USA Today .. Positive GA Pub

Good, positive press on the usefullness of GA:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...ots-usat_x.htm

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

Jay Beckman wrote:
Good, positive press on the usefullness of GA:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...ots-usat_x.htm

Thank you for the link.

I just wish they'd give a (much) wider range of cost figures, instead
of concentrating on the higher end of owning airplanes and license
cost.

Cheers, Kev

"Kev" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jay Beckman wrote:
Good, positive press on the usefullness of GA:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...ots-usat_x.htm

Thank you for the link.

I just wish they'd give a (much) wider range of cost figures, instead
of concentrating on the higher end of owning airplanes and license
cost.

Cheers, Kev


And a plug for Sport Pilot would have been nice.

Kev writes:

I just wish they'd give a (much) wider range of cost figures, instead
of concentrating on the higher end of owning airplanes and license
cost.

They've considerably underplayed the high cost of general aviation,
and they've not even mentioned the weather factors in aviation. Be
glad that the article is so positive; I haven't seen one like it in a
long time.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:23:45 -0700, "Jay Beckman"
wrote in :

Good, positive press on the usefullness of GA:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...ots-usat_x.htm

It's about time. Thanks for the heads-up.

Here are some quotes from the story:

The added hassles of business travel from tightened security and
airline cost-cutting since the Sept. 11 terrorism has helped fuel
an increase in the business use of personal aircraft. Encouraged
by a growing economy and a generally favorable business climate,
many business people — particularly those who live far from a
big-city hub — are realizing that piloting their own planes saves
time and, in some cases, money.

...

The Federal Aviation Administration estimates about two-thirds of
the hours flown by private planes are for business reasons.
According to the agency's most recent numbers, hours flown in
private planes for business reasons in 2005 were up 12.5% from
2001. Contributing to the increase: more business trips taken by
individuals or small groups in small, piston-driven airplanes.

...

In September, La Colla and an employee flew on the plane to visit
11 stores in five days. They visited eight cities at a cost of
less than $4,500. If they had taken airline flights, they would
have spent more nights in hotels, rented more cars and eaten in
more restaurants. The bill would have been much higher, La Colla
says.

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:14:45 GMT, "Ken Finney"
wrote in :

And a plug for Sport Pilot would have been nice.

Not in this case. The story is extolling the virtues of GA as a
business alternative to airline travel. The public is already way to
aware of recreational GA activity.

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:23:45 -0700, "Jay Beckman"
wrote in :

Good, positive press on the usefullness of GA:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...ots-usat_x.htm

You can tell the editor and author how much you enjoyed the story
he
http://feedbackforms.usatoday.com/ma...e.aspx?type=14

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Kev writes:

I just wish they'd give a (much) wider range of cost figures, instead
of concentrating on the higher end of owning airplanes and license
cost.

They've considerably underplayed the high cost of general aviation,
and they've not even mentioned the weather factors in aviation. Be
glad that the article is so positive; I haven't seen one like it in a
long time.

They identified the costs to purchase a new plane as $400,000, although one
can purchase a new Cessna 172SP for about half that.

They identified the cost to purchase a 22 year old plane as $92,000,
although one can purchase a used plane for considerably less than half
that.

They identified the hourly rate to rent a plane as $200 per hour or more,
although one can rent planes for half that or less.

The article was a good, positive article, and I certainly appreciate the
positive press, especially since I identify with the subjects of the
article (I got my pilots license in 2001 and fly to save time and money in
my business).

But it absolutely did not underplay the high cost of general aviation. Your
perspective is skewed.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:14:45 GMT, "Ken Finney"
wrote in :

And a plug for Sport Pilot would have been nice.

Not in this case. The story is extolling the virtues of GA as a
business alternative to airline travel. The public is already way to
aware of recreational GA activity.

I respectfully disagree. I worked about 18 years for an airplane company
and lived for next to a major airport for 12 years before I had ANY contact
with GA, and I expect the average person has even less knowledge. 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.

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.