Factory Closed Down?

[aviatoreb]

57 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

You don’t have to be a businessman or an accountant to realize from public information that Mooney is hemorrhaging cash. They just laid off 229 people and Kerrville while retaining 90. They easily have an annual cash payroll with benefits of $15-$20 million. And that’s just people cost. Facilities cash cost, insurance, legal and other infrastructure cost probably add another $5 million. They sold four planes in the first six months. There’s no way they get $800,000 per plane after paying distributor commissions. Additionally there’s probably $200,000 worth of vendor pass-through cost for engine, avionics etc. per plane. So maybe they netted $2 million cash in the first six months from plane sales which hast to pay for labor and materials. Add another couple $ million for parts sales. So maybe they had $5-6 million cash inflow to cover $12 million cash cost in the first six months of this year. 
 

They probably squandered $15 million opening, staffing, laying off and closing the Chino facility in 2017. The failed M10T development probably had additional 3rd party costs at Chino. 
 

The parent of Soaring America is a Chinese real estate company. This has to be a cash sinkhole for them. It appears that they are taking action to cut cost. Since it means they are not producing planes that means no cashflow except from part sales (which they have ceased manufacturing). So unless they get a big infusion of cash from the owners it’s hard to see how this lay-off is “temporary”

That does not answer my question - my question was does anyone know factually that this furlough is part of a long term close down or is it part of some strategic change such as what I said perhaps off shoring the work or some other?  I am not asserting what is a good idea, I am asking does anyone know or is it written in the materials and press releases and I might have missed it.  We can discuss all day what we think might be likely and what might be a good idea or not at this point, or how much we like our airplanes, and that is good point of discussion buy try question is does anyone know the facts regarding my question ?

[RogueOne]

1 minute ago, pkofman said:

 

NO News?!

THRE DAYS AND NO NEW INFO!!!

This is just bad business and crappy communication

Total disrespect for the loyal customer/owner/fan base

The part of this whole Mooney furlough thing that I hate is that it spreads wild speculation.

Existing customers and owners are entitled at a minimum, to  understand  how to maintain their  assets in perfect flying condition 

Mooney could easily solve this  by putting out a formal statement provide what the future holds

There is zero info, or an  update that i can find   explaining what is happening. Nothing at all on  Twitter, Facebook or Instagram , or Mooneyspace or on the home website

www.mooney.com looks like business as usual.

Without clear information speculation is  going  to  continue to be rampant.

Its pathetic, that the company has not put out an explanation or go forward / strategy for its existing loyal base  and  or potential customers

Im sure this must have been in the works for a while. It did not happen overnight. Most companies would have has a news release ready to go once the news was out in the public.

Peter

 

There is a movie that has Kevin B getting run over by a mob as he says “Remain calm”...

Chillax.  

Plane in the hanger.  Check

Maintenance provider at the ready.  Check.

Would you feel better if a bunch of SB’s came out?

”Remain Caaaaaaaalm.......” (Mob overtakes and crushes “uninformed”)

Fade to black.

[RogueOne]

Pretty sure there WAS a news release that said closing for a week.

[GeorgePerry]

29 minutes ago, RogueOne said:

When you are right, you are right.  Price is ALWAYS a consideration.  I look at your white Cirri and just think “whatever floats your boat”.  

No arguments and I said as much.  Price and the cost of safety are always a factor in buying decisions.  Also my boat, it will be floating for many years to come...and factory support and parts for the SR22 will be there.  Unfortunately, no one flying a mooney can say that for certain now.  Don't get me wrong, I love Mooneys and have owned several.  I think they are a much more "beautiful" aircraft than cirrus.  That being said, this sort of plane is a tool for traveling and I'm long since over any "emotional" connection to an inanimate object.  All I care about is what can it do for me and will it be sustainable.  Beauty aside, the Cirrus SR22 is a better tool with better safety and support.    

[Andy95W]

"Animal House"

[pkofman]

Just now, RogueOne said:

Pretty sure there WAS a news release that said closing for a week.

 

Ok, There may have been a release but  I don't think it pointed to any future plans....except just closing for a week

So what happens on Monday of next week?

Don't think i'm alone in my concerns , that is evidenced by the speculation and concern in this thread.

I am actually relaxed about this whole thing, but  I for one would  like to understand my options and where things are heading?

Let's see what happens next. 

Peter

[Guest]

12 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

“Very Difficult to widen” because.....because...?  This is a welded cage.  The structural engineers couldn’t come up with a wider design?  No innovative insight? It might cost some money to do it right?  They might lose a knot? Some Mooney koolaid that says changes are not allowed and Mooney owners should be happy with the cabin that they have. Help me understand. 

With the cabin stuck between the wing root ribs, we now have to alter the wing and so on.  It becomes a giant snow ball.

Clarence

[aviatoreb]

56 minutes ago, GeorgePerry said:

No arguments and I said as much.  Price and the cost of safety are always a factor in buying decisions.  Also my boat, it will be floating for many years to come...and factory support and parts for the SR22 will be there.  Unfortunately, no one flying a mooney can say that for certain now.  Don't get me wrong, I love Mooneys and have owned several.  I think they are a much more "beautiful" aircraft than cirrus.  That being said, this sort of plane is a tool for traveling and I'm long since over any "emotional" connection to an inanimate object.  All I care about is what can it do for me and will it be sustainable.  Beauty aside, the Cirrus SR22 is a better tool with better safety and support.    

I got into flying because flying is neat.  Then after I was flying for awhile and gained experience I realized that I could travel flying.

The premise that "tool for traveling" is the one and only mission factor in various different people's choosing a given airplane seems off.  I chose the coolest airplane that fills the rest of my mission need.  Hot rod was first.  So I ended up with a rocket.  Surely I am not the only one?  Owning a small airplane is weird in the first place so an irrational factor like I want a hot rod is a reasonable wish in this unreasonable shopping concept.  Beauty aside - and then you lost me.

[RogueOne]

1 hour ago, GeorgePerry said:

No arguments and I said as much.  Price and the cost of safety are always a factor in buying decisions.  Also my boat, it will be floating for many years to come...and factory support and parts for the SR22 will be there.  Unfortunately, no one flying a mooney can say that for certain now.  Don't get me wrong, I love Mooneys and have owned several.  I think they are a much more "beautiful" aircraft than cirrus.  That being said, this sort of plane is a tool for traveling and I'm long since over any "emotional" connection to an inanimate object.  All I care about is what can it do for me and will it be sustainable.  Beauty aside, the Cirrus SR22 is a better tool with better safety and support.    

And can I do I care to afford it.

[RogueOne]

1 hour ago, GeorgePerry said:

No arguments and I said as much.  Price and the cost of safety are always a factor in buying decisions.  Also my boat, it will be floating for many years to come...and factory support and parts for the SR22 will be there.  Unfortunately, no one flying a mooney can say that for certain now.  Don't get me wrong, I love Mooneys and have owned several.  I think they are a much more "beautiful" aircraft than cirrus.  That being said, this sort of plane is a tool for traveling and I'm long since over any "emotional" connection to an inanimate object.  All I care about is what can it do for me and will it be sustainable.  Beauty aside, the Cirrus SR22 is a better tool with better safety and support.    

Glad and not surprised that you “feel” that way.  I am NOT ceding the “better tool” point though George.  For MY mission (and that is the only mission that matters to me) my Missile as equipped is Better than your SR22.  Not even close.

 

[GeorgePerry]

20 minutes ago, RogueOne said:

Glad and not surprised that you “feel” that way.  I am NOT ceding the “better tool” point though George.  For MY mission (and that is the only mission that matters to me) my Missile as equipped is Better than your SR22.  Not even close.

 

I'm not sure how you define "not even close" statistically or with factual data.  Your argument conveniently does not include what you plan to do if your engine quits at night or over mountainous terrain, or low altitude?  Heck, what if it quits on a VFR day at 10000 ft.  You've still got to be on your "A" game to have a positive outcome.  This doesn't even get into the "soft" topics and the psychology of what happens when your non-flying spouse or friend decides that they don't want to put their lives in your hands . etc, etc, etc....Lots of real world considerations, backed up by both safety and sales data that make the Cirrus a better choice and better tool.  

Most Mooney owners (remember I was one of them many times) Speed is the biggest disparity.  But it's less of an issue than many might think.  for instance, if we assume a 400 mile trip with the SR22 doing 170kts and the Mooney Missile or Ovation doing 185kts.  The difference in block time between a Mooney and Cirrus is only 11 minutes.  Gas is about the same since the engines are both IO-550's that have the same FF at 75% power.    That's in the margins.  If you unload your bags quickly and have the FBO bring the car to the ramp that time is recouped.  

Edited November 14, 2019 by GeorgePerry

[RLCarter]

The Mooney factory was shut down when I was looking at the different brands, but a Mooney was still on the top of my list. There is very little if nothing that can’t be done with either salvage parts or fabrication of new by a good metal guy or several of the well known MSC around the country. I hate to see Mooney shut down, and hopefully they will be back, but either way most all of the fleet is fine for many years to come. Too many other things to focus on other than the factory 

[RogueOne]

4 minutes ago, GeorgePerry said:

I'm not sure how you define "not even close" statistically or with factual data.  Your argument conveniently does not include what you plan to do if your engine quits at night or over mountainous terrain, or low altitude?  Heck, what if it quits on a VFR day at 10000 ft.  You've still got to be on your "A" game to have a positive outcome.  This doesn't even get into the "soft" topics and the psychology of what happens when your non-flying spouse or friend decides that they don't want to put their lives in your hands . etc, etc, etc....Lots of real world considerations, backed up by both safety and sales data that make the Cirrus a better choice and better tool.  

Most Mooney owners (remember I was one of them many times) Speed is the biggest disparity.  But it's less of an issue than many might think.  for instance, if we assume a 400 mile trip with the SR22 doing 170kts and the Mooney Missile or Ovation doing 185kts.  The difference in block time between a Mooney and Cirrus is only 11 minutes.  Gas is about the same since the engines are both IO-550's that have the same FF at 75% power.    That's in the margins.  If you unload your bags quickly and have the FBO bring the car to the ramp that time is recouped.  

George,

I am a LONG time Mooneyspace guy.  Your failure my friend is in not considering your audience.  I don’t fly over mountains.  I don’t fly at night.  If friends don’t wish to fly.  O.K. By me.  Later.  Lol.  We are on completely different wavelengths.  You need to justify nada to me.  The exercise is a waste of your time as there is ZERO likelihood of my purchasing a Cirrus...EVER.  I am just a happy “new to me” owner of a MOONEY typing on MOONEYSPACE.  So again...NOT EVEN CLOSE by the only definition that matters.  MINE.

[steingar]

I think the biggest difference in Cirrus vs. Mooney is going to be in the used value down the road.  No matter what, that Cirrus airframe is going to cost you 1.5 AMU's per year, no matter how much (or little its worth).  And the parachute repack cost is only going to grow.  All of our airplanes engender occasional big costs, things like paint and engines.  But those can be put off, and often are.  Not the parachute repack.  Are you really going to buy a used Cirrus for $100K when you know there's a chute repack coming up?  With the Mooney there are no built-in big costs.  Oh there are big costs, but they happen when they happen, and not quite so much on a clock.

[GeorgePerry]

Just now, RogueOne said:

George,

I am a LONG time Mooneyspace guy.  Your failure my friend is in not considering your audience.  I don’t fly over mountains.  I don’t fly at night.  If friends don’t wish to fly.  O.K. By me.  Later.  Lol.  We are on completely different wavelengths.  You need to justify nada to me.  The exercise is a waste of your time as there is ZERO likelihood of my purchasing a Cirrus...EVER.  I am just a happy “new to me” owner of a MOONEY typing on MOONEYSPACE.  So again...NOT EVEN CLOSE by the only definition that matters.  MINE.

I get it.  You're decisions and justification are based on emotions and personal preference, and not informed by facts or data.  Just say that.  Emotional justification is just as valid, on an individual basis, as any other method for forming an opinion or making a decision.  

But emotions aren't a good foundation to underpin a sound business model.  And that's my point.  I wish the Mooney CEO had listened to me 5 years ago.  If they'd prioritized evolution to match market and consumer demands, they'd still be making great looking and great flying airplanes.

[MIm20c]

Agree with the above. Repack and line cutter cost during the next 10 years are going to be in the $25k range imo. I am surprised that the Cirrus values hold up as well as they do. People are paying over $600k for a plane that has been run hard for 1-2k hours. They are talked into spending an extra 100k for some fancy paint and a few extra buttons. Not many base models for sale...ever. They are selling to a different crowd...

[steingar]

Just now, GeorgePerry said:

I get it.  You're decisions and justification are based on emotions and personal preference, and not informed by facts or data.  Just say that.  Emotional justification is just as valid, on an individual basis, as any other method for forming an opinion or making a decision.  

But emotions aren't a good foundation to underpin a sound business model.  And that's my point.  I wish the Mooney CEO had listened to me 5 years ago.  If they'd prioritized evolution to match market and consumer demands, they'd still be making great looking and great flying airplanes.

I have my doubts.  What makes a Cirrus so fast is the glass shell.  That's why the cabin can be so wide and the gear can hang out.  Truly, the Mooney is a dinosaur, draggy aluminum construction.  Moreover, the Cirrus has a  smaller parts count and is way faster to put together.  I don't think a parachute would do squat for Mooney, its an old fashioned hand built aircraft that no one wants today.  Mooney has been trying to compete with Cirrus and has lost, big time.  I think it's because Cirrus is modern and Mooney isn't, the design dates back to the  1950's.  I saw my gear on a Ford Trimotor.  Mooney vs. any aluminum aircraft and Mooney wins, they're faster.  Mooney vs. glass, not so much.  No parachute is going fix that.

[GeorgePerry]

5 minutes ago, steingar said:

I think the biggest difference in Cirrus vs. Mooney is going to be in the used value down the road.  No matter what, that Cirrus airframe is going to cost you 1.5 AMU's per year, no matter how much (or little its worth).  And the parachute repack cost is only going to grow.  All of our airplanes engender occasional big costs, things like paint and engines.  But those can be put off, and often are.  Not the parachute repack.  Are you really going to buy a used Cirrus for $100K when you know there's a chute repack coming up?  With the Mooney there are no built-in big costs.  Oh there are big costs, but they happen when they happen, and not quite so much on a clock.

The costs associated with maintaining a proven safety system are minuscule compared to what someone's life is worth.  As an earlier poster pointed out there are several Mooneyspace members who are no longer with us that could be here today if they'd had the option to pull a chute.  

But the choice to fly a SE plane without a parachute system is an individual one and based on risk tolerance.  When I was younger, I didn't think twice about flying a SE plane, day, night, good weather, bad etc...But as I've gotten older (and I hope wiser) my risk tolerance is not as high as it once was and I don't fly in SE planes anymore unless they have a BRS.  But of course others milage will vary.

[GeorgePerry]

14 minutes ago, RogueOne said:

George,

Your failure my friend is in not considering your audience. 

Fair enough...I'll be sure to add this conversation to my long list of personal failures

[steingar]

Just now, GeorgePerry said:

The costs associated with maintaining a proven safety system are minuscule compared to what someone's life is worth.  As an earlier poster pointed out there are several Mooneyspace members who are no longer with us that could be here today if they'd had the option to pull a chute.  

This is at best a simplistic analysis.  Yes, there are times when an engine loss is a death sentence without a parachute.  Plenty of times it isn't.  We don't all spend all our time over hostile terrain, and a number of members have put down stricken aircraft in harrowing circumstances safely.  Plenty Cirrus aircraft have killed their owners as well.

One thing of which I remain convinced.  if I can control my aircraft all the way into the crash I have a damn good chance of surviving.  if I'm doing things right he fastest I'm going to hit anything is 57 mph.  It'll hurt, but it won't be a death sentence unless what I hit is big and solid, like a mountain.

[GeorgePerry]

9 minutes ago, steingar said:

This is at best a simplistic analysis.  Yes, there are times when an engine loss is a death sentence without a parachute.  Plenty of times it isn't.  We don't all spend all our time over hostile terrain, and a number of members have put down stricken aircraft in harrowing circumstances safely.  Plenty Cirrus aircraft have killed their owners as well.

One thing of which I remain convinced.  if I can control my aircraft all the way into the crash I have a damn good chance of surviving.  if I'm doing things right he fastest I'm going to hit anything is 57 mph.  It'll hurt, but it won't be a death sentence unless what I hit is big and solid, like a mountain.

As I said, others milage will vary.  But you should ask Richard Simile (long time Mooney Sales Guy with Premier) what he thinks about BRS systems, and he survived. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/roadwarriorvoices/2015/04/25/pilot-celebrates-surviving-crash-by-filming-his-plane-burn/83298100/

Its easy to say what you're going to do if a worst case scenario happens, its another thing to do it.  As pilots we never rise to the occasion, we sink to our training.  Most GA pilots don't train or practice low alt engine outs.  So most GA pilots are likely to respond poorly if the situation occurs.  A BRS gives average pilots an above average chance of surviving uninjured.  The NTSB data proves this beyond any doubt.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/july/24/how-cirrus-reduced-accidents

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by GeorgePerry

[HRM]

3 hours ago, GeorgePerry said:

Have you driven a "modern" 991 or 992 (911) Porsche? 

You mean like this one?

 

I totally agree about the evolving, Porsche went to extensive robotics in their factories.

[cliffy]

HRM You realize that the picture you show hearkens back to the days of the first 7 astronauts and the Porches they drove! ? 

I, too, had  911 SC in pristine shape at one time.

Now, back to the movie- popcorn in hand just awaiting the end of the intermission. 

[Volzalum]

I have not done the research, but with all of this off topic (this thread is factory closed) Cirrus vs Mooney talk, what are the overall fleet accident/survivability numbers, per flying year, percentages?

In the history how many Mooneys were built (Can even start with metal instead of wood wing)? When was first Mooney built (number if years the fleet has been flying)? How many Cirrus? When did first Cirrus built (shorter number of years)?

How many Mooney Accidents (Accidents per year average, Accidents per plane)? How many Cirrus Accidents (Accidents per year average, Accidents per plane)?

How many fatalities from the Mooney accidents (per year, per plane, per accident)? How many from Cirrus accidents (per year, per plane, per accident)?

[gacoon]

5 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Certification issues not withstanding, shipping the tooling to China or some other low labor cost area and restarting production there is the only path forward for new Mooney production, in my opinion.  Or someone could have a nice parts manufacturing business here in the states. 

Lets hope not, if the tooling goes off shore if might be the end of a parts source.  Not sure how much cross over tooling exists.