Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Judah writes:

So?

Unless one is coincidentally interested in the handful of museums
close to airstrips, the fact that a few might be close is not terribly
relevant.

Or, if the place you want to see if 400 miles away, you could fly to
the nearest airport, rent a car for the last 5 miles, and get there in
substantially less time.

And dramatically higher cost, higher even than a commercial flight in
some cases.

That depends on way too many factors for such a generic claim. It also
largely depends on how you value your own time.

In my case it is frequently not cheaper to fly privately than it is to fly
commercially, especially when ALL related costs are considered. For
example, it costs me $30 per day to park at LGA... When flying GA, I don't
pay to park at the gate across from my tiedown area, even if I park there
for a week. I need to add that to my total cost in an apples-to-apples
comparison. Interestingly enough, comparing my time in a Commercial vs. GA
scenario varies, because if I am on a commercial flight at a decent hour, I
can usually work on the plane, which makes up for some of the lost time
waiting in lines, etc. But the biggest savings comes when I am flying to a
destination that is not serviced by a major airport, but which has a small
airport very nearby. Then I save time by flying to an airport 10 or 15
minutes away from my destination, instead of flying commercially to a major
metro 60-120 minutes away.

You could also rent a car.

That doesn't count, either, because you're using a car.

Doesn't count in what way? A claim that flying is a useful method of
transportation?

Then I could say the same thing about your example. Driving to the Louvre
doesn't count, because you have to walk past the front lawn and up the
stairs to get to the ticket counter. So even though you drove most of the
way, the example is invalid because you also had to walk. I also presume
that you don't have Metro stops at every specific location that you want to
visit, and must find a way to get from the final stop to your ultimate
destination... Sometimes it might even include a taxi.

So there are exceptional circumstances in which it might be practical.
I don't know if that makes GA cost-effective overall, however.

In my experience, there is a "sweet spot" where GA will be more cost
effective than commercial flying. It varies by the type of plane flown, the
cost, and the location where you live, and my sweet spot has gotten bigger
as I've grown into faster planes at better rates. In my case, I will
frequently save time and money flying GA to airports that are from 150 -
600 miles from my home. Shorter than 150 miles, it becomes more practical
to drive, because the time savings is not very significant. Longer than 600
miles or so, it generally becomes more practical to fly commercially
because the costs for cross-country Airline flights tend to be
disproportionately low.

You have a very narrow perception of reality, because your knowledge
and experience are very limited in this regard. You should avoid making
claims about things that you have no idea about.

Since you've favored me with irrelevant personal advice, I'll return
the favor: Stick to the subject, as I do.

I enjoy discussions stemming from questions that you ask in the interest of
learning more about piloting aircraft. I am glad to share my experiences
witn you and the rest of this group. I've even stopped trying to convince
you to go take a discovery flight, since you have made it clear that you
will not. But when you make a claim with anti-GA undercurrents that is
based on opinions that have been founded in something other than fact, you
can expect me to respond harshly, and I would consider that quite on topic.