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.

Home
print
comment

Doomsday for D-Jet? Diamond Aircraft Suspends Jet Program

By Robert Goyer / Published: Feb 25, 2013
Related Tags: News
Rate it! or
Diamond D-Jet

Diamond D-Jet

Enlarge Photo

On Monday evening Diamond Aircraft Industries Canada President and CEO Peter Maurer made the startling announcement that the company was laying off “the majority” of its Canadian workforce. The move, it said, was temporary pending what it called “restructuring.” In a phone call late Tuesday, Maurer said that the production of piston singles would continue, though it would be a build-to-order operation.The company had retained just over 50 of its approximately 200 employees. 

Maurer also said that while Diamond was suspending the D-Jet program “pending the securing of additional funding,” it was actively pursuing that funding. He gave no timetable for restarting the jet program or for the re-hiring of the laid-off workers. Operations at Diamond Aircraft Industries' sister Austrian company are not affected, according to the release. 

Maurer said, “We want to hire back as many employees as possible, as quickly as possible, but, he continued, “the exact number and timing will be determined as we develop our restructuring plans in the coming weeks.”

Maurer blamed the decision to suspend production on “continuing low piston aircraft sales, especially in the North American market.” Maurer also cited the “significant burden of its cost intensive D-JET development program” for the decision.

According to a press release, the company would retain "a core group of employees to fulfill purchase orders for aircraft, parts and services and to provide continuing airworthiness and technical support." Maurer stressed that there would ongoing support for the DA20, DA40 and DA42 models through the London facility. 

Maurer also said that Diamond was not seeking bankruptcy protection but that it would seek an "internal" restructuring.

Related Articles

Cessna Citation X
Cessna Updates Programs for European Audience

Cessna shares news on jet and piston lineups.

Hawker 400XPR
Beechcraft Tests Hawker 400XPR Winglets

Upgrade program progresses toward certification.

F-35 Takeoff Video
F-35 Makes First Vertical Takeoff

Joint Strike Fighter program makes progress.

Comments (12) Post a comment

All Comments

Vermeer's picture
Submitted by Vermeer on February 26, 2013.

As a Canadian, this really bums me out. My heart goes to the affected employees in Western Ontario. Jet projects are deadly & nearly impossible in this economy. Hopefully, they can do a GM/Chrysler-style bankruptcy & restart with a clean slate.

  • 0%
  • Good comment?
  • yes
  • no
skymachines's picture
Submitted by skymachines on February 26, 2013.

This is a real shame, as I really like their aircraft and was a deposit holder for a D-Jet.

I hate to wish for it, but at this point, it's probably time to talk to the Chinese. Will the last North American aircraft maker please turn out the lights? (Just kidding.)

  • 0%
  • Good comment?
  • yes
  • no
gbayard's picture
Submitted by gbayard on February 26, 2013.

How are Cirrus and Cessna sales doing? Is there any insight into that available?

On the surface Cirrus doesn't seem to be complaining about serious sales problems? How hard would it be to retrofit the DA-40 XLS with a 45lb BRS option even if it were for sales more than safety. I also don't think there's ever a downside to an additional backup system for a rational pilot who doesn't use the system to justify additional risk.

I hope they figure out how to turn around the sales. I think the DA-40 looks like an excellent aircraft.

  • Good comment?
  • yes
  • no
RobT's picture
Submitted by RobT on February 26, 2013.

Re: a BLS for the DA40.

On a percent of load basis, the vertical decent rate for an unpowered DA40, hands-off with the trim rolled fully aft is about half the book value decent rate of the Cirrus with its chute deployed.

When you add to this the facts: (a) that a DA40 emergency descent allows the pilot (or aware passenger) to pick a better spot to land once you break through the clouds, (b) that the aircraft is likely to remain flyable after the emergency landing, perhaps with minimal landing gear damage, and (c) that the DA40 has 20+ G seats to protect its occupants (the descent rate will produce only a few Gs), I can't see the benefit of adding the cost, weight, inspection, and aircraft destroying features of a BLS.

A BLS makes good sense for some aircraft. For the DA40, the benefits would be limited to a very small margin. (P.S. The descent rate of the DA40 is not hypothetical. I practice it annually as part of emergency preparedness. The descent is stable and nearly vertical.)

  • 50%
  • Good comment?
  • yes
  • no
airbrain's picture
Submitted by airbrain on February 26, 2013.

I never really got the point of the D-Jet. It doesn't fly higher or faster than turboprops, but I presume the turboprop can handle shorter fields and fly more efficiently. So, other than cool, what's the gain in building a new jet from scratch? That seems way under-compelling to justify development costs, especially under such tight market conditions. I hope they can keep the DA40 afloat. That's my favorite airplane with laudable design.

  • 100%
  • Good comment?
  • yes
  • no
tcwtjs's picture
Submitted by tcwtjs on February 26, 2013.

Aviation, specifically General Aviation is a bell weather of the coming economy. It is very sad to see another aviation manufacture hurting so bad. I thought the Chinese already invested in the Diamond after the Canadian government bulked. The Chinese already owns Cirrus, and Continetal Motors. Cessna is building or having built for them airplanes in China. Beechcraft is "restructuring" by dumping Hawker and the jet line and was trying to be purchased by the Chinese. Mooney is gone. Piper is hanging on. Cessna is a shadow of itself.

Restructuring like "GM/Chrysler-style bankruptcy & restart with a clean slate", I don't think so. GM is still majority owned by the tax payers of the US and if we demanded our money, we would only get about 70% back. Chrysler is majority owned by FIAT, then about 10 percent by the US tax payers. The Canadian government was smart to protect their tax payers from a bad "investment".

  • 100%
  • Good comment?
  • yes
  • no
iused2fly's picture
Submitted by iused2fly on February 26, 2013.

I feel for "skymachines" above, and the other depositors who may get screwed because of this announcement. As a Canadian I'm sad that it has taken so much time and effort, only to have this project put on hold pending restructuring. For the sake of all the depositors and the many Diamond Canada employees, I hope this is more a bump in ta long road and not a more permanent fall into quicksand.

I guess you have to sell a lot of DA-20s and-40s and-42s and a few-50s to reap enough profit to throw it down a rathole on a bizjet development program with no end in sight. What ever happened to being satisfied by making light planes and selling them at a profit? It seems that Beech and now Diamond reached for the brass ring of selling jets, only to be returned harshly to the reality of selling the light aircraft which made them viable in the first place. Only Cessna has been able to certify and get production certificate for their citation mustang, which is also suffering from slumping sales.

So much for the huge untapped market Diamond and other manufacturers expected. Where are all the upwardly mobile pilots, desperate to trade in their payed-for complex singles and twins for 300 knot Diamond biz-rockets?

Douglas M
Surrey, British C0olumbia

  • 100%
  • Good comment?
  • yes
  • no
eelb's picture
Submitted by eelb on February 26, 2013.

Too many options available on the used turbine market for the same price. And you actually get an airplane that can carry something and fly more than a few hundred miles.

A light single, is still a light single. Even if you put a jet engine on it.

  • 100%
  • Good comment?
  • yes
  • no
Franlebl's picture
Submitted by Franlebl on February 26, 2013.

i feel sad too, i love Diamonds, i did a check on type on the DA20 and the DA40 and i plan to buy a used one when i'll be ready to replace my little C150. Those planes are real marvels but they are really pricy. At the same time, companies that sells experimental aircraft for less are doing well. i think the certified aircraft rules are too costly and obsolete in many aspect and that it cost too much on companies like Diamond... Just my little opinion...

  • 100%
  • Good comment?
  • yes
  • no
Mtweiss's picture
Submitted by Mtweiss on February 26, 2013.

I looked seriously at Diamond's DA50 mock up when AOPA was in my backyard at Hartford, CT in October, 2007. I was very honest with the sales/demo team - that I was looking for speed (trading my Maule 235 STOL for something "quick"), doing so soon (within six months) and I really liked the DA40, Cirrus SR22 & was also thinking Mooney but would wait for the DA50. Unfortunately, there were no real answers only guesses. So, moving forward and actually regretting NOT getting in line for the promised five seat 350HP DA50, I purchased my first Cirrus SR22 and although six years old now, (2007 Turbo GTS) with about 550 hours. She still flies like a dream and I never looked back. I am so glad I didn't seriously consider Diamond or Mooney or even a Bonanza. Those choices would be making me sick to my stomach right now considering the almost half million dollars invested in my current bird and the financial messes those companies currently swim in. The irony is the "promise" of a DA50 kept me from "compromising" with a DA40 so I bought an SR22! Diamond's own fantasy kept a paying customer from even test flying their lesser powered but seemingly very capable and proven bird!

Diamond bit off waaaaay too much. The DA50 and the failed promises are just one of many pipe dreams Peter Mauer tried to song and dance the very small segment of the pilot population who have the financial means to purchase such an airplane. Add the promise of a DA52 twin (again, way to compete against and make current owners of your DA42 twin feel inadequate vs a FANTASY airplane! Then add a motor glider research plane, then A JET? Compared to the Cirrus Vision Jet, e Diamond Jet had no chance. None. Nada. Zip.

Oh, and in response to RobT, re: the argument that engine out glide speed is safer than a whole airframe parachute? Interesting arguments for both sides can be found at:http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsider_ParachuteMode_205652-1.html

The force of impact during a glide is FORWARD and downwards. The cirrus CAPS brings the airframe and occupants downwards 100%. Who walks away from a broken crankshaft at night over mountains or forests? The occupants of a DA40 gliding into a sheer rock face or Idaho Pine tree trunks at 73 knots (best glide speed DA40 POH) or a Cirrus SR class airplane dropping in straight down under a parachute canopy? The above AvWeb discussion is interesting. Diamond airplanes have a great safety record - way better than the Cirrus. Yet, at night, over crappy terrain, my BRS parachute is very comforting to have.

  • 100%
  • Good comment?
  • yes
  • no
gbayard's picture
Submitted by gbayard on February 26, 2013.

There's no doubt the DA40 has excellent glide. There are all kinds of arguments whether that's better than a parachute or not. That's not my point.

A great glide AND a parachute are better than a great glide alone in my opinion. Obviously, you trade weight for the parachute, but maybe buyers with $400,000 want to make that trade. I don't think there's a downside to offering it as an option if it sells more planes. Diamond is a business, sometimes the market dictates what features are in demand even if they don't always make the most sense. (Anyone notice how many Range Rovers and X5s are cruising down the highway with one occupant?)

  • 100%
  • Good comment?
  • yes
  • no
chalete's picture
Submitted by chalete on February 27, 2013.

I just can't undestand how millions and millions of dollars have been wasted in the development of single engine jets or small twin engine jets like the Eclipse thing without realizing first that there is no market for them, just as simple as this, either as a personal flying machine or worse off as a small airtaxi, with the added draw back that the price is is so high around 3 million that prospective buyers should prefer refurbished twsin turboprops like the Aero Commander 690s or Beech King Airs 90s costing 1 to 1.2 million with a small sacrifice in performance.

  • Good comment?
  • yes
  • no

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