The frustrating economics of aviation

"Greg" wrote in message ...


Jack wrote:

Bob Noel wrote:

"more appropriate use"? How revealing of your feeling.

Congratulations on your ability to extract meaning from a clear
statement.

Which clearly suggested that an airport should be a less appropriate use
than
something else. How many more strip malls, shopping centers, and
landfills do
we need? Something like 50 airports disappear forever every year, is
that
not enough? Tampa is about to lose a jewel of an airport this fall.


Is this statement about the number of airports being closed each year true?
Where can I see data that supports this claim regarding 50 airports a year
closing? I know AOPA quotes it but they do not back it up with data.

Earl G

In article hjmKc.118690$XM6.23791@attbi_s53, Robert Bates wrote:
person's lifetime for death or a percentage of loss due to injury. It's
obvious to most that Billy Joe Jim Bob who works at McDonalds for $7.00/hr
is not worth $10M when his potential income is calculated for his lifespan.

Not necessarily; I'm sure quite a few people worth $10M now once worked
at fast food restaurants as a teenager.

The problem with the amounts of money involved in lawsuits doesn't seem
to be the damages part, it seems to be the punitive part. The plaintiff
should only receive the money from the actual damages award - the
punitive part should be treated as a fine, or possibly held in trust -
where neither the lawyer nor the plaintiff gets it. Removing the chance
of making $millions from a lawsuit will deter fishing expeditions.

I have a confession to make - our family has sued someone. When I was
15, I was opening a door normally at school, but the glass (which didn't
meet building code) broke and did me a very serious injury [0]. My mother
had to take three months off work to take me into hospital every day for
3 hours of physiotherapy. However, the rewards was entirely consistent
with our loss - GBP 7,500 in 1987 money (probably about GBP 9000 - or
roughly US$12000 these days) - which covered unpaid time off work, fuel and
other expenses. I'm sure the same case in the USA would have
resulted in at lest $1M in damages. Fix the problem of excessive awards,
and the problem of frivolous lawsuits goes away.

[0] The glass broke and sliced through my wrist to the bone - all flexor
tendons cut, both arteries cut (lots of blood), several other cuts as
the glass fell out of the door frame. It required almost 7 hours of
microsurgery to fix in a specialist hospital, followed by 3 hours of
physiotherapy 3 hours per day, five days per week for 3 months.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Greg wrote:

Jack wrote:

Congratulations on your ability to extract meaning from a clear statement.

Which clearly suggested that an airport should be a less appropriate use than
something else.

Let's not be too imaginative. An airport certainly could be a less
appropriate use for a given property. I did not use the word "should".


Something like 50 airports disappear forever every year, is that
not enough?

Maybe. If you need one, build it -- or drive a little further -- or
better yet move closer to where the airport is, or even buy a piece of
an airport and live on it. There are plenty of solutions that don't
involve paranoia, but do require an unbiased look at the world around you.


Tampa is about to lose a jewel of an airport this fall.

Yes, economics is a bitch, isn't it? The market works.



Jack

'Vejita' S. Cousin wrote:

There's a difference between saying "We need to build
an airport lets do it away from the city." And "our town has been
expanding, in fact we've grown so large we're right to the each of the
river and the edge of the airport."
The end result might be the same, but the methodolgy is different.

Sounds like a distinction without a difference, but if you like working
with "methodologies", why not pick one that worked in the past and
imitate it?

Just remember: nothing is forever.


Jack

In article ,
(smackey) wrote:

Oh, by the way...I'm a trial lawyer, and proud of it.

really? I never would have guessed.

--
Bob Noel

In article , tscottme wrote:
The adviocates of Rec Pilot thought it would produce a flood of new
students. If the big problem keeping the public from flocking to CFIs was
the difficulty in licensing, any lessening of that difficulty should produce
significant increases. It seems clear that Rec Pilot is producing almost no
results. It seems foolish to to keep making the process easier and easier,
when the public doesn't seem to be taking advantage of the previous efforts.

This is because the Recreational Pilot certificate is almost as hard to
get as the full private, but a lot more restricted. There is virtually
no savings in time, difficulty or cost in getting the Rec over the
Private. You have to take the same medical, and the only thing you
really save is a few hours cross country and night - it's barely above
being a newly-soloed student pilot when it's done privilege-wise, yet
takes almost as long as the full PPL to complete. In short, the Rec. is
nearly pointless.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"smackey" wrote in message
m...

Oh, by the way...I'm a trial lawyer, and proud of it.


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 :-))))

Here's your comment;

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!!!

Brilliant!!! :-))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , tscottme wrote:
The adviocates of Rec Pilot thought it would produce a flood of new
students. If the big problem keeping the public from flocking to CFIs
was
the difficulty in licensing, any lessening of that difficulty should
produce
significant increases. It seems clear that Rec Pilot is producing
almost no
results. It seems foolish to to keep making the process easier and
easier,
when the public doesn't seem to be taking advantage of the previous
efforts.

This is because the Recreational Pilot certificate is almost as hard to
get as the full private, but a lot more restricted. There is virtually
no savings in time, difficulty or cost in getting the Rec over the
Private. You have to take the same medical, and the only thing you
really save is a few hours cross country and night - it's barely above
being a newly-soloed student pilot when it's done privilege-wise, yet
takes almost as long as the full PPL to complete. In short, the Rec. is
nearly pointless.

Nevertheless, Sporty's uses the Recreational Pilot certificate as a waypoint
towards Private Pilot. This makes some sense; for the cost of a check ride,
the student gains considerably more flexibility than he would have as a solo
student. Personally, I would rather my solo students not have that
flexibility (in fact, I usually have quite a few more restrictions than the
regulations require), but apparently some instructors find it a useful tool.

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. The
original proposal removed the requirement for a medical certificate. The Department
of Transportation added that requirement in the last revision. If the final version
of the Sport Pilot rule contains a requirement for a medical certificate, few people
will bother with that one either.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(smackey) wrote:

Oh, by the way...I'm a trial lawyer, and proud of it.

really? I never would have guessed.

What, that he was pround of it? I suppose hookers, paid killers, drug
dealers, etc., are proud of their professions, too.