AOPA: Service work sustaining Mooney

[jmills]

Quote: GeorgePerry

I looked at the 1980 231 they have for sale and all I could say is WOW!!  The next time I'm in the market for plane, I'll be looking them up.  Thanks for the link.

[Ron McBride]

When I talked to Ronnie K____ from Mooney at a Lake Tahoe flyin, he tole me that the factory was looking into total refurb's. They were talking of major work though. They would pull the firwall off the plane, pull the cage and inspect/repair as necessary and reskin parts of the plane. It sounded like you could have a brand new C, E, F, G J, K etc.   Cost??? Would it be practical??  Would we pay $150,000 for a brand new F??   Would they be able to completely "0" time the whole plane and call it a 2011 model??

Ron

 

[MooneyMitch]

I've sent this MooneySpace.com thread information to Mooney Airplane Company, director of operations.  Let's see what comes of this.

Missed you at Fly-In Movie Night at L52.  It was VFR, even more so as the evening wore on.  See you at LASAR next weekend.

 

[DaV8or]

Quote: N9154V

  Cost??? Would it be practical??  Would we pay $150,000 for a brand new F??   Would they be able to completely "0" time the whole plane and call it a 2011 model??

[MooneyMitch]

Quote: N9154V

When I talked to Ronnie K____ from Mooney at a Lake Tahoe flyin, he tole me that the factory was looking into total refurb's. They were talking of major work though. They would pull the firwall off the plane, pull the cage and inspect/repair as necessary and reskin parts of the plane. It sounded like you could have a brand new C, E, F, G J, K etc.   Cost??? Would it be practical??  Would we pay $150,000 for a brand new F??   Would they be able to completely "0" time the whole plane and call it a 2011 model??

Ron

 

[Parker_Woodruff]

A while back there was a 2007 Bravo for sale (Bravo stopped in 2005). I don't remember the hours on the airframe situation, but it was first an experimental aircraft before being certified as Garmin was using it for G1000 testing.

[davidfreedman]

Quote: DaV8or

...and there in lies the rub. It would still be a used airplane and I suspect most people would say "What??! $200,000 for a 40 year old F??!! I can just buy a beater for $40,000 and paint it for $12,000, new interior for $10,000... blah, blah, blah." Unless they can really convince new airplane buyers that the reconditioned airplane really is a new airplane, new plane buyers won't be inpressed and used airplane buyers will see it as an inflated rip off.

They may be able to 0 time the airframe, but I think it will still be a 196X or 197X whatever.

[blacknchrome]

Quote: scottfromiowa

....///The big long wide body Ovation's are beautiful, but they can't compete with Cirrus/Cessna.  We all love our 201's and me my M20E. ...///

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: blacknchrome

I gotta throw the B.S. flag on this statement.  Have you ever flown them?  Your statement is pretty bold, especially on a Mooney forum! I am amazed someone let this slide.  I know there's tons of love for the short/mid bodies on this forum, and I'm with y'all, but....your statement would be more accurate read the other way around!  Put an Acclaim or an O3 up against an SR22 - no contest.  They've got.....a parachute?  and plastic.  Ok. 

I'll take a Mooney. 

 

 

[jmills]

Quote: DaV8or

...and there in lies the rub. It would still be a used airplane and I suspect most people would say "What??! $200,000 for a 40 year old F??!! I can just buy a beater for $40,000 and paint it for $12,000, new interior for $10,000... blah, blah, blah." Unless they can really convince new airplane buyers that the reconditioned airplane really is a new airplane, new plane buyers won't be inpressed and used airplane buyers will see it as an inflated rip off.

They may be able to 0 time the airframe, but I think it will still be a 196X or 197X whatever.

[KSMooniac]

I agree with jmills...I think there is enough of a market for pre-longbody refurbs *IF* Mooney gets the pricing right.  When they announced their prices forinterior refurbs and paint jobs I couldn't believe how un-competitive they were, especially considering that they had a near-idled workforce in a very low-wage part of the country, in a very old facility that should have been fully amortized or paid-for long ago.  I would have loved to get my plane painted there, but not for a 50-60% premium in price.  If they could get some bulk deals on a pile of GNS-430/530s, some new gyros, perhaps even Aspen or G500 units and build up some modern instrument panels with a new panel off-line, then install as a unit as part of the refurb I think there would be a decent demand for such a plane on the used market.  Interior, glass, paint, firewall-forward etc. as needed as well...I would think they could make some money and more importantly keep more of their skilled labor occupied on Mooneys and not doing other odd-jobs in Kerrville, or worse yet, moving away.

[donshapansky]

My 2 cents worth is the investor has to believe that he will get a return on his investment and that some day he will be bought out or his investment is relatively liquid (meaning some way to redeem some of the commitment).

With the reality of today's market there probably are very few who would see the light at the end of the tunnel, the odds that Cirrus has successly met their goal was certainly not in their favor, their product is not that revolutionary to the more veteran airmen of today that's why we still fly Mooneys. Their market is today's buyer, they never saw $25,000 new airplanes, they base their values in comparison to what they pay for autos and boats today, their businesses need tax advantages and they trade up often strictly based on business needs tax wise or other perceived advantages. The marketing system is working, the return on investment is now being risked again by taking a new business jet to market with no assurances it will 'fly' marketing wise when so many others have fizzled. That is courage, faith and commitment in action.

The Klapmeir bros. are to be congratulated, it will take someone like that to take Mooney from a standstill, and if you think the answer is a low priced entry, the SR20 never generated the profits necessary for basic solvency but it was the stepping stone for a very brutal market that told them it was not the answer to the question.

In short this current economic crisis may eliminate a lot of airframe choices for good, unless someone can arrest the current skid that looks like a full blown crossed up opposite lock correction to the left into oncoming traffic.

My needs are changing, our growth is defying logic with no sign of recession in our sales figures or profits, but I'm not brave enough to upgrade, maybe a GNS500 is the max, when I should be looking at a new Acclaim. I would'nt buy a plastic airplane that doesn't retract the gear. Too much can hang on that gear extended, and 15 - 20 kts is a big deal to me going westbound at 0530 bucking 35 kts from Fort Worth to Denver, one door or 2 doors dims in the cold reality of a fuel stop in Dalhart and an hour late for my first meeting.

 

Don 

[KSMooniac]

The reality is the well-faired gear on the Cirrus and Cessnalumbia aren't a huge speed penalty...maybe 10 kts at the most.  Retracting the gear adds a lot of weight, which reduces the speed advantage as well, not to mention cutting into useful load.

But, I still love tucking the gear in a Mooney!!!

[scottfromiowa]

That would be in sales Mr. B.S. flag...or enlighten me?  I love Mooney's would personally much rather have an Ovation or late model Mooney to ANY other certified aircraft.  I don't think the majority of current buyers feel that way or there wouldn't be 50 employees sweeping floors and sending out parts...

[DaV8or]

 Also, most if not all new aircraft buyers don't want to buy a beater and spend then next 3-6 months refurbishing it themselves nor locating a capable party (ies) to do the job from top to bottom. That said, $139k is pretty compelling for a completely refurbished, overhauled, top to bottom stripped and darn-near remanufactured, J model.

[Kwixdraw]

I think we have missed another issue here. When the Aviation act passed back in 91 or so it set the limit for liability lawsuits at 18 years. There have been challenges to this and Lycoming is currently appealing an $89 mil judgement over a 20+ year old carburator which the NTSB said had nothing to do with the crash. Would any actual manufacturer want to refurb an old aircraft, call it new and buy back into all that liability? I could see them making upgrade kits or something for an authorized technician to install as a stop gap but I doubt they would want to reup for the liability issues they already sweated out. Keep in mind that a tremendous amount of the cost of new aircraft is product liability related. Even the repaiir cost is tied to the liability issue.

One of my instructors tells a story about buying an o-ring at a local industrial o-ring supply house. The thing was purchased using an MS specification (priced at about $2.98) and he commented that it was about four times that from Hartzel. The clerk asked him if the o-ring was going in an aircraft and was about to refuse to sell it to him. My instructor quickly said it was going in something else , he just happened to know it was the same o-ring. Everyone is afraid of this industry so we won't get any breaks.

[DaV8or]

Quote: Kwixdraw

I could see them making upgrade kits or something for an authorized technician to install as a stop gap but I doubt they would want to reup for the liability issues they already sweated out. Keep in mind that a tremendous amount of the cost of new aircraft is product liability related.

[Geoff]

I have enjoyed reading everyone's thoghts and ideas here.  The guys at MAC know this market and the costs, risks, and liability issues better than me and I'm pretty sure they have already vetted all these ideas.  Which means they have decided that they are not feasible.  To me that's the sad part, the acknowledgment that there really is little they can do under curent circumstances.

That's why I started my original post with "nothing in GA is going to get better until we get the pilot population moving up again".  Anybody got any ideas about how that could happen?

[scottfromiowa]

Run for President/office...and incorporate "Change".  The Lycoming verdict is just one example of LONG overdue legislative change.

[roundout]

The airplane is a niche airplane. Enthusiasm for legacy products is clearly waning because, let's face it, there have been design improvements in the last 60 years. It is amazing that the M20 airframe was so far ahead of its time when it was designed, but you're living in dreamland if you think that the newer airplanes don't stack up. They do. They do some things better and the M20 does some things better. I know which I'd rather have, but I'm kind of old school. 

 

If and when the factory re-opens, I see a totally different marketing program with the staff and support to build and deliver about 15 a year. More than that and I suspect airplanes start clogging up the hangars at the head shed again. 

 

FWIW, Ronnie Kallies is no longer with the company, either. 

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: Geoff

 I'm pretty sure they have already vetted all these ideas.  Which means they have decided that they are not feasible.  To me that's the sad part, the acknowledgment that there really is little they can do under curent circumstances.

[KSMooniac]

Quote: scottfromiowa

That would be in sales Mr. B.S. flag...or enlighten me?  I love Mooney's would personally much rather have an Ovation or late model Mooney to ANY other certified aircraft.  I don't think the majority of current buyers feel that way or there wouldn't be 50 employees sweeping floors and sending out parts...

[Geoff]

Good point George.  I have no firsthand knowledge of any internal analysis at MAC.  I am drawing my conclusions from their behavior and an making an assumption (albeit a fairly safe one) that they have run down all the logical alternatives for the capital they have invested in their facility and the best way to put that capital to use.  Their shareholders would demand this.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: Geoff

I have enjoyed reading everyone's thoghts and ideas here.  The guys at MAC know this market and the costs, risks, and liability issues better than me and I'm pretty sure they have already vetted all these ideas.  Which means they have decided that they are not feasible.  To me that's the sad part, the acknowledgment that there really is little they can do under curent circumstances.

That's why I started my original post with "nothing in GA is going to get better until we get the pilot population moving up again".  Anybody got any ideas about how that could happen?

[Geoff]

How is the liability issue being addressed with the service work that MAC currently performs on older airframes?  Perhaps the refurb concept would need to be limited to some degree like a Certifed Pre-Owned program from car dealers.

While I'm not a lawyer, I think the creative structuring could partially addresse liability as follows.  Start a new company, LLC or whatever with separate owner ship from MAC, called, "Mooney Design Co, or MDC" have MDC sublease space in the idled Mooney factory, contract independent labor from the former MAC employee pool, and purchase warranties from MAC for the work performed.  No structure is suit proof.  Anyone can sue anybody for anything.