Anthony, I will take the other side of that bet.

Bill

The reduction in cabin height is a real head scratcher for me.

It’s already the best selling jet in its size/class. And for good reason. I would have liked to have seen them move the MMo to 300IAS/.80. That gets it to fit in quite a bit better with pretty much everything else in the sky these days. Go run a few trips back and forth between Teterboro and Palm Beach for a week before you say that’s not a thing. Garmin is great - fits with everything else they’re building, and it makes sense. That would make it unbeatable in class.

But make cabin smaller? Take away the ability to stand up and WALK in the lav to use the head? I don’t get it….why not just add an apu to the CJ4 and call it the CJ5.

Legit question - can anyone think of an airplane where they reduced the cabin height from a stand-up cabin to non stand-up cabin as the upgrade/replacement to the in production model it was to replace? I have been trying to come up with one all day and can’t.

I’m sure they know what they’re doing, but I just don’t get it.

Agree on the CJ4 comments except for the price. Ascend will come in above the CJ4 at nearly $17 million.

People do fly Phenom 300 Single Pilot, Philip Uffkes who hangs out on BeechTalk sometimes, does indeed fly SP, as does Marcus Adolfsson. Go over to PhenomPilots forum. Good number of guys do so.

Textron has done a good job of keeping 30+ year old airframes relevant. What they have not done a good job on is significant innovation. Has all been incremental.

Took them years to respond to the Denali. (the internet is a fad) Citation tube is very long in the tooth. Phenom 100 and 300 cross sections much better. If the 100 was not so bad in terms of being underpowered and lousy brakes, would be giving the M2 a run for its money.

Cirrus kicking Textron's butt in the single engine piston class.

Cessna/Textron make good planes with no bad habits. They have a much more extensive support network. They lag Embraer in innovation in the light jet category, mid-sized too. M2 outsells the Phenom 100 3:1. But the Embraer sells as many Phenom 300s each year as Cessna sells CJ3+ and CJ4 combined. They lag Pilatus in the SETP category. Will see how PC-24 pans out. They lag Cirrus in the piston innovation category.

At some stage need to obsolete the 30 and 40 year old airframes and pursue substantial and transformational innovation. And I am a two-time Textron owner (Beech, Cessna).

The single pilot conversation is DOA.

You guys are comparing a $12M light jet to a $16M aircraft. The insurance companies aren’t going to allow it to be single pilot, their exposure is just too high.

I’m not saying this is how it should be, that it is right, or that any of this makes sense… I am dealing with the realities of today.

As far as flat floor vs cabin height, the flat floor is much more important. It’s not the subway, we don’t stand in airplanes, we sit, when seated, the flat floor is much more important.

Again, just stoking the fire.

Don’t take any offense.

touché

Also figuring that the type certificate will be based off of the 560XL, so the conversion to single pilot is likely not possible, or at least not easily possible.

I wish I had $17M worth of places I need to go.

My wife asked, "Can it make Hawaii from California?"

Standard Cessna “look over there” rebrand hype, this is just an excel. I’m expecting same 560xl type, will just be differences for a 3rd gen avionics. No way single pilot. It would be the largest single pilot plane yet (replacing the pc-24)

Won’t hurt the competitors, @17mm doesn’t compete with the 12mm pc-24 which has the same practical range and burns significantly less gas hourly. Nice try Cessna….kicking the can on real practical innovation such as Pilatus has.

I’ve flown the excel and pc-24 extensively, there is not much comparison, maybe NetJets will “replace” the xl fleet with ascend.

Why is flat floor important? Don't understand the benefit/argument against or for either.

Why is flat floor important? Don't understand the benefit/argument against or for either.

The Phenom 300E gross weight is 18552, this one is 20,xxx - that don’t make it a midsize, it’s still a light jet based on cabin size. They appear to be similar range, similar load carrying.

The 300E is .80
The 300E has Pratts
The 300E is SP (admittedly, hard to operate with high insurance limits)
The 300E is G3000
The 300E has the ability for 9 seats and still good range with that load.
The 300E has great baggage capabilities
The 300E does not have a flat floor

Overall, this looks like a “me too” product.

Just stoking the fire, don’t take offense

Brad

The larger windows will provide a nice improvement in passenger experience as well. Ever sit in a passenger seat in a Gulfstream? Incredible. Won't be that level of increase but I bet it will be nice.

Lay flat floors seem to be a higher passenger priority than you might expect, so it appears they listened.

-The Citation Jet Exchange

This is the reality of today and I don't see it changing. We had most underwriters decline coverage for a customers C-441 this year and we were limited on liability. I am kind of low time so that might have been the problem. (17k TT, 9000 Jet, 3500 TP, 2000 Twin Cessna's, 150 in type, Simcom current)

I can't imagine having a similar conversation about a much more expensive and higher liability aircraft...

We have a client at our airport that had a CJ4 and was looking to upgrade to an X. He and his wife had the opportunity to try a Latitude, the only flat floor Citation series at the time. His wife liked the flat floor, so Latitude it was, solely based on the floor.

You'd be surprised at the little details that owners will base their decision making on. I know of another that selected a certain jet because of the ramp appeal of the airstair door.

I just had breakfast with Textron today, they are marketing the ascend as a lay flat floor but the drop down aisle will still be an option.

-The Citation Jet Exchange