Lanseria HawkerBeech Jets Approved Maintenance Facility
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lanseria HawkerBeech Jets Approved Maintenance Facility
I recently heard a 2nd rumour from a reliable source 
that NAC lost it's approval for maintaining the Hawker family of jets. Can anyone confirm this or advise what the actual situation is wrt to NAC Lanseria's jet shop?
Tks
that NAC lost it's approval for maintaining the Hawker family of jets. Can anyone confirm this or advise what the actual situation is wrt to NAC Lanseria's jet shop?Tks
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that thanks, I never considered the Nature Link / Embraer factor, it could be a conflict of interest from Hawker Beech's perspective?
Still I'm a bit suprised that NAC would willingly "loose contact" with HB, after all the NAC / Beechcraft relationship goes back a long time.
Perhaps NAC feel the Embraer range has better future prospects from a sales point of view.
Still I'm a bit suprised that NAC would willingly "loose contact" with HB, after all the NAC / Beechcraft relationship goes back a long time.
Perhaps NAC feel the Embraer range has better future prospects from a sales point of view.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks IRP - Interesting that, I never considered the Nature Link / Embraer factor in the equation.
I would still be suprised that NAC would willingly "loose contact" with Hawker Beech, after all the NAC / Beechcraft relationship goes back many years and gazillions of $$$$.
Do you think that NAC are betting on the Embraer business jet range to out perform HB from a future sales perspective?
I would still be suprised that NAC would willingly "loose contact" with Hawker Beech, after all the NAC / Beechcraft relationship goes back many years and gazillions of $$$$.
Do you think that NAC are betting on the Embraer business jet range to out perform HB from a future sales perspective?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAC did not lose it due to poor performance or wanting to accommodate the Embraer maintenance, but rather Execujet gained it due to a strategic decision by Hawker to move approved maintenance to Execujet as part of a deal to make other Execujet AMO's around the world approved Hawker maintenance facilities. NAC can still carry on doing work on the Hawkers, but not those under warranty obviously!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Where the Money Takes Me
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably a very good position for NAC to take the Embraer approval. HB currently have a very, very long in the tooth flagship - the 850/900XP, a dud new line that took over ten years to come to market, the 4000 and a couple of very disgruntled backers looking to exit ASAP. 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eire/HK
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LGW. The 850 was replaced by the 900, which is the only airframe in its class that can carry full fuel and full pax. Where do you get "long in the tooth" its only been flying for two years!!! And it is selling very well, better than most other competitors!!!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Where the Money Takes Me
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on Guys - all the 850 and 900s are, is a variation on a theme of the HS125 - both you and I know that. And, is it Hogwash about the money behind HB? Time will tell my friend.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eire/HK
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LGW, I am not sure how you come to your conclusions. The same can then be said about, Oh lets see.....727's, 737's, 747's, A319-321, A340's oh, and the Gulfstream I, II, III, IV,450,V,550 and just about every other successful line of aeroplane that has ever been built. The 900 is an improved version of the original HS125, It is the natural progression in technology and development, it is an improvement on the previous models. The truth of the matter is, that only unsuccessful airframes don't have variants. Unfortunately no matter how hard you try, you cannot call the HS 125 a failure!!!
I agree that the 4000 caused Raytheon some serious problems, as did the 1000 in earlier years, They are completely different certificates. The 750, 800, 850 and 900 variants where not part of the problem, they were the stabilizing solution.
I agree that the 4000 caused Raytheon some serious problems, as did the 1000 in earlier years, They are completely different certificates. The 750, 800, 850 and 900 variants where not part of the problem, they were the stabilizing solution.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eire/HK
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You didn't, I said no matter how hard you try! You did however call the 900 "long in the tooth" its only 3 years old, has Pro-line 21, is still in production and the 125 series got a new wing design after the 800 A. Basically by your reasoning, everything that has a variant is "long in the tooth" including the G550, which is the same as other G machines but with a different wing and updated avionics.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: South Africa
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, I agree the 4000 was slow out of the blocks, just like the 787 dreamliner, however word has it from pilots flying the later serial # that the 4000 is one hell of a machine! Time will tell, watch this space, the 4000 might just be the what HBC needs in future! And I agree with B200Drvr, the 900 is as far removed from a HS125 as the 738 is from a 732! Maybe the Hawkers kicked some dust in someones face?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Where the Money Takes Me
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No surprises here then. Not good news but something I touched upon some while back......
Exclusive: Hawker Beechcraft readies bankruptcy filing | Reuters
Exclusive: Hawker Beechcraft readies bankruptcy filing | Reuters
