I have no interest in doing that (and never have). When we bought our A36 it was for family travel. Our daughters were less than 4 and 1 year old at that time. That meant lots of snacks, juice boxes, M&M’s, etc. Whatever. Just more time cleaning up.

But the A36 (along with the food & drink) made flying *enjoyable* for the family and as a result we were able to take a lot of trips, including SoCal to pretty much every state west of the Mississippi River and several east of it.

FWIW I spent my career working for guys that owned biz jets, King Airs, etc. (including a couple of brand new biz jets) and we never followed the “nothing but water” rule.

Nor have we in our other vehicles. Even my 911 has cup holders that work great for coffee.

I've heard more than once that Textron has shifted engineers to the Sky Courier program at the expense of the Denali. Firm orders in hand with big market for more versus competing against an entrenched product...

I hope they really build it, but Sky Courier might have more upside, and of course the Longitude is way behind schedule. That is unusual for them.

The Sky Courier is a gorgeous looking airplane and will certainly allow some flexibility for FedEx feeders and the regionals.

I appreciate Chip creating this thread and have read it all with great interest. It's sometimes nice to consider the the difficult decisions that are forced upon the rich in choosing their ride.

But it is a relief , to know, that my life will never be conflicted with whether I want a Denali, or Pilatus, a CJ3, or a Phenom. Choosing the right bed for my Chevy 3500 work truck was agony enough.

It's all above my pay grade.



Jg

don't be ridiculous
no one would land a turbine at a farm. Especially just to drop in and eat a free lunch.

Once Cessna completes the Sky Courrier they’ll be full steam ahead on the Denali.

There’s a statement qualifying for the “eye of the beholder” thing.

If the Denali is like the Cessna Jets, they usually include a pilot and stores in the weight of the airframe, so the useful load would be counting the pilot and stores built in. The other thing about Cessna is that they seem to underpromise and over-deliver. Flew this C510 for a week. The book says it is a 340 Knot aircraft, but we seemed to have no problem getting 360 KTAS out of it.



I love the utlility of the PC12, but the avionics are just kludgy, the cockpit is very busy, and it is just not sexy one bit. It is panel truck. Big, lumbering, and heavy, but it doesn't have to be sexy. The Denali will be a sexy beast with a glorious simple panel, big comfy seats, and a state of the art G3000. It will give the PC12 a real run for the money. But who wants to be the first to fly that new GE single engine over the cold Atlantic though

You're comparing the 2008 PC12 to the non existent except on paper Denali. Yes, I agree, "on paper" and "in the pictures" the Denali looks much nicer than my old PC12.

Have you been in the new PC24? I think it's a much better comparison "cosmetically" to the Denali.

The PC24 is very nice. Way out of my league though.

PC 24 is a sexy beast!!!!

I got a private tour of it in Boise and haven’t looked at the CJ2 the same since.

That's beside the point

Just addressing the design differences between the Denali and the PC12. I almost bought a new PC12 at the end of last year. But at the last minute decided it was no different than the 2008 PC12 I already have.....

PC12 is long overdue for an update but it still outsold every airplane on the market last year. It's no different than complaining about the restaurant you hate that's packed every night. ha.

Are they taking deposits on Denali’s?

Yes. They have been a couple years now. I think it's just a matter of signing a document.

There’s a statement qualifying for the “eye of the beholder” thing.