Oshkosh observation

[bonal]

Wow lots of heated discussion here. Obviously I wasn't there but sure got a good picture of things based on the many comments here. I think it's a fact that Mooneys will never have a parachute. So what can they offer to sell more airplanes. Cirrus is already doing it it's marketing a life style reaching out to people that aren't even pilots yet.  What little advertising I have seen from Mooney is so serious and technical. If I didn't know better I would see it like owning a Mooney is more like being an ATP and less experienced people need not apply.  The biggest word missing from all of this is FUN we all know this but we're the choir.  I once was criticized for a thread claiming that I didn't feel that AOPA cared much for our favorite brand and I still hold that opinion however one comment made sense that even during the big years of general aviation Mooneys were not main stream. Lots of equivalent auto examples there. One thing I am qualified to comment on is esthetics and as an artist I can say a new Mooney looks so stunning and a new Cirrus looks like oh, nice mini van. I know which I would rather do a painting of.  I remember going to big auto shows and the manufacturers would have dazzling displays with beautiful models showing there latest models. Well no one thought those girls knew much about the latest variable valve timing. But no one cared. It was all about an image of fun and adventure.  Of course now in the world of PC fun is no longer promoted. We as a culture has become so obsessed with safety ugh I'm so sick of it. Now the insurance companies are offering apps to monitor your driving and offer big discounts soon it will just be required equipment.  Self driving cars yuck! Life is supposed to be about passion everyone is so practical these days. And yes I doubt I will ever have the income to own any kind of new airplane but if I did (theirs always) the lotto I would definitely choose a new Ultra over a Cirrus simply based on what I would be seeing as I walked out to the ramp.

[Sandman993]

On ‎7‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 7:26 AM, Yetti said:

Here's an idea.   How about selling a blank panel kit for panel upgrades. or partner with a Electronic panel manufacture to sell in a drop in kit.

HaHa...you bet...15k! Have you seen what they want for a glare shield?

[MRussell]

While we're dreaming about how to make the #mooneylife look more fun, I'll throw in that I'd love to see Mooney somehow partner with Extra to create a special ACRO/NORMAL 'category jumper' based on the M20R, fortified for acro with skylights (above and below, please), spades, ergonomic supports, and composite reinforcement enabling them to advertise a huge G limit and flutter resistance, plus they could go for an awesome airshow routine to promote it. Not unlike the F-33C effort but a 21st Century interpretation. If blowoff doors and a fancy airframe parachute became part of that project, it would be icing on the cake. 

Here's to the dreamers. 

[Yetti]

1 hour ago, MRussell said:

While we're dreaming about how to make the #mooneylife look more fun, I'll throw in that I'd love to see Mooney somehow partner with Extra to create a special ACRO/NORMAL 'category jumper' based on the M20R, fortified for acro with skylights (above and below, please), spades, ergonomic supports, and composite reinforcement enabling them to advertise a huge G limit and flutter resistance, plus they could go for an awesome airshow routine to promote it. Not unlike the F-33C effort but a 21st Century interpretation. If blowoff doors and a fancy airframe parachute became part of that project, it would be icing on the cake. 

Here's to the dreamers. 

already been done.  

[kpaul]

On 8/1/2019 at 2:56 PM, Yetti said:

already been done.  

Here's the one produced by Mooney, albeit in a limited run of one.

[Yetti]

On 8/1/2019 at 11:01 AM, Sandman993 said:

HaHa...you bet...15k! Have you seen what they want for a glare shield?

make it up in volume.  

[cliffy]

Having a tough time reading through this thread- A couple of my observations-

My experience LAST year at the Mooney tent parallels what has been said about this year. No interest shown or even disdain for being there.  Wasn't an "inviting feeling there. Didn't make OSH this year due to previous commitments. 

We're all speculating on what Mooney  SHOULD do for marketing and we all ASSUME that they are there to sell as many airplanes as anyone. What if? What if they have a different direction from China? What if China wants them just to hold place? Just thinking here as we are not in anyway privy to that conversation. We have no idea what their REAL marketing directions from China are. We assume a marketing position not yet in evidence just because that is what we traditionally see.

New products vs cost to bring to market is an issue. It would be nice to bring new items to market and apply them across the board but with certification costs what they are, for a company selling 2 or 3 dozen airplanes a year, it makes no financial sense.

As others have said, I too have spent many days in vendor booths marketing wares to, at certain shows, high net worth individuals and the general public as well. It's not too hard for me to see where improvements in just greeting people would garner huge benefits in both groups. They need to generate social media noise about the brand and they can do that by being at air shows around the country asking for SM postings. How well people are treated, whether or not they have "wealth", can go a long way to gathering good publicity. Good publicity is always needed. 

For those that can afford a new airplane, one item that I think most would want to look at (I know I would) would be company longevity. Granted Mooney has been a round a long time BUT how many prospective purchasers would be turned off by the checker board history on Mooney financially? Will the company be around longer than my warranty? Will it be a pig an a poke in 3 years? If I was going to spent 800K I'd look at that. This might be one reason why Cirrus sells so many more than Mooney. Has anyone ever tried to canvas Cirrus owners to see why they bought that airplane? Might be an interesting survey. 

With as passionate as Mooney owners are about the brand, to exclude them in the marketing message is short sighted. This goes worldwide. Anyone who has traveled outside the USA and talked with Mooney owners can see it there. 

    

 

[MooneyMitch]

1 hour ago, cliffy said:

Having a tough time reading through this thread- A couple of my observations-

My experience LAST year at the Mooney tent parallels what has been said about this year. No interest shown or even disdain for being there.  Wasn't an "inviting feeling there. Didn't make OSH this year due to previous commitments. 

We're all speculating on what Mooney  SHOULD do for marketing and we all ASSUME that they are there to sell as many airplanes as anyone. What if? What if they have a different direction from China? What if China wants them just to hold place? Just thinking here as we are not in anyway privy to that conversation. We have no idea what their REAL marketing directions from China are. We assume a marketing position not yet in evidence just because that is what we traditionally see.

New products vs cost to bring to market is an issue. It would be nice to bring new items to market and apply them across the board but with certification costs what they are, for a company selling 2 or 3 dozen airplanes a year, it makes no financial sense.

As others have said, I too have spent many days in vendor booths marketing wares to, at certain shows, high net worth individuals and the general public as well. It's not too hard for me to see where improvements in just greeting people would garner huge benefits in both groups. They need to generate social media noise about the brand and they can do that by being at air shows around the country asking for SM postings. How well people are treated, whether or not they have "wealth", can go a long way to gathering good publicity. Good publicity is always needed. 

For those that can afford a new airplane, one item that I think most would want to look at (I know I would) would be company longevity. Granted Mooney has been a round a long time BUT how many prospective purchasers would be turned off by the checker board history on Mooney financially? Will the company be around longer than my warranty? Will it be a pig an a poke in 3 years? If I was going to spent 800K I'd look at that. This might be one reason why Cirrus sells so many more than Mooney. Has anyone ever tried to canvas Cirrus owners to see why they bought that airplane? Might be an interesting survey. 

With as passionate as Mooney owners are about the brand, to exclude them in the marketing message is short sighted. This goes worldwide. Anyone who has traveled outside the USA and talked with Mooney owners can see it there. 

    

 

With that theory, it’s quite expensive (a relatively term) to set up a huge tent/display at AirVenture.

Again, if one is going to go to the effort/expense, why not make it a positive, exciting and memorable experience for guests..... or don’t bother at all! 

[Sandman993]

People buy Cirrus because it's easy to fly, comfortable, air conditioning, relatively quick and because it has the next best thing to a second engine, a Ballistic Parachute. It can't be because it looks sexy. No doubt, they have a hit record. Mommy's have a say and the Cirrus doesn't look as skeeereee. I have no doubt that a single Cirrus owner has a house cat...wears yoga pants and works out on the living room floor to a get fit video...just kidding, maybe.

I see most certified aircraft have been forced to price themselves out of their own market...which was probably the reason for the "part 23" rewrite, that went nowhere. The Homebuilt aircraft market is off the charts, they get considerations that we can only dream about because of the way the FAA does their business. The certification process in it's current form continues to stifle most innovation through cost and process. No wonder the EAA has become a giant and thankfully for the homebuilder, a huge lobby.

To pay almost a million dollars for a single engine airplane who's real value is probably 250 to 300k is ridiculous, anyway you look at it. 

[WilliamR]

@cliffy isn't Cirrus ultimately owned by a large, well capitalized Chinese company?  Isn't Mooney also ultimately owned by a large, well capitalized Chinese company?  Cirrus has had their share of financial issues in the past, also.  I think that's why it's owned by a Chinese company.   

I don't have a dog in this fight as I'm not a new aircraft purchaser.  However, @sandman993 comment is a classic example of the OP's criticism; "To pay almost a million dollars for a single engine airplane who's real value is probably 250 to 300k is ridiculous, anyway you look at it."  Respectfully, how did you arrive at real value?  I doubt you meant that's the all-in cost to build a Mooney.  It's clearly more than that.  Textron Aviation segment's gross profit margin is only 9%. 

 

Edited August 5, 2019 by WilliamR

[cliffy]

I'm confused by the quote of my posting?

"Iisn't Cirrus ultimately owned by a large, well capitalized Chinese company?  Isn't Mooney also ultimately owned by a large, well capitalized Chinese company?  Cirrus has had their share of financial issues in the past, also.  I think that's why it's owned by a Chinese company.   "

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Sandman993 said:

People buy Cirrus because it's easy to fly, comfortable, air conditioning, relatively quick and because it has the next best thing to a second engine, a Ballistic Parachute. It can't be because it looks sexy. No doubt, they have a hit record. Mommy's have a say and the Cirrus doesn't look as skeeereee. I have no doubt that a single Cirrus owner has a house cat...wears yoga pants and works out on the living room floor to a get fit video...just kidding, maybe.

I see most certified aircraft have been forced to price themselves out of their own market...which was probably the reason for the "part 23" rewrite, that went nowhere. The Homebuilt aircraft market is off the charts, they get considerations that we can only dream about because of the way the FAA does their business. The certification process in it's current form continues to stifle most innovation through cost and process. No wonder the EAA has become a giant and thankfully for the homebuilder, a huge lobby.

To pay almost a million dollars for a single engine airplane who's real value is probably 250 to 300k is ridiculous, anyway you look at it. 

Ask the average RV 10 builder how many hours they spent building their airplane, what rate would you expect to pay or be paid for these hours. Each builder has to supply the manufacturing plant, utilities etc. but pays no downstream liability insurance for the first 18 years of its life. 

Clarence

[Hank]

24 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Ask the average RV 10 builder how many hours they spent building their airplane, what rate would you expect to pay or be paid for these hours. Each builder has to supply the manufacturing plant, utilities etc. but pays no downstream liability insurance for the first 18 years of its life. 

Clarence

Call it 150 AMU for kit, engine, avionics, etc.

They advertise ~1500 hours average build time. Skilled fabricators can earn $25-30/hour; benefits add another ~30% to that. So:

1500 x 30 x 1.3 = 58 AMU

That's > 200 total for a basic 2-place airplane, no overhead, no administrative costs, no inventory, no inventory tax, no property or inventory insurance, no worker's comp, no liability insurance, no "extras" like fancy paint schemes, embroidered interiors, upgraded carpets / windows / avionics, no personalization and certainly no sales costs (advertising, literature, websites, photography ground and air, salaries, commission, demo flight costs, maintenance, more insurance), no warranty costs and certainly no profit . . . .

Yes,mit really does take money to make money!

[Sandman993]

12 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Ask the average RV 10 builder how many hours they spent building their airplane, what rate would you expect to pay or be paid for these hours. Each builder has to supply the manufacturing plant, utilities etc. but pays no downstream liability insurance for the first 18 years of its life. 

Clarence

So you're going to compare what ultimately is a novice aircraft homebuilder to a full blown assembly line operation? Some guy working in his garage in spare time buying parts here and there, to an aircraft manufacturing plant? I was simply stating the obvious, the obnoxious cost associated with certified aircraft, in as far as the process drives up the cost way beyond reasonable and what's logical. I love my certified airplane and appreciate the differences. One case in point might be how the FAA decides to survey our little 3400' airport for an instrument approach at a cost of $80,000 which entails among other things, they fly around at low altitudes (usually in a king air or small jet) to make certain there are no obstructions from the initial app fix to the touchdown zone and of course the missed procedure...everything I see in aviation is over the top like that, It's like the 500 dollar goobermint hammer we used to hear about... except for those lucky home builders who barely have any rules to follow.

I run a Fiberglass manufacturing plant...comparing a novice attempting to make things we make in his garage is laughable at best.

 

[Sandman993]

15 hours ago, WilliamR said:

@cliffy isn't Cirrus ultimately owned by a large, well capitalized Chinese company?  Isn't Mooney also ultimately owned by a large, well capitalized Chinese company?  Cirrus has had their share of financial issues in the past, also.  I think that's why it's owned by a Chinese company.   

I don't have a dog in this fight as I'm not a new aircraft purchaser.  However, @sandman993 comment is a classic example of the OP's criticism; "To pay almost a million dollars for a single engine airplane who's real value is probably 250 to 300k is ridiculous, anyway you look at it."  Respectfully, how did you arrive at real value?  I doubt you meant that's the all-in cost to build a Mooney.  It's clearly more than that.  Textron Aviation segment's gross profit margin is only 9%. 

 

An engine that should cost way less than 25,000 bucks costs 60,000 or more because of the inflated certification process is what I was trying to convey...it's systemic throughout all of the processes...from soup to nuts. Again, the recent part 23 rewrite was supposed to address some of this nonsense, but it didn't go anywhere near that. The same stuff for a non certified airplane costs a fraction of what we have to pay.

A turbo 550 cid probably north of a 100k. My little 4 cyl costs in excess of 55,000...

[WilliamR]

15 hours ago, cliffy said:

I'm confused by the quote of my posting?

"Iisn't Cirrus ultimately owned by a large, well capitalized Chinese company?  Isn't Mooney also ultimately owned by a large, well capitalized Chinese company?  Cirrus has had their share of financial issues in the past, also.  I think that's why it's owned by a Chinese company.   "

I was referencing your 6th paragraph where you would be concerned with Mooney's "checkered" financial past if you were a new aircraft buyer and that's why maybe Cirrus sells more planes.  Implying Cirrus doesn't have a "checkered" financial past and is financially a better company than Mooney.  I don't think that is the reason why Cirrus sells more at all.  They both have a checkered financial past and both are owned by well capitalized companies now. 

46 minutes ago, Sandman993 said:

An engine that should cost way less than 25,000 bucks costs 60,000 or more because of the inflated certification process is what I was trying to convey...it's systemic throughout all of the processes...from soup to nuts. Again, the recent part 23 rewrite was supposed to address some of this nonsense, but it didn't go anywhere near that. The same stuff for a non certified airplane costs a fraction of what we have to pay.

A turbo 550 cid probably north of a 100k. My little 4 cyl costs in excess of 55,000...

Certainly cert costs are expensive and those costs are pervasive.  In fact, I'm confident the CFO of Mooney couldn't even tell you the total cert costs (including the cert costs embedded in COGS) for a completed aircraft.  Not sure they are 3x the cost of actually building the plane, but your guess is as good as mine.  BTW, when Mooney was a public filer, direct cert costs were less than 3% of sales.  Those financials are interesting given the complete lack of free cash flow.

 

William

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Sandman993 said:

So you're going to compare what ultimately is a novice aircraft homebuilder to a full blown assembly line operation? Some guy working in his garage in spare time buying parts here and there, to an aircraft manufacturing plant? I was simply stating the obvious, the obnoxious cost associated with certified aircraft, in as far as the process drives up the cost way beyond reasonable and what's logical. I love my certified airplane and appreciate the differences. One case in point might be how the FAA decides to survey our little 3400' airport for an instrument approach at a cost of $80,000 which entails among other things, they fly around at low altitudes (usually in a king air or small jet) to make certain there are no obstructions from the initial app fix to the touchdown zone and of course the missed procedure...everything I see in aviation is over the top like that, It's like the 500 dollar goobermint hammer we used to hear about... except for those lucky home builders who barely have any rules to follow.

I run a Fiberglass manufacturing plant...comparing a novice attempting to make things we make in his garage is laughable at best.

 

Two of my hangar neighbours have $200K in each of their RV 10’s not including labour, which in each case is many hours beyond what Vans suggests. This is for a relatively simple airplane.  

Stuff just costs more than it used to.  We don’t have to participate if we don’t like the costs.

Clarence

[tomgo2]

The sad reality and position that all airframe manufacturers hold (Mooney, Cessna, Beech and etc) is that every old airplane is a huge liability with very little (if any) benefits. Every old airplane is competition for a new plane.

[Sandman993]

15 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Two of my hangar neighbours have $200K in each of their RV 10’s not including labour, which in each case is many hours beyond what Vans suggests. This is for a relatively simple airplane.  

Stuff just costs more than it used to.  We don’t have to participate if we don’t like the costs.

Clarence

Well shucks, If value and worth have no meaning in aviation...what not just make everything cost 3 million. I think we've reached an impasse here.

A 200mph $300,000.00 Ferrari is way more complex than a $850,000.00  Mooney in every aspect.

[bradp]

My plane was $61,000 in 1977 dollars.  

Adjusting for inflation that is $252,000 in 2019 dollars.  That was when they were actually producing airplanes, so a moderate increase in efficiency of scale  

Inflation adjusted wages are pretty stagnant.  Benefits cost a lot more these days.  Liability protection certainly accounts for a significant chunk.  All this is amplified through the supply chain as it’s the same cycle reflected in every part.  

 

 

[cliffy]

IIRC 18 years is the limit for liability for small airplanes on manufacturers.

The fact remains too many people like flying, ordinary, everyday people, but flying is priced out of their ability to pay. .

Just look at how popular fly-ins are.

 

[bradp]

1 minute ago, cliffy said:

IIRC 18 years is the limit for liability for small airplanes on manufacturers.

The fact remains too many people like flying, ordinary, everyday people, but flying is priced out of their ability to pay. .

Just look at how popular fly-ins are.

 

Exactly.  Look at the number proportion of flown aircraft to the total attendees at Oshkosh- something like 10-15k vs 600k.  

Aircraft purchases used to be a luxury for the top say 2% of earners.  Now new (certificated) aircraft ownership is reserved for the top .05% or so.  

Experimental aviation will support non-business GA increasingly.   You see it with AOPA priorities (increasingly schools and turbine owners) vs the EAA (individual home builders, chapters, etc).  

[Sandman993]

3 minutes ago, cliffy said:

IIRC 18 years is the limit for liability for small airplanes on manufacturers.

The fact remains too many people like flying, ordinary, everyday people, but flying is priced out of their ability to pay. .

Just look at how popular fly-ins are.

 

Agree, and since it's prohibitive in terms of cost...it doesn't help those trying to maintain a rating and by default causes a severe lack of skill. So, there's that too. I see guys that barely fly 10 hrs a year. Spooky ain't it?

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Sandman993 said:

Well shucks, If value and worth have no meaning in aviation...what not just make everything cost 3 million. I think we've reached an impasse here.

A 200mph $300,000.00 Ferrari is way more complex than a $850,000.00  Mooney in every aspect.

Except the FAA. And a small difference in volume produced.  

I’d bet if Ferrari produced less than a dozen units per year the cost would go up just a bit, if they could survive at all.

Clarence

[CaptainOveur]

3 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Except the FAA. And a small difference in volume produced.  

I’d bet if Ferrari produced less than a dozen units per year the cost would go up just a bit, if they could survive at all.

Clarence

Pretty much every Ferrari built is sold before it is built nowadays...one has to be on a list to buy one.  Imagine were that the case for Mooneys!!

And let's not even think about resale value and appreciation...