Airborne_Again wrote:
The referendum was actually only advisory, but all parties on the Västerås city council have said that they will respect it.
Then let’s hope they will…. Maybe that was part of why the turnout was not that good.
They would not be the first to spit on it if it did not serve their purpose.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
And even greater so as the government apparently has to heed to the result despite the low turnout and can no go and claim, well, so only about 30% over all care for it, so let’s close it anyway.
The referendum was actually only advisory, but all parties on the Västerås city council have said that they will respect it.
Airborne_Again wrote:
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.
Wow! Great news. And even greater so as the government apparently has to heed to the result despite the low turnout and can no go and claim, well, so only about 30% over all care for it, so let’s close it anyway.
Such kinds of referendi are very important as they can show the public support many airports have despite politicians and land sharks claiming otherwise. But they are useless if the governments build in guilloutine clauses where they demand a 80% or whatever turnout for a referendum to be valid.
Airborne_Again wrote:
(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.
Great news! I was not aware! We need to make this more widely known!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 reading of the above is that immigration has little bearing, if any, on the matter being discussed.
