Cirrus Killer? Cessna just doesn't get it...

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

I just got a mailing from Cessna yesterday. Look here...
www.cessnareasons.com

"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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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

"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

"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