Ultras Certified!

[jkhirsch]

  On 3/31/2017 at 7:46 PM, bluehighwayflyer said:

 

Expand  

I can agree with that. I mostly assume that they are taking deliberate action with at least part of a future goal in mind.

[201er]

I just realized the second door comes with a second step!

How did they speed up the Ultra over the Type S to accommodate the extra frontal area parasitic drag and achieve the exact same speed? I wonder if removing 1 step makes it faster than the predecessor and how fast you can get with both removed!?

[gsengle]

Can't they bring back the retracting step?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shadrach]

  On 3/31/2017 at 7:46 PM, bluehighwayflyer said:

No, I am just opining that they might not intend or need to make a profit for a very long time; much longer than can typically be tolerated here in the west, and that long term strategic goals that extend far beyond the balance sheet or profit and loss statements of Mooney International are probably in play here.   

Does anyone else remember the ridiculously-over-the-top-by-western-standards Mooney Resort artist renderings that were posted here on MooneySpace prior to the announcement of the sale of MAC to the Chinese a few years ago?  I wish I knew how to search for them and I would repost.  Anyway, they looked like a Mooney-themed Disney Resort sales prospectus.  Remember, I think that I have read that the company that purchased Mooney is a Chinese real estate development firm.  I think that they have plans for Mooney that extend far beyond anything that we are contemplating here.  We here speculating about their plans is pure folly, IMHO.

Jim         

 

Expand  

This is precisely the kind of example I was trying to tease out of the good Mr. Hirsch!

[Shadrach]

  On 3/31/2017 at 6:03 PM, jkhirsch said:

Maybe they have maybe they haven't, I don't particularly care to spitball.

I generally work on the principal that actions themselves are really the only relevant piece of life

I can make of a laundry list of made up scenarios if you would enjoy reading that I wouldn't particularly enjoy writing it.

Since you specifically asked for my opinion I'll provide it in the best possible way I can in the way that it actually exists in my brain--it feels a lot like a binary tree.

For me to have an opinion about anything I need a framework to apply to the facts. In my mind it all starts with the most basic question:

What is Mooney trying to accomplish?

Even above that question what we are really talking about is, "What does it take to be successful in business and how do we apply that to Mooney?"

Then I have to define how they would get there. Once I define how they would get there I have explore what actions Mooney has taken and see how that compares.

I see two possibilities of their highest level strategic goal:

• Are they trying to build a company to compete in the general aviation business now and in the future?
• Are they trying to turn the company into something that could be marketed to another company for sale?

Then we have to ask how we could possibly achieve some of those goals; throughout business history we have seen various strategies ultimately rewarded.

• What would allow the company to continue operations indefinitely?
• What would make the company attractive to prospective buyers?

If we want to build and operate the company indefinitely then we want to improve profitability.

If we want to make the company attractive to prospective buyers we want to demonstrate a potential for growth or corner a specific market with a measurable defined value. (financiers love that because they love measurable cash flows that can easily be valued)

Then we go to:

How do demonstrate a potential for growth?

• Ability to attract new business
• Ability to attract new capital

How do we improve Mooney profitability?

• Sell more airplanes
• Cost cutting or efficiency in manufacturing
• Increase market share in the US
• Increase international market share
• Produce parts for and service the existing fleet

As we can see many things that will improve Mooney's profitability at this stage of the game will also demonstrate potential for growth since they have not sold any airplanes, so it will be difficult to discern whether they want to operate the company or sell the company.

Then I start asking more specific questions:

• How does Mooney sell more airplanes?
• Does Mooney want to make the market or listen to the market?
• Can Mooney sell new customers what they currently produce? How?
• Can Mooney grow beyond previous levels of market share, how?
• What are Mooney production costs? Can they be lowered? How can they be lowered?
• Does Mooney need a "ground up" redesign to take US market share? Worldwide market share?
• Does a modern Mooney work in China because average Chinese people smaller than average Americans?
• Can Mooney get a competitive advantage by being an early contributor in the Chinese GA marketplace?
• Should we spend the next few years building a brand while we create a new Mooney airplane platform to build familiarity?
• Does Mooney bring in previous employees with knowledge or start fresh?

You could also have a very big existential discussion about Sales vs Products and about how consumerism itself is designed and implemented.

And then comes the data...Mooney market share since inception, CapEx budget, cost of funds, cost of goods sold, comparative analysis with other companies, etc.

But I don't currently have any data to analyze therefore I can only look at the current actions known to me.

• They've invested in China
• They did not change the air-frame but released a new plane
• They cancelled the M10 "exploratory program"
• They have brought in new faces and some old
• They cancelled factory tours
• They uncancelled factory tours
• The new CEO has on some level has been actively engaged with current owners (who may never own a new model)

I'm probably leaving off something, but those are the ones that stand out in my memory without looking for anything else.

It says to me a few things:

• China is important to them
• Current owners are at least worth talking to
• They are trying to keep themselves in the game
• They have assembled at least part of a strategic plan
• They are working towards their strategic plan
• As far as I know they have not released a strategic plan
• I believe it's because they are still working out longer term goals, but need to stay "relevant" while working toward them

Expand  

Thank you for that very thorough response!  I am indeed sure that they have big plans; plans with details known to them and them only. However, the laundry list of previous owners also had big plans, only a fraction of which came to fruition. I wish them the very best!

[Mcstealth]

  On 3/31/2017 at 6:03 PM, jkhirsch said:

Maybe they have maybe they haven't, I don't particularly care to spitball.

I generally work on the principal that actions themselves are really the only relevant piece of life

I can make of a laundry list of made up scenarios if you would enjoy reading that I wouldn't particularly enjoy writing it.

Since you specifically asked for my opinion I'll provide it in the best possible way I can in the way that it actually exists in my brain--it feels a lot like a binary tree.

For me to have an opinion about anything I need a framework to apply to the facts. In my mind it all starts with the most basic question:

What is Mooney trying to accomplish?

Even above that question what we are really talking about is, "What does it take to be successful in business and how do we apply that to Mooney?"

Then I have to define how they would get there. Once I define how they would get there I have explore what actions Mooney has taken and see how that compares.

I see two possibilities of their highest level strategic goal:

• Are they trying to build a company to compete in the general aviation business now and in the future?
• Are they trying to turn the company into something that could be marketed to another company for sale?

Then we have to ask how we could possibly achieve some of those goals; throughout business history we have seen various strategies ultimately rewarded.

• What would allow the company to continue operations indefinitely?
• What would make the company attractive to prospective buyers?

If we want to build and operate the company indefinitely then we want to improve profitability.

If we want to make the company attractive to prospective buyers we want to demonstrate a potential for growth or corner a specific market with a measurable defined value. (financiers love that because they love measurable cash flows that can easily be valued)

Then we go to:

How do demonstrate a potential for growth?

• Ability to attract new business
• Ability to attract new capital

How do we improve Mooney profitability?

• Sell more airplanes
• Cost cutting or efficiency in manufacturing
• Increase market share in the US
• Increase international market share
• Produce parts for and service the existing fleet

As we can see many things that will improve Mooney's profitability at this stage of the game will also demonstrate potential for growth since they have not sold any airplanes, so it will be difficult to discern whether they want to operate the company or sell the company.

Then I start asking more specific questions:

• How does Mooney sell more airplanes?
• Does Mooney want to make the market or listen to the market?
• Can Mooney sell new customers what they currently produce? How?
• Can Mooney grow beyond previous levels of market share, how?
• What are Mooney production costs? Can they be lowered? How can they be lowered?
• Does Mooney need a "ground up" redesign to take US market share? Worldwide market share?
• Does a modern Mooney work in China because average Chinese people smaller than average Americans?
• Can Mooney get a competitive advantage by being an early contributor in the Chinese GA marketplace?
• Should we spend the next few years building a brand while we create a new Mooney airplane platform to build familiarity?
• Does Mooney bring in previous employees with knowledge or start fresh?

You could also have a very big existential discussion about Sales vs Products and about how consumerism itself is designed and implemented.

And then comes the data...Mooney market share since inception, CapEx budget, cost of funds, cost of goods sold, comparative analysis with other companies, etc.

But I don't currently have any data to analyze therefore I can only look at the current actions known to me.

• They've invested in China
• They did not change the air-frame but released a new plane
• They cancelled the M10 "exploratory program"
• They have brought in new faces and some old
• They cancelled factory tours
• They uncancelled factory tours
• The new CEO has on some level has been actively engaged with current owners (who may never own a new model)

I'm probably leaving off something, but those are the ones that stand out in my memory without looking for anything else.

It says to me a few things:

• China is important to them
• Current owners are at least worth talking to
• They are trying to keep themselves in the game
• They have assembled at least part of a strategic plan
• They are working towards their strategic plan
• As far as I know they have not released a strategic plan
• I believe it's because they are still working out longer term goals, but need to stay "relevant" while working toward them

Expand  

 

  On 3/31/2017 at 6:03 PM, jkhirsch said:

Maybe they have maybe they haven't, I don't particularly care to spitball.

I generally work on the principal that actions themselves are really the only relevant piece of life

I can make of a laundry list of made up scenarios if you would enjoy reading that I wouldn't particularly enjoy writing it.

Since you specifically asked for my opinion I'll provide it in the best possible way I can in the way that it actually exists in my brain--it feels a lot like a binary tree.

For me to have an opinion about anything I need a framework to apply to the facts. In my mind it all starts with the most basic question:

What is Mooney trying to accomplish?

Even above that question what we are really talking about is, "What does it take to be successful in business and how do we apply that to Mooney?"

Then I have to define how they would get there. Once I define how they would get there I have explore what actions Mooney has taken and see how that compares.

I see two possibilities of their highest level strategic goal:

• Are they trying to build a company to compete in the general aviation business now and in the future?
• Are they trying to turn the company into something that could be marketed to another company for sale?

Then we have to ask how we could possibly achieve some of those goals; throughout business history we have seen various strategies ultimately rewarded.

• What would allow the company to continue operations indefinitely?
• What would make the company attractive to prospective buyers?

If we want to build and operate the company indefinitely then we want to improve profitability.

If we want to make the company attractive to prospective buyers we want to demonstrate a potential for growth or corner a specific market with a measurable defined value. (financiers love that because they love measurable cash flows that can easily be valued)

Then we go to:

How do demonstrate a potential for growth?

• Ability to attract new business
• Ability to attract new capital

How do we improve Mooney profitability?

• Sell more airplanes
• Cost cutting or efficiency in manufacturing
• Increase market share in the US
• Increase international market share
• Produce parts for and service the existing fleet

As we can see many things that will improve Mooney's profitability at this stage of the game will also demonstrate potential for growth since they have not sold any airplanes, so it will be difficult to discern whether they want to operate the company or sell the company.

Then I start asking more specific questions:

• How does Mooney sell more airplanes?
• Does Mooney want to make the market or listen to the market?
• Can Mooney sell new customers what they currently produce? How?
• Can Mooney grow beyond previous levels of market share, how?
• What are Mooney production costs? Can they be lowered? How can they be lowered?
• Does Mooney need a "ground up" redesign to take US market share? Worldwide market share?
• Does a modern Mooney work in China because average Chinese people smaller than average Americans?
• Can Mooney get a competitive advantage by being an early contributor in the Chinese GA marketplace?
• Should we spend the next few years building a brand while we create a new Mooney airplane platform to build familiarity?
• Does Mooney bring in previous employees with knowledge or start fresh?

You could also have a very big existential discussion about Sales vs Products and about how consumerism itself is designed and implemented.

And then comes the data...Mooney market share since inception, CapEx budget, cost of funds, cost of goods sold, comparative analysis with other companies, etc.

But I don't currently have any data to analyze therefore I can only look at the current actions known to me.

• They've invested in China
• They did not change the air-frame but released a new plane
• They cancelled the M10 "exploratory program"
• They have brought in new faces and some old
• They cancelled factory tours
• They uncancelled factory tours
• The new CEO has on some level has been actively engaged with current owners (who may never own a new model)

I'm probably leaving off something, but those are the ones that stand out in my memory without looking for anything else.

It says to me a few things:

• China is important to them
• They are trying to keep themselves in the game
• They have assembled at least part of a strategic plan
• They are working towards their strategic plan
• As far as I know they have not released a strategic plan
• I believe it's because they are still working out longer term goals, but need to stay "relevant" while working toward them

Expand  

I vote this most succinct post of the year, so far.

[bonal]

I read 2 days ago on AOPA daily E news that China just opened up 4 more regions to general aviation. If you as an investor wanted to aquire an airplane company would you try to gain ownership of a healthy one for a premium price or one that can be obtained on the cheap that has an excellent product ready to go back into production. Also I doubt Cirrus is on the market and lets not forget Textron arent they a China holding.

[peevee]

  On 3/31/2017 at 10:19 PM, bonal said:

I read 2 days ago on AOPA daily E news that China just opened up 4 more regions to general aviation. If you as an investor wanted to aquire an airplane company would you try to gain ownership of a healthy one for a premium price or one that can be obtained on the cheap that has an excellent product ready to go back into production. Also I doubt Cirrus is on the market and lets not forget Textron arent they a China holding.

Expand  

I thought the Chinese already owned Cirrus.

 

Edit: they do https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Aircraft

[bonal]

  On 3/31/2017 at 11:32 PM, peevee said:

I thought the Chinese already owned Cirrus.

 

Edit: they do https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Aircraft

Expand  

Not surprised 

[Shadrach]

  On 3/31/2017 at 10:02 PM, Mcstealth said:

 

I vote this most succinct post of the year, so far.

Expand  

Agreed, but succinctness and brevity need not be mutually exclusive!

[WilliamR]

I thought I would add in my two cents on the Ultra and Mooney's Sun-N-Fun presentation.  First, I was terribly disappointed with the interior fit and finish.  The interior design is great and not over done (like the M10 a few years ago).  But, the ill-fitting plastic around and at the bottom of the G-1000 Nxi and throttle quadrant was sad.  The same can be said for some of the molding on the doors.  I was told that this cheap ill-fitting plastic was only temporary, given they "rushed" the plane out from certification to Sun-N-Fun.  If the plane is on display for sale, I would want to have the aircraft in the best possible shape.  The interior brochure pic that did not have this cheap plastic looked a lot better.  Look at the TTx, Cirrus, Bo on display.  Fit and finish was what I would expect from a luxury auto-manufacturer.  That is what new buyers expect.  Mooney's interior fit and finish was closer to my rental car, a mid-sized Nissan. 

Second, the large right side fuselage panel was a different shade of metallic gray than the rest of the plane.  It stood out.   

I did like most of the video loop on the TVs.  The beautiful South Texas rolling hills in the afternoon was a great back drop.  Well, at least until there was a prolonged turning shot with a trailer park squarely in the background.  I would have edited that part out. 

Lastly, the tent was baron of sales info save a mannequin with a Mooney shirt and jacket and a few double sided sheets with stats on the new planes.  The brochures from other manufacturers looked a lot better.  My favorite most fulsome brochure was for the M350.  Most (all?) single engine piston manufacturer except Mooney had many nicely designed shirts, hats, etc for sale.  The cost to produce this paraphernalia is minimal in the grand scheme.  In fairness, I was given a hat that was hidden behind one of counters. 

The display of the roll cage was great.  However, there was no copy next to it to describe what you were looking at and the fantastic safety feature it is.  It was just out by itself.  For the several hours I was there over the course of two days, I was the only person that looked at it.

A friend noted that Mooney seemed unprepared for Sun-N-Fun.  I had to agree.  

Mooney should really look hard at how they present themselves and their product if they want to make a go of it.  I think the marketing formula is simple; luxurious lifestyle, sporty, unmatched speed, and safety.  Think Porsche Panamera.     Oh, and the bearded pilot used in most of the shots, get someone better for the ground pics.  A new airplane is a luxury good.  Market it as such.  The product is so good.  It's a shame it isn't presented well.

William

[ArtVandelay]

Is there additional steps to certified in Europe? Paperwork, bureaucracy steps that have to be taken? They need to team up with TBM dealers.

[exM20K]

  On 4/14/2017 at 6:08 PM, Hyett6420 said:

I agree with the bearded chap, complete no no as was the Chinese guy. However the interior fit of the TtX is crap compared to the Mooney and the Cirrus.  I would say that Mooney have it ok at the moment with regards interior fit BUT there marketing ability SUCKS big time.  The other problem is there are just not listening and hearing this message.  Where were they in Europes biggest GA trade show this year?  Nowhere.  The arrogance that they only need to sel to the USA is a load of bollocks. You need sales anywhere you can get them when you are only selling 11 planes a year. 

 

Andrew

Expand  

I think this is unfair.  The plane is not certified by EASA so far as I know, resources are scarce, and the cost of moving an aircraft, trade show booth, and people to Europe for a show where they cannot sell their product is far in excess of any likely return.  

As for S&F, it's becoming more and more a regional show. There have been years recently that Cirrus hasn't participated, and Diamond had only a demo plane at Plant City this year.

-de

[Jerry 5TJ]

Say, I just got a brochure in the mail this week from Mooney International. Nice looking three panel fold-out on good glossy stock.  They invited me to come fly a new Ultra.  I just might.  My O-bird is 17 years old now...  

POINT:  I think that is the first time in 30 years and while owning 3 Mooneys that I've EVER been contacted by Mooney asking me to consider one of their fine new planes.

Cirrus of course contacted me many times and tried to sell me every which way over the years.  

[gsengle]

Huh I wonder if they're looking at the FAA registry?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jerry 5TJ]

  On 4/14/2017 at 11:23 PM, gsengle said:

Huh I wonder if they're looking at the FAA registry?

Expand  

It makes more sense than going door to door.  

You would THINK some assistant in sales would have the task of maintaining a list of all active pilots who have ever owned a Mooney.   

[gsxrpilot]

As someone who makes a living in Sales, I'll agree with previous posts here. Someone with a sense of style and attention to detail needs to be in charge of Marketing at Mooney. It's really all pretty amateur. 

[Mcstealth]

  On 4/14/2017 at 10:47 PM, Jerry 5TJ said:

Say, I just got a brochure in the mail this week from Mooney International. Nice looking three panel fold-out on good glossy stock.  They invited me to come fly a new Ultra.  I just might.  My O-bird is 17 years old now...  

POINT:  I think that is the first time in 30 years and while owning 3 Mooneys that I've EVER been contacted by Mooney asking me to consider one of their fine new planes.

Cirrus of course contacted me many times and tried to sell me every which way over the years.  

Expand  

Bingo. I have received Cirrus propaganda, never owning a plane. Maybe from my AOPA membership?

never from Mooney and I live here!!

 

[buddy]

I don't see what the big deal is about adding a pilot side door, I got in and out of the one at sun n fun and I'd rather enter and exit through the passenger door as I do now in my Ovation. Just think about how hard it is for the front seat passenger to get out of the airplane and that's how hard it is to exit out of the pilots side door even with the added 4 inches. I'm 6 ft tall and 200 lbs. Maybe it's the perception but I don't think it's very functional.

[exM20K]

  On 4/15/2017 at 6:51 PM, Hyett6420 said:

It's not unfair.  Why wait till it's certified by EASA. If you want to sell it sell it.  It wasn't certified by the FAA but they launched it with a blaze of publicity.  

Expand  

You originally wrote: The arrogance that they only need to sel [sic and sic] to the USA is a load of bollocks.  It's this assumption of facts (or motives) not in evidence, as the lawyers say, that is unfair.  

• Do you know what their order book looks like vs production schedule this year? I don't.
• Do you know what it cost to produce a credible trade show display? I do.  I've done it several times.
• Do you know what it costs to ferry a new aircraft across the Atlantic? I do. I've imported several dozen new aircraft.
• Do they have sales representation throughout the EU? The website lists only one rep in France, so I'll call that a "no."

So based on what I know, not on my "feelings," I'd say it's a smart move to skip AERO Friedrichshafen this year.  If a credible domestic trade show display costs $250,000 for space, supplies, and people here, then for a US manufacturer, it's probably 1.5x that at AERO.  Add another $20-40,000 over and back for the ferry cost.  Consider they probably haven't figured out how to price in €, and that setting up a proper salesforce in the EU (https://cirrusaircraft.com/wp-content/themes/cirrus_aircraft_v1.5/locator/img/InternationalSalesCenterList.pdf ) is non-trivial.

For Mooney to drop half a million dollars as a business development/marketing spend in a market that will not yield any sales for the foreseeable future would be, as you say, "bollocks."  Should they go about developing their EU/ME/Africa/Asia sales and marketing strategy?  Most definitely, but that's not this year's problem.  Like most everyone here, I wish Mooney to succeed and prosper; expending vast (to mooney) sums of money in markets yet to be developed while rolling out a new product domestically does not raise the likelihood of success or prosperity.

 

Happy Easter to all.

[Guest]

  On 4/14/2017 at 8:24 PM, exM20K said:

I think this is unfair.  The plane is not certified by EASA so far as I know, resources are scarce, and the cost of moving an aircraft, trade show booth, and people to Europe for a show where they cannot sell their product is far in excess of any likely return.  

As for S&F, it's becoming more and more a regional show. There have been years recently that Cirrus hasn't participated, and Diamond had only a demo plane at Plant City this year.

-de

Expand  

I think that a large number of European aircraft are on the FAA register.  

Clarence

[Hank]

  On 4/16/2017 at 1:45 AM, M20Doc said:

I think that a large number of European aircraft are on the FAA register.  

Clarence

Expand  

I think you're right. But aren't the new EASA licensing and registration rules designed to bring that to an end? It's great that we can fly IFR here with a PPL and 40 hours of instrument training, but there are many, many more requirements to do the same in Europe. It's always been more, but the newest rules increase it to about threefold and eliminate most privileges accorded to European residents with FAA licenses. 

[zaitcev]

  On 4/15/2017 at 6:14 PM, buddy said:

I don't see what the big deal is about adding a pilot side door, I got in and out of the one at sun n fun and I'd rather enter and exit through the passenger door as I do now in my Ovation. Just think about how hard it is for the front seat passenger to get out of the airplane and that's how hard it is to exit out of the pilots side door even with the added 4 inches. I'm 6 ft tall and 200 lbs. Maybe it's the perception but I don't think it's very functional.

Expand  

It is one way to look at it, but just this Thursday I forgot to lock the hangar. Had to kick wife out because I had to disembark. Really wished I had an Ultra, or heck, even Beech Sierra. Cessna would work better for that situation.

Edited April 16, 2017 by zaitcev

[Mcstealth]

Hey @AndyFromCB, you are going to have to revise your estimation a little higher. Not by many unfortunately(yet), but at least a few more. 

 

[carusoam]

Check list must be completed, PRIOR to the finance administrator sitting down!

-a-