Cessna Skycatcher has "no Future" from Cessna CEO

[Mark Peterson]

Well, it's the end of a long line of sport flying airplanes at Cessna. Probably the last two seat airplane to be produced by the big three of the 1950s. Killed by a wrong engine choice, which added 100 pounds to the empty weight and 3 GPH extra fuel flow. And some development issues that showed that Cessna didn't read "Design for Flying" and made a vertical tail that lacked area below the stabilizer. Plus the China production, which had some people all upset.

A good little airplane, could have been a contender. Cessna is reportedly shopping the design around. But I'm sure that the current management isn't going to let it go cheap. I just hope that the 90 or so planes they have in Wichita don't get chopped up for a tax write off.

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/A...essna-CEO.aspx

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news...r220834-1.html

[pacerpilot]

The biggest problem I see with factory LSA's is the cost. When we can buy really nice vintage factory planes for 20k it's just too hard to pay 120k. If they could have pushed the cost down to even half of what they're trying to sell the new airplanes for they'd probably be selling them. However, this just isn't going to happen.

[FlyingRon]

And the Groundcatcher was never intended to be an inexpensive plane. The G1000 and all. I suspect they were hoping for a bunch of Cessna Pilot Centers and other flight schools to run out and snatch them up as trainers. THose days are pretty much gone (and Cessna/Textron managment is hosed up to even think that).

[Floatsflyer]

In addition to saying there's no future for Skycatcher, CEO Scott Ernest also said, "that program didn't have a business model that worked." Well, I don't know about that but what I do know is that Skycatcher went from $110K to $150K within just one year after the first production customer delivery. And for what? A 2 place airplane with no interior, 100mph cruise and a highly questionable useful load.

So it appears that Cessna will shortly follow in the footsteps of Cirrus and Piper(and others of far less note) in getting out of the SLSA category. When introduced 7 years ago at Oshkosh, Cessna Skycatcher gave the naisent LSA category instant and immense credibility and a reason to believe that LSA would prosper and grow and attract overwhelming investment. Despite the continuing optimism about the current and future viability and vitality of SLSA from LAMA Chairman of the Board/President and chief LSA mouthpiece Dan Johnson, deliveries remain very small(like certified piston GA) and the anticipated growth of the sector has just not materialized.

The latest yearly figures showing SLSA sales stats are from year-ending 2012, a total of 259 new registrations(LAMA uses info compiled from the FAA registry database, not actual sales figures from their members-must be hard to get?). To date Cessna has sold a total of only 296 Skycatchers since first delivery. That's a far cry from the over 1500 orders they first gushingly showed on that red digital tote board in their tent at Oshkosh 2008. We found out a little later that this was misleading as the greatest majority of these were from Cessna dealers and Cessna Pilot Centres who were obligated to order/buy them. Seems they opted out pretty quickly when they discovered customers didn't want them and flight schools didn't want them because of the high cost of acquisition(and the low turn out of SP aspirants). The latter also found out pretty quickly that using Legacy LSAs(Cubs, Aeroncas, etc.)meant they could keep fixed and operating costs at levels that would result in profits for SP training.

Perhaps ICON with its over 1000 orders/deposits will give LSA the much needed shot in the arm when they begin deliveries next year. Perhaps solid, well respected manufacturers like Flight Design, Cubcrafters, Pipistrel, American Legend, Aerotrek and Searey will deliver more airctaft as the economy improves. But can they hang in? Four of the aforementioned companies are selling new aircraft with price tags close to and way above $200,000. There is currently an ad on Barnstormers for a 2011 used(90 TTSN) Cubcrafters Top Cub Amphibian SLSA, asking price is $312,000(that's dollars not pesos). That's @#&%*&* insane!

So, what's the future hold for SLSA? If Cessna couldn't make it work with their deep pockets and unlimited corporate resources, who can? With cessna about to be gone from the LSA landscape, what are the implications for those that remain and for the category itself? Prices are not coming down to reasonable or heretofor intended acquistion levels. Nevertheless, that very well attended LSA/Sportplane expo in Germany every April continues to churn out dozens of new models and companies every year, many of which are destined for North American markets. My trusty crystal ball tells me that ICON, within the next 5 years, will turn their collective attention towards designing and building Part 23 Certified airplanes(like Flight Design is doing with their in development C4) because the associated present astronomical costs for the certification process is about to become drastically reduced.

[Ken Finney]

Maybe the CEO knows something that the rest of us don't. I've always said that if they get rid of the Class 3 medical, that it will kill LSA. Maybe that is close to happening.

[Auburntsts]

And the Groundcatcher was never intended to be an inexpensive plane. The G1000 and all.

The 162 has a Garmin uncertified G300 (basically the same as a G3X) not a G1000. I have a G3X in my RV-10 and have been training behind a G1000 for my IR. Huge difference in price and capability. If the 162 had a G1000, the price would have been north of $200K.

[JimRice85]

Maybe the CEO knows something that the rest of us don't. I've always said that if they get rid of the Class 3 medical, that it will kill LSA. Maybe that is close to happening.

Or maybe they will just raise the light sport gross. If Big names are out of the LSA game, why would they care if a Cessna 150/152 or a Piper Colt becomes eligible.

[Mark Peterson]

This was just excellent.... I hope that the current EAA president reads this and knows he was greatly appreciated at the helm of Cessna....

From AVweb

Unusual Performance By Cessna's CEO

I think one of the defense mechanisms we in the aviation industry have developed is the ability to not take ourselves too seriously. By many normal standards, it can be a preposterous business where the leadership roles are populated with wide-eyed dreamers who almost invariably make their money in more mundane enterprises and promptly squander it on their passion. We tolerate it, sometimes even celebrate it, because it occasionally works spectacularly for the benefit of the whole industry. Where would the homebuilt industry be without Vans? What if the founders of Garmin had stuck to the far more profitable marine and consumer sectors? What if Bill Lear had settled for a piston twin? And what would we do without Cessna? It's a question that entered the collective consciousness when Cessna's current CEO Scott Ernest stared down some aviation media reps and pretty much hung some of his executives out to dry in an uncomfortable exchange at NBAA in Las Vegas on Monday. We're the first to admit that aviation journalism is not generally a hardball affair. We're mostly here to relay the positive developments that companies announce and keep pilots and others in the industry abreast of the latest and greatest. We do have the ability and the responsibility to ask some tough questions at times and it's squarely in the CEO playbook to deal with those issues in a manner that best reflects their company. In my opinion, Ernes gave petulant and peevish answers to legitimate questions about the future of the Skycatcher and Skylane diesel projects on Monday and these were as surprising as they were unsettling. It's no secret that the Skycatcher program has been in trouble since the first one got off the ground in 2006 but Ernest's snippy and dismissive "no future" comment was, in my view, both uncalled for and ill advised for a company that still has about 100 of the little airplanes left to sell. Those who have the responsibility to turn those airplanes into money must have been even more surprised than us. Ditto his dismissal of questions surrounding the off-airport landing of the diesel last month. There are a lot of people watching and hoping that a name like Cessna can create a new heavy fuel aircraft that works in the real world, just like its entry into the LSA market helped legitimize that part of the industry. Part of that means addressing the bumps and bruises of aircraft development with honesty and, frankly, a little dignity. And that was part of the problem with his performance Monday. CEOs come to NBAA, in part, to put their companies in the best light. Ernest, in my estimation, did just the opposite. He clearly likes the fast and flashy stuff his company produces but his attitude toward some pretty benign questions about the Skycatcher and Skylane suggested contempt and derision for at least some parts of his company and his staff. It was an embarrassing public episode that should get the attention of the Textron board, in my view. But because it was Cessna, that attitude reflected not just on the company but on the industry as a whole and that was the other part of the problem. Like it or not, when someone takes over the biggest little airplane company in the world, his responsibilities extend far beyond his own shop floor. Cessna is an industry leader and should behave like one. Ernest knows that because he told me so. Two years ago when he was newly installed in his job I interviewed him at NBAA and commented that it was important for us to get to know him because "as Cessna goes, so does GA." He agreed enthusiastically and said: "That's absolutely right; as Cessna goes, so does GA." Which brings us to the fact that Ernest is not a pilot and based on his post-press conference exchange with one of the reporters who challenged him during the news conference, appears to have little interest in becoming one (even though he has said in the past that he intended to learn to fly). Now, it's quite possible that Textron chose Ernest to replace Jack Pelton specifically because he is not a pilot and the board wanted someone whose judgment wouldn't be clouded by passions or perceived alliances that might not be productive to the Textron bottom line. Fair enough, but the pilots before Ernest who led Cessna to its current position did so in part by using that passion and those alliances to their company's advantage. When they made the inevitable tough decisions necessary in any business, they did so with the respectful understanding that their actions would be felt throughout the industry. As pilots, they were part of the world that could be shaken by an announcement like the death of the Skycatcher. Even so, it's probably not absolutely necessary for the leader of Cessna to be a pilot. He or she should, however, at least be polite.

[Mike Berg]

Well, duh ...... for a 'toy' they're too expensive for the average pilot. Even the new Aeronca LS is around $90,000 and probably not selling that well. If we want to increase the number of pilots it will be necessary to lower the costs for the average pilot. That means raise the GW above 1320# and go to some kind of owner maintenance. No reason Cessna 150s, Cherokees, etc. should not be light sport and while they're at it....drop the third class medical for light sport. Of couse that takes common sense.

[Victor Bravo]

Remember this entire LSA soap opera played out during a horrible economy, where millions of people lost jobs, and tens of millions of people took pay cuts, and hundreds of millions of people cut down or postponed their disposable income.

If the LSA "Revolution" had happened in better economic times, it may have been different.

That being said, small sport airplanes that cost as much as a house, but are not "working" bush planes or cargo planes or exec transports... don't make that much financial sense even in a good economy. The few really outstanding SLSA designs have survived (Pipistrel, Flight Design, Cub Crafters), and dozens of rather crude or cosmetically challenged airplanes did not.

The LSA world had found out what the Part 23 world had already known for years: there are many viable used airplane options for a whole lot less cost than a factory new airplane, and that $75,000 difference in cost buys a whole lot of gas. I don't have any ivy league post-doctoral marketing or advertising degrees on my wall, but I could have told them that

As EAA members, we should be somewhat overjoyed at all this, because it has kept homebuilding and classic restoration strong in a bad economy. I for one was glad to see the Champs and Chiefs and Ercoupes and T-crafts become relevant again.

Now I have an important question that I hope someone has a positive answer to: What finally happened with the EAA proposal to amend the "driver's license medical" category, to include the heavier airplanes up to 180HP??? I have not seen an official yes or no on this.