Airborne_Again wrote:
Isn’t it strange then, that Sweden, which has traditionally been among the most “socialist” and “environmentalist” countries in Europe, doesn’t have this kind of “envy”-based opposition to GA flying?
Not in the least. First of all the Scandinavia is much less populated than central Europe. Secondly, I think it is also a question of character of the society. I have hardly come across a more welcoming and generous population than the scandinavians. I guess this is also the reason why they actually managed to get socialism to work sort of…. as it is not so much against their human nature.
gallois wrote:
Sweeping statements about what is happening all over Europe just are totally incorrect.
Yes I agree. However the problems with PPR for instance are sweeping in many countries and it gets worse. I don’t need to list the countries where i.e. opening hours are a massive problem or where PPR gets worse and worse. France certainly is one of the best GA countries in Europe, no question. That however does not mean their politicians may not learn from others…. so it’s good to be vigilant anyway.
Also, with a united European airspace agency, we have to think bigger than our own back turfs. If Greece is a problem, it concerns a lot of us as well. Likewise for other countries where outpricing, opening hours and PPR do exist in one or other combination.
highflyer wrote:
The ongoing mass immigration leads to land loss, sealing of nature and serious problems to find housing in cities and even in the countryside.
Well, imho most opponents to airfields, airplanes, flying and so on, as well as most of the socalist or greens are hardly immigrants who actually in most cases came because of very capitalist reasons.
I am much more concerned about the typical misantropic blockwart type of neighbours who will stop at nowhere to leave their mark, often far more unpleasant than those of the local dogs on lampposts, on the local society. Particularly the kind of dork who buys “cheap” land near airfields and then wastes no time to get busy demanding it’s closure or restriction. Most of that kind of personage are quite local.
As for the tax discussion, it keeps amazing me how people think it is normal that between 50 and 70% of the money you work for day and night should be taken away by the government. Income taxes of 40-60% mean that you work for the government without a single Euro to your account until August each year. 25% VAT is another rip off.
Clearly, we have to calculate differently here with no socialized medicine and all that, but I can honestly say I am happy with the approximately 10% income tax we pay here and 8% VAT. Clearly one has to add health and other costs in to this which are “free” in other parts of Europe, but I’d doubt we get over 30% overall. How any money for Aviation or any other past times are available at a rate of only 30% of your income left in your hands, well I take my hat off to those who still manage. But it is hardly surprising that people in such 60-70% taxed countries will resort to all sorts of “income protection”.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Well, imho most opponents to airfields, airplanes, flying and so on, as well as most of the socalist or greens are hardly immigrants who actually in most cases came because of very capitalist reasons.
All that seems true but incomplete. The best thing about many immigrants is their demonstrated ambition but increasing population density from any source is not a good thing almost anywhere, given a grossly overpopulated planet that is my opinion the primary problem associated with current human society. The issue with immigration is that it can provide a pressure relief valve and encouragement for places that have irresponsibly exceeded their sustainable population, likely placing a burden on the destination country due simply and without prejudice to greater numbers of people, coming from all sources combined. Not every resource can be expanded by more effort, some (land, water, secure domestic energy supply) are closer to being fixed… and GA along with many of the best things in life needs those items at a reasonable level of cost and hassle. Even in a place the Los Angeles basin with its huge population density and many airports, the coexistence of the two is because the airports were there first and the people grew up with them. They are valuable, appreciated but wouldn’t be built there now. New airports today are more likely in places like rural central Florida or Texas, where there is neither a tradition of oppressive politics nor a
current reality of people being squeezed together like rats in a cage.
Whether immigrants are better, harder working or more ambitious people than those they join is another issue… sometimes that’s very much the case, sometimes not. 
I write that as an immigrant, married to an immigrant from a different country. I have no problem with immigrants and lots of issues with invasive government and nonsensical “environmentalists”
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Clearly one has to add health and other costs in to this which are “free” in other parts of Europe, but I’d doubt we get over 30% overall
Given an idle moment and a small glass of brandy I calculated this number, meaning taxes on wages and business income plus other payroll taxes (social security tax etc) plus good commercial health insurance for our US household in 2020 and likewise came up with about 30%, plus or minus a couple of percent.
Silvaire wrote:
New airports today are more likely in places like rural central Florida or Texas, where there is neither a tradition of oppressive politics nor a
current reality of people being squeezed together like rats in a cage.
Clearly population density is one of the prime issues, the denser the population, the more they sit on top of each other and will start quarreling about everything. That is why in many places suburbia is such a dystropic place to live.
However, when it comes to WHO actually bitches about airports and wants them gone, at least in my area, it clearly has to be said that it is mostly native folks who move up from their rental flats in the city to the “green” pastures, finally affording themselves a home and then notice, ooops, there is that nasty airfield, or even oops, what is this noise in the air (as in their city homes they did not notice any propeller noises ever.
Within the communities I am aware of who fight airplane noise and airports, not a single of those anti noise anti airport anti everything group consists of immigrants, neither refugees, recent immigrants or even 2nd generation. I suppose they came here for a reason, they are hungry for success and money and will mostly do their best to get a livelyood. Aviation is part of their lives, either going home from time to time or they look at it as a sign of prosperity. In my own group of people I am friendly with there are many immigrants from Easter Europe, I have never ever heard one of them complain or even find fault with our flying. But if I talk to Swiss middle and upper class folks, they very quickly identify as NIMBY or even worse opponents out of principle, even if it does not concern them at all.
So while you are certainly right that immigration contributes to population density and therefore to the problem discussed here, in my experience, immigrants have a much brighter outlook on GA as an activity or Aviation in general than the local overfed and frustrated anti airport leage.
My reading of the above is that immigration has little bearing, if any, on the matter being discussed.
It seems clear that GA “activity” is not directly related to how much money there is. It is more “cultural”. For example France manages to have a lot of “activity”, though with average annual hours being quite low, and without most pilots being “rich”. Lots of previous posts on this by French pilots. The UK manages less activity but with a higher average annual hours, and also without most pilots being “rich”. Germany and Switzerland are probably above the UK in the extent of “rich” in GA, but those countries are richer anyway, especially in the sphere of small manufacturing companies, which is where a lot of GA pilots come from.
But the above is domestic activity; if you want to fly distances (touring) around Europe then you need considerably more money and this is strongly reflected in who does that sort of flying. You also need ELP and again the “good ELP” countries correlate heavily with touring.
My memories from flying in Sweden in the beginning is that in many ways it wasn’t burdened down by too many regulations. If I could compare it to another country’s similar aviation scene, I would say it was closer to Canada. Meaning, it had a lot of accessible little airfields, inexpensive landing and away from the big cities, semi-healthy GA and a semi-bush-plane scene. And few regulations or stickler/nimby types. Also a very allowing seaplane possibilities – i.e. you can pretty much land anywhere. It was very free at the time. Now, this is almost 30 years ago, so things have probably changed since then.
I would however venture out to say that if it is at all still pretty unregulated and “free”, it is only because it flies under the radar and is small enough. Sweden has the national sport of “flygskam” and if GA would take off in any greater numbers (and a bigger set of city slickers took it up), I would bet good money the cries would come immediately. This is after all, one of the most politically correct/woke/jante nations in the world and they rarely miss an opportunity to pound something into the ground that isn’t basically walking.
As for taxes, when all is said and done here in the US, you pay about the same as in Sweden. Yes, the tax is perhaps only 30-40%, but then you need to pay $1000/month for private health insurance and $1600/month to get your kid into nursery etc. Those are “free” in Sweden. Admittedly, you do tend to earn better in the US, so the net result is probably more money in the pocket.
But California is no place to be on a low income, that’s for sure. It is crazy expensive living here. If I don’t turnover $10000/month, I’m basically on the street. My mortgage alone is $4200/month. Health insurance $1000, daycare $1600, food $1500, hangar $800, cars, bills etc $1500 etc. That’s just to break even. You want toys or flying on top of that, add another $5-10K/month.
I’m happy my expenses are a fraction of Adam’s, except for daily household expenses and food which is about the same. I now put away $5K a month after tax, after living expenses, after maxed-out retirement fund deposits and after recreation, into cash savings. It took a while to get there and it won’t last forever… which is why I do it, versus spending the positive cash flow on a Marchetti 
My major expense in flying is the hangar at $450 per month. It is also money very well spent. The rest of my plane and flying expenses probably aren’t that much combined. The beauty of making the hangar part of your fixed expenses is that if you need to slow down and can’t spray time or money at the plane, you can cut your other flying outlays to near zero for a while and it’s all still locked up, dry and waiting for you. You can also go there and maintain or improve your stuff at little cost, to clear your head in the meantime.
AdamFrisch wrote:
I would however venture out to say that if it is at all still pretty unregulated and “free”, it is only because it flies under the radar and is small enough. Sweden has the national sport of “flygskam” and if GA would take off in any greater numbers (and a bigger set of city slickers took it up), I would bet good money the cries would come immediately. This is after all, one of the most politically correct/woke/jante nations in the world and they rarely miss an opportunity to pound something into the ground that isn’t basically walking.
I can’t say that I feel any widespread or even noticeable opposition to light GA in Sweden. The most opposition comes from people who moved to houses close to airports and then complain about noise.
There was an interesting course of events in Västerås recently. The city decided to close down the airport it owned (ESOW) because it was a financial loss. There is heavy light GA traffic with a few Ryanair flights. There are several commercial flight schools and a maintenance shop at the airport. Lots of based SEPs. The airport is also used for ambulance flights, the Voluntary Air Corps is based there and during some major forest fires in the past decade, it was an important refueling location for waterbombing aircraft.
There was a public outrage, enough people signed a petition to force the city to hold a referendum about the future of the airport. Even if the voter turnout wasn’t great (37% IIRC), it was a landslide victory (79%) for keeping the airport. This is expected to have an important effect also on future decisions about other regional airports owned by a city or local government.
That is great news Airborne. I wish it would have been the same in Stockholm region. I have in my logbooks entries for both Tullinge and Barkarby, now sadly all gone.
