Updated 23rd July at 20.14 hrs, GMT.
Since this post went live, I have been in contact with the original author, who tells me he had posted his comment to a 'Members Only' blog, and did not wish to have his words available in a public arena. As I have no desire to increase the pain which is all too familiar to those unfortunate enough to be in direct contact with Mr. Raburn, I am happy to comply with his request and have therefore deleted the original content of this headline post.
However...
Many, many other comments from others in the same position have come to my attention in the past few weeks, which I outline below in my own words.
Almost all those who took the opportunity of taking a refund (rather than a position on the ConJet) have had similar experiences. Despite there being no mention of the need to use Eclipse supplied forms, any request for a refund which did NOT arrive at EAC using the appropriate paperwork was ignored. When the correct paperwork was submitted, the company decided to delay the return of funds until the contracted 30 days had passed.
Ah, you enquire, when this clock start? Not, it would appear, when the forms arrived at EAC. Oh, no. The company started the clock when it opened the package, read the forms, confirmed they were filled in correctly and THEN passed the request on internally. In at least one case, this took 8 days, from the date the courier company got a signature for the package.
Now it gets interesting. Several position holders got annoyed (as you would expect) at getting this type of run around. While some were dealt with in an appropriate manner, others were passed from one harassed junior to another, all the time getting more and more agitated. After several weeks of being messed about, a few extracted promises that money would be returned on the 19th of July. That's four days ago now, but what's that if you have waited up to EIGHT years for your aircraft.
So the latest, latest, bang up to date news is....
Without fail, just in time for Oshkosh, money will be sent out on Friday next, the 25th. I'm not holding my breath, but I would hope that for once, and against all previous experience, Vern Raburn delivers what he promised.
In summary, I will convey to you all the sense of frustration that the original author expressed, when he requested I delete his comments. He would still buy the FPJ, at $2.1 million, in it's current condition.
But not from Vern.
That is a telling comment, and should be taken very seriously. This man has waited YEARS for the product he paid a substantial deposit on, and has given up on Eclipse, not the aircraft.
One last time, don't forget your 'Top Ten Shortcomings at EAC', by emailing your top five to me. I'll collate the results later this week and publish the 'final vote' afterwards.
Shane
269 comments:
1 – 200 of 269 Newer› Newest»no refunds ??
i kinda miss Mirage000 (from former Blog of Mr Great Stan)
what was the sentence , again ...
ah yes "i remain amused !"
(don't get me wrong :
for the speculators and the gullible looking for a fast buck = good lesson !
for the flying lovers , i pity you , really ...! can provide with rope , if need be ...)
nontheless : smell like "game over" soon ...
the fat orderbook is a myth now , it even starts to backfire ...!
OOOh , vern , you'll never stop to amaze me ... :-))
i forgot :
for the "still believers" ...
i am waiting for some more substantial news
(checkable ,in Former Soviet Union the vertical power was in the form of fears and rumors ...)
so , IF , what i have heard is of some substance :
the Russian plant will never be Russian ...
locals are quite pissed-off , i wonder why ? ;-)
by the way anyone have news of Eclipse performance in latest air-salon ?
perhaps Dayjet got their deposits back first?
OK, bad joke
deposit = unsecured credit
Is this legal?
Here's some more info on how DayJet operates:
The company typically needs about 50 local customers to sign on as members before it opens a DayPort, a hub that would include more regular flights, a ticket counter and local staff. Company memberships cost $250 a year per individual, and airfare is on top of that.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/business/content/business/epaper/2008/07/20/c2bz_samplescol_0721.html
This observer noted long ago that the price being charged (even the list price of $1.595m at the time) was less than the cost of production and that such represented a real pickle for EAC. To continue was to accept a doomed, de facto strategy of running a business selling its only product at a big loss per unit. The alternative, raising the price to a remunerative level, brought a different version of doom--triggering a huge cash requirement to fund deposit refunds.
You can but you can't
You will but you won't.
You're damned if you do
You're damned if you don't.
EAC chose a bit of both. It has chosen to "complete" and deliver up to SN500 at prices that represent losing money and to refund deposits to those of the remaining 600 customers who request. Remember that most of the customers under SN500 have already sent in $900k to $1m so refunding these would be really onerous. Perhaps the EAC analysis showed that the cash demand for filling these was less than the cash demand for refunding them.
Bottom line is that EAC is now obligated to "finish" another 250 airplanes at a cash cost of $1.8m (my guess) each against final payments of at least $1m less than that per airplane AND is obligated to refund maybe 400 deposits of $150k. So the immediate cash need might be around $300m. That's a lot of EA400 deposits, especially if the putative depositors think that their EA400 cash may be going into the EA500 cash furnace described above rather than into development of the EA400.
There is, however, a miracle method of stripping away all these cash demands from the EA500 and EA400 programs: Chapter 11. Sink the unsecured creditors that are a burden (i.e. depositors, lenders)and use DIP financing to pay the ones necessary to continue (lights, gas, reduced workforce, suppliers)and sell the product RIGHT NOW for $2.3m (including options) to anybody who wants one.
Here is a further guess: Nobody will want one. To get $2.3m for an EA500, it must be delivered with a modern avionics setup (a C172 G1000 system would be fine; the Cirrus G1000 variant would be great), with a solution to error messages and blown tire problems, and the TC review must be over without problems. How much would all that cost? Is it worth the cost to potential DIP financing people?
The reported performance from the basic airframe and engines seem excellent. The airplane cruises along at up to 370 kt and up to FL410. It is fuel stingy, burning under 400 pph at higher altitudes. None of this is possible with a SEJ limited to FL250. So it's worth a premium over the $1.5m D-Jet or the Cirrus jet (price not yet known). To start with the airframe and engines only, revamp the whole electronic scheme and get a new TC--what would be the cost? Surely $100m and 3 years would not be an unreasonable budget, would it? If this is the way forward and if there would be enough customers to make the investment worthwhile, then CH 11 won't work well because the business will be essentially closed for 3 years with no need for employees, parts, engines, etc. The solution for this would be a CH7 liquidation, with a believer getting the design rights and taking it from there. Such a party MIGHT take on support of the existing fleet but might also prefer just to go forward with a completely new offering unburdened by the past.
For the sake of my friends who own these airplanes or are waiting for them, I hope my numbers are wrong and that the cash to provide the refunds, finish the jets and survive into profitable operation is readily available. T shirts at Oshkosh will not be a good sign.
Here's someone who went to the BBB over a refund and Eclipse didn't even bother to respond!:
Certain representations and promises were made to me by Eclipse in connection with a deposit agreement for an aircraft, including without limitation, their financial condition, capacity, ability to produce an aircraft meeting certain specifications and the promise that I would receive an aircraft with a certain serial number. I remitted an aggregate deposit of $182,000. In February 2008, Eclipse requested that I sign a purchase agreement and remit to them an additional deposit of $932,503.30. Pursuant to the deposit agreement such purchase agreement was to be entered into no later than six (6) months prior to aircraft delivery. At the time of such request, Eclipse had only produced approximately 100 planes in 2007 and slightly over that amount total. For them to reach my serial number they would have to produce over three times as many planes as they produced in the entire 2007 over the next 6 months. Around the same time, I became aware that Eclipse had, in violation of my deposit agreement and contrary to representations and assurances given to me by Eclipse, altered my serial number to an earlier model. Further, I was advised by both the Company and the FAA, that the aircraft being delivered were not meeting certain minimum specification requirements set forth in the deposit agreement, including known icing. I demanded the return of my deposit. Eclipse refused and now claim I have forfeited the deposit.
http://www.bbbsw.org/BBBWeb/Forms/Complaint/ComplaintDetails_ReadOnlyPage.aspx
Given all the turmoil, I couldnt imagine why anyone would put money down for the 400.
Cirus has demonstrated that they have the ability to profitably design and build "disruptive" aircraft. They are taking deposits on their new single jet. Granted, its numbers arent as good as the 400s, but their numbers are most likely fact, whereas Eclipses are fantasy.
Just my .02
Given all the turmoil, I couldnt imagine why anyone would put money down for the 400.
It gives them 3+ more years to sell their position to someone else rather than having to pony up for the FPJ. It keeps people's money at risk in the low six figures rather than having to go into seven figure territory.
It's my money and I want it NOW!
;-)
smartmoves :
#deposit = unsecured credit
Is this legal?#
sorry to say , but when working in Wall street , i had a colleague who was joking that the best part of the job was to depart stupid joe from his money ...
not a pro of law , but to me if it's an agreement between two parties under the seal of private interest ... why not ?
off-course any biding in the agreement have to be fulfilled , so in this case , i suppose one can say EAC has failed brilliantly (damn ...! going to be on Hit-list ..again !! ;-)) )
Here's an article written by the organization that certifies CPAs. It's older, but it does provide some good advice and warnings, so people can decided if Eclipse has acted like a company that could be headed toward bankruptcy. Here's some good things to watch out for:
Normally, a UCC-1 is filed to perfect a security interest granted in personal property; however, unsecured creditors may file a UCC-1 proclaiming an interest in specified assets even if there isn't any security interest.
Exhibit 1: Almost Bankrupt?
Some Warning Signs
The customer:
* Changes vendors a lot.
* Places more, but smaller, orders.
* Complains more frequently.
* Requests proof of delivery more often.
* Returns more product.
* Keeps losing top managers.
* Pays for each shipment progressively later.
Any group of three unsecured creditors holding $10,000 of undisputed claims among them can initiate an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding if the debtor is falling behind on a lot of its debts. Creditors may wish to consider filing an involuntary bankruptcy petition if any of the following apply:
* The creditor believes that insiders or other creditors are receiving favorable treatment.
The creditor thinks that the debtor company is about to sell its assets for less than fair value.
* A secured creditor forecloses on its collateral and is expected to dispose of those assets for less than their fair value.
* The debtor appears to be engaging in fraud.
* The managers continue to lose money or otherwise make bad business decisions.
However, if the court dismisses the creditors' involuntary petition, the debtor may hold the creditors that filed the petition liable for any damages the petition has caused. Furthermore, if the court finds that the creditors filed the petition in bad faith, they can be liable for punitive damages as well. Creditors should exercise caution in pursuing this option.
http://www.aicpa.org/pubs/jofa/apr1999/bobo.htm
The depressing thing is again hearing the Fat lady warming up her voice, only to know that Vern still has Hugo Chavez and Paris Hilton waiting to become "investors" in this dinosaur slayer.
I believe we've seen this elsewhere, but here's Eurocontrol forecasting *up to* 100 VLJs per year:
The number of Very Light Jets (VLJs) in Europe is forecast to increase signifi cantly in the future, with up to 100 additional aircraft coming into service each year.
http://www.eurocontrol.int/corporate/gallery/content/public/docs/pdf/organisation/dg_brief_to_stakeholders_april_2%20(2).pdf
Also here's an analysis of european business traffic in the air that occured in 2007 as well as an analysis of the potential air traffic in the future. Much attention is paid to VLJs:
http://www.eurocontrol.int/statfor/gallery/content/public/analysis/TAT4_290408_2.pdf
Here's the european aviation forecast website:
http://www.eurocontrol.int/statfor/public/subsite_homepage/homepage.html
Shane,
can you give an indication of approximately how many emails regardng "refunds" you have received?
Bumping a couple of things from the last post...
Baron wrote
Right now, Eclipse is telling EASA: "Gives a list of your concerns or questions of issue the damn TC already".
Do you have anything to support that opinion that Eclipse is trying to get things moving with EASA? I get the impression from the Eclipse CRI, and its long comment period, that the ball is in Eclipse's court. I would hope that EASA will update the public comment response document with the Eclipse opinion, but doubt it will.
Very appropriate pressure. You don't want a regulatory agency to take its sweet bureaucratic time while it impacts your revenues.
and
That is all fine and expected. I~d consider Eclipse, a VC funded startup, remiss if they didn't put all the pressure they could put and do the same with the EASA.
Those are very good observations concerning dealings with an authority. I would also expect Eclipse is trying their best to get leverage with EASA. It doesn't appear like they are terribly successful so far.
airtaximan: “. . . how many emails regarding “refunds” . . .”
‘Seems it only takes “one” to establish honesty, or the lack thereof.
There was a crude joke which ended with the line, “Madam, we have already established what you are . . . now we’re negotiating price!”
And so it would seem, that the present subject has come to that level of understanding.
gadfly
(Many things have a perceived value . . . but honesty is “priceless”. We may soon see the true value of the little bird, without its feathers.)
Do you think Eclipse is using unrefunded deposits to:
A
1/ pay vendors
2/ pay salaries
3/ pay executive bonuses
4/ pay marketing
5/ pay interest on loans
6/ pay for AvioNfG upgrades
7/ pay for other field retrofits
8/ pay rent
9/ pay the utilities
10/ pay EASA
11/ pay for E400 development
12/ Pay warranty claims
B
Or are they supporting all these activities out of the positive cash flow generated by the less than 1/3 the projected rate of "deliveries" (tm Eclipse) they sold at a loss, with the refunds being paid out of the excess profits they bank on the losses they made on each "delivery" (tm Eclipse)?
C
Or do you think they are paying refunds from the huge cash flow generated by the 2700 orders from "Die hards" eagerly still forking out "6 month" (tm Eclipse) progress payments for planes which any idiot can see will not be delivered before 2010 (if ever)?
D
Or do you think that ETRIC has graciously put up the cash for Vern to refund to the tiny minority of fed up, former "Die hards"s, who aren't eagerly swapping to the E400 Vapour?
E
I think Eclipse is starting to buy lotto tickets. A solid financial plan with predicable risk at long last.
Any resemblance between this Satirical post and the facts related to Eclipse's financial position are purely accidental. No Enemas were affected.
Riddle:
How many eclipse deposit refunds does it take to fund the festivities at Oshkosh?
How many eclipse deposit refunds does it take to fund the festivities at Oshkosh?
That's a trick question! Vern could just avoid paying his suppliers. After the event is over he can complain that the display booth was bad, the color copies didn't come out right, etc.
For some time, we could have been concerned about the safety of the many potential people that might fly in the little bird. But it would seem that it has produced its own form of safety. Aircraft that cannot fly are relatively safe . . . unless someone runs into them while walking across the tarmac. And before long, it would seem that the entire fleet will be grounded for any number of reasons . . . possibly for just “lack of interest” or “disgust” or for refusal by a customer to be insulted one more time.
Who knows! . . . maybe even “P&W” will get the big picture, that having their engines mounted on this contraption is not the best form of advertising. Actually, I have little love for P&W Canada . . . so let them continue their association. (Yes, I make tooling for their competitor . . . you don’t have to guess.)
And does Fuji Heavy Industries, Limited, of Japan really need this sort of connection? . . . as I recall from history, Fuji is big enough that they don’t need this sort of association . . . there aren’t enough aluminum chips machined from a “billet” to pay for this sort of advertising. Fuji was (and maybe still is) known for some great things in the history of aviation (even though they were once our enemy). This is not the sort of relationship to keep going . . . with a loser. (Don’t you love the term “heavy industries”? . . . and then connected with the “pip squeak” Eclipse . . . almost rhymes, but somehow doesn’t quite fit.)
An entire list of others bailed out earlier . . . maybe it’s time for the “die-hards” to bite the bullet and take action. It’s obvious that things ain’t goin’ to improve.
A friend once said, “If you’re on a plane that’s goin’ down, and you don’t have a parachute, grab a hose, or an extension cord . . . and jump. It’s bound to catch on somethin’!” But in this case, you will probably live to tell about it . . . all the way down.
gadfly
(Answer to airtaximan: "One too many!")
For some time, we could have been concerned about the safety of the many potential people that might fly in the little bird. But it would seem that it has produced its own form of safety. Aircraft that cannot fly are relatively safe . . . unless someone runs into them while walking across the tarmac.
There's also safety in vapor. The so-called "firm orders" are more like "fraud orders." I doubt that 2700 units will materialize with Eclipse under its current form.
Airtaximan,
can you give an indication of approximately how many emails regardng "refunds" you have received?
As a Platinum Member (I've just invented that term for people like you) I am delighted to give the following answer. It is as specific as a promise from Vern himself.
Loads.
OK, that's not fair to you, so I went and did some figures. Now I have to tell you that I really hate sums, especially at 23.15hrs on a Monday night. But for you, my friend, longstanding critic and member for life of the honor roll, I did.
Direct, one to one email to me, a total of five.
Sight of the E5C (members only, don't peek...) forum discussions and other sources, at lease another ten.
There may have been some duplication between sources, but I've also had third party contact (journalists, wives etc) for a couple more.
So, I have 'seen' something like fifteen, give or take a couple.
Shane
Dave
Sometimes, back in “olden times”, driving home from work at Long Beach Airport on the “405" at 1AM, in condensing “vapor” could be lethal . . . we called it “Fog” . . . the “Orange County” variety, and the best thing was to get a safe stopping distance behind some red tail lights, turn off the head lights, watch out the window for the change in the painted stripe . . . and count the miles to Santa Ana. If the tail lights didn’t end up in someone’s driveway, I could find my way home.
But these “customers” are following the “red tail lights” right into a hole, a dead end, a total loss of everything in which they have invested and desired. It reminds me of lemmings.
The warnings are out, and yet the “herd” or “flock” (what do you call a plethora of lemmings?) continue toward the cliff.
We watch . . . we wonder . . . what is it that drives these folks? Money? . . . pride? . . . none of it is worth the bottom line, that’s for sure! The only thing that is certain is the precipice ahead.
gadfly
(And yet, we are fascinated as we watch the obvious, the enevitable!)
(And let Shane get some beauty sleep . . . me thinks he'll need it . . . the sleep, that is!)
shane,
you are a cool guy, thanks for the Platinum membership... to me it means:
1) I slept at a hotel years ago to become a "platinum position holder"
2) I see airplanes as speculative investments
3) people think I have more money than brains,
4) I see planes as speculative investments not transportation
5) I sold my position a long time ago to make $100k over 10 year on a $150k investment
6) I am not a pilot
Thanks
PS. 15 reports is a bigger number than I suspected. I expect a statistics guru will chime in, but I would contend that those who compained to you, and actually bothered to report to you are at most 10% of the position-holding population. Maybe less, considering they are undoubtedly aware that publicity like this will make it near impossible to extract money from EAC - cannot get blood form a stone, and this thing is sinking like a rock.
I expect 200 position-holders asked for their deposit back, or more. Just a hunch.
Curtains
I read somewhere Vern finally admitted once there were 65 or so (read 100) depositors that took refunds at another milestone.. perhaps a switch to PW, I cannot remember. This really never surfaced, until he admitted it.... a long time after it happend.
With little to do at the moment, except wait for the end of my day at the shop, I am listening to a major lightening storm overhead, over Albuquerque, the home of the little jet. And it occurs to me, in light of the problems of a fairing falling off, up near Rockford, Illinois (one of my first cross-country flights was in and out of Rockford), I’m reminded again of the importance of quality control. Right now, a major rain storm is overhead . . . and I wonder if any of the little birds are flying at the moment. If they are, let us hope that all those “ground straps” are securely in place, in case there is a lightening strike . . . welding an aileron or rudder or elevator in place is not the nicest thing to happen. Every year, there are thousands of lightening strikes on aircraft in the US of A . . . and almost all are “harmless”, entering and exiting the airframe . . . maybe causing some discoloration around “loose rivets” (oops, that might apply to the little jet), or a pattern of burn marks at entry and exit . . . no big deal. Unless someone didn’t get the ground straps properly fastened down. But with a twelve week course in proper assembly practices . . . I ask you, What could possibly go wrong?
‘Not to worry!
gadfly
(Boy, we don’t call this the “monsoon season” in Albuquerque for nothing! . . . the “rain” in Spain is mainly, right now, coming down on our roof . . . in Albuquerque . . . and the thunder sounds like a major military engagement. I love it . . . ‘glad I’m not up in a “little bird”.)
gadfly,
what do you think it costs EAC to produce one of these birds?
airtaximan
Far more than they, or their customers can afford.
As for a "dollar figure", there is not enough money available to make it right, because the design is flawed from the start . . . and nothing can make it right.
Good designs are the result of genius. When a group or committee is involved, the genius still makes the final decision. In other words, the little bird is like a chicken without a head . . . 'lots of activity, but there is no head to decide direction.
All the money in the world will not solve the problem. Sooner or later, someone or something will put this miserable monstrosity out of its misery. It's just a matter of time . . . and hopefully, no one will be injured in the process.
If you have ever lived in the country, and raised chickens to eat, you get the picture. The similarity is all too obvious.
gadfly
(The longer we wait, the bigger the mess . . . blood and feathers everywhere! 'Ever scald and pluck a chicken? Thank God for Costco!)
Someone out in “blog-land” is thinking up a financial reason, or fix, and will soon put their thoughts to pen (or keyboard). But ‘just remember the chicken without a head, and you’ll be way ahead of the flock. All the manipulation of numbers in the world will not fix this bird . . . it’s over. As “Chicken Little” has been quoted: “The Sky is Falling” . . . but he had it backwards!
Sooner or later, the chicken will stop flapping and running around in circles. And no one in history has yet put a head back on a chicken . . . if it had a head to begin with.
gadfly
(‘Having raised enough chickens . . . I have doubts that chickens are even hatched with a brain in the first place.)
The state of NM is giving EAC another 1.2 Million! When will they ever learn. Why arent more people in NM pissed off?
Charity
I rest my case!
gadfly
(You'll find my statement above!)
The deal is that NM wants EAC to create another 200+ jobs with the money. Gee, another pot of money that is already earmarked for things other than paying suppliers and customers that want their money back. Amazing.
$1.2M - 200 jobs? That's $6,000 per job. How far can that go? What does it even buy you?
If in fact, it even goes for jobs.
well ...
about the 1.2 million ...
never thought that it can be better to try to give a little cash (anyway not going out of their pockets since it's taxpayers ...) than to may have to give answers to more nasty questioning ?
keep up the good job , NM state ...
if you want i can give a crash-course (for free just for fun !you pay the plane ticket , give a mattress for sleep and a few burritos to eat) on french working-policies or how to implement 35 hours of labor (maximum authorized) 6 weeks vacation (paid , off course) all paid on tax money , the trick is to have peoples to believe you when you tell them you're ruining them for their good ....!!! ;-))
Fifteen people have asked for refunds according to Shane.
I tend to agree with those who think that this is only the minority, the majority of soon to be ex-"die hards" are probably not discussing there 150K woes on internet forums).
If it was only 15, that is $2250000 cash. Does anyone really believe that Eclipse is going to simple hand over this cash other than those have spent up to eight years as true believers?
That one construction companies law suit would indicate that they have decided to say "bring it on".
Freedom,
What I said, after allowing for duplication of the identities who had contacted me directly, those who had posted on the E5C web site and other, third party sources, was that I had 'seen' fifteen people who wanted their money back.
Plus or minus a couple.
I agree with you. If a casual observer like me, sitting 4,100 nautical miles (I checked....) from ABQ, can 'see' fifteen or so cases, then there have to be many more in reality.
Lots and lots more. My gut tells me I'm onto to about 20% of the total, so lets estimate 75, (+/- 5) depositors who want out. Lets talk about why I feel that 'in my gut'.
1. If Vern only had to pay out on 15 deposits to keep the rest quiet, he would raise the $2.25 million in a heartbeat. Multiply that by 5 (and you know how I hate sums) and you are talking REAL money. The sort that Vern would have problems putting his hands on, in a hurry.
2. Fifteen people looking for money would be easy for a single person in ABQ to deal with on a personal level, in a professional manner. The fifteen could be made to feel exceptional, and possibly converted back to membership of the 'Die Hard' club. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE. Everything I've seen shows that these people are a) being ignored for as long as possible and b) talked at by a number of (named) staff, who can't handle the workload, and won't return calls.
3. Finally, if there were 'only' fifteen, you can bet any money you like that Vern would be onto Captain Zoom to do another 'interview' where he would be boasting about how few people had given up the chance to own one of these wonderful, disruptive, etc etc.
I'm a pretty 'conservative' sort of guy. A number of times on the blog I have been careful not to discuss or disclose everything that comes my way, in part because I have no wish to increase the pain of the staff, suppliers or customers of Eclipse Aviation. Some of you know this, having sent me pretty damming material which remains locked up.
I first had an email from someone seeking assistance in getting their money back several months ago. What started as a trickle has now, as far as I can tell, turned into a flood.
I try to avoid speculation, and have chosen to comment on your suggestion that there are more than the 'fifteen' only to illuminate my though processes.
But I will allow myself on this:-
What chance the 'Russian' factory, now?
Shane
freedom and all :
you probably know by now that i am "wild animal" enough to like putting the dot on the I ...
so to paraphrase Mr Shane "what are the chances for a Russian plant , now?"
in my opinion , it is gone !
i have been busy other the last few days on money matters (not the one someone or you make , but on a general point of view ...)
so , for a while , there is a big concern going on in Russia :
Cash Outflow !
out of the Few billions of direct foreign investments that was getting in Russia in the last few years , now the flow seems to go reverse ...
the Russian authorities are fearing that , for the first time in a long while, the cash outflow is going to be far greater than the inflow ...
mainly due to the fact that lots of investments entities are withdrawing to get ready to face losses in their home market ...
so , the expansion of Russian economy is going to be way slower than the previous years (expected 3 to 5 % compared to the 8 to 12 % as before ) off-course it is still much higher than all western economies , but may be already enough to curb the inflation (quite a lot ) and the sensation of being rich enough to afford such items as private jets ...!
so Russia and the like as a potential market for Fpj ... i guess it's gone ...!
once again with EAC = too small and too late !
as for the remark on "re-fundings"
one has to consider few aspects :
all the ones who were in the nightmare for money-making ...
all the ones who have dreamed ...
all the ones who have to face the " who has to be obeyed" ...
so as far as we know the human nature , it is assumed as a normal trait to glorify the win and cover-up the losses ...
so 15 to have claimed about the "refund dead-end" would seems (to me) something rather good ...
as many more will prefer to clinch on their expectations of fast-bucks , some will have troubles to explain why they jeopardized the university-money for the kids in front of their(not so , then ) beloved wives and some will not have the gutts it takes to admit failure ...!
something to do with the "winner never quit , quitter never win" part of culture some got as a birth gift ...
BUT please do not state 75 ...! ;-))
as you know , probably , orderbook CANNOT have a negative value !!! ;-))
(i know this one was way too easy as a joke , but i couldn't resist !)
When I requested a refund for my $150,000 Eclipse deposit a few years ago, a similar story line was used- people away, over worked personnel and delays before the check was finally produced.
I was not amused
Turboprop_pilot
Charity
The deal is that NM wants EAC to create another 200+ jobs with the money.
You remember, when Roel came around, VR said that he will create another 700 jobs this year. But that costs some money (and time) for training, "company start kit" etc.
I think VR is asking for the rest (approx. 3M$). That's fair?...
I think the banks get nervous when too much money is passing away... they like unsecured deposits...
The question is when will a genius pay 2.x M $ for the FPJ?
All other customers are too expensive!
turboprop :
yes , who would be amused , anyway ?
you got some luck , but others have to face it :
the more time goes by , the smaller are the chances !
nothing really nice into this , only a fact !
What chance the 'Russian' factory, now?
Don't be surprised that the have a continegency plan... including a new plane and a new plant as the way to avoid being completely out of business.
As I have stated the e500 is DOA AND EAC has known this for a long, long time.
Perhaps they kept the dream alive by imagining that post TC, PC, entry into service, FIKI...(anything) REAL orders would flow in - they did not.
So, the low cost/high volume jet was DOA... and since they made up the order book numbers with 1430 from dayjet and 200 from themselves (etrick)... I think at least Vern knew is was DOA... even a few years ago.
Conjet and "Russian factory Etrick story"... are designed to save the company.
When things get bad enough, Etrick (which used to be eclipse-europe, right?) will execrcise its rights over the company's IP (licensed) and whatever assets it has liened, and continue over "there".
Wherever there is, does not matter much.
The license is quick way to keep and use what's needed to remain in business...
So, they have planned for this eventuality for quite some time, IMO.
+ whoever said IF there were only 15 position-holders asking for refunds Vern would just pay it, and actually boast about it, is very smart. I did not think of this. Heck, if it was 50, he would say it was 28 or so, and boast about it. Since he has not done this, there are two possibilities as I see it:
1- there are many, many more than 15 people looking for their refunds
or,
2- EAC does not even have enough money to pay back 15 or so position-holders.
There are probably more "reasons", but I can't imagine any good ones.
Enjoy the show... I suspect a few order book announcements at Oshkosh - regarding the successful launch of the Conjet... to keep the dream alive.
Eclipse seems to be dredging the bottom of the barrel to sell Conjets at Oshkosh. A slick marketing piece came to the office the other day touting the "robust V tail, 330 knot max cruising speed" E400. They're even throwing in $30,000 worth of optional equipment if you place your deposit at EAA AirVenture.
How'd we get on the mailing list? Best I can figure is that one of us signed up for a news letter years ago.
The best part was the follow-on marketing piece. We got a postcard that said "OOPS..." on the front. The back of the card had the correct phone number. Apparently they put the number for Toyota on the original slick brochure. Too bad it wasn't Honda.
Buffoons.
atm:
#2- EAC does not even have enough money to pay back 15 or so position-holders.
There are probably more "reasons", but I can't imagine any good ones.#
it's probably along those lines ...
they have (may be) enough cash to pay back , but they know damn too well that if they don't give a rough ride to askers ...:
the word is going to spread fast , then bye-bye the darkened-skies ...!
or "may be " they have no idea of the remaining stock of red ink at the bank ? ;-)
on the probability of etrick-plot : i don't think so ...
as soon as EAC stop the madness ( the fight will stop because lack of fighter ...)
the whole thing is going to be worthless , who would be mad enough to believe "the merry band" a second time , when they failed so brilliantly the first ???
i agree it might be what was thought about ...
but there is a long way between dreams and reality ...!
too many peoples to read english
(so to say , if one can consider my typing to be english ...!;-)) )
EAC manage to get on FAA nerves
EAC manage to get on EASA nerves
EAC/E-trick is not going to have a better treatment in eastern-europa ....!
"Too bad it wasn't Honda" . . . uglyabq
Now, that is more than funny!
gadfly
riddle:
how many Conjet deposits does it take to finance EAC's festivities at Oshkosh?
notice I did not say "how many OCnjet deposits does it take to refund the E500 position-holders?"
Given Eclipse's history, the numbers seeking refunds is probably greater than 15. Back when Eclipse was doing much better and they only had a [relatively] modest price increase 22 position holders bailed:
The report also stated that, earlier this year, Eclipse announced a 10% price increase in the Eclipse 500, bumping up the asking price by $120,000 for new orders and $95,000 for existing orders. Although Eclipse gave current customers a window in which they could get refunded the amounts in escrow, during that period only 22 customers canceled their orders — less than 1% of their backlog.
http://www.sic.state.nm.us/PDF%20files/PEIAC%20minutes%208-4-05.pdf
So there's got to be way more than 15 just logically who have tried to get refunds from Eclipse.
Also I found this where Eclipse wasn't the aircraft for the job for NM state business:
Commissioner Buffett: We know the thriving aircraft industry in the state, has there been any attempt to look at purchasing a locally made aircraft such as Eclipse?
Pat Block: No, because the Eclipse is a small business jet and what we need is an aircraft that’s suitable to work wildlife surveys
and law enforcement. That is 95% of what that aircraft does and so we need something that can take off and land in a relatively
short area, can operate at high altitudes, and at times at fairly low speeds, so we’re looking at a propeller driven aircraft rather than a jet aircraft.
http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/commission/minutes/documents/Minutes8-23-07_Albuq__000.pdf
Here's DayJet explaining why they picked the PR firm that they did. It probably explains part of their problem:
Dave Close, executive VP at SC, told O’Dwyer’s the high-tech PR firm got the account because DayJet is “50 percent software and 50 percent hardware.” It takes a “tremendous amount of software” to track the whereabouts of tiny jets (hardware) flying throughout the country, Close said.
http://www.mrss.com/news/O-Dwyers-PR-newsletter-M-R-FDA-petition-5-4-05.pdf
How with DayJet's shrunken fleet, are they reaching 2000 hours per year per aircraft?:
The company anticipates an average utilisation rate of 2,000 hours per aircraft.
http://www.mrss.com/news/O-Dwyers-PR-newsletter-M-R-FDA-petition-5-4-05.pdf
I found this piece good on IS&S. Even though its about them, it goes into detail on both Eclipse and DayJet. It's from 2007 and it looks like DayJet has scaled back even more than they're acting like they did now. They were looking at 50 aircraft in 2007 plus 150 aircraft in 2008, so their active fleet is only 10% of what they had planned it to be:
Recent discussions with key personnel at DayJet — Eclipse’s largest customer accounting for 1,400 of the 2,400 plane backlog — lead us
to believe DayJet will take delivery of Eclipse 500s at a slower than expected pace. DayJet anticipates taking delivery of 50 aircraft in
C2007 and 150 in C2008. It expects to receive roughly 10 planes per month towards the end of C2007 into C2008. Additionally, DayJet
has financing of $100m which only covers the first 80 planes. Finally, we should point out that DayJet has not yet proven the long term
viability or earnings potential of its revolutionary air taxi model and we are unsure if it will ever be able to generate enough cash to take
delivery of the full 1,400 plane order ($2.1b).
Recent discussions with key personnel at Eclispe lead us to believe that producing 400 planes in C2007 and 1,000 planes in C2008 may
prove to be to aggressive. Based on previously published data it appears that CEO Vern Raburn has a propensity to over promise and
under deliver, and while we appreciate his enthusiasm and lofty goals we need to take a more realistic view of what Eclipse can
accomplish over the next year. The company’s goal is too eventually manufacturer four planes per day, but to date the company is still
not even manufacturing one plane per day. Furthermore, we learned that Eclipse would not manufacturer all 2,400 planes in its backlog,
rather it will take a more measured approach and gauge customer and market demand. We are now estimating that Eclipse will deliver
170 planes in C2007, 500 planes in C2008, and 700 planes in C2009. We believe Eclipse will make every effort to reach the 500 plane
per year mark since that is its break-even point.
http://www.boenninginc.com/news/files/ISSC%20Research%20Note%205_10_07abstract.pdf
Here we learn about one of the lobbyists that is on DayJet's payroll used to work for VP Cheney:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20080118_Durkin.pdf
What were they (Dayjet) ever going to do with 1400 of those things? That's 2-1/2 to 3 times more aircraft than the largest airlines have. That's 28 for every one of the 50 states! Who buys into this stuff!?!
What were they (Dayjet) ever going to do with 1400 of those things? That's 2-1/2 to 3 times more aircraft than the largest airlines have. That's 28 for every one of the 50 states! Who buys into this stuff!?!
It is insanity all over the place. First looking at europe with ETIRC/Atasay, they're now supposedly on their way to the largest fleet in all europe as NetJets only has 144 (see H Annex):
http://www.eurocontrol.int/statfor/gallery/content/public/analysis/TAT4_290408_2.pdf
Then yes, in the US where exactly is DayJet going to need all those jets? Their results so far seem to show that you don't need many DayJets to serve that many people. Right now over 80% of Floridians are 40 miles or less from a DayPort, so if its not happening, its not gonna happen. DayJet could have been a nice little niche business, but instead it was vastly oversold and too much money was spent on development. People have been able to rent aircraft on-demand literally for generations, so its not like DayJet is offering something significantly different than from people could have been getting for years and years.
DayJet/Eclipse/ETIRC also have the problem of having clueless and sometimes hostile CEOs. These guys continually want to think of their aircraft as anything but aircraft. Vern is a "dot com manager," Ed is in the OS business and Roel wants to create VJNs (virtual jet networks...borrowing from computer network terminology).
Pat Block: No, because the Eclipse is a small business jet and what we need is an aircraft that’s suitable to work wildlife surveys
and law enforcement. That is 95% of what that aircraft does and so we need something that can take off and land in a relatively
short area, can operate at high altitudes, and at times at fairly low speeds, so we’re looking at a propeller driven aircraft rather than a jet aircraft.
So they bought an Adam A500. And it was delivered about a month prior to their bankruptcy. Talk about your bad decisions.
As a native Albuquerqueno, I always hoped Eclipse would be the start of a new era in growth industries (Eclipse, Piper, Bombardier, Tesla Motors), but it just didn't happen. They went one for four, and that one is struggling.
P_P
Plastic . . .
Poetic Justice would be for New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson to be forced to use the little bird for ALL of his many travels, and Eclipse be forced to prove that the little bird can actually get off the ground with this “normal” passenger. They deserve each other! Believe me, they truly deserve each other . . . birds of a feather, guaranteed! That is, if the governor happens to be in his own state, working on his primary job, in the next few months.
Shucks . . . ‘just a couple takeoffs and landings with our illustrious governor aboard, with reporters from KKOB (AM770 and Channel 4 TV), Channel 2 (FOX), Channel 7 (ABC) and Channel 13 (CBS) and the “Albuquerque Journal” present . . . that would be more than worth the tax dollars spent . . . I might even cough up a donation (. . . except, the governor has already taken my “donation” in the form of taxes, to support this, and a high-speed train between Albuquerque and Santa Fe . . . a short ride by ox cart). ‘Betcha, I’d read more than the color comics come Sunday if that were “front page”!
In fact, to prove the worth of what the governor has supported, along with the City of Albuquerque, this would be better than the International Balloon Festival.
The upper management of Eclipse could not possibly hope for better media coverage than such an event. I marvel at my own genius, to have thought of such a thing!
gadfly
As a fellow tax payer, having a financial interest in this . . . “thing”, I would count it tax dollars well spent.
Whoops!
Me thinks I just committed a “faux pas” in my last statements . . . and may find myself, again, on the “hit list” (local Albuquerque Chapter, charter member). I’ll never, again, be invited to a “prop-wash” tasting party, at Eclipse . . . and maybe worse . . . black listed at other social events of the “Run Away Engine and Missing Fairing Club” (Illinois Chapter, Cook and Winnebago Counties).
gadfly
(What to do? . . . what to do? . . . my social life in shambles!)
Any time the gadfly speaks, someone groans, “Not again! . . . there goes that old . . .”
OK, fair ‘nough! But I’m on a campaign, along with a few others . . . to hopefully restore a certain level of respect, and “class”, to General Aviation.
Of late, we have had someone come to the party . . . claiming great and mighty things. Maybe they received an invitation . . . and maybe their intentions were innocent. But things have turned most sour . . . they have not only insulted all the other “guests”, but have made a list of claims against the others . . . and have yet to prove their accusations, and self-serving claims. The others at this party are not amused . . . by a long shot.
It is one thing to claim great things, but quite another to prove those claims. And to date, not only have almost all of those claims failed, the now, “un-wanted-guest” has become such an obnoxious individual, they have totally polluted the atmosphere of the party.
And that brings us to the next subject . . . which begins on July 28, 2008.
Are the “hosts” going to deal with this subject? . . . or are the “guests” going to step up to the plate (as it were) and hit one over the fence?
Sooner or later, someone . . . anyone . . . everyone . . . needs to bring this farce to an end. Either the little jet should be forced to “put up”, or “shut up”. This thing has gone on far too long.
‘Like things that rot in the back of the “frig”, the longer you wait to do the inevitable, the worse the “stink” . . . and maybe you’ll wish you had more courage to do something, early on.
If the little bird from Albuquerque were all by itself, we could walk away, and let someone else get out the shovel and “scoop it up”. But it’s right there, in the middle of General Aviation . . . and frankly, there are not enough fans, and open windows, to air out the place. This thing had its opportunity . . . and it failed. ‘Not once, but many times, and demonstrated to the world its true character. What does it take to make the reader understand the last chapter?
gadfly
(This should be the end of the story . . . but tomorrow, there will appear another episode . . . amazing!)
Oshkosh 2008:
Ford and Eclipse . . . partners, again!
At least their mutual commitment to the US of A is the same . . . Ford is going to China, and Eclipse is going to Russia. And you’ll be entertained in Wisconsin . . . good old American patriotism!
‘All in a day’s work!
gadfly
(‘Meaner and meaner! Henry would be proud! And, yeh, I noticed the start is actually 27 July . . . 'sorry 'bout that!)
Is there anyone, anywhere, who really believes that Eclipse is going to build a plant in Russia AND start delivering Eclipse's to Europe by 2009?
The reality of making this happen by 2009, or 2015 for that matter, is absurd. Vern has no clue about what it takes to do business in Russia. Can you imagine the logistics problems, communication problems, corruption, petty bureaucrats, anti-American sentiment, bribes, Russian mafia, et al they would have to deal with to make this happen? Let alone the huge amount of money that they aren't going to be able to raise to even think about making it happen. There aren't enough orders for Eclipses in the entire world that would make this pipe-dream pay off.
This is wishful thinking on a mind-boggling scale. Kool-aid drinking to the tenth power.
Just ain't gonna happen.
Dayjet and Eclipse make me think of one fundamental aspects to business in the 21st century.
Trust.
These companies have been so far off the mark with their predictions, forecasts, stements and ideas, that I would NEVER trust them, just absed on this one FACT alone.
Dave asks, "what were they going to do with 1400 planes?" regarding Dayjet.
I ask, were their models, plans, intuition and marketing ability so far off that they are never to be trusted? or was it just a "favor" to Vern and a complete joke on the industry for 5 years?
Either way, I would not trust them... ever. They are WAY off.
Eclipse is equally off base. The price of the plane... off by how much? The production volume... off by how much? How many "poor supplier choices" (ask what business are they in, anyway? Psst, its the supplier selection and management business BTW) and even their order book claims have been WAY off either due to bad judgement or just lies.
I would NEVER trust them.
Today, we know of planes that are falling apart, leaking toxic effluent, cracking and bursting... not to mention, taking over the controls from the pilot, all by themselves.
I know one thing... I would not trust either of these companies. NOt the taxi company that chose this equipment from this supplier, and not the equipment supplier that made all these rediculous mistakes.
Especially, not with my life, my family's lives, or clients lives.
No way.
AP
You preach, and I’ll turn the pages!
gadfly . . . preacher’s assistant!
The reality of making this happen by 2009, or 2015 for that matter, is absurd. Vern has no clue about what it takes to do business in Russia. Can you imagine the logistics problems, communication problems, corruption, petty bureaucrats, anti-American sentiment, bribes, Russian mafia, et al they would have to deal with to make this happen? Let alone the huge amount of money that they aren't going to be able to raise to even think about making it happen. There aren't enough orders for Eclipses in the entire world that would make this pipe-dream pay off.
Looking at it from the most basic level of what Vern's whines have been about in ABQ, Vern has whined about supplier logistics. If he thought supplier logistics were bad now, wait until Russia got online with the way he described it as working...Eclipse ABQ would receive parts from all over the world and then Eclipse ABQ would send that to Eclipse Russia. It would be a complete logistical nightmare and Eclipse could forget about their plan of receiving customer payment for a completed aircraft prior to having to pay their suppliers. I'm not entirely writing off the idea of there being an Eclipse Russia factory, but I don't see how it could exist simultaneously with Eclipse ABQ.
"Can you imagine the logistics problems, communication problems, corruption, petty bureaucrats, anti-American sentiment, bribes, Russian mafia, et al they would have to deal with to make this happen? Let alone the huge amount of money that they aren't going to be able to raise to even think about making it happen."
YES, this process cost them 12 years an north of $1.x Billions right here in the good Ol'USA..buddy!
Regarding the orders... YES, there's no way they have anywhere near enough orders to justify this plan... wait until OShkosh to hear the final (bloated tally) perhaps claims of 400 or more... and they will convince some fools to chase this pipe dream...again...over there.
Either way, I would not trust them... ever. They are WAY off.
I know not to trust these guys. Ed's pitch sounds much like the scam that he was in charge of at SCO where he tried to extract billions of dollars from IBM...Ed I guess really goes for having teams of scientists and lots of buzzwords to increase his credibility with the naive. Then with Vern he's showing to have acquired all the worst traits of Microsoft and dot com execs. Vern reminds me of Darl McBride where all he's good out is saying what potential investors want to hear (whether it has any resemblance to the truth or not) and so can shake the money tree well, but simply lacks the ability to be a good manager. These things have been clear for years. Much was revealed in DayJet keeping quite that it was the source of Eclipse's vapor in the orderbook and even more has been revealed in Eclipse not updating the orderbook given what has happened with DayJet. I'm not saying that they've necessarilly done anything illegal, just I think their track record shows that you're better off not touching them with a ten foot pole instead of doing business with them as a customer, supplier, etc. They will use whatever contract you sign with them against you.
airtaximan
Some time back, we were accused of wanting something bad to happen. Your comments certainly don’t reflect such an attitude, but just the opposite. It may be that our constant talk about the dangers of this farce will actually save lives, and prevent a disaster that would otherwise take the life of a loved one . . . or someone else’s loved one.
It’s obvious that the motivations of Eclipse are somehow negligent of such things . . . and possibly even those of the FAA and NTSB, et al . . . (although we hope not). Why should such things be so difficult to face? . . . and yet, many refuse to face the reality of the real life conditions that exist. Will it take some major disaster for someone to “wake up”? . . . Maybe! And then, we’ll face a long round of the “blame game”.
gadfly
(Dave . . . you’re on to something. Send the blame to Russia . . . it’ll get lost somewhere . . . maybe in the Kamchatka Peninsula . . . been there, seen that, up close and personal . . . through a periscope. It’s a desolate place)
Some time back, we were accused of wanting something bad to happen. Your comments certainly don’t reflect such an attitude, but just the opposite. It may be that our constant talk about the dangers of this farce will actually save lives, and prevent a disaster that would otherwise take the life of a loved one . . . or someone else’s loved one.
I think the Eclipse blogs have over time caused people to rethink about doing business with Eclipse. I think that's why Eclipse has tried to SLAPP bloggers around, so that more people will fly around in the Eclipse and will ask less questions.
Dave
We truly hope that you are correct . . . and will continue to speak out.
gadfly
gad :
your comments about kamchatka ...
yes it is a bit desolated ...
but i would say petropavlovsk-kamchatsky looks very much like eclipse ... :
a small town in the middle of nowhere , but surrounded by (quite active) volcanoes ...!
sounds pretty much like it , no ?
atm :
#"Can you imagine the logistics problems, communication problems, corruption, petty bureaucrats, anti-American sentiment, bribes, Russian mafia #
yes , you have a very valid point !
for anti-USA feelings , yes , sort of , and d not loose sight of this :
what you call "being a patriot" , they call it "being nationalist" and the same applies to them the reverse way ...
(but try to befriend a neighbor and at the same time stick a knife on his throat ... will you become good buddies ? [missile shield and Nato gesticulations])
Bribes : unfortunately , yes ! but working tough on it ( a new set of laws are addressing the matter ... they would be a nightmare , even in our respective countries ! )
transport and other logistic : just a nightmare ...!
communication : Vy gavaritie pa rusky ? ...
Russian mafia : the least problem , may be i wrote it before : the russian mafia is long gone to places like London , French riviera or US of A ... !
as for bureaucrats , being partly french , i am probably not in the best position to say anything ...! ;-))
fred,
minya zavut ATMan, Kak vazavut?
With ETIRC they're supposedly planning on starting a Russian hydrogen plant to then ship the hydrogen to Japan:
http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage7174.html
at :
меня зовут фред !
как идешь умалчивавшимся, сегодня ?
but you know :
اسمي فريد ، كيف حالك اليوم؟
ok , i stop here before being put on terrorist list , as well ...;-)
dave your link is excellent ...
vern and consort will never stop to amaze me ...
too bad stupidity cannot be turn into fuel , the supply would endless with the merry-band ...;-))
ok , a little precision , in Russia , key sectors cannot be involved or own at or more than 50% by a foreign entity ...
which simply means the grand-total for project is 2 Billions +1$ ...
believe me , such amount from a foreign firm for something starting from scratch...
especially in Irkukst area ...
(one big chunk of siberian city , but apart the train connections and the attraction of the area ?)
it would be well known ...
do they want to take the Baikal water as a source or resources ?
then they are really in deep-shit with central Govt ...
(they think about the treasure which is made by the biggest and purest source of drinkable water in the world , so to have a plant close to it , would be the best way to be sent to siberian exil ... no ! it is already in siberia , so to hell ...)
and if it is to be sent to Japan , why not closer to the sea ? lots of area where they would give the land (or at least no one would claim it ) and lot of water as well ...
on top of that , the agreement was signed in 2006 ???
i can only think of this :
we all have to be careful , at this pace , soon the chairs on which we are seated would be property of Eac/E-trick , if they don't want to stop buying everything ... ;-)))
fred: "but i would say petropavlovsk-kamchatsky looks very much like eclipse"
What I saw of Petropavlovsk was white, and very cold . . . but Eclipse is in the Red, and in hot water.
gadfly
gad :
petropavlovsk is not very cold (for Russia )
it is something very subjective , what is cold for you , might be tempting for me ...
i spend sometimes in Djibouti (small shit-hole between ethiopia and somalia , on the other side of yemen)
in a season , they have a "cold wind" (???!) , locals put gloves and bonnet ...??? i only started to breath again , in this "cold" weather ...!!! (only 30°/38°at night)
well , petro is surrounded by Geysers , wait a bit , it's going to be the same in ABQ ...! ;-))
which simply means the grand-total for project is 2 Billions +1$...
It's a totally crazy plan. Storing and transporting liquid hydrogen is very expensive and they want to do this with international logistics...I guess perhaps they think they can use Ed's ASTRO to run the operations since it has been shown to do such a good job so far. Its a totally inefficient process that Roel is cooking up. I think Roel's scheme should be named the Hindenburg.
fred
A month of living under the waves, with a 30knot wet arctic wind goin' by my rack, for eight hours every night to feed the big diesels from the snorkel mast, to run a complete battery charge . . . Petro gets cold. Submarines (back then) were not heated . . . and neither were my feet.
gadfly
(We now return to the saga of the infamous little bird from Albuquerque, now in progress.)
dave :
the h² is not crazy ...!
have you ever heard of the tales of "la fontaine " ?
he wrote a story of a toad that was looking to become bigger than a bull ...!
after reflection , you're right ! it is totally insane ... STOP THEM ! ;-))
gad :
yes , wet cold is disgusting !
i personally feel much better at -25°C with sun in the middle of siberia , than at 0°C on the sea-cost ...!
i have been in Navy (french) , i know what you mean ...!
after reflection , you're right ! it is totally insane ... STOP THEM ! ;-))
In the same city where ETIRC is turning water into hydrogen, ETIRC will also be turning coal into liquid:
http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?story_id=23392&action_id=2
I hear that what they are really working on is turning lead into gold. Vern and Ed gave Roel a technobabble presentation on it and Roel bought off on it.
to me it is nothing new ...
as they already turn paper banknotes into shit ! ;-))
i wrote it before : laughable !
Great line Fred:
as they already turn paper banknotes into shit !
ROTFLMAO
NOTICE
Please re read the 'headline' on this thread, which I have updated in a major way.
Be assured that I made the changes solely at the request of the original author and did so with a happy heart. Whenever someone asks me (nicely) to do something I am always happy to oblige.
Shane
Controller now has 80 Eclipse E500's listed for sale.
What's interesting is that 14 of the ads list the vendor as "Eclipse Aviation Corporation".
Here's what one of the ads reads:
2008 Eclipse E500 $1,790,000
0 TT, IFR, Position available directly through Eclipse Aviation Corporation , 5 Seats
Eclipse Aviation Corporation
Phone: (877)375-7978
Once again, it appears Eclipse is ripping off their position holders, by putting their own inventory up for sale at higher prices rather than giving it to position holders who purchased their jet at the lower price AND who are entitled to these positions - the "diehards" who have been patiently waiting since they put up their 60% deposits over a year ago. What's interesting is that Eclipse is even undercutting the prices of some of the current owners who are trying to bail out of their positions, plus pretty much guaranteeing that no one is going to be paying $2.1m for an E500 anytime soon.
Different day, same old schtick from Eclipse.
What is truly amazing is how far the diehards are willing to bend-over and grab their ankles for a "deal". Why anyone would do business with a company like Eclipse is beyond me.
AvidPilot said:
What is truly amazing is how far the diehards are willing to bend-over and grab their ankles for a "deal". Why anyone would do business with a company like Eclipse is beyond me.
Shane's headline update (p)responds:
In summary, I will convey to you all the sense of frustration that the original author expressed ... He would still buy the FPJ, at $2.1 million, in it's current condition.
But not from Vern.
-----------------------------------
Vern's got a big problem: he's running out of suckers. Including a great many of those who have previously "sucked".
Would you like to Super Size it?
IANAL
Brikllinng said ... Perhaps the EAC analysis showed that the cash demand for filling these was less than the cash demand for refunding them.
Outstanding analysis. That is exactly what I'd expect. I think there is mature discipline after ETIRC put money in. They are managing the price and refund cut points to minimize the cash burn.
The question still remains though - what is next? These actions only make sense if there is additional capital lined up.
Bricklinng said ... CH 11 won't work well because the business will be essentially closed for 3 years with no need for employees, parts, engines, etc.
Nope. You forgot the captive audience of hundreds of existing EA500s that need to be upgraded and serviced by the TC holder, now at owner's çosts vs Eclipse's cost. Post CH11 owners can charge some $250K a piece (some 10% of new price) for aero mods, Avio NG upgrade, FIKI upgrade, etc... then charge again for a G1000-SVS upgrade. It is a good business - capitive customer have no pricing preessure power.
Avidpilot
perhaps the customers are still hoping, that there will be something like an AC - say after 350/500 deliveries? Current EAC products (FPJs) may have FIKI but no half-decent autopilot, doors, throttles, tires, Moving Maps, FMSs, fire extinguishers...and that VR will allow these customers to be proud of their ACs
i. e. stop the NDA-paranoia.
(A real diehard...
Others only hope that with a little help of a lawyer the refunds will come. It's not a good ad to quarrel about refunds at court while calling for E400 deposits at airshows!
In this disruptive shell game...er……con game, I am trying to keep my eye on the money. Just what is Vern’s salary? Peg’s? Todd’s?.......... someone has to be making out very well in this whole deal. Knowing what they know they can’t be “believers” so something has to be making them stay in line. With that much cash flow there has to be some being diverted to ????????
I think there is mature discipline after ETIRC put money in. They are managing the price and refund cut points to minimize the cash burn.
With ETIRC things might be marginally better, but I wouldn't quite say that Eclipse has reached maturity. I don't know if it is possible for these Vern/Roel to have the maturity to manage a complex manufacturing business...I think these guys have the wrong backgrounds and mindsets. I would think the CEO of Crown Cork & Seal would be a better fit for Eclipse rather than Vern Raburn as far as managing a complex factory process year over year.
In this disruptive shell game...er……con game, I am trying to keep my eye on the money. Just what is Vern’s salary? Peg’s? Todd’s?.......... someone has to be making out very well in this whole deal. Knowing what they know they can’t be “believers” so something has to be making them stay in line. With that much cash flow there has to be some being diverted to ????????
Vern isn't an "at will" employee at Eclipse unlike the rank and file and the VPs Eclipse goes through so quickly. You'd think if Vern believed so much in his abilities to manage Eclipse, he'd be at will since Eclipse couldn't stand to be without him. Instead he knows he could get fired, so he's got himself under contract and even if he gets fired, he has to get paid (just to further damage Eclipse in addition to his mismanagement).
"I think there is mature discipline after ETIRC put money in."
The ETRIC of Spanish charter outfits flying N-Numbered airplanes? Or swarms of Turkish airplanes chartering all over Europe? Or of happy Russians singing the 'Volga Boatman's Song' while they bang away on sheet metal? How about Roel's paying the rent on the Gainesville, FL, operation by electronic transfer from his villa in Switzerland? Sounds so very mature to me. No, wait, it sounds manure to me!
baron:
"Perhaps the EAC analysis showed that the cash demand for filling these was less than the cash demand for refunding them."
...your statement, my friend is wishful thinking, I suppose. In reality, its a tming thing, not a net cash thing.
Here's Vern thinking: "do I refund money today, or do I wait and wait and wait..." Filling is not really in the cards, I don't think... and it certainly is not a net cash gain versus keeping deposits without providing aircraft any time soon.
That's complete cash gain.... for a long time, with no reason to think of delivery any time soon.
Or, have I missed something?
Since the depositors are now just another group of unsecured creditors, couldn't three of them get together and threaten to put Vern into involuntary bankruptcy if he doesn't immediately pay back the owed deposits?
Turboprop_pilot
Just think!
It only takes a single complete bird to put the critics mostly out of business . . . that, along with a consistent string of chicks out of the nest. And yet . . . !
It will be most interesting to see how Oshkosh and the many visitors do business with Eclipse during and after next week. You learn much by observing the friends and associates a person keeps. The behavior of the FAA has caused us to rethink our opinion of what was once considered an honorable institution. And come next week, we may be forced to rethink the event in Wisconsin.
Let the show begin! . . . the aviation world is watching.
gadfly
(Shane asked for a list of five shortcomings . . . How does one organize a pile of poop?)
I was wondering just how much money Vern is getting paid.
ug,
"not enough"
Imagine having to raise money for this company with this product for 12 years and still having to raise money.... and under these circumstances.
not enough.
PS. if anyone says he made his bed... OK, even more impressive - you screw the pooch again and again, and still get investment dollars flowing...
Vern has not been paid enough... my opinion
It only takes a single complete bird to put the critics mostly out of business . . . that, along with a consistent string of chicks out of the nest. And yet . . . !
Eclipse is a business, not a charity to give Vern a vastly subsidized ego trip. Eclipse probably can eventually get out a complete aircraft under Vern, but I doubt Eclipse will be profitable - complete bird or not. Eclipse by own its admission and even bragged that they created a product in search of a market. Assuming they have infinite production capacity, I'd like to see them arrive at a price where the demand at that price results in Eclipse turning a profit.
Anyone know how much a booth costs at Oshkosh? I can see it now. The eclipsecriticng.blogspot.com booth. Located right next to the FPJ booth. Just think of the possibilities...... LOL What could we hand out? Snap togehter planes? Stir fry snacks? What would the T shirts say on them? I'm sure you guys can come up with some very clever ideas....please post them.
The booth could be for safety. Both physical and financial.
Vern has not been paid enough... my opinion
Vern has been paid too much in my opinion. If all you do is tell people what they want to hear (regardless of how far from the truth it is) in order to extract money from them, I'd do see any reason Vern should be applauded for that. I do find certain charm in an expert con man finding a mark for a long con a la The Sting, but Vern is just slimey.
Anyone know how much a booth costs at Oshkosh?
Donno, but isn't $23 a day a little steep for EAA members to get together to look at their own airplanes? Never mind the booth charges for vendors (with apparently no vetting of vendors AT ALL) and the conning of volunteers to work for free. Not to mention very high prices for inedible food. Any EAA member ever see a financial accounting for one of these Airventures? Don't look behind the curtain, children!
Thanks Shane for the update on the original post. However, it is a shame that we (some) are put in a position where we cant say what we really feel out of "fear of the unknown" (for lack of a better term)
I personally have a hard time with bullies and EAC is a huge one. (BTW, not something to be proud of, Vern or Peg)
I do hope that the position holders do get their money back as promised. Any word on when the suppliers will? Why is Vern ok with putting other companies out of business to save his own? Think of how many people that is...especially young people living pay check to pay check. Im sorry guys, I know you are into technical things, but I am just fired up by the ethical.
Thanks for listening.
Charity
You have the first five shortcomings nailed down: Lack of Honesty!
gadfly
(The next five don’t matter much after the first five.)
From my understanding by putting two and two together...eclipse makes a feeble attempt at keeping the vendors at bay by trying to constantly change the method/paperwork in which supplies are accepted/recieved/rejected, etc. I think they are hoping that if they are constantly changing "legalities" that it would be too hard to nail them down.
2nd thought...they get $$$ from the state of NM and now they can offer the customers their refunds?
asm :
#Sounds so very mature to me. No, wait, it sounds manure to me!#
YES ...
exactly , how anyone more or less sane can figure out : it is a good way of dealing with things ?
dave :
#I would think the CEO of Crown Cork & Seal would be a better fit for Eclipse rather than Vern Raburn as far as managing a complex factory process year over year.#
i feel that is one of the main poop in EAC :
Vern is very probably the type to launch something (lot of noise , hype , etc...)
but what the board hasn't got : you start with such individuals , then as soon as you start to be noticed , it is better to offer them a job in the form of "a nice task to sort the mail in a sub-basement part of building ..."
did they miss the cross-road ? or were they willing to put vern aside ? did they have any clue of this ?
it is of some importance as in
1° they just missed the point , probably because they are as good for a board as i am to be a monk ...
2° they missed the point because it was part of the plan , so whatever name is the plan , it was to screw some others ...
so in term of "how much does he get paid ?"
it is a mixed answer : if the board would have been clever enough to put back Vern where he belongs after using him for what he is good for (spread rumors, raise money , have other to talk about ...)= Vern has probably not being paid enough ...
as a results aimed plan , if Vern got more than 1 (one ) $ , it is already too much ...
but in a more general aspect , it is always the same story ...
EAC , Wall-Street , booze , whatever , still the same story :
"some" have a bit of success into something , sometime it is pure luck , sometimes it is only the "guts" they had , sometimes there is just NO specific reasons ...
but , often , the ones who have succeeded think it is BECAUSE they were clever , or more inventive or simply Disruptive ...
this is where ,usually , the problems start ...!
success is the most bitchin' mistress anyone can have ...she will alway betray you when you expect it the least !!
b95 :
#Nope. You forgot the captive audience of hundreds of existing EA500s that need to be upgraded and serviced by the TC holder #
HundredS , with a S at the end ???
wow, i see that as wishful thinking ...!!
in my humble opinion , if you take out all the DayJet , E-trick (when it was supposed to be an air-taxi venture ! which is already a good joke = "captain , we must have planes ... why not making them instead of buying them ???" ) spanish flying buros , turkish loukoum , etc ...etc...
i smell it's gonna be MAY BE ONE hundred (without S at the end )
so what is the point of so much fuss ??
on top of that , you have to consider the PRIDE factor ...
don't know about you , but i cannot dig a hole deep enough to bury my last wrongly-done ...
so out of the ones who had the chance (?!) of getting what they paid for , how many are going to face the jokes of flying the Fpj ?
and as well , consider the financial aspect , how many came to the story because they couldn't afford a plane being a bit more pricey ?
what they saved (or tried) before , as you wrote , they are going to pay XXX fold now ?
i would say : what was out of reach , in financial terms yesterday is STILL out of reach today , and probably worse tomorrow with the economic crisis !!!
charity :
#I do hope that the position holders do get their money back as promised #
i am afraid it's gone up in smoke , already ...
but who knows , miracle happen ... sometimes !
avid :
#Once again, it appears Eclipse is ripping off their position holders, by putting their own inventory up for sale at higher prices rather than giving it to position holders who purchased their jet at the lower price AND who are entitled to these positions#
may be it is time to face reality ?
may be they got trapped into their own lies ...
and the orderbook was nearly empty , in reality ...!!
may be they don't have customers left , who accept to "take delivery" of an unfinished and far from promised plane , in reality ...!
may be they have to try "fire sale" some birds that were refused to get enough cash for refunds , in reality ...!
at this point it doesn't really matter :
game over is soon , if it is reality !
Oshkosh is going to be SOOOOOO much fun!
As I said earlier - stop by and say "hi". I'll be the guy wearing an EAA t-shirt. :)
Eclipse's poor reputation with customers is starting to hit the presses:
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/eclipse-position-holder-sues-for-deposit-refund/
Here's a thesis showing that ETIRC is trying to replicate the DayJet model:
http://essay.utwente.nl/608/1/scriptie_B_de_Jong.pdf
Based on DayJet's results, this would seem to point to ETIRC's "VJN" being way oversold. It touts the same 2000+ hours per aircraft as DayJet had. Interestingly for the mathematical model a fleet size of 14 is used, which is about what DayJet is using now.
dave :
have you seen the name of the secondary professor ?
it is amazing ! don't they have any shame ?
ok , here is a thesis to demonstrate everything you take for true is false ...
whatever you take for false is true
made by professor "cum magna laudae" Fred von fred from waga-waga university ...
it is supposed to be published in dutch , but for marketing reasons (???) we decided to have it made in "papiémento" (any one to know this one ?)
;-)))
definitely = no shame !
My five:
1/ Inadequate internal control of the design - Examples:
-The "Crossed control" software in the FADEC admitted by the CEO in the Eclipse new letter.
-The lack of auto skid braking in a plane which has outgrow it's breaking system, evident through the incidents reported in FAA SDR system, such as the Midway incident.
-The pitot system freezing issues, as reflected by the first three EA-500 AD's.
2/ Inadeqate management understanding of the aviation environment- Examples:
- The CEO publicly boasting of not needing experienced aviation personel.
- The CEO publicly blaming the NTSB/FAA for overreacting when they do their legally ordered tasks related to safety.
3/ Inadequate vendor control - Examples:
- The quality deficiencies reported by the CEO in connection with Eclipse lawsuit with tail section vendor.
- The BAE Systems->Avidyne->AvioNG avionic vendor changes.
4/ Inadequate internal quality control systems - Examples:
- The manager, quoted by the CEO in the course of the critic SLAPP lawsuit, stating that the "Quality of the aircraft is now crap".
- The use of Cherry guns with Cherry nose adaptors to pull a different brand of blind rivet (reported on this blog)
5/ The lack of a culture of compliance and quality eminating from the accountable manager/CEO(a fish rots from the head).
- Initial public comments by the CEO to blame aircrew actions for various publically notified incident. Midway incident - impying the Aircrew pushed the throttle too hard, although they had a windshear event. CEO still stating in Eclipse magazine that the "crossed throttle" is a good idea.
- Instable team. Although the company has been in existance for about 12 years, the fluctuation of key management personel (quality managers, production managers etc), alone in the time this blog has been in existance, implies an environment of instablity and conflict.
-Lack of accountablity of management. Public statements from the CEO blaming vendors for quality issues when the company selected, validated and audited these vendors.
It surprises me that three Ex "die hards" haven't got together yet. People who are rich enough to not care about $150,000, and are bloody minded enough to apply for Eclipse be put in insolvency, just on principle.
I am surprised that the FAA has not AD's the AFM to require information on the "crossed throttle" behaviour for the aircrew, and corrective action in the form of a software revision to remove this nonsense.
short-comings :
1° total lack of credibility
2° total lack of transparency
3° total lack of managership
4° total lack of humility
5° total lack of vision
Based on Eclipse's public statements and their litigation here are my five:
* Changes vendors a lot.
* Complains more frequently.
* Returns more product.
* Keeps losing top managers.
* Pays for each shipment progressively later.
These are also related to company's chances of BK. Eclipse has had to continually seek more funding and isn't profitable.
When making your suggestions, try to picture yourself in the position of an auditor auditing the outfit. Saying, in effect, "the place is crap" is pretty meaningless.
Give an auditor a decent point in the right direction, and they will following the audit trails.
Having a public comment along the lines of "cherry guns are used with cherry noses to pull Huck rivets although this is specifically forbidden in the Huck rivet spec - and this has been repeatedly reported to production management and quality" is a hell of a start for an auditor, especially if they can find evidence that the management and quality were informed.
It is one thing to do a crap job unknowingly. It is another to keep doing it although you know it is wrong, and still worse to make it a systematic issue which undermines the quality system.
Keep in mind that the intent of these "Top 5/10" items was to build a case for FAA re-certification - per earlier discussion:
baron95 said...
TP Said ... That the blog develop a comprehensive set of shortcomings involved in Eclipse’s development and certification of the E500
That is a great idea TP. I believe that this can steer the Blog back on course. If we believe that the Eclipse EA500 should go through a certification review, what areas are the most troubling and should precipitate the review? I'll kick it off, but maybe we should keep a running dock linked to the blog page.
1 - Excessive incidents of tire failures on landing.
2 - Incidents of erroneous air-data due to moisture on pitot-static system.
3 - Excessive incidents of autopiot disconnects causing loss of RSVM required autopilot operations and increasing single-pilot workloads.
4 - Confusing and undocumented FADEC/FMU logic - this may have been addressed by the AD, but not totally.
5 - High workload and changing cockipit environment (Avio, Avio NG, Avio NG+Garmin v1.0, Avion NG+Garmin 2.0). This at the very least should require pilot differences training via AD or SB and may put the plane beyond single-pilot opperation until the avionics suite and autopilot/FMS matures.
6 - Interdependence of backup avionics instruments and possible failure modes of engine control after electrical power loss.
Keep in mind that the intent of these "Top 5/10" items was to build a case for FAA re-certification - per earlier discussion
OK, then to change my list:
* Avio NG needs to be *thoroughly* reviewed
* Vern has stated that the FAA doesn't even have minimum requirements for certain aspects (Vern stated that TQA didn't have to have minimum tolerances) - the FAA should look into holes that are missing from the certification process
* The aircraft has shown that it is not capable of performance under high utilization despite that was what it was intended for
* Phostrex - both within the Eclipse and in general. Phostrex has been shown to kill animals during product testing and during development it put one person out of work for months when they were exposed. This is in addition to Phostrex being highly corrosive and Eclipse's Phostrex products being of poor quality due to leakage.
* Perhaps related to the FPJ not being suited to high utilization, the tires and other problems are due to mismatched equipment because the FPJ was originally supposed to be much lighter.
by the way :
Adam aircraft has been bought by a russian entrepreneur ...
oopps , hit wrong button !
poor vern , he thought to be the onl one ...
now he'll have to share the cake !
;-))
dave said ... . I don't know if it is possible for these Vern/Roel to have the maturity to manage a complex manufacturing business
I hope they are not even trying - it is not their job.
Vern's job is to raise money, pull favors for the company, maybe negotiate some supplier contracts. Roel's job is to pump money in and get Eclipse Europe going.
Peg's job is manage the operating Eclipse USA company. Since I believe she was the VP responsible for the MD11 program and a key executive on the very high production rate MD8x family, I think she is more than well equipped to handle that job now.
Don't get things mixed up. Each monkey has a branch to tend to. That is part of the mature discipline that is being adopted/imposed.
AT said ... your statement, my friend is wishful thinking,
AT, that was bricklinng that said that - I was just quoting him. But I happen to think his analysis is right. And so is yours. It is not an either/or. It was timming and minimizing cash burn that determined the cut off point. The two are totally interconnected.
#That is part of the mature discipline that is being adopted/imposed.#
woooww ...!!
discipline , maturity ...in the same sentence about the merry band of looser ???
it is too late here , i need to sleep , i read things that cannot exist ...! ;-))
Charity said ... Why is Vern ok with putting other companies out of business to save his own?
Hummm. Because he is not running a charity (pun intended). Who in their right mind would prefer their company, to which they have fiduciary responsibilities, fail before some other company? Is this another high-school (err grade school) question? Please!!!
I believe the term is 'rhetorical'.
On a side note ... Honda and Nissan are looking for ways to make cars lighter, better, and more recyclable, both for their own benefits and their customers. We've heard about the increased use of aluminum to save weight; next on the heavy R&D frontier could be carbon fiber. Both companies have teamed up with Japanese carbon fiber company Toray, and Mitsubishi Rayon -- a Japanese version of DuPont -- to research new, less expensive carbon fiber for cars.
Like GPS based navigation at low prices? Thank the automotive GPS use.
Like Glass pannels with solid state attitude reference? Thank the stability control MEMS developed for the auto industry.
Hopefully, once again, auto tech will flow to GA aviation in the form of cheaper carbon fiber in 10-20 years.
I hope they are not even trying - it is not their job.
Vern's job is to raise money, pull favors for the company, maybe negotiate some supplier contracts. Roel's job is to pump money in and get Eclipse Europe going.
No, as Chairman and CEO respectively the manufacturing aspect is both their jobs. The buck stops with them. The Chairman isn't responsible for the day-to-day operations of the company so Roel can have some excuse, but the CEO is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the company. Many aspects of the manufacturing process were decided before Peg even arrived and she cannot unilaterally make decisions without the approval of Vern and/or Roel plus Vern and/or Ed are giving her orders. If Peg was a regional CEO or CEO of a subdivision I'd be more willing to believe that she had more control and less control rested with Vern, but she's just a VP...not even a C level position.
Don't get things mixed up. Each monkey has a branch to tend to. That is part of the mature discipline that is being adopted/imposed.
So are you saying that up until recently Vern was too involved in operations and now recently there's been a reorg? If Peg's job has changed, why hasn't her title changed to reflect her authority? If you are saying that since Peg arrived in 2005 Eclipse has been mature, I'd have to disagree with you and point to the countless missed production projections. If Peg is solely responsible for all the projections that Vern touted and then Eclipse failed, how can you say she's equiped to handle the job? If she wasn't responsible for all those public projections and subsequent failures, how can you say that Vern isn't responsible? I believe the responsibility is mixed between all three - afterall you have your CEO to make executive decisions as well as give orders to lower level employees and some decisions are board-level. Peg inherited Eclipse's factory and orderbook. I think her taking a job at Eclipse was probably a bad move, but I think it would be totally inaccurate to say all Eclipse's problems related to manufacturing rest with her.
I wanted to make a correction to my last comment. Peg is a C level exec, but I don't think she has total control over operations. For instance I don't think she on her own hired Todd Fierro. I think that decision was directed from the very top...one of Eclipse's board members was CEO of Ford. That is just one of many things that I believe points to Peg not having total control of operational decisions. I believe there is substantial interference from Vern and the board.
“Who in their right mind would prefer their company. . . (to) fail before some other company?”
Maybe a better question would be, “Who in their right mind would want to be the sole supplier of given product?” . . . or by implication, “cut off your nose to spite your face”.
Stores in shopping malls seem to thrive on much competition. The aircraft industry thrives on competition. Any of a thousand industries thrive on competition. ‘Not to mention the consumer. Our entire American industry is the result of thousands of companies, that instead of thinking in terms of “either them or us” worked with the attitude of “them AND us”.
In our little company, we have proven the fact that helping the competition is good business, . . . the industry is big enough to include both . . . and breeds more business, because the customer appreciates honesty, and help. We’ll lose a “sale” today, yet gain it back twice over, a year or two from now.
But lie just once, . . . the game’s over!
“Charity”, I believe, was working on the thought of treatment of suppliers . . . and instead of working with the suppliers, putting them down . . . with the intent of doing damage to them . . . but actually inhancing their reputation, to the expense of Eclipse.
Instead of publicly putting a supplier to open ridicule, why not “help” that supplier to do a better job. But the message to the world was that Eclipse was in trouble, and they could only avoid paying their bills by attacking a good and legitimate supplier. Once didn’t seem to be enough . . . they repeated the same with others. You’d think the bad press might have been understood as 'not good'.
The 'bully' attitude will, sooner or later, come back to bite the bully . . . every time. And, I believe, that’s the point!
The true direction was fully apparent when the first deposits were called out of escrow on a false premise*. At that point, the game was over . . . the jig was up, to quote a famous German general.
gadfly
*the false premise was that flight and design were successful . . . and it was not. It still isn’t.
"Keep in mind that the intent of these "Top 5/10" items was to build a case for FAA re-certification - per earlier discussion."
Once again, this blog misses the point and cannot seem to find a way to look past their contempt for the CEO.
So far, Baron is the only one to listed 5 items that have everything to do with potential certification issues. If you present things like....
“Inadequate management understanding of the aviation environment- Examples:
- The CEO publicly boasting of not needing experienced aviation personnel.
- The CEO publicly blaming the NTSB/FAA for overreacting when they do their legally ordered tasks related to safety.”
This is a personal opinion of the CEO and not a cert issue!
“The aircraft has shown that it is not capable of performance under high utilization despite that was what it was intended for.”
This is marketing promise made by the CEO not a cert issue!
....to the FAA, It will be laughed at and filed in the trash can. There have been so many items listed here as potentially dangerous and inadequate design aspects of the E500. Despite that, some people just can’t seem to stay on topic.
AC CERTIFICTION ISSUEs....NOT CEO I HATE YOU ISSUES.
Delbert - my point exactly.
The thing we don't know is what Shane has received directly via email. That is, after all, how he originally asked for this info.
Once again, this blog misses the point and cannot seem to find a way to look past their contempt for the CEO.
So far, Baron is the only one to listed 5 items that have everything to do with potential certification issues. If you present things like....
So where is your list or did you miss the point of your own post?
“The aircraft has shown that it is not capable of performance under high utilization despite that was what it was intended for.”
This is marketing promise made by the CEO not a cert issue!
No, it is a certication issue. Here is Eclipse themselves saying that it is:
“The fact that the Eclipse 500 static airframe accomplished all test points on the first pass with no failures reflects our commitment to design and build a jet that that will meet the high utilization demands of the air taxi and corporate aviation segments,” said Eclipse Aviation vice president of Engineering Ken Harness. “We are also pleased that, based on our extensive work with the FAA, the Eclipse 500 has been approved for an initial 10,000 hour lifetime at type certification. The designed fatigue life for the Eclipse 500 is 20,000 hours, which will be demonstrated through testing over the next two years.”
http://www.eclipseaviation.com/index.php?option=com_newsroom&task=viewpr&id=905&Itemid=348
If you're saying the FAA certifies aircraft as airworthy when in reality they didn't even look to see if the aircraft could handle the intended work, that would seem to add futher ammo into a congressional investigation.
AC CERTIFICTION ISSUEs....NOT CEO I HATE YOU ISSUES.
All I see is you whining about the blog. How are things at the Overlook Hotel?
In honor of the Overlook Hotel's caretaker, I'm linking to the special conditions related to Eclipse's type certifcate:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSC.nsf/0/96587339229B557786256B810071CD74?OpenDocument
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSC.nsf/0/D997FB9090C5217986256BB40060CF4B?OpenDocument
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSC.nsf/0/2180A66852AF5A7186256BD10067DB3A?OpenDocument
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSC.nsf/0/6919EDE2502E21BC86256C40004BFFB6?OpenDocument
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSC.nsf/0/6919EDE2502E21BC86256C40004BFFB6?OpenDocument
Eclipse shouldn't have been granted special conditions or at least such testing wasn't thorough enough and should be re-evaluated.
Here's a news story on Eclipse getting $1.2M for jobs:
http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/stories/2008/07/21/daily30.html
If not for corporate welfare, what would Eclipse do?
baron95 said...
Charity said ... Why is Vern ok with putting other companies out of business to save his own?
Hummm. Because he is not running a charity (pun intended). Who in their right mind would prefer their company, to which they have fiduciary responsibilities, fail before some other company? Is this another high-school (err grade school) question? Please!!!
Baron, I dont agree with your perception here...of course people would save their own ass. But when a compan has been given EVERY opportunity to conduct business in a legal, ethical and upstanding manner and then CHOSE not to, thats a different story. In that you defend that, I would hope that I would never be in business with you. I dont mean that personally, I am just simple and miss the days of the "handshake"
For all who need reminders that turbofans do fail and send big chunks of very hard metal towards airframes
Should be mandatory viewing for the Piper Jet and D-Jet designers and suggested viewing for the Cirrus and E400 designers.
Gadfly said ... Maybe a better question would be, “Who in their right mind would want to be the sole supplier of given product?”
Me!!! Me!!! Me!!! Are you serious, Gad? You left high school a long time ago. Are you back in HS, this time teaching?
I'd love to be say the sole supplier of say titanium, or CF56 turbofans or GPS or how about the sole supplier of jet fuel or sole supplier of oil.
The things we read on this board are becoming more bizarre by the week.
If only we good stick to the issues with Eclipse MO, finances and E500, the readers would be better served. I'm guilty of injecting some AMG/M-3 vs prius to make a point or too, but at times we stray way too far, IMHO.
Dave said... That is just one of many things that I believe points to Peg not having total control of operational decisions.
Who said anything about Peg having total control? There is a COO a CEO and a non-executive Chairman.
The CEO is there because he founded the company and raised the most money.
The Chairman is there because he is the las cram investor and owns the biggest chunk of the company.
Peg is there because an executive search was conducted to find some one with the background, skills, experience and talent to HELP fix Eclipse's operational and credibility problems.
For 7 and 1/2 year befor Peg got there Eclipse had NOTHING to show for it. in the 2 and 1/2 years since she got there, Eclipse has:
1 - Gotten a TC.
2 - Gotten a PC.
3 - Built, delivered and got paid for 200+ jets.
4 - Reach the HIGHEST single model civilian fan jet production in the industry.
5 - Built multilple service centers.
6 - got full motion simulators certified and on-line.
7 - gotten FIKI done.
8 - Gotten Avio NG, Aeromods, etc certified.
9 - Handled the first emergency AD head on and promptly.
10 - Launched a brand new program the E400.
If you can't tell the difference in performance from the first 7 and 1/2 years pre-Peg and the last 2 and 1/2 year post-Peg, I'd be disapointed. You are obviously intelligent and ballanced in your comments, I'm hoping you will recognize that Eclipse is a different company after she got on board.
It is now changing in the financial management after Roel is on the board as Chairman.
Vern, like most founders is being relegated to what he does best - vision and raising money.
Yes, Baron, I am most serious. Of course, we've only been in business a short time . . . 32 1/2 years . . . with some accomplishments that some would consider of minor importance . . . and am a third generation of inventors of things folks have come to take for granted dating back a few years past a century. So maybe I'm not too smart, but I sleep well at night, and have seen literally thousands (millions) of people benefitting by this attitude that you think strange and naive. The competition drove us to make a better product . . . and that is satisfaction, in itself.
gadfly
But then, I never did march to someone else's tune . . . and answer to a Higher Authority.
Me!!! Me!!! Me!!! Are you serious, Gad? You left high school a long time ago. Are you back in HS, this time teaching?
I'd love to be say the sole supplier of say titanium, or CF56 turbofans or GPS or how about the sole supplier of jet fuel or sole supplier of oil.
The things we read on this board are becoming more bizarre by the week.
Are you serious Baron? You've discussed many times a post-BK Eclipse and Eclipse is still money-losing. I can't see how signing a supplier contract - particularly a larger sole source contract - with Eclipse would be wise financially. If Eclipse goes into BK, you're stuck as a creditor and you'd be left to receive pennies on the dollar if that. Whatever money you made on the front end would be at risk to be wiped out on the back end...that is of course assuming everything goes right and you don't factor in the risk of Eclipse publicly throwing your business under the bus where you both lose money as well as get negative PR.
Who said anything about Peg having total control?
You said it wasn't Roel's or Vern's job and that they shouldn't even try and manage operations:
dave said ... . I don't know if it is possible for these Vern/Roel to have the maturity to manage a complex manufacturing business
I hope they are not even trying - it is not their job.
Vern's job is to raise money, pull favors for the company, maybe negotiate some supplier contracts. Roel's job is to pump money in and get Eclipse Europe going.
Peg's job is manage the operating Eclipse USA company.
For 7 and 1/2 year befor Peg got there Eclipse had NOTHING to show for it. in the 2 and 1/2 years since she got there, Eclipse has:
1 - Gotten a TC.
2 - Gotten a PC.
3 - Built, delivered and got paid for 200+ jets.
4 - Reach the HIGHEST single model civilian fan jet production in the industry.
5 - Built multilple service centers.
6 - got full motion simulators certified and on-line.
7 - gotten FIKI done.
8 - Gotten Avio NG, Aeromods, etc certified.
9 - Handled the first emergency AD head on and promptly.
10 - Launched a brand new program the E400.
If you can't tell the difference in performance from the first 7 and 1/2 years pre-Peg and the last 2 and 1/2 year post-Peg, I'd be disapointed. You are obviously intelligent and ballanced in your comments, I'm hoping you will recognize that Eclipse is a different company after she got on board.
You're making a red herring. I didn't say she didn't contribute. Quite the contrary, I've said that Vern and Ed have prevented her from doing a better job. I've said that Vern and Ed exert significant control over operations rather than it just being her job and not theirs. Frankly if she was CEO instead of COO, the company probably would be running much better.
Delbert said ... AC CERTIFICTION ISSUEs....NOT CEO I HATE YOU ISSUES.
Thank you for your help trying to steer the certification discussion back to the real issues. I am afraid it is a lost cause in this blog. That is why I haven't responded to Shane's call to send a list.
I tried to jump start the list, and have gotten a ton of "I hate the CEO, I hate Eclipse, I disagree on how Eclipse is being run, I think there is no market for the E500, you name it type issues".
There is always hope, but this blog is now self feeding on Vern/Eclipse hate, not issues.
dave said ... “The aircraft has shown that it is not capable of performance under high utilization despite that was what it was intended for.”
This is marketing promise made by the CEO not a cert issue!
No, it is a certication issue.
No it is not.
A - What "performance" is the E500 not capable under high utilization? I'm not aware of any.
B - There is no certification requirement for high utilization, nor anything remotely related to that in the TC, airframe manual or any FAA approved documents for the aircraft.
Again - it is a completely emotional issue and is has absolutely nothing to do with a possible cause for TC review.
Now if you wanted to make a certification review case for the airplane holding up in service, this is how you do it.
1 - Aircraft susystem X (e.g. brakes, landing gear, avionics, etc), is showing an in-service MTBF of Y hours. Therefore, the FAA should conduct a TC review and/or ammend the TC, AFM, etc with mandatory replacement of susystem X, component Z at Y/2 hours.
That makes sense to the FAA and a certification review. It is fact based and non emotional. On point and relevant.
Charity said ... EVERY opportunity to conduct business in a legal, ethical and upstanding manner
On that we can agree. But even to that I'd like to add "legal, ethical, upstanding, but also aggressive in persuing company objectives".
Dave said ... I'm linking to the special conditions related to Eclipse's
Thanks again for the links - you are an awesome researcher of internet links.
"1 - Gotten a TC.
Under a cloud of suspicion. May be recinded
"2 - Gotten a PC."
Under a cloud of suspicion. May be recinded
"3 - Built, delivered and got paid for 200+ jets."
None were complete. How many were paid for is open to question
"4 - Reach the HIGHEST single model civilian fan jet production in the industry."
None were complete. Their production of complete airplanes is zero
"5 - Built multilple service centers."
Under a cloud as all are managed out of the ABQ FSDO
"6 - got full motion simulators certified and on-line."
Simulate what? The aircraft design isn't even finished yet.
"7 - gotten FIKI done."
The real test will be this winter. Still no way to stop the aircraft on an icy runway irrespective of FIKI (even if that works)
"8 - Gotten Avio NG, Aeromods, etc certified."
Threw themselves on the mercy of Garmin
"9 - Handled the first emergency AD head on and promptly."
It was a total PR disaster, not even evaluating their lame response to a serious discrepancy
"10 - Launched a brand new program the E400."
Not enough rich, dumb customers left to get this one off the ground.
B - There is no certification requirement for high utilization, nor anything remotely related to that in the TC, airframe manual or any FAA approved documents for the aircraft.
Why are you ignoring the quote that I provided on this very issue that relates to FAA requirements?
Again - it is a completely emotional issue and is has absolutely nothing to do with a possible cause for TC review.
I don't know how you can say that. Aside from the quote I've already provided, does it make sense to you that the FAA would allow aircraft to fly without consideration for their durability? Without paying any attention to an aircraft's durability, wouldn't the FAA be putting private pilots and and air passengers at risk?
That makes sense to the FAA and a certification review. It is fact based and non emotional. On point and relevant.
So remind me again how an aircraft's durability isn't on point and is irrelevant.
baron,
I agree on the "list" issues you bring to bear, and also remind everyone, it was your idea to develop this list.
I ave not contributed, becasue my main issue is all the bilked investors and depositors... not the plane... but the plane is junk and was certified under false pretenses...IMO.
Anyhow... my main point:
There's a new guy that showed up at eclipse around the same time as Peg... I think HE should get credit for all the timely "accomplishments" you list.
;)
Better yet, there were a few people who left at the same itme... I guess THEY were the reason for all the problems before they departed?
;)
I like you, and you are a smart, well informed balanced person... but this Peg BS has got to stop.
"Peg is there because an executive search was conducted to find some one with the background, skills, experience and talent to HELP fix Eclipse's operational and credibility problems."
er, Um... I do not think this is how it went down... just a hunch.
# Roel's job is to pump money in and get Eclipse Europe going.#
What part of the word NO , don't you understand ???
IT WON'T HAPPEN !
please read what Vernperator has said about the works asked by EASA ...
one is waiting for the other to be pleased ...
the other is waiting for the works to be done ...
neither of them making the first step ...
but one is SURE to run out of money , before the other one ...
Roel DOESN'T HAVE the type of connections to have this state of things changed ... (anyway i doubt it exist !)
and is looked after by REAL bizz peoples on this side as a JOKE !
so please don't spread your lies , you do what you want on your side of ocean ... at the condition : we can do what WE want on our side ...
eclipse europe is NONE of them in the current state of affairs ....
Shane
here are some technical points:
- Max tire ground roll 139 knts - much higher than landing resp. take off speed - and tires blow?
- Door does not shut safely
- Insufficient software (AVIO/AVIO NG) which is key to the AC and the TC
. autopilot disconnects
. too low max autopilot speed for emergency descend (30 min battery time) (or missing air brakes)
. not tested(!!!)/documented throttel functions (the AD documents the situation but is no correction)
.too many inflight resets/restarts of the software
- Inability to shut down the engines when AVIO ist down or no power available
- No independent stand by instuments
- Insecure engine fire extinguisher(leaking; device has quality problems; certification??)
I hope there are more and better infos and data concerning the endogenous faults of the FPJ's.
julius
ok , i explain :
1° total lack of credibility :
orderbook totally over sized , multiple flake on plane done by suppliers ,when EAC has fulfilled ONLY one promise ? (apart the one of making themselves a joke in undertaking a court proceeding against a blog for "inside knowledge ..." pathetic !)
2° total lack of transparency
NO one can safely assume to be ok if he has more than a cent in EAC, everything is so bloated ...!
about the plane: it is crap ! when FAA reports it = they over react ; when Easa say NO WAY for cert. with current probleme = we expect Cert.soon ???!!
3° total lack of managership
peoples at the top in EAC seems to be at level -10 of any kind of clever management ...
the turn-over rate is so high , no one (except B95) can claim it NOT a major problem and not a clear indication something is wrong ...
about he plane : everything is so messy , even if the design was more or less ok , the way things are done end-up into a mess !
4° total lack of humility
NO ! they are not the only one !
NO ! they are not the first one!
NO ! they WON'T bury any dinosaurs!
NO ! their plane has nothing related with good qualities !
5° total lack of vision
the simple fact that they believe that European Land is a good spot where US plan can be replicated is a very good proof they don't have a f***g clue of what they are doing or that they have NEVER been long enough in Europe to try to understand WHY it is different !
so whatever some other are trying to insidiously make you believe :
NO ! EA500 won't be exploited in E.U. with N° reg.
NO ! the plane CANNOT be serviced in E.U. , it would require to certify a service center for a plane which is NOT certified ...!
NO ! no one waiting for EAC as the messiah on this part of world ...!
the plane is ONLY an over boasted joke , with not half of qualities it would take to make it great , no one to be finished yet , no future , no immense plan of spreading ...
no , just nothing in particular , that competitors haven't got already for about the same price in regard to reliability , lasting , history , and about everything ...
apart from the ego ...! but is it safe to fly on someone else ego ???
I am no specialist on the FAR's, but the European legislation is full of management and quality system requirements such as EC1702/2003 Part 21.A139 (a):
The production organisation shall demonstrate that it has established and is able to maintain a quality system. The quality system shall be documented.
This quality system shall be such as to enable the organisation to ensure that each product, part or appliance produced by the organisation or by its partners, or supplied from or subcontracted to outside parties, conforms to
the applicable design data and is in condition for safe operation, and thus exercise the privileges set forth in 21A.163.
I am sure the FAR have an equivelent requirement. Note it doesn't say you have to have a quality system, you have have to have one which works.
Providing very specific issues like the incorrect use of cherry tooling is good, because these are symptoms. Fixing the symptom is as easy as buying the correct nose adaptors.
Fixing the underlying problem is much more differcult, in many organisations the root cause is often the most differcult to address. It the company owner does not embody a culture of compliance, if that person undermines the quality and management systems by intervening and making non-compliant decisions, tramples over standards and processes, then there is you root cause.
The behaviour of an accountable manager who attacks the NTSB/FAA, sees experienced aviation professionals as a liablity rather than an asset, and is inable to maintain a stable management team is most likely "not acceptable to the authorities" even if he owns the place.
In the european environment, the organisational certification always requires that the key personal be "acceptable to the authorities", and are approved with EASA form 4. This is the tool to prevent or remove a person who embodies the root cause.
Use of this tool is the most differcult of all.
A design review of the EA500 will not adress anything by symptoms until the root cause is addressed.
thanks god , freedomjam exists ... ;-))
yes !
the easa cert. require stuff which management at EAC does not start to even have a clue about ...!
the quality AND stability of management is one (only) of them ...
Fred,
I agree with you, when you are stating my points are just minor symptoms of
serious management deficits:
- lack of quality culture
- lack financial security
- limited ability to maintain a sound partnership with suppliers
- lack of thorough development (AC, production...)
- insufficient cooperation with governmental agencies
...
Naturally the root causes must be addressed first!
If you can transfer freedomjam's hint (unknown to me) to the U. S. situation then Oberstar will have strong opponents.
Fred, you are simply requesting a major management shakeup at EAC!
julius
Diamond just announced their plan to handle the engine fiasco occasioned by the bankruptcy of Thielert.
http://www.diamondair.com/news/2008_07_25.php
This is interesting reading. It seems to me that Diamond is bending over backwards to accommodate its customers and let them find a way start or keep flying a Diamond aircraft.
FreedomsJamtarts said...
I am no specialist on the FAR's, but the European legislation is full of management and quality system requirements such as EC1702/2003 Part 21.A139 (a):
Same here, but you are confusing two issues. For an aircraft TC, ALL that matters (letter of the regulation) is the aircraft flying article.
You can build a single one, with no process whatsoever, like Sweringen did and Adam did, and submit it for certification. If that meets the FARs it gets certified.
You can then build a second one and submit it for certification, etc or show that it was built like the first one.
Now, if you want a production cetification, that enables you to autocertify every plane built on that production line/system, than you need to demonstrate the QC and reliable processes you mention.
So, recap, for the E500 TC - ALL that maters is if the plane meets FARs.
For the PC, it matters HOW Eclipse goes about reliably building the aplanes on the approved produciton line.
We can start a list for an Eclipse PC review, but it is a completely different list than one for a TC review.
Diamond handling of Thierlert Fiasco (courtesy of Brinkling)
Thanks brinkling.
baron :
for the european market it amount to the same ...
plant CANNOT produce any credible quality policies...
so each plane has to be certified separately ...
at the ONLY expenses of EAC
something sold without profits minus cert. expenses = ?
= a big hole in EAC pocket and an other joke , they don't see yet because they never thought of implications ... !!
Julius :
no , i don't ask for what you said ...
just that the enlightened Management in ABQ stop spreading lies about places , mentality and customs they don't even have a clue about ...
as for any good from abq , i already gave up all hopes !
Good call Baron95. The European regulatory system requires (21A.243) a design organization with a quality system and an independent design verification/checking system (Office of airworthiness).
This is an essential difference to the US system where how you get design into compliance with the regs is not controlled.
I think you will find that in practice all of the established, successful manufacturers in the US have similar internal mechanisms to the Office of airworthiness.
Production under a Production approval is not significantly different between the US and Europe as I far as I know.
I deleted a post because I hit the post button twice.
I also forgot to thank Dave for posting the links to the EA-500 CRI's. I didn't reaslise they were public domain.
Interesting read, as all of the CRI's linked in Dave's post are generic CRI's (aft mounted engines, Electronic engine control, HIRF) which are applied to almost all programs until the FAR ammendments catch up. There do not address any specific new and novel features of the design such as crossed throttles. Supports my hunch that the FAA never were informed of that behavior.
It also supports the FAA Certification staff legal action against the FAA for issuing the TC before the compliance work was finished. It is highly unlikely that the team members who were involved with certifying the FADEC as a slot-in module of a mainframe in the A/C would not have raised a specific CRI for that, as it is a design configuration which has never before been used.
I just found this. It was another time when Eclipse raised the price. That time 60 bailed on news of Williams:
Next, Raburn had to call his customers and offer to return their deposits. "I think Vern was afraid to call me," Iacobucci says. The news was shocking, but Raburn softened the blow by inviting Iacobucci to help evaluate alternative engines. Of the 2,200 original customers who put down deposits before the Williams fiasco, only 60 asked for their money back.
Raburn ended up choosing a Pratt & Whitney (Charts) engine that changed the specs of the new jet. Instead of an $837,000 plane with a range of 1,300 nautical miles, the Eclipse 500 with the new engine today costs $1.5 million and has a shorter range of 1,150 nautical miles but is slightly faster.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/04/01/8403369/index.htm?postversion=2007032807
Also here's the european Special Condition that hasn't been approved. It shows Eclipse cutting costs at the expense of safety:
Eclipse 500 has, in contrast to conventional designs, no dedicated and independent FADEC power supply. The aircraft is thus considered lost after 30 minutes of being on battery power, because:
a. Engine control is lost
b. Engine shut-off capability is lost
c. All instruments are lost
Also the issue of commercial viability is specifically raised:
If the aircraft is going to be operated commercially, it must be shown that destination and alternate distances are compatible with the provided capacity of emergency electrical power with regard to engine, systems and instrument availability.
http://www.easa.eu.int/doc/Certification/Consultation/Eclipse%20500%20%20Special%20condition.pdf
By the way I've just found this old incident involving FADECs with the Boeing 777s:
http://www.iasa-intl.com/folders/belfast/BA777_Unthrustworthy.htm
It turns out the FADEC was made by Hispano-Suiza:
http://sanders.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2003/press_07102003.html
Which also supplies Eclipse:
http://www.hispano-suiza-sa.com/spip.php?article174
HS also supplies FADECs for the Mustang, so that would make me wary and want to know how much is HS COTS programming and how much is Eclipse programming in the Eclipse FADECs.
The dinosaurs had the advantage of men like “von Kármán” (1881-1963) . . . men of character, who were thorough in evaluation of aerodynamics (cf: JPL). ‘Had the founders of our little bird from Albuquerque been a little less pompous, and followed the lead of the “greats”, we would not now be having this extended discussion . . . nor would the little bird have forward swept wings.
Von Karman, and others, believed in the value of high-speed wind tunnel testing . . . something the little bird never did. (Yeh, I know . . . it was tested to 175 knots . . . maybe . . . and our computer genius extrapolated the data, so it says here somewhere in fine print.)
Next time you’re in Irvine, California, in and out of SNA, and you drive down Von Karman Avenue, think of this great man.
Anyway, them are my comments for the day.
gadfly
(And get a “double-double-animal-style” at In-N-Out . . . just a couple miles from Von Karman Avenue on Campus Drive.)
"Of the 2,200 original customers who put down deposits before the Williams fiasco, only 60 asked for their money back."
complete BS regarding 2200 original customers... spin, as usual.
Perhaps including Ed's "order" for 1430 planes, and Aviace's order of 112... I expect there were 2200 (or less) - 1542 = 685 (if you count Ed as a customer and Aviace as a customer, perhaps there were 687 "customers.
I sincerely think this is around the right number....
... and if Vern admits to 60 refunds... it was probably 160.
So, I'd say they lost at least 10% - 20% of their order book at the Williams-to-Pratt switch.
And, this was a hike to $1.15M or so, right? Many folks (platinum) kept the original price? Am I remembering right? So around 100 people were not affected?
Hmm...
Since, the price has doubled and the avionics has been placed in the garbage...
Granted . . . this is “off subject”! But suppose for a moment, that you have a complete monopoly on a given product. Pick your product . . . almost anything will do. Was it “Titanium” or “Tungsten” that someone mentioned? . . . Tungsten works for me . . . 70% tungsten/30% copper . . . something we buy in quantity. And suppose that you can command any price you wish . . . you are “the King”, and own the entire market!
Question 1: Who will buy your product? . . . Everyone? . . . you reign supreme! No one else has your product! Human nature dictates that a substitute will be found. “Poco Graphite” lurks just around the corner . . . not a great substitute, but we’ve worked with it before, and can do it again . . . and the world will not run out of carbon any time soon.
Question 2: . . . funny thing is that having found the substitute, there is no “Question 2" . . . and the King stands there in all his glory, without any clothes.
Socialists disagree . . . but those of us who have been in business, know better.
Honda waits . . . watching . . . learning . . . planning moves, without hurry . . . patient . . . while the little bird from Albuquerque explores and fails every test. There is no mistake that Honda backed off just a little . . . sensing that the little bird was in serious trouble . . . and recognizing the value of a “post graduate education”. A “billion dollar education” has been paid, complete with diploma, for . . . Eclipse? . . . Sorry, but the diploma will go to Honda, and others . . . with Doctoral degrees, honors, and accolades . . . ! ‘Talk about a free scholarship! . . . This takes the cake. This is a parent’s dream come true, sending a kid to USC, or ?, and having someone else pay for that new building on campus . . . ‘wish such a thing had happened to us . . . !
Example?: Consider Toyota . . . small pickup . . . etc., etc., . . . too small to notice, or of any concern. But time brought on slight upgrades . . . the “Big Three” laughed, and carried on . . . Toyota, building huge equipment in other countries, kept it small in the US of A . . . never really in competition to the “Big 3". Did you fully understand the recent “News”? A little Toyota truck finished “#1" in crash tests . . . ‘seems that the “Big 3" aren’t doing so well, these days, and Toyota is taking first place in sales . . . reluctantly, since they, of all people, know that being in “first place” is not necessarily the best position. In fact, I think they are hoping (against hope) that GM will recover from their recent fumbles . . . but that’s just my guess.
In this case (the little bird in Albuquerque), Honda, and others, wait for the graduation ceremonies to begin . . . and unfortunately, “Eclipse” is not on the list.
Unfortunately? . . . Yes, unfortunately! . . . until the laughter, and ridicule die down, the rest of the industry has difficulty in moving forward.
The subject at the beginning was having a monopoly on a given product, or commodity, and my contention is that there is room for more than one . . . and that is actually an advantage. Sometimes, it’s best to allow the “competition” to plow new ground, and then, by observing the mistakes, do a better job as opportunity opens.
So far, for some of us who have “kept the doors of business open” for a few decades, competition seems to be the better way. And there is much to be gained by keeping your competition as your best friends.
gadfly
(We may not be the “richest” on the planet, but we are the most blessed.)
Gad,
a monopoly is only good IF you can foreclose all competition, forever.
I think you get my drift.
PS. I think EAC planned for a monopoly... the plan failed.
taximan
Your statements cause me to go slow . . . and I think I get your drift, but sometimes with old folks you have to be patient, etc., etc. . . . we have a tendency to “drift”.
Monopoly . . . that was a great game, back when I was a kid . . . but you’re right, EAC did not put hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place . . . and if they’re not careful, they may land in “Jail” . . . if you get my drift.
And they didn’t win the “Beauty Prize”!
But back to your statement concerning “all competition”, no matter how difficult, the competition will always (did I say “Always”?) find a way around . . . and the plan will Always fail.
Well, we could babble on . . . but the end is near, the final curtain is about to come down, and the little bird will be a passing joke.
gadfly
(Sometimes I wonder ‘just how long it will be remembered, and in what terms? Today, on a Chicago station . . . WLS, they spoke of an event at the “Biograph Theatre” in my wife’s old neighborhood . . . over seventy years or so ain’t bad!)
Good grief, folks, . . . the event at the “Biograph Theatre” was the end of John Dillinger (1903-1934) . . . you look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dillinger
At my age, even “Monopoly” is much too exciting after a quintuple bypass, and all my “cholesterol” and “heart medicine” . . . (har, har!).
gadfly
(Ah yes, those were the days when the bad guys got front page!)
Freadom said... I think you will find that in practice all of the established, successful manufacturers in the US have similar internal mechanisms to the Office of airworthiness.
Yep. Not only that, but the FAA folks being human look beyond the aircraft article to the organization and folks behind it. They can very easily delay or come up with special conditions for any plane if they somehow mistrust the organization behind it.
I was simply pointing out that TC conditions and PC conditions are distinct. You can have one without the other.
Dave said... If the aircraft is going to be operated commercially, it must be shown that destination and alternate distances are compatible with the provided capacity of emergency electrical power with regard to engine, systems and instrument availability.
Exactly right. That is why I don't think this is a big issue. The EASA is taking issue with the 30 minutes of backup power.
For commercial operations, there are two options if the EASA insists on its position:
a) Add a suplemental and/or larger backup battery say to 180 min.
b) Accept a limitation of no more than 30 minutes from suitable landing field. Kind of like an ETOPS 30. That can be somewhat restrictive in low IMC, because an approach will have to flown.
Either way, no big deal. either EASA relents or Eclipse adds a larger battery as an European or global option. US pilots may want it as well. Figure another 20 lbs penalty.
Gad said ... Monopoly . . . that was a great game, back when I was a kid
Monopoly is a great game TODAY. Look at Microsoft. Consistently has the highest gross and net margins of any large company in the world.
Look at other monopolies in Oil e.g. Saudi oil company, Pharmaceuticals (look at the profits from Lipitor, Viagra, etc) while under patent/monopoly control. Look at the profits that Qualcomm generates from its CDMA patent portfolio monopoly.
Monopoly, particularly when achieved through superior products and/or patent protection is a powerful money machine.
Even a duopoly like Boeing/Airbus is not half bad. If you think that is a game of the past, you are mistaken.
‘Funny things about games . . . they’re not over, til they’re over. And last time I checked, neither Boeing, nor Airbus, has tossed the dice the last time.
It will be a great comfort for family members to know that every dot and tittle was properly entered and followed with the FAA, the NTSB, etc. Of course, only the document reference numbers will find space on the final granite monuments (Engraving is so expensive). I can never get that straight . . . which should be listed first? . . . the “PC” or the “TC” . . . etiquette is so confusing, with Emily Post no longer here to guide us.
The “duopoly” of Boeing/Airbus is on its way to a bad end . . . you know it, I know it. The only part in which we agree is that the game is not yet in the past . . . ! But “not half bad”? . . . Don’t try looking sideways . . . your head just might not turn (if you get my drift).
The events beginning this weekend in Wisconsin are bound to be most interesting. ‘See you on the other side!
gadfly
(Yep . . . the “short view looks good” . . . it always does! . . . to a blind man. And speaking of "Monopoly", when it was introduced, it gave a sense of false hope . . . it didn't work then, and it doesn't work now.)
Either way, no big deal. either EASA relents or Eclipse adds a larger battery as an European or global option. US pilots may want it as well. Figure another 20 lbs penalty.
If none of what EASA said was a big deal, Eclipse would already been certified by EASA. That special condition came out over a year ago. If it wasn't a big deal and it is taking Eclipse over year while holding up european customers, that doesn't exactly bode well for Eclipse. Under either scenario I can't see how you can say this is no big deal. The EASA special condition consultation happened over a year ago.
"The “duopoly” of Boeing/Airbus is on its way to a bad end . . . you know it, I know it."
Right on. Bombardier and Embraer are nipping at the smaller end of the Boeing/Airbus product line now. The future will only bring more competition. Why should Canada and Brazil be dictated to by the US and a somewhat disfunctional European consortium? Russia could be a player,too, if they ever get tired of doing the "Russian-capitalist mobster" farce.
baron,
imagine a going for a monopoly in a market that has been around for decades, with major well-financed and sophisticated industrial manufacturing players entrenched all around the world?
(oil is not a good example, as there are many sources of oil...not a monopoly, really)
So, perhaps for a software company which is more inclined to avoid competition/destroy competition than be in competition and win on the merits... I can see it, as a first to market/scale player. Verns's background...
But, to try the same crap in a 60 year old capital (human and monetary capital BTW) intensive business... with a lame product that is ill conceived and ill executed... for a mature market where there are arguably 12000 planes already in service, AND TO CALL IT NEW, REVOLUTIONARY AND DISRUPTIVE...
Is STUPID. Just plain stupid.
IMO.
Dayjet Utilization July 19-25
Couple of interesting diversions back to KGNV this week. Tail 145 flew to Bahammas under the N number instead the DJS name.
Craft .. July 19-25
153 .. 16:46
145 .. 14:58
139 .. 14:32
141 .. 11:20
142 .. 11:14
163 .. 10:42
162 .. 10:01
152 .. 9:00
148 .. 6:31
147 .. 4:16
132 .. 2:54
161 .. 1:53
156 .. 0:38
109 ..
110 ..
115 ..
116 ..
119 ..
126 ..
130 ..
131 ..
134 ..
135 ..
136 ..
146 ..
150 ..
158 ..
160 ..
Total .. 114:45
dave ...
you just won't get it ???
listen to B95 , Easa is only to be considered as a secretarial office for Faa ...
whatever they say , it has no real importance ...
but , in Euro-land , the WHOLE process has to go under the scrutiny of quality control process (quite tough)
so in this condition , what is the chance (singular , not enough to use plural ) ??
it is a question worth 1 billion 300 millions $ ...
answer : in the today way of thing at EAC , with their demonstrated ability to cooperate with agencies supposed to control and check them ...
NONE !
if anyone does not like it this way , simple = avoid european market ... we don't anybody's lesson ...!!
we may be wrong , we may be right , that is OUR choice !
an other point :
Easa is under direct order of E.U. institutions ...
just to comply with European laws on sold product , is already way out of reach for EAC ...
the flake ?
do you really believe one side of institutions is going to say "yes" when other are going to say at the best only a "may be under special circumstances ..." ?
EASA cert. is one part of the deal , the biggest one BUT NOT the only one ...!
To my critical friends:
My family and I are leaving today for a month long cruise from Massachusetts to Maine and up to the Bras D'Or lakes in northern Nova Scotia. We'll be out of touch much of the time (and not sure if the Zen of sailing should be interrupted by the angst of customers, vendors and regulators screwed by Vern).
Keep the pressure on and see you in the fall. Will Eclipse be TU by then? Will the Russians sieze the vapor plant and plane like they seem to be doing to other foreign owned businesses?
Turboprop_pilot
A most reliable source informs that a refund-requesting depositor received and deposited his $100K refund check from EAC and the check bounced. Insufficient Funds.
Would love to have seen the speed he drove to the bank to cash that one! LOL And still to late.
Economic Darwinism at work. Sure looks like the ConJet is the last gasp attempt to separate the fools and their money, and Oshkosh the last good venue.
EASA cert? In your dreams.
DayJet makes it? In your dreams.
Completed E500? In your dreams.
ConJet developed? In your dreams.
Deposit refund? You get the drift.
Brick...
You are correct - I also heard the deposit refund check from Eclipse bounced.
Not only that, but Eclipse employees are not returning calls to people who have been promised their deposits, not following up on emails, and Vern is being silent on the matter.
This is not the picture of a healthy company, financially or ethically.
I hope the EAA got their sponsorship check for the concert at Oshkosh up front!
I suspect we may be hearing an announcement from Eclipse at OSH, and it won't be good....
"If one person calls you a horse's ass, be curious. If three people...be reflective. After five people...buy a saddle".
Vern, are you listening to your customers?
AvidPilot said... "If one person calls you a horse's ass, be curious. If three people...be reflective. After five people...buy a saddle".
I was thinking it's time for the glue factory!
"I hope the EAA got their sponsorship check for the concert at Oshkosh up front!"
Not sure it will matter. IIRC, Vern has long been a member of the Board of Directors of EAA and and Eclipse is listed as a significant cash contributor to EAA.
tpt
Post a Comment