Nostalgia for a long gone time when flying was affordable for the general population. A current G36 at $917k is almost 15 X the current median household income. A 1984 A36, when new sold for about 7.5 X 1984 median household income. The original 36 in 1968 was 6 X. The original Mooney 201 sold for $45k in 1977 which was 3.3 X household median income. The original Cessna 172 was $8,700 in 1958 or only 2 times median household income of the day.

Current new Cirrus or Mooney may sell for slightly less than a new G36 but are still far out of reach of young pilots which the industry attracted in the 60’s - 80’s.

I had a 25 minute conversation with the former CEO of Textron at OSH and I can absolutely, 100% assure you that the current sales of the Bonanza/Baron line do not make any economic sense for the line to continue. If they continue to produce them for nostalgic reasons, so be it, but that is incredibly unlikely. It was equally interesting to learn the truth behind the TTX and 162 failures. Textron is looking for 30% margins across all product lines and if an airframe is not capable of achieving that, it is probably not likely to continue.

Perhaps lost in all the bemoaning of Textron's seeming lack of interest in the piston market, for whatever reason, is that the market place isn't interested either.

Cirrus is a terrific marketing company. And perhaps Textron isn't (although given my interactions with the KA and Citation sales forces I think they can be). But Cirrus doesn't sell a lot of piston planes and Textron doesn't because buyers are stupid and easily hoodwinked. When a buyer is spending close to a million dollars, perhaps more, the buyer typically does their due diligence homework.

The market clearly sees more value in the Cirrus line than the Textron. Enthusiasts bemoan Textron's lack of marketing prowess but that isn't why their planes don't sell.

If they cannot make a 172 for 450k and put in at least 80% margins, then they're doing something wrong. Folks that make jets should most probably not be making small pistons. The thought capital is not the same.

Just curious. How many times has Cirrus filed bankruptcy?

I don't know. But I do know we don't take bankruptcy very seriously. At least not in historical terms.

I think they are exactly the same - unless we are talking about some new manufacturing technique. That being said, the line is pretty diverse. If memory serves, they build the pistons(Cessna) in Independence, where the M2 (and mustang was formerly built). The Beech products are built at the old Beech factory where they still build the King Airs and also the longitude (not 100% sure on that).

Part of this is opportunity cost - and we even see this in the smaller/older CJ line. There are finite engineering resources at Cessna/Beech. They can put them on doing retrofits and improvements to items that they make a little bit of money on, or they can have them on projects like the Longitude and Denali, which will be long term awesome investments from a company perspective. If you were the CEO and CFO of a public company, you have to make those decisions. Over at CJP, we are always asking for more updates/aftermarket modifications for the Mustang and CJ line, but most of us won’t pay what some of those upgrades cost. It gets even worse on the piston line.

Cirrus did a great job with marketing and they make good airplanes. I used to own an SR22 and enjoyed it. I’m personally not a huge fan of the CirrusJet, but it has done well and it will do well. It will dominate the entry level (or fisher-price) jet category. They built a good product and marketed it well. By contrast, Icon marketed really well...

At CJP we bump into some of the sales team and leaders at Cessna/Beech. They are good people and I have seen them bend over backwards to help a customer. They just market to a different crowd.

As for the senior leadership, I know some used to be with Beech and are very passionate about the piston products - probably more so than ever before. If they could make a new piston pencil - I bet you they would in a heartbeat.

But - let’s be serious - it would take several years to get a new piston aircraft to market - it doesn’t generate the service revenue of a turboprop or jet, and it is not only competing with all the used Beech aircraft (which are quite capable), but the used Cirrus, Cirrusjets, and Piper turboprops out there. You can buy a used meridian for well under $1M.

Yeah - 20 years ago they should have done something, but we can’t undo those decisions. I kind of felt the same way when the cancelled the Mustang and didn’t do any incremental upgrades on it. I hope they start doing that for the M2, 3+, and others. Cirrus does that really well.

-Jason

They had the modern piston aircraft to compete with Cirrus, that was the TTX or former Columbia 400.

If they had upgraded that with a parachute, higher gross weight they could have compete but no they close the wrong piston line.

I see no futur in the Textron piston line beside flight training aircraft unless they do major changes or upgrade to the line.

What truth about the TTX? Just the low margin or low volume or is there more?

What truth about the TTX? Just the low margin or low volume or is there more?

Jason, in reading your post, you're correct, they're totally different (told you so)......both in manufacturing and thought capital.

I'm not in the airplane biz, never will be, but IMHO the Super Cub is a good example of focusing on your knitting.

Textron is about recurring revenue. I Denali will generate far greater revenues than a 172. Different approach, different mindset.

Getting folks INTO flying is not even on Textron's radar.

Isn't a 4 seat piston traveling plane "brought back into the future" exactly what Cirrus did?

- Modern materials
- Faster
- Safer
- Better interior
- Improved reliability (no gear maintenance, better avionics, for example)
- FIKI (option)
- Turbo (option)

What exactly about your V-tail is it that is superior to the Cirrus as an overall product? The V-tail itself? Sure it's kind of cool but certainly not a game changing functionality for a 4 seat traveling piston aircraft.

People keep saying to put the Bonanza back into production. No one would buy it. Wait - it IS in production, and no one is buying it. Why is that? Because other products are already superior in most functional respects.

I think what everyone really wants is a brand new airplane that can be purchased at a price similar to an airplane that's 50 years old. Wouldn't that be nice.

Michael - I think you misunderstand what I mean about being different. The men and women that work in the plant are quite capable of working on a jet as they are a piston. Tooling is quite different, but they do go together very similar (until you start dealing with advanced composites, etc).

I would also state that getting folks INTO flying is very much on Textron's radar, evidence the 172 sales that they just announced at OSH going to ER. I don't know who sells more trainers, but I would suspect Cessna is either at the top or right near.

I think the area that Cessna/Beech is not strong in today is getting people into aircraft that can do more than train. That is the market I think we are talking about - ie the Bonanza operators. Maybe a 182 fits in there - but not really.

-Jason

Because the cert requirements for today - which might come into effect, are significantly different than the last time the airframe was changed remarkably. The engineering effort would be significant and then you have to deal with marketing and support. You could use that same effort to improve the King Airs or the Caravan and have far greater rewards.

-Jason

Selling a large amount of trainers (172's) which are by far the best trainer you can buy, I believe is different than actually recruiting and getting learner pilots over the finish line.


I'll agree that sheet metal is sheet metal, but the fundamental issue with textron is that piston dollars pale in comparison to Turbine dollars.

IMHO corporate aviation is hurting GA in a very big way. Corporate aviation is not that concerned with the nickle and dime fees that we are.