Cessna profits plunge......OT (or is it?)

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.