Future of Mooney

[Igor_U]

8 hours ago, shorrick mk2 said:

@Igor_U my point was that you don't need to recertify or redesign an airplane to incorporate automation, you can train / design the robot around it. As to the "no cost savings" part, both A and B financials show otherwise. Sure Renton is an assembly plant, but do you think the subcontractors all sit around milling parts by hand in a sweatshop? Sure, B had 60 years to improve the 737 production line practices... but so have the other guys.

As to your volume & profitability exception for low rate productiion runs, have a look at Ferrari volumes & profitability pre and post product line automation... you'll be surprised.

Don't be mislead into thinking that low volume plane sales is due to lack of people not having enough $$$ to spend.

Actually, what I was point out is that (relative) high volume production Boeing (and Airbus) have allows them investing into modern manufacturing methods which allows them cost reduction and record high profits. It is really remarkable as in 20 years they reduced their workforce but 737 production almost tripled. Having said that, a lot of production is still manual labor, and yes, if you go to their subcontractor facilities, you'll see it even more. Not to mention for a programs that have lower production levels. You will not see milling parts by hand, it's all CNC for sure, but assembly process is a lot of drilling, reaming, riveting etc with highly skilled and paid workforce on OEM level. I suggest, if you are ever in Seattle area to take a tour of Everett plant.

I make my living by working in industry for 30y now, manly big OEMs and I've seen it at lower level as well. There has been a lot of changes over the years (for better AND worse) but I just can't see most of piston GA manufactures make money and survive.

I agree about Ferrari and their profits, but their 8000 cars a year is still much more then Mooney's 14 or even Cirrus 400.

 

Regards,

 

 

 

[David_H]

As airplane enthusiasts, we can all agree that Mooney has always produced fantastic planes. Most enthusiast don't care much about Marketing. I've never seen a Ferrari commercial, yet I know it's an enthusiast's car... not something you take the family camping in.

If marketing is truly the root problem, then why are there no threads on MS talking about how great their new Mooney is? After all, this is arguably one of the most Mooney-centered groups in existence.

Edited February 28, 2019 by David_H

[aviatoreb]

No one has mentioned one of the MAJOR problems for Mooney and the REST of the classic GA fleet (e.g. Beech products and Cessna products included) is it is very very hard for a $750K Acclaim to compete with a decked out 30 or 40 year old Mooney M20chooseyourfavoritestyle in pristine condition with looks-like-new paint and leather interior that frankly can be as good or better than the new stuff coming off the line, and with whatever avionics you want to install.  My airplane looks, smells and feels like new, especially to non-aviation people who can't identify the year of a M20K at a glance by the shape of the passenger windows - which really is a triviality.  

Airplanes just don't decay like cars do, for several reasons, involving the annual rebuild-as-you go concept of airplane maintenance, and also the fact that they do not salt the airplane runway environment.  Yes airplanes do rot, and many do - but there is a big enough fleet of either super airplanes, or close enough that they can be restored that this makes a VERY difficult environment for a classic airplane company to compete in.

Even if I did have $750k today to spend on an airplane, which I don't, but if I did, I would not be buying a new Cirrus, or Mooney.  I would find some pristine but used example of something that has a Pt6 on the nose.  Is that close to used TBM700 territory?  Or PA46?

And if I had $3M or $4M I would not be buying a new TBM930.  Never mind - that is the end of the line for single pilot operations - yes maybe I would be buying a TBM930.  Those $10M jets seem like they are for the professional crew of two category - so I will spend my (pretend) $4M on a new TBM930 - but only if I were so filthy-stinkin' rich that I didn't care what the price - that I could have a fantastic TBM900 for half the price, or an 830 for less than that since a 10 year old 830 is fantastic.

Anyway back to the topic - the classic airplane builders need to compete against their own huge saturation sized stock of 60-70 years worth of flying models to fit every budget and level of sophistication.

Edited February 28, 2019 by aviatoreb

[Igor_U]

24 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

 

Even if I did have $750k today to spend on an airplane, which I don't, but if I did, I would not be buying a new Cirrus, or Mooney.  I would find some pristine but used example of something that has a Pt6 on the nose.  Is that close to used TBM700 territory?  Or PA46?

 

That's my thinking, exactly.

However, if everyone would do the same, we wouldn't have any used plane to choose from! I guess, we are our worst enemy. 

[glbtrottr]

No one has mentioned one of the MAJOR problems for Mooney and the REST of the classic GA fleet (e.g. Beech products and Cessna products included) is it is very very hard for a $750K Acclaim to compete with a decked out 30 or 40 year old Mooney M20chooseyourfavoritestyle in pristine condition with looks-like-new paint and leather interior that frankly can be as good or better than the new stuff coming off the line, and with whatever avionics you want to install.  My airplane looks, smells and feels like new, especially to non-aviation people who can't identify the year of a M20K at a glance by the shape of the passenger windows - which really is a triviality.  
Airplanes just don't decay like cars do, for several reasons, involving the annual rebuild-as-you go concept of airplane maintenance, and also the fact that they do not salt the airplane runway environment.  Yes airplanes do rot, and many do - but there is a big enough fleet of either super airplanes, or close enough that they can be restored that this makes a VERY difficult environment for a classic airplane company to compete in.

Ding Ding Ding!

Many years back I called Mooney for a recommendation on a Service Center. The gentleman that answered asked - “why not being it here?” Hmmm... because you’ll charge me 3-5 times as much?

At the time the factory was shuttered.

There is a viable, non trivial and I think somewhat substantial business if Mooney can credibly and reasonably deliver on what you suggest up here.

Would you rather have a third party shop perform your avionics upgrade, or....the factory? My KCS55a was installed by Mooney, as was my stormscope, backup AI, and new wiring for my KFC150. At the time, they installed by 430 and MX20. For that matter, they installed and signed off my new upholstery. There was a bit of work done by them...and if they could reasonably bring to market Mooney refresh offerings that were more attractive than shops that are proud and charge a premium, they could stay busy with engine swaps, Avionics installs, k to encore upgrades, prop upgrades, tank reseals without hiring additional staff versus ...slowly..building...14.......planes ...at least until marketing cAtches up



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skates97]

25 minutes ago, glbtrottr said:

Ding Ding Ding!

Many years back I called Mooney for a recommendation on a Service Center. The gentleman that answered asked - “why not being it here?” Hmmm... because you’ll charge me 3-5 times as much?

At the time the factory was shuttered.

There is a viable, non trivial and I think somewhat substantial business if Mooney can credibly and reasonably deliver on what you suggest up here.

Would you rather have a third party shop perform your avionics upgrade, or....the factory? My KCS55a was installed by Mooney, as was my stormscope, backup AI, and new wiring for my KFC150. At the time, they installed by 430 and MX20. For that matter, they installed and signed off my new upholstery. There was a bit of work done by them...and if they could reasonably bring to market Mooney refresh offerings that were more attractive than shops that are proud and charge a premium, they could stay busy with engine swaps, Avionics installs, k to encore upgrades, prop upgrades, tank reseals without hiring additional staff versus ...slowly..building...14.......planes ...at least until marketing cAtches up



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Hmm... sounds an awful lot like the certified pre-owned vehicles we sell at our dealerships and pretty much every other new car dealership out there.

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, Igor_U said:

That's my thinking, exactly.

However, if everyone would do the same, we wouldn't have any used plane to choose from! I guess, we are our worst enemy. 

As a good citizen I WANT to buy a brand new Mooney and support the cause.

As a customer without the resources to do that, but even if I did, but with finite resources, I am selfish.  I mean I am the kind of guy who in my small town I live in, Potsdam, NY, population, 16,000 I will and do spend more at the local stores to make sure I am spending my money in town rather than to buy competing or sometimes same stuff 10 miles north at the Walmart.  Buy my ben and jerry's ice cream for an extra dollar, sure - I want to see my local store fronts filled with stores.   I wish I were wealthy enough to do the same in the aviation community and plunk down $750k as a good citizen, but that kind of money is too much to scale up.  And if I were filthy stinkin rich and I could without a blink...then I bet I would have my eyes on a Pt6 or even faster a jet.

But there are some who want to drive a new car off the lot and fly a new airplane off the show room floor, and thank goodness for them!  But many of us are not.  So it causes a collapse of the airplane economy.  If 80% of us old airplane owners were willing to buy a new M20J/K level airplane for $300k then maybe the economy of scales would have worked in favor of mass production still - and there would be $300k airplanes.  But once the economy of scale collapsed then the prices went up and a feedback loop formed where the higher the price went the less we bought and then the higher the price went.  

And I claim one major force that causes this collapse is the fleet of superb airplanes that look, fly, feel and smell so very much like the new airplanes.  M20, B36, C172, C182, PA32, and on and on.  It is too late perhaps to fix this problem but one thing that could have saved the industry maybe 30 years ago is if the FAA or some other force had built in obselesance and one way I can think would be airframes that time out.  Say 6000 hours and the airplane must be junked.  No I know I don't want this to happen and clearly it does not need to if you look at airplanes like the 80 year old DC3's with 100s of thousands of hours on them... just saying a thought experiment - if the airplanes were timing out then that would have forced the community to keep buying new airplanes back when there was an economy of scales.

Now I am presuming I will keep this airplane I have until avgas goes away sometime hopefully after I loose my medical which hopefully will not be for another 50+ years.  (My grandma lived to be that old...hint..its just over a hundred).  Meanwhile expect BIG changes in aviation in the next 10 years - I mean what do we expect aviation to look like when there is a sea change as quadcopter-octocopter things flown by Uberesque entities that you call up on your iPhone to do to the rest of aviation?  And the fixed wing fleet of - my airplane is a pristine 1981 M20K?  Well they will be just for collectors.  I am happy continuing to be a collector.  But no longer necessary or practical - if practical was ever a word to apply here - but less practical if you can call up some uber-thing.

[aviatoreb]

3 minutes ago, Skates97 said:

Hmm... sounds an awful lot like the certified pre-owned vehicles we sell at our dealerships and pretty much every other new car dealership out there.

Cars seem mostly different.  They corrode due to salt on the road.  They are MUCH cheaper to buy new.  They are built cheap enough that they get beat up after 100,000-200,000 miles to the point that it is cheaper to buy a new one than to maintain the old one.

Imagine a place where you could not simply replace your old car, either because new cars were extraordinarily expensive beyond anything we see here, or simply unavailable, and where there was no salt on the road.  Then in that place people would keep fixing their old cars and keep them looking nice for a very long time.  They would start modding them to be better than original, and perhaps run with all sorts of interesting engines.

I call that place Cuba.

[Jerry 5TJ]

So when it comes to small airplanes....we live in Cuba.   

 

 

[glbtrottr]

So when it comes to small airplanes....we live in Cuba.   
 
 

Today, sir, you win the Internet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, glbtrottr said:

 

Today, sir, you win the Internet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Hey!  That was what I literally just said and he repeated the punchline.  :-0. Snappy slogans beat the discussion.

Edited March 1, 2019 by aviatoreb

[1964-M20E]

4 hours ago, David_H said:

As airplane enthusiasts, we can all agree that Mooney has always produced fantastic planes. Most enthusiast don't care much about Marketing. I've never seen a Ferrari commercial, yet I know it's an enthusiast's car... not something you take the family camping in.

If marketing is truly the root problem, then why are there no threads on MS talking about how great their new Mooney is? After all, this is arguably one of the most Mooney-centered groups in existence.

But we take our family camping with the Mooney

 

 

[Skates97]

23 minutes ago, 1964-M20E said:

But we take our family camping with the Mooney

 

 

Us too!

[kpaul]

5 minutes ago, Skates97 said:

Us too!

Yep, seems to be the thing to do, in the below picture I am in the middle of 45 other Mooneys.

[David_H]

Camping and Mooneys go very well together.

[David_H]

5 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Anyway back to the topic - the classic airplane builders need to compete against their own huge saturation sized stock of 60-70 years worth of flying models to fit every budget and level of sophistication.

I'm glad that we're able to fly older airframes.

Most of us wouldn't be able to get off the ground if we had to buy a new Mooney to get into aviation.

[Bravoman]

4 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

So returning to my post of earlier i would post a picture of our camping site that we transport to the south of france every year, but it fill the roof box and interior of the Volvo V70 plus has two bikes on the back.  Moomey need to make a bigger plane, lol.

ok so back to the thread...my car is 85-90k USD new, do i pay that, NO, i pay 5k down and 120 a month for three years, then hand it back and get a guaranteed residual reserved value.  I NEVER own the car, i only lease it.  So i dont know whether you have the same system over there but it allows the manufacturer to sell an expensive product to the masses at an affordable price.  Noone looks at the price of the car, they look at the down payment (which can be adjusted) and then the monthly.  We talk as though the well healed have 750k lying around, no of course we dont, its all tied up in property, businesses etc.  If you asked me to lay my hands on 750k tomorrow i could not do it, give me 4 months and yes I could.  But lay my hands on a monthly payment is easy, if you make that payment low enough and its easy for most people.  

So as i said before sell a lifestyle, and make it affordable by making the purchase options affordable.  If you cant change the price, then change the method of purchase, just like they have done with cars over here.  They would not sell any cars over here if they did not have ts methid, they are too damn expensive with car tax, sales tax, Senators mistresses tax, etc.  

 

I thought all Englishmen were rich!

[Davidv]

12 minutes ago, Hyett6420 said:

So lets talk financing of our Mooneys in order to keep Mooney in business....

Mooney sell a new aircraft at $750k or thereabouts. So after 5 years what would be the value of an Aclaim say, lets hazard a guess at $500k, (but to be honest, Mooney in this system can make the figure what ever they want it to be) a Personal Contract Purchase that we use in Europe for cars therefore would look like this:-

• Downpayment (normally 3-6 months of the "rental" figure )
• Monthly payments
• Guaranteed Minimum Future Value

At the end of the 5 years you just hand the plane back.  So in real numbers it would look like this

• Downpayment = $28230.60
• Monthly payments = $4,705.10
• GMFV = $500,000

This based on a 5% loan APR interest rate.  NOW that plane becomes affordable for a lot more people and in addition Mooney make an extra  $32,305.98 per aircraft in addition to the $50k they make at the moment.

Hence in Europe this is how the car manufacturers sell their cars as it allows them to sell more cars to more people more often, increasing their turnover from their factory while also receiving more money for each car they sell.

People in the market for a new aircraft will normally have $30k for a deposit and if they buy them the way they do at the moment then 4.5k per month is small change.  However $4.5k for a LOT of middle class people is also affordable, while repayments on a 5 year loan of $750k is not.  So this allows more planes to be sold.  Then in 5 years time there is suddenly a lot of "almost new" Mooneys available in the 2nd hand market that are around the price point that people have indicated they are prepared to pay.  Mooney Finance can then arrange loans on these and make money again that way.   Nota Bene if people put down a bigger deposit then obviously their monthly will go down accordingly.

Its a clever system and would work for them.

Andrew

Andrew,

It actually works somewhat similar to that over here (except without the minimum value guarantee that makes it more like a lease).  Banks here will finance planes at a 5.25% (+/-) rate on a 20 year amortization.  I'm not an expert on financing, but for a new plane they may go 25 years or more.  They will even do a 20 yr amort on planes as old as 1980!  This means that if you put down $150K (usually 20% min down) on a $750K loan at a 20 yr term your payment is $4k per month.  I know $150K is more than your downpayment, but I would argue that someone who can afford to spend $5-6K (you bought it to fly it right?) per month on a hobby should be able to come up with $150K.

 

[Jerry 5TJ]

In effect Mooney sells each new plane for $750,000 and buys back a five year old one for $500,000?   

 

[Danb]

Unfortunately the new tax code doesn't allow us to get a second mortgage or home improvement loan for our planes, in 2006 I bought my 2005 Bravo for 465,000 with about $150,000 down payment  payment approx $2500 month for 15 years, with the full interest deduction., with about $15000 in interest deduction per year decreasing yearly. So the gov't paid about 3750 a year in tax savings not counting depreciation,, if your in business the depreciation savings would approx $112,000 so luckily the plane cost me about $230,000.  If you can be inventive prior to the new code the gov't was 50/50 partners in the cost of the plane. If they want to stimulate the economy the gov't should keep the the money flow going. A little off topic but being proactive there are ways. This doesn't count using the plane for donations like pilot and paws, air lifeline etc.  

[67 m20F chump]

I make a good living and my wife does too.  I wanted a Mooney since the 90’s.  I now have my 3rd airplane and it’s a Mooney.  I just replaced the lord gear pucks for $118 each.  I replaced the Mooney hardware at over $100 for a bolt!  I love my Mooney but every time I work on a plane I ask myself why I didn’t jump in a van’s aircraft project.  

 

Mooney builds a beautiful aircraft.  I will never own a new one.  I just can’t afford to take the depreciation hit.  I don’t have a business to write it off against.  Even if I did I would have to be burning other people’s money to spend that kind of money.

[67 m20F chump]

Jim you hit on why I haven’t done it.  However if you look at buying one already built as competition to a slightly used Mooney it’s much cheaper.

A rv10 for $200k vs the Mooney ar $500k.  165kts vs 200kts.  I fly off a 2400’ turf runway.  The newish Mooney isn’t even a player.   

I’m the guy that is a repeat aviation offender.  I should be the guy dreaming of buying a new Mooney aircraft.  Instead I’m thinking about building a expensive experimental aircraft because I am burned out on $100 pma bolts and avionics that work but can’t be used on a flying aircraft that I can afford.  

Mooney is a beautiful aircraft and I will always enjoy looking at the new offerings but I will never own one.  

I think Mooney builds a quality product that has survived the test of time.  At 850k I am not optimistic about the future.   At that price it’s out of reach of most upper middle class buyers.  When I spend more on aviation than I save for retirement I’m out of the game.  As they say don’t hate the player hate the game.  I can’t afford to play that game.  Actually I can afford to play that game but I don’t think I ever will.  I have been in aviation for 30 years and I know 2 people that have bought new certified aircraft.  I know dozens that have built them.

[Davidv]

My point on the $150K is that there is a specific demographic of people who would want to own an $800K asset (other than a home) and most would have the $150K to spend if they really wanted it (and refused to look at one even 3-4 years old at a significant discount).  Would they rather put down less if they could?  Of course.  I just don't see the initial cash outlay as the limiting factor in selling new Mooneys.  Unlike the Bentley where anyone with a drivers license, decent credit, and an income to support it could get a lease, the market for airplane owners is much smaller.  Within the smaller market of people who want to buy single engine aircraft, they need to be performance focused, believe that Mooney makes a superior product, and know that they are gong to take a huge depreciation hit in the first 2-3 years buying new.  Leasing them the plane would take care of the depreciation concern but not the rest.

At the end of the day I'm all for anything that could help them sell more planes.  However, Cirrus seams to do just fine selling to the demographic of people who can and want to spend in the upper hundred thousands on a new aircraft.  Yes, they have a different customer but it proves that there are hundreds of people per year that will buy a new airplane at around the cost of a Mooney.

[67 m20F chump]

For the life of me I don’t understand how cirrus sells so many of those plastic clown planes.  I just don’t like them.  

[Davidv]

I know, and non-pilots always mention to me how it has a parachute ect... which does nothing to prevent the vast majority of Cirrus accidents (and was only installed because the FAA wouldn’t approve the design otherwise).