RIP Cirrus

"Gatt" wrote in message
...

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .

For a few. The rest--the people who made Cessna what it was by
Actually Making the Cessnas--will have a hard time enjoying Cessna's
"profits."

So don't buy one.

Easy, see?

In what way is Americans not buying things good for the US economy? It
would be better all around if I bought a Cessna that was built in Wichita
instead of not buying one that was made in China.

Except if it was built in Wichita, it would cost $200K and wouldn't sell at
that price. Those workers would then have to be laid off.

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!!

Matt W. Barrow wrote:

Except if it was built in Wichita, it would cost $200K and wouldn't
sell at that price. Those workers would then have to be laid off.

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

One might say that. One might also say that Cessna failed to design an
aircraft that could be built in the US for $100k. Others have done it.

If the name Skycatcher didn't have the name Cessna in front of it it would
be considered an over-weight, late comer to the market. And would probably
never see the sky. Now we find out that it isn't, in fact, a Cessna because
Cessna is outsoucing it.

I was never going to buy a Skycatcher. I liked it because it brought a
certain ligitimacy to the LSA market that I hoped would bring some of the
oldline FBOs and instructors around to what I think is the last chance for
recreational flying.

Now those same old guys are going to be able to say, "That's not really a
Cessna. It's built in China."

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt W. Barrow wrote:

Except if it was built in Wichita, it would cost $200K and wouldn't
sell at that price. Those workers would then have to be laid off.

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

One might say that. One might also say that Cessna failed to design an
aircraft that could be built in the US for $100k. Others have done it.

Others don't have Cessna's overhead or tax structures. Niether do they have
the capacity/scale.

I suspect their workforces are "different", as well.


If the name Skycatcher didn't have the name Cessna in front of it it would
be considered an over-weight, late comer to the market. And would probably
never see the sky.

It would for the same reasons Honda and Toyota and Datsun had a bit of a
hard time breaking into the US auto market.


Now we find out that it isn't, in fact, a Cessna because Cessna is
outsoucing it.

I was never going to buy a Skycatcher. I liked it because it brought a
certain ligitimacy to the LSA market that I hoped would bring some of the
oldline FBOs and instructors around to what I think is the last chance for
recreational flying.

Now those same old guys are going to be able to say, "That's not really a
Cessna. It's built in China."

And rightfully so. If Cessna decided to shift Columbia production to China
I'd never buy another one.

I was going to buy a couple Dell computers to replace a couple here that are
getting long in the tooth, but decided on another brand made in the US. I'll
buy from Taiwan, Mexico, even Indonesia...but not from China unless it's
bandages and I'm bleeding to death.

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

One might say that. One might also say that Cessna failed to design an
aircraft that could be built in the US for $100k. Others have done it.

You'd think one of/if not the largest single-engine producer in the world
would be able to do such a thing.

On the other hand, I'm sure the executives in the telecom industry and at
Citibank knew what they were doing, too.

-c

"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.

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

-c

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.

"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