Never say never. I checked out "new guys" who were in their late 50s, early 60s. A minimum of 1,500 hours and not being afraid of Bethel Alaska, you too could be off on an adventure

Gump

Zane wrote:

bumper wrote:I've never been to AK, but since it's about aviation, I record the show too.

Not detracting from Tweeto's building of Era, remarkable as that is. But I wonder how much of it would have been possible without the dumping of massive amounts of tax dollars, subsidies, into a system made possible by our underlying entitlement mentality.

It's pervasive. I saw it in the 70's as an Oakland cop. We'd go on a 415F (family disturbance) in winter (CA winters being relatively mild). When the door opened, a thermal blast wave would hit you full on. They'd have the heater going full tilt, all the stove top burners on high, and the oven door open with that cranking too - - a damn sauna with us sweating in our Tuffy jackets! No problem, their energy bill was subsidized, while at my house the thermostat was 65 max.

No folks, it's gotta change.

I suggest starting a new thread if you want to talk about that (worthy topic btw), so you're not as surprised when the ensuing political discussion is split. This has been a fun topic so far about a show that we're lucky made it to prime time at all.

Zane - you're the board boss here, and you can spin off this thread as you wish ... but any discussion of the "Flying Wild Alaska" show is hard to separate from the fact that what we're seeing in prime time is a great deal of public subsidy of people and communities in the wilds of Alaska. As one poster noted, when you see a plane loading up with cases of soda pop, I certainly wonder why our hard-earned tax dollars undoubtedly are subsidizing that kind of air lift. I have no objection to subsizing operations that involve medical treatment or evacuation, or deliverying vital supplies like food, medicine, etc. But it's pretty hard not to cringe every time the show has the Era crews loading up their expensive-to-operate bush planes with non-essentials like soda cans, or hauling girls' high school athletic teams to competitions hundreds of miles away. In case a few people haven't noticed, liberal politicians are finally starting to run out of other people's money. No beef here with Alaskans, native or otherwise, living their preferred lifestyles. But it's also hard to imagine that subsistence living in the bush throws off enough tax dollars to pay for what it takes to also give them access to the modern luxuries that are paid for by competitive business operations in the more urbanized parts of the country.

In other words, anyone has the right to live in the bush ... but not necessarily a right to have that lifestyle subsidized by taxpayers who must foot the bill because Alaska politicians have been very good pork-meisters.

At least with the "Alaska Wing Men" show on NatGeo it appears that most of the flights are fully paid for by private individuals and private businesses.

Zane,

Let me add one other thing to my previous response to your suggestion that public subsidy is not relevant to the thread on the "Flying Wild Alaska" TV show:

I think if you took a poll of those who watch that show, a fairly large percentage of hard-pressed taxypaying citizens of the Lower 48 (and maybe some of those in Alaska too) have had a similar reaction to the obvious public subsidy that is illustrated every week on that show. I think perhaps that as much as we as aviators enjoy seeing aviation in action on shows like that, and count ourselves lucky to finally (after decades of a dearth of aviation-based entertainment shows on TV) have aviation back on the tube ... I am afraid that there could be a back-lash to this particular show.

The cargos and passengers on the Era planes may well serve to reinforce the existing public perception that aviation is an expensive luxury for the privileged - either the privileged rich folks, or the privileged subsidized folks of certain favored status. "Gee, how do they get away with their kids travelling in expensive airliners to their away games, and hauling soda cans around in the bush, when it's all we can do to afford to put gas in our car, buy groceries, and pay our tax bill - just to support their lifestyle."

On the other hand, showing aviation (back country and otherwise) making it possible for businesses to operate, and create jobs, and pay taxes ... or to see volunteer pilots flying patients around the country at no expense to to the taxpayer ... etc. etc. Those images are the kind that actually improve the image of general aviation, rather than reinforce the negative image that most folks already have.

Sure - this is the show that we have (as Secretary Rumsfeld famously said, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you wish for"). Not sure "flying Wild Alaska" is a net positive for GA, though.

shorton wrote:Question for you Cessna drivers, when Jim landed in the water short of the gravel bar his main gear started flexing and popping fairly hard. Looked like a seal clapping his flippers Is that just a factor of the spring gear or was it beginning to settle into the water and hitting rocks or just starting to hang up in the water????

I don't see the Pipers do this, maybe bigger tires to weight?

I think he probably got a little slow. Here's a video of a 170 doing a real nice job using the water before a gravel bar to get slow and stop quick. You can see the landing gear does just fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hPqjpdQqv0

nmflyguy wrote:Zane,

Let me add one other thing to my previous response to your suggestion that public subsidy is not relevant to the thread on the "Flying Wild Alaska" TV show:.....

I am guessing that you missed the part about Jim letting some fares slide when passengers really need to get from one village to another. You would be surprised how many peeps get a ride that they cant pay for, and the operators chalk it up to the price of doing business and hope that one day, when able, the person will pay them.

I would really like to know the difference between subsidy for freight to the bush and me paying for some gal sitting on a couch getting stoned with 6 kids in the middle of texas on wellfare. Tax $ are tossed to the winds every day and it pisses me off too, but don't point fingers just to up here, it is an issue ALL over the USA.

Just my quick .02

At least all the Natives in Alaska are Citizens...
Now let's take a quick look at California or any Southern Border State.... just sayin'

akavidflyer wrote:

nmflyguy wrote:Zane,

Let me add one other thing to my previous response to your suggestion that public subsidy is not relevant to the thread on the "Flying Wild Alaska" TV show:.....

I am guessing that you missed the part about Jim letting some fares slide when passengers really need to get from one village to another. You would be surprised how many peeps get a ride that they cant pay for, and the operators chalk it up to the price of doing business and hope that one day, when able, the person will pay them.

I would really like to know the difference between subsidy for freight to the bush and me paying for some gal sitting on a couch getting stoned with 6 kids in the middle of texas on wellfare. Tax $ are tossed to the winds every day and it pisses me off too, but don't point fingers just to up here, it is an issue ALL over the USA.

Just my quick .02

My post included no criticism of the Twetos or Era Alaska airline ... it's the government that does the subsidizing, not private businesses, obviously. The subsidizing of certain favored groups over others by a government that's bankrupting us and our children and grandchildren, etc. etc. is the issue. When a show glaringly displays the subsidization and - let's call it what it is, the waste of taxpayer's money - in the context of aviation, the association of the two does aviation no good.

And yes, there's fraud, waste, and abuse in the lower 48 ... and that's not the point.

mmflyguy

You are correct there are a lot of folks getting more dollars back than they pay in taxes, see link below:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

New Mexico #1 $2.03 per $1.00 paid
Mississippi #2 $2.02
Alaska #3 $1.84

Don't know where it is all going but lots of folks subsidize the smaller states.

BTW, New Jersey in comparison only gets back $0.64 per $1.00 paid.

Pertinent to the show in this thread, other Alaska subsidy related stuff in the other, explicitly named thread for such. I'll just organize it how I see fit later, so save me some time. Thanks.

What day and time does Alaska Wing Men come on?

Next in line.

My 2-year old daughter doesn't give a $*#& about cartoons on TV, but was glued to the show last night. The only thing that brought her out of her trance was commercials. She would turn around very abruptly and ask where the airplanes had gone.

Brett

I had to miss last night's show. Are they rerun anywhere on another night??

patrol guy wrote:I had to miss last night's show. Are they rerun anywhere on another night??

I think its rerun on Wednesday, I think.


Sent from my HTC Evo using Tapatalk

my local paper today
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/eve...84/group/News/

It will be on Sunday morning at 11AM eastern time.

TomD wrote:mmflyguy

You are correct there are a lot of folks getting more dollars back than they pay in taxes, see link below:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

New Mexico #1 $2.03 per $1.00 paid
Mississippi #2 $2.02
Alaska #3 $1.84

Don't know where it is all going but lots of folks subsidize the smaller states.

BTW, New Jersey in comparison only gets back $0.64 per $1.00 paid.

Tom,

You cite some interesting data. But it's beside the point I was making.

They aren't producing a show called "Flying Wild New Mexico", featuring government-subsidized regional airlines flying crates of soda pop to the Indian reservations in the outback of New Mexico, and/or the same airline flying girls soccer teams from Gallup to Santa Fe ... and making non-flying viewers wonder out loud, "why are my Federal tax dollars paying for THAT?!!!" In the context of whether a show is good for General Aviation or not, that is my point.

Another show about flying in the bush in Alaska on NatGeo ("Alaska Wing Men"), on the other hand, tends to show private bush pilots flying for private parties - i.e., businesses (such as gold mining outfits) and individuals paying full freight for their rides, and thus does not associate flying with the waste of taxpayer dollars.

I'm also not a resident of New Mexico - I just do most of my flying here and in Texas (a tax "donor" state) because of my consulting business .. my home state is Florida which is also a tax "donor" state. I will not disagree that there are plenty of our Federal tax dollars being wasted in New Mexico, and in many other states with high welfare rates, or with large numbers of military operations, defense plants, Dept. of Energy facilities, and so forth. Some of the federal spending is quite necessary, and obviously lots of it is not necessary (high speed rail? please, don't get me started!!). There are a gazillion websites and discussion boards that cover those topics quite well.

What I'm concerned with is the image of GA and the fact that in the minds of a large majority of taxpayers aviation is associated with privilege and excess in a time of economic distress and a growing realization of government overspending of dollars we can't afford. "Flying Wild Alaska" is not helping the image of GA in that regard.

"Alaska Wing Men" is a better show, in my opinion, if we are concerned with the image of general aviation. So the point is not about Alaska or Alaskans.

I respectfully disagree with the statement that the show portrays a bad image of GA. I have watched every episode, and I have never even considered that the company was subsidized. I don't dispute that it is, but I don't think that most viewers will be thinking about it while watching the show. I am about as far right leaning as it gets. Hell, think I may be a Social Darwinist. I absolutely do not support government handouts at all, but I doubt that most viewers will relate the show or GA to subsidies and excess, based on the show. It may even get some more people excited about getting into aviation.

I have wanted to learn to fly my whole life, but always assumed it was way out of my price range, so I never even bothered to check into it. I was sitting at home one day and there was a show coming on about Alaska, which I have always wanted to visit. The show was not solely about bush pilots, but there was a pretty good section about it. The show got me fired up enough to make the call to my local flight school, and now I am getting ready for my check ride. I may never be an Alaskan Bush Pilot, I'm 41 years old, with a family who probably wouldn't understand me leaving a good job to move to Alaska chasing a dream, but I am certainly an avid GA supporter now. Maybe Flying Wild Alaska will reach a few more people who are sitting on the fence, and inspire them to make that call.

To heck with fox news I am just gonna keep reading this thread! Great stuff! I can't imagine having to fly in that crap day in and day out during the wintertime.

Not every flight is paid for entirely by tax dollars... The bypass mail is subsidized, a lot of fares are paid by medicaide, goverment employees travel paid for by the state, etc, but plenty more are out of the pockets of the passengers. I was surprised to see Tweeto's 180 flying at $600/hr. I remember when it was around $425 back in 2003. The 180 I fly commercially just went up to $425/hr after being at $410 since 2009. They run quite the monopoly...I'd better not get started on that subject. Try to get on an Era intervillage flight, and when you hear the ticket price you'll wish it was as subsidized as you thought.