I disagree, I think it will increase values as the relative value to new will remain the same. I think it will impact the double enders.

At the end of the day, what manufacturers should be doing (which I think that the PC12 has done in spades) is introduce non-flying people to the fold.........I see a fair number of PC12 owned but not flown (use a contract pilot) by folks using GA with a purpose........

I'm bullish on the PC12 if the markets continue to go up, bullish if it does down (as it becomes a much better alternative to expensive hourly counterparts) and if the Denali comes to fruition, it may reduce new sales of the PC12, but the existing market I think will rise........folks will look at a new one, say boy, that's pricey, let me grab a used model..........BOOM I'll be the first guy to sell his PC12 for twice what he paid.........but then I'm stuck needing to buy something else...........

geez Brent, see where we are at now?

Great! That means Avanti's will keep depreciating 'til I can get one!

That is exactly what I was implying.......they're going to realize (or have already) that the Avanti is out of reach from an operating cost perspective and drive UP the value of the SETP and drive DOWN the value of the Avanti.........

and yes, you are welcome.......

I'm flying in the exact same sky with passengers and nobody is complaining. I think they're too sensitive. It is in the hands of mother nature after all.

Also, I'm not the one that brought up the topic.... why did you quote me?

I'm flying in the exact same sky with passengers and nobody is complaining. I think they're too sensitive. It is in the hands of mother nature after all.

Also, I'm not the one that brought up the topic.... why did you quote me?

Listen up chisel chest..........I see RB trying to steal your lady, but it's because..........we'll you're quotable...........so simmer down nah!!

I disagree, I think it will increase values as the relative value to new will remain the same. I think it will impact the double enders.

At the end of the day, what manufacturers should be doing (which I think that the PC12 has done in spades) is introduce non-flying people to the fold.........I see a fair number of PC12 owned but not flown (use a contract pilot) by folks using GA with a purpose........

I'm bullish on the PC12 if the markets continue to go up, bullish if it does down (as it becomes a much better alternative to expensive hourly counterparts) and if the Denali comes to fruition, it may reduce new sales of the PC12, but the existing market I think will rise........folks will look at a new one, say boy, that's pricey, let me grab a used model..........BOOM I'll be the first guy to sell his PC12 for twice what he paid.........but then I'm stuck needing to buy something else...........

geez Brent, see where we are at now?

Well, because I didn't want to put words in your post that you did not write.

I also forgot, you do not have flight attendants up walking about. Nor have you ever probably slammed a flight attendant into the ceiling from CAT.

BTW, I have never slammed a flight attendant into the ceiling, because I did all I could to insure a good ride (or sat them down).

There are many reasons to ask for a better ride and you can make fun of those who do, because last time I checked, it is still OK to do so.

And we are back to the original post of "I'll bet 80% of the radio chatter is guys asking how the ride is".

It's an interesting phenomenon because I too have never slammed a passenger into the ceiling "in cruise" and have never asked "how are the rides today"? I've also never heard a pilot on the radio actually accomplish a better ride by changing altitude a couple thousand feet. The whole process seems futile for the amount of bandwidth consumed.

Asking for a different altitude doesn't always get you a different altitude and getting a different altitude doesn't always get you a better ride. To claim that your efforts on the radio resulted in your unblemished record of "stewardess slamming" is a bit of a reach IMO.

You're coming off like one of the guys in the VFR thread who thinks you know so much more than everyone else because you fly/flew for a living. I'm sure there are parts of flying you are more knowledgable about than I am but "turbulence"???? C'mon.... I've experienced lots of severe turbulence but it's usually in descent to my destination and not much can be done about it unless you just don't want to land.

Dat's what I'm predicting.........

And we are back to the original post of "I'll bet 80% of the radio chatter is guys asking how the ride is".

It's an interesting phenomenon because I too have never slammed a passenger into the ceiling "in cruise" and have never asked "how are the rides today"? I've also never heard a pilot on the radio actually accomplish a better ride by changing altitude a couple thousand feet. The whole process seems futile for the amount of bandwidth consumed.

Asking for a different altitude doesn't always get you a different altitude and getting a different altitude doesn't always get you a better ride. To claim that your efforts on the radio resulted in your unblemished record of "stewardess slamming" is a bit of a reach IMO.

You're coming off like one of the guys in the VFR thread who thinks you know so much more than everyone else because you fly/flew for a living. I'm sure there are parts of flying you are more knowledgable about than I am but "turbulence"???? C'mon.... I've experienced lots of severe turbulence but it's usually in descent to my destination and not much can be done about it unless you just don't want to land.

Your question requires a new thread/poll, sir.....

Well that is unfortunate, I'm going to immediately enroll in MB's school of BT writing.

I think we are all reading and assuming too much into this topic.

My GA knowledge a year ago was like a single speck of sand on a beach. Thanks to BT, I now have enough GA sand to make a small beach.

I also appreciate your PC-12 knowledge and experience

For what it is worth, the airline I work for unfortunately averages about one flight attendant injury per day due to turbulence so I'm sure that most of the other airlines are in the same place statistically. There has been a major push in the last few years to reduce turbulence-related injuries through various initiatives including sitting the flight attendants down sooner, automated in-flight turbulence PIREPs delivered to the FMC, better routing around turbulence areas, and yes, aggressively managing altitudes to find a smoother ride (including carrying extra fuel to do so). But unfortunately it isn't always an option to go down into even the high 20's (where the air might be reported as smooth) as that would really reduce fuel burn on a 3 to 6 hour flight. Sometimes changing altitudes is pointless but other times it really can make a difference. It is also worth noting that the flight attendants are also pushing around big heavy carts that can send things flying when you get into moderate to severe turbulence.

-Neal

MB uses Grammarly