Beechcraft sold

If your talking Eclipse, they have/are building a complete
support network, aircraft are being sold and delivered.

The most unique jet marketing was the BD5, aside from a
movie role in a James Bond flick, not much ever happened
with it.



"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. net...
| Recently, Dave Stadt posted:
|
| Design. market and sell but don't deliver. Certainly a
unique
| strategy.
|
| What has it been, around 4 years? Frankly, I think that it
is a
| respectable accomplishment to start a company, design a
VLJ from the
| ground up, get it certified, develop a comprehensive
training program
| (from what I understand, some purchasers have already
participated in it)
| and make sales all within that time frame. Who else is
delivering a VLJ
| today?
|
| Neil
|
|
|
|
|

Recently, Jim Macklin posted:

If your talking Eclipse, they have/are building a complete
support network, aircraft are being sold and delivered.

The most unique jet marketing was the BD5, aside from a
movie role in a James Bond flick, not much ever happened
with it.

Well, Jim Bede was a bit quirky, anyway. I remember when his operation was
here in Cleveland. I sat in the BD5 that is in the Seattle Air museum, and
I didn't think I'd be able to get out of it again. There was no way that I
could have closed the canopy.

Neil

Mxsmanic wrote:
Robert M. Gary writes:

That's the old zero sum myth.

No, it's the reality of recent years, and one reason why economies
aren't as stable as they use to be.

If it was a zero sum game, no reasonable company would bother merging
or buying another. It makes no economic sense if you can't leverage the
action for more than the sum of the two.

-Robert

The WSJ had a little more information on Onyx.
They are purchasing aviation assests where they can find them.
They purchased a former Boeing division and are not contracting with
Boeing to produce fuselages.
The Raytheon Beechcraft contract works and new carbon fiber facilities
tie in nicely with this model.
I believe there are a couple of other companies they have purchased
which are also in this line of work.
Onyx is also in a hostile takeover bid for Quantas.

Robert M. Gary wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:


Robert M. Gary writes:



That's the old zero sum myth.


No, it's the reality of recent years, and one reason why economies
aren't as stable as they use to be.



If it was a zero sum game, no reasonable company would bother merging
or buying another. It makes no economic sense if you can't leverage the
action for more than the sum of the two.

-Robert

Sounds like they have a plan they aren't telling anyone about.

"john smith" wrote in message
...
The WSJ had a little more information on Onyx.
They are purchasing aviation assests where they can find them.
They purchased a former Boeing division and are not contracting with
Boeing to produce fuselages.
The Raytheon Beechcraft contract works and new carbon fiber facilities tie
in nicely with this model.
I believe there are a couple of other companies they have purchased which
are also in this line of work.
Onyx is also in a hostile takeover bid for Quantas.

Robert M. Gary wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Robert M. Gary writes:


That's the old zero sum myth.

No, it's the reality of recent years, and one reason why economies
aren't as stable as they use to be.


If it was a zero sum game, no reasonable company would bother merging
or buying another. It makes no economic sense if you can't leverage the
action for more than the sum of the two.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary writes:

If it was a zero sum game, no reasonable company would bother merging
or buying another.

It is indeed a zero sum game. What people in the financial world try
to do is shift the money away from others and towards themselves.
They don't actually produce anything in the process. When they win,
someone loses.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
I've seen _exactly_ the same dynamic with
respect to companies like Leica and Hasselblad. Those who can't
afford it insist that it's not worth the money. Those who actually
buy it know better.

Please. Leica sells a about a 5 MP digital camera for over a thousand
bucks when the going price for everybody else is around $300. Also
Leica doesn't have nearly the features that everybody else does. No
way, no how can the quality of the pictures be worth 200% more on the
price. At some point you realize they are just screwing you because of
the name. Basic marketing.

Jay Honeck wrote:



All the aircraft manufacturers build a quality product -- they have to,
by law -- and Beech has been especially quality-conscious.


The difference between Beech and Cessna/Piper is striking, once you've
owned one. Cessna and Piper do the absolute minimum to keep their
airplanes from falling apart in the air. You pay for that in the Beech
by the fact that it weighs more. But, it will cost me less to own my Bo
than my 182 for those parts that are made by the respective companies,
simply because the Bo was built right in the first place.

Recently, Newps posted:

Mxsmanic wrote:
I've seen _exactly_ the same dynamic with
respect to companies like Leica and Hasselblad. Those who can't
afford it insist that it's not worth the money. Those who actually
buy it know better.

Please. Leica sells a about a 5 MP digital camera for over a thousand
bucks when the going price for everybody else is around $300. Also
Leica doesn't have nearly the features that everybody else does. No
way, no how can the quality of the pictures be worth 200% more on the
price. At some point you realize they are just screwing you because
of the name. Basic marketing.

Perhaps you've only confirmed that dynamic? I'd bet that you don't own a
Leica. The appeal of the "over a thousand dollar" Digilux is that it can
use the owner's existing Leica lenses. Those that own an M8 or R8/R9
w/DMR, either of which will set you back more than 5 AMUs, appreciate the
differences in both image quality and camera functionality over all other
makes.

Neil

Now you're just going on. Just what part of a 25,000 hr Cessna 207 is more
poorly built than your Bonanza?

Karl
(remembering 354 Bonanzas that came apart in the sky)

The difference between Beech and Cessna/Piper is striking, once you've
owned one. Cessna and Piper do the absolute minimum to keep their
airplanes from falling apart in the air. You pay for that in the Beech by
the fact that it weighs more. But, it will cost me less to own my Bo than
my 182 for those parts that are made by the respective companies, simply
because the Bo was built right in the first place.