AOPA Mag This Month

That seems to happen quite regularly with AOPA and with Flying. I have
always thought that people were just getting their magazines well in advance
of me. It kind of ruins the magazines for me. By the time I read them, I
have already seen a much more animated discussion here. On the other hand,
AvWeb always seems to lead the discussions here so I presume people are
asking follow up questions - even though they are very rarely stated as
such.

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
It's interesting to see AOPA doing a piece on "Flying in Europe", so
soon after our long thread on the same topic. Many of their
conclusions were the same as ours.

Also, strangely enough, there's another article this month on "Flying
GA to Memphis", in order to visit Beale Street and all the great blues
bands. Why, I think AOPA is copying our every word!

We're apparently on the cutting edge in this group, boys and girls,
and AOPA Pilot is tracking our collective stream of consciousness.
Watch next month for an article on "Tower-Induced Go-'rounds"!

:-)
---
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Borat wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
It's interesting to see AOPA doing a piece on "Flying in Europe", so
soon after our long thread on the same topic. Many of their
conclusions were the same as ours.

Also, strangely enough, there's another article this month on "Flying
GA to Memphis", in order to visit Beale Street and all the great blues
bands. Why, I think AOPA is copying our every word!

Knowing some of the "Europeans" they interviewed they have exaggerated a
great deal but they have given AOPA what they want to help their campaign
and good luck to them. You can fool some of the people all of the time. Some
of the quotes were pathetic, especially the one on landings. The truth is if
you want to fly you will, and if the costs go up you sacrifice something
that is less important to stay flying.

What parts of the article are exaggerated or incorrect?

Matt

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
It's interesting to see AOPA doing a piece on "Flying in Europe", so
soon after our long thread on the same topic. Many of their
conclusions were the same as ours.

Also, strangely enough, there's another article this month on "Flying
GA to Memphis", in order to visit Beale Street and all the great blues
bands. Why, I think AOPA is copying our every word!

I wonder if they'll do one for flying to Waxahachie, Texas for Country
Thunder? :~o

if
you want to fly you will, and if the costs go up you sacrifice something
that is less important to stay flying.

That is only possible to a point. Then, the middle class drops out.

Nowhere for example in respect of the UK did they mention that all the
airports, Heathrow included are privately owned have shareholders and run
for a profit.

Just curious: Why, in a country far more socialist-leaning than the
U.S,, do you think the airports developed into non-municipal
entities?

Is all mass-transit privately owned in the UK? If not, why are
airports?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 2007-04-04, Jay Honeck wrote:
Is all mass-transit privately owned in the UK? If not, why are
airports?

Almost all of it is privately owned, yes. All the inter city railway
companies are privately owned (a name you may recognise is Virgin, since
they also run an airline). Virtually all the city bus companies are
privately owned, and all of the inter city bus companies are privately
owned.

A picture of a privately run train:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Trains

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Just curious: Why, in a country far more socialist-leaning than the
U.S,, do you think the airports developed into non-municipal
entities?

I know! I know!
Because the socialized systems didn't work and the government entities
were so far into the red and inept, they accepted buyouts to appease the
public outcry.

Unlike the US-style of outsourcing, of giving up the goods to profiteers
who charge high prices, reduce service, and pay the chief executives
high salaries and benefits.

The backlash to the outsourcing of government functions is about to come
to a head. The US people are going to punish the politicians as soon as
they learn that the US military is so cripled that it cannot operate
without independently of private contractors. The first reports of
contractors abandoning their dead employees in the Middle East are
starting to make it into the mainstream press.

I am not normally one to rant about the government, but when the
military cannot feed itself in the field, things have gone to far. The
aborted no-bid tanker leasing program with Boeing is another example of
how bad things have gotten. The corruption of the US government is
depressing. An not one candidate for state or federal office has what it
takes to put a stop to it.

Rant off.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
if
you want to fly you will, and if the costs go up you sacrifice something
that is less important to stay flying.

That is only possible to a point. Then, the middle class drops out.

Nowhere for example in respect of the UK did they mention that all the
airports, Heathrow included are privately owned have shareholders and run
for a profit.

Just curious: Why, in a country far more socialist-leaning than the
U.S,, do you think the airports developed into non-municipal
entities?

Is all mass-transit privately owned in the UK? If not, why are
airports?

with the exception of the London Underground most is privately owned.The
railways are owned by a variety of companies including Virgin, Stagecoach
(who own a lot of the US school bus operators and have just bought out
Greyhound)

all the bus companies are also privately operated too as are the airlines.

One motorway (interstate) is also privately owned and has a government
franchise for the next 50 years and charges a toll.

I suspect that this notion of socialist leaning depends on your viewpoint.
My view would be that GA in the US is a real socialist leaning enterprise
with public ownership and federal subsidy at the level it is.

I am not aware of any UK aviation related activity which receives public
money as a subsidy (other than the Air Force) except perhaps in the far
reaches of the Scottish Isles.

As to why airports developed into non municipal entities - well many
municipalities ran their airports as full commercial ventures anyway and
when the value of the venture grew they sold them off to finance other
municipal activities already guaranteeing that the jobs and businesses
created would stay. They had no further need to be running an airport. Even
those still owned by the local authorities, like Manchester are run as
independent businesses with the stockholders getting a dividend.

Generally if you base an aircraft at an airfield fees cover tie downs and
all landings. At my field I don't pay for landings and I can do as many as I
want. So that stuff about landings was sheer garbage. I pay to land when I
fly away.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Borat wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
It's interesting to see AOPA doing a piece on "Flying in Europe", so
soon after our long thread on the same topic. Many of their
conclusions were the same as ours.

Also, strangely enough, there's another article this month on "Flying
GA to Memphis", in order to visit Beale Street and all the great blues
bands. Why, I think AOPA is copying our every word!

Knowing some of the "Europeans" they interviewed they have exaggerated a
great deal but they have given AOPA what they want to help their campaign
and good luck to them. You can fool some of the people all of the time.
Some
of the quotes were pathetic, especially the one on landings. The truth is
if
you want to fly you will, and if the costs go up you sacrifice something
that is less important to stay flying.

What parts of the article are exaggerated or incorrect?

Matt

Taken from a UK thread discussing the same article, this was written by the
Senior Air Traffic Controller at Biggin Hill

Back to the original thread.....

I could take the author to task about his comments regarding his departure
from Biggin.

I am assuming this was the flight I have recorded on the 8th December 2006
which arrived from Germany then departed back there some 6 hours later. I do
not know where he got his $150 landing and nav service charge from as we do
not have a separate nav charge and the landing fee for a Twin Crunchie is
not $150.

During his 6 hour stop over did he did not walk into Flight Op's and make
use of the WSI Pilot Brief web service we provide for all weather and route
briefing, or obtain a briefing from the staff? We have a WiFi link so if he
wanted to 'do his own thing' using a laptop then that was also possible free
of charge.

Whilst I agree that GA in Europe has a raw deal compared to the USA
'flowery' writing like this can only be for the purpose of making a bad
situation look even worse.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
if
you want to fly you will, and if the costs go up you sacrifice something
that is less important to stay flying.

That is only possible to a point. Then, the middle class drops out.

So GA is not for the working class then?

Borat wrote:

So GA is not for the working class then?

I can not stand that phrase. Just because someone doesn't spend 8 hours in a
factory doesn't mean they don't work. At my airport every single one of the
people that fly or own airplanes there works or did until they retired at
70+ years of age. And even some of those 70+ guys still work everyday.

There really aren't that many idle rich in the US. I live in a town with
quite a bit of oil money dating back to the 1920's. I know of exactly one
adult male that one would consider idle rich. Now, there are a lot of them
that the only time their hands get dirty is when they have to pick up their
golf ball out of the mud but they do work and often way more hours than the
people that work for them.

If you change your question to "So GA is not for the poor then?" I'd have to
agree with you. But there are lots of things that the poor can't afford to
do. As for the middle class as any sane person would describe it then, in
the US, if they want to do it they could probably find a way. Will they have
their own Bonanza, probably not. Could they have a pretty could chance of
owning their own C-150 or Cherokee 140, sure. They might have to not buy the
newest SUV every few years but they could do it.