New record levels of private aviation flights | Hacker News Reader

New record levels of private aviation flights

sherpareport.com

66 pointslxm116 comments

The folks who are in a financial position to afford private flights are the same folks to fly first class and use airline lounges. Both of them have gotten far, far worse since the start of the pandemic.

Food and beverage options in first have been trimmed way back. I've been on first class flights with nothing but a pre-packaged ziplock bag with a bottle of water and bag of goldfish crackers offered in 1st. Contrast this to the pre-pandemic standard of pre-takeoff cocktails, full snack baskets, etc. Service is starting to come back, but I have not seen ground service (pre-flight drinks) since before the pandemic. A recent cross country flight offered nothing but a boxed sandwich in 1st, compared to full, hot meals pre-pandemic.

Airline lounges have also had food and beverage options trimmed way back. Delta lounges had nothing but pre-packaged snacks for roughly a year. The lounges are now over-crowed with people that have finally earned status via credit card spend and extended status rules.

All in all, flying is quite a bit worse for the first class traveler and I can understand their motivations.

Nobody is going to feel bad for people flying first class and relaxing in airline lounges, but you're spot on explaining how those experiences have been diminished since Covid began.

You used to be able to pick your hot meal the day before your flight, but now because I prefer to sit towards the back of first class I just have to hope that my preferred cold boxed sandwich is available by the time the flight attendant gets to me to ask what I want. And it's not like they're both good choices (to me, at least) with one being a decently nice sandwich with meat or fish, and the other being a vegetarian meal with fruits and nuts.

I realize how petty that all must sound to someone who doesn't fly first class, but it's legitimately annoying.

Many carriers used to take orders in FEBO order (from Front on Even flight numbers, from the Back on Odd flight numbers). Then some switched to an East-West or North-South order to determine front vs back for those who didn’t pre-select 24 hours ahead.

Interesting, I guess I never paid attention before because I always pre-selected. And since Covid, it's always been front to back on every flight I've been on.

I think that your comment is wrong on so many levels. Let me start.

> The folks who are in a financial position to afford private flights are the same folks to fly first class and use airline lounges. Both of them have gotten far, far worse since the start of the pandemic.

First, I'd like to know your source, because I've heard too many times that it's the opposite: rich got richer with the pandemic. Or perhaps you meant that both first and private got worse from a food perspective?

Also, how can you focus on food and beverage to explain the rise of private aviation flights? You go from first class to private jet (5x to 10x the cost) just because you don't like a cold sandwich?

Didn't it occur to you that perhaps private jets offer safer environment in a world where Covid creates so many issues? Or, allows infected people to travel despite their health conditions, and therefore it's the only viable option, despite being more expensive than first class?

Reading about food and snacks, and seeing your comment as the first in the page, sounded really odd to me.

Perhaps I'm missing something super obvious?

I read it as the two things that got worse were "flying first class" and "airline lounges". The second paragraph talks about how first class got worse. The third paragraph talks about how airline lounges got worse. (My few anecdotes during COVID match this judgment.)

The flip side is that private aviation has gotten a lot cheaper, if you’re willing to book a seat on a shared private aircraft. Old companies like NetJets still offer fractional ownership at good rates, but new virtual airlines have popped up that use services like NetJets for their aircraft and personnel, but sell the seats as if they were nothing more than a step up from first class.

What I think the OP was talking about is that first class on regular airlines has gotten a lot worse, and the people who can afford to regularly fly first class can also afford to pay not that much more to fly on these new virtual private airlines.

> The folks who are in a financial position to afford private flights are the same folks to fly first class and use airline lounges.

Not even close. The cost to fly private is significantly higher than the cost of flying first.

I'd be really curious what portion of this is part 135 vs part 91, and in general commercial charter vs. small-time commercial operations (survey, instruction, etc) and private (in the FAA sense of non-commercial). It seems surprising to me that private (non-commercial) aviation has picked up considering the high and increasing costs of getting into it, but then the fact that used prices for piston singles seem to be going up would tend to suggest that.

I'm a relatively newly minted private pilot, having gotten my certificate shortly after the start of the pandemic, and I've met a couple of other people in a similar situation. I think the pandemic opened up a lot of free time and flight instruction was still operating throughout. But of course many of us are also stymied right now by there being "nowhere to go" in that aircraft prices are high and increasing and GA infrastructure is generally in a bad state in much of the country (no available private hangars in my urban area, community/FBO hangars often on waitlists, prices very high for everything). The extremely high price of new aircraft designs is very frustrating as well, as basically everyone without around a half a million to spend (or more realistically to finance) is stuck with a '60s 100LL design and boxed out of the newer diesel options, as well as safety features like AoA indication (although there remains some debate about how much AoA instruments actually improve safety) and airframe parachutes (which seem to just be a clear benefit with vanishingly few negative outcomes).

Commercial charter operators are of course able to finance very expensive aircraft, but are nonetheless hit by the same impact - per-hour charter prices are extremely high, and a huge portion of that is amortizing how much even used jet aircraft cost. Those prices are going up, not down, a trend which seems to be permanent.

I would expect in the short term used GA aircraft prices will go up. That's certainly what's been happening. The Cessna 150 I began private pilot training in has sold twice since I've met it. Gaining almost $10,000 in the process.

Long term I hope we'll see more production of GA aircraft and used prices will go down.

With commercial air travel being so unreliable, this makes sense.

I've travelled quite a bit over the past few months and had to deal with an elevated level of delays, cancellations, etc. For those that need to be at a certain place at a certain time, and can afford it, private air travel makes sense.

Private also has its benefits. I remember last year that commercial air travellers into Canada were being put in quarantine hotels whereas private air travellers were not subjected to such measures.

Canada lets US-origin private flights land at a lot of random airports where the customs process is pretty much “call us before you arrive and we’ll send someone over only if we feel like it”.

(Yes, you do have to be pre-approved for this, but if your record is clean, it’s a formality). They even have a corporate program that lets you bring in a handful of unscreened non-members.

All for $40 for 5 years. My driver’s license renewal costs more than double that.

https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/prog/canpass/menu-eng.html

> With commercial air travel being so unreliable, this makes sense.

That seems a stretch. Commercial air travel in the US is unbelievably reliable, and furthermore, safe.

I’m not sure you can measure reliability in private aviation as the schedule is entirely ad hoc but the airlines are nearly always >98% completion with a few consistently >99.5%.

Factor in safety and it’s not even comparable. There has been one death on a commercial airline due to an incident related to operation of the aircraft since 2008 (the Southwest aircraft that had a RUD of the engine leading to a woman being sucked from the window). Compare that with private aviation which still has a few accidents a year at a minimum despite drastically fewer operations.

While I wouldn’t argue private flying is something to be avoided, statistically speaking, it would appear that travel aboard a US airline is the safest and likely among the most reliable means of traveling in the US.

> There has been one death on a commercial airline due to an incident related to operation of the aircraft since 2008

That's close, but not precisely correct. In addition to SWA 1380, there was one death on PenAir 3296 in 2019 and 50 fatalities on Colgan Air 3407 in Feb 2009. All of those were US-operated Part 121 flights. (There were also many non-US commercial airline fatalities in that period, but I'll give you that in context you were referring only to flights operated by US airlines above.)

I misremembered Colgan being 2008. I don’t recall the PenAir incident, I’ll look it up. Thanks for the corrections.

Not to minimize those lost but the point remains, chance of death on a US based 121 carrier is basically a rounding error.

Airline schedules have certainly been more erratic over COVID with at least a couple of well-publicized major disruptions at a couple different airlines. That said, things seem to be running relatively smoothly at this point and I haven't personally had any issues.

In the last 4 years (I intentionally include the 2 years before COVID), I have had at least one side of every multi-connection across the pond itinerary destroyed by either AA or UA. That is, delays longer than 12 hrs, advances of start of travel by 6hrs while making the trip overall 18hrs longer. UA has, several times, degraded our friends' return itineraries in the same way less than 12 hours before travel; can't easily cancel. On BA I had a just fine economy+ window seat LHR->PHX destroyed by an at-the-gate reseating to the aisle center bulkhead next to 2 children that screamed and kicked the seats the entire flight. Thanks to the goddess for Bose earphones.

Well that time the BA 747 blew an engine on take-off and we circled the desert for an hour, dumping fuel until landing back at PHX, to a ground stopped airport with emergency vehicles lining the entire runway? Well, I can't fault that too much, we did make it down. One does wonder about maintenance, tbh. The 24hr delay didn't seem like the most important detail.

It is so bad that we have begun contemplating the notion of eliminating our 3-4 weeks of EU vacation a year, then buying a big blue-water catamaran and start sailing it for our adventures. Since we are absolutely in love with many EU cities this is a drastic change for us.

So yeah, commercial air travel is very unreliable. Safety is good, but not the only mandatory criteria.

Ah yes, very fresh anecdotage: we were taking sailing lessons last week and one of our classmates is an AA flight attendant. Confirmed all of the above and it happens to them too.

[Edit: bunch of typos. This topic makes me enraged.]

Schedules, not aircraft, have been notoriously unreliable.

I don’t know anything about business jets, but bad weather can result in changed plans however you fly, and especially with smaller planes. Deadline pressure is a good way for a private pilot to get killed due to a bad judgement call.

As a rule of thumb, the smaller the aircraft, the less its tolerance for rough weather conditions. Commercial airliners may be the most capable aircraft in regular use for handling bad weather, exactly because passengers expect to not be delayed by storms so airlines are willing to pay for all of the weather handling features, their own meteo staff, etc.

I think there's a tax scheme for part-time ownership of a jet. I met a guy on a regular flight who was CMO of a private jet startup. They flew these very slick Honda jets. But, anyways, he basically pitched me the business and there's some kind of capital gains tax benefit to the jet-share concept.

It simply astonishes me that six hours into this discussion, the tremendous carbon dioxide output of flying a few people in a private plane isn't mentioned even one time.

By this time I'm just certain we'll never do anything about the climate catastrophe. At least I don't have kids. How do you the reader expect to explain it to your kids?

I am just about to do my PPL license next year. Mainly just for fun tho. No intention to replace commercial flying with this.

With masks, COVID measures commercial travel is becoming unbearable, even in the first class.

Really? I mean I don't like wearing a mask on a long plane flight but lots of people have to do this at their jobs all day so saying it makes commercial travel "unbearable" seems like quite a stretch.

Wearing a mask is definitely not the uncomfortable part of flying. It's the huge number of unhygienic people crammed into a tiny space, rubbing up against everything and not wearing proper equipment that makes everything extremely uncomfortable. But the ending sentiment is the same.

Everyone certainly needs to make their own call. Obviously, there are a great many people attending large indoor events with a lot less in the way of air circulation and filtration systems than a jet airliner has.

Air travel is just kind of gross, at least in recent years, even before COVID. I usually end up mildly sick with a nondescript "cold" after intercontinental flights, although I fly in economy, where the "lots of gross people packed into a tiny space" factor goes way up...

Don’t forget about the pre-flight and post-flight “security” and customs/immigration theatre lines where you get mixed in with people coming from and going to anywhere and everywhere.

No chance of catching anything exotic there!

People are different. My personal limit with the mask is about 30 min. After that I starting to suffocate. Maybe it is mental but feels real. And I do not have any particular condition which would make me feel that way, on a contrary I am very fit and do cardio every day.

What kind of mask are you wearing?

I find surgical masks incredibly frustrating after a short while as condensation and sweat start to build up (keep in mind this is usually in rooms much warmer than your average operating room)

N95 masks despite being bulkier end up being much much more comfortable. To the point that even a surgical mask stretched over an N95 with an exhaust feels better to me than just a surgical mask..

They're also easier to find now. Genuine 3M masks are going for pre-COVID prices at hardware stores and always in stock (don't go in planning to clear out shelves though: I'm pretty sure there are buy limits, and more importantly some people do require them for their work)

In parts of Europe, like Bavaria and Austria they are mandatory indoors. They cost about 0.5 Euro each and there are usually buy limits.

Regular crappy mask. Nothing fancy. No idea what kind it really is.

I'd try an N95 then, some of those crappy masks even absorb the moisture you exhale like a sponge

To me it’s less about the mask itself. What makes it unbearable is the additional point of friction it creates. There are varying opinions and comfort levels with wearing them and it’s leading to violent confrontations. People are losing their humanity over it and it makes everyone else onboard anxious, in my opinion of course.

When public transit systems begin having issues with disruptive passengers the same thing happens. The more well off will trade their money for the convenience of not dealing with it.

I think you'll find that mask compliance amongst people who're supposed to wear them at their jobs all day is almost universally pretty poor. Prior to Covid they were disfavoured as a way of protecting workers partly for that reason.

Commercial air travel was already unbearable before the pandemic.

I don’t understand why avoiding effective COVID countermeasures is desirable.

If I had the need to fly somewhere, I’d want to fly private to avoid COVID exposure.

That's totally a realistic option for the vast majority of the population. </s> In any case, I haven't see any real evidence that commercial flying is a particularly high-risk infection vector.

There are significantly more air changes per hour on an airliner than in an office building or on a train. I personally put airliner travel as being reasonably low risk for COVID transmission during the flight. (It's obviously higher than staying at home alone.)

There isn't evidence that it is low risk either...

I would take a bet that the probability of illness after 10 hours on an aircraft is worse than 10 hours at home, in the car, in a cinema, in a shopping mall, or in a park. Part of the added risk I would guess is because the people around you are not people from your hometown who all have the same diseases as you, but travellers from all over the world who can give you new unseen diseases.

It's sad that we've had aircraft for 100+ years now, and yet there doesn't seem to be data on this.

I was talking about COVID specifically but yes. I'd say it's fairly clearly higher risk than being at home or in an outdoor location. Might be lower risk than an indoor restaurant or a crowded indoor sporting event.

Data would be hard. If you go to a big convention in Las Vegas and get sick--of which there are plenty of anecdotes--did it happen at the airport, on the plane, somewhere at the event, in a restaurant, in a casino, etc.?

Some flight tickets are very cheap...

You could pay some students to stay home and revise, while other students fly somewhere and immediately back, then check over the next week what percentage get any kind of illness.

Because they're not effective. It's safety theatre, just like the TSA is security theatre.

"Everyone has to wear a face mask on a plane at all times to stop the spread, except for an hour here and there where everyone removes their masks at the same time to eat."

On international flights where everyone has to be tested beforehand, it's even more ridiculous and performative.

Except that rapid tests have high false negative rates…

[[Citation Needed]]

It was unbearable even before all that. Especially if you’re over 5’10.

There's a preschool near me that I walk by every day. Their playground is constantly full of 3-4 year old kids, all of whom are properly wearing masks. In other words, you have worse coping skills than a toddler.

A preschool is making 3-4 year olds, who are extremely low risk, wear masks outside? Why are we treating this as normal?

3-4 year olds tend to live with other people. It doesn't really matter if one person is low risk when we're talking about an airborne disease.

Because PICUs full of kids sick with COVID isn't "normal", you ignorant fuck?

Because those kids, who are not at risk from the disease, have been scared into compliance by their hysterical parents.

In Europe, this would be child abuse, because masking small children is considered completely useless there.

Please don't say "in Europe". Diseases are often driven by schools and kids of all ages, in my country the expert commission has been asking masks for all kids at school, all ages, for a while now (they generally have plenty of evidence, but I don't read too much into public policy), but politics have not implemented these requested changes, probably for fear of backlash.

There are many countries in Europe and they differ greatly

As Epse says, there is no “in Europe” for this. The rules for masks on children varies greatly between countries. But letting the kids wear a mask is certainly not seen as child abuse over where I live. Maybe as unnecessary or as “overly cautious/protective” but I haven’t heard of people calling CPS because children had to wear a face mask.

Hello from Europe!

You speak for all three quarters of a billion of us? No, you don't.

You made this up, pure and simple.

>all of whom are properly wearing masks

There is absolutely no way that 3-4 year olds are consistently wearing masks properly unless there is like 1 teacher per kid fixing their masks anytime it moves.

Ok, I'm just a liar then. Go fuck yourself.

Ding ding... schools here are filled with kids wearing masks. One can argue it is not useful, but that is not the point at all. The point is, they wear them without complaint, every day. Hell, my kid has her mask on before we walk out the door. I tell her she doesn't need it, but it's just easier for her to put it on and forget about it than remember to put it on when we get where we're going. She's a picky kid with sensory issues, so...

I see the height schoolers wearing them when they are across the street at the mall. If high schoolers, the most likely to rebel, can do it, anyone can.

Wearing a mask seems like the least unpleasant part of commercial air travel to me.

I know several people who chose to make multi-day drives last summer rather than sit on planes wearing masks for multiple hours. And yes, the mask was the primary driver of that decision. Reduced viral exposure was a side benefit, because they had been vaccinated and felt that that risk had passed.

It boggles my mind that someone would make a multi-day drive that they wouldn't otherwise do just so they didn't need to wear a mask for a few hours.

I just took 2 flights yesterday. Not first class; but there was no major difference from before the pandemic apart from the mask, and much fewer passengers.

Given that a huge transfer of wealth to the rich happened over the last two years, I expect businesses that cater to them to boom.

you could replace “the last two years” by “the last fourty years” really. The process is just accerating a bit every year (as expected because of the compound interests).

Yes, compounding interests in the people in power to keep propping up the markets.

I mean the enormous tax cuts on the wealthy since the Reagan era, tax savings which end up invested and paying dividends later on. Focusing on the Fed's policy is a mistake (and actually the one reason why the Fed had to inject so much money to get a stimulus comes from the fact that the richest people control much more wealth than they should/used to, and this is caused by the enormous fiscal gifts the wealthy have been given in the past 40 years).

That's only one key variable -- look also at what commercial flying has become (horrible): unruly passengers, mask mandates, flight attendants more authoritative (and understandably defensive) -- not to mention that people basically wear pajamas and sweat pants when they travel anymore.

I'm glad to see the new options becoming available. They might be much more expensive, but they'll be worth it to many (including myself).

I gotta ask, what’s the problem with wearing comfortable clothes on an airplane? The idea of wearing a suit or even business casual on a commercial flight seems laughable to me.

I'm also baffled.

I pretty much always wear business casual (which I find quite comfortable) on a plane. I don't know. I certainly wouldn't call someone out for wearing sweats or whatever (though I wish people wouldn't wear sandals). But business casual feels appropriate to me for the most part. Who knows? Maybe it gets me better treatment.

I have yet to find actually comfortable shoes for business casual.

"Boating shoes" (e.g. Sperry's) were my goto when I went into an office. Though normally for travel I wear more of a walking shoe (or just trail shoes if I can be more casual). Allbirds are sort of a hipster fave and they are pretty comfortable. (For the plane I usually wear some very lightweight/compact shoe and have my walking shoe in my carry-on.)

But if you're talking a dressier leather shoe, they're generally not as comfortable--at least at the price levels I'm willing to pay. I do have a couple pairs with rubber soles. But I mostly don't need that dressy for travel any longer; business casual has slid a bit towards the casual side.

I’ve found that Clarks in their dress casual line are both comfy and business casual.

No need to rehash the mask debate. I’m sure you’ve met people the past 2 years who have already explained to you their side of things

Personally, I feel that there is no need for clothes that are more comfortable than normal on an airplane. I typically wear jeans and collared shirts in my daily life, and I don't need to wear different things just because I am spending a few hours in an airplane chair. And I am 6' 5" so probably less comfortable than most on an airplane (though I am only barely overweight so maybe more comfortable than average in that respect?).

So, what is the problem? It is a minor problem, but here are my thoughts. In an airport I am surrounded by people who "dress down" for reasons that do not make sense to me. It is undesirable to be surrounded by people who's behavior you don't understand--again, in a minor way. And I would say I would rather be around people who are dressed nicer, so invertign that we get: it is a minor "problem" to be around people that are dressed down.

I guess I just don’t understand why seeing people make different choices than you is undesirable to you. Moreover, I specifically don’t understand how it doesn’t make sense to you that people want to dress as comfortably as they can for what is likely one of the least comfortable common situation to be in.

Not the parent, but I feel the same way so I'll chime in. It's basically just something that stands out and looks "off" so it's (very, very slightly) uncomfortable. I'm not going to do or say anything differently, it's just something my brain processes as weird. I feel the same way seeing people dressed that way anytime they're out in public, not just for air travel.

So you are uncomfortable because of your own admitted lack of understanding. And instead of opening your mind even slightly, you'd prefer everyone play by your limited understanding of the game. Got it...

Don't mask mandates apply to private jets too?

The mask mandate applies to commercial aircraft. The "public" private jet operators (Wheels Up, NetJets, etc.) have their own rules (generally: if you're on a shared flight you have to wear a mask, if it's just one travel party then they're optional). If it's your own private jet, you can obviously do as you please.

If it’s your jet it’s no different from your house or car.

I honestly don't think the growth is in the wealthy. I know wealthy people and they really haven't changed their habits much.

The people i know who use this sort of thing - booking flights on private jets - are all in their mid-30s and not even remotely wealthy, they don't own their homes, etc. They are just well paid engineers or engineer couples. I can't get my head around it.

I think the best analogy is the growth in status { vehicles, watches, ... }, which also has not been driven by the wealthy, but rather status differentiation between the relatively-affluent-but-still-w2 and the next tier down.

I don't know to what degree it's true but you wonder if there's a bit of an attitude along the lines of "I'll never afford a house in California so I might as well fly private and drive a Porsche instead."

I think that's possible. Foolish, but possible.

That's surprising to me.

A private jet is super expensive for an engineer, even a senior level on in the valley?

Maybe if you do it for a once a year fancy vacation - within four or five hours (or less).

If you're doing that you're probably also spending at least $600 a night elsewhere maybe a lot more. That could easily be a 30k+ vacation which is what, like 10% of a higher end non owner tech salary? I guess if you don't have a lot of other monthly expenses that's not super unreasonable.

Well, yes. I am old and have made decent money. Getting together with a bunch of friends to collectively spend $15k a head just for the flight to do a destination trip is insane to me. I asked, "Why not just fly business class or first?" but "this isn't that much more expensive and is way better."

Well, sure, I've flown on private planes because while I am not wealthy, I know lots of dotcom lottery winners. It's a great experience if you're not footing it. No meaningful security, you arrive, park, and walk out to the plane, then when you land, Enterprise (or whoever) has a car 50 feet away ready to go. Super nice but insane if you aren't at the "I don't even need to think about it" point in terms of retirement savings.

It's vaguely the upper-income silicon valley millennial cohort doing this. I know a few. I can't be alone in that, I don't know _that many_ people in that age range.

Yeah of course it's amazing if someone else is paying for it ;)

I wonder if it's just imagining people are doing it because of social media.

One can pay a few hundred to just do a 15 minute photo shoot pretending you're riding big. Which is kind of sad.

There are new virtual airlines that operate on top of services like NetJets for their aircraft and on-board personnel, and some of them are a lot less expensive than $15k.

Yes, more expensive than a first class ticket for the same route, but not all that much more expensive — maybe 2x or 3x the cost.

In Canada you are not allowed on a commercial flight if you are not double-vaxxed. Not surprised to see a rise in people seeking alternatives.

Even if you're not forced to, it's not the worst idea

I'm moving across the country and plan to take a seat on a private charter because of Omnicron: much less time spent in "security" face to back with people, more room between passengers once you're on.

I suspect plenty of people who would previously saw any sort of private flight as a completely untenable expense are slowly warming up to the idea for similar reasons

Problem is for most of us it is too expensive. High buy in for a jet share, then $6000 for a 8 passenger plane (I just flew my family of 5 for $2000 and that was last minute for a funeral)

I mean don't get me wrong, I'm not able to make a habit of private aviation either

I think it's just the volume before was probably pretty low since not many people can claim the hour or two saved in security and boarding is worth 5x-10x the cost of a flight...

But COVID at least adds a more concrete benefit for people who would never have considered it at all, and might at least entertain the idea for specific occasions.

With how small private aviation is compared to commercial it wouldn't take many people making that consideration to have a large effect

How else to bypass travel bans?

Public flying is awful. Truly awful.

Same story in every expensive hobby; people saved during the pandemic and are now spending on those hobbies.

It's most likely not on savings that people fly on private flights though

The article isn't super-clear but it at least casts this as being about things like NetJets as opposed to people taking up flying as a hobby. But it's probably a bit of both.

These are private jet flights, not hobby Cessna flights.

Yup I even bought an airbus for my family with my stimulus bucks

I received $1,500 in panny bux due to my low income. After that, I was finally able to afford my $1.8m house in Seattle.

So there are probably record levels of lead being emitted from planes too, since a lot of private aviation flights are in propeller planes that use leaded fuel. Logically therefore... wait... what was I talking about again? carry on...

Not nearly all propeller planes burn leaded avgas.

Turboprops (Saab 340s, Dash-8, ATR, PC-12, TBM-700+, etc; basically almost everything over around 8 pax seats) burn Jet-A, same as turbojets/turbofans. It's only the very small piston engine airplanes (Cape Air 421s and smaller) that likely burn leaded fuel.

Most anything that will be flown by the 135/91K operators in the article will be burning Jet-A.

Yep, and G100UL (unleaded) is coming real soon, so the lead argument becomes moot. Not that it was ever really a good one.

Queue the people that buy a house next to an airport and then complain about the airplanes. They will be “outraged” at the “onslaught” of planes flying overhead and demand reform.

Really with small planes it's going to be the number falling out of the sky. Juan Brown on the Blancoliro channel on YT goes over this pretty commonly when talking about small aircraft regulations.

I'm amazed that people can just fly over everyone and make incredible amounts of noise while those on the ground are trying to enjoy peace and quiet.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or you really believe that. I could just as easily state that I am amazed that people can drive around with their sound systems blaring and make incredible amounts of noise while those around them are trying to enjoy peace and quiet. You are more likely to encounter a loud vehicle than a General Aviation aircraft unless you live very close to an airport.

I'm serious. Of course, we have to get around, so these things need to be balanced. Commercial airliners are less bad because they move more people, and some of those people are going to places to do productive work. But a private plane flying low over when you are on a nature hike is like a form of theft. You are taking something without compensation.

So why is it a form of theft to make noise while you are trying to enjoy a forest, but not theft for pilots to be prevented from enjoying the sky?

This does not make sense because enjoying a forest does not cause noise that would prevent the pilots from enjoying the sky.

It would also be theft if you were making huge unnecessary noise playing music or whatnot. It's all about the amount of noise and how far it travels.

Oh, what you might mean is, "If I can't fly because I will disturb you on the ground, you are stealing the enjoyment of the skies from me." I can see that. I think it also relates to the number of people affected. If one pilot during one flight across a forest disturbs 100 people who are trying to enjoy nature, that imbalance is where the difficulty is.

That makes more sense. I'm not convinced that most people are bothered by aircraft noise to the extent you are, but I understand your argument.

IMO vehicle noise should also be regulated (alongside aviation noise).

Or at least, some disincentive levied (tax, etc) to discourage noise pollution.

Noise pollution likely has many negative health effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_from_noise

It’s regulated now, is it not? I suspect enforcing the existing regulations would be a reasonable next step. My house fronts on a four-lane road. I’m quite sure a lot of what I hear isn’t in compliance with existing regulations. (Full disclosure: I can’t reasonably be that bothered when other people do it, because I’ve owned modified cars in the past that weren’t in compliance either, because nobody cares to enforce the regs.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com