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.

"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

"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

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.

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.

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

"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

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?

"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

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