Close

Member Login

Logging In
Invalid username or password.
Incorrect Login. Please try again.

not a member? sign-up now!

Signing up could earn you gear and it helps to keep offensive content off of our site.

Beechcraft Reborn?

By Robert Goyer / Published: Jan 04, 2013
Rate it! 0% or 100%
Beechcraft King Air Single

Is the plan wishful thinking or solid business?

In May 2012 it entered into -Chapter 11 bankruptcy with the intent to liquidate the debt and emerge whole. A number of bidders emerged, and by July the company announced it had entered into an “exclusivity agreement” with a Chinese-controlled company, Superior Aviation Beijing, for the potential sale of HBC’s assets, excluding defense businesses, to Superior for $1.79 billion. 

The sale, as you probably know, did not go as planned. In October, talks collapsed, and shortly thereafter HBC announced its intentions to emerge as a stand-alone company. A couple of weeks later, it filed the details of that plan, which gave more than 80 percent control to four secured creditors, Angelo, Gordon and Co.; Centerbridge Partners; Sankaty -Advisors; and Capital Research & Management. As we reported online shortly after the filing, the rest of the equity went to creditors. Goldman Sachs and Onex Capital Partners, which purchased HBC in a leveraged buyout just before the market tumble, would have no further involvement. 

The new plan included a new name, simply Beechcraft Corp., and a pared-down lineup that would jettison the company’s jet portfolio, which included the light Premier 1A and Hawker 400 (formerly the Beechjet and, before that, the -Mitsubishi -Diamond Jet), the super-midsize Hawker 4000 (nee Horizon) and the midsize Hawker 900XP. 

The fate of all of those airplanes is in the wind. There are thousands of still very active Hawkers and Beechjets in the fleet, making them attractive to a company looking not to restart production but simply to build spare parts and provide service. Much less attractive for this are the Premier 1A and Hawker 4000, which together represent relatively few airplanes. 

The sad news, delivered solemnly by HBC Chairman Bill Boisture at an opening day press conference at the NBAA convention, was that the company was voiding the Support Plus service contracts for a total of 150 Premier 1A aircraft and Hawker 4000s. While owners will still be able to find service for their 1As and 4000s, the move will likely reduce the value of those airplanes and force owners to pay for maintenance and repairs out of pocket. 

The decision to cancel the warranties on the two airplanes was made, said Boisture, with great reluctance. “We are truly sorry to have disappointed our customers with this decision,” Boisture told reporters at the event. Disappointment, however, is likely to be the least of customers’ concerns. It’s a terrible blow to those owners, though Boisture did point out it is likely the manufacturers of the aircraft’s engines and avionics would honor warranties for those systems.

Sadly, there’s more pain and suffering associated with the transition from Hawker Beechcraft to Beechcraft. Recently, the company told hundreds of its workers at Hawker Beechcraft Service facilities in San Antonio, Texas, Little Rock, Arkansas, and Mesa, -Arizona, that they are out of work. HBC plans to close all three facilities as it streamlines its services offerings into fewer existing locations. 

One area it doesn’t plan to abandon is the refurbishment business. It currently offers two products, the Hawker 400XPR, a re-engined and refurbished Beechjet/Hawker 400, and the Hawker 800XPR, a refurbishment program for the midsize Hawker jets. The company also announced a Beechcraft Bonanza Xtra refurbishment program through its factory-owned services network (the same that is losing the three aforementioned facilities). The Bonanza program would install new Garmin avionics, D’Shannon tip tanks and new interior, glass and paint on eligible 36-series Bonanzas. 

Comments (7) Post a comment

All Comments

ChampPilot44's picture

Someone forgot to tell Beech that Pilatus already built that plane.

Thomas Boyle's picture

Using the King Air brand on a single-engine airplane strikes me as a terrible mistake, from a branding perspective. Ouch.

Michael4yah@msn.com's picture

A Pilatus is not a Beechcraft. Using a King Air brand on a single engine turbo prop is a great idea. Times are a changing and this sounds to me to be the next logical step. It will be an American Plane and open up a new income stream to replace the jets that are being discontinued. All of our American companies need to take a slow steady paced strategy and build deeper pockets so the next time we have a government induced recession they wont lose part or all of their companies.

nrosoff's picture

There are currently three manufactures making single engine truboprops (Piper - Meridian, Socata - TBM, and Pilatus - PC-12). Two companies have announced they are are considering making a single engine Turboprop (Cessna, Cirrus) and two others are actually making single engine Turboprops ( Kestrel - Alan Klapmeirer, Epic - Experimental and has plans to manufacture a part 23 ). Sounds like a crowded market.

King Air is just a trade name and will not make one make a bit of difference.

If you you look at the three existing manufacturers, the Pilatus is a Truck (a nice one) but might be overkill for most applications, the TBM is very fast (310kts) but way over priced, and the Meridian is the most efficient and a great value for the money. Most the the the wannabes are trying to build a plane that combines the qualities of these three. If I were to speculate the only two that have a chance at that are Kestrel (as a result of the carbon fiber airframe and Honeywell engine), or Cessna because of there deep experience and resources.

N3922B's picture

Who is willing to trust Beech with their money after what they did to those warranties?
If I had a million dollars plus to spend it certainly wouldn't be on a plane made by folks that will go back on their obligations to their customers, all the while the executives fussing about getting their bonuses. Walter must be doing barrel rolls in his grave.
Beechcraft is a mere shadow of it's former self.

Vermeer's picture

This is a good idea and shows that the new Beechcraft is serious about doubling down on its previous success. The King Air name is a valuable asset and like Fender's "Stratocaster" and Toyota's "Prius" brands, it can be used to produce variations of already successful designs.

Basically if you already love the King Air, what about one that is less expensive and uses a composite fuselage? Check YouTube to see how the TBMs are made by guys forming aluminum panel by hand. Beechcraft can use their Jet-building experience to create precision products and beat the competition.

The Beechcraft management is hopefully going to make decisions that help the company instead of trying to get as much money for themselves. We'll see...

Thomas Boyle's picture

In my mind, the defining characteristic of a King Air, the thing that differentiates it from other small turboprops, is that it has two engines.

That's what comes to mind, just as "Stratocaster" means "electric guitar" and "Prius" means "hybrid".

It is not important that turbine engines are so reliable that you don't really need the redundancy of two engines. Some people want it, and that's what makes a King Air stand out. An single-engine King Air just means the brand doesn't stand for anything at all (except maybe that the company is afraid that Beechcraft isn't a brand anymore).

To my mind, Beechcraft is an excellent brand. If management wants to double down by using an existing airplane type brand, use a single-engine brand and call the new machine the Beechcraft Turbo Bonanza.

But maybe I'm wrong: in any case, I don't make my living in brand management...

Top Rated

Your Comment
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use