![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sylvain wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote: I see at least three errors in your post. I see three errors in your understanding of my post (you might want to read it more carefully)... (I didn't say the IRS was going to hand you a 100k every year for buying a SUV, heck, if that was true, I'd be rushing to the local dealership :-)) but I do stand corrected on the 100k limit having been reduced to 25k last year. I read it again when I replied to it. It said nothing about "up to $100K" or "$100K maximum", it just said that you get $100K if you buy an SUV. That isn't correct now and never was correct. Matt |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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? Fred F. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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? Fred F. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
"Morgans" wrote: "john smith" wrote in message ... I just got a mailing from Cessna yesterday. Look here... www.cessnareasons.com What did you find interesting in this mailing, relevant (or even close) to this thread? According to the brouchure, it lists 43 reasons to buy a Cessna. |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Matt Whiting" wrote in message news ![]() TaxSrv wrote: "Matt Whiting" wrote: ... My guess is that making light planes is a losing proposition for Cessna. From a purely business standpoint, they would probably me money ahead if they had never re-entered the light plane market. This is sad, but I'm guessing true. It is possible they make money too, as the light singles can share some of the infrastructure in place to make and market the profitable lines. However, Cessna is a small part of a big company (Textron), and their financial statements by segment suggest only that building Citations is certainly worthwhile even in bad years. At the unit volume of piston singles, they may make some, or lose some, and it's possible the Board of Directors cares little one way or the other if Cessna managers have a rationale for their biz model. As an inconsequential part of a big picture, I think it erroneous to compare Cessna decision-making on the singles to that of competitors who I think are all standalone companies and nonpublic. Why? Most companies at least ostensibly exist to make a profit. Except for the companies chartered specifically as not-for-profit, and even some of them profit their managers quite nicely. :-) Matt Here are a few reasons Cessna might want to keep its piston single business: 1) Product support. As a seller of high end products (i.e. Citations), you want your customers and prospective customers to believe you'll support them down the road. So, you continue making and selling replacement parts for "legacy" aircraft. 2) Since you're keeping the people, equipment, and facilities to manufacture replacement parts, you might as well assemble some of those parts into airplanes. After all, the guy who's gonna buy a Citation 10 years from now needs a nice new airplane so he can get flight training. 3) Brand loyalty. The guy who learns to fly in a Cessna has a good chance of moving up in the Cessna family of products. Hopefully to a Caravan or Citation. So, sell him a new 182 as his first airplane, and sell him something turbine driven after he makes it big with oil futures. 4) Maybe (maybe not) the piston single market will become *the hot thing* one day. It's easier to capitalize on that opportunity if you're already in the piston single business. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sylvain wrote:
about 10k lower than what you can sell it second hand a year later (roughly speaking, did a quick check on edmunds): so it is not free, but better than free, as you can actually make a profit (at my, and other taxpayers, expenses), and iterate every year. Sales of used cars are taxable income. George Patterson Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor. It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him. |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "john smith" wrote in message ... I just got a mailing from Cessna yesterday. Look here... www.cessnareasons.com What did you find interesting in this mailing, relevant (or even close) to this thread? -- Jim in NC |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Matt Whiting" wrote More weight means more total friction all else being equal, but it doesn't, to a first order, change the coefficient of friction. Correct. I got my terminology wrong. What you said is what I meant. I have not taken any physics in a long time, and that is a *Good Thing*, to me! g -- Jim in NC |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Sylvain" wrote in message
... you'll notice that I did provide the reference as requested; what more do you want? You did not provide a reference. You provided the name of an Act which may or may not actually support your position. A true reference would quote the pertinent part of the Act that you believe supports your statement, and provide the information about where in the Act your quoted text could be found. Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1/72 Cessna 300, 400 series scale models | Ale | Owning | 3 | October 22nd 13 03:40 PM |
Nearly had my life terminated today | Michelle P | Piloting | 11 | September 3rd 05 02:37 AM |
Wow - heard on the air... (long) | Nathan Young | Piloting | 68 | July 25th 05 06:51 PM |
Parachute fails to save SR-22 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 72 | February 10th 05 05:14 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |