"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
TaxSrv wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote:

Why? Most companies at least ostensibly exist to make a profit.

Matt


Sure, and Textron is profitable, but the impact of piston singles
on their financials is insignificant, perhaps less than 1% of their
$12 billion business. What I was trying to say is if they lose
money on singles, as you theorize and so might I, they can still
have a business reason to tolerate it and not uncommon in industry
at all. In their latest annual report, they mention the singles
only in passing, but as opposed to lengthy discussion of jets and
other product lines, they don't state the amount of "segment
profit" on the piston products. Maybe there ain't any?

OK, I see what you were saying. I suspect it is mainly based on the
personal desires of some Cessna executives as well as a
marketing/strategic purpose to build brand loyalty in pilots early. I
don't think it was purely the airplanes themselves that catapulted
Cessna to the top of the bizjet market relatively quickly. I suspect it
was also at least partly due to all of the pilots trained in Cessna's
who now fly for, or own, many of the companies that fly Cessna jets.


Matt

If you would research the subject you would find that since 1927 Cessna has
found markets not exploited by other manufacturers. It was and is the
airplanes. Dwayne Wallace had unbelievable insight into the market and his
list of hits from 1933 to the late 1970's is unmatched. The Citation line
alone disproves your theory much less the dozens of other models that do
what no other airplane can do. On the other hand they have had flops along
the way which is to be expected. That thing they called a helicopter is one
that comes to mind.