NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

The US health care system is indeed very bad especially in terms of
cost. Its ironic that a major reason for this is the absence of a free
market in the medical sector.

Actually, I think the source is from elsewhere. Medical insurance in
its various guises removes the connection between the buyer and the
seller. It was first offered as a perq, in lieu of salary, by big
corporations who could get a bargain on it (that is, they could offer it
more cheaply than individuals could get it themselves, thus it was an
attractive perq). This spread too far, and took over the medical system.

I hear this is happening to law now too.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

writes:

The US health care system is indeed very bad especially in terms of
cost. Its ironic that a major reason for this is the absence of a free
market in the medical sector. The American Medical Association
undermines the free market with a death grip on who gets to practice
medicine in the country and that grip is so strong that even the
celebrated Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman (a major
critic of the AMA) could do nothing to loosen it.

That's part of the problem, but the greatest part of medical costs comes from
institutional providers, i.e., hospitals, and not practitioners. Hospitals
are faceless, for-profit organizations that care only about how much money
they make, and some of them will literally throw cripples out onto the
sidewalk if they cannot pay.

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

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Yep, our health care system is so bad that it is where those from countries
with socialized healthcare systems who have the money and a real problem
flock to.

Which countries would those be?

What is actually happen is sometimes the opposite: People from the United
States are going to other countries to receive good quality health care at
prices they can afford. Part of this is "medical tourism" to places in India
and elsewhere that cater to foreigners and provide top-quality care at very
reasonable prices, and part of it is to places with socialized medicine that
provide good care at good prices.

I found out a few years ago that it's cheaper to fly to Paris and get a
gall-bladder operation at the American Hospital and then fly back to the U.S.
than it is to get the same operation in the U.S. to begin with, and the
quality of care is the same. People at the hospital confirmed to me that
there are patients doing this, as I recall, meaning that they get a Paris
vacation and equivalent medical care at a lower price than they would pay if
they went to their friendly local hospital back home.

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

Larry Dighera writes:

Could it be that Americans are working longer hours?

That is certainly part of it. Americans work a lot harder than they used to,
and they are making less money in return (in constant dollars). The number of
people who just scrape by is much greater than it was 40 years ago, especially
in the withering middle class.

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

Absolutely.

Forty years ago there was an affluent and very large middle class in the
United States that had the money and time for things like flying in many
cases. Today that class is vanishing.

The much smaller class of people who can afford to fly today may still be
discouraged by the tremendous barriers to entry into the hobby, as compared to
other hobbies. It is ridiculously difficult to become a private pilot, and
unless one is among the very tiny minority of people who are truly obsessed
with flying, there are many other hobbies that provide similar levels of
satisfaction for far less money and with far less hassle and red tape.

And although some will flame me for this, simulation still enters into the
picture. I note that the number of people interested in online simulation of
flight is greater in Europe than in the United States, and I think the main
reason for that is simply that it's even more difficult to become a private
pilot outside the USA than it is inside the USA. The more difficult it is,
the more likely people are to settle for simulation to satisfy an interest in
aviation, just as the cost and hassle of Formula 1 racing or the sheer
unlikelihood of being drafted onto a football team leads many people to
simulation.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Why don't you find a way to simulate a news group and quit whining to us.
You wouldn't fly if you had the money, and you would have the money if you
put as much effort in to earning a living as you so trying to convince the
WORLD that simulation compares to actual aviation.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 03:31:10 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote in :

people who can afford to fly today may still be
discouraged by the tremendous barriers to entry into the hobby, as compared to
other hobbies. It is ridiculously difficult to become a private pilot, and
unless one is among the very tiny minority of people who are truly obsessed
with flying, there are many other hobbies that provide similar levels of
satisfaction for far less money and with far less hassle and red tape.

That is as it should be, in my humble opinion. Folks who consider
aviation a hobby belong on the ground.

Larry Dighera writes:

That is as it should be, in my humble opinion. Folks who consider
aviation a hobby belong on the ground.

You may find that aviation will no longer be possible at all in the future
with an attitude like that.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

Larry Dighera writes:


That is as it should be, in my humble opinion. Folks who consider
aviation a hobby belong on the ground.


You may find that aviation will no longer be possible at all in the future
with an attitude like that.

Well, in essence, that is the way it is in European countries.
Flying is basically not possible for an average person due to the
high costs.

The two biggest impediments are due to government... high taxes
on fuel and various user fees and lots of government regulation.

Anytime you want to destroy a particular human endeavor all you
have to do is get government involved.... education comes to mind.
But I digress.

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.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 23:11:26 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
wrote in
:

[Detailed financial and hours-worked historical analysis refuting the
notion of the more recent increase in working hours and lower salaries
as a possible cause of the decline in aviation entrants snipped]

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?

There is no question that fear plays a role in flying whether it's
airline or personal, with the latter provoking a response several
orders of magnitude greater than the latter. However, I doubt that
there are studies that show an _increase_ in cowardice in GenX. I
sure hope it's not true. Did you find any supporting information for
that notion that you can cite?