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?

For bad and for good, the story of Beechcraft is a classic American tale more than 80 years in the making.

The iconic Wichita, Kansas, light airplane manufacturer, which catapulted to prominence with what amounted to the Depression-era bizjet, the still-sexy Beechcraft D-17 Staggerwing, rose through the subsequent decades on the fortunes of a hall-of-fame lineup of products, top-notch support, a dealer network without peer and a brand that stayed loyal to its heritage arguably throughout its history. 

Today, the company is a shell of its former self. Gone are thousands of workers, let go over the past five years in the wake of the global economic bust. And many product lines, including those for the Premier and Hawker 4000, have stood idle for some time as the markets for those airplanes dried up. 

The decline wasn’t for lack of effort. “The untold story,” said Shawn Vick, executive vice president, customers, of Hawker Beechcraft Corp., in an interview with Flying shortly after its announcements at the National Business Aviation Association convention, “is the level of effort and focus that the people at Hawker Beechcraft have gone through, not just since the filing for protection but over the last three years. The work that was done across all facets of the organization was remarkable. All the manufacturers felt it [the effects of the downturn]; we certainly were no different than any other, but we had the unfortunate issue of the business having been acquired by two knowledgeable and capable private equity organizations, Goldman Sachs and Onex ... virtually on the eve of the economic reset.” 

How HBC got to this point is another classic story, though not a good one. It is the story of the modern economic model failing a good company with good products, service and, most importantly, people. 

While Beechcraft in its various ownership incarnations has weathered a number of slumps and hurdles over the past few decades, what it couldn’t overcome was the fallout from the leveraged buyout of 2007 coupled with a continued global economic recession that crippled airplane sales. As a result of these factors, the company’s debt, more than $2.5 billion, proved impossible to pay down, which stifled its ability to develop new products and market the ones it has, not to mention service the debt. Last year, HBC came to the difficult conclusion that, as hard as it might try, it couldn’t sell its way out of debt. 

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