Well, next time you talk to him, tell him to start writing about those trips instead of tabloid headlines.
He's a far cry from Gordon Baxter. One built up aviation telling stories from both old and new.
Mac was origianlly hired as the technical editor. His job was to write about the machinery, and the numbers, not the mysteries and the auras. That particular area is difficult to master, and he was better at it than anybody else they could find. That's why he hired Lane, who has since followed him to EAA. Have you ever wondered why she did that?
Aviation has always been both "dying" in the magazines and about to boom. Next month there will be yet another article about the always upcoming "pilot shortage" in the airlines. It's been that way, as long as I can remember. Bax (RIP), Schiff, Machado, Lane and others don't resort to "the sky is fallingz" to up, their web ratings.
So analyzing and airing these blatantly obvious problems should be done where? In a boating mag?
I don't care to play the "who's wallet/whatever is bigger" game, that's a losing proposition in a match with a nationally known author, against the average "nobody" in his audience, of course. Which is as it should be. My P&L statement is mine. His is his.
This isn't about who is richest, it's about the level of commitment to the game.
But I still disagree. In terms of Net Worth, I still believe he has less skin in the game. More money in the game isn't the definition of "skin". "Skin" is when the airplane and aviation on your own dime is all you've got. (Unless he's writing it while thinking about dumping the Baron. Who knows... He doesn't say. Details of that would certainly make the article feel more "finished". As it stands, it's an open-ended question that asks nothing new.)
There is no standard definition of "skin" as it relates to aviation activities. Those like JMac, whose livelihood is totally dependent on GA, might disagree with yours.
Most of his audience spends every dime they have and many from non-discretionary funds, the finance their flying dreams. Mac may have done that once or not. Can't tell from his USA Today style article.
To the contrary, only a tiny minority of readers are hocked to the gills. Have you ever been to OSH? Have you seen the campgrounds, restaurants, vendor tents, airplanes and other stuff? Are you thinking the attendees borrowed or stole that stuff for the show?
All that the article conveys to me is that all that Mac "gets" is the past. The rest of us are flying or not flying in the now. His article doesn't claim he's doing it. It claims that in the past he was flying someone else.
Huh?
His new employer pushes the fact that building and flying for Sport *are* attainable goals for a great many. The article feels out of place at EAA. At Flying, where his job seemed to be similar to the Stig on Top Gear, driving around the latest and greatest jet gadgetry, it wouldn't have really fit in either.
JMac has been writing about aviation for many years and has actively participated in EAA and Airventure for most of them. Do you really think that EAA didn't know about his writing skills and style prior to the hire? Have you ever stopped to think that EAA is seeking to widen the tent? Have you ever counted the number of production airplanes at OSH? Do you think that EAA might be trying to more deeply penetrate that market?
The information you possess about his aircraft ownership and utilization and his reasoning why he's all of a sudden interested in how airlines have operated at huge losses for decades, could have been included in the article. They weren't.
He has written about them many times in other articles, as well as his successful stint as a sportswriter and other aspects of his career.
Why did he buy the Baron instead of taking the airline flight? Does he still use it? Is he thinking about selling it? That or interviews of others thinking the same, would save fleshed out the article.
Why does it matter? He wrote what he wrote because he obviously thought it was timely and pertinent. I agree with both. I spend every day in the airplane business, and will testify under oath that he's not the only guy who is making those noises. Jerry Temple will tell you the same thing about many other twin owners.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the Baron go away, he used to fly a Cessna 140 and a RV-8 or similar might be a better fit now. OTOH, it's his article and his privilege to make that call if/when he chooses to do so.
The article ONLY indicates that he does his flying on other's dimes. If he wanted to talk about his experiences as an aircraft owner and how he's managed costs and keeps flying those personal flights, he should have.
He is a sensitive soul, and I'm sure he would appreciate your critique of his work, as well as your admonitions about how he should have done it. Drop him a note to that effect.
The article, as written, leaves out both his own personal story of aircraft ownership and ignores the audience's preclivity to the same. At best, it states the obvious... at worst, it reads like an attack article on GA. Especially to someone new to aviation.
See above. The industry is what it is. Are you thinking that should be a secret, or should go unacknowledged? Do pie-in-the-sky head-in-the-sand articles appeal to you more than those that deal in reality? If so, simply purchase a lifetime subscription to Plane and Pilot and be driveled to your heart's content.
Why would a budding pilot want to read that? Some guy who says he's been flying someone else's airplanes for 37 years -- suddenly just noticed that deregulated airlines are more cut-throat than they were in the 80's?
I'd guess he would want to know the truth about things he might not have considered until now. Do you think the article is aimed at newb's or guys like us? I accumulated almost 9k hours flying for my own business, but have openly admitted that I would have probably never owned an airplane if I had lived in Dallas with the SWA and AA hubs that now serve the market. Maybe I'm the only guy who has ever thought about it.
Yawn. I'd rather watch the two guys building their airplane in their garage on YouTube for inspiration and leadership. And do. Those guys and the Internet killed Mac's magazine. It just hasn't died yet.
I've helped build airplanes in garages and found it to be tedious beyond belief, so we obviously disagree on that subject. Fortunately, you can build and I can buy, so neither loses their place at the GA table.
The new owners who wanted all of their mags to follow the same cookie cutter format with the next 12 months are accountable for its decline, but the crappy economy since 2008 has been the biggest contributor to killing GA. You may have noticed that the guy who replaced JMac didn't last 60 days.
His writing format about the jet flying he was doing, fit Flying. It doesn't fit the declared mission of EAA. Why would a membership organization even accept an article that attacks their member's lifestyle choices?
Well, maybe they didn't read any of the stuff he has written for the past 30 years. OTOH, maybe they did. And your characterization of the article as an attack piece is ludicrous. As Ann Landers used to say, there are times when you've got to "wake up and smell the coffee." GA now finds itself in one of those times. How can recapping and stimulating discussion of this obvious problem be a negative?
If he's saying a whole lot of doofuses changed the fiscal landscape between now and back when he decided that GA travel was something he still apparently chooses to do, let me share apiece of wisdom with him... "Duh!"
Not all readers of aviation publications are as rabid on the subject as you appear to be. For some, the article may fall into the "profound grasp of the obvious" category, for others it may provide a good recap of how things have evolved and the industry has tanked. If you think JMac doesn't understand that none of the articles in any publication please everybody, you need only to read some of the letters to the editor.
It read to me like he's about to sell off the Barron.
