AOPA Mag This Month

"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".

In article ,
"Borat" wrote:

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.

So long as you do not file as the original mission number and callsign,
IP and altitiude, they will not figure it out. Oh... and do not file
aircraft type as AVRO Lancaster.

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.

What parts of the article are exaggerated or incorrect?

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
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.

What parts of the article are exaggerated or incorrect?

Matt

Taken from a UK thread discussing the same article, this was written by the
Senior Air Traffic Controller at Biggin Hill

Back to the original thread.....

I could take the author to task about his comments regarding his departure
from Biggin.

I am assuming this was the flight I have recorded on the 8th December 2006
which arrived from Germany then departed back there some 6 hours later. I do
not know where he got his $150 landing and nav service charge from as we do
not have a separate nav charge and the landing fee for a Twin Crunchie is
not $150.

During his 6 hour stop over did he did not walk into Flight Op's and make
use of the WSI Pilot Brief web service we provide for all weather and route
briefing, or obtain a briefing from the staff? We have a WiFi link so if he
wanted to 'do his own thing' using a laptop then that was also possible free
of charge.

Whilst I agree that GA in Europe has a raw deal compared to the USA
'flowery' writing like this can only be for the purpose of making a bad
situation look even worse.

Borat,

Taken from a UK thread discussing the same article, this was written by the
Senior Air Traffic Controller at Biggin Hill


I regularly read the publication the pilot of that flight is editor-in-chief
for. The style of reporting fits the style of his magazine.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Borat,

Taken from a UK thread discussing the same article, this was written by the
Senior Air Traffic Controller at Biggin Hill


I regularly read the publication the pilot of that flight is editor-in-chief
for. The style of reporting fits the style of his magazine.


Style is one thing, but misrepresentation is another. Are you saying
that this author regularly lies in print?

Matt

Matt,

Style is one thing, but misrepresentation is another. Are you saying
that this author regularly lies in print?


No. I'm saying that he looks at the facts in the most sensationalistic
way. For example, I'm convinced the fees quoted for services at that
British airport exist. I'm also convinced there are ways around those
fees, as, for example, the free weather service terminal at the field
that someone mentioned. If the situation is like that, you can tally up
the maximum of fees you could incur by behaving in the most expensive
way - or you can say: yeah, but most pilots walk a hundred yards to that
free terminal and save whatever percentage of those high fees.

The fact remains that flying in Europe is way more expensive through
(among other things) ridiculous fees here and there. But if you want to
put numbers to that, often there are ways to save if you make the
effort.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

if
you want to fly you will, and if the costs go up you sacrifice something
that is less important to stay flying.

That is only possible to a point. Then, the middle class drops out.

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.

Just curious: Why, in a country far more socialist-leaning than the
U.S,, do you think the airports developed into non-municipal
entities?

Is all mass-transit privately owned in the UK? If not, why are
airports?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 2007-04-04, Jay Honeck wrote:
Is all mass-transit privately owned in the UK? If not, why are
airports?

Almost all of it is privately owned, yes. All the inter city railway
companies are privately owned (a name you may recognise is Virgin, since
they also run an airline). Virtually all the city bus companies are
privately owned, and all of the inter city bus companies are privately
owned.

A picture of a privately run train:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Trains

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

"Dylan Smith" wrote

Almost all of it is privately owned, yes. All the inter city railway
companies are privately owned (a name you may recognise is Virgin, since
they also run an airline). Virtually all the city bus companies are
privately owned, and all of the inter city bus companies are privately
owned.

A picture of a privately run train:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Trains

I can only draw on my experience of England's rail service when I was there
in around '89 or '90, and say that the privatization of the rail was
detrimental, much like privatization has failed in other places, and types
of ventures.
--
Jim in NC