ths@lanl.ARPA (01/24/85)
OK Doug, I think I know what you are "driving" at. If I didn't "love" to fly I would not consider using general aviation as transportation. The main reason I think, is that it takes a considerable effort to get certificated (not to mention the cost) and to get ones skills to the point that you CAN reliably use it for transportation. A perfect example of this occured with a young man I know. He heard all the hype about flying being good transportation and decided to get his license. At about the time he was finishing he made the comment that if he had known it was going to involve so much of his time (and money) he wouldn't have started. He got his license and took a few trips but soon realized that to use GA reliably he would need an instrument rating. He also noted that he had to "refresh" his knowledge and stay current. To make a long story short - he gave up flying less than a year from getting his license. For him, flying wasn't fun and it took too much effort to stay "safe". Flying was not like driving. P.S. He doesn't like driving either but it provides transportation that doesn't require constant study or practice. Automobiles "dribble" the money out of your pocket in a constant thin stream instead of periodic gushers that are soooo noticable with aviation. Wichita is experiencing what Detroit went through. You can only sell a mediocre product at an outragous price for just so long. Even though there is a "sucker born every minute" its going to take a few years before the next generation of "suckers" can afford the current prices.
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (01/31/85)
Hot dog, I think I may have made myself clear this time.
Now, let's work from my premise that under the current circumstances
people can't justify flying unless
1) there's a business paying at least part of the bills,
2) they're independently wealthy, or
3) they enjoy flying and are willing to pay for that enjoyment.
I maintain that the reason that personal flying is in such a slump
right now is that the industry does not acknowledge the above "truth".
I would suggest that until the industry comes to grips with this
"truth", the personal flying slump worsen.
Once we acknowledge the situation, there are two ways to correct it
(by my count). One way is to promote flying as an enjoyable pastime.
The other is to lower the cost of personal flying as transportation.
(Actually, there is a third way -- make more people independendtly
wealthy :-)
Both of those goals should be pursued. But it will take time to
bring down the cost, and I don't think that personal flying will
survive until then if that's the only path we take. I think that
promoting flying as an enjoyable pastime is a mandatory "stop-gap"
step, and maybe not a bad idea in the long run as well.
So, my suggested program: 1) acknowledge that personal flying cannot
currently be justified on transportation value alone; 2) promote
personal flying as an enjoyable pastime; and 3) develop ways of
lowering the cost of personal flying so that it truly can be justified
entirely on transportation value. These steps to be taken in that
order.
This whole discussion started with the Primary Aircraft proposal.
Some people feel that it can bring about a miracle cure by single-
handedly conquering "point #3". If I believed that, I would have kept
quiet. But I feel that it will not have revolutionary impact on the
costs. And what impact it does have will *not* be on "transportation"
type planes, but rather on "fun" type planes. And the hullaballoo
about it keeps us from recognizing the real problem.
We need to address the "cardiac arrest" of personal flying, and
only AFTER that is under control should we divert our attention
to the "broken leg" issues like reducing the cost of certification.
--
Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!dougjlg@lanl.ARPA (02/01/85)
> This whole discussion started with the Primary Aircraft proposal. > Some people feel that it can bring about a miracle cure by single- > handedly conquering "point #3". If I believed that, I would have kept > quiet. But I feel that it will not have revolutionary impact on the > costs. And what impact it does have will *not* be on "transportation" > type planes, but rather on "fun" type planes. And the hullaballoo > about it keeps us from recognizing the real problem. As far as I can tell from the responses to this newsgroup, the only person who makes a distinction between 'fun' aircraft and 'transprotation' aircraft is Doug Pardee. I still challenge him to find a real airplane (no ultra-lights please) which I wouldn't find satisfactory for short hop transportation. A C-150 with one radio and no other electronic Avionics would suit me just fine for weekend trips to ABQ (60 miles by air, 110 miles by car). I don't own such a plane, nor do I intend to buy one - mainly because I think that some of the 'fun only' experimentals would be cheaper in the long run and more fun to fly anyway! (Come on PA!) All of the comparisons of 'fly vs. drive' have so far ignored the fact that planes go straight and roads never do! In New Mexico the highway is usually a factor of 1.5 to 2 farther that line-of-flight. Even if I admit that planes are intrinsically more expensive to operate over a given distance than cars this extra distance by car more than compensates. Add that to the differences in speed between a car and a plane and plane travel becomes MUCH faster and more comfortable. J. Giles