Cessna/Textron commitment to small GA.

Mtns2Skies said:
I dunno... My wings stay attached to the airplane....
Click to expand...

Ya but look at all the "extra help" they need from underneath to keep from drooping when on the ground. ;)
 
Tantalum said:
I get "regulation this, low demand that" - but honestly? For a plane that was developed in the 1950s I still can't get around why the entry level birds (Archer, Skyhawk, and step up Skylane) are as expensive as they are. All the costs associated with these things must have been paid off. Why these sheet metal parts can't just be stamped and assembled at this point is beyond me.
Click to expand...

I feel like you might be underestimating the number of man hours required to build these things. Or perhaps you're overestimating the amount of automation in their manufacturing processes. I took a tour of Cessna's Citation plant about 10 years ago, and I couldn't believe how much work everyone was doing by hand. I don't know much about aircraft manufacturing, but I am a tech nerd and I remember my reaction being somewhat akin to touring a Dell plant and seeing a bunch of Asians wire-wrapping motherboards. :)
 
kayoh190 said:
I feel like you might be underestimating the number of man hours required to build these things. Or perhaps you're overestimating the amount of automation in their manufacturing processes. I took a tour of Cessna's Citation plant about 10 years ago, and I couldn't believe how much work everyone was doing by hand.
Click to expand...
It's the latter. I get that RV10s for example cost around 2,000+ hrs, right? But I assumed that a company that's been building planes since WW2 would have some automation for their staple products (172, 182, etc.). Volume now probably doesn't justify the investment at this point, but in their prime time they were building thousands per year.. so I assumed (incorrectly it seems) that key components of the assembly was automated
 
...so, I was reminded of this thread when I was at Oshkosh. If anyone had doubts then this past week put those doubts to rest. It's quite evident that GA is **NOT** a priority for Cessna. While Piper, Cirrus, and Mooney (to a lesser extent) had very nice tents up and clearly put forth a solid effort to market their product to the GA group Cessna really phoned that one in. They had a few planes scattered on the grass with really no presentation appeal. The Denali and the SkyCourier were their main item that they were pushing hard inside the tent. Too bad. I saw very few people at the Cessna tent the days I was there. Piper by comparison had a consistently healthy group of people as did Cirrus

I get it.. there's more money out there. But it was a little sad to see the confirmation first hand that Cessna was basically done with GA
 
Also back in the 70's and into the 80's, individuals could write-off airplane expenses and deduct interest on loans. Tax laws and rules were more lenient and accommodating. Prices were also closer to a nice boat or motorhome.
 
Tantalum said:
I get that RV10s for example cost around 2,000+ hrs, right?
Click to expand...

There is a big answer right there. Let's assume Cessna can beat a guy in their garage, and build a Cessna 172 in 1,000 man hours. $20/hr in labor costs (which I'm guessing is lowballing), labor alone is $200,000. Thats before materials, engineering, overhead, marketing, sales, and yes, the lawyers. I understand why it costs so much to produce an aircraft. So what is the solution?
 
Tantalum said:
Another good point. The newer planes became less capable.

I get "regulation this, low demand that" - but honestly? For a plane that was developed in the 1950s I still can't get around why the entry level birds (Archer, Skyhawk, and step up Skylane) are as expensive as they are. All the costs associated with these things must have been paid off. Why these sheet metal parts can't just be stamped and assembled at this point is beyond me. Unless it's a giant F-U! to the owner market and they figure people like UND, Embry, etc., will happily fork over the money for new planes..
Click to expand...

Think about a few things for a minute. When your toaster or coffeemaker or television quits, you go buy a new one. When I was young there were plenty of appliance shops that fixed this stuff, partly because it was fixable and because it was expensive to replace compared to today. I remember the days when a color TV cost $600, at a time when my dad was making less than that in a month. Now a nice, good-enough TV costs less than a day's pay. The same thing has been happening with cars: automation has brought down the cost of manufacturing a vehicle, and the cost of that machinery is amortized over many millions of vehicles. And shop labor rates are high enough that once the engine or transmission fails, it's usually better to go buy a new car.

Airplanes are assembled in exactly the same way they were in 1956. Dies are used to form one part at a time. The thing is riveted together one rivet at a time. Instruments are installed one at a time. To automate this, for even two or three thousand airplanes per year, make no financial sense. Maybe when 3-D printing can develop to the point of making a light, strong airplane, the cost will come down enough that old airplanes will actually get crushed like old cars, instead of being repaired for decades.

I'm a retired aircraft mechanic. I know just how much work it is to build this stuff or to fix it.Comparing it to automobile production is comparing apples to bicycles.
 
3393RP said:
Maintaining older aircraft runs into the same brick wall. A few days ago someone posted that a replacement tailcone for a 100 series Cessna costs over $4,000. Why does that part have to be built by the manufacturer? Look at the example of the classic auto industry, where companies like Classic Industries and Auto Metal Direct are making body panels for dozens of old cars and pickups. GM, Ford, and Chrysler have licensed these firms to build the parts, and while Chinese replacement body parts pretty much suck, parts from CI and AMD are very close the originals.

Why can't control surfaces, cowlings, doors, and other airframe parts be manufactured by such firms? Computerized component measuring systems make it possible to exactly replicate an original within tolerances of a couple of thousandths.

How about engine components? I can buy a crankshaft for a big block Chevy from any one of a couple dozen sources, and unless you choose to buy the cheapest Chinese knockoff, the part will meet or exceed OEM standards. Bolt on automobile fuel injection systems replace carburetors, and have preprogrammed fuel maps and intelligent learning.
Click to expand...

Stene Aviation, for example, make fiberglass replacements for a lot of the common fairings like that tailcone. For $250 or whatever, and being fiberglass, it doesn't crack and is repairable. There are other companies making cowlings as well, some of them carbon fiber. One can start by Googling the part number you need and see what turns up. Might surprise you. Shouldn't just buy Cessna just because you think you have to.

An aircraft engine aftermarket crankshaft? Who is going to make such a high-liability thing like that for maybe a dozen per year? And for all the common models, at that? Lycoming only builds a few dozen new engines per year; much of their business is factory overhauls. Again, comparing cars to airplanes make no sense at all. The liability is monstrous, the investment huge, and the sales tiny. The reason we can't buy afternarket cranks is that there's no money in it. But we CAN buy aftermarket cylinders and pistons and gaskets and stuff like that. The stuff that wears out. Cranks last a long time.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Airplanes are assembled in exactly the same way they were in 1956
Click to expand...
That there is the single biggest issue. Today's Cherokees and Skyhawks are effectively the same plane it was 60 years ago. Well over 30,000 of each of those have been built. I work for a relatively small company but we incorporate the lean mindset and have a continuous improvement paradigm because of stuff competition and thing margind. You don't have to make one massive change at once, but I would think that over 60 years and over 60,000 copies of the same product would have shown some continuous improvement... and not seen the cost of these entry level planes balloon sky high. To make these changes now it is too late, that ship sailed

Frankly for the longest time both Piper and Cessna didn't have any real competition and because of high barriers-to-entry in the aircraft market they were able to keep things relatively flat
 
A new, $150k, Cessna 172 would sell like hotcakes and bring many more people into flying. Have it burn MOGAS and go 120kts and then we'll change the paradigm.
 
I don't really think the blame falls on Cessna/Piper for why their aircraft are so expensive... when the engine new from the factory costs 30-50k... how are they supposed to make a profit to build the rest of the plane if it costs any less than what they're currently charging? The components are what cost so darn much.
 
Dan Thomas said:
And shop labor rates are high enough that once the engine or transmission fails, it's usually better to go buy a new car.
Click to expand...

Amazingly prices on new have skyrocketed and that’s not truly the case for most modern vehicles, once again. But yes, replacing the transmission will be many thousands of dollars, but still significantly less than the bare minimum vehicles that $20,000 on up will buy you these days.

If you own something above that bare minimum transportation level outright, bought in the last ten years, the repairs are still cheaper than replacing, but you get a little piece of mind if you loathe standing around waiting for a tow truck once in a while. If you don’t mind the tow truck about once a year, you simply can’t beat repairing for total value, because depreciation will eat anything new alive. Especially if you’re a heavy mileage driver.

Prices caught up with inflation and the insanity of purchasing a vehicle over a seven year period with a loan. Most of us remember when nobody would dare make a seven year automotive loan. Now people do it and end up rolling the negative equity into the next vehicle which is even more insane.

Dan Thomas said:
Airplanes are assembled in exactly the same way they were in 1956. Dies are used to form one part at a time. The thing is riveted together one rivet at a time. Instruments are installed one at a time. To automate this, for even two or three thousand airplanes per year, make no financial sense. Maybe when 3-D printing can develop to the point of making a light, strong airplane, the cost will come down enough that old airplanes will actually get crushed like old cars, instead of being repaired for decades.

I'm a retired aircraft mechanic. I know just how much work it is to build this stuff or to fix it.Comparing it to automobile production is comparing apples to bicycles.
Click to expand...

Sidetracked into the automotive stupidity for a minute there, but your post reminded me of this story... nobody truly remembers how to build and fabricate the Rockedyne F1 engine anymore.

Knowledge lost to entropy and nobody having to do it all by hand and from their heads, anymore.

 
Mtns2Skies said:
I don't really think the blame falls on Cessna/Piper for why their aircraft are so expensive... when the engine new from the factory costs 30-50k... how are they supposed to make a profit to build the rest of the plane if it costs any less than what they're currently charging? The components are what cost so darn much.
Click to expand...

So you’re saying avionics and airframe are worth ten times the engine price, brand new? That’s fairly insane, really.

Remember they’re asking a cool half a million bucks for a turbo 182, out the door.

It doesn’t jive with costs on other aircraft equally as manual to build. Turbo 182 new, should probably be about a $250,000 airplane, maximum. And that’s still pushing it considering what $250K will buy someone in the used airplane market still.

Maybe half a million after a LOT more of the fleet is wrecked and gone, but a turbo 182 for higher than the median price of a house? Thats not sane. Not for what it truly is. A spamcan that hasn’t had a real update since the 70s.

No, adding a million fuel sumps, doesn’t count as a major update. LOL.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I don't really think the blame falls on Cessna/Piper for why their aircraft are so expensive... when the engine new from the factory costs 30-50k... how are they supposed to make a profit to build the rest of the plane if it costs any less than what they're currently charging? The components are what cost so darn much.
Click to expand...

Correct. I'm in for about $140k on the RV-10, which is all of the parts, engine, avionics, prop, etc. That doesn't count paint. Presumably, Cessna is in that range for the parts for a new C-182. A C-172 would be $25k less expensive because of the engine/prop combination.

So, let's say Cessna can do a 172 for $115k in parts, $20k in labor, $5k to paint it, and $50k in overhead. (You do want an engineering department to update drawings and give field support, a QC department to validate incoming materials and items, parts availability, a warranty department to handle those issues, etc. Right?)

Using those figures, that C-172 probably costs Cessna $190k to build. Assuming they want to make a profit on it, the things gonna be $250k out the door, at best.
 
NordicDave said:
Hilarious... Still laughing. Great thread.
Click to expand...

That’s incorrect. There are about 3000 light (LSA category ) planes being sold every year- worldwide. 3 times as many as certified GA frames.

It is not happening in this country since there are plenty of old cheap junk still available at reasonable prices and the newer certified planes are basically inaccessible to anyone but a few ultra rich... So your choices are either live off of increasingly older legacy certified airframes or hope for the LSA category to keep expanding upwards ( higher gross etc) because that’s the only place ( beyond experimentals) where new stuff is being developed with dozens of vibrant companies and new models being developed every year.
 
Stuffing the panel full of pretty lights can't hide the fact that the airframes are the same (crummy) airframes they have manufactured for decades.
GA manufacturers have been gouging buyers forever, and blaming it on the FAA. The reality is that the cost of FAA certification gets recovered in the first hundred or so aircraft sold. After that it's pure gravy.
Paying huge insurance costs because of lawsuits involving sub-optimal airframes? Make better airframes.
There are some industries that are at the extreme low end of new product design and development, but I can't think of any industry worse than aircraft manufacture and design.
And your father's still perfecting ways of making sealing wax. You better stop, look around. Here it comes, here comes your nineteenth nervous breakdown. (sorry, Mick)
I dare you to try to make a living selling VIC-20 computers today. Nobody in their right mind would do that, but we think nothing of looking at a 63 year old aircraft design (Cessna 172) and going "ooowww, aaaahhh" because they gave it a hideous "designer" paint scheme and stuck a $200.00 glass panel in it and charge over $750,000.00 for it.
You can buy LSA and kit planes that are an order of magnitude better in design and construction and safer and more cost efficient than the traditional CessBeeBoPips. It's just sad.
That's all. Carry on.
 
Shepherd said:
Stuffing the panel full of pretty lights can't hide the fact that the airframes are the same (crummy) airframes they have manufactured for decades.
GA manufacturers have been gouging buyers forever, and blaming it on the FAA. The reality is that the cost of FAA certification gets recovered in the first hundred or so aircraft sold. After that it's pure gravy.
Paying huge insurance costs because of lawsuits involving sub-optimal airframes? Make better airframes.
Click to expand...

Problem 1: It costs millions of dollars to develop a new aircraft. Design + tooling + construction + certification = $$$$$. No way you amortize those costs in the first hundred aircraft. In particular because your manufacturing process is going to be expensive until all of the design/mfg bugs are worked out. Maybe the 100th airplane costs $150k in direct costs (parts and labor) to build, but that first one? Ruined parts, head scratching, plus other inefficiencies are gonna eat your lunch. The second one might be a little better and on and on...

Problem 2: You can make a perfect airframe. But if some idiot stuffs it into the side of the mountain, there's a good chance you're gonna be sued for a few million bucks. You can settle out of court or you can fight it before a jury, but either approach is expensive. This is the part that stinks - it costs your company real money (10's or hundreds of thousands of dollars) to make a BS case go away. It is very hard to escape.
 
kyleb said:
Problem 1: It costs millions of dollars to develop a new aircraft. Design + tooling + construction + certification = $$$$$. No way you amortize those costs in the first hundred aircraft.

Problem 2: You can make a perfect airframe. But if some idiot stuffs it into the side of the mountain, there's a good chance you're gonna be sued for a few million bucks. You can settle out of court or you can fight it before a jury, but either approach is expensive. This is the part that stinks - it costs your company real money (10's or hundreds of thousands of dollars) to make a BS case go away. It is very hard to escape.
Click to expand...

We are talking Cessna here, right? They haven’t made a new airframe for GA in decades. No new design, no new tooling.

And a “few million bucks” for a lawsuit is maybe $10M once you pay all the lawyers and such. That’s 20 aircraft. The claims that they’re paying too much for liability insurance, are doubtful... they’re big enough to self-insure if that’s the case.

What was the payout on the famous mountain seat belt case? I forget, but they’ve made that and plenty more back, since the restart and a more than two-fold price jump, on a product that hasn’t changed significantly since the 1970s.

They and Piper sell these things for what they forecast the large pilot mills will pay for them for fleet sales. The pricing isn’t based on what normal owners will pay, it’s based on what the mills can squeeze out of the student loan system. For Cessna it’s also based on what CAP is willing to ask Congress to pay. Fleet sales dictates the majority influence on their price structure.

They can’t sell many airplanes new to anyone not backed by nearly unlimited student loan debt or congressional funding, buying fleets. Not individual aircraft sales.

Cessna would shutter the 182 line if CAP stopped buying.
 
denverpilot said:
We are talking Cessna here, right? They haven’t made a new airframe for GA in decades. No new design, no new tooling.

And a “few million bucks” for a lawsuit is maybe $10M once you pay all the lawyers and such. That’s 20 aircraft. The claims that they’re paying too much for liability insurance, are doubtful... they’re big enough to self-insure if that’s the case.
Click to expand...

I'm talking generic mostly aluminum aircraft. Like the Skycatcher. Or the efforts to integrate new functionality like a diesel. Nothing about that is cheap.

If you're making a $50k/airplane profit, paying off a $10m settlement means you're profitless for the next 200 aircraft. 200 aircraft is years of sales for most GA manufacturers.
 
kyleb said:
I'm talking generic mostly aluminum aircraft. Like the Skycatcher. Or the efforts to integrate new functionality like a diesel. Nothing about that is cheap.

If you're making a $50k/airplane profit, paying off a $10m settlement means you're profitless for the next 200 aircraft. 200 aircraft is years of sales for most GA manufacturers.
Click to expand...

Skycatcher was crap canned as soon as they couldn’t find a fleet buyer for it. Literally crap canned, they tossed the remaining ones in a dumpster.

As far as the lawsuit goes, file bankruptcy, start new business name DBA New and Improved Cessna, and continue on, just like all slimy American companies do these days. Works for everyone else. :)

Cessna is making a LOT more than $50K profit on the 182s they’re selling to CAP.

They are a fleet sales company now. That’s just what they want to be. That’s fine, but they’re not selling much to individuals. Cirrus has that bottled up for the most part.
 
denverpilot said:
As far as the lawsuit goes, file bankruptcy, start new business name DBA New and Improved Cessna, and continue on, just like all slimy American companies do these days. Works for everyone else. :)
Click to expand...

Maule could do that. Cessna, a subsidiary of Textron, can't.

And it would be really interesting to see what the folks working in the bowels of Cessna/Textron's accounting/finance wing think they make on each C-182. I bet those government contracts are doozies.
 
kyleb said:
Maule could do that. Cessna, a subsidiary of Textron, can't.

And it would be really interesting to see what the folks working in the bowels of Cessna/Textron's accounting/finance wing think they make on each C-182. I bet those government contracts are doozies.
Click to expand...

Oh they could, they’d just have to sell them off. There’s plenty of monetary games available to companies that size. And they have enough lawyers on retainer to tie up anybody who doesn’t like it, longer than the person who doesn’t like it can remain solvent.

They’re never going to say what a particular KS Senator’s forced deal with CAP makes them, that’s for sure. :)
 
denverpilot said:
Skycatcher was crap canned as soon as they couldn’t find a fleet buyer for it. Literally crap canned, they tossed the remaining ones in a dumpster.

As far as the lawsuit goes, file bankruptcy, start new business name DBA New and Improved Cessna, and continue on, just like all slimy American companies do these days. Works for everyone else. :)

Cessna is making a LOT more than $50K profit on the 182s they’re selling to CAP.

They are a fleet sales company now. That’s just what they want to be. That’s fine, but they’re not selling much to individuals. Cirrus has that bottled up for the most part.
Click to expand...

Concur. Getting indignant about lack of new sales from the legacy OEMs to the recreational market is a red herring. We are merely allowed to participate in this ungodly upside down avocation by proxy, on the coat tails of the pro-aspiring market overpaying for their training because turbojet potato.... and the fleet sales accompany it. That's why I own a complex trainer for a personal conveyance. Everybody scoffs at its numbers, but it'll remain viable to repair and fly until the last American flight school shuts down for remote control airliners. That should get me another 35 years of flying, medical willing. That and thankfully my wife is not a snob that needs automotive interiors in order to agree to share flying adventures with me, but I digress.

I just picked up my spam can from the new shop today; cheapest annual to date, so I'm happy. I'll still take this dystopia over European GA any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I can still make it from Canada to Mexico in one day without talking to a soul nor filing a g-damned thing. And I have.
 
Wow, some great comments here. As someone who's planning to get his license and start flying, I can give you a "wanna fly" perspective.

For someone who wants to get into flying, yes, the cost is the biggest barrier. Period. It will take thousands of dollars just to get a Sport Pilot license, and twice as much to get a PPL. I'd want instrument rating, maybe some others. More cost.

Once I'm licensed, I can either rent or buy a plane. If I fly a lot, I'll want my own. Unless I suddenly come into tons of money, there's no way I'll ever get a new plane. So, I'll have to make the best deal I can on a good used one.

The high cost of maintenance is primarily the FAA's fault. There is absolutely no rational reason why I should pay fourteen prices for a replacement lamp or switch just to keep the FAA happy.

(While there are obvious and significant differences between my current field and aviation, it really is deja vu for me, working in broadcasting. Decades ago, the FCC was just as anal-retentive as the FAA. As a result, there were few choices and prices were outrageous. But now we can buy, say, a 3,000 watt FM transmitter for considerably less than $10,000, and it's so small it'll fit in an equipment rack with room to spare. The comparison to aviation, for me, at least, is striking: why in the heck should I pay $30,000 for a 50-year-old engine design But the folks making better engines have to go through the cost and hassle of FAA certification.)

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here, though, is GA vs. commercial air travel. The costs on the latter have gone down since deregulation. Believe me, that's a factor. I can fly from Birmingham (BHM) to Fayetteville, NC (FAY) for $200-300 if I book a few weeks in advance. It's a comfortable ride in a much quieter plane -- and there's a bathroom for my wife! If one's goal is just to Go High To Look Down At Pretty Stuff, that satisfies many (if not most) people. Contrast this to the 1970s, where a commercial plane ticket cost $$$$, but you could get a brand new Piper or Cessna for an affordable price. If you traveled a lot back then, you could justify the cost of owning and flying your own aircraft. It's very hard to do that nowadays.

Yes, you don't get the fun of flying the plane yourself if you're on an airliner, and you're limited to those airports that support it, but most people are willing to work within those limitations.

The noise is a killer, too. You long-timers and old-timers don't give it a second thought, but again, speaking as a non-flyer who's trying to convince his wife to get behind my efforts, the cabin noise is absolutely awful. Having to wear expensive headphones just to be able to have a conversation strikes many people as inexplicable. Working in radio, I know how to soundproof, and I think I could do it at a rational price, and without adding too much weight. But I'd either have to go Experimental, or stay within the FAA's guidelines.

Others here have commented about old planes and how, say, a teenager is going to view it if he/she is thinking about becoming a pilot. That's a huge factor, too. A kid shows up to a flight school and sees two or three 40-year-old Cessnas, he/she isn't going to be impressed.

Ah, just random thoughts. I'm still serious about learning, but that's my perspective. Of all the people whom I know, one is a commercial pilot (flies small planes for hire, air taxi, that sort of thing), and one is now in the Air Force. Most of the others just fly Delta or American.

And yes, it's sad. My very first flight was in an honest-to-golly Curtis "Jenny." The fuel gauge was a piece of wire that floated on a cork, sticking out above the fuel cap. The seat belts were rope, Mr. Haney-style! (Seriously, I'm not making that up!) It was the most fun I'd ever had up to that point, and from that day on, I've dreamed of getting my license and flying.

Not being an aviation expert, I may be wrong about some of the above. I admit that. But there you go, and it's worth every penny of what you paid for it. :)
 
denverpilot said:
We are talking Cessna here, right? They haven’t made a new airframe for GA in decades. No new design, no new tooling.

And a “few million bucks” for a lawsuit is maybe $10M once you pay all the lawyers and such. That’s 20 aircraft. The claims that they’re paying too much for liability insurance, are doubtful... they’re big enough to self-insure if that’s the case.

<SNIP>
Click to expand...
You seem to assume $500K per plane is all profit. Someone mentioned building a an RV 10 for about $112K- I'm pretty sure he didn't include the cost of labor (~2000 hours) nor overhead (building, support staff, etc). If those costs come to $150K per plane, that lawsuit requires 29 planes to recover that cost. Since there were 46 C-182 shipped last year (reference below), that would give the line a profit of only $600K.

https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/memos/63185_GAMA_2017_Year_End_Report.pdf
 
denverpilot said:
So you’re saying avionics and airframe are worth ten times the engine price, brand new? That’s fairly insane, really.

Remember they’re asking a cool half a million bucks for a turbo 182, out the door.

It doesn’t jive with costs on other aircraft equally as manual to build. Turbo 182 new, should probably be about a $250,000 airplane, maximum. And that’s still pushing it considering what $250K will buy someone in the used airplane market still.

Maybe half a million after a LOT more of the fleet is wrecked and gone, but a turbo 182 for higher than the median price of a house? Thats not sane. Not for what it truly is. A spamcan that hasn’t had a real update since the 70s.

No, adding a million fuel sumps, doesn’t count as a major update. LOL.
Click to expand...

Let's take a look at a 172 which sells for 400k. We can assume about 35k for the engine and 50-60k for avionics and wiring. Let's just assume that 100k is for avionics and engine. Let's see you build a certified airframe for 300k. If an RV airframe costs 150k to build (I assume this is just component cost not labor), getting it certified for double that cost AND adding in labor is just amazing... then to turn a profit on it? outstanding 400k is a bargain.

If we see avionics, engines and components come down in price... then yeah that would be expensive. Considering what I spend on repair on the Skywagon, I can easily see how the airframe gets to be the price it is.
 
midwestpa24 said:
But you carry the zero! :lol:

You got me there, I've definitely been working too many hours lately. Or maybe its that new common core stuff.
Click to expand...

Without presenting a bunch of figures to back up my assertion, I think the hourly labor costs involved in building a 182 are much closer to $100 per hour than $20.

Think about taxes, workman's comp insurance, 401K matching, operating cafeterias, providing PPE, costs of union and labor relations, worker education, and other items that escape me at the moment.

A total labor unit cost of $60,000 or more would not surprise me.
 
kyleb said:
Correct. I'm in for about $140k on the RV-10, which is all of the parts, engine, avionics, prop, etc. That doesn't count paint. Presumably, Cessna is in that range for the parts for a new C-182. A C-172 would be $25k less expensive because of the engine/prop combination.

So, let's say Cessna can do a 172 for $115k in parts, $20k in labor, $5k to paint it, and $50k in overhead. (You do want an engineering department to update drawings and give field support, a QC department to validate incoming materials and items, parts availability, a warranty department to handle those issues, etc. Right?)

Using those figures, that C-172 probably costs Cessna $190k to build. Assuming they want to make a profit on it, the things gonna be $250k out the door, at best.
Click to expand...

The $140k you spent already includes profit to the companies/people you bought the parts from, and no volume discounts. Cessna doesn't build a wing, cost it at retail, add it to the aircraft, and then add 20% markup (or whatever) to the finished aircaft. Also, Textron owns Cessna, Lycoming, Cherry, and a bunch of other parts manufacturers, so they ain't paying what you, me, or even Piper is paying.
 
3393RP said:
Without presenting a bunch of figures to back up my assertion, I think the hourly labor costs involved in building a 182 are much closer to $100 per hour than $20.

Think about taxes, workman's comp insurance, 401K matching, operating cafeterias, providing PPE, costs of union and labor relations, worker education, and other items that escape me at the moment.

A total labor unit cost of $60,000 or more would not surprise me.
Click to expand...

Our labor burden has about a 30-35% upcharge for sundry costs - insurance, employer contributions, etc. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Cessna is paying $50/hr (inclusive of sundries) for labor. And then you add all of the overhead - building, tools, utilities, management, overhead (QC, line engineering, HR, etc...). It inflates quickly. A hundred bucks an hour, fully burdened, wouldn't be a surprise at all. Multiply that by a thousand man hours to build the thing, and...
 
3393RP said:
Without presenting a bunch of figures to back up my assertion, I think the hourly labor costs involved in building a 182 are much closer to $100 per hour than $20.

Think about taxes, workman's comp insurance, 401K matching, operating cafeterias, providing PPE, costs of union and labor relations, worker education, and other items that escape me at the moment.

A total labor unit cost of $60,000 or more would not surprise me.
Click to expand...

Plus the salaries of the non-production staff: the managers, accountants, paper pushers, test pilots, sales people, tech reps, and so on.

Most folks have no idea what it costs to run a business. Especially in the over-regulated and over-sued aviation world. I read that Cessna has to set aside a third of the cost of a new airplane for liability insurance premiums for the 18-year liability period.
 
trenton said:
In all these calculations, the engine makes up a large part of the non-labor cost of the plane. I've always been captivated by this GM LS3 conversion. You can buy these engines in crates new for $4 - $8k. That would reduce initial and ongoing engine costs measurably, not to mention you're capable of using pump gas.

https://backcountrypilot.org/forum/corvette-v8-in-172-certified-to-experimental-12351
https://www.chevrolet.com/performance/crate-engines/ls3
Click to expand...

If automotive engines were such a great idea for airplanes, it would have happened a LONG time ago. It hasn't. And it won't. Even in the E-AB world it hasn't caught on. Wonder why? They don't work well. And it's not because there hasn't been a ton of money spent trying.
 
Shepherd said:
...I dare you to try to make a living selling VIC-20 computers today. Nobody in their right mind would do that, but we think nothing of looking at a 63 year old aircraft design (Cessna 172) and going "ooowww, aaaahhh" because they gave it a hideous "designer" paint scheme and stuck a $200.00 glass panel in it and charge over $750,000.00 for it....
Click to expand...

When I checked recently, new 172s were priced at $391,000.00, not $750,000.00. Still too much, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top