Cirrus Killer? Cessna just doesn't get it...

Stefan wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

Yes, many people do, but pilots aren't normal people. :-)

Pilots are generally thinking people by nature and I suspect much less
likely to buy based on emotion or perception.


And that's why they absolutely refuse to buy a new design but prefer to
deliberately stick with 50s technology... :-P

The Cirrus design is also 50s, actually even earlier. Low-wing,
conventional tail airplane design is rather old. They used a newer
material, but even composites have been around now for probably 50 years.

Don't confuse new with better. I'm glad Cirrus exists as I think it
will possibly spur Cessna to build a new airplane that will have the
advantages of a Cessna with improved performance. That will benefit us
all, well at least us high-wing fans who like an airplane that can be
repaired almost anywhere in this country and most of the world.


Matt

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:41:11 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote:

nothing to do with performance. People don't spend $350K based on
"perception." Most people I know do not believe in your "perception." To

If people didn't care about "perception", companies like Harley would have
been out of business two decades ago. Heck, I've known people that have
bought items like Porche, Ferrari, and Lamborghini just because of
"perception."

In fact, I would hazzard a guess that the vast majority of people do buy
things based solely on perception. Heck, it plays a MAJOR role in car
buying for the masses. Believe it or not, car purchases in the US is
considered an impulse buy. That tells me that they are buying strictly
based on perception rather than product knowledge.

Greg

Great thread...

If you want to talk Ferrari's and such, yeah it doesn't matter utility at
all... charge what you want and make it sexy, exclusive and fast. Cessna
can't do this regardless of the design, however (how many times have you
equated "Cessna" with sexy, exclusive, and fast?)

They could pull the same trick as the Japanese auto makers and start a new
brand (a la Lexus (Toyota), Acura (Honda), Infinity (Nissan)), but "Cessna"
as sexy would be a long expensive pull from a marketing perspective.

At the end of the day, the question Cessna should ask themselves, is what
niche do they want to excel at? Do they want to be the GA dream plane, or
do they want to be the most performing practical utility option? If they
try to be all things to all people, they will fail. I tend to think the
practical segment has more dollars in it, but Cirrus seems to have done a
good job at getting a good deal of practical into an attractive package.
It's up to Cessna to market themselves apart from Cirrus to make sure the
public gets the picture they want them to have.

Cessna needs, and should have by now, a wake up call regarding their ancient
designs, but they need not stray from what has made them "successful" for
decades.

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:41:11 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote:

nothing to do with performance. People don't spend $350K based on
"perception." Most people I know do not believe in your "perception."
To

If people didn't care about "perception", companies like Harley would have
been out of business two decades ago. Heck, I've known people that have
bought items like Porche, Ferrari, and Lamborghini just because of
"perception."

In fact, I would hazzard a guess that the vast majority of people do buy
things based solely on perception. Heck, it plays a MAJOR role in car
buying for the masses. Believe it or not, car purchases in the US is
considered an impulse buy. That tells me that they are buying strictly
based on perception rather than product knowledge.

Greg

On 2005-10-01, Jase Vanover wrote:
can't do this regardless of the design, however (how many times have you
equated "Cessna" with sexy, exclusive, and fast?)

Generally when travelling in a C210, C310 or CitationJet.
I think the 180 is sexy and exclusive. It may not be fast though :-)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Perhaps, but the point I'm trying to make is that regardless of the plane,
"Cessna" the brand isn't sexy. Ask 10 people what image the brand conjures
up for them, and see how many times sexy, fast or exclusive comes up. I'd
be that for every one who thinks CitationJet, there will be 9 that think of
172's.

PS. I also think the Cardinal is rather a looker...

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2005-10-01, Jase Vanover wrote:
can't do this regardless of the design, however (how many times have you
equated "Cessna" with sexy, exclusive, and fast?)

Generally when travelling in a C210, C310 or CitationJet.
I think the 180 is sexy and exclusive. It may not be fast though :-)

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:41:11 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote:

nothing to do with performance. People don't spend $350K based on
"perception." Most people I know do not believe in your "perception."
To

If people didn't care about "perception", companies like Harley would have
been out of business two decades ago. Heck, I've known people that have
bought items like Porche, Ferrari, and Lamborghini just because of
"perception."

Harley, Porsche, Ferrari and Lamborghini owners combined are an
insignificant percentage of total motorcycle and car owners. Harley has
been almost out of business numerous times during it's history.

In fact, I would hazzard a guess that the vast majority of people do buy
things based solely on perception. Heck, it plays a MAJOR role in car
buying for the masses. Believe it or not, car purchases in the US is
considered an impulse buy. That tells me that they are buying strictly
based on perception rather than product knowledge.

Those that buy based on perception deserve what they get. I know far more
people that buy based on mission than perception.

Greg

Dave Stadt wrote:

Those that buy based on perception deserve what they get. I know far more
people that buy based on mission than perception.

then how do you explain SUVs?

--Sylvain

"Sylvain" wrote in message
...
Dave Stadt wrote:

Those that buy based on perception deserve what they get. I know far
more
people that buy based on mission than perception.

then how do you explain SUVs?

--Sylvain

I don't even try but if I had to guess I would say small penis.

Sylvain wrote:
Dave Stadt wrote:

Those that buy based on perception deserve what they get. I know far
more
people that buy based on mission than perception.


then how do you explain SUVs?

Have you ever owned one?

Matt

Sylvain wrote:

then how do you explain SUVs?

My brother in law has one. He explains that his accountant told him that it
saved him money somehow based upon some tax break specifically designed to
encourage purchase of that type of vehicle. Since he drives very little
(ie. the fuel cost is less of a factor in his life), it made sense.

Why there'd be such a law, I've zero idea. It seems odd to me.

A friend of mine also owns one, but he uses it for lugging his boat around.
He drives a far more sensible vehicle other times.

[Of course, one could question the sense of a large boat in terms of fuel
costs. But then I'm sure some people could raise the same spectre for
aircraft laugh.]

- Andrew