Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep

Let me add that the bizjet guys get WHATEVER they want at these FBO's.

I am NOT kidding. If they complain about piston traffic, it will be noted,
and something may change. Some FBO's simply give these guys whatever they
want, Period. I have heard it from the FBO and airport managers that I talk
to.

One comment was that the biz jet crowd did not want any "looky lou's" around
as they came and went. This FBO leased the surrounding land to keep other
business from being too close, as well as started to harrass one of their
tenants, a flight school, about the foot traffic on the ramp. The school
was locked out in an attempt to get them to leave their lease.

Another comment was from a municipal airport who said he never got
complaints about noise from the jets, just the piston planes? They will not
take any more GA tenants, and though they are building new T hangers, the
old ones are being knocked down even though they are still in demand.



"Dude" wrote in message
...

wrote in message ...


Dude wrote:

Our ability to keep the majors (and the ever increasing threat from
bizjets)
from punting us from the skies and airports) is dependent on our
ability
to
keep the piston friendly FBO's and flight schools in business.


I don't agree with that at all.

1. The majors, as obnoxious as they are, aren't interested in most
airports that
you would likely want to use.


Not so, my closest airport just announced plans to kick almost half the GA
tenants off the field to make the airlines happy. The cities want the
bizjets and the airlines because they see the revenue. We are just an
irritation. One local municipal has made a commitment to support
"limited"
piston GA activity because someone persuasive pointed out that a lot of
jet
owners and wealthy home owners also had prop planes. Also, the press has
been full of majors, and the politicians they have lobbied, attacking GA.

2. If the runway is 5,000 feet, or longer, the biz jets might want to
share the
airport with you, but they wouldn't push you out and, instead, might get
you an
ILS or some similar goodie that wouldn't have come around with a few
"Cubs"
parked at the airport.

Or, you may no longer have your hangar. Until recently, the closest GA
friendly field was 25 minutes from my home. Now its 45. All of those
fields sell more Jet A than Avgas. The fields that are short and get less
jet traffic are dying at a rate of 1 every two years to developers. Doomed
if you are long, and doomed if you are short.

The vast number of the people who can afford and get convenience from a
small piston plane now have to drive farther than they do to get to the
two
big airports. When the next vote comes up to close a small field, none of
them will care.

Dude wrote:

Let me add that the bizjet guys get WHATEVER they want at these FBO's.

I am NOT kidding. If they complain about piston traffic, it will be noted,
and something may change. Some FBO's simply give these guys whatever they
want, Period. I have heard it from the FBO and airport managers that I talk
to.

One comment was that the biz jet crowd did not want any "looky lou's" around
as they came and went. This FBO leased the surrounding land to keep other
business from being too close, as well as started to harrass one of their
tenants, a flight school, about the foot traffic on the ramp. The school
was locked out in an attempt to get them to leave their lease.


I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. Sure, the biz jet crowd wants a
nice, upscale FBO. So, isn't that the American Way? Also, if the airport has
any federal grant money in it, the fair use conditions are beyond the control of
the airport manager.

My home field, KCRQ, was extensive light aircraft and biz jet operations. In
fact, it also has several commuter flights a day. It all seems to work quite
well and has for many years.

I will concede that the primary noise complaints come from light aircraft pilots
who fail to maintain altitude on downwind leg, something the biz jet pilots
avoid doing.

Not so, my closest airport just announced plans to kick almost half the GA
tenants off the field to make the airlines happy. The cities want the
bizjets and the airlines because they see the revenue. We are just an
irritation. One local municipal has made a commitment to support "limited"
piston GA activity because someone persuasive pointed out that a lot of jet
owners and wealthy home owners also had prop planes. Also, the press has
been full of majors, and the politicians they have lobbied, attacking GA.

I separated "airlines" from "biz jets." Apparently, you don't see the
difference.

wrote in message ...





Not so, my closest airport just announced plans to kick almost half the
GA
tenants off the field to make the airlines happy. The cities want the
bizjets and the airlines because they see the revenue. We are just an
irritation. One local municipal has made a commitment to support
"limited"
piston GA activity because someone persuasive pointed out that a lot of
jet
owners and wealthy home owners also had prop planes. Also, the press
has
been full of majors, and the politicians they have lobbied, attacking
GA.

I separated "airlines" from "biz jets." Apparently, you don't see the
difference.



After your snipping, and your short response, I don't understand what you
are getting at here.

1. The majors, as obnoxious as they are, aren't interested in most airports that
you would likely want to use.


Ah, but they are interested in the same infrastructure we use - VORs, Approaches
et cetera. Haven't you heard the comments by that Northwest Airlines boss?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

1. The majors, as obnoxious as they are, aren't interested in most airports that
you would likely want to use.


Ah, but they are interested in the same infrastructure we use - VORs, Approaches
et cetera. Haven't you heard the comments by that Northwest Airlines boss?

So, what's your point? If it weren't for the airlines the common-use en route
structure and facilities would likely not exist at all, at least not in their present
robust form.

I don't know about your part of the world, but in the U.S. far more RNAV approaches
have been placed into service for non-air carrier airports than for air carrier
airports.

The guy at Northworst is a big mouth. But, he doesn't set national policy and his
influence wanes rapidly except for the airports where his airline has a major
presence.

The guy at Northworst is a big mouth.


We're on the same page there.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:07:57 -0400, Jeremy Lew wrote:
I don't understand many peoples' obsession with growth in the popularity
of GA. The skies are plenty crowded enough as it is around where I fly.

I think that we're hoping that if there were more pilots, there would be
more sanity. I learned my risk-management skills and attitude from my CFI
-- although I did shop around until I found a good one. Plus,
the regulatory-problems might be better if there were more pilots to
complain about them.

At least that's how I feel about it. The feeling might not reflect
reality, though... :-)

-Luke

"Dude" wrote in message
news

How do we expect to grow general aviation if we REFUSE to change what we
are
doing to attract new pilots? Isn't this the definition of insanity?
Cessna
is unconsciously doing to aviation what Microsoft and IBM did to
technology - killing fast growth and innovation in favor of predictable
business.

No. Cessna is doing it deliberately. Cessna did not really want to re-start
manufacturing piston singles in the first place. They promised to do it when
some kind of tort reform was passed. Bob Dole got the tort reform passed and
leaned hard on Cessna to start building airplanes.

Cessna sees the construction of new airplanes as a threat to a very
lucrative business: building parts for old airplanes.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote in message
news

How do we expect to grow general aviation if we REFUSE to change what we
are
doing to attract new pilots? Isn't this the definition of insanity?
Cessna
is unconsciously doing to aviation what Microsoft and IBM did to
technology - killing fast growth and innovation in favor of predictable
business.

No. Cessna is doing it deliberately. Cessna did not really want to
re-start
manufacturing piston singles in the first place. They promised to do it
when
some kind of tort reform was passed. Bob Dole got the tort reform passed
and
leaned hard on Cessna to start building airplanes.

Cessna sees the construction of new airplanes as a threat to a very
lucrative business: building parts for old airplanes.

So, those old planes would no longer need to be fixed?