Seth Posted February 28, 2011 Report Posted February 28, 2011 Looks like Continetal Engine Co. is not the only one: http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Cirrus_Acquired_By_Chinese_Company_204192-1.html Cirrus sold to Chinese company. Quote
sleepingsquirrel Posted February 28, 2011 Report Posted February 28, 2011 Well, out of 17 gagilloin,billion Chinese people, if only .01% want to fly it's good for business! Quote
PTK Posted February 28, 2011 Report Posted February 28, 2011 There is something wrong when our American companies are sold to foreigners so easily. There is just something majorly wrong about that. Is Mooney also being sold to the Chinese? Quote
thinwing Posted February 28, 2011 Report Posted February 28, 2011 Announcement...wed march 23rd...Today Garmin intl announced the sale of the company to a Chinese Lead based paint manufactor and baby teething ring maker Womco.The deal is subject to approval of U S Dept of Treasury as Garmin intl is the sole remaining profitable avation company located in the continental US.Sources say all current jobs at the olathe kansas based company will remain their for at least 2 months.In related news the FDA announced a massive recall on all Womco baby products due to component leaching....KPC for api Quote
Geoff Posted February 28, 2011 Report Posted February 28, 2011 On the bright side, the Cirrus Owners Pilots Association finally has a reason to change their call sign to CCCPA, the Chinese Cirrus Commrade Pilots Association. Quote
sleepingsquirrel Posted February 28, 2011 Report Posted February 28, 2011 I know people work hard to develop a product and grow a company. Hopefully to make their fortune, if not, sell it before shirt losing time. However, everything I read about a Cirrus lately has not been like it's America greatest contribution to aviation. I can't afford one nor do I have the desire to buy the C162 either. Quote
DaV8or Posted March 1, 2011 Report Posted March 1, 2011 It's Deja Vu. Reminds me of the '90s when all the Japanese companies came over here and bought up stuff, then a little while latter, after losing loads of money, sold out. I guess the difference this time is, the Japanese were buying things hoping to do business in this market. The Chinese are buying things to export to their market. The Chinese marketplace is now the most important in the world. Doing business here is of secondary concern. So they bought Cirrus. What did they get? They got a couple of nice airplanes with type certificates (and all the head aches and lawsuits that go with them), some tooling and machinery and some employees. What they didn't get was the inspiration and innovation that built the company. They will learn how to build Cirrus' and when they get them going in China, they will no doubt cut corners to make them cheaper and more profitable. There's not a whole lot of civil suits over there, so it's buyer beware. They will butt heads with the US employees and lose a lot of that work force, US Cirrus sales will drop under new manangement and eventually they will close US operations. I don't expect to see a new Cirrus model making it through US certification although I'm sure they'll try. The new SR-3000 will no doubt be of at least partial if not all Chinese design and be very futuristic looking. It will have wild performance claims at a very low cost. It won't have decades of experience behind it, so it will be tough road to certification. We shall see. Ever wonder how the Brittish felt after WWII when their empire fell to bits and everything Brittish either failed, got a bad reputation, or got sold off? I think I'm getting it now. Quote
PTK Posted March 1, 2011 Report Posted March 1, 2011 Well, in China labor costs are way lower than they are here. Allso they don't have our FAA to regulate things nor a legal and insurance system to deal with lawsiuts. So it is conceivable they can produce an aircraft at a fraction of its cost here. They will then proceed and sell it to us here! So, effectively, they have purchased a certified aircraft design and bypassed our entire regulatory and liability mechanisms! Now, if we are smart about it, we will say to them "not so fast!!" and bar them from selling an aircraft here that they have manufactured over there! Or place a flat 50% or whatever % is deemed appropriate tax on the cost of any aircraft they try to bring over here and sell. But will it happen? I will not hold my breath. Especially when I see our trade deficit with China. I did say IF we are smart about it! Quote
DaV8or Posted March 1, 2011 Report Posted March 1, 2011 Quote: allsmiles Well, in China labor costs are way lower than they are here. Allso they don't have our FAA to regulate things nor a legal and insurance system to deal with lawsiuts. Quote
LT4BIRD Posted March 1, 2011 Report Posted March 1, 2011 What they dont buy they steal. How do you compete with a country that doesnt play buy the rules. Quote
PTK Posted March 1, 2011 Report Posted March 1, 2011 Quote: LT4BIRD How do you compete with a country that doesnt play buy the rules. Quote
DaV8or Posted March 1, 2011 Report Posted March 1, 2011 Quote: allsmiles Don't sell our high tech to them!! Just don't. This is why I say something is majorly wrong here. You watch Mooney is next to go. Quote
DaV8or Posted March 1, 2011 Report Posted March 1, 2011 Quote: LT4BIRD What they dont buy they steal. How do you compete with a country that doesnt play buy the rules. Quote
scottfromiowa Posted March 1, 2011 Report Posted March 1, 2011 I'm for free trade. China had the money let them buy if Klapmeir wants to sell his company. He can start up another one...maybe build the jet he wants to build. We/the U.S of A are still THE largest Economy by a large shot. Our GDP and production is still greatest in the world. You WILL hear me complain if Boeing loses to AirBus for the AirForce replacement of tankers...THAT contract should STAY in the USA FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. We are reaping the rewards of being a developed world partner...the ability to purchase goods at lower cost because of reduced labor overseas. I go to manufacturers in Iowa/USA every day. General Aviation getting an infusion from China is A-O.K in my book... Quote
flight2000 Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 Scott, How'd you miss the news last week that Boeing was awarded the contract for the KC-46a tanker? I fully expect another round of protests from EADS, so this thing may never get built... http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=228175 Quote
DaV8or Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 Quote: scottfromiowa You WILL hear me complain if Boeing loses to AirBus for the AirForce replacement of tankers...THAT contract should STAY in the USA FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. Quote
scottfromiowa Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 Missed it Brian...Dave, I hear you. I DON'T want ANYTHING used by our military to be made outside of the US. Right or wrong that is my stand here. Let the US contractors compete...If only one...then so be it. Good for THAT U.S. company. I don't want to rely on the Chinese or French for our supply chain when it comes to National Defense...The ONLY thing I want the Government involved in. Quote
sleepingsquirrel Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 Yea, one of the things the U.S. Government was originally tasked with, was national defense. Not messing about in all the other arenas which was not originally assigned to Government. Information about military hardware no matter how insignificant it may seem needs to be held close to the vest. A single specification which is of no consequence during normal operations could be the Achilles heel to be sold to the highest bidder, to be exploited by an enemy. Those specifications must be ours and ours alone to inform or mis-inform about. I would only be concerned if 10,000 Chinese attacked in a Cirrus' or Cessna 162s. It would obviously be a suicide mission. Quote
DaV8or Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 Quote: scottfromiowa I don't want to rely on the Chinese or French for our supply chain when it comes to National Defense...The ONLY thing I want the Government involved in. Quote
scottfromiowa Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 I believe that would be an act of War...Neither Saudia Arabia or the Chinese would gain from that. The decision to outsource critical components out of US by our Government is a mistake that will come back to bite us IMO. Quote
RJBrown Posted March 3, 2011 Report Posted March 3, 2011 Our government has gone astray. The #1 priority of the federal government should be national defence. To look at the buget numbers the #1 priority is buying votes to get reelected. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.