If user fees go into effect I'm done

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

I can think of 3 major companies that together employee ~2500 people
in my town of ~20,000 that would not be here if it weren't for the
availability of GA flight. In fact, the town would probably dry up
and blow away if any one of these left and would certainly do so if
any two of them did.

What type of business are these companies in?

Oil, Chemical and Timber.

Sam Spade wrote:


"elitist hobby" clearly does not include FedEx, et al feeder flights,
medical flights, or serious business aviation. It does include "$100
hamburger" flights, personal transportation flight, personal
sightseeing flights, and warbird activities.

Smart non-flying folks I know clearly know the difference.

I bring this aspect up, because it will become part of the debate
about user fees. To ignore the argument does not make it go away.

Well then driving in my car to a restaurant or a trip accross town to the
supermarket is an elitist hobby supported by public funding.

Jim Logajan writes:

That conflicts with the FAA definition.

I don't work for the FAA.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Well then driving in my car to a restaurant or a trip accross town to the
supermarket is an elitist hobby supported by public funding.

But it is something that just about everyone does, so it's unlikely that any
general public opposition to the practice will arise.

The same cannot be said for $100 hamburgers.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:


"elitist hobby" clearly does not include FedEx, et al feeder flights,
medical flights, or serious business aviation. It does include "$100
hamburger" flights, personal transportation flight, personal
sightseeing flights, and warbird activities.

Smart non-flying folks I know clearly know the difference.

I bring this aspect up, because it will become part of the debate
about user fees. To ignore the argument does not make it go away.


Well then driving in my car to a restaurant or a trip accross town to the
supermarket is an elitist hobby supported by public funding.


Your view is not shared by the automotive public.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

Gig 601XL Builder writes:


The "hobby" flying that people, including the wealthy, do adds so
little to the cost of maintaining the national airspace system that
it is hardly worth mentioning. The things that get money spent on
them like airports are helping the struggling masses by supporting
businesses that create jobs.

I strongly suspect that GA is more of a burden than an asset for the
population and society at large. Commercial air travel is a
necessity; general aviation is not.


I can think of 3 major companies that together employee ~2500 people in my
town of ~20,000 that would not be here if it weren't for the availability of
GA flight. In fact, the town would probably dry up and blow away if any one
of these left and would certainly do so if any two of them did.

And since one of these companies just decided to pay for the college
education of every single person that graduates from our school system I'd
say that means pretty much everybody here benefits from GA.



Sadly, most of them probably don't know that.

Matt

On Feb 12, 11:01 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
If GA disappeared tomorrow,
virtually nothing would perceptibly change in the U.S. If commercial air
travel disappeared, the country would nearly grind to a halt.

If GA disappeared tomorrow, commercial air travel would eventually
suffer as well. Remember that many of those airline pilots flying
around those big planes learned how to fly in little GA aircraft.

-- Bryan

Bryan writes:

If GA disappeared tomorrow, commercial air travel would eventually
suffer as well. Remember that many of those airline pilots flying
around those big planes learned how to fly in little GA aircraft.

But that is no longer necessary. Pilots can be trained from zero in
simulators and then turned loose on the actual aircraft for a quick checkride,
or perhaps for a revenue flight. This is what the Third World is considering
in order to train enough pilots quickly enough to meet demand. The FAA is
more conservative and probably won't allow this for some time to come,
although everyone is moving in that direction. GA aircraft are so far from
airliners now that training in them is of dubious value, and airliners
themselves are too expensive and risky to fly for training.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Bryan wrote:
On Feb 12, 11:01 am, Mxsmanic wrote:

If GA disappeared tomorrow,
virtually nothing would perceptibly change in the U.S. If commercial air
travel disappeared, the country would nearly grind to a halt.


If GA disappeared tomorrow, commercial air travel would eventually
suffer as well. Remember that many of those airline pilots flying
around those big planes learned how to fly in little GA aircraft.

-- Bryan


GA will not disappear. The folks who buy new $500,000 piston singles
will not disappear.

The airlines will eventually, perhaps, use these advanced piston birds
to train their pilots from scratch, if necessary.

No one is proposing to abolish light aircraft from most of the airspace.

Sam Spade wrote:


The airlines will eventually, perhaps, use these advanced piston birds
to train their pilots from scratch, if necessary.

They've been doing that for a long time. Lufthansa uses Bonanza's in
Arizona, some of them have over 14,000 hours on them. When I was at GFK
in the early 90's UND had a program where airlines would send over zero
time students and they would leave UND in less thyan a year as first
officers on Airbuses and 747's. We had students from Gulf Air, China
Airlines and a third one that I can't recall right now. They started
their private pilot training in Piper Arrows and then moved into
Seminoles, King Airs and then finally Citations and Beechjets.