Dude wrote:
...
I believe Cessna simply will not do what it takes to win in this
business
because it has become too risk averse. It may survive, but I don't
see it
thriving. Strangely, its the same attitudes that kept them in
business all
this time, that may now be their downfall. Until the recent entries
of new
players, Cessna was king.

Cirrus has done well, and much of it is due to the passion of the
founders.
I may be mistaken, but I believe that the investors are likewise
passionate.
They are not presently trading the stock on an exchange, are they?
If not,
then the company is still reasonably closely held.
....

We can't look at Cessna single production as a financial entity by
itself. The profit is in the jets, the singles are likely a division
of a corporation which is a subsidiary of the big parent company.
Money is no controlling factor. If they want a full product line,
then 172/182s make sense, and some auto mfrs lose money on each
compact they sell.

Cirrus doesn't enjoy that luxury, and capital is from private
investors and lenders. The recent infusion of $100 million was mostly
to pay debts, and a recent local news article hints they still have
liquidity problems. So if Cirrus is still losing money, as quite
possible, it really matters. If Cessna loses on a 172 (bet in most
years not), it's just like a Dodge Neon in a full product line.

Cessna may not even view themselves in substantial competition with
Cirrus. Beyond flight schools, there may be a significant number of
buyers loyal to the high-wing brand and/or those who think a plastic
airplane is just wrong. Marketing strategy is a matter of judgment in
what they may view as a niche market. Are flight schools buying SR-20s
much at all?

Fred F.