AOPA Mag This Month

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Borat wrote:

So GA is not for the working class then?

I can not stand that phrase.
It was Jay who suggested that the middle classes would bale out of GA if it
got more expensive.

On Apr 3, 6:57 pm, "Borat" wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message

oups.com... It's interesting to see AOPA doing a piece on "Flying in Europe", so
soon after our long thread on the same topic. Many of their
conclusions were the same as ours.

Also, strangely enough, there's another article this month on "Flying
GA to Memphis", in order to visit Beale Street and all the great blues
bands. Why, I think AOPA is copying our every word!

Knowing some of the "Europeans" they interviewed they have exaggerated a
great deal but they have given AOPA what they want to help their campaign
and good luck to them. You can fool some of the people all of the time. Some
of the quotes were pathetic, especially the one on landings. The truth is if
you want to fly you will, and if the costs go up you sacrifice something
that is less important to stay flying.

Nowhere for example in respect of the UK did they mention that all the
airports, Heathrow included are privately owned have shareholders and run
for a profit.

Heathrow is really a shopping centre with an airport attached and their
business model relies on passengers spending in the vast array of shops and
food outlets.

A 747 with 350 people on board will generate far more income for the airport
than a donk in his A36 hence why if you want to take a A36 into Heathrow it
is expensive. There are many cheaper places are nearby. So those who can
afford the private jets can afford to fly into LHR. As LHR is at almost
full capacity slotwise, then slow aircraft are not wanted at all. Turboprop
aircraft have almost all gone from Heathrow, it seems like jets only.

As has been covered before, the top end of GA, with the jets, fractional
ownership, have customers who can afford it. So the costs are of little
consequence. For the average private pilot, flying is a recreation, a hobby
and not a serious mode of transport for the masses.

I am faced with going to Glasgow this month. $130 by scheduled carrier, $600
if I fly myself, roughly $100/ hour with $20 landing and overnight parking.
With the guarantee of getting there and back from the scheduled carrier, it
is a no brainer, I will be home mid morning and have the rest of the weekend
with the family.

Going to Europe is the same - for serious travel go by car, train or
scheduled carrier. The trains in Europe are seriously fast and if you have
work to do better than the planes.

EuroTrips I have done by light aircraft have been, the Normandy Beaches (a
perfect little trip and best done by air and foot), the WWI trenches, the
Somme etc.

Trips planned include retracing the steps of the Dambusters and a couple of
other wartime aviation exploits.

Eurocontrol and the powers that be will not be involved except for the
flight plan as we cross borders. Just wondering whether the German Ack Ack
sorry ATC will work out from the routing the significance of the trip.

All will require some flexibility re time so a strict schedule is impossible
to follow. "If you have time to spare go by air".

The AOPA only publishes propaganda in their efforts to maintain the
massive tax subsidies, and to cover up the FAAs lack of any
enforcement.

The AOPA should publish the data which shows how much the AV gas tax
contributes to the Trust Fund, but they'd rather spew rhetorical
nonsense (which unfortunately plays well with many politicians,
particularly those who are private pilots and/or rely on GA to fly
around for campaign efforts).

To counter Boyer's "education" efforts, various disparate groups
around the country are letting the pols know what the actual score is,
but it is hard to fight a highly organized special interest lobbying
group like the AOPA.

In article . com,
"Skylune" wrote:

On Apr 3, 6:57 pm, "Borat" wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message

oups.com... It's
interesting to see AOPA doing a piece on "Flying in Europe", so
soon after our long thread on the same topic. Many of their
conclusions were the same as ours.

Also, strangely enough, there's another article this month on "Flying
GA to Memphis", in order to visit Beale Street and all the great blues
bands. Why, I think AOPA is copying our every word!

Knowing some of the "Europeans" they interviewed they have exaggerated a
great deal but they have given AOPA what they want to help their campaign
and good luck to them. You can fool some of the people all of the time.
Some
of the quotes were pathetic, especially the one on landings. The truth is
if
you want to fly you will, and if the costs go up you sacrifice something
that is less important to stay flying.

Nowhere for example in respect of the UK did they mention that all the
airports, Heathrow included are privately owned have shareholders and run
for a profit.

Heathrow is really a shopping centre with an airport attached and their
business model relies on passengers spending in the vast array of shops and
food outlets.

A 747 with 350 people on board will generate far more income for the
airport
than a donk in his A36 hence why if you want to take a A36 into Heathrow it
is expensive. There are many cheaper places are nearby. So those who can
afford the private jets can afford to fly into LHR. As LHR is at almost
full capacity slotwise, then slow aircraft are not wanted at all. Turboprop
aircraft have almost all gone from Heathrow, it seems like jets only.

As has been covered before, the top end of GA, with the jets, fractional
ownership, have customers who can afford it. So the costs are of little
consequence. For the average private pilot, flying is a recreation, a hobby
and not a serious mode of transport for the masses.

I am faced with going to Glasgow this month. $130 by scheduled carrier,
$600
if I fly myself, roughly $100/ hour with $20 landing and overnight parking.
With the guarantee of getting there and back from the scheduled carrier, it
is a no brainer, I will be home mid morning and have the rest of the
weekend
with the family.

Going to Europe is the same - for serious travel go by car, train or
scheduled carrier. The trains in Europe are seriously fast and if you have
work to do better than the planes.

EuroTrips I have done by light aircraft have been, the Normandy Beaches (a
perfect little trip and best done by air and foot), the WWI trenches, the
Somme etc.

Trips planned include retracing the steps of the Dambusters and a couple of
other wartime aviation exploits.

Eurocontrol and the powers that be will not be involved except for the
flight plan as we cross borders. Just wondering whether the German Ack Ack
sorry ATC will work out from the routing the significance of the trip.

All will require some flexibility re time so a strict schedule is
impossible
to follow. "If you have time to spare go by air".

The AOPA only publishes propaganda in their efforts to maintain the
massive tax subsidies, and to cover up the FAAs lack of any
enforcement.

The AOPA should publish the data which shows how much the AV gas tax
contributes to the Trust Fund, but they'd rather spew rhetorical
nonsense (which unfortunately plays well with many politicians,
particularly those who are private pilots and/or rely on GA to fly
around for campaign efforts).

To counter Boyer's "education" efforts, various disparate groups
around the country are letting the pols know what the actual score is,
but it is hard to fight a highly organized special interest lobbying
group like the AOPA.

OK, LOON:

How about removing all subsidies from: Mass transit, railroads, bicycle
lanes, waterways, etc.?

Only then can we talk about the "massive subsidies" of GA.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message

The AOPA only publishes propaganda in their efforts to maintain the
massive tax subsidies, and to cover up the FAAs lack of any
enforcement.

The AOPA should publish the data which shows how much the AV gas tax
contributes to the Trust Fund, but they'd rather spew rhetorical
nonsense (which unfortunately plays well with many politicians,
particularly those who are private pilots and/or rely on GA to fly
around for campaign efforts).

To counter Boyer's "education" efforts, various disparate groups
around the country are letting the pols know what the actual score is,
but it is hard to fight a highly organized special interest lobbying
group like the AOPA.

OK, LOON:

How about removing all subsidies from: Mass transit, railroads, bicycle
lanes, waterways, etc.?

Only then can we talk about the "massive subsidies" of GA.

Work it out on a per person movement,

On 2007-04-05, Skylune wrote:
The AOPA only publishes propaganda in their efforts to maintain the
massive tax subsidies, and to cover up the FAAs lack of any
enforcement.

What's the incremental cost of light GA? Almost zero.

All that infrastructure that is supposedly subsidised for GA exists
solely for the benefit of business and the airlines. Light GA would
continue to exist quite happily without ATC or the FAA (indeed, would
probably work better) or any of these other so-called subsidised
services which only are actually required because of the airlines or
for-profit business aviation.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

All that infrastructure that is supposedly subsidised for GA exists
solely for the benefit of business and the airlines. Light GA would
continue to exist quite happily without ATC or the FAA (indeed, would
probably work better) or any of these other so-called subsidised
services which only are actually required because of the airlines or
for-profit business aviation.

One need only look at the explosion of experimental types (5000+ RVs
alone!) to see what *could* happen to GA if the FAA would get the hell
out of the way.

On 90% of my flights, I need ATC like I need an enema. On 5% of my
flights, I need them only because some silly rule *says* I do (when,
in fact, it would probably work better without them). On the
remaining 5%, I absolutely, positively need ATC.

So, I say reduce their budget by 95%. It won't affect me -- or tens
of thousands of pilots like me -- in the least.

Funny thing is, back in the good old days (when ATC and pilots were on
the same side), local controllers used to practically BEG us to use
flight following, because it helped their budgets.

Now I see we were only cutting our own throats by doing so. Now they
can point to statistics showing "all those little planes using flight
following" and use them as a justification to add users fees.

We were suckered.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2007-04-05, Skylune wrote:
The AOPA only publishes propaganda in their efforts to maintain the
massive tax subsidies, and to cover up the FAAs lack of any
enforcement.

What's the incremental cost of light GA? Almost zero.

All that infrastructure that is supposedly subsidised for GA exists
solely for the benefit of business and the airlines. Light GA would
continue to exist quite happily without ATC or the FAA (indeed, would
probably work better) or any of these other so-called subsidised
services which only are actually required because of the airlines or
for-profit business aviation.

Its hard to believe that you really think that Dylan. Saying that Light GA
does not need ATC or the FAA is one way of getting excluded from them by the
airlines and then when they become the owner of the infrastructure will
charge through the nose to let light GA back in when Light GA realises that
some of the services were worthwhile.

I suspect that ATC spends as much time keeping CAT away from light GA as it
does keeping CAT apart. Improved technology like mode S and ADB-S is great
for the heavy end but giving like GA access to it just means that they end
up hanging around the same airspace as CAT and need separating.

Bring Class A airspace down to 5000' agl, that keeps the IFR traffic in one
area away from the VFR stuff below, the IFR stuff can pay for having
exclusive access to that airspace away from the poor trash VFR stuff who
have it for free.

On 2007-04-06, Borat wrote:
Its hard to believe that you really think that Dylan. Saying that Light GA
does not need ATC or the FAA is one way of getting excluded from them by the
airlines and then when they become the owner of the infrastructure will
charge through the nose to let light GA back in when Light GA realises that
some of the services were worthwhile.

You misread the intent of my message: the point is if airlines did not
exist, then the remainder of aviation could quite happily exist without
ATC or the FAA in most instances. ATC only came about because the
airlines exist. Now GA is being forced to pay for services that only
exist to make it possible for airlines to exist.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On Apr 6, 3:17 pm, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2007-04-05, Skylune wrote:

The AOPA only publishes propaganda in their efforts to maintain the
massive tax subsidies, and to cover up the FAAs lack of any
enforcement.

What's the incremental cost of light GA? Almost zero.

All that infrastructure that is supposedly subsidised for GA exists
solely for the benefit of business and the airlines. Light GA would
continue to exist quite happily without ATC or the FAA (indeed, would
probably work better) or any of these other so-called subsidised
services which only are actually required because of the airlines or
for-profit business aviation.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute:http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

I'll try that same logic with my local toll highway authority. My
car's incremental cost
is 2 cents. Haaaaaa JG

In article .com,
wrote:

On Apr 6, 3:17 pm, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2007-04-05, Skylune wrote:

The AOPA only publishes propaganda in their efforts to maintain the
massive tax subsidies, and to cover up the FAAs lack of any
enforcement.

What's the incremental cost of light GA? Almost zero.

All that infrastructure that is supposedly subsidised for GA exists
solely for the benefit of business and the airlines. Light GA would
continue to exist quite happily without ATC or the FAA (indeed, would
probably work better) or any of these other so-called subsidised
services which only are actually required because of the airlines or
for-profit business aviation.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute:http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

I'll try that same logic with my local toll highway authority. My
car's incremental cost
is 2 cents. Haaaaaa JG

"jgrove"'s car does not impose incremental costs -- everything he does
is excremental.