Cessna Layoffs and Columbus Suspension

[Murdoughnut]

I dunno, this seems like a smart move to me. I mean, everybody likes a nice high-tech globetrotting wonder, sure, but have you heard what corporate jets are fetching these days on the market? I know of at least two fairly nice Lear 60s that are basically sitting on blocks because no one wants to buy them for love or money. I think the days of jetting from one continent to another on a whim in sybaritic comfort because you CAN are over.

I get Controller's weekly sales booklet and it blows my mind how many corporate jets are sitting out there. I work for a major television network/retailer and we don't have a jet, so it always makes me wonder where the market for these is.

 

[Murdoughnut]

Kilo, Mega, Giga?

you have to be specific

We'll go with mega - I like the semantic effect

 

[RynoB]

Some folks fly over the ocean with a basic six-pack for hours on end but I need G1000 glass to fly VFR to Tucson?!

You mean Lucky Lindy didn't have a G1000?

I went back to my hometown over Easter. I rented my old instructor's 150 for the fun of it. People don't realize how great it is to get back to the basics every once in a while. The fact that less and less planes are manufactured without glass scares me a little. Glass is great, but it has its place. A two/four seat trainer is not one of them, in my opinion.

 

[bdhill1979]

Plus if you look at a lot of the articles and ads about aircraft, it's always about avionics.

If I bought an airplane, I'd like to keep it pure and simple. I'd rather have a Piper Super Cub rather than a pimped out, full-glass Cessna 172. IFR-capable would be a plus, but if I've got to shoot an approach in a non-emergency situation, I'm probably not flying anyway! I've got plenty of actual.

There is way too much of this country, and others that shouldn't be seen from way too high going way too fast.

 

[Stone Cold]

I just kinda skimmed over the replies, but you guys and gals are aware the Columbus was the Mid size jet that Cessna was building, not the LSA, right? The Columbus development was shut down, maybe to be started again, and the LSA, not sure the name of it, is still in production.

Yes, the bizjet market SUCKS right now. Glad I'm not an owner trying to sell. Sucks to be a Wall Street type (yes even the ones without bailout money are unloading their business aircraft) unloading their jet to satisfy the mass hysteria. Talk about loss upon loss.

 

[RynoB]

I just kinda skimmed over the replies, but you guys and gals are aware the Columbus was the Mid size jet that Cessna was building, not the LSA, right? The Columbus development was shut down, maybe to be started again, and the LSA, not sure the name of it, is still in production.

Yes, the bizjet market SUCKS right now. Glad I'm not an owner trying to sell. Sucks to be a Wall Street type (yes even the ones without bailout money are unloading their business aircraft) unloading their jet to satisfy the mass hysteria. Talk about loss upon loss.

I was wondering how we went from talking about the Columbus to talking about the Groundcatcher

 

[Murdoughnut]

I was wondering how we went from talking about the Columbus to talking about the Groundcatcher

Well I was talking about Cessna's overall business plan - I can't comment much on the jets, but the glass pistons just seemed like a bad idea.

 

[RynoB]

Well I was talking about Cessna's overall business plan - I can't comment much on the jets, but the glass pistons just seemed like a bad idea.

I don't mind glass in pistons, but I think it belongs in those that are flown more for business and IFR, such as Bonanzas, Columbias, etc.

I'm surprised some of the manufactures don't have Billy Mays trying to sell their products with the way the economy is.

CALL IN THE NEXT 20 MINUTES AND RECEIVE A TUB OF MIGHTY PUDDY TO GO ALONG WITH YOUR SKYCATCHER!

It would come in handy if the wings came off in flight.

 

[minitour]

Hey, laugh if you want but that mighty putty works.

-mini

 

[RynoB]

I once went into a Made for TV store in the mall. They had a TV with nothing but Billy Mays commercials playing. It would drive me to suicide if I had to work there.

 

[mshunter]

Hey, laugh if you want but that mighty putty works.

-mini

Tell me you didn't buy that stuff:drool:

 

[Goonie]

Pure speculation here....

I would bet that the G1000 did not cost anymore to Cessna to put into an airplane than all the instruments, coms, KLN94 POS, and KAP 140 POS autopliot. Not to mention all the warranty work they had to pay for with the old Nav II setup. Most of the problems I've ever had with the G1000 are software issues.

 

[minitour]

Tell me you didn't buy that stuff:drool:

Sho 'nuff.

-mini

 

[mshunter]

Sho 'nuff.

-mini

And is it mighty? What did you u se it for? (uh oh, thread creep).

 

[casey]

Hey, laugh if you want but that mighty putty works.

-mini

I hope you saved your money and just went to the hardware store to get some epoxy putty. That's all mighty putty is, just with a fancier package.

 

[jrh]

I'm not going to get in to the benefits of glass over conventional panels (already beat that horse in other threads) but I'd like to point out one simple business reason for Cessna producing exclusively glass panels--

Nobody bought conventional panel aircraft.

When the G1000 was first introduced, Cessna offered conventional panel avionics as "standard" with the "deluxe" G1000 avionics as a variation. Guess what? Everybody went with the "deluxe."

So what's the point in producing a variation that nobody will buy? It'd be a waste of time, money, and resources. They went entirely to glass the next model year.



I think it's interesting that a lot of people commenting here about their love of conventional panels are *not* individuals in the market for new aircraft. I don't mean to be rude in saying this, but Cessna isn't interested in people who don't have the financial resources to make these decisions to begin with.

It'd be like BMW going to a group of blue collar factory workers for advice on what features should be in the latest 3-series lineup of cars. That's not their market. That's not their target demographic. It doesn't make any business sense to tailor your product for a group of people who aren't going to buy it no matter what you do.

I talk on a regular basis with people who are seriously in the market for new aircraft. They universally love glass panels. What's wrong with Cessna selling them what they want?

 

[Murdoughnut]

I'm not going to get in to the benefits of glass over conventional panels (already beat that horse in other threads) but I'd like to point out one simple business reason for Cessna producing exclusively glass panels--

Nobody bought conventional panel aircraft.

When the G1000 was first introduced, Cessna offered conventional panel avionics as "standard" with the "deluxe" G1000 avionics as a variation. Guess what? Everybody went with the "deluxe."

So what's the point in producing a variation that nobody will buy? It'd be a waste of time, money, and resources. They went entirely to glass the next model year.



I think it's interesting that a lot of people commenting here about their love of conventional panels are *not* individuals in the market for new aircraft. I don't mean to be rude in saying this, but Cessna isn't interested in people who don't have the financial resources to make these decisions to begin with.

It'd be like BMW going to a group of blue collar factory workers for advice on what features should be in the latest 3-series lineup of cars. That's not their market. That's not their target demographic. It doesn't make any business sense to tailor your product for a group of people who aren't going to buy it no matter what you do.

I talk on a regular basis with people who are seriously in the market for new aircraft. They universally love glass panels. What's wrong with Cessna selling them what they want?

Fair points, but flight schools are struggling because they bought up a lot of these expensive, glass panel a/c that they now can't rent for any less than $130 an hour. This has presented a very large barrier for flight students looking to learn to fly for non-commercial purposes. Back when the cost of a PPL was $4k, it was a lot easier to convince those folks to give it a shot. The $9k+ PPL has put that out of reach for a lot of folks.

So maybe it was the flight schools purchasing the a/c that didn't understand their cusotmers.

 

[jrh]

Fair points, but flight schools are struggling because they bought up a lot of these expensive, glass panel a/c that they now can't rent for any less than $130 an hour. This has presented a very large barrier for flight students looking to learn to fly for non-commercial purposes. Back when the cost of a PPL was $4k, it was a lot easier to convince those folks to give it a shot. The $9k+ PPL has put that out of reach for a lot of folks.

So maybe it was the flight schools purchasing the a/c that didn't understand their cusotmers.

You might be right to some degree, but I think you're oversimplifying it.

1) Flight schools are struggling universally these days--I see that more as a function of the economy than it is the equipment the school uses. I see schools hurting regardless of the equipment on their flight line.

2) There is a *lot* more to the "$4k" quote for a license than the "$9k" quote for reasons beyond simply the aircraft rental price. It's basic math. Let's say a person spends an extra $50/hour on the aircraft. For 50 hours of training, that's $2500 extra. You're quoting a difference of $5k. Where'd the other $2500 go? Higher fuel, insurance, instructor rates, etc. Times have changed in many areas beyond just the aircraft.

3) The price difference between $4k and $9k is relatively minor in the whole scheme of things. In the non-commercial, recreational demographic, we're competing against motorcycles, jet skis, RVs, vacations to the Bahamas, etc. Somehow people find ways to afford those things. There's no reason they won't put their income in to flying if they see the value in it. The problem is that as an industry, we haven't done a good job of showing the excitement and value to getting one's private pilot certificate. We keep trying to compete on price rather than value--in my opinion, a recipe for failure with any business other than Walmart. I agree it's hard to convince people to give it a shot, but that's because they don't see the value in flying, not because it's $5k more than it was 10 years ago.

4) New aircraft are going to be more expensive than used aircraft, period. I suppose a person could argue for flying only used aircraft, but that's a whole other argument. If we limit ourselves to new aircraft and only have to pick between glass and conventional panels, we're talking about maybe saving 10% or 20% off the total purchase price. That's only going to drop the rental rates by a few dollars per hour.


See how there's a lot more to it? It's easy to blame glass panels for the demise of general aviation, but I don't think that's reality.

 

[Murdoughnut]

You might be right to some degree, but I think you're oversimplifying it.

1) Flight schools are struggling universally these days--I see that more as a function of the economy than it is the equipment the school uses. I see schools hurting regardless of the equipment on their flight line.

2) There is a *lot* more to the "$4k" quote for a license than the "$9k" quote for reasons beyond simply the aircraft rental price. It's basic math. Let's say a person spends an extra $50/hour on the aircraft. For 50 hours of training, that's $2500 extra. You're quoting a difference of $5k. Where'd the other $2500 go? Higher fuel, insurance, instructor rates, etc. Times have changed in many areas beyond just the aircraft.

3) The price difference between $4k and $9k is relatively minor in the whole scheme of things. In the non-commercial, recreational demographic, we're competing against motorcycles, jet skis, RVs, vacations to the Bahamas, etc. Somehow people find ways to afford those things. There's no reason they won't put their income in to flying if they see the value in it. The problem is that as an industry, we haven't done a good job of showing the excitement and value to getting one's private pilot certificate. We keep trying to compete on price rather than value--in my opinion, a recipe for failure with any business other than Walmart. I agree it's hard to convince people to give it a shot, but that's because they don't see the value in flying, not because it's $5k more than it was 10 years ago.

4) New aircraft are going to be more expensive than used aircraft, period. I suppose a person could argue for flying only used aircraft, but that's a whole other argument. If we limit ourselves to new aircraft and only have to pick between glass and conventional panels, we're talking about maybe saving 10% or 20% off the total purchase price. That's only going to drop the rental rates by a few dollars per hour.


See how there's a lot more to it? It's easy to blame glass panels for the demise of general aviation, but I don't think that's reality.

The $4k to $9k difference was also accounting for time and inflation - the $4k was a reference to what it costs when I got my PPL a few years ago. I think gas prices along with the cost of flight schools having new aircraft are combining to kill recreational aviation. When I started my PPL, it was $45 wet for the plane (C-150) and $20 for the instructor. That's a far cry from $140 for the plane, and $50 for the instructor.

 

[MFT1Air]

I think their whole business model was designed for failure. Instead of building an affordable, basic piston single that flight schools could thrive off of, they dumped tens of thousands worth of overkill avionics into a platform that still isn't much faster than driving. The Skyhawk is really only a viable means of transportation with a 100-300 mile travel radius. Any less, just drive - any more, it's far, far cheaper and easier to fly commercial. Sorry, for a 200nm trip, I don't need build in weather radar or terrain mapping.

They would have been much better off building a basic Skyhawk priced around $100k to start. Flight schools could have rented them for less than $100 an hour, and we'd still have aviation enthusiasts, rather than a bunch of kids with a metric ton of debt.

:yeahthat: