Cirrus vs. 182

ISLIP wrote:

and the sales figures for the last quarter and last year tell the
real story of
aircraft acceptance. The article sounds like it was written by an aircraft
sales person desperate to stop losing sales to Cirrus Design.

You're right. They are worried, and they are desperate. It is common
practice by every Cessna salesperson I've known to viciously slam the
Cirrus product line.

In my view they should go the same route Piper has, which is to focus on
aircraft which have load-hauling capability. This is the only real area
in which Cessna has an advantage over Cirrus, for now.

-Ryan

Not just Cessna.

Here as an experiment. Have one person go to a number of booths at Oshkoth
and say how they just bought a Cirrus, but they are looking around for fun.
Have them say they have 300 hours, instrument rating, and pay $4800 per year
for insurance.

Then, have another person go around with the same story except instead of
buying a Cirrus, have them say they would never buy a Cirrus due to safety
and quality concerns.

Compare and contrast the remarks you recieve from other companies'
representatives.

If you hit the right buttons, you can get a lot these guys ranting about
Cirrus. While many of them may be hacks, a lot of them are professionals
with tons of aviation experience. I came to the conclusion that many of
them would not sell Cirrus.




"Ryan Ferguson" wrote in message
om...
ISLIP wrote:

and the sales figures for the last quarter and last year tell the
real story of
aircraft acceptance. The article sounds like it was written by an
aircraft
sales person desperate to stop losing sales to Cirrus Design.

You're right. They are worried, and they are desperate. It is common
practice by every Cessna salesperson I've known to viciously slam the
Cirrus product line.

In my view they should go the same route Piper has, which is to focus on
aircraft which have load-hauling capability. This is the only real area
in which Cessna has an advantage over Cirrus, for now.

-Ryan