The frustrating economics of aviation

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Okay, we have gone 'round and 'round about why new airplanes cost so much:
low demand, liability, inefficient manufacturing, regulatory requirements,
etc. It is so daunting that Toyota appears to have scrapped its GA
project.

Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a
pilot. It takes most people about a year and $7,000 to learn to fly.
snip

If your theory was correct, wouldn't the implementation of the Recreational
license have provided a near flood, or significant increase, of students?
That is certainly toward the direction of making the license cheaper to
obtain. How many Rec Pilots are clogging the CFI schedules, not many I
would guess.

--
Scott

in article , Bruce Bockius at
wrote on 7/17/04 7:45 PM:



I've won a law suit or two - I bet you have too.

Nope. I've never ever sued anyone. Actually, I'd love to win a lawsuit, but
I suppose that would make me a tool of the greedy trial lawyers, eh?

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that the Democrat's VP
candidate is ... a trial lawyer.

Huh? Plenty of people have mentioned it. Most of them lawyers.

The first thing that needs to happen is people need to take responsibility
for their own actions and assume responsibility for the results of their
actions. It is amazing that judges will hear some of these cases but then
again- they are attorneys too. I think the real solution would be to limit
the awards to a reasonable limit by calculating potential income over the
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.
In the example above of the McDonald's woman, there should be no award
because of my first sentence: she chose to buy the coffee and put it between
her legs, no one held a gun to her head and forced her to take the cup and
on top of that, she would have been mad if it was cold. The current legal
climate is damaging many industries and will continue. Take for example
Parker which has left the aviation market after being sued for a vacuum pump
that did not fail in a fatal crash.






"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 2:56 PM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , kontiki at
wrote on 7/17/04 2:19 PM:

I like that idea. How about that there be a "frivolity hearing"
prior
to any suit being filed. The hearing board will consist of 12
respected
and responsible individuals (NOT POLITICIANS!) from the
surrounding
area/community/jurisdiction. This board will chosen randomly from
people who actually have jobs or are retired (no one on welfare or
who
is an attorney or works for an attorney is eligable).

Every licensed business (except attorneys) must nominate at least
one
person to serve on this board per month. The resultant 12 will be
chosen
from this pool randomly. The board will convene once every 90 days
to
consider any pending lawsuits. Only those judged to be
NON-frivolous
will be allowed to be filed with the court. Thos that are rejected
as
frivolous may be filed if the conplaintant posts a bond of $5000
or
an amount equal to the estimated cost of the trial, whichever is
greater.

I will give you credit for one thing--yours is the first really
specific
solution that has been posted.

But will it work?:-) By LITERAL definition, a specific solution for
a
specific problem would appear to indicate that a solution to the
problem
has been found.
Driving your car off a cliff is one way to stop it from rolling
forward,
but is that the specific solution you REALLY want for this problem?
:-)
I'd say his plan was more of a specific "suggestion" rather than a
"solution". :-))))

I was going to substitute the word "proposal", but "suggestion" works
just
as well.

Actually, I think Shakespeare came up with the first and best "specific
solution" in Henry VI part 2 :-))))

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

Forcing people to produce specifics that they have no access to isn't
the way to deal with this issue. The fact is that a definition of
"frivolous" can't actually be determined since it's subject to
individual interpretation. Who's to say what is frivolous and what's
not? That's the beauty of the lawyer's position; a position BTW that you
have presented so deftly here I might add :-)

Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful tort
reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer,
then
what is? Being vague?


My lay knowledge of class action tort is that it is damage to a group
or class of people. Seems to me our flying community (not just the newsgroup
but the community as a whole) constitutes a class. Seems to me that our
class is damaged every time an exhorbitant settlement or even judgement
occurs. In many cases, the settlement seems more like extortion than
justice. In the end, we are damaged because insurance costs skyrocket; We
are damaged in that vendors leave the aviation business resulting in higher
parts costs due to restricted competition. We are damaged because aircraft
manufacturers jack prices to cover their insurance. We are damaged when more
restrictions are placed on our flying. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda.....
Seems to me an actionable tort lies in there. I know we must have a
legal pundit or two in our group -- what say you?
I s'pose the biggest problem would be to find a lawyer willing to sue
another lawyer.

Well..... That felt good.

Flying is safer (per passenger mile) than traveling in cars, trains
and yes, even boats.


Perhaps if you count the airlines. I don't think this is true for private
pilot / piston single flying.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

C J Campbell wrote:

Okay, we have gone 'round and 'round about why new airplanes cost so much....

[....]

Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a
pilot.

So you're saying that because it costs $7,000 to become a pilot, people
are unwilling to spend $300,000 for an airplane.

I think we need to keep looking.



Jack

"Jack" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:

Okay, we have gone 'round and 'round about why new airplanes cost so
much....

[....]

Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a
pilot.

So you're saying that because it costs $7,000 to become a pilot, people
are unwilling to spend $300,000 for an airplane.

No, I am saying that because it takes a year to become a pilot, people are
unwilling to spend $300,000 for an airplane. The time investment is far more
expensive than the monetary cost. Always has been.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
I'm afraid you're wrong. The costs of obtaining a pilots license is due
to outrageous insurance requirements due to RIDICULOUS and incessant
endless litigation by ambulance chasers and greedy individuals.

The monetary cost of a pilot certificate is minor. It is the year in
training that raises the bar too high for many individuals.

"tscottme" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Okay, we have gone 'round and 'round about why new airplanes cost so
much:
low demand, liability, inefficient manufacturing, regulatory
requirements,
etc. It is so daunting that Toyota appears to have scrapped its GA
project.

Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a
pilot. It takes most people about a year and $7,000 to learn to fly.
snip

If your theory was correct, wouldn't the implementation of the
Recreational
license have provided a near flood, or significant increase, of students?
That is certainly toward the direction of making the license cheaper to
obtain. How many Rec Pilots are clogging the CFI schedules, not many I
would guess.

That was the original idea for the recreational certificate and it is also a
big part of the driving force behind Sport Pilot. Recreational Pilot never
worked because it saved almost nothing off the cost of a Private Pilot.
Sport Pilot may prove much more popular because it allows medical
self-certification. I have had half a dozen students now who took more than
a year just to get a medical certificate. I think Sport Pilot may be tailor
made for such people.

C J Campbell wrote:


...because it takes a year to become a pilot, people are
unwilling to spend $300,000 for an airplane. The time investment is far more
expensive than the monetary cost. Always has been.

People for whom that is a problem do us all a favor by staying away from
aviation.


Jack