Cirrus success

MountainDude said:
I am very intrigued by the success of Cirrus, where almost everyone else has failed.

Cirrus Delivers 600th Vision SF50 Jet | Aviation Week Network

The company notes that it is the only single-engine jet to receive FAA certification.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com

Many other companies have tried to bring small jets to the market, and they all failed, but Cirrus has been very successful.
In the piston market, Cessna and Mooney failed with similar products to the SR22, with Cessna having a much better corporate backing than Cirrus.

What do people think are the major factors in this success?
I assume it's a combination of the BRS, good performance, and marketing. However, Cessna and Mooney had access to these aspects of GA business, so why didn't they succeed?
Click to expand...
BRS certainly improves the spousal approval factor dramatically.
Performance is on par with the competition (Bo, Mooney, etc)

Marketing is WAY better than anyone else, and that's the biggest part IMO. Cirrus is now a "lifestyle brand" but right from the beginning they spent a lot of time and money selling airplanes to people who weren't pilots. They have trucks that go around to luxury car dealerships to show off airplanes away from the airport. I've seen a lot of ads in airplane magazines from all of the manufacturers, but the only time I've ever seen an airplane ad outside of an airplane magazine was because I owned a Volvo and was invited to the dealership to check out Cirrus.

For more, see below.
Salty said:
I'm not sure the chute matters to nervous spouses that much. I've done some polling and most I've asked either aren't scared or are just as scared of riding down on the chute as they are not having it.
Click to expand...
Oh, it definitely matters to a large enough subset to make a difference. I wouldn't be surprised if the "aren't scared" cohort you're talking about are the spouses of pilots who either currently or formerly had something other than a Cirrus. You're missing the data on all of the guys who aren't pilots and/or don't have an airplane because their spouses didn't want anything to do with "those dangerous little airplanes".
Hang 4 said:
Go to Oshkosh or Sun n Fun. Walk to the Cirrus booth, then go to Piper or Textron. Cirrus has planes you can sit in, touch etc and knowledgeable salespeople that will talk to you. The rest have ropes to keep you away and salespeople that don't want you to interrupt the conversations with each other. If I had a million $ to spend on a new piston plane, I know where I'd start
Click to expand...
This!!!

Cirrus will give a demo flight to any random person who wants one. You work at a low-income job and you'll never be able to afford even a used 172? No problem, let's go fly. They do this because they know you'll talk about it, and when everyone is talking about your brand, people you've never reached with your own marketing (as good as it is) will still look to you first.

And yeah, the salespeople at other places are VERY good at talking to each other and ignoring everyone else, and sometimes it's practically a matter of policy to NOT show the airplanes. When Piper was still going to make a jet, they did take their demonstrator fuselage on the road for a while, but if you didn't have an appointment, you didn't get to see it - And I believe you had to have some money down on it before they'd even give you an appointment. It was very off-putting. And now there is no PiperJet.
TCABM said:
Cirrus is selling planes because they found a market segment, targeted it, and positioned a product that segment wanted. There’s nothing innovative in the product or the business model.
Click to expand...
Sure there is. Cirrus was the first certified GA aircraft to have the BRS parachute, first with a glass panel (Avidyne, a year before the G1000 came out), and one of the earlier composite certified GA aircraft. And the marketing is definitely innovative compared to the rest of the GA industry.
AA5Bman said:
- The conventional wisdom is that Cessna stopped producing their legacy GA piston planes in the 80s due to liability exposure. Has there been significant tort reform that has addressed this issue?
Click to expand...
Yes:

en.wikipedia.org

General Aviation Revitalization Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

This is why Cessna started making airplanes again.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Cirrus will give a demo flight to any random person who wants one.
Click to expand...
A few years ago, Gary Black, a Cirrus salesperson, demoed an SR-22 to a high school kid here who was pre-solo, and let him fly an instrument approach in IMC. Then spent an hour talking to the boy and his mother.
 
Gilbert Buettner said:
A few years ago, Gary Black, a Cirrus salesperson, demoed an SR-22 to a high school kid here who was pre-solo, and let him fly an instrument approach in IMC. Then spent an hour talking to the boy and his mother.
Click to expand...
And it's unlikely that kid is gonna buy a Cirrus any time soon... But I'm sure he's already talked about it on social media, and in 10-20 years maybe he buys one. More likely, someone he talks to or reaches via social media will buy one even sooner. That's why this is Cirrus' standard practice. It works!

The most unbelievable thing about Cirrus is that it seems like the rest of the industry has learned absolutely nothing from their success.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
The most unbelievable thing about Cirrus is that it seems like the rest of the industry has learned absolutely nothing from their success.
Click to expand...

This is definitely quotable. It’s kind of why I mentioned the Cessna 350/400 - clearly there’s a profitable segment there that is directly addressed by a product Cessna already had, why would Cessna abandon the segment and just hand it over to their competitor? Even if the Cessna 350/400 was a neglible profit center, it seems like it was worth building into a business if only to impair Cirrus’s momentum - with their 600th VJ, clearly they’re nibbling away at Cessna’s light jet market. Seems like a self-own.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
…
Sure there is. Cirrus was the first certified GA aircraft to have the BRS parachute, first with a glass panel (Avidyne, a year before the G1000 came out), and one of the earlier composite certified GA aircraft. And the marketing is definitely innovative compared to the rest of the GA industry.
Click to expand...
I guess we have a different understanding of innovation. BRS was founded in 1981 and was brought in by Cirrus to adapt and integrate that feature into their plane. The GARD-150 was available as an STC for the 150/152 since 1993.

Cirrus did the market research to understand what features were desired at what price point, then leveraged a whole bunch of innovation by others to clean sheet a design and noodle it thru certification. They built a mousetrap there customers said they wanted and have been proven right so far.
 
For all those wondering - If you had the funds to buy - it’s better made than all the rest in that category. Just go and sit in a cirrus. It’s what a ground up design is what you want. BRS helps sell it to spouses. But literally go and sit in one. A brand new 182/206 feels like a 182/206 with lipstick on the pig (they have gotten better). But sitting in a cirrus feels like sitting in the latest Porsche panamera. Marketing is better but let’s be real - the product is better. And while it is more expensive than a 206 it isn’t much more. And it’s not more than a bo really. So guess what ? The current gen doctor, lawyers, professionals are going to just lap it up and they do.

Once you sit in the two - you rapidly realize that with all the improvements like brs, integrated flight deck, interiors that are designed closer to cars than planes - then it makes a lot of sense. And to be clear - I don’t own or have ever owned a cirrus.
 
Anthem said:
For all those wondering - If you had the funds to buy - it’s better made than all the rest in that category. Just go and sit in a cirrus. It’s what a ground up design is what you want. BRS helps sell it to spouses. But literally go and sit in one. A brand new 182/206 feels like a 182/206 with lipstick on the pig (they have gotten better). But sitting in a cirrus feels like sitting in the latest Porsche panamera. Marketing is better but let’s be real - the product is better. And while it is more expensive than a 206 it isn’t much more. And it’s not more than a bo really. So guess what ? The current gen doctor, lawyers, professionals are going to just lap it up and they do.

Once you sit in the two - you rapidly realize that with all the improvements like brs, integrated flight deck, interiors that are designed closer to cars than planes - then it makes a lot of sense. And to be clear - I don’t own or have ever owned a cirrus.
Click to expand...
Give me a lance with good avionics over the cirrus any day. You just can't beat it for comfort. A ton better than a cirrus.
 
Salty said:
Give me a lance with good avionics over the cirrus any day. You just can't beat it for comfort. A ton better than a cirrus.
Click to expand...
And yet the market has spoken. The Saratoga - which while having slightly less payload was in production competing against the sr22 for many years. Guess who got discontinued ? Cheaper and still couldn’t compete.
 
Anthem said:
And yet the market has spoken. The Saratoga - which while having slightly less payload was in production competing against the sr22 for many years. Guess who got discontinued ? Cheaper and still couldn’t compete.
Click to expand...
They've sold a lot of Cybertrucks too. Doesn't mean it's a superior product.
 
Salty said:
They've sold a lot of Cybertrucks too. Doesn't mean it's a superior product.
Click to expand...
Your analogy is atrocious. It would only be relevant if there were no other “trucks” essentially to buy. Cirrus is dominating in that space - you don’t have many other options available because they build a better product. If you can’t see what the marketplace is seeing - well go and try to buy that new Saratoga. Or lance. Guess what ? Good luck because it doesn’t exist.
 
Anthem said:
Your analogy is atrocious. It would only be relevant if there were no other “trucks” essentially to buy. Cirrus is dominating in that space - you don’t have many other options available because they build a better product. If you can’t see what the marketplace is seeing - well go and try to buy that new Saratoga. Or lance. Guess what ? Good luck because it doesn’t exist.
Click to expand...
I disagree that the reason they are dominating is because it's a better product.
 
Gilbert Buettner said:
A few years ago, Gary Black, a Cirrus salesperson, demoed an SR-22 to a high school kid here who was pre-solo, and let him fly an instrument approach in IMC. Then spent an hour talking to the boy and his mother.
Click to expand...
Nothing beats grass roots, word of mouth marketing.
 
Anthem said:
Yep

Yep. It’s because they had an inferior product to Cessna, beech and piper that they succeeded. Yep. Makes total sense. Lmao
Click to expand...

I’m not saying a cirrus is or isn’t a better product or not. But have you ever had a Budweiser? It’s one of the best selling beers and it’s effing dogsht. All a product needs is good marketing or a bunch of suckers to buy it. Again, not saying cirrii are or aren’t good products. I think u get my drift.
 
Dave Anderson said:
Me personally, I’d take a well equipped RV-10 over a Cirrus. Love the SR-22 great airplane but the certified market adds such a degree of complexity, cost and harder to upgrade that doesn’t make it worth it for any of my potential missions.
Click to expand...
I would surmise that the majority of buyers prepared to drop $1M on a GA plane aren't the sort of pilots who do their own maintenance.
 
Anthem said:
For all those wondering - If you had the funds to buy - it’s better made than all the rest in that category. ..
Click to expand...
I’ve sat up front and in back and logged a few hours in an SR-20. Almost bought into a partnership in an SR-22 a month or so ago.

Most of the privately owned SR-2xs around here are in 4 or 5 way partnerships from day one. The local sales center facilitates interested pilots into a partnership, puts the order in, then trains the partners in leasebacked SR-20s for their PPL and Instrument. Once the plane shows up, they do the CSIP transition into the SR-22.
 
TCABM said:
I’ve sat up front and in back and logged a few hours in an SR-20. Almost bought into a partnership in an SR-22 a month or so ago.

Most of the privately owned SR-2xs around here are in 4 or 5 way partnerships from day one. The local sales center facilitates interested pilots into a partnership, puts the order in, then trains the partners in leasebacked SR-20s for their PPL and Instrument. Once the plane shows up, they do the CSIP transition into the SR-22.
Click to expand...
That is amazing. If AOPA cared about GA, they would be doing this every day. What a great concept.
 
MountainDude said:
That is amazing. If AOPA cared about GA, they would be doing this every day. What a great concept.
Click to expand...

They sell one or two planes a year this way, so anywhere from 4-12 students. They also do all the flight reviews and CSIP transitions for individuals getting into an existing partnership.

It doesn’t pay the bills, but it does provide some nice margin.
 
TCABM said:
They sell one or two planes a year this way, so anywhere from 4-12 students. They also do all the flight reviews and CSIP transitions for individuals getting into an existing partnership.

It doesn’t pay the bills, but it does provide some nice margin.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a small program, but AOPA could expand it to all kinds of planes that could be affordable and desirable by many more people. Sigh.
 
Anthem said:
For all those wondering - If you had the funds to buy - it’s better made than all the rest in that category. Just go and sit in a cirrus. It’s what a ground up design is what you want. BRS helps sell it to spouses. But literally go and sit in one. A brand new 182/206 feels like a 182/206 with lipstick on the pig (they have gotten better). But sitting in a cirrus feels like sitting in the latest Porsche panamera. Marketing is better but let’s be real - the product is better. And while it is more expensive than a 206 it isn’t much more. And it’s not more than a bo really. So guess what ? The current gen doctor, lawyers, professionals are going to just lap it up and they do.

Once you sit in the two - you rapidly realize that with all the improvements like brs, integrated flight deck, interiors that are designed closer to cars than planes - then it makes a lot of sense. And to be clear - I don’t own or have ever owned a cirrus.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of what Dave Higdon used to say about what was missing from GA that would make it a success:

"Cup holders and air conditioning."

He wasn't wrong. People with the kind of money it takes to fly these days largely aren't driving up to the airport in a ratted out old car, they're arriving in a luxury car that is the epitome of comfort... And at most airports, they're going to get into an airplane with ratty cloth seats and peeling paint that smells like stale 100LL inside. That's not the experience they're looking for.

That's why there are some flight schools popping up that are using nice new Cirruses and are being very successful at it despite far higher prices than the other schools.
Dave Anderson said:
Me personally, I’d take a well equipped RV-10 over a Cirrus. Love the SR-22 great airplane but the certified market adds such a degree of complexity, cost and harder to upgrade that doesn’t make it worth it for any of my potential missions.
Click to expand...
Anyone who has a spouse pointing them towards Cirrus for the parachute sure isn't going to be riding in an airplane with an Experimental tag.
TCABM said:
I’ve sat up front and in back and logged a few hours in an SR-20. Almost bought into a partnership in an SR-22 a month or so ago.

Most of the privately owned SR-2xs around here are in 4 or 5 way partnerships from day one. The local sales center facilitates interested pilots into a partnership, puts the order in, then trains the partners in leasebacked SR-20s for their PPL and Instrument. Once the plane shows up, they do the CSIP transition into the SR-22.
Click to expand...
Diamond at least was doing this for a while too, though I haven't heard of it recently.
 
eman1200 said:
I’m not saying a cirrus is or isn’t a better product or not. But have you ever had a Budweiser? It’s one of the best selling beers and it’s effing dogsht. All a product needs is good marketing or a bunch of suckers to buy it. Again, not saying cirrii are or aren’t good products. I think u get my drift.
Click to expand...
Correction: it's effing dog pee.
 
Dave Anderson said:
Me personally, I’d take a well equipped RV-10 over a Cirrus. Love the SR-22 great airplane but the certified market adds such a degree of complexity, cost and harder to upgrade that doesn’t make it worth it for any of my potential missions.
Click to expand...
Notwithstanding that the two clientele’s are completely different but - let’s point out something - you can prefer all you want but Vans is bankrupt. Now they might emerge from it, but again a failed business enterprise that might be bailed out with DIP financing. But obviously a super successful venture since they can’t sustain.

eman1200 said:
I’m not saying a cirrus is or isn’t a better product or not. But have you ever had a Budweiser? It’s one of the best selling beers and it’s effing dogsht. All a product needs is good marketing or a bunch of suckers to buy it. Again, not saying cirrii are or aren’t good products. I think u get my drift.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But that means the choices in the category exist. Like coors, miller etc etc. but in the ga space - for that class plane for all intents and purposes - there is one. The others have not been supported to still be sustainable. They are gone.
 
FastEddieB said:
Though relatively crude and accomplished with cams and levers, combining the throttle and prop control in a “power lever” did succeed in making power management quite a bit simpler. I don’t recall anyone else implementing a similar system, not to say they might not have.
Click to expand...

Salty said:
Reducing flexibility and functionality to make something easier to use is now considered innovative.
Click to expand...

Standard transmissions used to be the only thing offered in automobiles. Now, other than very specific vehicles, you can only get an automatic transmissions. The masses want simplicity and ease of use. Yeah, Cirrus’ combined single power lever may not be “as efficient” as separate prop/mixture controls, but make no mistake the new pilots coming to GA and buying Cirrus models aren’t specifically requesting the auto lever to be removed. It may not be “innovative”, but it just one more example along with AC and the parachute as to why Cirrus is selling 4-place planes in the $800-1.3million range.
 
I have a grand total of 2.5 hrs in my University’s SR20s. They are really, really nice airplanes. Everything about them seems quality. Would I give up my 182P for an SR22? IDK - getting in on a partnership is a very tempting thought, and I’m one that believes the 182P is about the perfect GA airplane.

As far as the BRS is concerned it’s not only spouses - it’s a huge selling point to the parents of our students.
 
People ask why they're successful like it's a crappy product or something and somehow it's success must be a fluke.

They are good airplanes. Also at this point a brand new Cirrus isn't THAT much more expensive than a brand new Cessna 182. If you can afford a brand new Cessna 182 you can very likely afford it a cirrus and not have to fly an embarrassing high wing airplane.
 
ateamer said:
I forgot about the Columbia/TT/Corvallis/400; should’ve just called it the Schizo. Cessna could’ve made it a big seller but they just didn’t seem to care.
Click to expand...
would agree, had many conversations about getting one of these shiney new hotness, unfortunately it all died when cessna bought them
 
MackMooney said:
would agree, had many conversations about getting one of these shiney new hotness, unfortunately it all died when cessna bought them
Click to expand...
Curious. So you believe the downturn in 2008-09 didnt play into the equation which caused both Cirrus and Cessna to drastically downsize and eventually lead to their subsequent sell-off to AVIC and Textron respectively?

Cessna kept the TTx going afterwards but also had two clean-sheet designs in the pipeline in much more lucritive markets. So it would appear the TTx got axed by a more popular model line then anything else. Whereas Cirrus only has 2 basic model lines to deal with.
 
The Cirrus facility at TKI has an ever changing parade of SR-22s and SF-50s on the ramp in front of their hangar. There are usually five to eight of them. Judging from the turnover of airplanes I see, they're selling quite a few.
 
3393RP said:
The Cirrus facility at TKI has an ever changing parade of SR-22s and SF-50s on the ramp in front of their hangar. There are usually five to eight of them. Judging from the turnover of airplanes I see, they're selling quite a few.
Click to expand...
Yeah… based on some here - they couldn’t imagine that it’s a better product than what Cessna, beech, or piper is putting out….. it must all be marketing….
 
Anthem said:
based on some here - they couldn’t imagine that it’s a better product than what Cessna, beech, or piper is putting out…
Click to expand...
I think its more subjective to the person than to the aircraft what makes something a better product. For flying 4 people in relative comfort , at that price point, with a BRS to boot, you're probably right. But only in that specific context.

There are a number of things a Cirrus is not capable of to the point I've seen a number of owners dump the Cirrus for a more conventional aircraft. But if owning a sleek, NASA designed, well built composite aircraft is your priority, then yes the Cirrus is the better product.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Seems to be a bit of

“What I personally like is the definition of ‘best’ for everyone”

here.
Click to expand...
I think you meant:

“What I personally can afford is the definition of ‘best’ for everyone'. ”

Being completely honest, if I were prepared to spend enough to purchase a Cirrus Vision, I would see it as a fantastic value. That is, unless I was prepared to spend enough for a HondaJet or Citation, in which case the Vision would seem inadequate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top