We're getting old, folks...

Clearly, one of the biggest factors in flying is the cost.

Some, maybe. When I began my private ticket in 1973 I paid $24
per hour , dual, whcih was about a day's pay for me at that time, at 20
years old. Now, we charge about $150/hr dual, same sort of airplane,
which is a bit more than what the average 20-year-old around here
collects in a day. The difference, I suppose, is the lawyers' share.
Of course, with the oil/gas boom we're having in Alberta, there
are kids making $25 and $35 an hour, but they're buying $60,000 trucks
and big houses, not flying lessons.
Much of the big burst in flying came when the kids who were too
young to fly in WWII got old/rich enough to take lessons. They'd
watched the newsreels of the fighters and got the bug. Flying is now
more than 100 years old and the novelty has worn off for the younger
generations. Further, many of the PPLs I knew in the '70s get their
tickets, then flew another 10 or 20 hours until the family realized
that there were more urgent things to do with that money. Flying around
for an hour on a weekend gets a little stale for many unless there's a
more significant point to it.
Some of the reluctance of the public to start flying is their
perception of us as pilots. We can be arrogant and snotty, as if we're
so superior, and it turns them off. Most men would take lessons if they
had the chance; I get a lot of new aquaintances telling me they'd
always wanted to get their Private License. They seem to think that
they're somehow incomplete without having mastered it; perhaps some
discreet advertising along those lines might work. Plenty of other
sports use it.

Dan

In article .com,
wrote:
so superior, and it turns them off. Most men would take lessons if they
had the chance; I get a lot of new aquaintances telling me they'd
always wanted to get their Private License. They seem to think that
they're somehow incomplete without having mastered it; perhaps some
discreet advertising along those lines might work. Plenty of other
sports use it.

I've certainly had some acqaintances tell me they wished they could
take lessons; they were all male. But I think that the advertising you
need to do should be targeted toward females. Like Jay said, it's very
common that a husband likes flying, but a wife does not (I'm in that
exact situation). I've never heard of the reverse. If more wives were
into flying, it would mean more active pilots, which would have a whole
lot of positive secondary effects.

--Ken

Like Jay said, it's very
common that a husband likes flying, but a wife does not (I'm in that
exact situation). I've never heard of the reverse. If more wives were
into flying, it would mean more active pilots, which would have a whole
lot of positive secondary effects.

So what's the solution? How do we make flying more feminine? How do
we attract females to the airport?

My wife, Mary, is living proof that flying is NOT an all-male
pass-time, but I know she likes to hang out at the hangar entertaining
friends nearly as much as she likes the flying. So how do we make the
airport more SOCIAL?

As with so many things in life, if we can get the chicks into it, us
guys will have a much easier time...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

So what's the solution? How do we make flying more feminine?

Cessna's working hard at it.

g,d Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...
Like Jay said, it's very
common that a husband likes flying, but a wife does not (I'm in that
exact situation). I've never heard of the reverse. If more wives were
into flying, it would mean more active pilots, which would have a whole
lot of positive secondary effects.

So what's the solution? How do we make flying more feminine? How do
we attract females to the airport?

My wife, Mary, is living proof that flying is NOT an all-male
pass-time, but I know she likes to hang out at the hangar entertaining
friends nearly as much as she likes the flying. So how do we make the
airport more SOCIAL?

As with so many things in life, if we can get the chicks into it, us
guys will have a much easier time...

This is like trying to get women to take engineering in college. Although
they have the intelligence, for whatever reason, women would rather get a
business degree than an engineering degree. My theory is women think in
business they will be expected to dress nice, but in engineering they will
not. Since, all things being equal, a woman would rather spend her money on
clothes, then a business degree will help her reach that goal. Therefore,
the secret to getting women into flying is to make flying a fashion
statement that requires the participant to waste money on clothes.

"Tom Conner" wrote:
This is like trying to get women to take engineering in college.
Although they have the intelligence, for whatever reason, women would
rather get a business degree than an engineering degree.
[ Nonsense elided. ]

The proportion of women in the sciences has increased over the years and as
of 2001 roughly 30% to 40% of graduate students in the sciences are women,
with 54% of graduate students in biological sciences being women.[1]

In 2001, it appears roughly as many women as men were awarded science and
engineering bachelor's degrees - and there were more women than men earning
bachelor's degrees of all types.[2]

[1] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figd-1.htm
[2] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figc-1.htm

Jim Logajan wrote:

"Tom Conner" wrote:

This is like trying to get women to take engineering in college.
Although they have the intelligence, for whatever reason, women would
rather get a business degree than an engineering degree.

[ Nonsense elided. ]

The proportion of women in the sciences has increased over the years and as
of 2001 roughly 30% to 40% of graduate students in the sciences are women,
with 54% of graduate students in biological sciences being women.[1]

In 2001, it appears roughly as many women as men were awarded science and
engineering bachelor's degrees - and there were more women than men earning
bachelor's degrees of all types.[2]

[1] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figd-1.htm
[2] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figc-1.htm

He said engineering, not science. If you look at the engineering
numbers, women earn fewer than 1/4 of the degrees issued each year. It
is improving to be sure, but not even close to parity.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
He said engineering, not science. If you look at the engineering
numbers, women earn fewer than 1/4 of the degrees issued each year.
It is improving to be sure, but not even close to parity.

True. But he also went on to blather some nonsense about women choosing
business degrees due to clothing choices. The connection between pursuing
an engineering degree and pursuing a private pilot certificate is somewhat
suspect, but claiming the motivations are influenced by dress style appears
to be an early April 1st entry. But goofier things have been claimed with
sincerity on Usenet, so I thought it best to present whatever facts are
available.

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:31:26 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:

"Tom Conner" wrote:

This is like trying to get women to take engineering in college.
Although they have the intelligence, for whatever reason, women would
rather get a business degree than an engineering degree.

[ Nonsense elided. ]

The proportion of women in the sciences has increased over the years and as
of 2001 roughly 30% to 40% of graduate students in the sciences are women,
with 54% of graduate students in biological sciences being women.[1]

In 2001, it appears roughly as many women as men were awarded science and
engineering bachelor's degrees - and there were more women than men earning
bachelor's degrees of all types.[2]

[1] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figd-1.htm
[2] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figc-1.htm

He said engineering, not science. If you look at the engineering
numbers, women earn fewer than 1/4 of the degrees issued each year. It
is improving to be sure, but not even close to parity.

Why just engineering? Science and Engineering are both technical
degrees.

Besides, engineers are the educated mechanics who put together the
items developed by the scientists. :-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com




Matt

Tom Conner wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...

Like Jay said, it's very
common that a husband likes flying, but a wife does not (I'm in that
exact situation). I've never heard of the reverse. If more wives were
into flying, it would mean more active pilots, which would have a whole
lot of positive secondary effects.

So what's the solution? How do we make flying more feminine? How do
we attract females to the airport?

My wife, Mary, is living proof that flying is NOT an all-male
pass-time, but I know she likes to hang out at the hangar entertaining
friends nearly as much as she likes the flying. So how do we make the
airport more SOCIAL?

As with so many things in life, if we can get the chicks into it, us
guys will have a much easier time...


This is like trying to get women to take engineering in college. Although
they have the intelligence, for whatever reason, women would rather get a
business degree than an engineering degree. My theory is women think in
business they will be expected to dress nice, but in engineering they will
not. Since, all things being equal, a woman would rather spend her money on
clothes, then a business degree will help her reach that goal. Therefore,
the secret to getting women into flying is to make flying a fashion
statement that requires the participant to waste money on clothes.

Don't they make pink flight suits already? :-)


Matt