USA Today .. Positive GA Pub

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

That's still $200,000. For most people, it might as well be
$200,000,000.

Certainly for people who earn $100/wk tutoring that's true.

In 2004 the median US Income was reported as $43,389. Certainly someone
earning $43,389 might have trouble paying for a $200,000 loan for a Cessna
172SP, unless he planned to make it into a 30 year mortgage.

However, he would probably be able to afford the loan on a used model 172
that he bought through www.aso.com for $34,500 - the lowest priced 172
currently listed there. With $4,500 down, the monthly payment for a 7 year
loan on the balance would be about $450/month.

I know several people who earn about that and pay more for their car...

I got a 4 seater for $17,500.

mike

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Judah writes:

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

That's still $200,000. For most people, it might as well be
$200,000,000.

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

"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.

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.

"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.

Ken Finney writes:

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.

And unfortuately, most of those readers will be right.

--
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 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

Oh sure, put "Pub" in the subject line!




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

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

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ