Geez, Cessna buys Columbia and the king of copy and paste hasn't posted
something of actual interest here yet?

> Geez, Cessna buys Columbia and the king of copy and paste hasn't posted
> something of actual interest here yet?

You think that will really kill Cirrus?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>Geez, Cessna buys Columbia and the king of copy and paste hasn't posted
>>something of actual interest here yet?
>
>
> You think that will really kill Cirrus?

No, just getting your attention. But Cirrus will find themselves a
distant second within a couple years. You just can't beat an
established company with a great dealer network when your products are
similar.

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>>Geez, Cessna buys Columbia and the king of copy and paste hasn't posted
>>>something of actual interest here yet?
>>
>>
>> You think that will really kill Cirrus?
>
> No, just getting your attention. But Cirrus will find themselves a
> distant second within a couple years. You just can't beat an established
> company with a great dealer network when your products are similar.
>

Cirrus isn't established?

Rumors of Cirrus' demise are greatly exaggerated IMO.

Darkwing wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>
>>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Geez, Cessna buys Columbia and the king of copy and paste hasn't posted
>>>>something of actual interest here yet?
>>>
>>>
>>>You think that will really kill Cirrus?
>>
>>No, just getting your attention. But Cirrus will find themselves a
>>distant second within a couple years. You just can't beat an established
>>company with a great dealer network when your products are similar.
>>
>
>
> Cirrus isn't established?

Compared to Cessna they have no dealer network.

> > Cirrus isn't established?
>
> Compared to Cessna they have no dealer network.- Hide quoted text -

I've found a great deal of overlap. Iowa City's FBO, Jet Air, for
example, is a Cessna AND Cirrus dealer.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

If this had happened 2 or 3 years ago I would agree but not now. Cirrus has
established themselves very well in the marketplace and there are enough of
their planes out that now to overcome the long term name of Cessna. I think
the plane the is the goner is the NGP. No reason for it anymore.


"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>>Geez, Cessna buys Columbia and the king of copy and paste hasn't posted
>>>something of actual interest here yet?
>>
>>
>> You think that will really kill Cirrus?
>
> No, just getting your attention. But Cirrus will find themselves a
> distant second within a couple years. You just can't beat an established
> company with a great dealer network when your products are similar.
>

"Newps" wrote:

>> Cirrus isn't established?
>
> Compared to Cessna they have no dealer network.

Maybe not, but the people they have seem a lot more motivated.

There's no Cirrus dealer here, but they still come to town & put on demo's,
and they advertise in the regional aviation rags with offers of demo
flights.

I never see any of that kind of stuff from Cessna.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:
>
>
> There's no Cirrus dealer here, but they still come to town & put on demo's,
> and they advertise in the regional aviation rags with offers of demo
> flights.

I read somewhere that SR22 was the #1 selling piston single last year.

> I never see any of that kind of stuff from Cessna.

You really gotta wonder where Piper is in all this. Their dealer
network is virtually gone (Iowa City was a Piper dealer for decades,
until 2002-ish), and -- other than token appearances at major fly-ins
(where they only talk about jets) -- you never see their reps in the
field anymore.

For a company that claims to be expanding, they sure appear to have
relinquished the field.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

news.verizon.net writes:

> If this had happened 2 or 3 years ago I would agree but not now. Cirrus has
> established themselves very well in the marketplace and there are enough of
> their planes out that now to overcome the long term name of Cessna.

Where does Cirrus build its aircraft?

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> news.verizon.net writes:
>
>> If this had happened 2 or 3 years ago I would agree but not now. Cirrus
>> has
>> established themselves very well in the marketplace and there are enough
>> of
>> their planes out that now to overcome the long term name of Cessna.
>
> Where does Cirrus build its aircraft?

Wow you don't know this of all things??

Duluth, Minnesota.

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
>You really gotta wonder where Piper is in all this.

Piper has opted out of the GA piston market, for the most part. I've
talked to the Piper sales guys at some of the major fly-ins. Even they're not
expecting that a lot of people will be buying what is essentially a 40 yr.
old design with a glass panel in the mid $300K range. They seem to be
pinning their future on the light jet market.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

Why ask me, you won't believe it anyway.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> news.verizon.net writes:
>
>> If this had happened 2 or 3 years ago I would agree but not now. Cirrus
>> has
>> established themselves very well in the marketplace and there are enough
>> of
>> their planes out that now to overcome the long term name of Cessna.
>
> Where does Cirrus build its aircraft?

I thought Cirrus's business model was to sell direct.

Mike Schumann

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...
>> > Cirrus isn't established?
>>
>> Compared to Cessna they have no dealer network.- Hide quoted text -
>
> I've found a great deal of overlap. Iowa City's FBO, Jet Air, for
> example, is a Cessna AND Cirrus dealer.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"news.verizon.net" > wrote in message news:g_i3j.30399$701.6991@trndny08...
> If this had happened 2 or 3 years ago I would agree but not now. Cirrus has established themselves very well in the
> marketplace and there are enough of their planes out that now to overcome the long term name of Cessna. I think the
> plane the is the goner is the NGP. No reason for it anymore.
>
>

What are the insurance rates for the Columbias? I know the Cirrus is about 2x the C-182...

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> news.verizon.net writes:
>
>> If this had happened 2 or 3 years ago I would agree but not now.
>> Cirrus has established themselves very well in the marketplace and
>> there are enough of their planes out that now to overcome the long
>> term name of Cessna.
>
> Where does Cirrus build its aircraft?
>

Why? You'll never fly one.

Bertie

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Newps" wrote:
>
>
>>>Cirrus isn't established?
>>
>>Compared to Cessna they have no dealer network.
>
>
> Maybe not, but the people they have seem a lot more motivated.
>
> There's no Cirrus dealer here, but they still come to town & put on demo's,
> and they advertise in the regional aviation rags with offers of demo
> flights.
>
> I never see any of that kind of stuff from Cessna.


As an owner I could not possibly care less that my manufacturer goes out
and does demos. I want availability of service and I want parts in
stock. I also want shops that don't have to phone the home office just
to get the cowl off.

Darkwing wrote:

> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>news.verizon.net writes:
>>
>>
>>>If this had happened 2 or 3 years ago I would agree but not now. Cirrus
>>>has
>>>established themselves very well in the marketplace and there are enough
>>>of
>>>their planes out that now to overcome the long term name of Cessna.
>>
>>Where does Cirrus build its aircraft?
>
>
> Wow you don't know this of all things??
>
> Duluth, Minnesota.


Yep and major subassemblies made in a foreign country, Scandinavia. Er,
North Dakota. Whatever.

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>
>>You really gotta wonder where Piper is in all this.
>
>
> Piper has opted out of the GA piston market, for the most part. I've
> talked to the Piper sales guys at some of the major fly-ins. Even they're not
> expecting that a lot of people will be buying what is essentially a 40 yr.
> old design with a glass panel in the mid $300K range. They seem to be
> pinning their future on the light jet market.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>

I just read somewhere they sold something like 8 Archers all of 2007.
In other words they are dead.

Jay,

> You really gotta wonder where Piper is in all this.
>

Dead. Plain and simple. Their sales numbers are orders of magnitude
below Cirrus and Cessna.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Newps wrote:
> Darkwing wrote:
>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> news.verizon.net writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> If this had happened 2 or 3 years ago I would agree but not now.
>>>> Cirrus has
>>>> established themselves very well in the marketplace and there are
>>>> enough of
>>>> their planes out that now to overcome the long term name of Cessna.
>>>
>>> Where does Cirrus build its aircraft?
>>
>> Wow you don't know this of all things??
>>
>> Duluth, Minnesota.
>
> Yep and major subassemblies made in a foreign country, Scandinavia. Er,
> North Dakota. Whatever.

Isn't this about the point at which the resident xenophobes start
ranting about the company's majority owner being an arm of the First
Islamic Investment Bank of Bahrain?

(Contrary to common belief, BTW, the dominant ancestry in North Dakota
[and Minnesota for that matter] is German, not that of any of the
Scandinavian nations.)

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Rich Ahrens wrote:
>
>> Isn't this about the point at which the resident xenophobes start
>> ranting about the company's majority owner being an arm of the First
>> Islamic Investment Bank of Bahrain?
>
> I'm not xenophoic at all and spent most summers there from 76-81. But are
> you saying the US part of Arcapita (formerly known as Islamic Investment
> Bank of Bahrain) didn't purchase 50 something percent of Cirrus in '01 or
> '02?
>
> I don't know how much of that has been sold off since but there was a point
> in time that the statment "Islamic Investment Bank of Bahrain is the
> majority owner of Cirrus" was true.

You misunderstood. It's absolutely true that Crescent Capital (now
renamed Arcapita) bought a majority stake in 2001. They also bought
controlling interest in Caribou Coffee, another Minnesota business. No,
what I'm mocking is the kind of xenophobic crap in the Skycatcher
thread: "No way am I buying any aeroplane built by them heathen
Chinee..." I expect similar ranting about Cirrus. All that profit going
to...who???

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
ouse.com...

>"No way am I buying any aeroplane built by them heathen Chinee..."

F'ck the Chinese. I don't care if people call it xenophobic. They're
environment-trashing, human-rights-violating, child-abandoning,
dissident-imprisoning communists who sell weapons to our enemies and block
their population from accessing the truth about the world and their
government.

Xenophobic? What are the chances of the Dalai Lama dropping in to watch the
Olympics without disappearing?

It's not phobic to say that China is our ideological enemy. But I -could-
be phobic, because anybody who has nuclear weapons pointed at my home or
tries to steal our military technology is my enemy.

-c

Rich Ahrens wrote:
is the majority owner of Cirrus" was true.
>
> You misunderstood. It's absolutely true that Crescent Capital (now
> renamed Arcapita) bought a majority stake in 2001. They also bought
> controlling interest in Caribou Coffee, another Minnesota business.
> No, what I'm mocking is the kind of xenophobic crap in the Skycatcher
> thread: "No way am I buying any aeroplane built by them heathen
> Chinee..." I expect similar ranting about Cirrus. All that profit
> going to...who???

There is a big difference in the two situations. Actually there are several
but one is important.

In the case of the Skycatcher you have a US company moving jobs to a country
that is, to use your own word, heathen by any definition you can find, and
has a history of providing less than quality products.

On the Cirrus side you have a foreign country, that while the religion it
follows is generally anti US, has a long an productive relationship with the
west and the US in particular. And even if you hate everything they stand
for at least they are sending some of the money back to the US that we sent
over there.

What it boils down to is money into the US=Good. Money out of the US=Bad.

Gatt wrote:
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> ouse.com...
>
>> "No way am I buying any aeroplane built by them heathen Chinee..."
>
> F'ck the Chinese. I don't care if people call it xenophobic. They're
> environment-trashing, human-rights-violating, child-abandoning,
> dissident-imprisoning communists who sell weapons to our enemies and block
> their population from accessing the truth about the world and their
> government.

Sound like ideal allies and trading partners then - certainly we have or
have had plenty of other allies guilty of all the above.

> Xenophobic? What are the chances of the Dalai Lama dropping in to watch the
> Olympics without disappearing?
>
> It's not phobic to say that China is our ideological enemy. But I -could-
> be phobic, because anybody who has nuclear weapons pointed at my home or
> tries to steal our military technology is my enemy.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> On the Cirrus side you have a foreign country, that while the religion it
> follows is generally anti US, has a long an productive relationship with the
> west and the US in particular. And even if you hate everything they stand
> for at least they are sending some of the money back to the US that we sent
> over there.
>
> What it boils down to is money into the US=Good. Money out of the US=Bad.

Make up your mind. You were just bitching about Cessna maximizing its
profit by outsourcing. Seems to me that profit is money into the US...

On Nov 29, 8:04 pm, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> Gatt wrote:
> > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> ouse.com...
>
> >> "No way am I buying any aeroplane built by them heathen Chinee..."
>
> > F'ck the Chinese. I don't care if people call it xenophobic. They're
> > environment-trashing, human-rights-violating, child-abandoning,
> > dissident-imprisoning communists who sell weapons to our enemies and block
> > their population from accessing the truth about the world and their
> > government.
>
> Sound like ideal allies and trading partners then - certainly we have or
> have had plenty of other allies guilty of all the above.
>
> > Xenophobic? What are the chances of the Dalai Lama dropping in to watch the
> > Olympics without disappearing?
>
> > It's not phobic to say that China is our ideological enemy. But I -could-
> > be phobic, because anybody who has nuclear weapons pointed at my home or
> > tries to steal our military technology is my enemy.
>
> Thank you for demonstrating my point.

You have no point. Gatt is 100% correct. Placating the Chinese with
trade won't last. Eventually, they will exercise their military. I
am expecting them to invade Siberia in an effort to expand their
territory and gain access to more natural resources. How do you say
"Liebensraum" in Chinese?

wrote in
:

> On Nov 29, 8:04 pm, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> Gatt wrote:
>> > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
>> ouse.com...
>>
>> >> "No way am I buying any aeroplane built by them heathen Chinee..."
>>
>> > F'ck the Chinese. I don't care if people call it xenophobic.
>> > They're environment-trashing, human-rights-violating,
>> > child-abandoning, dissident-imprisoning communists who sell weapons
>> > to our enemies and block their population from accessing the truth
>> > about the world and their government.
>>
>> Sound like ideal allies and trading partners then - certainly we have
>> or have had plenty of other allies guilty of all the above.
>>
>> > Xenophobic? What are the chances of the Dalai Lama dropping in to
>> > watch the Olympics without disappearing?
>>
>> > It's not phobic to say that China is our ideological enemy. But I
>> > -could- be phobic, because anybody who has nuclear weapons pointed
>> > at my home or tries to steal our military technology is my enemy.
>>
>> Thank you for demonstrating my point.
>
> You have no point. Gatt is 100% correct. Placating the Chinese with
> trade won't last. Eventually, they will exercise their military. I
> am expecting them to invade Siberia in an effort to expand their
> territory and gain access to more natural resources. How do you say
> "Liebensraum" in Chinese?
>

Well, you say it as Lebensraum in German, for starters.


Bertie

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
ouse.com...

>>> "No way am I buying any aeroplane built by them heathen Chinee..."
>>
>> F'ck the Chinese. I don't care if people call it xenophobic. They're
>> environment-trashing, human-rights-violating, child-abandoning,
>> dissident-imprisoning communists who sell weapons to our enemies and
>> block their population from accessing the truth about the world and their
>> government.
>
> Sound like ideal allies and trading partners then - certainly we have or
> have had plenty of other allies guilty of all the above.

Not nearly on the scale of China. Of course, we should avoid business with
any of those nations. (Like Saudi Arabia or Sudan.)

>> Xenophobic? What are the chances of the Dalai Lama dropping in to watch
>> the Olympics without disappearing?
>>
>> It's not phobic to say that China is our ideological enemy. But
>> I -could- be phobic, because anybody who has nuclear weapons pointed at
>> my home or tries to steal our military technology is my enemy.
>
> Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Sorry. You're incorrect. It's not xenophobic to call an enemy government the
enemy. I'm not xenophobic for thinking Fidel Castro is a jackass either.
Both governments, coincidentially, have some of the worst media and free
speech censorship on earth. I have no moral qualms whatsoever about
criticizing their governments for what they are.

Fortunately, everywhere except for places like China and Cuba, we don't go
to prison for speaking out against them. There, we would. Wouldn't we?

-c

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
ouse.com...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> On the Cirrus side you have a foreign country, that while the religion it
>> follows is generally anti US, has a long an productive relationship with
>> the west and the US in particular. And even if you hate everything they
>> stand for at least they are sending some of the money back to the US that
>> we sent over there.
>>
>> What it boils down to is money into the US=Good. Money out of the US=Bad.
>
> Make up your mind. You were just bitching about Cessna maximizing its
> profit by outsourcing. Seems to me that profit is money into the US...

For a few. The rest--the people who made Cessna what it was by Actually
Making the Cessnas--will have a hard time enjoying Cessna's "profits."

-c

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> ouse.com...
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>> On the Cirrus side you have a foreign country, that while the religion
>>> it follows is generally anti US, has a long an productive relationship
>>> with the west and the US in particular. And even if you hate everything
>>> they stand for at least they are sending some of the money back to the
>>> US that we sent over there.
>>>
>>> What it boils down to is money into the US=Good. Money out of the
>>> US=Bad.
>>
>> Make up your mind. You were just bitching about Cessna maximizing its
>> profit by outsourcing. Seems to me that profit is money into the US...
>
> For a few. The rest--the people who made Cessna what it was by Actually
> Making the Cessnas--will have a hard time enjoying Cessna's "profits."

Who made Cessna what it is? The workers? The management? The INVESTORS? Who
actually had $$$ at risk?

Gatt wrote:


>
> For a few. The rest--the people who made Cessna what it was by Actually
> Making the Cessnas--will have a hard time enjoying Cessna's "profits."

Are you kidding? Cessna is going flat out right now.

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
>> ouse.com...
>>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>>> On the Cirrus side you have a foreign country, that while the
>>>> religion it follows is generally anti US, has a long an productive
>>>> relationship with the west and the US in particular. And even if
>>>> you hate everything they stand for at least they are sending some
>>>> of the money back to the US that we sent over there.
>>>>
>>>> What it boils down to is money into the US=Good. Money out of the
>>>> US=Bad.
>>>
>>> Make up your mind. You were just bitching about Cessna maximizing
>>> its profit by outsourcing. Seems to me that profit is money into the
>>> US...
>>
>> For a few. The rest--the people who made Cessna what it was by
>> Actually Making the Cessnas--will have a hard time enjoying Cessna's
>> "profits."
>
> Who made Cessna what it is?


Clyde Cessna, mostly.


Bertie

"Gatt" > wrote in
:

>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> ouse.com...
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>> On the Cirrus side you have a foreign country, that while the
>>> religion it follows is generally anti US, has a long an productive
>>> relationship with the west and the US in particular. And even if you
>>> hate everything they stand for at least they are sending some of the
>>> money back to the US that we sent over there.
>>>
>>> What it boils down to is money into the US=Good. Money out of the
>>> US=Bad.
>>
>> Make up your mind. You were just bitching about Cessna maximizing its
>> profit by outsourcing. Seems to me that profit is money into the
>> US...
>
> For a few. The rest--the people who made Cessna what it was by
> Actually Making the Cessnas--will have a hard time enjoying Cessna's
> "profits."
>
> -c
>
>
>

So don't buy one.


Easy, see?


Bertie

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
...

>> For a few. The rest--the people who made Cessna what it was by Actually
>> Making the Cessnas--will have a hard time enjoying Cessna's "profits."
>
> Who made Cessna what it is? The workers? The management? The INVESTORS?
> Who actually had $$$ at risk?

When it comes to the ability of America, its economy and its people, we all
have $$$ at risk.

All the money in the empire couldn't have built Julius Caesar a Cessna.

All the money in the American economy wouldn't have populated general
aviation with the Cessnas that the factory workers didn't build for them.
If the Cessna investors want to make Cessna a chinese company whose profits
go to a small number of -international- shareholders (not necessarily
Americans) they should just say so. But first they should tell it to the
Americans who just lost their jobs to the communists so that handful of
investors could make more money.

-c

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..

>>
>> For a few. The rest--the people who made Cessna what it was by Actually
>> Making the Cessnas--will have a hard time enjoying Cessna's "profits."
>
> Are you kidding? Cessna is going flat out right now.

You're right.
"Cessna recorded a 2005 profit of $457 million on revenue of $3.4 billion,
compared to 2004 profit of $267 million on revenue of $2.5 billion. The
company builds business jets at its factory complex at Wichita's
Mid-Continent Airport and single-engine piston aircraft at its plant in
Independence, Kan. "
http://wichita.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2006/01/23/daily17.html?hbx=e_abd

Good for them. The record profits must have been hurting them so bad, they
just had to relocate to China.

Wal-Mart's domestic factories were going flat out when they bragged to
everybody about how American they were.

-c

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .

>> For a few. The rest--the people who made Cessna what it was by
>> Actually Making the Cessnas--will have a hard time enjoying Cessna's
>> "profits."
>
> So don't buy one.
>
> Easy, see?

In what way is Americans not buying things good for the US economy? It would
be better all around if I bought a Cessna that was built in Wichita instead
of not buying one that was made in China.

Meanwhile, they're reporting record profits for domestic production...not
during production in China, but during the last two years. With a crisis
like that it's no wonder they're moving to a communist state with shoddy
quality control, unethical business practices, massive human rights
violations and near-slave labor.

Once those folks in Kansas are laid off, none of them will be buying Cessnas
either. Not exactly Mr. Ford's business model. And you know the Chinese
workers going to buy them either. 'Course, the French might, what with the
value of the Euro over the dollar. It'll be interesting to hear from them
about how the Skycatcher handles, because I'll probably never fly one.

-c

On Nov 30, 9:28 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 8:04 pm, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> >> Gatt wrote:
> >> > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> >> ouse.com...
>
> >> >> "No way am I buying any aeroplane built by them heathen Chinee..."
>
> >> > F'ck the Chinese. I don't care if people call it xenophobic.
> >> > They're environment-trashing, human-rights-violating,
> >> > child-abandoning, dissident-imprisoning communists who sell weapons
> >> > to our enemies and block their population from accessing the truth
> >> > about the world and their government.
>
> >> Sound like ideal allies and trading partners then - certainly we have
> >> or have had plenty of other allies guilty of all the above.
>
> >> > Xenophobic? What are the chances of the Dalai Lama dropping in to
> >> > watch the Olympics without disappearing?
>
> >> > It's not phobic to say that China is our ideological enemy. But I
> >> > -could- be phobic, because anybody who has nuclear weapons pointed
> >> > at my home or tries to steal our military technology is my enemy.
>
> >> Thank you for demonstrating my point.
>
> > You have no point. Gatt is 100% correct. Placating the Chinese with
> > trade won't last. Eventually, they will exercise their military. I
> > am expecting them to invade Siberia in an effort to expand their
> > territory and gain access to more natural resources. How do you say
> > "Liebensraum" in Chinese?
>
> Well, you say it as Lebensraum in German, for starters.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks for the spelling check...

"Gatt" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>> For a few. The rest--the people who made Cessna what it was by
>>> Actually Making the Cessnas--will have a hard time enjoying Cessna's
>>> "profits."
>>
>> So don't buy one.
>>
>> Easy, see?
>
> In what way is Americans not buying things good for the US economy?



It
> would be better all around if I bought a Cessna that was built in
> Wichita instead of not buying one that was made in China.


Good grief.


So, you want a law to make them build it in the US, is that it?


>
> Meanwhile, they're reporting record profits for domestic
> production...not during production in China, but during the last two
> years. With a crisis like that it's no wonder they're moving to a
> communist state with shoddy quality control, unethical business
> practices, massive human rights violations and near-slave labor.


Like the US meat packing industry, ya mean?

>
> Once those folks in Kansas are laid off, none of them will be buying
> Cessnas either. Not exactly Mr. Ford's business model. And you know
> the Chinese workers going to buy them either. 'Course, the French
> might, what with the value of the Euro over the dollar. It'll be
> interesting to hear from them about how the Skycatcher handles,
> because I'll probably never fly one.
>


There ya go. Don't buy one. You got there in the end.


Bertie

wrote in
:

> On Nov 30, 9:28 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> innews:810f1cd3-25b4-47b0-9646-42954b6d2385
@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 29, 8:04 pm, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> >> Gatt wrote:
>> >> > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
>> >> ouse.com...
>>
>> >> >> "No way am I buying any aeroplane built by them heathen
>> >> >> Chinee..."
>>
>> >> > F'ck the Chinese. I don't care if people call it xenophobic.
>> >> > They're environment-trashing, human-rights-violating,
>> >> > child-abandoning, dissident-imprisoning communists who sell
>> >> > weapons to our enemies and block their population from accessing
>> >> > the truth about the world and their government.
>>
>> >> Sound like ideal allies and trading partners then - certainly we
>> >> have or have had plenty of other allies guilty of all the above.
>>
>> >> > Xenophobic? What are the chances of the Dalai Lama dropping in
>> >> > to watch the Olympics without disappearing?
>>
>> >> > It's not phobic to say that China is our ideological enemy. But
>> >> > I -could- be phobic, because anybody who has nuclear weapons
>> >> > pointed at my home or tries to steal our military technology is
>> >> > my enemy.
>>
>> >> Thank you for demonstrating my point.
>>
>> > You have no point. Gatt is 100% correct. Placating the Chinese
>> > with trade won't last. Eventually, they will exercise their
>> > military. I am expecting them to invade Siberia in an effort to
>> > expand their territory and gain access to more natural resources.
>> > How do you say "Liebensraum" in Chinese?
>>
>> Well, you say it as Lebensraum in German, for starters.
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Thanks for the spelling check...
>

Actually, the difference is one in philosophy rather than speeeliing.

Since you're grasp of reality seems slender at best I naturally assumed
you thoguth the Germans were looking for love in WW2


Perhaps they were..



Bertie

Gatt wrote:
But first they should tell it to the
> Americans who just lost their jobs to the communists so that handful of
> investors could make more money.
>

No employee at Cessna lost their job because they're building the 162 in
China. Cessna is hiring.

On Nov 28, 11:07 am, Newps > wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >>Geez, Cessna buys Columbia and the king of copy and paste hasn't posted
> >>something of actual interest here yet?
>
> > You think that will really kill Cirrus?
>
> No, just getting your attention. But Cirrus will find themselves a
> distant second within a couple years. You just can't beat an
> established company with a great dealer network when your products are
> similar.

I think the Cirrus SR22 competes well against the Columbia...er...
Cessna 350. The SR20 and Cessna 400 are on oposite ends of the
market, so they don't really compete head to head.

Where Cirrus has the advantage right now is in availability of
maintenance, training and insurance. It will take Cessna a while to
catch up. In the meantime, Cirrus will continue to sell aircraft at
an amazing pace.

Gatt wrote:
>
> Wal-Mart's domestic factories were going flat out when they bragged to
> everybody about how American they were.
>

One thing here. Wal-Mart isn't a manufacture.

Newps wrote:
> Gatt wrote:
> But first they should tell it to the
>> Americans who just lost their jobs to the communists so that handful
>> of investors could make more money.
>>
>
> No employee at Cessna lost their job because they're building the 162
> in China. Cessna is hiring.

Though I didn't make the original statment I'll rephrase form him.

....American's that won't get jobs that the communists will so that handful
of investors could make more money.

On Nov 30, 11:43 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
> > On Nov 30, 9:28 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote
> >> innews:810f1cd3-25b4-47b0-9646-42954b6d2385
>
> @e10g2000prf.googlegroups.c
>
>
>
>
>
> >> om:
>
> >> > On Nov 29, 8:04 pm, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> >> >> Gatt wrote:
> >> >> > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> >> >> ouse.com...
>
> >> >> >> "No way am I buying any aeroplane built by them heathen
> >> >> >> Chinee..."
>
> >> >> > F'ck the Chinese. I don't care if people call it xenophobic.
> >> >> > They're environment-trashing, human-rights-violating,
> >> >> > child-abandoning, dissident-imprisoning communists who sell
> >> >> > weapons to our enemies and block their population from accessing
> >> >> > the truth about the world and their government.
>
> >> >> Sound like ideal allies and trading partners then - certainly we
> >> >> have or have had plenty of other allies guilty of all the above.
>
> >> >> > Xenophobic? What are the chances of the Dalai Lama dropping in
> >> >> > to watch the Olympics without disappearing?
>
> >> >> > It's not phobic to say that China is our ideological enemy. But
> >> >> > I -could- be phobic, because anybody who has nuclear weapons
> >> >> > pointed at my home or tries to steal our military technology is
> >> >> > my enemy.
>
> >> >> Thank you for demonstrating my point.
>
> >> > You have no point. Gatt is 100% correct. Placating the Chinese
> >> > with trade won't last. Eventually, they will exercise their
> >> > military. I am expecting them to invade Siberia in an effort to
> >> > expand their territory and gain access to more natural resources.
> >> > How do you say "Liebensraum" in Chinese?
>
> >> Well, you say it as Lebensraum in German, for starters.
>
> >> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Thanks for the spelling check...
>
> Actually, the difference is one in philosophy rather than speeeliing.
>
> Since you're grasp of reality seems slender at best I naturally assumed
> you thoguth the Germans were looking for love in WW2
>
> Perhaps they were..
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, but Churchhill spurned their advances... he threw away the
flowers, returned their cards and letters, and told them they were so
ugly, that he wouldn't go out with them if they were the last country
on earth!

"Newps" wrote:

> As an owner I could not possibly care less that my manufacturer goes out
> and does demos. I want availability of service and I want parts in stock.
> I also want shops that don't have to phone the home office just to get the
> cowl off.

After I bought the 182 in June, my first warranty contact with my nearest
Cessna Service Center produced this remark:

"We used to be a Piper dealer. We don't know much about Cessnas."

They didn't have any parts, either.



OTOH, the Cessna factory people I've talked to have been very helpful and
have responded promptly to requests.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

On Nov 30, 11:43 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
> > On Nov 30, 9:28 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote
> >> innews:810f1cd3-25b4-47b0-9646-42954b6d2385
>
> @e10g2000prf.googlegroups.c
>
>
>
>
>
> >> om:
>
> >> > On Nov 29, 8:04 pm, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> >> >> Gatt wrote:
> >> >> > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> >> >> ouse.com...
>
> >> >> >> "No way am I buying any aeroplane built by them heathen
> >> >> >> Chinee..."
>
> >> >> > F'ck the Chinese. I don't care if people call it xenophobic.
> >> >> > They're environment-trashing, human-rights-violating,
> >> >> > child-abandoning, dissident-imprisoning communists who sell
> >> >> > weapons to our enemies and block their population from accessing
> >> >> > the truth about the world and their government.
>
> >> >> Sound like ideal allies and trading partners then - certainly we
> >> >> have or have had plenty of other allies guilty of all the above.
>
> >> >> > Xenophobic? What are the chances of the Dalai Lama dropping in
> >> >> > to watch the Olympics without disappearing?
>
> >> >> > It's not phobic to say that China is our ideological enemy. But
> >> >> > I -could- be phobic, because anybody who has nuclear weapons
> >> >> > pointed at my home or tries to steal our military technology is
> >> >> > my enemy.
>
> >> >> Thank you for demonstrating my point.
>
> >> > You have no point. Gatt is 100% correct. Placating the Chinese
> >> > with trade won't last. Eventually, they will exercise their
> >> > military. I am expecting them to invade Siberia in an effort to
> >> > expand their territory and gain access to more natural resources.
> >> > How do you say "Liebensraum" in Chinese?
>
> >> Well, you say it as Lebensraum in German, for starters.
>
> >> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Thanks for the spelling check...
>
> Actually, the difference is one in philosophy rather than speeeliing.
>
> Since you're grasp of reality seems slender at best I naturally assumed
> you thoguth the Germans were looking for love in WW2
>
> Perhaps they were..
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If they can't buy it, I expect they will invade it... they have
already started a human wave of emigration.
http://www.slate.com/id/2086157/
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/06/chinas_manifest_destiny.html

wrote in
:

> On Nov 30, 11:43 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> innews:4dbc65f9-9720-426d-a166-

>> om:
>>
>> > On Nov 30, 9:28 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> wrote
>> >> innews:810f1cd3-25b4-47b0-9646-42954b6d2385
>>
>> @e10g2000prf.googlegroups.c
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> om:
>>
>> >> > On Nov 29, 8:04 pm, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> >> >> Gatt wrote:
>> >> >> > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ouse.com...
>>
>> >> >> >> "No way am I buying any aeroplane built by them heathen
>> >> >> >> Chinee..."
>>
>> >> >> > F'ck the Chinese. I don't care if people call it xenophobic.
>> >> >> > They're environment-trashing, human-rights-violating,
>> >> >> > child-abandoning, dissident-imprisoning communists who sell
>> >> >> > weapons to our enemies and block their population from
>> >> >> > accessing the truth about the world and their government.
>>
>> >> >> Sound like ideal allies and trading partners then - certainly
>> >> >> we have or have had plenty of other allies guilty of all the
>> >> >> above.
>>
>> >> >> > Xenophobic? What are the chances of the Dalai Lama dropping
>> >> >> > in to watch the Olympics without disappearing?
>>
>> >> >> > It's not phobic to say that China is our ideological enemy.
>> >> >> > But I -could- be phobic, because anybody who has nuclear
>> >> >> > weapons pointed at my home or tries to steal our military
>> >> >> > technology is my enemy.
>>
>> >> >> Thank you for demonstrating my point.
>>
>> >> > You have no point. Gatt is 100% correct. Placating the
>> >> > Chinese with trade won't last. Eventually, they will exercise
>> >> > their military. I am expecting them to invade Siberia in an
>> >> > effort to expand their territory and gain access to more natural
>> >> > resources. How do you say "Liebensraum" in Chinese?
>>
>> >> Well, you say it as Lebensraum in German, for starters.
>>
>> >> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Thanks for the spelling check...
>>
>> Actually, the difference is one in philosophy rather than speeeliing.
>>
>> Since you're grasp of reality seems slender at best I naturally
>> assumed you thoguth the Germans were looking for love in WW2
>>
>> Perhaps they were..
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes, but Churchhill spurned their advances...

Fine example of humanity that he himself was.

> he threw away the
> flowers, returned their cards and letters, and told them they were so
> ugly, that he wouldn't go out with them if they were the last country
> on earth!
>

Surprising, since they're so closely related and share so many
interests.


Bertie

wrote in
:

> On Nov 30, 11:43 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> innews:4dbc65f9-9720-426d-a166-

>> om:
>>
>> > On Nov 30, 9:28 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> wrote
>> >> innews:810f1cd3-25b4-47b0-9646-42954b6d2385
>>
>> @e10g2000prf.googlegroups.c
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> om:
>>
>> >> > On Nov 29, 8:04 pm, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> >> >> Gatt wrote:
>> >> >> > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ouse.com...
>>
>> >> >> >> "No way am I buying any aeroplane built by them heathen
>> >> >> >> Chinee..."
>>
>> >> >> > F'ck the Chinese. I don't care if people call it xenophobic.
>> >> >> > They're environment-trashing, human-rights-violating,
>> >> >> > child-abandoning, dissident-imprisoning communists who sell
>> >> >> > weapons to our enemies and block their population from
>> >> >> > accessing the truth about the world and their government.
>>
>> >> >> Sound like ideal allies and trading partners then - certainly
>> >> >> we have or have had plenty of other allies guilty of all the
>> >> >> above.
>>
>> >> >> > Xenophobic? What are the chances of the Dalai Lama dropping
>> >> >> > in to watch the Olympics without disappearing?
>>
>> >> >> > It's not phobic to say that China is our ideological enemy.
>> >> >> > But I -could- be phobic, because anybody who has nuclear
>> >> >> > weapons pointed at my home or tries to steal our military
>> >> >> > technology is my enemy.
>>
>> >> >> Thank you for demonstrating my point.
>>
>> >> > You have no point. Gatt is 100% correct. Placating the
>> >> > Chinese with trade won't last. Eventually, they will exercise
>> >> > their military. I am expecting them to invade Siberia in an
>> >> > effort to expand their territory and gain access to more natural
>> >> > resources. How do you say "Liebensraum" in Chinese?
>>
>> >> Well, you say it as Lebensraum in German, for starters.
>>
>> >> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Thanks for the spelling check...
>>
>> Actually, the difference is one in philosophy rather than speeeliing.
>>
>> Since you're grasp of reality seems slender at best I naturally
>> assumed you thoguth the Germans were looking for love in WW2
>>
>> Perhaps they were..
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> If they can't buy it, I expect they will invade it...

Afrai of lusing your monopoly?

they have
> already started a human wave of emigration.

Yes, the yellow peril is upon us.


Whatever will we do?





Bertie

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> For a few. The rest--the people who made Cessna what it was by Actually
>>> Making the Cessnas--will have a hard time enjoying Cessna's "profits."
>>
>> Who made Cessna what it is? The workers? The management? The INVESTORS?
>> Who actually had $$$ at risk?
>
> When it comes to the ability of America, its economy and its people, we
> all have $$$ at risk.

No one has $$$ at risk except investors. Employees get paid first,
management has their arrangement, but only investors have paid CASH into a
company which they can lose in its entirety.

>
> All the money in the empire couldn't have built Julius Caesar a Cessna.

Non-Sequitur.

>
> All the money in the American economy wouldn't have populated general
> aviation with the Cessnas that the factory workers didn't build for them.
> If the Cessna investors want to make Cessna a chinese company whose
> profits go to a small number of -international- shareholders (not
> necessarily Americans) they should just say so.

With out investment cash, everything else is moot.

> But first they should tell it to the Americans who just lost their jobs to
> the communists so that handful of investors could make more money.

Which workers lost their jobs?

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Newps wrote:
>> Gatt wrote:
>> But first they should tell it to the
>>> Americans who just lost their jobs to the communists so that handful
>>> of investors could make more money.
>>>
>>
>> No employee at Cessna lost their job because they're building the 162
>> in China. Cessna is hiring.
>
> Though I didn't make the original statment I'll rephrase form him.
>
> ...American's that won't get jobs that the communists will so that handful
> of investors could make more money.

As he said, Cessna is hiring. Those are people who will work on the big
ticket items.

By comparison, the Skycatcher is a tinkertoy. It would be unfeasible,
economically, to build it here.

Having said that, it would have been great if they could have built it in
Taiwan, or some such place (like Poland).

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>> For a few. The rest--the people who made Cessna what it was by
>>> Actually Making the Cessnas--will have a hard time enjoying Cessna's
>>> "profits."
>>
>> So don't buy one.
>>
>> Easy, see?
>
> In what way is Americans not buying things good for the US economy? It
> would be better all around if I bought a Cessna that was built in Wichita
> instead of not buying one that was made in China.

Except if it was built in Wichita, it would cost $200K and wouldn't sell at
that price. Those workers would then have to be laid off.

One might say American workers have priced themselves out of the market.

BTW, how much of the actual work will go on offshore? Is everything made
there, even the avionics?

HINT!!

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Newps" wrote:
>
>> As an owner I could not possibly care less that my manufacturer goes out
>> and does demos. I want availability of service and I want parts in
>> stock. I also want shops that don't have to phone the home office just to
>> get the cowl off.
>
> After I bought the 182 in June, my first warranty contact with my nearest
> Cessna Service Center produced this remark:
>
> "We used to be a Piper dealer. We don't know much about Cessnas."
>
> They didn't have any parts, either.
>
>
>
> OTOH, the Cessna factory people I've talked to have been very helpful and
> have responded promptly to requests.
>
I'll let you know how close they come to that when the Columbia deal is
finalized.

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
> As he said, Cessna is hiring. Those are people who will work on the
> big ticket items.
>
> By comparison, the Skycatcher is a tinkertoy. It would be unfeasible,
> economically, to build it here.
>
> Having said that, it would have been great if they could have built
> it in Taiwan, or some such place (like Poland).

Yes, it isn't black and white. There are several shades in between and China
is just about the worse they could have chosen. The only ones that in my
opinion would have been worse would be Iran, North Korea and Sudan.

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
> Except if it was built in Wichita, it would cost $200K and wouldn't
> sell at that price. Those workers would then have to be laid off.
>
> One might say American workers have priced themselves out of the
> market.

One might say that. One might also say that Cessna failed to design an
aircraft that could be built in the US for $100k. Others have done it.

If the name Skycatcher didn't have the name Cessna in front of it it would
be considered an over-weight, late comer to the market. And would probably
never see the sky. Now we find out that it isn't, in fact, a Cessna because
Cessna is outsoucing it.

I was never going to buy a Skycatcher. I liked it because it brought a
certain ligitimacy to the LSA market that I hoped would bring some of the
oldline FBOs and instructors around to what I think is the last chance for
recreational flying.

Now those same old guys are going to be able to say, "That's not really a
Cessna. It's built in China."

wrote:
> You have no point.

Of course I do. The fact that you can't grasp it doesn't eliminate it.

> How do you say "Liebensraum" in Chinese?

Roughly, 爱的空间. But that's probably not the word you intended.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> wrote in
> :
>
>> On Nov 29, 8:04 pm, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>> Gatt wrote:
>>>> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
>>>> ouse.com...
>>>>> "No way am I buying any aeroplane built by them heathen Chinee..."
>>>> F'ck the Chinese. I don't care if people call it xenophobic.
>>>> They're environment-trashing, human-rights-violating,
>>>> child-abandoning, dissident-imprisoning communists who sell weapons
>>>> to our enemies and block their population from accessing the truth
>>>> about the world and their government.
>>> Sound like ideal allies and trading partners then - certainly we have
>>> or have had plenty of other allies guilty of all the above.
>>>
>>>> Xenophobic? What are the chances of the Dalai Lama dropping in to
>>>> watch the Olympics without disappearing?
>>>> It's not phobic to say that China is our ideological enemy. But I
>>>> -could- be phobic, because anybody who has nuclear weapons pointed
>>>> at my home or tries to steal our military technology is my enemy.
>>> Thank you for demonstrating my point.
>> You have no point. Gatt is 100% correct. Placating the Chinese with
>> trade won't last. Eventually, they will exercise their military. I
>> am expecting them to invade Siberia in an effort to expand their
>> territory and gain access to more natural resources. How do you say
>> "Liebensraum" in Chinese?
>>
>
> Well, you say it as Lebensraum in German, for starters.

I'm guessing he had an old B-52s tune playing in his head...

"tin roof...rusted!"

Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:47509bf9$0$27488$804603d3
@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> wrote in
>> news:810f1cd3-25b4-47b0-9646-42954b6d2385
@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Nov 29, 8:04 pm, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>>> Gatt wrote:
>>>>> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
>>>>> ouse.com...
>>>>>> "No way am I buying any aeroplane built by them heathen
Chinee..."
>>>>> F'ck the Chinese. I don't care if people call it xenophobic.
>>>>> They're environment-trashing, human-rights-violating,
>>>>> child-abandoning, dissident-imprisoning communists who sell
weapons
>>>>> to our enemies and block their population from accessing the truth
>>>>> about the world and their government.
>>>> Sound like ideal allies and trading partners then - certainly we
have
>>>> or have had plenty of other allies guilty of all the above.
>>>>
>>>>> Xenophobic? What are the chances of the Dalai Lama dropping in to
>>>>> watch the Olympics without disappearing?
>>>>> It's not phobic to say that China is our ideological enemy. But I
>>>>> -could- be phobic, because anybody who has nuclear weapons pointed
>>>>> at my home or tries to steal our military technology is my enemy.
>>>> Thank you for demonstrating my point.
>>> You have no point. Gatt is 100% correct. Placating the Chinese
with
>>> trade won't last. Eventually, they will exercise their military. I
>>> am expecting them to invade Siberia in an effort to expand their
>>> territory and gain access to more natural resources. How do you say
>>> "Liebensraum" in Chinese?
>>>
>>
>> Well, you say it as Lebensraum in German, for starters.
>
> I'm guessing he had an old B-52s tune playing in his head...
>
> "tin roof...rusted!"

I'm pre-B52s. More sort of B-36



Bertie

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>
>> Except if it was built in Wichita, it would cost $200K and wouldn't
>> sell at that price. Those workers would then have to be laid off.
>>
>> One might say American workers have priced themselves out of the
>> market.
>
> One might say that. One might also say that Cessna failed to design an
> aircraft that could be built in the US for $100k. Others have done it.

Others don't have Cessna's overhead or tax structures. Niether do they have
the capacity/scale.

I suspect their workforces are "different", as well.

>
> If the name Skycatcher didn't have the name Cessna in front of it it would
> be considered an over-weight, late comer to the market. And would probably
> never see the sky.

It would for the same reasons Honda and Toyota and Datsun had a bit of a
hard time breaking into the US auto market.


> Now we find out that it isn't, in fact, a Cessna because Cessna is
> outsoucing it.
>
> I was never going to buy a Skycatcher. I liked it because it brought a
> certain ligitimacy to the LSA market that I hoped would bring some of the
> oldline FBOs and instructors around to what I think is the last chance for
> recreational flying.
>
> Now those same old guys are going to be able to say, "That's not really a
> Cessna. It's built in China."

And rightfully so. If Cessna decided to shift Columbia production to China
I'd never buy another one.

I was going to buy a couple Dell computers to replace a couple here that are
getting long in the tooth, but decided on another brand made in the US. I'll
buy from Taiwan, Mexico, even Indonesia...but not from China unless it's
bandages and I'm bleeding to death.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

>> No employee at Cessna lost their job because they're building the 162
>> in China. Cessna is hiring.
>
> Though I didn't make the original statment I'll rephrase form him.
>
> ...American's that won't get jobs that the communists will so that handful
> of investors could make more money.

Thank you. Right on the numbers.

-c

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
...

>> When it comes to the ability of America, its economy and its people, we
>> all have $$$ at risk.
>
> No one has $$$ at risk except investors.

How's that housing market going these days?

Those management/MBA types know everything about the economy, I'm sure.
Say, how's Citibank doing these days?

>> But first they should tell it to the Americans who just lost their jobs
>> to the communists so that handful of investors could make more money.

> Which workers lost their jobs?

The ones that could have been building Cessna 162s at a domestic Cessna
factory had a handful of investors who are already making record profits
could further sell America out to communist, rival superpower who keeps
trying to steal our nuclear and military secrets, and intellectual property.

Hope that clears it up a little. You can buy a $100 "Gibsum" Les Paul out
of China. An absolutely forgery of an American instrument. You can buy
bootleg movies there before the movies are released in theaters. That's
because the government doesn't do jack squat about it. They have no ethics,
but we're giving away our national industrial, technological and economical
capacity so that a few people can make even more record profits.

Of course, don't be surprised if, in a few years, the world is flooded with
ultra-cheap Cezzna AirCatchers and Cessna can't find international 162
buyers anymore.

-c

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Gatt wrote:
>>
>> Wal-Mart's domestic factories were going flat out when they bragged to
>> everybody about how American they were.
>>
>
> One thing here. Wal-Mart isn't a manufacture.

True, but they're an umbrella for them. Check this out, direct from
http://www.walmart-china.com

"Wal-Mart firmly believes in local procurement."
http://wal-martchina.com/english/walmart/index.htm Done laughing yet?

ButWaitThere'sMore:

"We recognize that by purchasing quality products, we can generate more job
opportunities, support local manufacturing and boost economic development.
Over 95% of the merchandise in our stores in China is sourced locally." [I
love irony...]

"We have established partnerships with nearly 20,000 suppliers in China. At
Wal-Mart, we always work with our suppliers to grow together...
Additionally, Wal-Mart directly exports about US$9 billion from China every
year. The export volume by third party suppliers is also estimated to be
over US$9 billion."

"Wal-Mart will continue to grow in China and contribute to the local economy
in the following areas:
a.. Increase procurement and support the export of Chinese products to
international markets
b.. Increase investment in China, especially in the western provinces, in
response to the governmental policy of "Developing the West"
c.. Create more employment opportunities and generate more tax revenues to
benefit the local economy
d.. Work closely with consumer goods manufacturers, sharing information
and resources, in order to help improve their production, technology and
management skills"

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .

> So, you want a law to make them build it in the US, is that it?

Who said anything about a law? I said no more about making a new law than
I said about making an Eleventh Commandment. Which is to say, nothing.

> There ya go. Don't buy one. You got there in the end.

People not buying products is great for business.

Meanwhile, quite a few people here in Portland lost their job because
Freightliner just moved their shop to Mexico. Now even those aren't made
here anymore. If we simply sell out our entire industrial capacity we can
be agrarian and incapable of our own industry, just like the Confederate
south. And, just like the ol' South, there will be a handful of very rich
people and a whole lot of peasants.

But who said anything about making a law?


-c

>> One might say American workers have priced themselves out of the
>> market.
>
> One might say that. One might also say that Cessna failed to design an
> aircraft that could be built in the US for $100k. Others have done it.

You'd think one of/if not the largest single-engine producer in the world
would be able to do such a thing.

On the other hand, I'm sure the executives in the telecom industry and at
Citibank knew what they were doing, too.

-c

"Gatt" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>> So, you want a law to make them build it in the US, is that it?
>
> Who said anything about a law?


I did, UIt's in the sentence just above.

I said no more about making a new law
> than I said about making an Eleventh Commandment. Which is to say,
> nothing.

Didn;t say you did.

>
>> There ya go. Don't buy one. You got there in the end.
>
> People not buying products is great for business.
>
> Meanwhile, quite a few people here in Portland lost their job because
> Freightliner just moved their shop to Mexico. Now even those aren't
> made here anymore. If we simply sell out our entire industrial
> capacity we can be agrarian and incapable of our own industry, just
> like the Confederate south. And, just like the ol' South, there will
> be a handful of very rich people and a whole lot of peasants.
>
> But who said anything about making a law?

Well, make up your mind. If you blieve that this sort of trade is bad
for the economy, either you regulate the import of foreign manufactured
goods or you stop buying them.

Either way, whining about it is pointless.


Bertie


>
>

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
...

> One might say American workers have priced themselves out of the market.
>
> BTW, how much of the actual work will go on offshore? Is everything made
> there, even the avionics?
>
> HINT!!

We'll have to agree to disagree, Matt. Ford knew that the way to succeed
was to make ownership of his product achievable even by his employees.
Cessna's solution is to offload domestic employees completely. If they're
like the old Gibson employees, they'll get together and start making a
better product. (See "Heritage Guitars.")

At least if the SkyCatcher starts falling apart in midair because of poor
quality control, Cessna can blame China.

I suspect as much of the actual work will go on offshore as they can get
away with. And if it fails, they'll award themselves multi-million-dollar
severance bonuses a la Carly the Destroyer at HP, and say "Well, ya takes
your chances" and leave the wreckage of the Cessna company to be picked up
by Daimler or the Saudis or something.

-c

"Gatt" > wrote
>
> Of course, don't be surprised if, in a few years, the world is flooded
> with ultra-cheap Cezzna AirCatchers and Cessna can't find international
> 162 buyers anymore.

That absolutely will happen. History repeats itself, again and again, as
far as China making cheap knock-offs.

The question is how long it will take, for this to happen. Any wagers?
--
Jim in NC

Gatt wrote:

>
> We'll have to agree to disagree, Matt. Ford knew that the way to succeed
> was to make ownership of his product achievable even by his employees.
> Cessna's solution is to offload domestic employees completely.


A typical Cessna single has never been affordable by a Cessna employee.

"Gatt" > wrote in
:

> "Wal-Mart firmly believes in local procurement."
> http://wal-martchina.com/english/walmart/index.htm Done
> laughing yet?

Reminds me of the JibJab Piece:

<http://www.jibjab.com/originals/big_box_mart>


--

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> When it comes to the ability of America, its economy and its people, we
>>> all have $$$ at risk.
>>
>> No one has $$$ at risk except investors.
>
> How's that housing market going these days?
>
> Those management/MBA types know everything about the economy, I'm sure.
> Say, how's Citibank doing these days?
>
>>> But first they should tell it to the Americans who just lost their jobs
>>> to the communists so that handful of investors could make more money.
>
>> Which workers lost their jobs?
>
> The ones that could have been building Cessna 162s at a domestic Cessna
> factory had a handful of investors who are already making record profits
> could further sell America out to communist, rival superpower who keeps
> trying to steal our nuclear and military secrets, and intellectual
> property.

One thing my wife, a former stock broker, tells me is the difference between
real investors and everyone else is that real investors are in it for the
long haul.

Yes, there's "record" profit (not really, but for the sake of
discussion...), but just a few years ago there were near record losses.

It can, and does, reverse quickly. Given current fuel prices, the aerospace
market can come to a grinding halt pretty quickly. How many times has
aerospace done that in the past couple decades?

>
> Hope that clears it up a little. You can buy a $100 "Gibsum" Les Paul
> out of China.

And for Cessna to build a bottom-of-the-line (excessively so) aircraft in
Kansas would be ludicrious.

> An absolutely forgery of an American instrument. You can buy bootleg
> movies there before the movies are released in theaters. That's because
> the government doesn't do jack squat about it. They have no ethics, but
> we're giving away our national industrial, technological and economical
> capacity so that a few people can make even more record profits.

Do think of it as a zero-sum game.

>
> Of course, don't be surprised if, in a few years, the world is flooded
> with ultra-cheap Cezzna AirCatchers and Cessna can't find international
> 162 buyers anymore.

I agree with you to a great extent, see my posts about doing business in
China versus other places.

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>> So, you want a law to make them build it in the US, is that it?
>
> Who said anything about a law? I said no more about making a new law
> than I said about making an Eleventh Commandment. Which is to say,
> nothing.
>
>> There ya go. Don't buy one. You got there in the end.
>
> People not buying products is great for business.

It sure teaches them a lesson.
>
> Meanwhile, quite a few people here in Portland lost their job because
> Freightliner just moved their shop to Mexico.

SO, a highly competitive industry had ot go somewhere that high school
dropout didn't get, what, $35 (a guess) an hour?

> Now even those aren't made here anymore. If we simply sell out our entire
> industrial capacity we can be agrarian and incapable of our own industry,
> just like the Confederate south. And, just like the ol' South, there
> will be a handful of very rich people and a whole lot of peasants.
>
> But who said anything about making a law?

Envy is so unbecoming.

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> One might say American workers have priced themselves out of the market.
>>
>> BTW, how much of the actual work will go on offshore? Is everything made
>> there, even the avionics?
>>
>> HINT!!
>
> We'll have to agree to disagree, Matt. Ford knew that the way to succeed
> was to make ownership of his product achievable even by his employees.
> Cessna's solution is to offload domestic employees completely. If
> they're like the old Gibson employees, they'll get together and start
> making a better product. (See "Heritage Guitars.")
>
> At least if the SkyCatcher starts falling apart in midair because of poor
> quality control, Cessna can blame China.

Um...no, they can't.

>
> I suspect as much of the actual work will go on offshore as they can get
> away with.

So you really don't know, but you're sounding off anyway?

>And if it fails, they'll award themselves multi-million-dollar severance
>bonuses a la Carly the Destroyer at HP, and say "Well, ya takes your
>chances" and leave the wreckage of the Cessna company to be picked up by
>Daimler or the Saudis or something.

And if they spent $millions of investors money and it wound up costing $200K
or so, and then no one could afford them, they'd have a wrecked company and
"multi-million-dollar severance bonuses a la Carly the Destroyer at HP, and
say "Well, ya takes your chances" and leave the wreckage of the Cessna
company to be picked up by Daimler or the Saudis or something."

It might get picked up by AirBus or something.

I have a feeling (not toooo strong, but it's there) that CONTRACTUAL golden
parachutes are going to go by-the-bye really soon.

Running a company is sooooo easy, it's childs play...

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Gatt wrote:
>
>>
>> We'll have to agree to disagree, Matt. Ford knew that the way to
>> succeed was to make ownership of his product achievable even by his
>> employees. Cessna's solution is to offload domestic employees completely.
>
>
> A typical Cessna single has never been affordable by a Cessna employee.

If Gatt was CEO, he'd pay all the workers $150K, and if he found a Cirrus or
Beech in the parking lot, he'd fire them.

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote

> And if they spent $millions of investors money and it wound up costing
> $200K or so, and then no one could afford them, they'd have a wrecked
> company and "multi-million-dollar severance bonuses a la Carly the
> Destroyer at HP, and say "Well, ya takes your chances" and leave the
> wreckage of the Cessna company to be picked up by Daimler or the Saudis
> or something."

You know, one think that has barely been touched, is the design of the 162.

If the goal is to produce an inexpensive airplane, that should be the one
factor that is kept as the first priority of the design process.

If they really had to go offshore to build it at a competitive cost, then
there must be a problem with the design. A complicated manufacturing
process does not fit with the end goal. Surely there could have been some
changes to make the build less labor intensive.

Ultralights keep this in mind, and can be built by amateurs in little time.
I realize that a sport plane will by nature be more complex, but how much
more complex does it really have to be? Not as much as it turned out, I'm
sure.

They did not need to follow the design of the 152, and make it lighter. New
structures and process could be implemented. They did not go that route,
but instead just made a newer 152. So they end up having to make it
elsewhere. Too, too bad.
--
Jim in NC