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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The frustrating economics of aviation
Okay, we have gone 'round and 'round about why new airplanes cost so much:
low demand, liability, inefficient manufacturing, regulatory requirements, etc. It is so daunting that Toyota appears to have scrapped its GA project. Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a pilot. It takes most people about a year and $7,000 to learn to fly. Can you imagine what would happen to the boating industry if the government imposed similar regulatory requirements to learn to drive a boat? Most of getting a seaplane license, for example, is really demonstrating boating skills. You are basically being required to get a very costly license in order to drive a kind of boat. What if everyone who drives a boat had to do that? Would boating be safer? Would it be worth it? Would boating practically die out as aviation has? -- Christopher J. Campbell World Famous Flight Instructor Port Orchard, WA If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ... Okay, we have gone 'round and 'round about why new airplanes cost so much: low demand, liability, inefficient manufacturing, regulatory requirements, etc. It is so daunting that Toyota appears to have scrapped its GA project. Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a pilot. It takes most people about a year and $7,000 to learn to fly. Can you imagine what would happen to the boating industry if the government imposed similar regulatory requirements to learn to drive a boat? Most of getting a seaplane license, for example, is really demonstrating boating skills. You are basically being required to get a very costly license in order to drive a kind of boat. What if everyone who drives a boat had to do that? Would boating be safer? Would it be worth it? Would boating practically die out as aviation has? -- Christopher J. Campbell World Famous Flight Instructor Port Orchard, WA If one tries to establish a reason for the high cost of general aviation in the United States, at any level you view, one has to factor in the presence of the American trial lawyer into the cost equation. Without lawyers influencing the cost factors, the price of the airplanes, all peripherals, and even the cost of the training would be much more reasonable. At ALL levels, you will find cost factoring to either cover the cost of litigation, or the FEAR of potential litigation. Like every other major business the American lawyer has touched, general aviation has not been spared the unending quest of the American trial lawyer to fill his pockets with our money by capitalizing on our natural desire to get rich quick. It's a perfect system. Greedy and savvy lawyers taking advantage at every turn of ignorant people also seeking a fast buck. The perfect marriage!!! The only losers in this equation are the people. The lawyers NEVER lose!! after all.......they designed the system!!!!!:-) Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired For personal email, please replace the z's with e's. dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
k.net... If one tries to establish a reason for the high cost of general aviation in the United States, at any level you view, one has to factor in the presence of the American trial lawyer into the cost equation. Without lawyers influencing the cost factors, the price of the airplanes, all peripherals, and even the cost of the training would be much more reasonable. At ALL levels, you will find cost factoring to either cover the cost of litigation, or the FEAR of potential litigation. Like every other major business the American lawyer has touched, general aviation has not been spared the unending quest of the American trial lawyer to fill his pockets with our money by capitalizing on our natural desire to get rich quick. It's a perfect system. Greedy and savvy lawyers taking advantage at every turn of ignorant people also seeking a fast buck. The perfect marriage!!! The only losers in this equation are the people. The lawyers NEVER lose!! after all.......they designed the system!!!!!:-) Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired For personal email, please replace the z's with e's. dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt AMEN! Jay Beckman Student Pilot - KCHD |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I'm afraid you're wrong. The costs of obtaining a pilots license is due
to outrageous insurance requirements due to RIDICULOUS and incessant endless litigation by ambulance chasers and greedy individuals. These costs are passed along in the form of higher costs for everything and of course, the little guy ends up paying it. The actual requirements to obtain a pilots license are, in reality, fairly minimal. Look how easy it is to get a drivers license and then look at how many people are killed in automobiles every day. You don't hear about it on the news because it Isn't news... dozens die every day across the country in motor vehicles. Flying is safer (per passenger mile) than traveling in cars, trains and yes, even boats. The reason it has that record is in part because the requirement are more stringent. You need to focus your energy on tort reform... then you'll have more money in your pocket so you could afford flying lessons. Litigation causes us to pay higher prices for everything, not just aviation. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Dudley Henriques ) wrote:
: : The lawyers NEVER lose!! after all.......they designed the system!!!!!:-) : Even lawyers can be offshored... http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...how/426946.cms Now, outsourcing to hit US lawyers - The Economic Times "After tech jobs and financial jobs , it is now the turn of US legal jobs to move to India. West, the Eagan-based legal-publishing unit of Canada's Thomson Corp., has started a small test office in Mumbai. Here, half-a-dozen Indian lawyers are doing online interpretation and legal-classification of "unpublished decisions" of US state and lower courts, the Star Tribune has reported. ( Can US legal eagles derail the Indian BPO train? ) Their work is currently not considered big deals -- or "precedential" in legal parlance. However, one day, these lawyers could be interpreting and synthesising US court decisions for subscribers of Westlaw, the online legal network relied upon by thousands of US attorneys. [snip] The American Lawyer had reported recently that General Electric and other US firms are starting to use Indian lawyers to supplant some of the work formerly done by US law firms. Forrester Research, the market research firm, predicts that by 2015 more than 489,000 US lawyer jobs -- about 8 per cent of the total, will shift to lower-cost countries." http://www.atlaslegal.com/atlasBusineemode.html Atlas legal Research "Where do you go to find some of the world's best lawyers to write top-quality legal briefs and memos for about the price of a discount airline ticket? Answer: We go to INDIA! In 2001, Atlas established its first research center located in the heart of India, the world's largest democracy and home to one of the world's largest pools of intelligent, hard-working, English-proficient lawyers. Simultaneously, Atlas maintains a presence in the US to oversee quality and to ensure the finest service to our clients. Here's why Atlas chose India for its first research center:..." Would you like fries with your will ? --Jerry Leslie Note: is invalid for email |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message ... in article , kontiki at wrote on 7/17/04 10:29 AM: You need to focus your energy on tort reform... then you'll have more money in your pocket so you could afford flying lessons. Litigation causes us to pay higher prices for everything, not just aviation. The problem with any discussion of tort reform or "frivolous" lawsuits is that nobody is ever willing to get into specifics. No one's willing to define what "frivolous" actually means (aside, of course, from the fact that it's never THEIR lawsuit) , or what percentage of lawsuits they consider to be so. Well, how about it? Anyone willing to submit some actual hard data? Let's get specific for once--what percentage of lawsuits are "frivolous"? And what are your precise criteria for determining their frivolity? Remember, no anecdotes allowed--I don't wanna hear about the McDonald's coffee lady. Let's see some numbers. Forcing people to produce specifics that they have no access to isn't the way to deal with this issue. The fact is that a definition of "frivolous" can't actually be determined since it's subject to individual interpretation. Who's to say what is frivolous and what's not? That's the beauty of the lawyer's position; a position BTW that you have presented so deftly here I might add :-) Besides....I LOVE anecdotes.....and forget about the coffee lady. Hell, that's only ONE example of the way the system works:-) Rather than searching for a non existent legal definition for "frivolous" as you are suggesting, let me put forth for you a slightly different approach. Ten people are lined up in front of a man with a machine gun. The man starts at one end of the line, faces the first person and asks, "Do you like bananas?" "No", says number one. The man with the gun promptly cuts the first guy in half in a rain of bullets. His bloody body or what's left of it crumples to the ground in a pool of blood and gore. Now the man with the machine gun stands in front of number 2. He asks, "How bout it....do YOU like bananas? "No", says number two. The man with the gun promptly cuts HIM in half in a rain of bullets. His head separates from his body; the eyes are completely shot out; and the upper cervical gleams snow white in the sun as what's left of number two crumples to the ground stone cold dead. You are number three and next in line. The man stands in front of YOU and asks, "Tell me there number three, what do YOU think about bananas?" Now tell me the God's honest truth here ole'buddy, just WHAT the living hell are YOU going to tell this guy about bananas???? :-))))) This scenario is more than sufficient for anyone with average intelligence to understand all the "specifics about frivolous lawsuits" they'll EVER need to understand in one life time!!! :-))) Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired For personal email, please replace the z's with e's. dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message ... in article , Dudley Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 11:35 AM: "Philip Sondericker" wrote in message ... The problem with any discussion of tort reform or "frivolous" lawsuits is that nobody is ever willing to get into specifics. No one's willing to define what "frivolous" actually means (aside, of course, from the fact that it's never THEIR lawsuit) , or what percentage of lawsuits they consider to be so. Well, how about it? Anyone willing to submit some actual hard data? Let's get specific for once--what percentage of lawsuits are "frivolous"? And what are your precise criteria for determining their frivolity? Remember, no anecdotes allowed--I don't wanna hear about the McDonald's coffee lady. Let's see some numbers. Forcing people to produce specifics that they have no access to isn't the way to deal with this issue. The fact is that a definition of "frivolous" can't actually be determined since it's subject to individual interpretation. Who's to say what is frivolous and what's not? That's the beauty of the lawyer's position; a position BTW that you have presented so deftly here I might add :-) Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful tort reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer, then what is? Being vague? I hardly think that recognizing a problem exists without forcing the general public into a scientifically provable analysis that they can't hope to produce is being vague. I don't need the world to fall on me to know that lawyers are a problem in the United States. I only need my two eyes, two ears, and my natural intelligence as that applies to deductive reasoning. :-) It's a flawed premise I think to demand that a problem doesn't exist just because individuals without access can't produce these "facts". It's also flawed to demand that people know how to fix the problem they know exists. But recognizing that a problem exists is the first step in fixing it. Hell, I have no idea how to determine the extent of frivolous lawsuits and their damage to the country's business environment, but I know it has, and does cause damage...tremendous damage. I only have to talk to the many friends I have in business to determine this. This isn't vague. It's rock solid evidence. Example; we have a close friend, a neuro surgeon. He's actually leaving our state and moving to another because he literally can't afford his malpractice insurance. He's an excellent doctor. On the other hand, we have in our state a malpractice attorney who owns not one, but multiple airplanes, and employs an army of people simply to maintain them for his flying "pleasure". He lives in one of the most expensive areas in our state. He's worth millions...and he is just ONE lawyer engaged in malpractice law. Now you tell me, do you REALLY think there's enough legitimate malpractice in my area to support this lawyer's lifestyle....and the bevy of other lawyers who are engaged in this "practice"? I don't know about you, but I don't need a house to fall on me to understand that medical malpractice lawsuits are a HUGE contributor to my medical costs as passed on to me by my insurer, and I don't believe for one instant that there is enough actual malpractice going on to justify these lawyers getting so rich on it. It all boils down to the basics as I see it. The smart lawyers create the system so they can use the system to get rich. The system relies on stupid people sharing in the lawyers greed. The lawyers then use the stupid people to fill their pockets. The remaining demographic for the people is then split up into sections; the people whom the lawyers have used, and the people the lawyers haven't used. The problem is that the people who have been used by the lawyers have gained to their added wealth at the expense of the people who don't get used by the lawyers. The lawyers could care less!!! There are always enough of the greedy people to be used for the lawyers purposes. It's a perfect system for the lawyers........until the day they bleed the system dry.....just as they have bled it dry for our doctor friend who is moving on. I have no doubt that General Aviation will follow our doctor friend someday, unless something is done to take the lawyers out of the GA cost equation....and I'm not betting too highly on that one.......are YOU?? :-) Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired For personal email, please replace the z's with e's. dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I believe that in Canada if you file suit and lose, you pay the costs. I
like it! Dudley Henriques wrote: "Philip Sondericker" wrote in message ... in article , Dudley Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 11:35 AM: "Philip Sondericker" wrote in message .. . The problem with any discussion of tort reform or "frivolous" lawsuits is that nobody is ever willing to get into specifics. No one's willing to define what "frivolous" actually means (aside, of course, from the fact that it's never THEIR lawsuit) , or what percentage of lawsuits they consider to be so. Well, how about it? Anyone willing to submit some actual hard data? Let's get specific for once--what percentage of lawsuits are "frivolous"? And what are your precise criteria for determining their frivolity? Remember, no anecdotes allowed--I don't wanna hear about the McDonald's coffee lady. Let's see some numbers. Forcing people to produce specifics that they have no access to isn't the way to deal with this issue. The fact is that a definition of "frivolous" can't actually be determined since it's subject to individual interpretation. Who's to say what is frivolous and what's not? That's the beauty of the lawyer's position; a position BTW that you have presented so deftly here I might add :-) Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful tort reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer, then what is? Being vague? I hardly think that recognizing a problem exists without forcing the general public into a scientifically provable analysis that they can't hope to produce is being vague. I don't need the world to fall on me to know that lawyers are a problem in the United States. I only need my two eyes, two ears, and my natural intelligence as that applies to deductive reasoning. :-) It's a flawed premise I think to demand that a problem doesn't exist just because individuals without access can't produce these "facts". It's also flawed to demand that people know how to fix the problem they know exists. But recognizing that a problem exists is the first step in fixing it. Hell, I have no idea how to determine the extent of frivolous lawsuits and their damage to the country's business environment, but I know it has, and does cause damage...tremendous damage. I only have to talk to the many friends I have in business to determine this. This isn't vague. It's rock solid evidence. Example; we have a close friend, a neuro surgeon. He's actually leaving our state and moving to another because he literally can't afford his malpractice insurance. He's an excellent doctor. On the other hand, we have in our state a malpractice attorney who owns not one, but multiple airplanes, and employs an army of people simply to maintain them for his flying "pleasure". He lives in one of the most expensive areas in our state. He's worth millions...and he is just ONE lawyer engaged in malpractice law. Now you tell me, do you REALLY think there's enough legitimate malpractice in my area to support this lawyer's lifestyle....and the bevy of other lawyers who are engaged in this "practice"? I don't know about you, but I don't need a house to fall on me to understand that medical malpractice lawsuits are a HUGE contributor to my medical costs as passed on to me by my insurer, and I don't believe for one instant that there is enough actual malpractice going on to justify these lawyers getting so rich on it. It all boils down to the basics as I see it. The smart lawyers create the system so they can use the system to get rich. The system relies on stupid people sharing in the lawyers greed. The lawyers then use the stupid people to fill their pockets. The remaining demographic for the people is then split up into sections; the people whom the lawyers have used, and the people the lawyers haven't used. The problem is that the people who have been used by the lawyers have gained to their added wealth at the expense of the people who don't get used by the lawyers. The lawyers could care less!!! There are always enough of the greedy people to be used for the lawyers purposes. It's a perfect system for the lawyers........until the day they bleed the system dry.....just as they have bled it dry for our doctor friend who is moving on. I have no doubt that General Aviation will follow our doctor friend someday, unless something is done to take the lawyers out of the GA cost equation....and I'm not betting too highly on that one.......are YOU?? :-) Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired For personal email, please replace the z's with e's. dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What's Wrong with Economics and how can it be Fixed | What's Wrong with Economics and how can it be Fixe | Naval Aviation | 5 | August 21st 04 12:50 AM |
What's Wrong with Economics and how can it be Fixed | What's Wrong with Economics and how can it be Fixe | Military Aviation | 3 | August 21st 04 12:40 AM |
Associate Publisher Wanted - Aviation & Business Journals | Mergatroide | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | January 13th 04 08:26 PM |
Associate Publisher Wanted - Aviation & Business Journals | Mergatroide | General Aviation | 1 | January 13th 04 08:26 PM |
MSNBC Reporting on GA Security Threat | Scott Schluer | Piloting | 44 | November 23rd 03 02:50 AM |