Beechcraft sold

Jim Macklin wrote:
Actually Beech has many new, state of the art plants and
composite robots for production work. They build a lot of
parts for the big iron makers. Their old plants are well
used. But if you look at just the BEC airport/plant complex
you'll see that there are more new buildings than old.


Except Raytheon's Annual Report says that a very % of their
manufacturing square footage is leased, so few buildings to sell,
except liquidate the stuff inside, which will bring a fraction of
cost. I was thus responding to someone's grandiose assumption
that the investors paid $3.3 billion cash for their entire
Aircraft Division just to be able to soon liquidate the hard
assets plus the type certificates/goodwill of always uncertain
future value.

F--

In article om,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

As an instructor, I get to fly a lot of different airplanes and talk to
a lot of owners. I'm convinced that the only people who hate Beech
airplanes are those who haven't flown them.

I didn't say I hated Beech -- far from it. Although none of their
birds fits my current mission, which requires lots of economical
lifting capacity and a wide CG range -- I would LOVE to own a Bonanza
some day.

What I said was that they have become irrelevant. They sell a tiny
number of aircraft each year (thanks to their outrageous pricing), and
the last new aircraft design to come out of Beech was....what? I
can't think of anything new since the Starship debacle of the early
1980s.

Since that occurred right after I graduated from college -- and I'm now
48 years old -- I think I'm safe in saying that Beech has become
irrelevant to aviation. If they went away tomorrow, we would all shed
a tear for the Beech line -- but it would have zero impact on general
aviation.

The same cannot be said, for example, of Cessna, Piper, Cirrus or
Columbia.

What on earth has Cessna or Piper done in the last 20 years? The 172
Cessna is selling today is the same airframe they were selling 20 years
ago, just with a glass panel, 13(!) fuel drains, and 100 lbs less useful
load. Same with Piper. I was in a brand new Archer a couple of years ago;
the biggest change they had managed to make was to move some of the
switches to an overhead panel which made the windshield smaller and reduced
forward/upward visibility. Made it look cool (like a miniature airliner),
but a net decrease in safety.

Cirrus, Katana, Columbia, and the like are the future of GA today.
Assuming there is any future left in GA :-(

Mxsmanic wrote:

Whenever a company buys another company for pure purposes of financial
gain, the company acquired usually suffers and often disappears. This
is probably very bad news for Beechcraft.


What other sound reason is there to buy an ongoing business? For
the pure fun of it? Just to be able to say, we own a company
which makes actual airplanes which fly. Net profit (ROIC)...who
cares.

F--

Beech owns the buildings on the property they own. They do
lease space on the Salina airport and other locations.



"TxSrv" wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| Actually Beech has many new, state of the art plants and
| composite robots for production work. They build a lot
of
| parts for the big iron makers. Their old plants are
well
| used. But if you look at just the BEC airport/plant
complex
| you'll see that there are more new buildings than old.
|
|
| Except Raytheon's Annual Report says that a very % of
their
| manufacturing square footage is leased, so few buildings
to sell,
| except liquidate the stuff inside, which will bring a
fraction of
| cost. I was thus responding to someone's grandiose
assumption
| that the investors paid $3.3 billion cash for their entire
| Aircraft Division just to be able to soon liquidate the
hard
| assets plus the type certificates/goodwill of always
uncertain
| future value.
|
| F--

"Aluckyguess" wrote in message
...


If Beech re-opened up its lines again for the Sport, Sierra , Duchess, and
a few I missed. They would all be superior to anything else on the market.
Their only problem is price, now that's a biggy but maybe the new company
plans on fixing this.
If a G36 was 50k more than a SR22 and you were looking for a plane in that
class what would you buy. The problem is its 200k more. I believe the new
company can fix this. The new company may even put a parachute in it to
satisfy the spouse that is afraid .
Then you have the Baron, if you have money for fuel its the nicest small
twin their is bar none.


The G36 is worth $200K more than an SR22. I'd pay it in a heart beat. No
comparison.

The 172
Cessna is selling today is the same airframe they were selling 20 years
ago, just with a glass panel, 13(!) fuel drains, and 100 lbs less useful
load.

In all fairness, it picked up twenty knots.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message news : Premier jet is an original Beech design.


More of a clean sheet Hawker design don't you think? This new company (Hawker Beechcraft?) does a lot of fab work, and
the Premier contains a lot of composite (fuselage?) also...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...


If Beechcraft want to compete they are going to have to come out with an
aircraft to compete with the Cirrus on the low end and the Eclipse on
the high end.

Where do you see the BeechJet fitting in?

Right about where it is now.

So the Eclipse and the BeechJet are both the "high end"?



The best way to do this is to buy someone already in or close to being
in the market. The Beechcraft name is worth a lot think if they bought
Columbia and put their name on it.

The price of a 400 would rise by half a million bucks overnight.


There is no reason for this. Sure Beech has always been overpriced maybe
the new owners will be more market oriented.

Yeah, _maybe_.

"Maybe" that's why they spent $3 billion for dying design/technology. :~)

Ever hear the saying "quality, not quantity"?
I can think of a few low production, hand built, high dollar cars that
could be built quickly and for a lot less $ with savings passed to the
buyer causing the market to respond, but it seems they prefer not to
do that. Do you think maybe Ratheon wasn't interested in the
mass-production mindset? Do you think they may feel there are
individuals out there that would want "Hawker like" quality in a
single or twin recip?


On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 18:49:18 GMT, "Tom Conner"
wrote:

Many have commented that their planes are great, but the price is to high.
The implication is that they could lower their price, sell more planes, and
still make a profit.

Okay, why is their price so high compared to other manufacturers? The
technology is stable, the price of raw materials has to be equal to the cost
for other manufacturers, labor costs have to be near that of other
manufacturers, and insurance costs have to be near that of other
manufacturers. So, what makes their price so high?

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dan Luke" wrote:

"Aluckyguess" wrote :

The Cirrus needs the autopilot to fly straight and level.

Baloney.

well, I would need one since I'm left-handed.

I know, I know, I'm in the minority here wrt side-sticks. But I
really don't like side-sticks.

Two things turned me off the Lancair ES: one was it was very
heavy in roll, and the other was the side-stick.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

You may be in the minority WRT side sticks, or you may not.

I used to think they were the coolest idea ever, at least if mounted on the
right, until I got tennis elbow a couple of times. I still haven't ever
tried a side stick; but I no longer have any desire for one because I now
see the value in being able to switch hands. BTW, I am also left handed
which would add another layer to the problem!

Peter