Beechcraft sold

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.

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

TxSrv writes:

What other sound reason is there to buy an ongoing business?

Interest in the 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.

Exactly. And some acquisitions are like that. But not with companies
like these. They have no romantic attachment to aviation, and if they
can gut Beechcraft to make more money faster, they will.

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

Jay Honeck writes:

I suspect most of the modern side-stick designs are intended to be flown on
A/P most of the time. Click it on at rotation, click it off in the flare.

That ain't flying.

It may be the closest approximation for a pilot or aircraft that can't
really get by otherwise.

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

Doug Vetter writes:

I'm convinced that the only people who hate Beech
airplanes are those who haven't flown them.

Probably just sour grapes. 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.

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

Jay Honeck writes:

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?

You seem to imply that not having new aircraft is bad. Aircraft are
not computers; you don't have to buy a new one every six months.
Designs that flew well seventy years ago will still fly well today;
the atmosphere of the planet has not changed. Why the desire to
continually spend more money and waste more resources fixing things
that aren't broken?

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.

Just because it doesn't have new bells and whistles each year?

I've heard this in other domains, too (again in the case of Leica and
Hasselblad). Changing for the sake of change (or revenue) isn't
necessarily a good idea.

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

Aluckyguess writes:

I believe the new company can fix this.

The new company won't care. The idea is to make as much money as
possible as quickly as possible, and then sell the remains for scrap.

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

Stefan writes:

It's pretty simple to build something superior when money isn't a factor.

That goes without saying. But the important thing in many cases is
that it's superior, not that it's expensive.

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

"Stefan" wrote in message
.. .
Aluckyguess schrieb:

They would all be superior to anything else on the market. Their only
problem is price,

It's pretty simple to build something superior when money isn't a factor.

Over the years there's been one aviation saying about the big three that
holds true:

Cessna builds quantity
Beech builds quality
Piper builds junk

KG

("Robert M. Gary" wrote)
The fact that Piper beat Beech to announce a jet tells you something.


Piper announces it will sell the HondaJet, then Piper announces they will
come out with their own jet.

That one had me scratching my head.


Montblack

"Jose" wrote in message
. net...
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.

With increased fuel burn, to match!
--
Jim in NC