A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Mass Production of Aircraft



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 27th 05, 05:32 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mass Production of Aircraft

We could have inexpensive aircraft. They do not violate the laws of
physics. However it probablly does violate laws of human nature.

You must have, first, a large potential market. Consider: Wichita.

In the benighted Kingdom of Sedgwick, no one flies. The overwhelming
vast majority of aircraft plant employees do not have a pilot's
license. They would not take flying lessons if you offered it for free.
They have no desire to fly and if you as much as made the employees
ride in one or quit many would quit and flip burgers at Spangles' for
spite. (For those who don't know Spangles is a factorial-of-cheesy fast
food outfit with turkey gyros (pronounced like the spinning wheel toy
or navaid), Western Onion burgers that taste like Amway laundry soap,
and blow-molded Elvis and MM statues that light up in the center of the
dining room.) In fact many more people in the state of Kansas with
pilot's licenses reside in Johnson County, a putridly yuppified area
outside Kansas City, MO developed to evade the Pendergasts. It has no
aviation jobs to speak of and a lower overall population than Wichita.

Expand Wichita to most of the nation. In case you haven't noticed,
most people don't want to fly.

Secondly, the existing pilot base likes its exclusivity. They will do
anything if push comes to shove to keep it their little fiefdom.
Attempts to make it more accessible will be quietly thwarted from
within if they threaten to make any serious change to this status.

Thirdly, the government wants to keep most of the population grounded
as well, for obvious reasons. Control of the population, a military
monopoly on modern aviation, there are in fact a lot of reasons.

When the population doesn't want to fly, the currently flying subset
doesn't want them flying anyway, and the government perfectly happy
they don't fly either, it's no wonder venture capital is allergic to
personal aviation.

Ads
  #2  
Old May 27th 05, 06:57 AM
turbo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

We could have inexpensive aircraft. They do not violate the laws of
physics. However it probablly does violate laws of human nature.


Actually you're full of crap. Lots of people want to fly and its the cost
that keeps them away. Lots of people like to travel for fun, to see family,
or have to go for business, and the airline experience these days stinks.
Offer a new C182 that runs on diesel for $60k purchase or rents for $30/hour
and the world would beat a path to your door.


  #3  
Old May 27th 05, 12:29 PM
Kyle Boatright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"turbo" wrote in message
...
We could have inexpensive aircraft. They do not violate the laws of
physics. However it probablly does violate laws of human nature.


Actually you're full of crap. Lots of people want to fly and its the cost
that keeps them away. Lots of people like to travel for fun, to see
family,
or have to go for business, and the airline experience these days stinks.
Offer a new C182 that runs on diesel for $60k purchase or rents for
$30/hour
and the world would beat a path to your door.


The guy made a decent case. You could have disagreed politely, and I bet you
would have in a face to face...

KB


  #4  
Old May 27th 05, 02:29 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

don't feed the troll


wrote in message
ups.com...
We could have inexpensive aircraft. They do not violate the laws of
physics. However it probablly does violate laws of human nature.

You must have, first, a large potential market. Consider: Wichita.

In the benighted Kingdom of Sedgwick, no one flies. The overwhelming
vast majority of aircraft plant employees do not have a pilot's
license. They would not take flying lessons if you offered it for free.
They have no desire to fly and if you as much as made the employees
ride in one or quit many would quit and flip burgers at Spangles' for
spite. (For those who don't know Spangles is a factorial-of-cheesy fast
food outfit with turkey gyros (pronounced like the spinning wheel toy
or navaid), Western Onion burgers that taste like Amway laundry soap,
and blow-molded Elvis and MM statues that light up in the center of the
dining room.) In fact many more people in the state of Kansas with
pilot's licenses reside in Johnson County, a putridly yuppified area
outside Kansas City, MO developed to evade the Pendergasts. It has no
aviation jobs to speak of and a lower overall population than Wichita.

Expand Wichita to most of the nation. In case you haven't noticed,
most people don't want to fly.

Secondly, the existing pilot base likes its exclusivity. They will do
anything if push comes to shove to keep it their little fiefdom.
Attempts to make it more accessible will be quietly thwarted from
within if they threaten to make any serious change to this status.

Thirdly, the government wants to keep most of the population grounded
as well, for obvious reasons. Control of the population, a military
monopoly on modern aviation, there are in fact a lot of reasons.

When the population doesn't want to fly, the currently flying subset
doesn't want them flying anyway, and the government perfectly happy
they don't fly either, it's no wonder venture capital is allergic to
personal aviation.



  #5  
Old May 27th 05, 02:45 PM
JohnH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In the benighted Kingdom of Sedgwick, no one flies. The overwhelming
vast majority of aircraft plant employees do not have a pilot's
license.


Maybe it's because they know how these planes are made! ;^)


  #6  
Old May 27th 05, 02:58 PM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"turbo" wrote in message
...
We could have inexpensive aircraft. They do not violate the laws of
physics. However it probablly does violate laws of human nature.


Actually you're full of crap. Lots of people want to fly and its the cost
that keeps them away.


That and the inability to handle an aircraft. Many people can't drive worth
a ****, how well do you think they'd on on flight training?

Lots of people like to travel for fun, to see family,
or have to go for business, and the airline experience these days stinks.
Offer a new C182 that runs on diesel for $60k purchase or rents for

$30/hour
and the world would beat a path to your door.


Yeah, and if your mother was a male, she'd be your dad.

There is such a vehicle -- they're called ultralights. I don't see people
beating a path there.

Reality check time!!


  #7  
Old May 27th 05, 11:42 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This is usually their excuse, in point of fact.

I don't doubt the first year or two they'd sell several thousand a
year-but after the first thirty thousand the demand would peter out
worldwide. The number of active pilots wouldn't drastically expand.
They would be on the other side of the production curve in a few years.

The former WarPac nations make some nifty small airplanes they can
never seem to market here-apparently in Europe they are standard
category aircraft-and the demand is short of the supply even there.

There is a demand but it's small.

  #8  
Old May 27th 05, 11:44 PM
John Galban
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



JohnH wrote:
In the benighted Kingdom of Sedgwick, no one flies. The overwhelming
vast majority of aircraft plant employees do not have a pilot's
license.


Maybe it's because they know how these planes are made! ;^)


I've been to the Cessna factory in Independence, KS. I think you're
on to something there :-))

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

  #9  
Old May 28th 05, 12:03 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

That was douchebag Russ Meyer's idea. Build an aircraft plant in the
middle of nowhere, then refuse to hire locals for lack of aircraft
experience. He probably did it so he could spin off the recip line to a
gullible foreign corporation-I recall Toyota being discussed.

  #10  
Old May 28th 05, 02:05 AM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Galban" wrote in message
ups.com...


JohnH wrote:
In the benighted Kingdom of Sedgwick, no one flies. The overwhelming
vast majority of aircraft plant employees do not have a pilot's
license.


Maybe it's because they know how these planes are made! ;^)


I've been to the Cessna factory in Independence, KS. I think you're
on to something there :-))


Union shop?

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 June 2nd 04 07:17 AM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 May 1st 04 07:29 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 April 5th 04 03:04 PM
Long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids (was: #1 Jet of World War II) The Revolution Will Not Be Televised Military Aviation 20 August 27th 03 09:14 AM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 July 4th 03 04:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.