If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 08:04:42 -0500, "TaxSrv" wrote:
Are flight schools buying SR-20s much at all? Considering insurance companies are balking at quoting low time pilots without an IFR rating and yearly factory authorized training, I would think that a flight school would have little use for the plane. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Dude" wrote in message ... It seems to me that there must be a lot of risk in the small piston plane market. This means that a company without a high degree of ability to accept risk will eventually fail a critical gut check. The question is - Can a public company stand the risks it takes to be number one? I believe Cessna simply will not do what it takes to win in this business because it has become too risk averse. It may survive, but I don't see it thriving. Strangely, its the same attitudes that kept them in business all this time, that may now be their downfall. Until the recent entries of new players, Cessna was king. Cirrus has done well, and much of it is due to the passion of the founders. I may be mistaken, but I believe that the investors are likewise passionate. They are not presently trading the stock on an exchange, are they? If not, then the company is still reasonably closely held. Cirrus is riding the new plane bubble. Time will tell ahow they do and they will need to come out with something new when the market for the present model becomes saturated. Certainly one would rather be in Cessnas financial position than that of Cirrus. Cirrus had to sell their soul to stay in business. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Wow, with all this bad news about Cirrus, should buyers be concerned?
I thought they had to be doing well selling so many planes. I still think the investors have got to be aviation fans more than Wall Street types, but we may never know. As for flight schools, it seems that Diamond is getting more and more of that business, but I hear the owner has some serious pockets. "Dave Stadt" wrote in message ... "Dude" wrote in message ... It seems to me that there must be a lot of risk in the small piston plane market. This means that a company without a high degree of ability to accept risk will eventually fail a critical gut check. The question is - Can a public company stand the risks it takes to be number one? I believe Cessna simply will not do what it takes to win in this business because it has become too risk averse. It may survive, but I don't see it thriving. Strangely, its the same attitudes that kept them in business all this time, that may now be their downfall. Until the recent entries of new players, Cessna was king. Cirrus has done well, and much of it is due to the passion of the founders. I may be mistaken, but I believe that the investors are likewise passionate. They are not presently trading the stock on an exchange, are they? If not, then the company is still reasonably closely held. Cirrus is riding the new plane bubble. Time will tell ahow they do and they will need to come out with something new when the market for the present model becomes saturated. Certainly one would rather be in Cessnas financial position than that of Cirrus. Cirrus had to sell their soul to stay in business. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Dude wrote:
Wow, with all this bad news about Cirrus, should buyers be concerned? They shouldn't be. The type certificate, documentation, and tooling are worth a lot of money. Were the present owners ever to sell, someone else comes in with eagerness, and the existing product base must be supported. If it follows the model of the Grumman AA-5x's, that means acquire, raise price significantly, run into troubles, sell out, new company raises price even more. Current FAA registrations show only about 16 in U.S. ownership other than the new Tiger Aircraft, after more than two years of production. Arguable reason - price? Fred F. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
IMHO, Cessna should do what Cirrus did and bring in some folks who
have experience in JIT ,TPS(Toyota Production System) and other inovative automotive manufacturing systems. Cirrus obtained hired several ex-NUMMI(New United Motor Manufacturing) people who have helped streamline the manufacturing and part supplier chain. I remembering seeing early production floor pictures from Cirrus and it resembled a local EAA chapter meeting more that a production floor. It you see photos of the floor mow it's obvious that there specific workstations and a real flow to the process. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
ArtP wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 07:21:54 GMT, "Dude" wrote: Cirrus has done well, and much of it is due to the passion of the founders. I may be mistaken, but I believe that the investors are likewise passionate. They are not presently trading the stock on an exchange, are they? If not, then the company is still reasonably closely held. Cirrus has done well by taking risks with the customers. The basic design is great but the devil is in the details. They lack good detail design, testing, and quality control. While the COPA web site indicates the quality control is improving, the early users are swinging in the breeze with high maintenance and planes that lost 50% of their value in 2 years. My club has a few dreamers that keep suggesting we should look into getting some Cirruses (our current high-end planes are Mooneys). I sure hope our board doesn't fall for that mistake. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:04:41 -0500, TTA Cherokee Driver
wrote: My club has a few dreamers that keep suggesting we should look into getting some Cirruses (our current high-end planes are Mooneys). I sure hope our board doesn't fall for that mistake. The plane is now 2 years and 1 month old. I just got 3 "mandatory" SB's (2 for the parachute and one for the starter). The estimated cost is over $1,000. This is just after the 2nd annual ($2,000 and 6 weeks). |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
While new Mooneys are expensive, they sure are nice. I sat in one at an
open house they other day. Sweet! "TTA Cherokee Driver" wrote in message ... ArtP wrote: On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 07:21:54 GMT, "Dude" wrote: Cirrus has done well, and much of it is due to the passion of the founders. I may be mistaken, but I believe that the investors are likewise passionate. They are not presently trading the stock on an exchange, are they? If not, then the company is still reasonably closely held. Cirrus has done well by taking risks with the customers. The basic design is great but the devil is in the details. They lack good detail design, testing, and quality control. While the COPA web site indicates the quality control is improving, the early users are swinging in the breeze with high maintenance and planes that lost 50% of their value in 2 years. My club has a few dreamers that keep suggesting we should look into getting some Cirruses (our current high-end planes are Mooneys). I sure hope our board doesn't fall for that mistake. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Of course ours are not new, far from it
That's why the financial folly of starting to buy $300K airplanes is so apparent, even if the Cirruses were great and reliable planes. Dude wrote: While new Mooneys are expensive, they sure are nice. I sat in one at an open house they other day. Sweet! "TTA Cherokee Driver" wrote in message ... ArtP wrote: On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 07:21:54 GMT, "Dude" wrote: Cirrus has done well, and much of it is due to the passion of the founders. I may be mistaken, but I believe that the investors are likewise passionate. They are not presently trading the stock on an exchange, are they? If not, then the company is still reasonably closely held. Cirrus has done well by taking risks with the customers. The basic design is great but the devil is in the details. They lack good detail design, testing, and quality control. While the COPA web site indicates the quality control is improving, the early users are swinging in the breeze with high maintenance and planes that lost 50% of their value in 2 years. My club has a few dreamers that keep suggesting we should look into getting some Cirruses (our current high-end planes are Mooneys). I sure hope our board doesn't fall for that mistake. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1/72 Cessna 300, 400 series scale models | Ale | Owning | 3 | October 22nd 13 03:40 PM |
Cessna buyers in So. Cal. beware ! | Bill Berle | Aviation Marketplace | 93 | December 20th 04 02:17 PM |
FORSALE: HARD TO FIND CESSNA PARTS! | Enea Grande | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | November 4th 03 12:57 AM |
FORSALE: HARD TO FIND CESSNA PARTS! | Enea Grande | Owning | 1 | November 4th 03 12:57 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |