Cirrus Killer? Cessna just doesn't get it...

Matt,

Things could be phrased just a little differently he

The good part is they make reliable airplanes that have stood the test
of time.

The bad part is they have sat on their dollar-fat behinds for decades,
not taken any risks with developing new designs, blocked innovation and
milked everything they possibly could out of ancient, outdated designs
while...

They also have a world-wide support organization that few
other small airplane makers can match.


... conveniently excerting their monopoly-like power on a small market.

The above holds only for the piston market, of course, and is a
simplification - as much as your statements were.

I've said it befo We as a group can't complain all the time about
there being no development in this market and at the same time badmouth
every newcomer there is and standing fast with the old companies that
don't deliver the innovation. Cessna isn't looking into a new plane
because they WANT to, it's because they were MADE to - by Cirrus and
Diamond. Strong competition for Cessna is something we should ALL desire.
It makes them move - at long last. Their first try was just beginning to
offer "new" 50-year-old designs. It didn't work to squash Cirrus, so now
they're trying something else. Something at which Cirrus and Diamond
might well have way more experience.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Matt Whiting wrote:

The Cirrus design is also 50s, actually even earlier. Low-wing,
conventional tail airplane design is rather old.

Using two wings to fly is a pretty old design, indeed.

Stefan

in fact, depending on how much revenue, one such business can
practically get a brand spanking new SUV every year (if I
remember
correctly can deduct something like 100k a year -- providing
the
thing is over 6000 lbs); in other words, they have the choice
between a brand new car for free, or to pay like the rest of
us ...

I find this hard to believe. Rarely can you deduct 3X what
something
cost. Do you have a reference that supports this claim?

Any accountants or tax attorneys here who can comment?

Matt

Congress patched that for SUVs placed in service after 10/22/04, so
it's now limited to $25K. It's not an additional deduction, but
merely allows depreciation to be claimed in the year of
acquisition. People often screw themselves by electing "section
179," due to steeply graduated tax brackets. They fail to compare
potential future savings by depreciating over 5 years, verses
taking it all in one year, chewing down into the lower marginal
brackets now as low as 10%, and even limiting the effect of certain
tax credits. Add to this the effect of progressivity and similar
wasted credits of the state income tax in some of the states.

Fred F.

("john smith" wrote)
Husband: (To himself) "I'm not going to be caught dead driving a wimpy
mini-van!"

Paul and I both drive minivans.
What are you saying Jay?
Tell us what you really think.
:-))


I drive the sporty 2 seat version :-)

I went with the 94 Dodge Grand Caravan after getting much "chick car" grief
for driving an 89 Ford Probe!


Montblack
If it hauls around a 3/4" sheet of plywood, set on top of a couple of free
floating 2x4 rails (our portable work table + legs) ...it's manly g.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Matt,

Things could be phrased just a little differently he


The good part is they make reliable airplanes that have stood the test
of time.


The bad part is they have sat on their dollar-fat behinds for decades,
not taken any risks with developing new designs, blocked innovation and
milked everything they possibly could out of ancient, outdated designs
while...

That is true with respect to their light airplanes, although the new
avionics are being fitted pretty much at the same pace as other
manufacturers. They have innovated a lot in the bizjet marketplace.
The reality is that the light plane business isn't all that lucrative.
It will be interesting to see if Cirrus survives longer term. I'm
guessing they won't, but hopefully they will get enough planes in the
market so that someone else will buy them and not leave them stranded a
la the Commander line and others.



They also have a world-wide support organization that few
other small airplane makers can match.



.. conveniently excerting their monopoly-like power on a small market.

The above holds only for the piston market, of course, and is a
simplification - as much as your statements were.

I've said it befo We as a group can't complain all the time about
there being no development in this market and at the same time badmouth
every newcomer there is and standing fast with the old companies that
don't deliver the innovation. Cessna isn't looking into a new plane
because they WANT to, it's because they were MADE to - by Cirrus and
Diamond. Strong competition for Cessna is something we should ALL desire.
It makes them move - at long last. Their first try was just beginning to
offer "new" 50-year-old designs. It didn't work to squash Cirrus, so now
they're trying something else. Something at which Cirrus and Diamond
might well have way more experience.

No, they want to. My guess is that making light planes is a losing
proposition for Cessna. From a purely business standpoint, they would
probably me money ahead if they had never re-entered the light plane
market. This is sad, but I'm guessing true. Cirrus is surviving on
OPM. It will be curious to see if their investors ever make money on
their investment.

How did Cessna try to squash Cirrus?


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote:
...
My guess is that making light planes is a losing
proposition for Cessna. From a purely business standpoint,
they would probably me money ahead if they had never
re-entered the light plane market. This is sad, but I'm
guessing true.

It is possible they make money too, as the light singles can share
some of the infrastructure in place to make and market the
profitable lines. However, Cessna is a small part of a big company
(Textron), and their financial statements by segment suggest only
that building Citations is certainly worthwhile even in bad years.
At the unit volume of piston singles, they may make some, or lose
some, and it's possible the Board of Directors cares little one way
or the other if Cessna managers have a rationale for their biz
model. As an inconsequential part of a big picture, I think it
erroneous to compare Cessna decision-making on the singles to that
of competitors who I think are all standalone companies and
nonpublic.

Fred F.

Nomen Nescio wrote:

Not free, but still a good saving.
My self employed wife got a Yukon Denali last year
....
That gets her a new vehicle for about $21.9 k.

about 10k lower than what you can sell it second
hand a year later (roughly speaking, did a quick
check on edmunds): so it is not free, but better
than free, as you can actually make a profit (at
my, and other taxpayers, expenses), and iterate
every year.

--Sylvain

Matt Whiting wrote:
cost. Do you have a reference that supports this claim?

Any accountants or tax attorneys here who can comment?

one of the first rules of argueing on usenet: when
you don't agree on something, demand 'references to
support' whatever you disagree with (and of course don't
bother checking them out)

anyway: yes, I do have references, talk to your CPA
if you don't believe me, meanwhile have a look at the
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003;

no I don't have an URL, you'll have to head for the
library,

--Sylvain

On 2005-10-02, Sylvain wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:

That gets her a new vehicle for about $21.9 k.

about 10k lower than what you can sell it second
hand a year later (roughly speaking, did a quick
check on edmunds): so it is not free, but better
than free, as you can actually make a profit (at
my, and other taxpayers, expenses), and iterate
every year.


Except for depreciation recapture when you sell it.
--
Doug Carter

You're certainly right about ground clearance for deep snow. I don't
off-road in the Subaru -- I have skis for that. I do however drive long
distances in blizzards. Last Xmas I caught a storm at Tahoe, skied two days
of powder in it, surfed it across to Utah, skied pow at Alta, surfed across
to Steamboat and skied two more days of Colorado pow. One storm, five days
of untracked powder, 1000 miles of snowpacked roads at night, and never saw
the sun. And never got sideways in the Subaru.

My idea of heaven.

Seth
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Seth Masia wrote:

You'd better look up "coefficient of friction" in a physics text.

I've driven plenty of rented SUVs in snow, in mountain rangers across the
continent and around the world -- and none of them handles, goes or stops
as well as my 98 Subaru with IRS and Michelin snow tires.

I've driven a number of Subarus and also trucks and SUVS. My K1500 will
go through deep, wet snow much better than any Subaru. That simple reason
is ground clearance. I have about twice what a Sub has. If you really
believe that this doesn't make a difference, then your experience is much
more limited than you claim. Sure, in 5" of snow, the Sub will perform as
well or better. But in 12" of snow, the tables turn. My truck is barely
dragging at that point, but the Sub is pushing 5" or so of snow.


Matt