Gloom

On 6/19/2007 12:13:40 AM, Jay Honeck wrote:

Which is the reason you'll hear so many of us bitching about the
increased cost of fuel so loudly. It's the only expense we really
"see" anymore.

Really? Cracked exhaust pipes, cracked spinners, recurring ADs for
dye-penetrant spar inspections, engine overhauls, prop overhauls, etc., etc,
etc. are also pretty visual and recurring expenses.

--
Peter

Jose wrote:
Was he =awarded= anything ridiculous?

Read some of the links on the site I posted and you decide. But
unless, before the dry cleaner lost the pants, he used them to beat
the judge there is no way this claim is worth $54mil.

The links seem to be long on opinion and short on facts, and the trial
is not over yet. No matter. Everyone is being silly in this case;
the pity is it costs real people real money.

Suing is still a gamble, not on whether you win or lose, but on
whether you can intimidate the other party into folding. A loser
pays system would not address the intimidation part, since the
(significantly) richer party can afford the loss but may well choose
to proceed anyway, hoping to chicken the other party out.

Not much of a gamble at all in this case. Filing fees for a civil action in
DC are $120.00. He is his own lawyer. The only people out any real money is
the defendant.

The one plus is that the judge who filed the suit is probably not going to
keep his job. He is up for re-appointment soon.


OF course the claim above is not worth $54 million. I don't think
anybody, including the claimant, believes it is.

Jose

Then he lied in court documents and should be prosecuted.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
The cost of money, or of having it tied up, and the cost of storage seem
to
be the two biggest problems for the owners personally known to me.
OTOH,
fuel seems to be more of a verbalized annoyance--which converts readily
to a
hamberger (or omelet, depending on the time of day) flight to an airport
with less expensive fuel.

You will notice one thing about successful aircraft owners. (By
"successful" I mean that they actually FLY their planes often.)

They do not consider the cost of ownership in their equations at all.
They have factored the expense of purchasing, storing, and maintaining
their aircraft into their budgets, after which they regard it as a
zero-cost affair, only considering fuel as the cost of flying.

It's a form of mental illness, really, but it works.

:-)

The LEAST successful owners I know are the ones who run spreadsheets
on the "cost of money" and fixed expenses, because they are the ones
who constantly fret over the fact that they could have bought a nice
vacation home at the lake, rather than an airplane.

Which is the reason you'll hear so many of us bitching about the
increased cost of fuel so loudly. It's the only expense we really
"see" anymore.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Taking the items in reverse order:

I don't personnally know any of the owners who fret over the other toys they
could have bought instead of an aircraft, so I won't attempt to address that
issue. However, the spreadsheet issue is an interesting one--especially
with regard to new aircraft and, to a slightly lesser extent, late model
used aircraft. It is outside my areas of expertise, but was a large part of
the reason for my vociferous critisism of Mr. Bass at Piper. However, an
initial spreadsheet analysis is a traditional way to make a decision to own
or rent--despite the obvious problems.

Getting back to the questions of fixed vs variable costs, there a lot of
people who use their airplanes for business, or to facilitate business, and
who choose to do so from after tax income--usually because itis less than
half of their flying. That obviously does not pass a management class
analysis; but it often works better than concepts that do. The important
point is that, for them, the fixed costs were fully justified and amortized
by the business use--and only the variable costs remain. It is also a much
easier way to deal with the need for proficiency and currency.

Yes, I know that means most of the owners do not meet your definition of
successfull; but, despite their ****ing and moaning, their presence does
continue to further the cause of GA.

Peter

On Jun 19, 8:42 am, "Peter R." wrote:
On 6/19/2007 12:17:16 AM, Jay Honeck wrote:

I don't know an average person's income versus 20 years ago, but I do
know that you can buy a nice Cherokee 140 for about $30K.

As you know, but for the benefit of those who don't own, operating costs for
older aircraft become more of a barrier than acquisition cost.

Right. For example I've run the numbers on various AOPA sweepstakes
planes and come to the conclusion that I couldn't afford one even it
it was given to me.

Acquisition cost of a very low-end plane may be comparable to a high-
end car. But the cost of keeping it is way out of the ballpark. In
six years of owning my Lexus, which cost about the same to acquire as
an entry-level used Cherokee, I've only had to spend $1K on
maintenance once -- a 90K service that included a new timing belt and
water pump. My "required annual" is a state emissions inspection at
$30 a pop. And I don't have to rent a place to keep it. And it
costs a lot less to insure than... well, you get the picture. Saying
that a plane costs about the same as a high-end vehicle is simply
wrong. It's way more. Not even close.

On Jun 18, 11:13 pm, Jay Honeck wrote:

You will notice one thing about successful aircraft owners. (By
"successful" I mean that they actually FLY their planes often.)

They do not consider the cost of ownership in their equations at all.
They have factored the expense of purchasing, storing, and maintaining
their aircraft into their budgets, after which they regard it as a
zero-cost affair, only considering fuel as the cost of flying.

It's a form of mental illness, really, but it works.

I fly because of the joy it brings me. I will continue to fly when I
can, and consider myself very blessed to have been able to fly 3000
hours in the last 30 years. I will not let gas prices steal my joy. I
will not let fretting about the future of GA steal my joy. I will
consider each hour I fly in the future to be even more precious than
the last because of its increasing scarcity. I refuse to participate
in the gloom.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

"Ken Finney" wrote in message
...

First of all, GA needs to reach out. I had never been in anything smaller
than a 737 until just a few years ago, and didn't even know what GA was.


Thoughtful post, Ken. Thinking about this stuff is a great way to propel me
through a non-flying day.

In terms of reaching out, I wholeheartedly agree. In Troutdale the EAA used
to do a small airshow. Nothing fancy except for the occasional P-51 or
search and rescue demonstration, but the FBOs all gave reduced-rate
introductory rides. People lined up in front of the FBO for discovery
flights right along the show line and there would be two or three Cessnas
ready to go as soon as the performance aircraft stopped and the field
reopened. The CFIs worked their tail off that day flying people who'd just
seen the other edge of general aviation. The FBO had the barbeque fired up
and it didn't seem like a 100,000 person event where people were pretty much
treated like cattle. Good fun every year--you didn't watch a bunch of
multimillion-dollar military jets screeching around; you saw experimentals,
gyrocopters and things that seemed accessible to the average person. One
summer it just stopped happening.

Maybe it's time to polish the brass and bring back the mystique and glory of
simply flying a Cessna around the pattern instead of filling giant airshows
with Truckasaurus, drag-racing semis and Blue Angels.

-c

On 6/19/2007 10:28:33 AM, Gene Seibel wrote:

I refuse to participate in the gloom.

Right, but by failing to be motivated by this "gloom" have you become an
unwilling participant in GA's possible extinction?

--
Peter

"Gatt" wrote in message
...

"Ken Finney" wrote in message
...

First of all, GA needs to reach out. I had never been in anything
smaller
than a 737 until just a few years ago, and didn't even know what GA was.


Thoughtful post, Ken. Thinking about this stuff is a great way to propel
me
through a non-flying day.

In terms of reaching out, I wholeheartedly agree. In Troutdale the EAA
used
to do a small airshow. Nothing fancy except for the occasional P-51 or
search and rescue demonstration, but the FBOs all gave reduced-rate
introductory rides. People lined up in front of the FBO for discovery
flights right along the show line and there would be two or three Cessnas
ready to go as soon as the performance aircraft stopped and the field
reopened. The CFIs worked their tail off that day flying people who'd
just
seen the other edge of general aviation. The FBO had the barbeque fired
up
and it didn't seem like a 100,000 person event where people were pretty
much
treated like cattle. Good fun every year--you didn't watch a bunch of
multimillion-dollar military jets screeching around; you saw
experimentals,
gyrocopters and things that seemed accessible to the average person. One
summer it just stopped happening.

Maybe it's time to polish the brass and bring back the mystique and glory
of
simply flying a Cessna around the pattern instead of filling giant
airshows
with Truckasaurus, drag-racing semis and Blue Angels.

-c


Very well said.

Peter

On Jun 19, 7:45 am, "Peter R." wrote:
On 6/19/2007 12:13:40 AM, Jay Honeck wrote:

Which is the reason you'll hear so many of us bitching about the
increased cost of fuel so loudly. It's the only expense we really
"see" anymore.

Really? Cracked exhaust pipes, cracked spinners, recurring ADs for
dye-penetrant spar inspections, engine overhauls, prop overhauls, etc., etc,
etc. are also pretty visual and recurring expenses.

--
Peter

I've been flying the same 35 year old spamcan for over half a decade
now, and haven't had to deal with any of those such maintenance
nightmares. In fact, I've only had to replace the exhaust muffler once
as the biggest repair expense since purchaing the plane and that was
only about $800 above what usually amounts to be about a $500 annual
each year. If you buy the *right* vintage spamcan and get a very
thorough pre-purchase inspection to weed out buying a possible lemon
or junkheap aircraft that'll eat your lunch in repairs, you can avoid
the nightmares. Right now, it's a buyer's market too, and if you're
shopping for a used spamcan, you can pick the cream of the crop.

The thing that has curtailed the my pleasure flying the most is indeed
fuel costs. And not just the price of avgas, but the price of gas for
my car too. I have a fixed income and have only X dollars to spend on
any kind of gasoline each week, whether for the road or the air. Both
kinds of gasoline have virtually almost doubled in price over the past
couple years or so, and I still need the same number of gallons to
drive to and from work, so my gas money that was once used for
pleasure flying is now necessary to put into my vehicle to get me to
my job each day. My flying has been literally cut in half because of
this higher operating cost for any fuel-burning vehicles.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
Forgive me, as I'm not a pilot (yet). I've spent way too much time
thinking
about the interrelation of lots of things lately, which feeds into this
discussion. If "aviation" were so important to pilots, you'd think that
they'd be willing to invest their time into it.

Bravo for an outstanding post.

Sadly, it's one I might have written myself, five or ten years ago.
(Check the archives -- I probably did!) Back then, I was the new guy
at the airport, frustrated by the inertia and lack of enthusiasm
amongst pilots, and wondering why no one was *doing* anything.

As time has gone on, however, and I've tried various and sundry things
(you may not know it, but I've taken love of aviation about as far as
one can in the real world, up to and including creating an aviation
themed hotel at our airport), I've grown increasingly cynical and
weary of the battle. Pilots just won't do much of anything (other
than fly), even if its in their best interest.


snip

Yes, I know, you are one of the good guys.