What GA needs

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:42:21 -0000, Dave J
wrote in
. com:

I will
tell you one thing that is not a solution: Cirrus aircraft and their
like. GA is in a CLASSIC death-spiral: companies are moving to their
high-end customers to maintain adequate margins. Cirrus's and others'
$450k+ aircraft are not doing a damned bit to save GA.

That sort of depends on how you define the future of GA. The FAA sees
GA as a source of air-taxi passenger movers, so that airlines can
utilize more airports. That is Cirrus' future market: air-taxi
operators.

On Sep 10, 6:52 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

That sort of depends on how you define the future of GA. The FAA sees
GA as a source of air-taxi passenger movers, so that airlines can
utilize more airports. That is Cirrus' future market: air-taxi
operators.

I had not thought about that much, but you are right. It could be the
birth of a new industry. Still, I don't know why the editors at AOPA
Pilot and Flying, etc, get so excited over Columbias and Cirri. These
are nice aircraft, but are not in the reach of most flyers now, and
definitely not in the reach of the flyers necessary to revive GA, get
the volumes up, and get a "reverse death spiral" cooking.

-- dave j

"Dave J" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 10, 6:52 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

That sort of depends on how you define the future of GA. The FAA sees
GA as a source of air-taxi passenger movers, so that airlines can
utilize more airports. That is Cirrus' future market: air-taxi
operators.

I had not thought about that much, but you are right. It could be the
birth of a new industry. Still, I don't know why the editors at AOPA
Pilot and Flying, etc, get so excited over Columbias and Cirri. These
are nice aircraft, but are not in the reach of most flyers now, and
definitely not in the reach of the flyers necessary to revive GA, get
the volumes up, and get a "reverse death spiral" cooking.

Air taxi is going (IMO) in the dorection of VLJs. The Cirrus and Columbia's
are not aimed at the entry level market, but they, too, will be within reach
of many pilots once they get a few years depreciation on them.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 04:59:28 -0000, Dave J
wrote in
. com:

Still, I don't know why the editors at AOPA
Pilot and Flying, etc, get so excited over Columbias and Cirri. These
are nice aircraft, but are not in the reach of most flyers now, and
definitely not in the reach of the flyers necessary to revive GA, get
the volumes up, and get a "reverse death spiral" cooking.

Fractional ownership might change that.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 04:59:28 -0000, Dave J
wrote in
. com:

Still, I don't know why the editors at AOPA
Pilot and Flying, etc, get so excited over Columbias and Cirri. These
are nice aircraft, but are not in the reach of most flyers now, and
definitely not in the reach of the flyers necessary to revive GA, get
the volumes up, and get a "reverse death spiral" cooking.

Fractional ownership might change that.

You say that like Fractional ownership is a new thing. It has been around
for years. We just called it partnerships and flying clubs in the past.

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...
This is a follow-on to the various discussions on the future of GA.

Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
interested in aviation?

Maybe because they are overwhelmed with things to keep them entertained,
24x7, and we live in a socity in which challenging yourself is not
encouraged.


One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly. If we could only
drive a1975 Chevy Nova or something similar, with bolted down wooden
panels and foggy instruments, I doubt many teenagers would be earger
to get their drivers license.

That might be part of it, but I'd say it was pretty much insignificant. The
newer 172s and 182s are a good foundation, and even their costs are minor
for a generation that thinks nothing of $150 sneakers, a $20000 Honda Civic
with fart mufflers, $300 a wheel rims and other trim "features".

Possibly our own Mxmaniac is more representative of the current generation
than we realize.

Maybe because they are overwhelmed with things to keep them entertained,
24x7, and we live in a socity in which challenging yourself is not
encouraged.

I think the armies of kids cramming for the SATs, busting their butts
to get precious scholarships to get them through college without a
debt, etc, are challenging themselves just fine. I don't know how old
you are, but I hazard to guess that kids today are growing up in a
more competitive environment than any time in modern history.

It's not challenge. If anything, it's risk/reward.

Oh, and by the way, you can kill yourself in an airplane, which, to my
knowledge, has not happened with an iPod. Could be wrong on that.

One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly.

That might be part of it, but I'd say it was pretty much insignificant. The
newer 172s and 182s are a good foundation, and even their costs are minor
for a generation that thinks nothing of $150 sneakers, a $20000 Honda Civic
with fart mufflers, $300 a wheel rims and other trim "features".

Wha? that $150 pair of sneakers is going to get you what, 3/4 of an
hour in a new 172? How many sneakers do you think kids today are
buying? My flying habit, at its max has been about 100 hours a year in
30-year-old 172's and Cherokees. That's been roughly $10,000/yr all
told. That's the same cost as the Honda, *gone* in two years. At least
with the Honda, you've got a car at the end of two years.

Look, I *love* aviation. I suspect you do, too. But I don't think we
can build aviation's future on people who just love airplanes. You
need to get people who, well, just "kinda like" airplanes and might
even find them useful sometimes.

Possibly our own Mxmaniac is more representative of the current generation
than we realize.

He is somewhat, and I believe I am somewhat. I don't know mxmanic's
background. I suspect he works in the computer business. I am a
computer engineer (I don't program computers, I design their chips).
I've worked hard to be skilled at my craft. In fact, I like becoming
skilled at crafts. That's a lot of the fun for me -- hence aviation!

But I struggle to find time and cash to keep this hobby up. Lately, I
have rediscovered digital photography. I can't help but notice that it
also is a skill and craft, with plenty of technical stuff to nail
down, and even at its most expensive, it's a lot cheaper than
aviation. And my wife does not worry about me getting killed taking
photos. There's an appeal to that.

-- dave j

"Dave J" wrote in message
ps.com...

Maybe because they are overwhelmed with things to keep them entertained,
24x7, and we live in a socity in which challenging yourself is not
encouraged.

I think the armies of kids cramming for the SATs, busting their butts
to get precious scholarships to get them through college without a
debt, etc, are challenging themselves just fine.

Really? How many is that? How many cramming for a test that's been dumbed
down annually for thirty years?

I don't know how old
you are

52...been there.

, but I hazard to guess that kids today are growing up in a
more competitive environment than any time in modern history.

A couple generations ago, half of kids went to college. Now everyone has to
go, even though few are really qualfiied for a college curriculum. Note,
too, how many college seniors can't pass a test that junior high kids did
not too long ago.

As for "competitive", that's the last things are faced with - every one gets
a brass ring regardless of capability or effort.


It's not challenge. If anything, it's risk/reward.

And the challenge is applying and dealing with those risk factors.


Oh, and by the way, you can kill yourself in an airplane, which, to my
knowledge, has not happened with an iPod. Could be wrong on that.

Well, you can certainly cook your brain matter.


One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly.

That might be part of it, but I'd say it was pretty much insignificant.
The
newer 172s and 182s are a good foundation, and even their costs are minor
for a generation that thinks nothing of $150 sneakers, a $20000 Honda
Civic
with fart mufflers, $300 a wheel rims and other trim "features".

Wha? that $150 pair of sneakers is going to get you what, 3/4 of an
hour in a new 172?

Around here, a two year old 172 goes for $105, wet.

How many sneakers do you think kids today are
buying?

A lot more than they did when a pair of sneakers cost $15 and a 172 went
$19/hr.

My flying habit, at its max has been about 100 hours a year in
30-year-old 172's and Cherokees. That's been roughly $10,000/yr all
told. That's the same cost as the Honda, *gone* in two years. At least
with the Honda, you've got a car at the end of two years.

You know, I _think_ you just showed the attitude that may be behind the
dearth of new students.


Look, I *love* aviation. I suspect you do, too. But I don't think we
can build aviation's future on people who just love airplanes.

Practical allpication helps. I've average 350 hours/year the past nine
years. That's because I operate my business not as a local endeavor, but
across about half a million suare miles. Couldn't do that by car, by
airline, or even by the regionals. In sum, it's gives me a hell of an
advantage over my competitors (there's that competition thing again) who
want to still in their backwater towns and wait for business to knock on
their doors. Only way it could be done is by GA airplne, but that vehilcle
has to be very capable, reliable/dependable, and FAST.

You
need to get people who, well, just "kinda like" airplanes and might
even find them useful sometimes.

As above, the USEFUL is the key; there are , as I pointed out, so many other
"hobbies" to participate in that are cheaper and, to someone NOT an airplane
lover, jsut as rewarding.

Yet, how rewarding is playing X-BOX?


Possibly our own Mxmaniac is more representative of the current
generation
than we realize.

He is somewhat, and I believe I am somewhat. I don't know mxmanic's
background. I suspect he works in the computer business. I am a
computer engineer (I don't program computers, I design their chips).
I've worked hard to be skilled at my craft. In fact, I like becoming
skilled at crafts. That's a lot of the fun for me -- hence aviation!

But I struggle to find time and cash to keep this hobby up.

You just hit on the major facet: COST. The other key word is: HOBBY.


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

Matt,

I think you make some good points about education, and it is true that
more kids go to college than ever before. But there have always been
mediocre students and good students, people with varying talent,
energy, and skill. The mediocre today are perhaps going to school and
"passing" when in the past they would have done something else, and
"failed.

BUT, among all the good and bad students, there are also many more
good students, and the number of slots at good schools is not much
greater than in the past. Competition to get into elite universities
is more intense than ever.

The reason I think that's remotely relevant is simply because the
people who are going to learn to fly are, well, the above averages,
and they really do have more pressure on their time than in the past.


My flying habit, at its max has been about 100 hours a year in
30-year-old 172's and Cherokees. That's been roughly $10,000/yr all
told. That's the same cost as the Honda, *gone* in two years. At least
with the Honda, you've got a car at the end of two years.

You know, I _think_ you just showed the attitude that may be behind the
dearth of new students.

I am not sure I follow what you mean. That people are more acquisitive
than they used to be? More into "stuff" and less into "experiences?"


You just hit on the major facet: COST. The other key word is: HOBBY.

We're in violent agreement.

-- dave j

"Dave J" wrote in message
ups.com...

Matt,

I think you make some good points about education, and it is true that
more kids go to college than ever before. But there have always been
mediocre students and good students, people with varying talent,
energy, and skill. The mediocre today are perhaps going to school and
"passing" when in the past they would have done something else, and
"failed.

BUT, among all the good and bad students, there are also many more
good students, and the number of slots at good schools is not much
greater than in the past.

I don't how to qualify "good students", but I notice man college people,
even at Ivy League schools, are woefully lacking on any number of subjects.

Competition to get into elite universities
is more intense than ever.

Yet they keep lowering their standards. The VERY elite schools have not
caved in, but we're talking about no more than the top couple percent.

Read some of the tests and surveys and it's shocking and embarrassing how
dumbed down our schools have become over the past 20-30 years. I'm talking
colleges and universities; the elementary and high schools are even worse.