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

Perhaps, but the point I'm trying to make is that regardless of the plane,
"Cessna" the brand isn't sexy. Ask 10 people what image the brand conjures
up for them, and see how many times sexy, fast or exclusive comes up. I'd
be that for every one who thinks CitationJet, there will be 9 that think of
172's.

PS. I also think the Cardinal is rather a looker...

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2005-10-01, Jase Vanover wrote:
can't do this regardless of the design, however (how many times have you
equated "Cessna" with sexy, exclusive, and fast?)

Generally when travelling in a C210, C310 or CitationJet.
I think the 180 is sexy and exclusive. It may not be fast though :-)

Jase Vanover wrote:

AskÂ*10Â*peopleÂ*whatÂ*imageÂ*theÂ*brandÂ*conjures
up for them, and see how many times sexy, fast or exclusive comes up.

That just makes it easier to surprise them.

- Andrew

Jase Vanover wrote:

Perhaps, but the point I'm trying to make is that regardless of the plane,
"Cessna" the brand isn't sexy. Ask 10 people what image the brand conjures
up for them, and see how many times sexy, fast or exclusive comes up. I'd
be that for every one who thinks CitationJet, there will be 9 that think of
172's.

Maybe. However, ask those same 10 people what image the Cirrus brand
conjures up for them and they'll either say "a what?" or they'll say it
isn't a bad car as Chryslers go.


Matt

Jase,

Perhaps, but the point I'm trying to make is that regardless of the plane,
"Cessna" the brand isn't sexy.


Thanks! At last! What, pray, tell, is inherently good about Cessna? Let alone
"cool" or "sexy".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Jase,


Perhaps, but the point I'm trying to make is that regardless of the plane,
"Cessna" the brand isn't sexy.



Thanks! At last! What, pray, tell, is inherently good about Cessna? Let alone
"cool" or "sexy".


The good part is they make reliable airplanes that have stood the test
of time. They also have a world-wide support organization that few
other small airplane makers can match. That is the inherently good
part. As for cool and sexy, that is in the mind of the beholder, but I
think the Citation jets are both cool and sexy.


Matt

Matt,

Things could be phrased just a little differently he

The good part is they make reliable airplanes that have stood the test
of time.

The bad part is they have sat on their dollar-fat behinds for decades,
not taken any risks with developing new designs, blocked innovation and
milked everything they possibly could out of ancient, outdated designs
while...

They also have a world-wide support organization that few
other small airplane makers can match.


... conveniently excerting their monopoly-like power on a small market.

The above holds only for the piston market, of course, and is a
simplification - as much as your statements were.

I've said it befo We as a group can't complain all the time about
there being no development in this market and at the same time badmouth
every newcomer there is and standing fast with the old companies that
don't deliver the innovation. Cessna isn't looking into a new plane
because they WANT to, it's because they were MADE to - by Cirrus and
Diamond. Strong competition for Cessna is something we should ALL desire.
It makes them move - at long last. Their first try was just beginning to
offer "new" 50-year-old designs. It didn't work to squash Cirrus, so now
they're trying something else. Something at which Cirrus and Diamond
might well have way more experience.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Matt,

Things could be phrased just a little differently he


The good part is they make reliable airplanes that have stood the test
of time.


The bad part is they have sat on their dollar-fat behinds for decades,
not taken any risks with developing new designs, blocked innovation and
milked everything they possibly could out of ancient, outdated designs
while...

That is true with respect to their light airplanes, although the new
avionics are being fitted pretty much at the same pace as other
manufacturers. They have innovated a lot in the bizjet marketplace.
The reality is that the light plane business isn't all that lucrative.
It will be interesting to see if Cirrus survives longer term. I'm
guessing they won't, but hopefully they will get enough planes in the
market so that someone else will buy them and not leave them stranded a
la the Commander line and others.



They also have a world-wide support organization that few
other small airplane makers can match.



.. conveniently excerting their monopoly-like power on a small market.

The above holds only for the piston market, of course, and is a
simplification - as much as your statements were.

I've said it befo We as a group can't complain all the time about
there being no development in this market and at the same time badmouth
every newcomer there is and standing fast with the old companies that
don't deliver the innovation. Cessna isn't looking into a new plane
because they WANT to, it's because they were MADE to - by Cirrus and
Diamond. Strong competition for Cessna is something we should ALL desire.
It makes them move - at long last. Their first try was just beginning to
offer "new" 50-year-old designs. It didn't work to squash Cirrus, so now
they're trying something else. Something at which Cirrus and Diamond
might well have way more experience.

No, they want to. 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. Cirrus is surviving on
OPM. It will be curious to see if their investors ever make money on
their investment.

How did Cessna try to squash Cirrus?


Matt

"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.

Fred F.

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

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