Well that was fast. Turbo Skyhawk JT-A is dead.

[asicer]

Last night I finally got around to reading the review of Cessna's Turbo Skyhawk JT-A in the May 2018 issue of AOPA Pilot. 12 hours later I wake up to this:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2018/may/09/cessna-discontinues-turbo-skyhawk-jt-a

I'll bet Cessna could save a few bucks by announcing and discontinuing products in the same press release from now on.

 

[SkyDog58]

Yikes! That article made it sound so promising. First they drop the TTx and now this. They seem to be in a state of crisis.

 

[Pilawt]

They seem to be in a state of crisis.

Ennui seems to be the better description. The legacy big-three manufacturers (well, two now with the merger) just don't care about light piston GA, except for dusting off the old amortized production lines for occasional airline puppy-mill fleet orders. Although a Jet-A-fueled trainer makes sense in many parts of the world, there's apparently not enough ROI to make it worthwhile for Textron. Maybe they'll let Piper test the water with their diesel "Archer DX".

 

[frfly172]

So you by a new Skyhawk,then go to continental and have a diesel installed under an STC. With all thevused Skyhawks out there why buy a new one.

 

[hindsight2020]

youll never convince the electric power/jet-a-piston tin foil people that the avgas sky isnt falling, so they mourn these nothing burger news while the rest of us keep flying and enjoying our limited time on this rock.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

So did I read correctly that 182 production ended in 2012? I must live under a rock...

 

[SkyDog58]

So did I read correctly that 182 production ended in 2012? I must live under a rock...

They stopped taking orders for avgas powered 182s that year to concentrate on the diesel but when that didn’t pan out, they resumed with the avgas version. I believe that CAP and other fleet operators clamored for it.

 

[denverpilot]

And the death of the diesel is probably because no fleets picked it up. Individual aircraft sales don’t make their nut.

 

[Stan Cooper]

It was a heavy airplane with limited payload (468 pounds with full fuel; my old '63 172D had a full fuel payload of 620 pounds).

The only market I could see was in parts of the world where avgas is rare or not available, and I was surprised Cessna invested in certification.

Offering the diesel as an STC for older 172s makes sense for operators who want to burn Jet-A.

 

[steingar]

Yeah, lots of places have no avgas. But who doesn't have mogas? By Odin, the oldest aircraft can all run on mogas! You're telling me they couldn't make one in 2018? O maybe no one at Textron understands the developing world.

 

[asicer]

Yeah, lots of places have no avgas. But who doesn't have mogas? By Odin, the oldest aircraft can all run on mogas! You're telling me they couldn't make one in 2018?

Can't the IO360AF burn it?

O maybe no one at Textron understands the developing world.

I wonder how the diesel DA40NG is selling? I see that 5 of the Diamond diesels went to Ethiopia and 4 went to Finland but GAMA only lists combined DA40 shipments (60 in 2017).

 

[denverpilot]

Yeah, lots of places have no avgas. But who doesn't have mogas? By Odin, the oldest aircraft can all run on mogas! You're telling me they couldn't make one in 2018? O maybe no one at Textron understands the developing world.

The developing world isn’t their market. I suspect these were built to get the fleet contracts for stuff like the secret squirrel Skylanes that were shipped to the sandbox that CAP are flying now that they’re back stateside.

 

[steingar]

The developing world isn’t their market. I suspect these were built to get the fleet contracts for stuff like the secret squirrel Skylanes that were shipped to the sandbox that CAP are flying now that they’re back stateside.

Wherever their market, they have mogas. Everyone does. I've been to some of the deepest darkest places in Central America, places that have never seen avgas ever. They had mogas.

 

[asicer]

Wherever their market, they have mogas. Everyone does. I've been to some of the deepest darkest places in Central America, places that have never seen avgas ever. They had mogas.

P2010 burns mogas. The Mk I even has the same engine as the 172SP. Maybe Cessna didn't add mogas to the TC because they were afraid of cannibalizing their non-existent diesel sales?

 

[denverpilot]

Wherever their market, they have mogas. Everyone does. I've been to some of the deepest darkest places in Central America, places that have never seen avgas ever. They had mogas.

The secret squirrels operating the Skylanes had a lot more access to Jet-A on the taxpayer dime than they had 100LL.

Just a logistics thing. I think Cessna thought the squirrels would like a Jet-A powered fleet. The squirrels apparently have moved on to other secret squirreling.

 

[Challenged]

I wish they would have gone into production with that sort-of 177 revamp they showed at one point, maybe called the NGP or something. *Edit* NGP

 

[asicer]

I wish they would have gone into production with that sort-of 177 revamp they showed at one point, maybe called the NGP or something. *Edit* NGP

With a 320hp IO580 the NGP was more of a modern 210, I think. A P2010 is more of a modern 177, IMHO.

 

[Salty]

They must have read my thread https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/turbo-172.108537/

 

[zaitcev]

Yeah, lots of places have no avgas. But who doesn't have mogas? By Odin, the oldest aircraft can all run on mogas! You're telling me they couldn't make one in 2018? O maybe no one at Textron understands the developing world.

I talked to a guy once who was running a charter/school company in Yerevan, Armenia. He said it's diesel or nothing, because the car gas was donkey ****. He wanted an old KingAir C90, but that turned out too much for dual-duty with training. He's making do with DA42.

 

[Ted]

I wish they would have gone into production with that sort-of 177 revamp they showed at one point, maybe called the NGP or something. *Edit* NGP

Ha, been a long time since I saw that thing...

 

[Matthew K]

I wonder if Cessna halved the price of a new Skyhawk if there would be enough new customers/orders to eventually make it a profitable venture

 

[Ted]

I wonder if Cessna halved the price of a new Skyhawk if there would be enough new customers/orders to eventually make it a profitable venture

Not unless they could outsource the production someplace where it would be a lot cheaper. It's built the same way it was 50 years ago, and that just isn't profitable these days.

 

[Matthew K]

Not unless they could outsource the production someplace where it would be a lot cheaper. It's built the same way it was 50 years ago, and that just isn't profitable these days.

Is it just because of regulations now & the higher costs of new technology?

I guess now that I think about it there isn't a huge development cost to recover like there would've been when they first came out, since the year to year design hasn't changed much.

 

[Pilawt]

Light airplanes are low-volume, highly-labor-intensive products. It takes as many man-hours to built a 172 now as it did in 1956, while robotics and volume have kept the prices of other durable goods, such as automobiles, quite low by comparison. Ford built about 900,000 F-150 trucks last year, while in 2016 there were less than 900 G.A. single-engine piston airplanes manufactured worldwide (source: GAMA). Even in the industry's heyday, the highest annual volume lightplane make & model was the 1966-67 Cessna 150, at close to 3,000 units per year.

 

[SoonerAviator]

I seriously doubt the high cost has much to do with hourly labor rate. With modern machining techniques and use of outsourcing, you could stamp out a 172 in no time. Even if you were paying for 2,000 man-hours of labor @ $25/hr (doubtful it takes that much labor), it's only $50K. I bet they don't have much more than $75K in materials cost including the engine on a 6-pack model. I'm sure the cost of legal liability, etc. drive the cost into the stratosphere.

If Van's can sell you a quick-build RV-10 kit for $61K ($48K for non QB), I wouldn't imagine Cessna would have more cost in the 172 materials than that + engine/avionics.

 

[Kansas Flyer]

Labor cost isn't just the cost of wages paid to the employee assembling the bird. There are also payroll taxes, health insurance, wages of folks in non manufacturing support positions, etc...

 

[denverpilot]

Labor cost isn't just the cost of wages paid to the employee assembling the bird. There are also payroll taxes, health insurance, wages of folks in non manufacturing support positions, etc...

And two huge words...

“Regulatory compliance and auditing.”

 

[denverpilot]

And two huge words...

“Regulatory compliance and auditing.”

Which is actually four words because the first two I typed and then realized if it isn’t measurable it isn’t happening.

 

[flyingron]

And two huge words...

“Regulatory compliance and auditing.”

And Textron is a rather paranoid publicly held company. They live in constant fear of tripping over some sarbox rule (so I doubt they're making these announcements purely for manipulatory reasons). However, they have had for a while now very short sighted leadership that attempts to steer the company by the short term behavior of the stock price with no view towards long term growth/income. It's gotten somewhat better. They had trashed an $80/share down to like $18. It's somewhat recovered to about $64.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Labor cost isn't just the cost of wages paid to the employee assembling the bird. There are also payroll taxes, health insurance, wages of folks in non manufacturing support positions, etc...

I wasn't discussing the fully-loaded labor cost, just the base hourly rate. I just seriously doubt that Cessna has to pay $200K+ per aircraft for labor, utilities, supplies, etc. as their current sales prices would indicate. It's a 172/182 which they have been making for the better part of a century with minimal design changes. I wouldn't be surprised if a team of 3-4 workers couldn't put a 172 together in a few days. The assembly work has to be down to a science by now.

 

[airdale]

I wasn't discussing the fully-loaded labor cost, just the base hourly rate. I just seriously doubt that Cessna has to pay $200K+ per aircraft for labor, utilities, supplies, etc. as their current sales prices would indicate. It's a 172/182 which they have been making for the better part of a century with minimal design changes. I wouldn't be surprised if a team of 3-4 workers couldn't put a 172 together in a few days. The assembly work has to be down to a science by now.

Sorry, no. Base hourly rate is almost completely meaningless except that it is multiplied by an overhead rate to get an hourly production cost. With all the costs of running a factory covered in the overhead rate as @Kansas Flyer said, my guess is that the fully loaded rate will be north of $150/hour and $250 would not surprise me.

$200K production cost would not surprise me either. Remember "supplies" includes such little things as an engine, brake assemblies, instruments, avionics, etc. "Supplies" could be $100K alone.

Re assembly work being "down to a science," more likely it has not changed much since the glory days. With very low production rates and an unknown future, there has probably been nearly zero invested in productivity improvements to the basic airframe or fixturing and any big manufacturability improvements would probably involve FAA approval, so more opportunity for investment cost. Not gonna happen IMO.

Then there are marketing costs, dealer profits, parent company cost allocations, profit targets, etc. ...

It is not a business that I would invest a dime in.

 

[Matthew K]

It is not a business that I would invest a dime in.

As sad as it is, I wholeheartedly agree

 

[ktup-flyer]

They stopped taking orders for avgas powered 182s that year to concentrate on the diesel but when that didn’t pan out, they resumed with the avgas version. I believe that CAP and other fleet operators clamored for it.

I still see a good bit of individuals buying new 182s. They need to focus on what works and quit trying to be an innovator

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Overhead. Pay managers and VPs. Lawyers. Advertising and marketing. Sales. Utilities. Ongoing reg compliance. Property taxes. Interest on loans. Warranties. R&D. That’s a lotta cash that they need to make back.

 

[zaitcev]

If Van's can sell a complete RV-12 for $125k, and Cessna could not make the 162 profitable at $150k, it gives you a good bottom limit for the overhead of Cessna's bureaucracy, as well possibly their debt load. The legal and compliance regime is identical for these two airplanes and manufacturers. Notably though, even Van can't sell for $50k.

 

[GRG55]

I seriously doubt the high cost has much to do with hourly labor rate. With modern machining techniques and use of outsourcing, you could stamp out a 172 in no time. Even if you were paying for 2,000 man-hours of labor @ $25/hr (doubtful it takes that much labor), it's only $50K. I bet they don't have much more than $75K in materials cost including the engine on a 6-pack model. I'm sure the cost of legal liability, etc. drive the cost into the stratosphere.

If Van's can sell you a quick-build RV-10 kit for $61K ($48K for non QB), I wouldn't imagine Cessna would have more cost in the 172 materials than that + engine/avionics.

LOL. You seem to be contradicting yourself. On the one hand labour isn't the reason for high costs. And neither is materials.

I'll buy the materials argument. But just how many hundreds (thousands?) of hours of labour goes into building said RV-10...even a QB version? I'm sure Cessna bangs them together faster, but I doubt it's an enormous difference.

 

[hindsight2020]

I get the notion that there's few units to amortize the cost of robotics in airplane manufacturing, but shouldn't we be in the business of making robotic tech cheaper too? I thought that's where the whole 3D printing and CNC for the masses hype was going towards. Is it really necessary to manually affix these stupid 60 year old blueprint metal cans together?

 

[denverpilot]

If Van's can sell a complete RV-12 for $125k, and Cessna could not make the 162 profitable at $150k, it gives you a good bottom limit for the overhead of Cessna's bureaucracy, as well possibly their debt load. The legal and compliance regime is identical for these two airplanes and manufacturers. Notably though, even Van can't sell for $50k.

Multiple questions.

Is Vans making a profit? Show numbers.

Cessna did not say they weren’t making a profit on the Skycatcher. Most pundits, because they didn’t say why at all, opined they couldn’t afford the long term liability. Cessna has deeper pockets than Vans and a lot more to lose when sued. Note I said when, not if. Vans has been sued now also and appears to have gotten lucky with their jury.

The legal and compliance regime was the same on the LSAs yes. Kinda. The corporate liability risk wasn’t. Here’s what a good lawyer would do to manipulate a jury...

Cessna, you’ve been building normal category aircraft for a long time. Why did you start building a product only small kit and other small manufacturers will even take a risk on, when you obviously know how to make safe regular certificate airplanes? Were you trying to be greedy and wanted to make a cheaper and less safe aircraft?

Obviously it wasn’t. But that’s how it would have played out. And even the best Cessna expert witness wouldn’t be able to get that picture out of the jury’s heads. Light aircraft are already death traps, remember.

It doesn’t even have to be true if it puts the right image in the jury’s heads. “Big airplane maker decides to make small dangerous lesser airplane to milk unsuspecting customers...”

With Vans, the argument is the opposite. “You took time away from building those absolutely terrifying and deadly kits and developed a safer and more wonderful factory built airplane? Oh you heros!”

LOL. You get the idea.

 

[GRG55]

I wonder if Cessna halved the price of a new Skyhawk if there would be enough new customers/orders to eventually make it a profitable venture

It's much more than just profit. There's a materiality issue too. Textron Aviation is a large company.

Every division, and each product it produces ties up corporate resources (invested capital, building space, people, working capital, etc.), and not all of them contribute to revenue, or earnings to the bottom line proportional to what they consume in resources.

If a product or division can no longer move the needle on the earnings statement it becomes at best "a hobby" within the business, or at worst a drag on ROCE and business performance.

It's the reason General Electric sold off the oldest, most iconic asset in the business, Edison's light bulb manufacturing, late last year.

Manufacturing piston airplanes is basically a hobby for pretty well every commercial producer now. The comparison of Van's to Textron/Cessna earlier is amusing. My estimate is even the best selling piston aircraft manufacturer, Cirrus, barely made perhaps 5% of the 4.7 Billion in sales Textron Aviation did last year. In the 1st Q this year Textron announced it is selling off a business unit that does roughly three times the sales volume of Cirrus. And as for cost base, how much did Van's or Cirrus contribute to employee pensions last year? Textron' number was $55 million Benjamins. It's all gotta come from somewhere, and selling Skycatchers doesn't cut it. Even Cirrus doesn't make a loss leader airplane.

Methinks the only reason Cessna still makes ANY piston engine airplanes at all is someone still think it's strategically necessary in order to capture future customer allegiance for the kerosene burners. Textron will eventually figure out times have long passed since that had any validity, and probably spin out the piston aircraft part of the business too. In fact the recent moves might be prepping to get the piston manufacturing business cleaned up specifically for that. Can you spell Private Equity?

 

[denverpilot]

If a product or division can no longer move the needle on the earnings statement it becomes at best "a hobby" within the business, or at worst a drag on ROCE and business performance.

Hahaha that was one of my old bosses and mentor’s phrases.

“That sounds great. If we can’t bill for it, it’s just a hobby.”

Strangely he’s retired now and I hear myself saying the phrase in staff and management meetings.