RIP Cirrus

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


Gatt wrote:


We'll have to agree to disagree, Matt. Ford knew that the way to
succeed was to make ownership of his product achievable even by his
employees. Cessna's solution is to offload domestic employees completely.


A typical Cessna single has never been affordable by a Cessna employee.

If Gatt was CEO, he'd pay all the workers $150K, and if he found a Cirrus or
Beech in the parking lot, he'd fire them.

"Gatt" wrote in message
...

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in message
...

One might say American workers have priced themselves out of the market.

BTW, how much of the actual work will go on offshore? Is everything made
there, even the avionics?

HINT!!

We'll have to agree to disagree, Matt. Ford knew that the way to succeed
was to make ownership of his product achievable even by his employees.
Cessna's solution is to offload domestic employees completely. If
they're like the old Gibson employees, they'll get together and start
making a better product. (See "Heritage Guitars.")

At least if the SkyCatcher starts falling apart in midair because of poor
quality control, Cessna can blame China.

Um...no, they can't.


I suspect as much of the actual work will go on offshore as they can get
away with.

So you really don't know, but you're sounding off anyway?

And if it fails, they'll award themselves multi-million-dollar severance
bonuses a la Carly the Destroyer at HP, and say "Well, ya takes your
chances" and leave the wreckage of the Cessna company to be picked up by
Daimler or the Saudis or something.

And if they spent $millions of investors money and it wound up costing $200K
or so, and then no one could afford them, they'd have a wrecked company and
"multi-million-dollar severance bonuses a la Carly the Destroyer at HP, and
say "Well, ya takes your chances" and leave the wreckage of the Cessna
company to be picked up by Daimler or the Saudis or something."

It might get picked up by AirBus or something.

I have a feeling (not toooo strong, but it's there) that CONTRACTUAL golden
parachutes are going to go by-the-bye really soon.

Running a company is sooooo easy, it's childs play...

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote

And if they spent $millions of investors money and it wound up costing
$200K or so, and then no one could afford them, they'd have a wrecked
company and "multi-million-dollar severance bonuses a la Carly the
Destroyer at HP, and say "Well, ya takes your chances" and leave the
wreckage of the Cessna company to be picked up by Daimler or the Saudis
or something."

You know, one think that has barely been touched, is the design of the 162.

If the goal is to produce an inexpensive airplane, that should be the one
factor that is kept as the first priority of the design process.

If they really had to go offshore to build it at a competitive cost, then
there must be a problem with the design. A complicated manufacturing
process does not fit with the end goal. Surely there could have been some
changes to make the build less labor intensive.

Ultralights keep this in mind, and can be built by amateurs in little time.
I realize that a sport plane will by nature be more complex, but how much
more complex does it really have to be? Not as much as it turned out, I'm
sure.

They did not need to follow the design of the 152, and make it lighter. New
structures and process could be implemented. They did not go that route,
but instead just made a newer 152. So they end up having to make it
elsewhere. Too, too bad.
--
Jim in NC