Cessna Lay off 30%

Must be due to our airplane. Have a great Cirrus day.

Cessna Lays Off 30% of Workers at Piston-Aircraft Factory

Single-Engine Piston Aircraft Sales Drop

By ANN Correspondent Richard Harris

The nationÂ’s economic stumble has echoed at Cessna Aircraft.

Cessna Aircraft has announced layoffs at its single-engine piston aircraft factory, in Independence (KS). Citing declining sales, Cessna reported it will lay off about 280 of its approximately 1,000 workers at the Independence plant, and plans to sell only 750 planes this year, compared to the 1,000 Cessna piston singles originally expected to sell.

After shutting down its light plane line in favor of business and heavy utility aircraft in the 1980Â’s, Cessna re-entered small piston-engine aircraft manufacturing in, July 1996, following the passage of federal legislation limiting the accident liability of light-plane manufacturers. Cessna relocated its piston-aircraft manufacturing facilities to a new plant, in Independence (KS), a town of about 10,000, about 150 miles east of CessnaÂ’s home base in Wichita.

Currently the factory produces the entire Cessna single-engine product line: the 172R Skyhawk, and the beefier 172S Skyhawk SP, and now the newly certified 182T Skylane and T182T Turbo Skylane. It also manufactures the 206H Stationair, the T206H Turbo Stationair. The only other Cessna single, the huge, expensive, turboprop Caravan utility plane, is manufactured in Wichita.

After a long string of good sales, the piston aircraft shipments for first quarter of 2001 were down about 40% compared to the quarter immediately previous (4th quarter, 2000), and down 15% below the aircraft shipments in 1st quarter of 2000.

This is CessnaÂ’s first layoff in 15 years, and is not expected to affect employment in Wichita. Raytheon Aircraft, in Wichita, also experienced layoffs last month, mostly administrative and managerial personnel, in a move widely seen as focused on making the company ready for a merger or takeover, rather than responding to market conditions.

In February, Michael Smith, Chairman of the General Aviation Manufacturers’ Association (GAMA) said “at GAMA, we think 2001 will be a good year for piston sales.” But that was three months ago.
Time will tell.

FMI: www.Cessna.com, www.GeneralAviation.com


They should have expected a slowdown when they knew their old dogs (172’s-182’s) would be running with the new and modern greyhounds(-20.-22).Word is around the factory that cirrus will be financially (goodshape) mid july thanks to the -22 production.You -22 guys who got yours should thank the -20 guys for patience.That was a good call by cirrus by slowing the -20 production for a bit while some of the more money making -22’s got out.How about a 6 seat -22? Sound nice?

Must be due to our airplane. Have a great Cirrus day.

Cessna Lays Off 30% of Workers at Piston-Aircraft Factory

Single-Engine Piston Aircraft Sales Drop

Hmmm…

Just read the article in AOPA Pilot about the “new” T182T. Lets see, its slower, smaller, less modern and has less useful load than an SR22, but it costs the same…

They should have expected a slowdown when they knew their old dogs (172’s-182’s) would be running with the new and modern greyhounds(-20.-22).Word is around the factory that cirrus will be financially (goodshape) mid july thanks to the -22 production.You -22 guys who got yours should thank the -20 guys for patience.That was a good call by cirrus by slowing the -20 production for a bit while some of the more money making -22’s got out.How about a 6 seat -22? Sound nice

I understand that Cirrus has a design on the boards for a six place, pressurized, 300hp turbo-diesel retract with full deice to compete with the Malibu market. (Of course the Cirrus will be better, more modern, faster and cheaper, so watch out Piper!)

Jeff

I understand that Cirrus has a design on the boards for a six place, pressurized, 300hp turbo-diesel retract with full deice to compete with the Malibu market. (Of course the Cirrus will be better, more modern, faster and cheaper, so watch out Piper!)

Sounds like an exciting airplane. But, is there a “Malibu market” anymore? I don’t think it was ever that big, and most of what was there is probably shifting to the Meridian. It seems to me that this suggested new Cirrus plane is aimed straight at Bonanza and Saratoga. If so bravo Cirrus I hope you smoke 'em!

Another thought: I wonder what would be the market analysis that would lead Cirrus to use a 300 hp turbodiesel instead of a turbine engine? In the $700K+ pressurized “don’t care much what it costs I just want the best” market I would think turbines are the wave of the future, unless turbodiesels have nearly equivalent performance at very significant cost savings. Could a plane like this compete with Eclipse for the air taxi market?

I understand that Cirrus has a design on the boards for a six place, pressurized, 300hp turbo-diesel retract with full deice to compete with the Malibu market. (Of course the Cirrus will be better, more modern, faster and cheaper, so watch out Piper!)

I’m ready to put down a deposit :-). I’ve been studying the Malibu in its various forms for about a year and I belong to MMPOA, the type club.

I think the market for this kind of a/c is 20 times the number of Malibu/Mirage/Merridan’s in service. The big problems have been:

  1. Safety. Despite being http://www.avweb.com/articles/malibu thoroughly studied , these planes keep crashing, usually due to pilot error, usually with highly qualified, high-time pilots. I don’t fool myself that I won’t make the same mistakes that these other pilots did. This is a family aircraft. Family pilots value safety even more than the average pilot, I think.

  2. Parts cost from the New Piper Extortion Company. Squat switch: $975. Gear power pack: over $10,000.

  3. Complexity: plan on taking a refresher course every six months. There’s a lot more to go wrong on this a/c than a Cirrus and you have to train for the failures.

Having said all of this, I’ve flow a 2000 Mirage and it is easy to fly, relatively quiet, and relatively luxious (headsets not essential and pressurization makes everyone so much more comfortable). I say “easy to fly”, but that’s in VFR/day and when none of the systems are acting up. The many warning lights help. But an inherently safer design would be better.

My dream a/c is like a Mirage, but with a smoother engine (perhaps TCM rather than Lycoming, or a diesel), avionics more like the Merridian (Garmin/Stec/Meggitt), a parachute, and more engine automation (e.g., FADEC), no radar, and a better safety record. I love pressurization, despite the complexity of turbocharging a/c and the extra systems.

I was hoping that the Extra 400P would be this a/c (sans parachute), and it may still be, but the production quantities are low and so it doesn’t have much of a track record or a dealer network.

Rob Bedichek

PS. N567AB, SR22 #30 is in Hibbing MN, being painted. It returns to DLH on Tuesday of next week. We start training on Wednesday, possibly in a demo model, and hopefully N567AB will be ready to fly home on the weekend.

It seems to me that this suggested new Cirrus plane is aimed straight at Bonanza and Saratoga

That’s it… Also,The Klaps are very ambicious.A small business jet with some williams pushing it?Don’t be surprised what you will see next.Say,If you had to pop the chute… wouldn’t it seem right to pull the nose up to a good 20 degrees if possible then pop it? Your pendulem time would be cut way down I would think.Swinging ain’t all that fun.It would be a less drastic deployment to the aircraft …who knows.

Another thought: I wonder what would be the market analysis that would lead Cirrus to use a 300 hp turbodiesel instead of a turbine engine?

The resason would be cost - turbines are way expensive. The use of a Diesel instead of a turbine will put the plane in a price range that is much more affordable than a Malibu or Eclipse jet.

Could a plane like this compete with Eclipse for the air taxi market?

Not with a Diesel - I don’t believe the US has yet approved single-engine IFR charter operations, but when they do, it will be turbine only. Even then, if the Eclipse or Safire become reality, air taxi operators will favour a twin jet over a single turbine I would have thought, especially if the purchase and operating costs are similar.

I had the pleasure to ride in a 2001 Saratoga yesterday.

Twice the cost, turbocharged, retractable gear, 35% greater fuel consumption, 10hp less powerful engine, about the same V-speeds, slightly less FF usable load, 10kts slower.

Pros: Very quiet airplane, lots of dash space, rear seats removable for hauling stuff.

Cons: Everything else

I think the SR22 already smokes the Saratoga. You can’t use the extra two seats and the 22 totally outperforms the Saratoga and is a far simpler aircraft to fly (no turbocharger, no gear).

I agree with Kevin. Connect a prop to that Williams jet being made for the Eclipse.

Clyde, hasn’t the Pilatus PC-12 has been approved for charter in the U.S?

Another thought: I wonder what would be the market analysis that would lead Cirrus to use a 300 hp turbodiesel instead of a turbine engine?

The resason would be cost - turbines are way expensive. The use of a Diesel instead of a turbine will put the plane in a price range that is much more affordable than a Malibu or Eclipse jet.

Could a plane like this compete with Eclipse for the air taxi market?

Not with a Diesel - I don’t believe the US has yet approved single-engine IFR charter operations, but when they do, it will be turbine only. Even then, if the Eclipse or Safire become reality, air taxi operators will favour a twin jet over a single turbine I would have thought, especially if the purchase and operating costs are similar.

Clyde, aren’t the Pilatus PC-12 and Cessna Caravan approved for charter in the U.S.?

Another thought: I wonder what would be the market analysis that would lead Cirrus to use a 300 hp turbodiesel instead of a turbine engine?

The resason would be cost - turbines are way expensive. The use of a Diesel instead of a turbine will put the plane in a price range that is much more affordable than a Malibu or Eclipse jet.

Could a plane like this compete with Eclipse for the air taxi market?

Not with a Diesel - I don’t believe the US has yet approved single-engine IFR charter operations, but when they do, it will be turbine only. Even then, if the Eclipse or Safire become reality, air taxi operators will favour a twin jet over a single turbine I would have thought, especially if the purchase and operating costs are similar.

I had the pleasure to ride in a 2001 Saratoga yesterday.

Twice the cost, turbocharged, retractable gear, 35% greater fuel consumption, 10hp less powerful engine, about the same V-speeds, slightly less FF usable load, 10kts slower.

Pros: Very quiet airplane, lots of dash space, rear seats removable for hauling stuff.

Cons: Everything else

I think the SR22 already smokes the Saratoga. You can’t use the extra two seats and the 22 totally outperforms the Saratoga and is a far simpler aircraft to fly (no turbocharger, no gear).

Paul,

Absolutely!

And don’t forget the added expense for maintenance and insurance with retract and turbo, the fact that the Cirrus is a new (not 40 year old) design, and, oh yeah, the Saratoga is slower and costs twice as much!

Ditto for the Bonanza.

And the Commander.

Its no wonder Cirrus is kicking butt!

Jeff