RIP Cirrus

"Gatt" wrote in message
...

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in message
...

When it comes to the ability of America, its economy and its people, we
all have $$$ at risk.

No one has $$$ at risk except investors.

How's that housing market going these days?

Those management/MBA types know everything about the economy, I'm sure.
Say, how's Citibank doing these days?

But first they should tell it to the Americans who just lost their jobs
to the communists so that handful of investors could make more money.

Which workers lost their jobs?

The ones that could have been building Cessna 162s at a domestic Cessna
factory had a handful of investors who are already making record profits
could further sell America out to communist, rival superpower who keeps
trying to steal our nuclear and military secrets, and intellectual
property.

One thing my wife, a former stock broker, tells me is the difference between
real investors and everyone else is that real investors are in it for the
long haul.

Yes, there's "record" profit (not really, but for the sake of
discussion...), but just a few years ago there were near record losses.

It can, and does, reverse quickly. Given current fuel prices, the aerospace
market can come to a grinding halt pretty quickly. How many times has
aerospace done that in the past couple decades?


Hope that clears it up a little. You can buy a $100 "Gibsum" Les Paul
out of China.

And for Cessna to build a bottom-of-the-line (excessively so) aircraft in
Kansas would be ludicrious.

An absolutely forgery of an American instrument. You can buy bootleg
movies there before the movies are released in theaters. That's because
the government doesn't do jack squat about it. They have no ethics, but
we're giving away our national industrial, technological and economical
capacity so that a few people can make even more record profits.

Do think of it as a zero-sum game.


Of course, don't be surprised if, in a few years, the world is flooded
with ultra-cheap Cezzna AirCatchers and Cessna can't find international
162 buyers anymore.

I agree with you to a great extent, see my posts about doing business in
China versus other places.

"Gatt" wrote in message
...

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .

So, you want a law to make them build it in the US, is that it?

Who said anything about a law? I said no more about making a new law
than I said about making an Eleventh Commandment. Which is to say,
nothing.

There ya go. Don't buy one. You got there in the end.

People not buying products is great for business.

It sure teaches them a lesson.

Meanwhile, quite a few people here in Portland lost their job because
Freightliner just moved their shop to Mexico.

SO, a highly competitive industry had ot go somewhere that high school
dropout didn't get, what, $35 (a guess) an hour?

Now even those aren't made here anymore. If we simply sell out our entire
industrial capacity we can be agrarian and incapable of our own industry,
just like the Confederate south. And, just like the ol' South, there
will be a handful of very rich people and a whole lot of peasants.

But who said anything about making a law?

Envy is so unbecoming.

"Gatt" wrote in message
...

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in message
...

One might say American workers have priced themselves out of the market.

BTW, how much of the actual work will go on offshore? Is everything made
there, even the avionics?

HINT!!

We'll have to agree to disagree, Matt. Ford knew that the way to succeed
was to make ownership of his product achievable even by his employees.
Cessna's solution is to offload domestic employees completely. If
they're like the old Gibson employees, they'll get together and start
making a better product. (See "Heritage Guitars.")

At least if the SkyCatcher starts falling apart in midair because of poor
quality control, Cessna can blame China.

Um...no, they can't.


I suspect as much of the actual work will go on offshore as they can get
away with.

So you really don't know, but you're sounding off anyway?

And if it fails, they'll award themselves multi-million-dollar severance
bonuses a la Carly the Destroyer at HP, and say "Well, ya takes your
chances" and leave the wreckage of the Cessna company to be picked up by
Daimler or the Saudis or something.

And if they spent $millions of investors money and it wound up costing $200K
or so, and then no one could afford them, they'd have a wrecked company and
"multi-million-dollar severance bonuses a la Carly the Destroyer at HP, and
say "Well, ya takes your chances" and leave the wreckage of the Cessna
company to be picked up by Daimler or the Saudis or something."

It might get picked up by AirBus or something.

I have a feeling (not toooo strong, but it's there) that CONTRACTUAL golden
parachutes are going to go by-the-bye really soon.

Running a company is sooooo easy, it's childs play...

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


Gatt wrote:


We'll have to agree to disagree, Matt. Ford knew that the way to
succeed was to make ownership of his product achievable even by his
employees. Cessna's solution is to offload domestic employees completely.


A typical Cessna single has never been affordable by a Cessna employee.

If Gatt was CEO, he'd pay all the workers $150K, and if he found a Cirrus or
Beech in the parking lot, he'd fire them.

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote

And if they spent $millions of investors money and it wound up costing
$200K or so, and then no one could afford them, they'd have a wrecked
company and "multi-million-dollar severance bonuses a la Carly the
Destroyer at HP, and say "Well, ya takes your chances" and leave the
wreckage of the Cessna company to be picked up by Daimler or the Saudis
or something."

You know, one think that has barely been touched, is the design of the 162.

If the goal is to produce an inexpensive airplane, that should be the one
factor that is kept as the first priority of the design process.

If they really had to go offshore to build it at a competitive cost, then
there must be a problem with the design. A complicated manufacturing
process does not fit with the end goal. Surely there could have been some
changes to make the build less labor intensive.

Ultralights keep this in mind, and can be built by amateurs in little time.
I realize that a sport plane will by nature be more complex, but how much
more complex does it really have to be? Not as much as it turned out, I'm
sure.

They did not need to follow the design of the 152, and make it lighter. New
structures and process could be implemented. They did not go that route,
but instead just made a newer 152. So they end up having to make it
elsewhere. Too, too bad.
--
Jim in NC