View Single Post
  #9  
Old April 28th 07, 04:11 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Roger (K8RI)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 727
Default NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:28:13 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:53:18 -0400, "Marco Leon"
wrote in :

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/fa...=1&oref=slogin


The number of student pilots is down by about a third since 1990,
from 129,000 to 88,000. The number of private pilots is down from
299,000 to 236,000, according to statistics kept by the Federal
Aviation Administration. And they are aging.

Some longtime private pilots fear that an industry is withering,
and a bit of Americana is slipping away, along with a bit of
freedom and joy. And it is happening in part because of lack of
interest; Walter Mitty doesn’t want to fly anymore.

Let's see... In 1961 my first home (a little 2 bedroom starter) cost
just under $12,000 and I was making less than $9,000 a year.
In 1966 I built a new home for a bit over $80,000 that was valued
close to $120,000 while I was making a bit over $12,000 a year plus
overtime. I was probably averaging around 50 plus hours a week.
In 1987 I quit work (after 26.1 years) and went back to college full
time.I graduated in 1990 with a bachelors degree. I started working as
a professional in May of 9. My starting wages would have paid for this
place, which would be considered a starter home, in just over a year.
We no longer need a large home



Could it be that Americans are working longer hours?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/.../30/ilo.study/
CNN) -- You're not imagining it. The United Nations' International
Labor Organization (ILO) has the proof: "Workers in the United
States are putting in more hours than anyone else in the
industrialized world."


My average work week was over 60 hours and I did not get overtime.
OTOH I was paid well and still had enough time and money to fly about
130 hours a year.




And is it possible that the increase in hours worked don't equate to
more disposable income?

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/workhours.html
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, though the average
work week has increased by just over an hour and a half a week,
the proportion of people who work much longer weeks (48 hours and
more) has risen greatly. The occupations which saw the greatest
increase in the percentage of workers averaging 48 hours per week
or more were professionals and managers (who are most often not
paid overtime though they are among the highest-paid workers) and


Most are very well paid, but you have to be careful as to how they
define "professional". These statistics can be selectively interpreted
The same is true of the housing markets. Just what defines a starter
home? For a while in this area starter homes for professionals were
running well beyond $200,000. Now they are settling for a much more
modest "starter home". Some select areas still push the so called
average AND median way higher than in the rest of the country.
One thing that has changed is inflation. We (as starting
professionals) used to be able to purchase homes that pushed our limit
to pay. Even the limit with two incomes as we knew that within just a
few years our wages would be such that one income would easily make
the payments and in the long run the home would likely be worth more,
usually substantially more than we paid. Now that inflation is low
most professionals (in many areas) can not look at the initial home
purchase in that light.

sales and transportation workers (who are among the lowest-paid
workers and earn more as they log more hours). The Bureau of Labor
Statistics also notes that high unemployment numbers also
stimulate salaried workers who are employed to put in more hours


Not the ones I knew.:-))
Long hours were just part of the job and it was both known as a high
pressure work place and a good place to work. That was nothing new 17
years ago.

each week to safeguard their positions.


I think the most important item is missing from this analysis. The
article also noted that the current generation appears to have an
aversion to risk and the general population views general aviation
right in there with Bungee jumping or jumping the Grand Canyon with a
motorcycle. IOW the conclusion which he stated in the article was we
may be, in general, raising a generation of cowards who want to be
protected and shy away from pursuits associated with risk.

Just stop and think of how many people you know have made remarks
about either how risky flying is, or how they worry about you flying.
How many have had to give up flying due to girlfriend, wife, or
family?

One guy I've known for years told me he felt better now that I'm not
flying. Of course he also knew I'd never give it up regardless of how
he, or any one else felt. Hopefully in the not too distant future I
can cause him to go back to worrying about my flying. I'd take a
certain sort of perverse pleasure in that.