If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message ... "Jay Honeck" wrote in news:cEt9e.3672$WI3.540@attbi_s71: It's the relative PROPORTION of pilots, aircraft, and airports that is out of whack in France. It's probably similar to most of Europe. If aviation weren't dead in France, they should have the same PROPORTION of pilots, aircraft and airports as the US. You fail to take several things into account. In North America, private planes are a viable and often necessary method of transport because of the distances and the lack of other transport methods in some areas. This is not so in Europe, you can get anywhere by rail and/or road. GA in the USA is also heavily subsidized by business aviation, airlines and the general public. The total of all avgas taxes pay for a tenth of the $600MM AFSS cost.. There's plenty of space in North America, and real estate is cheap. So building an airport is cheap, and no problem to place it far away from settlements whose inhabitants might complain or try to shut it down. Not so in Europe, population densities are high by comparison almost throughout the entire continent. Real estate is expensive, and wherever you decide to build an airport, there's going to be someone around who'll complain. These facts make airports expensive. There are other factors which make aviation more expensive, some have to do with regulation. Fuel is one of these factors because of taxation, but not the only one and probably not the most important one. The same price difference exists with petrol for cars, and we have no lack of those here. All these facts combined reduce private airplanes to "expensive toys" in Europe, and they are viewed accordingly. But aviation exists, it's not dead. Circumstances are just very different. Regards -- Now is ze time on Sprockets ven ve dance http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:rwz9e.4513$c24.1150@attbi_s72... You fail to take several things into account. In North America, private planes are a viable and often necessary method of transport because of the distances and the lack of other transport methods in some areas. This is totally and categorically false. Outside of Alaska, private airplanes are not "necessary" for transportation in America at all. Which is sad, I might add. It would help grow GA if it were otherwise, but too many people look at piloting as "too hard" (for a zillion reasons) to achieve. All these facts combined reduce private airplanes to "expensive toys" in Europe, and they are viewed accordingly Same here in America, but to a far lesser degree. Most people here think of owning an airplane as being far more extravagant than boat ownership (for example), even though the majority of ocean (or even Great Lake) going craft cost far more than the average used entry level airplane. And this is, after all, at the heart a discussion of the degree to which any government should try to engineer society with tax code. In short, is it intelligent to tax something like general aviation, with so many obvious economic benefits for your population, to the point of extinction? I would submit that the answer to that question is clearly "no". -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" Turn the question around. How much sense does it make to subsidize recreational GA? Mike MU-2 |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
On 12 Apr 2005 11:25:45 -0700, "Denny" wrote:
The difference in price between the USA and Europe is additional taxes to support their socialist system... After reading all the off topic responses I think most on here should get a hobby... like flying. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com denny |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:rwz9e.4513$c24.1150@attbi_s72... This is totally and categorically false. Outside of Alaska, private airplanes are not "necessary" for transportation in America at all. Inside Alaska, private airplanes are not "necessary". However, they are highly useful, and the same benefits they provide in Alaska, they provide elsewhere. For example, here in the Pacific Northwest, I can either spend a couple of hours sitting in line for a ferry, and spend another couple of hours riding that ferry, or I can hop in my airplane and make the trip in under an hour. That's to get somewhere that is reasonably well developed. For folks who live in remote areas (here in the West, there are plenty of remote areas left), airplanes often make the difference between spending a day getting somewhere, and an hour or two. If private airplanes are "necessary" in Alaska, then they are "necessary" within the contiguous 48. If they aren't "necessary" here, then you are using a definition of "necessary" that precludes private airplanes being "necessary" in Alaska. Either way, your statement is "totally and categorically false". Which is sad, I might add. It would help grow GA if it were otherwise, but too many people look at piloting as "too hard" (for a zillion reasons) to achieve. What does "too hard" have to do with "necessary"? Bush flying is pretty damn hard, and it's "too hard" for most who call themselves pilots. But in many cases it's necessary, and is done. All these facts combined reduce private airplanes to "expensive toys" in Europe, and they are viewed accordingly Same here in America, but to a far lesser degree. Most people here think of owning an airplane as being far more extravagant than boat ownership (for example), even though the majority of ocean (or even Great Lake) going craft cost far more than the average used entry level airplane. Most boats in the US never see salt water, or even something like any of the Great Lakes. Your comparison is silly. I don't know a single person who would think of owning an airplane as more extravagant than owning a yacht suitable for *oceanic* travel (which is a lot different from boat ownership in general). On the other hand, boat ownership in general can be achieved with far fewer resources, with respect to time, money, and personal challenge, than can airplane ownership in general. In that respect, yes...most people here think of owning an airplane as more extravagant, and IT IS. We here in the US do so many ridiculous things, that cost us so much in terms of economy, it's absurd for any of us to make an unfounded claim that the French are a) taxing aviation into extinction, and b) that it's somehow a "dunderheaded" thing to do. If you're willing to admit to your own "dunderheadedness" with respect to all the economically harmful policies our government imposes, then perhaps your insult to the French isn't offensive. But somehow, I don't think you're prepared to do that. Pete |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
("Roger" wrote)
After reading all the off topic responses I think most on here should get a hobby... like flying. Agreed :-) Montblack |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris" wrote in message ... "Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:cEt9e.3672$WI3.540@attbi_s71... you also have a population of 250 or 300 million. Do you want to say that every other nation with a smaller population is also irrelevant? Man, you are so ignorant. Did you even READ my post, Martin? Man, you are SO ignorant. ;-) Apparently not, so I will sum up. It's the relative PROPORTION of pilots, aircraft, and airports that is out of whack in France. If aviation weren't dead in France, they should have the same PROPORTION of pilots, aircraft and airports as the US. Math is not your strong subject is it Jay? If aviation in France was dead then the proportion of pilots is irrelevant. The statement you made at the start of this debate was that the incontrovertible truth was that GA in France was dead. That is just not true. There is no logical reason why there should be the same proportion of pilots aircraft and airports as in the US. That would assume the same population make up, the same cultural make up, the same everything. Well, buddy, France and the US are not the same. This may come as a bit of a shock to you but they are different. Hence different approaches to aviation. If you believe GA is in good shape in France and other parts of the EU go to the AOPA WEB site and read about the new liability insurance requirements the EU has placed on GA aircraft. $119 million in liability insurance required for a 182. Doesn't sound healthy to me. |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote:
BTW: With France's population of 60 million (compared to the US population of 295 million), statistically France should be expected to have around 42,000 aircraft and 3,800 airports, all things being equal. Since they have 6300 and 481, respectively, I'd say their avgas prices have done a remarkably good job of killing aviation in France. Of course, this comparison doesn't take into account France's tiny (by comparison) land-mass (which means they don't have room for as many airports), but it nevertheless highlights what a horrendous impact outrageous over-taxation can have on aviation. It proves no such thing. American enumeracy at work. The land mass of France, as far as I can determine from a quick sweep, is one 18th that of the US. Is their number of pilots and/or airports an eighteenth of those in this country? Taxation? How did such a silly premise get started? |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Stadt wrote:
If you believe GA is in good shape in France and other parts of the EU go to the AOPA WEB site and read about the new liability insurance requirements the EU has placed on GA aircraft. $119 million in liability insurance required for a 182. Doesn't sound healthy to me. Read through the actual PDF document. For a private operator, they require a minimum of 100,000 SDRs/passenger and 1,000 SDRs for luggage. For coverage of non-passengers, you need 3 million SDRs for a 182. The current exchange rate is 1.51746 dollars to one SDR. While the rate is still crazy, no way can I make it add up to $119 million. Seems to me that's a policy for $4,552,380 with sublimits of $151,746 per seat, plus a luggage allowance. In any case, what's important is the amount of the premium, not the coverage amount. Liability cases are not settled by juries in Europe, nor are the awards very high (by American standards). I'd bet the premiums are far lower as well. Stefan? Wolfgang? Martin? Dylan? What's insurance like over there? George Patterson There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the mashed potatoes. |
#209
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Stadt" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:cEt9e.3672$WI3.540@attbi_s71... you also have a population of 250 or 300 million. Do you want to say that every other nation with a smaller population is also irrelevant? Man, you are so ignorant. Did you even READ my post, Martin? Man, you are SO ignorant. ;-) Apparently not, so I will sum up. It's the relative PROPORTION of pilots, aircraft, and airports that is out of whack in France. If aviation weren't dead in France, they should have the same PROPORTION of pilots, aircraft and airports as the US. Math is not your strong subject is it Jay? If aviation in France was dead then the proportion of pilots is irrelevant. The statement you made at the start of this debate was that the incontrovertible truth was that GA in France was dead. That is just not true. There is no logical reason why there should be the same proportion of pilots aircraft and airports as in the US. That would assume the same population make up, the same cultural make up, the same everything. Well, buddy, France and the US are not the same. This may come as a bit of a shock to you but they are different. Hence different approaches to aviation. If you believe GA is in good shape in France and other parts of the EU go to the AOPA WEB site and read about the new liability insurance requirements the EU has placed on GA aircraft. $119 million in liability insurance required for a 182. Doesn't sound healthy to me. That is rubbish. Our insurance liability requirements have gone to £3m. We were already insured for $2m. The insurers have increased the cover for no cost. So what's the deal? $119m for a 182 what a joke read this Flying Fortress plea Elly Sallingboe wrote to Alastair Darling yesterday regarding the aircraft's categorisation under new European insurance regulations for aircraft which come into force on 1 May. She wrote: Dear Mr Darling New Euro charges threaten to ground Britain's last Flying Fortress As the operator of the UK's last remaining airworthy B-17 Flying Fortress G-BEDF Sally B, I am writing to you to ask for your help. New EC Regulation 785/2004 (effective from 1 May 2005) has introduced specified minimum levels of insurance cover for aircraft. Its effect on this aircraft, which is an important and well-loved living piece of national heritage, based at the Imperial War Museum Duxford, will be permanently to ground it, unless an exemption on this European requirement of third party insurance covered by aircraft operators can be granted, or a new category introduced. In 2005, this aircraft will have been flying in the UK for an incredible 30 years without any official funding, thanks to a dedicated team of volunteer professionals (see enclosed press release). It should be a year of celebration, but instead Sally B's future in this country is imminently and seriously threatened, and this is why I am asking you please, as a matter of urgency, to find a solution. As you know, the new insurance requirements are based on aircraft weight. Our aircraft weighs 15,150.24kg, and therefore falls just a few thousand kg outside of Category 5 (see the chart printed below). This puts it in Category 6, the same as a commercial Boeing 737, requiring a staggering 80 million SDRs - a leap of more than four times as much in the insurance cover requirement. This new legislation will cost us another £25,000 per year, which is simply impossible. I would add that the aircraft operates at dramatically reduced weights from those of a wartime B-17. Clearly it carries no warload, nor does it fly with full tanks for long-range operations. We currently hold £25 million third party insurance. I was advised that, for the size and weight of the aircraft, this is a prudent amount of cover, and more than double what has been required in recent years for aircraft flying in air shows. This would still appear to be prudent according to the weights given in the chart, if only there was not such a vast leap in cover required between Categories 5 and 6. I am sure these new charges were not intended to destroy flying national treasures such as ours, but this is what is happening. Unlike commercial aircraft, our historic aircraft is on a British Permit to Fly, and as such:- - is not allowed to carry out commercial flights - is not allowed to fly for hire and reward - is not allowed to carry passengers - is not allowed to fly over populated areas. Despite this:- - it has its own maintenance company approved by the CAA - its pilots are all ATPLs with extensive experience on tail wheel and heavy piston AND it flies only 20-40 hours per year, between May and October. I should mention that the General Aviation Department of the CAA has been trying to do something about this on our behalf for some time. We were hopeful that the matter could be rectified, but sadly this has not been possible. This is why I am appealing to you at this late stage, in the hope that you can please do something to help. I cannot emphasise too strongly just how vital it is to rectify this situation. This year, as part of the 60th anniversary commemorations of the end of the Second World War, Sally B is due to carry out a poppy drop and, most importantly, to join in the official commemorative flypast over Buckingham Palace. High profile commemorative events such as these will be drastically affected if a way forward cannot be found. Tens of thousands of young American airmen lost their lives flying from UK bases in B-17s. This aircraft is the only living memorial to their sacrifice - a flagship of the special relationship that has existed ever since between our two countries. Its mission is to educate young and old of this important piece of our national history. There will be a massive outcry if this beloved aircraft, which represents so much to so many people, is grounded now, having flown for thirty years thanks solely to the dedication of its volunteers and supporters, and funds raised by its own charity, The B-17 Charitable Trust. If something is not done, this historic aircraft will soon cross the Atlantic to the USA. I hope you will agree that this would be a tragedy, especially when the cause is a piece of legislation that appears simply not to have taken account of historic aircraft such as Sally B. In these circumstances, and bearing in mind that the aircraft flies only in the UK, I ask you please to grant the Sally B an exemption so that this aircraft can continue to fly in the UK, as a matter of urgency, given that our flying season starts in May. If you would like to find out more about this unique aircraft, please do look at our website Now a 182 is not going to pick up more liability than a clapped out B17 |
#210
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Soaring near Paris, France (Not Texas :-) | [email protected] | Soaring | 17 | November 13th 04 06:39 PM |
News from France | HECTOP | Piloting | 12 | April 1st 04 01:16 AM |
Russia joins France and Germany | captain! | Military Aviation | 12 | September 9th 03 09:56 AM |
France Bans the Term 'E-Mail' | bsh | Military Aviation | 38 | July 26th 03 03:18 PM |
"France downplays jet swap with Russia" | Mike | Military Aviation | 8 | July 21st 03 05:46 AM |