Cessna Crushes Remaining Skycatcher Inventory

The (superficial) similarity to the 162 is what I like about the CH750 Cruzer.
 
Last edited:
mondtster said:
One of my jobs at work is scrapping experimental engines. It's kind of a stress reliever and fun to just take a hammer and a drill to an engine and render it scrap.
Click to expand...

Sounds fun! But I'd much rather make holes in engines using something that has a steel core wrapped with lead, and has a copper jacket. Haven't done that in a long while.

Pity about the aircraft. While they didn't want the liability, I wonder if they could have been donated to parks around the country for kids to play in and maybe bring interest in aviation to the younger generation?
 
I'm currently tied down next to one. It's a fun looking little thing.
 
Unless there is something wrong with them, I don't see why they would be more of a liability than the ones they sold, not to mention the other airplanes they are selling.
 
They are more of a liability because there would be more OF them. The more of anything out there, the more likely for something to happen. At this point I bet they would be just as happy to take the 300 or so that they sold and crush them too.

Another thing I realized while thinking about this earlier. These planes have been sitting around a while, and they discontinued the model years ago, which means they have already recorded them as a loss on the books. If they already took a tax write off for them I think they could have some legal issues with selling or donating them. Had they donated them to schools before writing them off they probably could have put them down as a charitable contribution, but since they probably just took the loss way back when they can't really do that anymore as it would be double dipping. It's very possible that the only legal thing they could do with them is dispose of them.
 
On the topic of liability we are talking about a company that entirely stopped producing piston powered aircraft for roughly a decade because of the cost of litigation. I'm sure they are quite familiar with the costs associated with law suits and insurance and have people that can do the risk/reward math on that one very easily.
 
StinkBug said:
Had they donated them to schools before writing them off they probably could have put them down as a charitable contribution, but since they probably just took the loss way back when they can't really do that anymore as it would be double dipping.
Click to expand...

They could have legally donated them to schools and not declared anything further about them on their taxes.

Reality is that the schools would probably rather have a scrapped 150/152/172/182 airframe than a 162, since the students would likely never see a 162 working on real planes.
 
Palmpilot said:
Contrary to what's been speculated here, on the AOPA Forum, Check_My_Six had this to say:

and


It sounds like this particular inventory had some serious manufacturing issues.
Click to expand...
Defective crap coming out of China? Why am I not surprised.
 
Everskyward said:
Unless there is something wrong with them, I don't see why they would be more of a liability than the ones they sold, not to mention the other airplanes they are selling.
Click to expand...
They don't have to be more of a liability. But someone decided that the liabilities, legal, financial, or otherwise, weren't worth the return the company would get from donating our parting them out. The legal liability is likely a large factor, but there are plenty of current and future costs associated with having these out there.
 
Lindberg said:
You misspelled "accountants." The lawyers just tell the accountants what the possible outcomes are; the accountants make the decisions.
Click to expand...

It really Is different company to company, and depends a lot on who the CEO listens to more, either the CFO or Chief Counsel. What's at the top is what generally dictates the "personality" of an organization. At least that's my experience with 3 different executive teams during my career.
 
Don't overlook the cost of maintaining parts inventory and support for an orphan product with no commonality with the rest of the current or legacy product line. Yes there are a number of them already in the field, but the ones scrapped were new ones, for which the company would be on the hook under warranty for a while.

Took off out of Marana AZ (KAVQ) a few weeks ago, where four of the surviving Starships sit out in the sun awaiting their fate.

A640DA74-B12A-4DD1-8883-4C82A3B396BD.JPG
 
Jeff Oslick said:
They could have legally donated them to schools and not declared anything further about them on their taxes.

Reality is that the schools would probably rather have a scrapped 150/152/172/182 airframe than a 162, since the students would likely never see a 162 working on real planes.
Click to expand...

You are right on that last part. On the first, there's no incentive there for them. They have already taken the write off, so donating them only opens them up to liability. There's no up-side for the company. Lots of car companies have done this with high school auto shop programs, and ended up with a big mess when some student decides to take the thing for a joy ride. I can only imagine what their lawyers see when they think of that scenario in aviation.
 
Pilawt said:
Took off out of Marana AZ (KAVQ) a few weeks ago, where four of the surviving Starships sit out in the sun awaiting their fate.

View attachment 49908
Click to expand...
Who owns those Starships?

I was under the impression that Beech rounded up (bought back) as many as they could and destroyed them.

From what they put out at the Starship discussions at the Beech Party, there are only two private owners left that refused to sell theirs back aside from a few museums that had to agree to never fly theirs.
 
Years ago I saw a couple sitting in San Antonio International.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top