Please remember that political comments and innuendo aren't permitted outside of the political thread. Thanks.

As someone who now pushes electrons in a recent upgrade of the "old paper system," and works for the largest OEM supplier of Aerospace product, I'm not sure I agree with that. A LOT of the certification issues (along with continual discrepancies on legacy programs), arise from the non-conformance of original engineering design, and readjustment of assumptions/loads from engineering driving the certification requirements. This requirement to justify any deviation from Engineering design is the bottleneck of the process.

The ability to streamline the "paperwork," is essentially stating that you can streamline the homework of and Engineer throughout school. If we could streamline the homework of the Engineer, who would do the homework, that requires some serious pencil sharpening?

There are certain efficiencies gained by implementing electronic systems, but the system that can be automated well enough to tell someone to drill and install a 0.185"/0.188" DIA vs. 0.188"/0.190" DIA holes, at this point, does not exist. Thus, with an "electronic" system, and a giant Boeing/Gulfstream backlog, I still feel as though I have some job security, and thank God everyday that I do!

The paper to electronic transition is good for an audit/process standardization/process requirement, productivity gains, but I do not think it will be the savior of all cost reducing efforts.

What is the empty weight of an A36 with paper charts weigh vs. a G36 with an iPad?

The question, "Is the reduction in paperwork, worth the cost?", is at the root of the electronic transition, and I believe that "NO," is a much more common answer than you give credit.

Just the $0.02 opinion, on my slice of the world. Back to pushing electrons I go!

To me, cost is "subjective". I will spend "op-ex" dollars in a second if it streamlines the business and I won't at all consider "payout" on that expense.

A G1000 equipped Bonanza weighs no more than a 2005 6 pack Bonanza. It's not the G1000 that made them heavier than the 1970's models. It's all the other stuff.

I understand we both have different backgrounds, and feel that's what helps make the world continue to spin!

To the original statement that you could run "that place" on the 700 people they just let go, is just a bit of a stretch, considering they still require 5500 to push product out the door.

Then does the paperwork problem associated with carrying paper charts get solved with G1000 with an iPad, assuming negligable weight change. I would argue no, considering the software certification requirements associated with the iPad, are nowhere near as intensive as that of any other FAA software certification process.

Plus, if I keep you responding, we all get more views of your Avatar!

Is Cessna "profitable"? If the answer is "no", then there is plenty of fat that can be trimmed.

Cessna dont just build 172 or 182, the money and labour is in the jets.
You cant just say you can run these plants with 700 employees ?

This was 3 days after they voted not to strike.

On Friday, HBC announced 350 layoffs. 1000 Wichita jobs gone in a week.

Also, when the GFC700 replaced the KAP140 in 2008, the price increase for just the a/p was $30k. In 2005 (first year for the G1000), the price was $229,750 and still an almost 120kt airplane.