BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Aug 2016, 16:32

Username Protected wrote:

Bombardier has a number of business lines, of which Lear is a very small (getting smaller) bit of their overal revenues. The relevant comparison for the $7bn of debt is their 16.5-17.5bn (Canadian) of revenues. They are highly leveraged at ~9x debt/ebitda on a trailing twelve months basis, but nobody lent them $7bn against $400 million of revenues.

The question then is how much debt would come along with the Lear business if someone bought it?

With 17B of revenues then the $400MM of Lear revenues is 2.3% and a small part of their business. Hardly worth managements time. Better to put it in someones hands where it will be meaningful.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Aug 2016, 17:24

Username Protected wrote:

No way to SP a Lear 45 / 75... too much airplane.

The Lear 31 has less MTOW than a CJ4, which is SP. So I'm sure that had it been certified today, it might have been possible to do it SP. I know Bill Lear tried with the 24, but failed. In any case, it would behoove them if they want to continue in business to have a SP model. With todays automation and avionics, I can't see it being impossible. Maybe whoever buys Learjet from Bombardier will eventually re-certify one of the older models this way. The 31 would be a good candidate with its Longhorn wing. Without it, they're dead in the water. Because, let's face it, if you're going to employ two guys up front flying you around, you'd also want a standup cabin, good range and a loo. That wipes out any need for anything below a Learjet 60XR, more or less.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Aug 2016, 18:30

If you completely redesigned the 31A with all new avionics and cockpit setup and a totally different wing, a wing that would give it calmer flight characteristics like a CJ4 you might have an airplane that you could handle single pilot... but I seriously doubt the FAA would ever approve SP operation. Cessna was able to build a 500 series of airplanes and get the FAA to sign off on them even as the airplanes grew and got faster...

The fact is a Citation V/Ultra/Encore is rarely flown single pilot... in fact most operators do not fly the CJ4 SP... the single pilot program works great for owner flown operations... when you get into a professionally flown scenario most owners of a $7M airplane are going to have two pilots up front.

A co-pilot is the cheapest life insurance you will ever buy.

P.S. If Lears were flown single pilot I'd be dead... I was in a 24D when it got slow, the co-pilot saved the day. :pray:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Aug 2016, 19:21

Username Protected wrote:

If you completely redesigned the 31A with all new avionics and cockpit setup and a totally different wing, a wing that would give it calmer flight characteristics like a CJ4 you might have an airplane that you could handle single pilot... but I seriously doubt the FAA would ever approve SP operation. Cessna was able to build a 500 series of airplanes and get the FAA to sign off on them even as the airplanes grew and got faster...

The fact is a Citation V/Ultra/Encore is rarely flown single pilot... in fact most operators do not fly the CJ4 SP... the single pilot program works great for owner flown operations... when you get into a professionally flown scenario most owners of a $7M airplane are going to have two pilots up front.

A co-pilot is the cheapest life insurance you will ever buy.

P.S. If Lears were flown single pilot I'd be dead... I was in a 24D when it got slow, the co-pilot saved the day. :pray:

If it doesn't do CJ4, Phenom 300 or PC24 numbers "single pilot" don't bother building it.

Keep telling yourself about 2 pilots all you want but "having to" and "choosing to" are 2 very different things. Sure 2 pilots is nice. But why buy an airplane where it's forced when they make planes that it's not?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Aug 2016, 19:36

Those 60-series Lears are a lot of airplane on not nearly big enough tires. Forget that.

I was hoping that the 85 would get going (although that too would be baked in Mexico), but that didn't happen.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Aug 2016, 19:57

Username Protected wrote:

Those 60-series Lears are a lot of airplane on not nearly big enough tires. Forget that.

I was hoping that the 85 would get going (although that too would be baked in Mexico), but that didn't happen.

Lear 60 needs a lot of runway too. You're not just gonna land anywhere.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Aug 2016, 20:29

Username Protected wrote:

Those 60-series Lears are a lot of airplane on not nearly big enough tires. Forget that.

I was hoping that the 85 would get going (although that too would be baked in Mexico), but that didn't happen.

Lear 60 needs a lot of runway too. You're not just gonna land anywhere.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Aug 2016, 21:16

Not that I'm ready to fly a Lear... But the 35s seem shockingly cheap. Crazy performance for the price, who cares if you need a copilot. I can't stop browsing listings and researching them. This seems a little bit like the problem I had with window shopping turboprops, while the ink was still drying on my Baron title.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Aug 2016, 21:26

Username Protected wrote:

Not that I'm ready to fly a Lear... But the 35s seem shockingly cheap. Crazy performance for the price, who cares if you need a copilot. I can't stop browsing listings and researching them. This seems a little bit like the problem I had with window shopping turboprops, while the ink was still drying on my Baron title.

I think the difference is you are stuck, literally, in the middle of no where in your turbo prop...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Aug 2016, 22:08

Username Protected wrote:

:sad: My beloved Learjets... the first jet I ever sold was a Lear 24D... the first jet I ever flew in was a Learjet... a Learjet was even critical in the rescue of my daughter (Baby Jessica)

The 20 series Lears still make me tear up... I have a video taken at GTU back in December of a 25D taxiing out and taking off... for quite possibly the last time ever.

The Lear 35A was... and still is the best Learjet ever built!!! The problems with the Learjet brand started way back then when some genius decided to get rid of eh iconic tiptanks... effectively solving a problem that did not exist. The new 31A was a beautiful airplane with sexy winglets... that had a LOT less range... even though they claimed otherwise.

This attitude of building "what we want to build" instead of what the people buying wanted to fly in has been the problem, and it preceded Bombardier. Having said that, Bombardier treated the entire line like a bastard child, effectively finishing it off. They have recently hired dedicated salespeople for the Lear line... but it is probably too late... and defiantly too late if they don't offer a transition airplane.

They quit building the Lear 31A... because it didn't sell... because it wasn't a 35A.. so that left the Lear 45... which is a GREAT airplane... double club with 8 passengers, fast, excellent range... a winner. Their solution to a smaller airplane? Knock a couple of feet off a 45 and call it a 40... nice airplane... but it's a 45... with two less seats.

Other than the larger cabin Lear 60XR... which sold so well they "paused" production, that left them with the Lear 45 / 75 being their only truly viable and desirable airplane, the market only allowing them success in this niche because there is (or maybe was) no other airplane that matched it.

Lear's biggest problem... Cessna. When Lear was building a better / faster jet... Cessna was building single pilot, economical airplanes. Sure, we called them "slow-tations" but if you are moving up from a turboprop do your really need a 450 knot jet? So the guy who owned and flew a King Air, purchased a 501 Citation and flew it... today he may have a Citation XLS... a CJ4... or a Sovereign. He probably doesn't fly it, hired a pro crew years ago... but he stayed in the Cessna line because of progression. Learjet has never offered this type of opportunity in their line.

It makes me sad, really sad... like was said above in this very thread, there was a time when all jets were "Learjets" but those days are gone.

Bring back the 35A, tiptanks and all... I'd love to see it... but probably never happen.

I was very lucky to be in the right place at the right time one day a few years ago. I had a chance to fly two short flights in a Lear 35A from the Captain's seat, what a ride that was and one I'll never forget! When I got back to my little Bonanza and tried to put my cap on it was way too small

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Aug 2016, 23:38

[quote="Chip McClure"]:sad: My beloved Learjets... the first jet I ever sold was a Lear 24D... the first jet I ever flew in was a Learjet... a Learjet was even critical in the rescue of my daughter (Baby Jessica)

Chip, wow. I hadn't heard baby Jessica in 30 years....my mind instantly went back....I was 15 or 16. such a monumental event.... I seriously remember little of that time that wasn't important to a 16 year old....but I remember that! What a blessing.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Aug 2016, 05:12

Username Protected wrote:

Those 60-series Lears are a lot of airplane on not nearly big enough tires. Forget that.

I was hoping that the 85 would get going (although that too would be baked in Mexico), but that didn't happen.

think you are right…as good as the Lear 55 / 60 series airplanes always have been, the small wheels ( a left over from the 20 and 30 series) always have been a bit of a deficit in that regards. However, sure they could not change that. To make more room for bigger rolling stock on the mains for the 60 would have required a major redesign of the plane. ( not feasible).

They fixed the wheel size quite well on the 40 - 70 series.

Sure that the 85 would maybe have become a great airplane. Two things though. I do not subscribe to the management mantra that you can outsource everything, and some folks at Bombardier obviously thought building a composite fuselage is like building a sailboat. It is not. Composite aerospace manufacturing requires super high tech facilities and people. I think that would better have been accomplished in Wichita.

The other factor, I am afraid, the 85 in regards to capabilities was too close to the Challenger 300 series…before they abandoned the 85 I think the projected price of the 85 was only marginally less than the 300. Now for the folks in the back, if they can get a bigger (cabin) airplane for not much more they would have chosen the Challenger 350 over the 85, I guess…( let us say a typical Bombardier customer). So the 85 would have had very tough in-house competition..

But sure, technologie-wise the 85 would have been very good for Learjet.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Aug 2016, 05:52

Username Protected wrote:

Not that I'm ready to fly a Lear... But the 35s seem shockingly cheap. Crazy performance for the price, who cares if you need a copilot. I can't stop browsing listings and researching them. This seems a little bit like the problem I had with window shopping turboprops, while the ink was still drying on my Baron title.

it is interesting…while the used price of Lear 35s, like any other aircraft from that era probably is down to the MSP value of the engines…

not that many on the used market, considering how many were built, actually very few offered for sale..

I would not know how many may have been retired or written off by now, but seems the average Lear 35 still is an everyday "working" plane…used well all around the world…a real classic..

I think I read once that out of the more than 700 Lear 35s produced still maybe more than 500 active…still though, would assume, while it still is an excellent aircraft, that the rate of retirement of Lear 30 series aircraft may accelerate in the next years due to required avionic mods that some owners may not deem feasible anymore from the cost-side..but who knows.?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Aug 2016, 06:39

I really think the 75 was a different class than the 300. It's (planned) footprint was a bit smaller, but I think the 75 was designed for under 10 pax. Also the price was about $9M less than the 300.

I think timing was the real killer. It was announced at NBAA 08, and they lost several years of orders following that. When the bean counters went to sharpen their pencils, there was a lot of red in the program. That being said, had the Canadians let the folks in Wichita do their jobs, the 85 would have flown long before it was axed last year, and they would have been delivering aircraft.

However, Bombardier was focused on updating their super-stretched-Challenger-turned-RJ (CRJ2/7/9/1000) and instead of trying to keep up with Embraer. They put everything into the CSeries because they were (are) way behind. The EJet was announced in 1999, flew in 2002, and delivered in 2004. Then in 2004 Bombardier finally realized they needed to keep up with the Brazilians and finally made the first delivery 2 months ago.

As for a SP Lear, that's not their market. Cessna has a different business model and offers the owner-pilot an entire line the line the from primary trainer to the jet. Gulfstream doesn't offer one either. Also, Cessna is all in with these new jets and to adopt another line (a Textron-Lear deal) would put the XLS+ and Latitude in direct competition with the 75 and 85.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Aug 2016, 07:04

Username Protected wrote:

I really think the 75 was a different class than the 300. It's (planned) footprint was a bit smaller, but I think the 75 was designed for under 10 pax. Also the price was about $9M less than the 300.

well, I meant the 85, not the 75…and the 85 was a pretty substantial airplane, and guess in 2010 the first prices Learjet quoted were around 17 Mio in 2010 dollars ( maybe for the first 50 buyers or so)..so by the time it would have been certified and delivered..I'd guess it would have been in the 20 Mio USD range ( in a normal world, inflation and index wise)…now, I do not know what new CL350s go for nowadays, but with Bombardier's pricing policies since quite a while, guess not much more…so the ( planned) price delta was relatively small, range comparable…but the CL350 still a bit larger in the cabin…probably also the ops costs pretty comparable..

The Future of Learjet?