RIP Cessna...Skycatcher

Come on people, usually I give pilots some accepted base line of
intelligence and reasoning, but it seems it's largely gone out the
window on this one. Chinese manufacturers of CONSUMER products have
had more than thier fair share of problems to be sure, but it's a hell
of a stretch to compare consumer products with aircraft manufacture.

Do you honestly think that CESSNA is going to stake thier name,
reputation, and conceivably risk the entire business by going with an
aircraft manufacturer who would produce shoddy unreliable or dangerous
aircraft?!

More so, do you honestly think that either Cessna OR your country's
respective aviation authorities are going to let obviously shoddy
unreliable or dangerous aircraft get anywhere near the hands of Joe
Bloggs the pilot?!

Please, at least show some common sense here.

Cessna have obviously done thier homework, they have weighed the pros
and cons, and at the end of the day, the most effective solution
presented itself.

To decry the aircraft on the sole fact that it will be constructed in
China simply smacks of xenophobia. If you have a criticism of the
aircraft, at least make it something worth criticising!

To decry the aircraft on the sole fact that it will be constructed in
China simply smacks of xenophobia. If you have a criticism of the
aircraft, at least make it something worth criticising!

If I were interested in one I'd wait and see how many fall out of the
sky. But I do that for any aircraft, so, I guess I'd give the Chinese
just what I'd give any other maker.

"JS" == James Sleeman writes:

JS Do you honestly think that CESSNA is going to stake thier
JS name, reputation, and conceivably risk the entire business by
JS going with [a] manufacturer who would produce shoddy
JS unreliable or dangerous [product]?!

Oh, probably not, no more than Mattel or other internationally known
companies.

JS More so, do you honestly think that either Cessna OR your
JS country's respective aviation authorities are going to let
JS obviously shoddy unreliable or dangerous aircraft get anywhere
JS near the hands of Joe Bloggs the pilot?!

Good point. Thank Gawd at least in the US we've beefed up import
inspection under the Bush regime and we caught all that dangerous
stuff before it hit the retail shelves!!

JS Please, at least show some common sense here.

Preach it brudda.

JS Cessna have obviously done thier homework, they have weighed
JS the pros and cons, and at the end of the day, the most
JS effective solution presented itself.

Cessna sniffed big profits to be made by outsourcing is what happened.

Anyway I'm just about to start building an RV-9A so all moot for me.

--
The wise man can pick up a grain of sand and envision a whole
universe. But the stupid man will just lie down on some seaweed
and roll around until he's completely draped in it. Then he'll
stand up and go, "Hey, I'm Vine Man."
- Jack Handey

James Sleeman writes:

Do you honestly think that CESSNA is going to stake thier name,
reputation, and conceivably risk the entire business by going with an
aircraft manufacturer who would produce shoddy unreliable or dangerous
aircraft?!

Yes. The quest for short-term profits makes companies do strange things.

More so, do you honestly think that either Cessna OR your country's
respective aviation authorities are going to let obviously shoddy
unreliable or dangerous aircraft get anywhere near the hands of Joe
Bloggs the pilot?!

Yes. Just because it passes a few tests doesn't mean that it's safe.

Cessna have obviously done thier homework, they have weighed the pros
and cons, and at the end of the day, the most effective solution
presented itself.

The most profitable, you mean.

To decry the aircraft on the sole fact that it will be constructed in
China simply smacks of xenophobia.

Sometimes xenophobia is justified.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

James Sleeman writes:

Do you honestly think that CESSNA is going to stake thier name,
reputation, and conceivably risk the entire business by going with an
aircraft manufacturer who would produce shoddy unreliable or dangerous
aircraft?!

Yes. The quest for short-term profits makes companies do strange things.

More so, do you honestly think that either Cessna OR your country's
respective aviation authorities are going to let obviously shoddy
unreliable or dangerous aircraft get anywhere near the hands of Joe
Bloggs the pilot?!

Yes. Just because it passes a few tests doesn't mean that it's safe.

Cessna have obviously done thier homework, they have weighed the pros
and cons, and at the end of the day, the most effective solution
presented itself.

The most profitable, you mean.

To decry the aircraft on the sole fact that it will be constructed in
China simply smacks of xenophobia.

Sometimes xenophobia is justified.


Yeh, right, you racist fjukkwit.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

James Sleeman writes:

Do you honestly think that CESSNA is going to stake thier name,
reputation, and conceivably risk the entire business by going with an
aircraft manufacturer who would produce shoddy unreliable or dangerous
aircraft?!

Yes. The quest for short-term profits makes companies do strange things.

More so, do you honestly think that either Cessna OR your country's
respective aviation authorities are going to let obviously shoddy
unreliable or dangerous aircraft get anywhere near the hands of Joe
Bloggs the pilot?!

Yes. Just because it passes a few tests doesn't mean that it's safe.


You know nothing about engineering, nothing about flying,

You're a fjukkwit.


Bertie

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 06:39:06 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

Yes. The quest for short-term profits makes companies do strange things.

The quest to meet quarterlies, dividends, etc make corporations do exactly
what they have to. Nothing strange about that.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

James,

To decry the aircraft on the sole fact that it will be constructed in
China simply smacks of xenophobia.


Yup. Also, if the quality of US-built cars (or piston aircraft engines)
is any kind of measure, maybe one should be happy about Cessna's
decision.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

James Sleeman schrieb:

Come on people, usually I give pilots some accepted base line of
intelligence and reasoning,

You obviously don't read this group very often.

"James Sleeman" wrote in message
news:76d22612-6a3b-447b-b268-

Do you honestly think that CESSNA is going to stake thier name,
reputation, and conceivably risk the entire business by going with an
aircraft manufacturer who would produce shoddy unreliable or dangerous
aircraft?!

Mattel did.

It's not about the company reputation, it's about maximizing profit for the
investors and the upper management. (Remember "Wal-Mart: Made in USA"?)
We had this discussion with a real-live MBA here earlier this week.

Please, at least show some common sense here.

We are giving our country away and elevating a communist super power with
some of the largest human rights abuse issues in the world. They're taking
our money and making missiles, aircraft and guns to sell to our enemies
while they tolerate software, music and movie piracy. If you dissent you
disappear.

Trade with China is not about common sense. It's about profits and bonuses.

-c