RIP Cirrus

"Gatt" wrote in message
...

"Matt W. Barrow" 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."

Who made Cessna what it is? The workers? The management? The INVESTORS?
Who actually had $$$ at risk?

When it comes to the ability of America, its economy and its people, we
all have $$$ at risk.

No one has $$$ at risk except investors. Employees get paid first,
management has their arrangement, but only investors have paid CASH into a
company which they can lose in its entirety.


All the money in the empire couldn't have built Julius Caesar a Cessna.

Non-Sequitur.


All the money in the American economy wouldn't have populated general
aviation with the Cessnas that the factory workers didn't build for them.
If the Cessna investors want to make Cessna a chinese company whose
profits go to a small number of -international- shareholders (not
necessarily Americans) they should just say so.

With out investment cash, everything else is moot.

But first they should tell it to the Americans who just lost their jobs to
the communists so that handful of investors could make more money.

Which workers lost their jobs?

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Newps wrote:
Gatt wrote:
But first they should tell it to the
Americans who just lost their jobs to the communists so that handful
of investors could make more money.


No employee at Cessna lost their job because they're building the 162
in China. Cessna is hiring.

Though I didn't make the original statment I'll rephrase form him.

...American's that won't get jobs that the communists will so that handful
of investors could make more money.

As he said, Cessna is hiring. Those are people who will work on the big
ticket items.

By comparison, the Skycatcher is a tinkertoy. It would be unfeasible,
economically, to build it here.

Having said that, it would have been great if they could have built it in
Taiwan, or some such place (like Poland).

"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!!

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Newps" wrote:

As an owner I could not possibly care less that my manufacturer goes out
and does demos. I want availability of service and I want parts in
stock. I also want shops that don't have to phone the home office just to
get the cowl off.

After I bought the 182 in June, my first warranty contact with my nearest
Cessna Service Center produced this remark:

"We used to be a Piper dealer. We don't know much about Cessnas."

They didn't have any parts, either.



OTOH, the Cessna factory people I've talked to have been very helpful and
have responded promptly to requests.

I'll let you know how close they come to that when the Columbia deal is
finalized.

Matt W. Barrow wrote:

As he said, Cessna is hiring. Those are people who will work on the
big ticket items.

By comparison, the Skycatcher is a tinkertoy. It would be unfeasible,
economically, to build it here.

Having said that, it would have been great if they could have built
it in Taiwan, or some such place (like Poland).

Yes, it isn't black and white. There are several shades in between and China
is just about the worse they could have chosen. The only ones that in my
opinion would have been worse would be Iran, North Korea and Sudan.

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."

wrote:
You have no point.

Of course I do. The fact that you can't grasp it doesn't eliminate it.

How do you say "Liebensraum" in Chinese?

Roughly, 爱的空间. But that's probably not the word you intended.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in
:

On Nov 29, 8:04 pm, Rich Ahrens wrote:
Gatt wrote:
"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
ouse.com...
"No way am I buying any aeroplane built by them heathen Chinee..."
F'ck the Chinese. I don't care if people call it xenophobic.
They're environment-trashing, human-rights-violating,
child-abandoning, dissident-imprisoning communists who sell weapons
to our enemies and block their population from accessing the truth
about the world and their government.
Sound like ideal allies and trading partners then - certainly we have
or have had plenty of other allies guilty of all the above.

Xenophobic? What are the chances of the Dalai Lama dropping in to
watch the Olympics without disappearing?
It's not phobic to say that China is our ideological enemy. But I
-could- be phobic, because anybody who has nuclear weapons pointed
at my home or tries to steal our military technology is my enemy.
Thank you for demonstrating my point.
You have no point. Gatt is 100% correct. Placating the Chinese with
trade won't last. Eventually, they will exercise their military. I
am expecting them to invade Siberia in an effort to expand their
territory and gain access to more natural resources. How do you say
"Liebensraum" in Chinese?


Well, you say it as Lebensraum in German, for starters.

I'm guessing he had an old B-52s tune playing in his head...

"tin roof...rusted!"

Rich Ahrens wrote in news:47509bf9$0$27488$804603d3
@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in
news:810f1cd3-25b4-47b0-9646-42954b6d2385
@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

On Nov 29, 8:04 pm, Rich Ahrens wrote:
Gatt wrote:
"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
ouse.com...
"No way am I buying any aeroplane built by them heathen
Chinee..."
F'ck the Chinese. I don't care if people call it xenophobic.
They're environment-trashing, human-rights-violating,
child-abandoning, dissident-imprisoning communists who sell
weapons
to our enemies and block their population from accessing the truth
about the world and their government.
Sound like ideal allies and trading partners then - certainly we
have
or have had plenty of other allies guilty of all the above.

Xenophobic? What are the chances of the Dalai Lama dropping in to
watch the Olympics without disappearing?
It's not phobic to say that China is our ideological enemy. But I
-could- be phobic, because anybody who has nuclear weapons pointed
at my home or tries to steal our military technology is my enemy.
Thank you for demonstrating my point.
You have no point. Gatt is 100% correct. Placating the Chinese
with
trade won't last. Eventually, they will exercise their military. I
am expecting them to invade Siberia in an effort to expand their
territory and gain access to more natural resources. How do you say
"Liebensraum" in Chinese?


Well, you say it as Lebensraum in German, for starters.

I'm guessing he had an old B-52s tune playing in his head...

"tin roof...rusted!"

I'm pre-B52s. More sort of B-36



Bertie

"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.