NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
I've discovered that the harder you work the more he's got his hand
in my pants taking more of my hard earned efforts to come up with a
few extra bucks for flying.

Amen, brother. Until we, as a people, come to grips with this
completely out of control, tax-consuming, inefficient monster of a
government bureacracy that we've created, we will find our freedoms
and our income ever more diminished.

This isn't a Democrat or Republican thing -- this is a We the People
thing -- and we've GOT to do something about it, soon.

Nearly 2/3rds of "We the People" are getting goodies (middle class welfare,
AKA "Entitlements") from Uncle Sugar.

Just how are you going to wean them from the tit? Ask them nicely?

On Apr 26, 1:37 pm, kontiki wrote:

.. On top of that, the BIGGEST benefactor
odf rising gas prices IS government. Federal and state governments
make more off a gallon gass through taxes than the oil companies do.

Huh? I see tax stickers on a per gallon basis. This is not affected
by the price itself.

Unless of course the price gets high and the use of gas therefore
drops, in which case the tax collected also decreases.
IIRC, this was actually the case during the '73 gas crunch.

The taxes are likely higher than the profit. The oil companies don't
have to pay for the roads.

On 27 Apr 2007 20:28:24 -0700, wrote:

On Apr 26, 1:37 pm, kontiki wrote:

. On top of that, the BIGGEST benefactor
odf rising gas prices IS government. Federal and state governments
make more off a gallon gass through taxes than the oil companies do.

Huh? I see tax stickers on a per gallon basis. This is not affected
by the price itself.

Unless of course the price gets high and the use of gas therefore
drops, in which case the tax collected also decreases.
IIRC, this was actually the case during the '73 gas crunch.

The taxes are likely higher than the profit. The oil companies don't
have to pay for the roads.

Gas taxes are probably 5 or 6 times the profit per gallon made by the
oil companies.

So far the US has never seen high gas prices compared to the prices
most of the world has been paying for years.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 26, 1:37 pm, kontiki wrote:

. On top of that, the BIGGEST benefactor
odf rising gas prices IS government. Federal and state governments
make more off a gallon gass through taxes than the oil companies do.

Huh? I see tax stickers on a per gallon basis. This is not affected
by the price itself.

Unless of course the price gets high and the use of gas therefore
drops, in which case the tax collected also decreases.
IIRC, this was actually the case during the '73 gas crunch.

The taxes are likely higher than the profit.

By about 3-4:1

The oil companies don't
have to pay for the roads.
If you've followed the thread, the governemtn doesn't either. The majority
of fuel taxes, both state and federal, goes into the general fund, and that
which does get spent on roads goes for pork barell project.

I've seen a mile of one lane on a four lane road cost well over $2 million
and take nearly a year to merely resurface. Recall the recent Alaska "Bridge
to Nowhere", or all the pork projects in Senator whatshisface in West
Virginia, the mass transit fiascos all over the country...

I'm sure others can offer similar "horror stories".

On Apr 28, 6:07 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

On Apr 26, 1:37 pm, kontiki wrote:

. On top of that, the BIGGEST benefactor
odf rising gas prices IS government. Federal and state governments
make more off a gallon gass through taxes than the oil companies do.

I'm sure others can offer similar "horror stories".

All true, maybe. But all irrelevant to your comment about government
profiting off of RISING gas prices. Taxes are "per gallon", not a
percentage of sales price.

The only way government benefits is through more income tax collected
on the rising profits of the company. All of which is a good thing.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
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.



Could it be that Americans are working longer hours?

Snip


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

I doubt that. What is happening is that people are spending their money
differently. I have a $100/month cable/internet bill. Plus a $50 cell phone
bill. Plus the maintenance, repair, and replacement expenses for 20
different devices in my home that people didn't have 50 years ago. We have
more discretionary income than before, we just spend it on day to day
conveniences and various iterations of the idiot box (TV, Computer, Gaming,
etc.)...

Snip

My personal theory is that flying is no longer the source of hero worship it
once was. Is there a current Lindberg? How about an Amelia Earhart? Maybe
a John Glenn? Not really. Flying has lost the public's imagination, and
therefore the publicity.

KB

Kyle Boatright wrote:


My personal theory is that flying is no longer the source of hero worship it
once was. Is there a current Lindberg? How about an Amelia Earhart? Maybe
a John Glenn? Not really. Flying has lost the public's imagination, and
therefore the publicity.


I think that's largely true. People are more interestwed in who wins
American Idol than what is going on in the aerospace industry.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:58:21 +0000, kontiki wrote:

I think that's largely true. People are more interestwed in who wins
American Idol than what is going on in the aerospace industry.

I suspect that this plays a large part. It's not so much that the heroes
matter (though to some people, I'm sure they do {8^). But the heroes
represent a consumption of the public mindset. Having an aviation hero
means that aviation is on the minds of people.

- Andrew

Kyle Boatright writes:

I doubt that. What is happening is that people are spending their money
differently.

That is far less important than the fact that they simply don't have the money
to begin with.

I have a $100/month cable/internet bill. Plus a $50 cell phone
bill. Plus the maintenance, repair, and replacement expenses for 20
different devices in my home that people didn't have 50 years ago.

Add them all up and you'll find that it still doesn't cost anywhere near as
much as flying.

We have more discretionary income than before, we just spend it on day to day
conveniences and various iterations of the idiot box (TV, Computer, Gaming,
etc.)...

No, the income is actually worth less. Adjusted for inflation, discretionary
income is disappearing.

My personal theory is that flying is no longer the source of hero worship it
once was. Is there a current Lindberg? How about an Amelia Earhart? Maybe
a John Glenn? Not really. Flying has lost the public's imagination, and
therefore the publicity.

I think that very few people indeed are motivated to fly by hero worship.
People undertake hobbies because of a fundamental interest in the hobby, for
the most part, and not become some celebrity is interested in it.

And one reason we don't have aviation heroes any more is that aviation is much
more expensive than it used to be. Also, we have commercial flights every day
that exceed just about anything that can be done in a private plane, so there
aren't many records to break any more.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Kyle Boatright writes:

I doubt that. What is happening is that people are spending their money
differently.

That is far less important than the fact that they simply don't have the money
to begin with.

I have a $100/month cable/internet bill. Plus a $50 cell phone
bill. Plus the maintenance, repair, and replacement expenses for 20
different devices in my home that people didn't have 50 years ago.

Add them all up and you'll find that it still doesn't cost anywhere near as
much as flying.

For $150 you can easily rent a C-172.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.