The Airport Fence

Perhaps it's just a reflection of a more general distribution of wealth.
Those who can easily afford to fly may be the wealthy urbanites with good
professional jobs, whereas rural populations may have lower average incomes
and thus might not be able to easily afford flying.

This is certainly my theory and impression, but I have only my
observations to support it, no real data.

As to why aircraft sit and rust, I'm not sure. Maybe people get over the
"honeymoon" period of being new pilots and then lose interest. Or maybe the
expense makes it impossible for them to keep up with flying, and they
gradually forget about it.

You underestimate the fundamental and visceral pull of aviation to
most pilots. It goes far beyond the rational.

My counterpoint would be, for those cashing out the only logical
solution would be to sell the aircraft, even for scrap. I cannot
imagine many people "forget" the 30-120 dollars a month they pay for
ramp space. There is absolutely no economic value to an aircraft
rotting on a tarmac, if they have merely 'lost interest', then
obviously they should get whatever capital they could back out of
their investment, or at least temper their loss.

Instead, when I see an aircraft rotting on a flightline, what I see is
hope. Someone who can no longer afford to fly, but hopes against all
rationality that "some-day" their circumstances will improve and they
can return to the air.

Thus, to me, aircraft sitting on a flight line are indicative of the
financial state of the local flying population, rather than a
testament to their collective interest in aviation. If they lost
interest, they planes wouldn't be on the flight line any further. The
fact that they're still there indicates that the interest remains, but
the ability has faltered.

Are these rusting aircraft just at the rural airports, or are they at other
airports? Maybe it's just cheaper to let an aircraft sit at a rural airport,
whereas it might be expensive at a larger GA airport where you have to pay a
lot for a place to park whether you regularly fly or not.

This is certainly a fair point. I know there are a great deal more
derelicts sitting on the HWD flight line than there are on the SQL
flight line, 60 and 115/month tiedown fees respectively. (The
airports are otherwise a mere 5nm from each other, although SQL sits
in a far more affluent part of the region). In either case, we're
talking a tiny fraction of the total aircraft on field, no where near
the levels you'll find at some of the region's rural airports.

I'm sure its some combination of the two.

Somehow I find the image of a little plane sitting in the weeds and rusting
away to be very sad. Ready and willing to fly, but nobody wants to take it
out for a spin.

Either neglect or naive hope in the face of simple financial reality,
it is a tremendously sad thing to witness, I agree.

I see the same thing, but reach a different conclusion. I see the same
rotting airplanes, but see it as the airport not offering anything to
transients, so the only people there are the locals. If I were a transient,
I'd avoid the small town airports as much as possible, if for no other
reason than to make sure I could get fuel.

Ironically, the airports where I find the most derelicts are the same
airports that generally offer the cheapest gas. If the pumps are
working that is

But I certainly see your point.

The something for nothing part comes from buying land at price X, and then
expecting to turn around and sell it at price X+Y. The Y is something for
nothing.

No comment..... It's just too easy.

Unless there is a specific, GDP related economic justification for Y
beyond a simple "Its what someone is willing to pay for it", Anthony
is correct.

The Visitor wrote:
, "That would be great as the little kid has been there for an hour and hasn't seen much action".
John
Excellent post.
I was that little kid too. Never had the offer of an "upclose" but didn't
matter to me at the time.
Now I still might occasionally park in the FBO lot fence eating my lunchtime
sammich when I'm on the road.
Alongside the other kids with their fingers in the fence.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200708/1

Nomen Nescio wrote in
:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Mxsmanic

I've yet to see land for free, which would be required in order to
get something for nothing.

The something for nothing part comes from buying land at price X, and
then expecting to turn around and sell it at price X+Y. The Y is
something for nothing.

I see you know nothing about "investing" either.



Which would explain why he went bankrupt.


Bertie

Nomen Nescio writes:

I see you know nothing about "investing" either.
The "Y" is a profit for the assumption of risk.

What risk? That the land will slide into the sea?

Wrong again.
Buying at lows and selling at highs moderates a market.

Buying and selling pieces of paper without any intrinsic value is nothing but
a game of chance.

I trade stocks and options for a living so I kinda know the stock market.

And you have a vested interest in pretending that it's not gambling.

I've made money every single month for the past 15 years with ONE
EXCEPTION...........September, 2001.

You can only make money over the long term with the stock market if the
economy in general is expanding, and even then, it's not a sure thing, because
the stock market has no fixed connection to anything else.

Actually, people who believe that are heading for some very unpleasant
experiences. I think that most people would rather be me than you.

You mean lucky rather than unlucky? I don't doubt that.

Some of that "worthless paper" is currently paying me a monthly dividend
that annualizes to over 20%. Oh, and it's appreciated 25% over the past
6 months.

Tomorrow it might pay nothing. You really don't know.

Most of the "upper class" went to college and own a home.

True of much of the middle class, also.

Your perspective comes from the bottom of the ladder. Everything looks
to be a LONG way up from where you are.

I've been at both ends of the ladder.

EridanMan writes:

You underestimate the fundamental and visceral pull of aviation to
most pilots. It goes far beyond the rational.

I'm sure that pull exists for some pilots ... but presumably they are not the
ones allowing their aircraft to rust on the field.

My counterpoint would be, for those cashing out the only logical
solution would be to sell the aircraft, even for scrap. I cannot
imagine many people "forget" the 30-120 dollars a month they pay for
ramp space. There is absolutely no economic value to an aircraft
rotting on a tarmac, if they have merely 'lost interest', then
obviously they should get whatever capital they could back out of
their investment, or at least temper their loss.

Perhaps the rental is a psychological crutch, allowing them to believe that
someday they'll fly again, when in fact they probably never will. Selling or
giving up the space would be an admission that they really aren't going to fly
again.

Instead, when I see an aircraft rotting on a flightline, what I see is
hope. Someone who can no longer afford to fly, but hopes against all
rationality that "some-day" their circumstances will improve and they
can return to the air.

Probably true in some cases. In other cases, it might be an unwillingness to
admit that the initial thrill of aviation is gone.

Thus, to me, aircraft sitting on a flight line are indicative of the
financial state of the local flying population, rather than a
testament to their collective interest in aviation. If they lost
interest, they planes wouldn't be on the flight line any further. The
fact that they're still there indicates that the interest remains, but
the ability has faltered.

No doubt for some it's a question of having enougn money to pay for the
parking spot, but not enough to actually fly. But it seems that would be a
slender slice of the total population.

Either neglect or naive hope in the face of simple financial reality,
it is a tremendously sad thing to witness, I agree.

I sometimes attach personalities to objects--rather like the island of
unwanted toys. I suppose it can be rationalized as the reflection of the
people who built the aircraft, in the hope that someone would fly it.

Nomen Nescio writes:

It's becoming quite obvious why you're broke.

You haven't answered my question: What risk?

Why do you think there is no "intrinsic value"?

Because you cannot do anything with a piece of paper. All you can do is sell
it, and you can only do that if someone is willing to buy it.

In contrast, you can use land to grow food, to support a home, and so on.

Dealing in things with no intrinsic value is inherently risky. It is nearly
as risky to speculate on the potential market value of things that do have
intrinsic value, beyond that intrinsic value. History has shown the truth of
this again and again, but there are always people who will not or cannot
learn.

Not at all. I advise people against doing what I do quite often. If someone
thinks it's "gambling", they will lose money.

If someone thinks it's safe investment, he may still lose money ... because
it's actually gambling.

The truth is.....It's hard work.

So is handicapping horses at the track. But it's still gambling.

If you think I'm throwing darts at the Wall Street Journal, you don't know
any more about successful investing than you do flying.

You don't have to throw darts. Roulette wheels are no less random when you
pick a number than they are when you don't.

Wrong again. It's connected to EVERYTHING else.

No, it's connected to nothing at all. It's a big psychological game. Nothing
tangible supports it. That's the danger in it, as multiple stock market
crashes have shown.

Most people, like you, can't see the connections.

People like me do not imagine connections that don't exist. The intrinsic
value of stock you hold is no greater than the recycling value of the paper on
which it is printed. All the rest is speculation, and risk.

If you need "luck", you won't have any.
But, yea, the harder I work....the luckier I get.

If you've been lucky so far, you might delude yourself into thinking that it's
not luck.

Actually, I do.

Would you bet your family's lives on it?

At best, you've been a couple of steps higher than you are now.

Many steps higher, actually.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Nomen Nescio writes:

I see you know nothing about "investing" either.
The "Y" is a profit for the assumption of risk.

What risk? That the land will slide into the sea?

Wrong again.
Buying at lows and selling at highs moderates a market.

Buying and selling pieces of paper without any intrinsic value is
nothing but a game of chance.

I trade stocks and options for a living so I kinda know the stock
market.

And you have a vested interest in pretending that it's not gambling.

I've made money every single month for the past 15 years with ONE
EXCEPTION...........September, 2001.

You can only make money over the long term with the stock market if
the economy in general is expanding, and even then, it's not a sure
thing, because the stock market has no fixed connection to anything
else.

Actually, people who believe that are heading for some very
unpleasant experiences. I think that most people would rather be me
than you.

You mean lucky rather than unlucky? I don't doubt that.

Some of that "worthless paper" is currently paying me a monthly
dividend that annualizes to over 20%. Oh, and it's appreciated 25%
over the past 6 months.

Tomorrow it might pay nothing. You really don't know.

Most of the "upper class" went to college and own a home.

True of much of the middle class, also.

Your perspective comes from the bottom of the ladder. Everything
looks to be a LONG way up from where you are.

I've been at both ends of the ladder.


Yes, but when you were at the top it was only when you wereon your way
to the bottom.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Nomen Nescio writes:

It's becoming quite obvious why you're broke.

You haven't answered my question: What risk?

Why do you think there is no "intrinsic value"?

Because you cannot do anything with a piece of paper. All you can do
is sell it, and you can only do that if someone is willing to buy it.

In contrast, you can use land to grow food, to support a home, and so
on.

Dealing in things with no intrinsic value is inherently risky. It is
nearly as risky to speculate on the potential market value of things
that do have intrinsic value, beyond that intrinsic value. History
has shown the truth of this again and again, but there are always
people who will not or cannot learn.

Not at all. I advise people against doing what I do quite often. If
someone thinks it's "gambling", they will lose money.

If someone thinks it's safe investment, he may still lose money ...
because it's actually gambling.

The truth is.....It's hard work.

So is handicapping horses at the track. But it's still gambling.

If you think I'm throwing darts at the Wall Street Journal, you don't
know any more about successful investing than you do flying.

You don't have to throw darts. Roulette wheels are no less random
when you pick a number than they are when you don't.

Wrong again. It's connected to EVERYTHING else.

No, it's connected to nothing at all. It's a big psychological game.
Nothing tangible supports it. That's the danger in it, as multiple
stock market crashes have shown.

Most people, like you, can't see the connections.

People like me do not imagine connections that don't exist. The
intrinsic value of stock you hold is no greater than the recycling
value of the paper on which it is printed. All the rest is
speculation, and risk.

If you need "luck", you won't have any.
But, yea, the harder I work....the luckier I get.

If you've been lucky so far, you might delude yourself into thinking
that it's not luck.

it's not,



Actually, I do.

Would you bet your family's lives on it?

At best, you've been a couple of steps higher than you are now.

Many steps higher, actually.

And now you're at the bottom, where you belng, bankruptcy boi


bertie