going to be very important.

Michael

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ink.net...
Well, if you are a trial lawyer, you can't be a very good one. :-)
Trial lawyers are usually way too smart to make a point by forming a
comment that takes an individual (Henrique) and portrays that individual
in a hypothetical group (them and their ilk); which is a glittering
generalization; then in the next sentence, demands specifics. That's
hysterically funny!!!!
You were doing fine until you reached for that "them and their ilk" bit.
Here's a clue for your "next case".
Glittering generalization has no place in trial law. Actually, it has
no place in intelligent dialog either :-))))

Well, of course neither Tom nor Dudley have given any response to the
original issue; rather, just ad hominum attacks on the author. That
should settle who is right. In the courtroom, we have an argument that
carries some logical weight: "There are two things that a jury must
consider-the law and the facts. If the law is against the lawyer,
pound on the facts. If the facts are against him, pound on the law.
If both the law and the facts are against him, pound on the other
lawyer." "Nuff said."

Tom's response is his usual insipid personal insult when he is beat
(often), and deserves no response. Dudley's response is similarly
without substance. There is no generalization; my observation about
his (lack of) facts and supportable opinion and those of his ilk (like
Tom) is proven by the "content" of his response.

smackey wrote:

As mr Sondrecker requested- let's have some facts. Opinionated
diatribe by Henrique and others without facts is prety much the order
of the day for them and their ilk. PLEASE-give me some specifics!!!
There aren't any. The American judicial system based upon the
centuries-old concept of a jury of one's peers is second to none.

FACT: The American Insurance Association published a report " Premium
Deceit: The Failure of 'Tort Reform' to Cut Insurance Prices"
(March,2002), which found, following a 14 year study, that there was
no relation between tort restrictions and insurance rates.
This study was consistent with the National Association of
Attorneys General:
"The facts do not bear out the allegations of an explosion in
litigation or in claim size, nor do they bear out the
allegations of a financial disaster suffered by property/casualty
insurers today. They finally do not support any correlation between
the current crisis in availability and affordability of insurance and
such litigation explosion. The available data indicate that the
causes of, and therefore solutions to, the current crisis lie with the
insurance industry itself."

It is pretty amusing that a (self-proclaimed) tort lawyer posts to an aviation forum, of all places, to say that tort reform
is not needed. It is ironic because aviation is one of the few industries that have had protections placed against jackpot
justice tort suits, with stellar results. You don't need an insurance industry study to learn that Cessna built a new
factory and started building piston airplanes again after the General Aviation Revitalization Act, with its statue of repose,
was made law. Or that Piper was able to have a fighting chance of keeping insurance and emerging from bankruptcy
successfully.

And then the same tort engineer proclaims that protectins against jackpot justice don't reduce insurance costs. Sure that's
why my father, previously an orthopedic surgeon in Nevada had to move to California. California doesn't allow unlimited
punitive damages and its malpractice insurance premiums are orders of magnitude lower than Nevada as a result. That's if you
can get malpractice insurance at all. It was either move or leave the medical profession. A friend of his in Nevada had to
stop practicing altogether even though he loved to treat people. Neither of them had either been sued. And that story is
being repeated around the country in many states. Yet the special interest tort engineers, assisted by their paid peers in
the legislators, insist that tort reform does not help. This is in spite of the fact of the success in states such as
California and Lousiana. Good thing we have tort men like John Edwards who successfully convince juries that innocent
doctors are responsible for celebral palsy as they collect their 40% of millions and millions of jackpot money. No small
wonder why so many hospitals can't afford the insurance they need to stay in business and are closing left and right across
the country.

"Michael" wrote in message
m...

The FAA doesn't force pilots to fly a perfectly good airplane into the
ground, which is the cause of a good proportion of accidents. How are
they to blame?

Well, in fact it does. It keeps the national airspace system complex
and quirky, it keeps the airplanes obsolete and under-equipped, and
basically makes flying far more difficult than it needs to be. Then
some pilots are not up to it.


!$%^*! I have to agree with you again. I think I am going to be ill.
Fortunately, I disagree with most of the rest of your post.

Well, it certainly isn't cheap to learn to fly to the PP-ASEL level.
But should it be? My niece is taking piano lessons...gotten to be
pretty good in about 18 months of lessons. Cost? About $4000,
counting lessons materials and the purchase of the piano. My older
niece learned to drive last year. Cost? Counting added insurance
costs, drivers ed, practice, tests and sundry items? About $2500. The
son of a friend is taking chess lessons and is an up-and-coming
tournament chess player. It took him about a year to get reasonably
proficient. Cost? Including lessons (at $50 an hour), materials,
books, and other items? About $3000.

I started my private pilot training on September 1, 2001. Even with
the break after 9/11, I received my Private certificate in February,
2002. Total cost? right around $5000. I was (and am) a busy
professional. But I placed a high enough value on my flight training
to fly at lunch, right after work, and whenever else I could. It
needn't take a year, even for very busy people.

Aviation hasn't 'practically died out' Hundreds of thousands of GA
pilots fly tens of millions of hours per year. A rental Cessna 172
will cost you about $0.55 per mile, on average (around here). A
personally owned or club plane can cost you even less. The standard
IRS deduction for the use of a personal car is $0.375 per mile. Is it
*really* that outrageous that it costs 50% per mile to go twice as
fast?

And given that recreational boating is *much* less complex than
PP-ASEL flying (by their respective natures), shouldn't it be more
time-consuming and difficult to learn how to fly, than to learn how to
boat? To be honest, I really don't see a problem here.

Flying and learning to fly are not cheap. Nor are they outrageously
expensive. But are the training requirements onerous, or
inappropriately complex? I really don't think so. I really don't
*want* people flying around up there who have been trained to the
level of the average recreational boater (nothing against them...but
skills necessary to skipper a houseboat across a lake are clearly less
demaning that those necessary to pilot a Cherokee on a 300 mile XC).

To me, it all comes down to what you value. For the benefits of
flying, my $5000 for my private ticket (and the additional for my
Commercial, my Instrument, my Multi, and my CFI) is an absolute
bargain. If you are dedicated and really want to fly and are willing
to maintain the proficiency levels necessary to be competent, then the
cost of training and flying really are not greatly excessive, if at
all. If a person is *not* willing do to those things, then I don't
really see the benefit of bringing that person into the community of
pilots. I really don't see why learning to fly should be cheaper than
learning to play the piano.

Cheers,

Cap



"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?

"Captain Wubba" wrote in message
om...
Well, it certainly isn't cheap to learn to fly to the PP-ASEL level.
But should it be? My niece is taking piano lessons...gotten to be
pretty good in about 18 months of lessons. Cost? About $4000,
counting lessons materials and the purchase of the piano. My older
niece learned to drive last year. Cost? Counting added insurance
costs, drivers ed, practice, tests and sundry items? About $2500. The
son of a friend is taking chess lessons and is an up-and-coming
tournament chess player. It took him about a year to get reasonably
proficient. Cost? Including lessons (at $50 an hour), materials,
books, and other items? About $3000.

Compare all these with taking golf lessons -- ten years and several thousand
dollars and most people still stink.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Captain Wubba" wrote in message
om...
Well, it certainly isn't cheap to learn to fly to the PP-ASEL level.
But should it be? My niece is taking piano lessons...gotten to be
pretty good in about 18 months of lessons. Cost? About $4000,
counting lessons materials and the purchase of the piano. My older
niece learned to drive last year. Cost? Counting added insurance
costs, drivers ed, practice, tests and sundry items? About $2500. The
son of a friend is taking chess lessons and is an up-and-coming
tournament chess player. It took him about a year to get reasonably
proficient. Cost? Including lessons (at $50 an hour), materials,
books, and other items? About $3000.

Compare all these with taking golf lessons -- ten years and several
thousand
dollars and most people still stink.

I have played golf since I was five years old, and never have I won a game
yet. :-(