Where is everyone?

On May 22, 10:31 am, Jay Honeck wrote:
A friend of mine flew his Cherokee Six from PA to MI last week, in
perfect weather, and told me that he was one of three GA planes on any
center or approach frequency for the entire flight...

Mary, the kids, and I flew (in absolute perfect VFR conditions) to
Springfield, IL this past Sunday. Cedar Rapids approach was dead (it
was us and a commuter), Quad Cities approach was dead (it was us and
one guy practicing approaches), Chicago Center was nearly dead (it was
us and a few airliners), Peoria Approach was utterly dead (it was just
us, for the entire time it took to cross his airspace), and
Springfield had only us in the pattern.

A good portion of my flying over the last three years was travel to
jobsites. That has been reduced drastically, simply because that phase
of upgrades has been completed. Don't really know what is going to be
normal for us now. Gas prices are affecting our driving, but I believe
that as of now we will take most of the flights we would have
otherwise. We paid $3.29 a gallon to fill our pickup yesterday but
Airnav is showing prices of $3.05, $3.00, and $3.33 for avgas in
Kansas where we are flying this weekend. Flying vs driving is actually
a good deal right now.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

Regarding the original question - are we flying less?

I was forced by health and age to stay on the ground for the last 20+ years.
I recently dropped by our local private grass strip where about 25 planes
are hangered. There was a single plane gassing up - no other activity on a
beautiful Sunday afternoon. Ran into a younger fellow I knew in my previous
life who commented that on a similar day back when I was still flying there
would always be several planes in the air, grinding out stop-and-goes or
just puttering around, whereas today the activity has virtually stopped.
There is even a 150 there that has been sitting outside for several years
and is virtually destroyed by the weather.

Why? My opinion, it's the expense. In the '60's and early 70's, our club
used to fly an old Champ for $4 an hour and a 172 for $16 an hour, wet. We
had an instructor in the club, and $300/$400 would get a beginner his
private. You could chug around in the Champ 'til your butt was numb, and
couldn't spend $20. The club was solvent and the hourly rates covered all
annual expenses. Upgrading required assessments - if memory serves, we paid
$1200 for the Champ and $8000 for the 172. We also had a Citabria that we
paid $5000 for. (All used, of course)

Compare that to the cost of a private ticket and the cost and expense of
owning and flying aircraft today. It's the younger guys who are most active,
and it's a major hill to climb for them to afford to participate.

I guess I'm just an old timer musing about the long dead past.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

Our business is level which, considering the addition of three major,
government-funded hotels in our market, we consider a "victory".

Of course, this comes after four years of double-digit growth, so
suddenly going flat "feels" like losing...

I think gas prices are really, really hurting the "common man". I've
got housekeepers and desk staff who have seen a HUGE increase in their
driving expense, with no compensating increase in wages. This
shortfall has to be made up somewhere -- so I suspect we're seeing Wal-
Mart (and other stores) get hit by the back wash.

IMHO, the big-box restaurant chains ("Applebees" and such) will get
hit the worst in an economic downturn. That's where a lot of
discretionary American income gets ****ed away nowadays, and it'll be
the first thing eliminated.
--

I think so too. I think everyone tried to ignore the gas hikes last year and
continue business as usual as much as possible, hoping it would be
temporary. Then prices backed up a bit, and kind of reassured us. But this
time I think we are all having to admit to a serious problem, it's here to
stay, and people are starting to react.

Hopefully your business is specialized enough to fair better than most. But
I'm guessing most of us are in for a whole new ballgame, at least until post
election 2008.

Jay Honeck writes:

I think gas prices are really, really hurting the "common man". I've
got housekeepers and desk staff who have seen a HUGE increase in their
driving expense, with no compensating increase in wages. This
shortfall has to be made up somewhere ...

Have them buy stock in Exxon. The money they are paying out in gas is going
into shareholders' pockets.

IMHO, the big-box restaurant chains ("Applebees" and such) will get
hit the worst in an economic downturn. That's where a lot of
discretionary American income gets ****ed away nowadays, and it'll be
the first thing eliminated.

Unfortunately, GA will probably go first.

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

birdog writes:

Why? My opinion, it's the expense. In the '60's and early 70's, our club
used to fly an old Champ for $4 an hour and a 172 for $16 an hour, wet.

Well, exactly what year was this? If it was 1961, that would be $111 an hour
today, meaning that the hourly costs have not kept pace with inflation. But
if it was 1979, that would be $46 today, meaning that hourly costs have
dramatically outpaced inflation.

There are other considerations, though. People from the mid 60s to around the
beginning of the 1970s had more disposable income than they do today. Prices
have increased but wages have not kept pace, and since the 1970s the situation
has been gradually getting worse.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Have them buy stock in Exxon. The money they are paying out in gas is
going
into shareholders' pockets.

Now you are a stock expert too.



Unfortunately, GA will probably go first.

We know you are hoping.



Did it rain out the playground, or did you screw up and take double meds
again?

"Mxsmanic" wrote

There are other considerations, though. People from the mid 60s to around
the
beginning of the 1970s had more disposable income than they do today.
Prices
have increased but wages have not kept pace, and since the 1970s the
situation
has been gradually getting worse.

In the mid-60s and early 70s people also did not have multiple cell phones
(one for each family member), cable/satellite TV, satellite radio, "starter"
homes the size of small castles, home entertainment centers, or 2 brand new
cars (one an SUV) in the driveway. Today these are all looked at as
"necessities", and they consume what would otherwise be disposable income.

BDS

BDS writes:

In the mid-60s and early 70s people also did not have multiple cell phones
(one for each family member), cable/satellite TV, satellite radio, "starter"
homes the size of small castles, home entertainment centers, or 2 brand new
cars (one an SUV) in the driveway. Today these are all looked at as
"necessities", and they consume what would otherwise be disposable income.

The real disposable income for equivalent lifestyle has significantly
diminished for the dwindling middle class.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
BDS writes:

In the mid-60s and early 70s people also did not have multiple cell
phones
(one for each family member), cable/satellite TV, satellite radio,
"starter"
homes the size of small castles, home entertainment centers, or 2 brand
new
cars (one an SUV) in the driveway. Today these are all looked at as
"necessities", and they consume what would otherwise be disposable
income.

The real disposable income for equivalent lifestyle has significantly
diminished for the dwindling middle class.


You wish. We all make choices, yours is to whine.

On 2007-05-23 09:12:29 -0700, "BDS" said:


"Mxsmanic" wrote

There are other considerations, though. People from the mid 60s to around
the
beginning of the 1970s had more disposable income than they do today.
Prices
have increased but wages have not kept pace, and since the 1970s the
situation
has been gradually getting worse.

In the mid-60s and early 70s people also did not have multiple cell phones
(one for each family member), cable/satellite TV, satellite radio, "starter"
homes the size of small castles, home entertainment centers, or 2 brand new
cars (one an SUV) in the driveway. Today these are all looked at as
"necessities", and they consume what would otherwise be disposable income.

BDS

Indeed, the standard of living is much higher today than it was when I
was a kid. When I was born the standard of living in the United States
was no better than what it is in many third world countries today.
Television was rare, but not unheard of. Houses outside of town still
didn't have indoor plumbing. The Philippines today reminded me a great
deal of the US 50 years ago, only with cell phones and computers.

The Congressional Budget Office has just published a study showing that
low-wage households had an income in 2005 that was more than third
higher than what they had in 1991, adjusted for inflation. That is,
even after you take out the effects of inflation, the poor have more
than a third higher income now than they did in 1991. Bet you don't see
that on the news much.

CNN is famous for saying that the middle class is losing ground. In
fact, the income of the middle class increased 18% over the same
period, adjusted for inflation. Gee, do you suppose that CNN will now
admit they were wrong?

The rich did get richer: the wealthiest fifth had a 55% gain in real income.

The interesting thing, though, was the study also tracked what happened
to actual families. The people who were poor in 1991 are not the same
people who are poor today. 'Poverty,' such as it is, is heavily
weighted towards the young. After all, the work force will always have
young people and new immigrants working at entry level jobs. They don't
stay there.

CBO found that surveys of the same families (as opposed to 'classes'
which people do not remain in) showed that inflation adjusted income
for the poorest families rose 45% from 2001-2003. The poor do not stay
poor unless they have no one working in that family. The poor tend to
be kids just out of school, new families, and new immigrants. Funny
thing, they tend to get promotions and better jobs over time. Bet CNN
doesn't report that, either.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor