extra GA traffic noticed

"Mxsmanic" wrote

I guess you just have to be even more rich now to fly than in the past.

I think it's more a matter of priorities and the choices we all make. Just
look at the "necessities" people spend their money on these days.

I got my private back when my wife and I were just starting out and with
almost nothing to our names. We didn't have cell phones, cable TV,
Nintendo, X-Box, Playstation, PCs, high speed internet access, or cars that
ran well. I spent my weekends fixing the things on the cars that broke
during the week, and the things that broke in the house. It really is a
hoot lying under a car in your driveway in the middle of a Wisconsin winter.

I know, it sounds like a cliche and I'm sure a few folks won't be able to
resist poking fun at this, but the fact is that almost anyone who wants it
bad enough can afford to get their pilot license. All it takes is a hard
look at what you think you "need", and a willingness to get a job or two -
my wife had one and I had two at the time.

Whining about not having enough money to do it won't make it happen. You
have to get off your derrier and actually do something to make it happen.

BDS

Mxsmanic wrote:

Owen writes:

Gee, why didn't they think of that? Just make the planes cheaper to make and
they'll sell more!

Do you really think they are selling them at cost now?

Why would they and why should they? That has nothing to do with my point.

Owen writes:

Why would they and why should they? That has nothing to do with my point.

What was your point, then?

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

BDS writes:

I think it's more a matter of priorities and the choices we all make.

Certainly one can see if from that viewpoint, but the more expensive a hobby
becomes, the more skewed one's priorities must be in order to justify pursuing
it--_or_ the more rich one must be to pursue it without making terrific
sacrifices in other domains.

I know, it sounds like a cliche and I'm sure a few folks won't be able to
resist poking fun at this, but the fact is that almost anyone who wants it
bad enough can afford to get their pilot license.

No doubt, but as I said above, the more expensive it becomes, the more badly
and desperately one must want it (unless one is rich).

The fact is, the more expensive it becomes, the less likely general aviation
is to survive over the long term, as it gradually prices itself out of
existence. While a handful of wealthy people can extend the life of something
for a certain time, eventually they become too small in number to support some
of the fixed costs of infrastructure, and everything collapses.

All it takes is a hard
look at what you think you "need", and a willingness to get a job or two -
my wife had one and I had two at the time.

The problem is that you cannot promote or hope to preserve a hobby by limiting
it to people who are willing to sell a kidney just to practice it. The
availability of a few die-hards who will sell their own moms to get that
license isn't going to preserve general aviation as a whole. It has to be
reasonably accessible, or it will dry up and blow away.

Whining about not having enough money to do it won't make it happen.
You have to get off your derrier and actually do something to make it happen.

Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. To keep a hobby alive, you have to make
it accessible to a critical mass of the population. Telling people that if
they can't afford it, they're not dedicated enough is just shooting yourself
in the foot. They aren't going to become more dedicated; they're just going
to give up on the idea. And if there are too few people with the extreme
"dedication" required to pursue the hobby, there won't be enough to support
the infrastructure that it requires, and there will be none to speak out in
its favor when others wish to eliminate it.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

Owen writes:

Why would they and why should they? That has nothing to do with my point.

What was your point, then?

Companies exist to make money. If they could decrease prices and make more
money they would. There is a reason why it costs so much to build a certified
airplane and there is a reason why costs, including liability, are so
ridiculously high for airplane manufacturers. Remember what happened to the
industry over the past 2+ decades? There is also a reason why so many light
plane producers either went bankrupt, disappeared completely, or are barely
hanging on.

"Mxsmanic" wrote

No doubt, but as I said above, the more expensive it becomes, the more
badly
and desperately one must want it (unless one is rich).

I'm not so sure about that. Were one to do a analysis of what it costs
today versus where income levels are, compared to what it cost in the 80s
versus where income levels were, I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually
cheaper now than it was back then.

The fact is, the more expensive it becomes, the less likely general
aviation
is to survive over the long term, as it gradually prices itself out of
existence.

I don't think cost is the main problem. While there is no doubt that
participation in just about any type of flying activity is shrinking (and
has been for quite a long time, at least in the USA), I believe that there
are other factors at work that are responsible for this. Cost is certainly
a factor, but I don't think that it is the primary one.

BDS

BDS writes:

I'm not so sure about that. Were one to do a analysis of what it costs
today versus where income levels are, compared to what it cost in the 80s
versus where income levels were, I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually
cheaper now than it was back then.

I would be interested in seeing such an analysis. I don't really know if it
is cheaper or not, but I rather suspect it is more expensive (possibly much
more expensive).

I don't think cost is the main problem. While there is no doubt that
participation in just about any type of flying activity is shrinking (and
has been for quite a long time, at least in the USA), I believe that there
are other factors at work that are responsible for this. Cost is certainly
a factor, but I don't think that it is the primary one.

What are the other factors, and what can be done to compensate for them?

Apart from cost, the things that come to my mind are the substantial amount of
time required to even begin to fly (hours of flying pale in comparison to
hours of instruction and training and exams, at least in the beginning), and
the many regulatory hurdles to flying, such as the need for a license, various
ratings, a strict medical exam, insurance, and so on.

Overall, flying is a lot more difficult than it should be. While this will
not discourage the most fanatic flyers, it considerably narrows the field of
potential pilots, and even the fanatically devoted pilots have a vested
interest in encouraging other people to fly, as it helps pay for and justify
the massive infrastructure upon which all pilots depend.

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

I don't think cost is the main problem. While there is no doubt that
participation in just about any type of flying activity is shrinking (and
has been for quite a long time, at least in the USA), I believe that there
are other factors at work that are responsible for this. Cost is certainly
a factor, but I don't think that it is the primary one.

One factor that makes flying a bit unattractive is that a simple PPL
does not have a lot of utility and is not the equivalent of a driving
license in the sky. Sometimes it is sold that way though. When I took
my first intro flight in Northern CA, the instructor tried to sell me
the idea that once I get my PPL, I would be free as a bird and could
fly to on a whim to Tahoe for skiing! I think that the PPL kind of
flying is more of a sport than anything else like mountaineering or
skydiving or even gliding and maybe needs to be marketed as such. It
just so happens that on some nice days it can be used as a means of
transport but this cannot be the main reason for getting a PPL.

wrote

One factor that makes flying a bit unattractive is that a simple PPL
does not have a lot of utility and is not the equivalent of a driving
license in the sky. Sometimes it is sold that way though. When I took
my first intro flight in Northern CA, the instructor tried to sell me
the idea that once I get my PPL, I would be free as a bird and could
fly to on a whim to Tahoe for skiing! I think that the PPL kind of
flying is more of a sport than anything else like mountaineering or
skydiving or even gliding and maybe needs to be marketed as such. It
just so happens that on some nice days it can be used as a means of
transport but this cannot be the main reason for getting a PPL.

Well, you will never be able to match the airlines' ability to maintain a
schedule if that's what you're looking for. But, if you can be even just a
little flexible with your schedule then you certainly can do quite alot with
a PPL, and even if you fly strictly VFR. Add an instrument rating and
maintain your currency and you greatly extend the utility of your PPL.

BDS

To support your point about GA utility, I'm IR, fly a Mooney, and used
it quite a lot on business. It was based in Massachusetts, so there
were lots of pretty bad flying weather days. My own IFR minima are
close to those published, but I don't fly whel pilots are reporting
icing or embedded thunderstorms, things like that. Given I'd make most
business apointments a wek or more in advance (so projected WX was not
a factor, I'd make about 95% of the trips I planned.

If I was restricted to VFR I doubt it would have been as many as 60%.


affecting the schedule was On Feb 19, 8:45 am, "BDS"
wrote:
wrote

One factor that makes flying a bit unattractive is that a simple PPL
does not have a lot of utility and is not the equivalent of a driving
license in the sky. Sometimes it is sold that way though. When I took
my first intro flight in Northern CA, the instructor tried to sell me
the idea that once I get my PPL, I would be free as a bird and could
fly to on a whim to Tahoe for skiing! I think that the PPL kind of
flying is more of a sport than anything else like mountaineering or
skydiving or even gliding and maybe needs to be marketed as such. It
just so happens that on some nice days it can be used as a means of
transport but this cannot be the main reason for getting a PPL.

Well, you will never be able to match the airlines' ability to maintain a
schedule if that's what you're looking for. But, if you can be even just a
little flexible with your schedule then you certainly can do quite alot with
a PPL, and even if you fly strictly VFR. Add an instrument rating and
maintain your currency and you greatly extend the utility of your PPL.

BDS