Avgas in France has reached $7.50/gal !

"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

"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

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

"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

("Roger" wrote)
After reading all the off topic responses I think most on here should
get a hobby... like flying.


Agreed :-)


Montblack

"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.

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?

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.

"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

In article , says...

Jay Honeck wrote:

Every indicator I can find shows that the French have killed general
aviation -- or nearly so -- for everyone but the very rich.

If I didn't know it before, I'd do so now: You've never been in France.
I have. You're just plain wrong.



I think Jay is neither completely right, nor completely wrong.
I don't know any "very rich" people flying in France, but all ther people I do
know are those who have managed to allocate a sufficient chunk of spare cash.
Many are young, with no family yet, who have a small apartment (or still live
with their parents) and other compromises in life. When they get married, and
baby comes along, flying stops. Often you see them coming back in their 40's,
when they manage to get the budget back on track.

I think it's true, even obvious, that the cost of flying in Europe is the main
reason why there are relatively few who take it up. And I think it's just as
obvious that the fuel price, rental prices and other use taxes account for
much of this expense.

I don't think it's ridiculous to say the authorities in France are "killing"
general aviation. Many - probably most - private pilots in France feel this
way, and it's clearly expressed in the aviation press. The authorities in
Europe do not see GA as a useful, economically beneficial instrument, but as a
high-risk hobby. Add to this the perceived "pollution" (air, noise and
land-use) and you have a double-whammy that Europeans are sensitive to - risk
and pollution.

There is also an attitude difference in pilots. Many Europeans are more
oriented toward leisure flying, and long for the unfettered days when they
could take to the skies in their warbirds and do a few spins. Many Americans
enjoy the challenge of using their planes to go somewhere, and as such their
attitude is much closer to a professional transport mindset. In this respect,
it may be an exaggeration to say the European authorities are "killing" GA -
instead they are setting the standard much higher - squeezing out the leisure
sector, and reducing the activity to those who are willing and able to move up
to a more professional standard - that includes equipment, mission profile and
mindset. American regulations and costs allow plenty of room for both types of
activities (and quite a few others).

The very high investment (time and money) required for IR training in Europe
is a good example of setting the bar high. The weather in northern Europe
precludes any serious notion of transportation under VFR. You cannot plan any
trip several days ahead of time and have a reasonable expectation of being
able to complete it under VFR. If you want to go IFR - you have to make the
grade. The committment level has to be high - otherwise you will stay close to
your home field, and close to the ground, where you will have plenty of
freedom to exercise your risky, polluting hobby.

G Faris