Even Less Gloom?

From elsewhere to someone else from someone who was there...

===============

George:

The next time you bring something over from the CPA, bring THE WHOLE
THING, please. Had you bothered to wait a little bit, you would have
found that you were reading Jay's opinion, not a real news story.

The official statement from Piper was posted by none other than me.
Yeah, me. I spent most of Tuesday morning hiding from my boss so I
could work the phones, call Piper and deal with aviation magazine
editors because Jay waited 24 hours before he wrote down his
thoughts,
and GOT THE STORY WRONG. When Phil Boyer gets working the issue, you
know it's getting a lot of attention.

Now, for the speech. I was there. In fact, my job (volunteer job) at
the National Cherokee Fly In (which evidently NONE of you attended)
is
to find, invite, and 'handle' the keynote speaker every year. Jay's
summary of his speech is COMPLETELY his opinion of what Jim Bass
said.
I heard a different speech. We were both eating the same chicken and
drinking the same iced tea, and we all heard a different speech. So
did
everyone I called on Tuesday morning to make sure I wasn't going
whacko.

Problem is, I spent Sunday flying 4 + hours back to Lock Haven to see
the Piper Museum before I went home, Jay flew 1 hour back to Iowa and
had time to post his OPINIONS. His opinions are his, and he's
entitled
to them. But, they ain't what Bass said. Jay's a wonderful guy and I
look forward to seeing he and Mary every year, but he's NOT a
reporter.
He didn't take notes during the speech.

Bass did say that he expected the useful life of 'future' aircraft to
be
less than 50 years. But, he wouldn't put a specific timeframe on it,
and the comment was in context of the discussion of the PiperJet. He
did say 25 years, but that was during a discussion of the average age
of
the Piper fleet. He was (quite rudely) challenged on that number,
which
he says comes directly from the insurance company, who oughta know,
since they collect $ 2-3 M a year in premiums from Piper against
lawsuits from those same airframes.

The sad part here is that the CEO is a great guy (albeit not so great
a
public speaker) who is completely an engineer. He's into QA, customer
satisfaction, and building new planes. He spoke about the subjects I
asked him to, based on input from the organizing committee. He's
doing
a great job bringing the quality level up to meet customer
expectations,
while introducing new products, which Piper hasn't done since God
knows
when. Look at Cirrus and Cessna, and then look at the Piper website.
EVERY SINGLE ONE of Piper's airframe designs is over 20 years old.
I'd
say the guy has his priorities right - get good new airplanes out the
door, and keep the company solvent. That company can (as he said in
his
speech, but it wasn't reported) pull out the machines and crank out
parts for older planes. They won't be cheap, he said, but we can do
it.

So, relax, get over it (as others said), and remember: There are no
editors on the Internet. Think about that before you start forwarding
messages from chat boards. As others have noted, if it ain't in the
mainstream press (like AvWeb), it's probably not for a reason.

Jane Fonda never handed the POW notes to the guards in Hanoi, the
Arizona Highway Patrol never found a JATO-powered pickup truck jammed
in
a hillside, and Jim Bass never said he was cutting off parts for
Cherokees at 25 years.

Thanks,

Dennis

Dennis B. Boykin IV
Chairman
Leesburg Executive Airport Commission

On 6/21/2007 8:03:59 PM, Mike Granby wrote:

The next time you bring something over from the CPA, bring THE WHOLE
THING, please. Had you bothered to wait a little bit, you would have
found that you were reading Jay's opinion, not a real news story.

Hilarious. It seems as if Jay needs to brush up on his note taking skills,
given is E.F. Hutton reputation (when he posts, people listen...er...read) in
the aviation world.

--
Peter

"Peter R." wrote:
On 6/21/2007 8:03:59 PM, Mike Granby wrote:

The next time you bring something over from the CPA, bring THE WHOLE
THING, please. Had you bothered to wait a little bit, you would have
found that you were reading Jay's opinion, not a real news story.

Hilarious. It seems as if Jay needs to brush up on his note taking
skills, given is E.F. Hutton reputation (when he posts, people
listen...er...read) in the aviation world.


Several questions from a neutral observer, trying to determine if Jay
really "GOT THE STORY WRONG":

1) The quoted text appears to be the work of Dennis B. Boykin IV, not Mike
Granby. So who really authored this and why wasn't it originally addressed
to the forum on which Jay posted?

2) Jay also reported no Cherokee 140s showed up at the CPA. Is that also in
dispute?

3) Is it now claimed that Bass did not spend half an hour on a Powerpoint
presentation to a room full of Cherokee pilots, ignoring the alleged
demographics of his audience?

4) Did or did not Bass state that Piper is not going to entering the light
sport market? Did Jay get this wrong?

5) Is it claimed that there was no pointed or blunt post-speech questions
of the specific nature that Jay mentioned?

I can't see how the answers to the above vary depending on one's "opinion"
but I suppose in some minds that is possible.

"PR" == Peter R writes:

PR On 6/21/2007 8:03:59 PM, Mike Granby wrote:
The next time you bring something over from the CPA, bring THE
WHOLE THING, please. Had you bothered to wait a little bit, you
would have found that you were reading Jay's opinion, not a
real news story.

PR Hilarious. It seems as if Jay needs to brush up on his note
PR taking skills, given is E.F. Hutton reputation (when he posts,
PR people listen...er...read) in the aviation world.

Or readers need to brush up on their BS detection skills. Which is
easy with Jay, he's kinda like Bill Clinton. How do you know when Jay
is full of BS? When he's posting.
--
Don't gamble; take all your savings and buy some good stock and hold
it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don't go up, don't buy it.
Will Rogers

The official statement from Piper was posted by none other than me.
Yeah, me. I spent most of Tuesday morning hiding from my boss so I
could work the phones, call Piper and deal with aviation magazine
editors because Jay waited 24 hours before he wrote down his
thoughts,
and GOT THE STORY WRONG.

I have spoken with Dennis, on the Cherokee Chat, and I appreciate his
delicate position as the man who cajoled Bass into speaking at the
Cherokee Pilots Association convention.

I have also spoken with the people who sat at my table during Bass'
speech -- and I also spent several hours after the speech with folks
in the bar. We all heard the same thing.

Which isn't to say that Dennis got it wrong. As I've stated over and
over, it was impossible to tell from his speech whether Bass was
merely floating the idea of limiting parts support to newer aircraft,
or whether he was actually announcing that this was to be Piper's new
policy.

Bass is a bean-counter, NOT a skilled public speaker, and none of us
was able to precisely parse what he was trying to say. However, in
the context of his further statements that, no, Piper would NOT
license the production of older Piper parts to other companies (if
they were to stop production themselves) what else could one possibly
conclude?

This much is clear: No one disputes the fact that Bass said that PIper
would absolutely NOT license the production of older, out-of-
production parts to any outside company, due to liability issues.
This was said in the context of his previous, breath-taking assertions
(so ineloquently stated) that Piper did not wish to support 25-year-
old aircraft indefinitely, and was in answer to a question from a
member of the crowd who had obviously heard the exact same thing I
did.

In my opinion, the asking of the question is proof-positive that Bass
said what he said -- otherwise, why would anyone even ask the
question? And why would Bass answer the way he did, if Piper had
every intention of continuing parts support? .

Here's the bottom line: Bass probably didn't say what he meant to
say. God knows we've all been victimized by similar circumstances.
His company spokesperson has clarified Piper's position, and it is in
our favor.

As far as I'm concerned, that's a "Good Thing".
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

However, in
the context of his further statements that, no, Piper would NOT
license the production of older Piper parts to other companies (if
they were to stop production themselves) what else could one possibly
conclude?

Is there a tape?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

("Jose" wrote)
Is there a tape?


Some time the next day, at the hotel's front desk....
Some time the next day, at Piper headquarters.....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...mary_woods.jpg
Hmm? They're both in on it.

Oh my God! Jay is selling the Inn ...and buying Piper Pistons!


Paul-Mont

On Jun 21, 10:39 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:

1) The quoted text appears to be the work of Dennis B. Boykin IV,
not Mike Granby. So who really authored this and why wasn't it
originally addressed to the forum on which Jay posted?

Someone (George) posted something about Jay's story on the CPA
website, and someone else (Dennis) replied. I posted the reply here so
that others might see another side of the story.

On Jun 21, 11:21 pm, Jay Honeck wrote:

Bass is a bean-counter, NOT a skilled public speaker

Why do you say he's a bean-counter? Does he have an accountancy
background, as opposed to the engineering one that Mr Boykin cites. Or
do you simply assume that anyone running a corporation must be a bean-
counter?

Jay Honeck wrote:

Here's the bottom line: Bass probably didn't say what he meant to
say. God knows we've all been victimized by similar circumstances.
His company spokesperson has clarified Piper's position, and it is in
our favor.

What was clarified is the "current, public" message the company wants
conveyed. Whether this is their "position" or not is something else.
I'll bet what you heard was the real internal position, but they simply
haven't decided yet how and when to make that position public.


As far as I'm concerned, that's a "Good Thing".

I'd say it is too soon to tell one way or the other.

Matt