Layoffs at Diamond - D-Jet Dead

SCCutler

SCCutler

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
17,321
Location
Dallas
Display Name
Display name:
Spike Cutler
Just heard, on an Ontario (Canada, not California) radio station's web stream, that Diamond Aircraft is terminating ("suspending indefinitely") its D-Jet program, and laying off "most" employees at the manufacturer's London, Ontario facility. Layoffs expected to add up to about 200 people.

Diamond cited poor sales of its piston aircraft as a contributing factor.
 
Does not surprise me. With so many used airplanes for sale at half or less the price of a comparable new one who is going to buy. The problem of aircraft manufaturers is the competition from used airplanes. Unlike cars a 30 year old plane is kept in new condition that buying a new one at three times the price is not worth the extra money. Specially when you can add all the bells and whistle to the old ones.

José
 
I'm sad to hear this for a couple of reasons. First, where do used planes come from? If the flow in the pipeline stops, then the future stops. Second I hate to see the end of new ideas and technology. The single engine turboprop is the hottest thing going now. Somebody should be able to make a single engine turbofan work.
Like many before them Diamond must have run out of money. Certification is so expensive now (and doesn't even seem to work. Look at Boeings 787 issue).
I'm sorry for the Diamond workers. This shutdown was not their fault v
 
Subsequent news story includes reference to money expected (or hoped-for) from the Ontario provincial government, that never came through. One wonders how viable your business model is, when it depends upon tax money for success.

Sign of the times, I guess, but everyone seems to "expect" money, extracted from others by force of law. Sad.
 
Hmmm... pursuing a VLJ seems to lead to ruin for anyone that attempts it. Turbo props people. That is the way forward.

Clearly, whatever piston sales there is anymore, it cannot provide for a jet program. The near future of GA seems to be cabin class turbo prop singles at the top of the market, and kit planes at the bottom. The factory built piston single is drying up and the piston twin is just the canary in the coal mine.
 
Dav8or said:
Hmmm... pursuing a VLJ seems to lead to ruin for anyone that attempts it. Turbo props people. That is the way forward.

Clearly, whatever piston sales there is anymore, it cannot provide for a jet program. The near future of GA seems to be cabin class turbo prop singles at the top of the market, and kit planes at the bottom. The factory built piston single is drying up and the piston twin is just the canary in the coal mine.
Click to expand...

VLJ gets you closer to where the money is, corporate jets.
 
Most on PoA are pilots. We want to fly something we can own. If the only new planes coming into the fleet are SE cabin class turboprops, I think our bank accounts will be challenged. (Unless we're lawyers like the OP )
 
Have you ever wondered why the Canadian governmental agencies ended up flying so many of the original Challengers?

SCCutler said:
Subsequent news story includes reference to money expected (or hoped-for) from the Ontario provincial government, that never came through. One wonders how viable your business model is, when it depends upon tax money for success.

Sign of the times, I guess, but everyone seems to "expect" money, extracted from others by force of law. Sad.
Click to expand...
 
Lance F said:
Most on PoA are pilots. We want to fly something we can own. If the only new planes coming into the fleet are SE cabin class turboprops, I think our bank accounts will be challenged. (Unless we're lawyers like the OP )
Click to expand...

I find it is better to be a representative and distributor of highly-complex and exquisitely-crafted packaging systems. I hear those guys really rake it in! :D
 
Hah. I need a second job just to make ends meet. Like today. Sitting in my hotel in Punta Cana Dominican Republic after bringing a 2000 Hawker 800XP into MDLR last night. It is tough out there.
 
Aircraft building and design must meet the demands of the market first. Seems most piston companies cannot resist the temptation of building a jet. It is very expensive and a very limited market. Without sales the programs faulter and eventually bring down or cripples the company with debt. Knowing air plane design and engineering is useless without profit.

Back in the day there were many luxury car makers going after the high end market...most failed. Ford had a better idea, and the rest is history. Build a car the workers on the assembly line could afford.

Seems no one wants to study the lessons learned in business, they want to tempt fate. The business road of aviation is littered with failed companies who ignore their market. Without profit there is no success.

As an example of business discipline Van's passion is gliding. He has wanted to build a self launch motor glider kit forever. Vans Aircraft is / has been very successful listening to and determining the market. The demand for a self launch motor glider kit just isn't there. The numbers just do not support the design and engineering cost to warrant development of a RV- glider. Certainly, Van could build what ever kit he wanted, but he is disciplined to avoid the pit falls of a model that will suck profit from the company and be a drag on a very successful company.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Aircraft building and design must meet the demands of the market first. Seems most piston companies cannot resist the temptation of building a jet. It is very expensive and very limited market. Without sales the programs faulter and eventually bring down the while company. Knowing air plane design and engineering is useless without a market.

Back in the day there were many luxury car makers going after the high end market...most failed. Ford had a better idea, and the rest is history. Build a car the workers on the assembly line could afford.

Seems no one wants to learn from the lessons learned in business, they want to tempt fate. The business road of aviation is littered with failed companies who ignore their market. Without profit there is no success.
Click to expand...

Name the profitable airplane builders out there today, then tell me what they build. A VLJ is the entry into that market. You better have a lot of capital to get there though. I see Honda succeeding. Piper,Cirrus,Diamond:dunno: unless they have someone with deep pockets funding the up front pain. Seems Diamond's deep pocket partner was the gummint...
 
asking the Ontario gov for a loan guarrantee would be like asking a homeless person for a loan. 17 billion annual deficit, over two hundred billion in accumulated debt, we make california look fiscally responsible!
 
It cuts both ways. How many people on this board really thought Cirrus would have achieved their current position in the pack of light plane manufacturers? How many thought Beech would have gone broke?

When times are good, companies seek to expand into new products and/or new markets. For airplane companies and others with long cap-x gestation periods, times can change dramatically during the pregnancy and the babies can be ugly.

Geico266 said:
Aircraft building and design must meet the demands of the market first. Seems most piston companies cannot resist the temptation of building a jet. It is very expensive and a very limited market. Without sales the programs faulter and eventually bring down or cripples the company with debt. Knowing air plane design and engineering is useless without profit.

Back in the day there were many luxury car makers going after the high end market...most failed. Ford had a better idea, and the rest is history. Build a car the workers on the assembly line could afford.

Seems no one wants to study the lessons learned in business, they want to tempt fate. The business road of aviation is littered with failed companies who ignore their market. Without profit there is no success.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
It cuts both ways. How many people on this board really thought Cirrus would have achieved their current position in the pack of light plane manufacturers? How many thought Beech would have gone broke?

When times are good, companies seek to expand into new products and/or new markets. For airplane companies and others with long cap-x gestation periods, times can change dramatically during the pregnancy and the babies can be ugly.
Click to expand...

Beech isn't the reason Hawker Beechcraft is broke. They're broke becayse they have a lineup of jets that they can't give away. It's not a bad market, they just have bad planes.Folks building business jets that aren't 15 years behind the curve are doing just fine.
 
wabower said:
It cuts both ways. How many people on this board really thought Cirrus would have achieved their current position in the pack of light plane manufacturers? How many thought Beech would have gone broke?

When times are good, companies seek to expand into new products and/or new markets. For airplane companies and others with long cap-x gestation periods, times can change dramatically during the pregnancy and the babies can be ugly.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but I wonder how many companies say; "They are building a jet! We need to keep up with the Jones!" Many companies over reach and pay the price. Economic down turns in aviation are a norm, not an anomaly.
 
Last edited:
chambers said:
asking the Ontario gov for a loan guarrantee would be like asking a homeless person for a loan. 17 billion annual deficit, over two hundred billion in accumulated debt, we make california look fiscally responsible!
Click to expand...

Since when has 'not having money' ever stopped government from 'spending money' ?
 
It seems to me that they have also sunk ungodly sums of money into the bosses obsession with diesel engines. The Thielert scam and bankruptcy cost them a lot of money.
 
weilke said:
It seems to me that they have also sunk ungodly sums of money into the bosses obsession with diesel engines. The Thielert scam and bankruptcy cost them a lot of money.
Click to expand...


I have heard the same story...........

When a manufacturer weaves a powerplant into their product line made by an outside source, they need to keep a CLOSE eye on the viability of that vendor...
 
I imagine Cessna makes lots of money off their jets. Then again, they developed their jet program when times were good. Not such a good thing to do when times are bad, and companies keep proving over and over again. One can understand the uninitiated drinking Rayburn's kool aide, but less so the manufacturers.
 
Well what is weird, is that Cirrus had huge demand for the jet, Diamond did as well. They had contracts with both ERAU, and ATP for jet programs. Instead of focusing on the VLJ, they focused on GA where there is little to no money or growth. I think if there was a legitimate VLJ market, they would flourish in air taxi service and charter. Especially when they are in the price range of Meridians and TBMs.
 
weilke said:
It seems to me that they have also sunk ungodly sums of money into the bosses obsession with diesel engines. The Thielert scam and bankruptcy cost them a lot of money.
Click to expand...
I sure can'
t fault them for that. Diamond was/is an Austrian company. Avgas in Europe is crazy expensive and hard to obtain. Maybe Thielert was the wrong partner, but the idea was good and is critically needed here as well.
 
steingar said:
I imagine Cessna makes lots of money off their jets. Then again, they developed their jet program when times were good. Not such a good thing to do when times are bad, and companies keep proving over and over again. One can understand the uninitiated drinking Rayburn's kool aide, but less so the manufacturers.
Click to expand...

I've been looking at BLS data, if I were sitting on capital, I'd be busy putting my jet program together. The cost of materials and labor are down , id be busy with R&D and getting a product ready to deliver when times weren't bad.
 
Lance F said:
I sure can'
t fault them for that. Diamond was/is an Austrian company. Avgas in Europe is crazy expensive and hard to obtain. Maybe Thielert was the wrong partner, but the idea was good and is critically needed here as well.
Click to expand...

I used to fly in europe, all our flying was on untaxed premium autogas. If independence from 100LL had been the motivation, why did Diamond eliminate the two planes in their lineup that were able to burn that fuel (the fixed-pitch version of the DA40 and the Katana) ? Why is there no DA40 with a low-compression IO390, or a DA42 with two IO360s, 100Gal tanks and pressurized fuel system ?

This is about being a visionary, and about that delusion of 'selling to china'. A conventional engine DA50 would have been another plane worth developing to tie the customers to the brand until there is enough of a critical mass to support a jet project.

Oh, and then of course there is the wisdom of locating a new plant in a high-cost environment based on corporate welfare promises.....
 
Last edited:
To quote another steady poster here....."Aw gees, not this c_ap again...!?"
 
weilke said:
If I had a dime for every 'promising new diesel engine' that is 'just around the corner' or 'has reached a milestone', I could, well I could buy a cup of coffee at Mickey Ds.
Click to expand...

Quite literally.

Diesel GA aircraft engines won't even be able to scratch the surface. The only time we have seen a diesel certified engine released with an aircraft it was a disaster. Oh and that was Diamond too lol. Cessna will probably have some success with their diesel offering but again, what percentage of the market will that reach? 1% in 20 years?

Being able to to deliver a MOGAS engine, and to bring that same technology to the existing market is the answer, not Jet-A burning pistons.
 
Inverted said:
Quite literally.

Diesel GA aircraft engines won't even be able to scratch the surface. The only time we have seen a Diesel certified engine released with an aircraft it was a disaster. Oh and that was Diamond too lol.

Being able to to deliver a MOGAS engine, and to bring that same technology to the existing market is the answer, not Jet-A burning pistons.
Click to expand...

I dont think there is anything wrong with going towards compression ignition engines. Lots of advantages and I believe there will be a viable diesel option for altitudes below 18000ft within the next 10 years. I just think it is foolish to bet the future of your company on it while forgetting about developing your conventional product.
 
weilke said:
I dont think there is anything wrong with going towards compression ignition engines. Lots of advantages and I believe there will be a viable diesel option for altitudes below 18000ft within the next 10 years. I just think it is foolish to bet the future of your company on it while forgetting about developing your conventional product.
Click to expand...

There isn't anything wrong with it really. I think Rotax is on a better track with their engines. They can produce good HP on mogas, electronic ignition and fuel management etc. That is technology that should be further explored IMO. But there is a small part of me that thinks it's funny to start from the ground up on a piston engine design. Why not try to develop very efficient, small, light turboprop engines? A 180hp turbine that could burn 10gph would be game changing.
 
SCCutler said:
Subsequent news story includes reference to money expected (or hoped-for) from the Ontario provincial government, that never came through. One wonders how viable your business model is, when it depends upon tax money for success.

Sign of the times, I guess, but everyone seems to "expect" money, extracted from others by force of law. Sad.
Click to expand...

I got into a rather heated discussion about this on the Red Board.. Can GA in general survive without Tax subsidy? Could Diamond have produced an LSA aircraft / trainer cheaper than D-Jet and saved some jobs? (and possibly have won some NASA money?,?. they remind me a lot of Pipistrel in their roots and could have gone back to some of their soaring background to compete for NASA grants..)
 
weilke said:
I used to fly in europe, all our flying was on untaxed premium autogas. If independence from 100LL had been the motivation, why did Diamond eliminate the two planes in their lineup that were able to burn that fuel (the fixed-pitch version of the DA40 and the Katana) ? Why is there no DA40 with a low-compression IO390, or a DA42 with two IO360s, 100Gal tanks and pressurized fuel system ?

This is about being a visionary, and about that delusion of 'selling to china'. A conventional engine DA50 would have been another plane worth developing to tie the customers to the brand until there is enough of a critical mass to support a jet project.

Oh, and then of course there is the wisdom of locating a new plant in a high-cost environment based on corporate welfare promises.....
Click to expand...
Gee were you a Diamond investor?
How did you get your untaxed premium auto gas to the airplane? Even if airports had this available(which they don't), few certified piston airplanes can legally use it. Let's face it, the fuel available at the airport of the future is Jet A. I commend any manufacturer who at least tries to face this fact.
 
Inverted said:
Why not try to develop very efficient, small, light turboprop engines? A 180hp turbine that could burn 10gph would be game changing.
Click to expand...

Because it has been tried before and until we can either suspend the laws of physics or the laws of materials science, small turbines will allways be fuel-guzzlers.

Bbbbuuutttt Ceramics !!!........
 
weilke said:
Because it has been tried before and until we can either suspend the laws of physics or the laws of materials science, small turbines will allways be fuel-guzzlers.

Bbbbuuutttt Ceramics !!!........
Click to expand...

I say we just go all out, its time for Mr Fusion and DeLoreans! :D
 
Lance F said:
How did you get your untaxed premium auto gas to the airplane?
Click to expand...

From the clubs underground storage tank, with a pump.

Even if airports had this available(which they don't), few certified piston airplanes can legally use it.
Click to expand...

Chicken-egg problem.

Let's face it, the fuel available at the airport of the future is Jet A. I commend any manufacturer who at least tries to face this fact.
Click to expand...

If we keep repeating this diligently, it may actually come true.

There are other boutique fuels and industrial chemicals available through the pipeline network. The biggest problem with Avgas is that it has to be shipped by rail or truck. An unleaded aviation gas product would not be subject to 100LLs distribution constraints.
 
weilke said:
Because it has been tried before and until we can either suspend the laws of physics or the laws of materials science, small turbines will allways be fuel-guzzlers.

Bbbbuuutttt Ceramics !!!........
Click to expand...

I don't know as though it has been tried before. There have been 350shp engine versions as an option in some piston airplanes (SF260) and burned more gas than the 260hp piston option. I have never seen a purpose built, 150-180shp turbine. I am not talking about using an 60 year old APU from some relic.
 
I am trying to find more info on it, but a modern Microturbo TRS 18-1-202 (used in the BD-5J) I would imagine it isn't completely destructive on fuel capacity as the BD-5 is pretty small.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top