Monday, August 4, 2008

Another important notice for the 'Honor Roll'


Eclipse Aviation: New CEO, Blogger Suit Quashed

03-Aug-2008
By Karen Di Piazza /CharterX Industry Headline News

Monday, Vern Raburn, founder of Eclipse Aviation Corp., was ejected from his position as CEO. Roel Pieper, Eclipse chairman, founder and chairman of the of European Technology and Investment Research Center, became Eclipse's acting CEO. Raburn will act as vice chairman of ETIRC, to focus on global expansion of the Eclipse 500 very light. With Raburn gone, Friday, the Eclipse Aviation Critic NG blog lawsuit, lead by Raburn, was quashed. (Reference the April 25 article, Eclipse Aviation Critic Blogger Fights Eclipse Aviation Subpoena, and Quash Eclipse Aviation Subpoena of Eclipse Aviation Critic Bloggers, published May 8.)
Eclipse served Google in California with a subpoena demanding it release personal information and the identities of 29 bloggers. Rich Lucibella, who's in the publishing business, wasn't one of the 29 people on Eclipse's list. A huge proponent of the First Amendment and everything it stands for, Lucibella hired Florida-based attorney Norman Malinski, who took on Eclipse on behalf of the 29 bloggers. He immediately filed a motion to prevent Google from releasing bloggers' private information.

Eclipse had first filed a lawsuit in New Mexico, where Eclipse is headquartered, against unnamed people that agedly violated company non-disclosure agreements; however, Eclipse sought to subpoena Google for the names of 29 bloggers trying to match identities with those who may have breeched NDAs. The New Mexico case was sealed for months; Malinski successfully filed a motion unsealing the case in late July.

Eclipse ended up withdrawing both the New Mexico and California case, with terms set by Malinski. "If Eclipse ever goes after these 29 bloggers again, Eclipse could face financial penalties in advance of proceedings," Malinski said.

Malinski said that the First Amendment is important. "Freedom of speech rights includes being able to keep your identity anonymous, to be able to express freedom of speech, to have the freedom to disagree with someone else's opinion without being harassed."

Lucibella said that he was happy that more money won't be "wasted by Eclipse's creditors on this frivolous lawsuit, and that the suit was nothing more than a personal vendetta by Raburn."

Shane Price, host of the Eclipse Aviation Critic NG blog, said, "I'm delighted that the revised management structure at Eclipse decided to withdraw the 'John Doe, Jane Doe' litigation. It was a waste of time, a waste of management resources and cash. Rich Lucibella deserves gratitude for his selfless act to protect others' welfare; he funded the defense of First Amendment rights."

Eclipse declined to comment.

This article is reproduced here 'for the record'. Although Karen was kind enough to quote me, I wish to state that we all owe Gunner, big time, for his direct action in the matter. A man who says what he means and means what he says. His lawyer, Norman Malinski, also deserves credit for his prompt actions at all times, and the astute manner in which he identified the weaknesses in the Eclipse submissions.

So, there you have it. The suit is finished, and cannot be reactivated unless EAC stump up a pile of cash. I hope you all sleep a little easier now. I know I will...

Shane

285 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 285 of 285
PawnShop said...

If RJR cigarette was a "turd on a tip", what does that make the FPJ?

I already told you: a self-propelled lawn dart. Pay attention!

:)

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Charity you have just asked the $64,000 question.

The story line at OSH and specifically about Vern's departure was that it was necessary to ensure the cash infusion that they said, several times, would take them to cash flow positive.

But Roel reportedly said on the conference call that without additional monies (presumably after the aforementioned input) Eclipse could not make all the deliveries it already has deposits for - that does not sound like cash flow positive to me - not even break even.

Roel is admitting what we have suespected all along. Even with the newly established pricing, the EA-400 and EA-500 are being sold at a loss.

Worse yet, EAC has somewhere around $40M in retrofit exposure.

There is also the untold refund requests which I think could themselves exceed $50M.

I just don't see a way out.

PawnShop said...

Didnt EAC issue a press release while in Oshkosh that they had just recieved "a new round of financing that would take them to cash flow positive" ? I must've gotten out of the loop for a while between that statement and all of this BK talk. Im sure a kind soul will give me a brief synopsis?

I'd be glad to oblige...

Eleven days ago, Roel Pieper was on the Board of Directors, and all the information he got regarding results of operations was filtered through management (i.e. Vern).

Ten days ago, Roel became management, and the effects of the Raburn Reality Distortion Field are gradually diminishing. IOW, Roel has only now been coming to the realization just how truly bad things actually are, and that drastically alters his ability to make certain representations regarding viability to those from whom investment is being solicited.

What he thought was true ten days ago, he now realizes couldn't even possibly be true.

JMHO, HTH

Dave said...

Didnt EAC issue a press release while in Oshkosh that they had just recieved "a new round of financing that would take them to cash flow positive" ? I must've gotten out of the loop for a while between that statement and all of this BK talk. Im sure a kind soul will give me a brief synopsis? :)

Yes, you are correct. Roel did say that:
http://www.aopa.org/oshkosh08/articles/080728eclipse.html
However, since then there's been reports of depositors not getting paid and a whole shift shutting down. I guess it is strictly true that this could lead to Eclipse being cashflow positive, but only by not paying anyone nor producing anything. Being cashflow positive doesn't put one out of BK particularly if achieving that by simply not paying your bills.

Dave said...

I already told you: a self-propelled lawn dart. Pay attention!

I was looking for a more scatalogical name.

Unknown said...

....AH, Thanks.

TBMs_R_Us said...

Didnt EAC issue a press release while in Oshkosh that they had just recieved "a new round of financing that would take them to cash flow positive" ? I must've gotten out of the loop for a while between that statement and all of this BK talk. Im sure a kind soul will give me a brief synopsis? :)

There was a press release that said that, however the absence of a formal announcement of parties investing and amounts makes the whole thing very suspect. One would certainly expect them to trumpet new amounts and/or investors identities.

What they've said since indicates that they are not spending a lot of money they had been at least considering spending before, e.g., deposit refunds, retrofits, second shift. I seriously doubt they took in significant new investment dollars. Vern, in one of his press interviews, makes reference to the debt holders not having a sense of humor or being willing to cut them any slack. Makes me think the debt holders balked at some deal they had in the works for additional funding. To beat a really dead horse, that is exactly what happened at Adam right before they went Tango Uniform. Management had been negotiating some additional lines of credit from the banks, but just couldn't get the banks over the hump to actually put up more cash.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

When do you suppose Darth Campbell of the Eclipse Aviation Corporation Southern PR Office (formerly known as ANN) will pick up on the sotry that the blog subpoena and underlying NM action have been dropped by Eclipse?

All of the major trade media have covered it.

Did you get the memo Zoom?

Eclipse cried 'No Mas!'

You thought it was important enough to report when the story broke, how about now?

Are you a journalist or a bought-and-paid-for hack?

Vern Raburn and Eclipse are the same as Happy Miles and Adventure Air - you were on the right side for one those Jim - come back to us.

Unknown said...

Old news, but interesting comments..

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/373713_air06.html

Dave said...

Old news, but interesting comments..

In the comment section of the article:
Posted by voiceofcommonsense at 8/6/08 5:38 a.m.

Microsoft person building planes? Duh? Software is nothing compared to a plane. Gee you can't have crashes like microcrap software!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=373713

I think that about sums it up.

Ceri said...

Charity:"Didnt EAC issue a press release while in Oshkosh that they had just recieved "a new round of financing that would take them to cash flow positive" ? I must've gotten out of the loop for a while between that statement and all of this BK talk. Im sure a kind soul will give me a brief synopsis? :)"

It was an odd statement: I wouldn't expect investment to change cashflow except to reduce the borrowings and thereby the interest payments on those borrowings. Your cashflow position is still the checks you get each week from FPJs sold minus the checks you write each week to keep the factory doors open. From the discussions here, it seems likely that Eclipse is cashflow negative before you even think about debt servicing, so adding investment dollars can't fix that.

I suspect it was just happy-sounding Vern bullshit.

Unknown said...

Ceri said:
I suspect it was just happy-sounding Vern bullshit.


It was Roel that said it.

Dave said...

This is latest claim of Eclipse that their latest round is their last round. This claim by Eclipse is like a broken record:
OSHKOSH, WI - Eclipse Aviation, manufacturer of the world’s first very light jet (VLJ), today announced it has received first funds in a new round of financing that will take the company to cash flow positive. Under the terms of the commitment and agreements, Founder and CEO Vern Raburn will step down and veteran executive and Eclipse Aviation Chairman Roel Pieper will become acting CEO effective immediately.
http://www.eclipseaviation.com/company/news/news.php?c=1&id=1390

Also Vern said the exact same thing as Roel is saying now the last time Eclipse received money:
Regarding the current worldwide economic turmoil on Eclipse and in particular the recent cutting-back by pioneer air taxi operator DayJet in Florida, Raburn was bullish as ever. Eclipse has “adequate financing right now,” he said, “and is well capitalized.”
He said he “expects [the company] to be cash-flow positive by mid-2009.”

http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/eclipses-plan-for-russia-moves-toward-production/

Back in 2007 claiming they had enough to reach cash flow breakeven:
Mr. Birk responded that, in June 2007, Eclipse raised $200+ million in additional capital from a group of very sophisticated investors in a matter of days. He said this was after another investor, Highland Partners, changed the terms of the deal at the eleventh hour and Eclipse backed away. He said this quick recovery on the part of Eclipse speaks to the opportunity that people see in the company. Mr. Birk stated that Eclipse claims that the financing will get through the cash flow breakeven, but if their production continues to lag, there will be additional requirements for cash. He stated that it is too early to tell at this point. Responding to questioning from Mr. Lewis, Mr. Birk said Eclipse plans to stay in its existing facility for the next two and a half years, giving them enough capacity to produce about 600-700 aircraft per year, and then they will need to find another facility to accommodate a larger production line. He commented that he thought this a very realistic approach.
http://www.sic.state.nm.us/PDF%20files/SIC10_23_07_Index_Minutes.pdf

Then we have back in 2006 Eclipse claiming then that was their final pre-IPO round:
On another topic, Mr. Bland reported that Eclipse Aviation will be coming up with a final “pre-IPO” financing round.
http://www.sic.state.nm.us/PDF%20files/SIC_4.4.06_Final.pdf

Ceri said...

Charity: "Ceri said:
I suspect it was just happy-sounding Vern bullshit.

It was Roel that said it.
"

- Strictly speaking, no-one 'said' it - it was in this press release: http://www.eclipseaviation.com/company/news/news.php?c=1&id=1390.

I guess it went under RP's imprimatur, but I still think it's just happy-sounding bullshit (who can tell who actually wrote the release?).

uglytruth said...

1Billion / 10 years = $100,000m per year. Could they have possibly went thru that much money... what do they really have to show for it....or did some get diverted to someone's personal account?

Shane Price said...

The 'second shift' at EAC is indeed gone.

Still no word on deposits being returned.

Many reports from professional workers leaving ABQ and returning to former employers. Most seem fed up with the messing and general poor prospects at EAC.

Further rumblings about money from several directions. Sounds serious for those owed money...

Oh, and the 'Top Ten Shortcomings' list is nearly ready. I'll put it up tomorrow evening.

Unless something else comes out of the left field, which, this being the Eclipse critic's blog, is almost a certainty.

Shane

Niner Zulu said...

The "Raburn Reality Distortion Field". Now THAT is funny!

It would appear that the field has not yet dissipated. Not until Eclipse starts telling the truth.

i.e. There really aren't 2,600 orders for the E500

i.e. There really isn't going to be a plant built in Russia, cranking out E500's by 2009. That the total progress to date is nothing more than issuing press releases and a few guys flying around Russia and having cocktails while they talk about their pipe dream as if it were real.

i.e. That in fact, ETIRC is nothing more than a shell office - a mail drop in Luxembourg with a rented secretary.

i.e. That there is no huge pent-up demand for E500's in Russia, Europe, or anywhere else for that matter. Proof - foreigners aren't exactly flocking to the US to buy E500's that are readily available on Controller right now.

i.e. that the ONLY way Eclipse can survive is to keep finding more suckers to inject money into this dream-turned-nightmare. That the business plan didn't work in a good economy, and sure as heck isn't going to pan out with the global slowdown we are all seeing.

The kool-aid is still flowing in ABQ.

I predict BK in less than 12 months.

GettingReady2FileSuit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GettingReady2FileSuit said...

9Z: "I predict BK in less than 12 months."

Well, I predict it in less than 12 weeks. Anyone want to better that?

Orville said...

I was thinking 9Z was being waaayy too generous - 12 weeks or sooner sounds more like it.

gadfly said...

20year said: "We are all getting ready for the big FAA audit that will take place Aug 18th. There is no way we will pass if the FAA looks close at most of the drawings because we have been making the plane for so long with tribal knowledge, that the prints are and have become irrelevant. They would have to be reverse engineered in order to make the grade."

How long will the inspection take . . . and time to write up a report?

gadfly

(We may soon witness a feeding frenzy by various agencies, organizations, lawyers, and irate "customers".)

Dave said...

We may soon witness a feeding frenzy by various agencies, organizations, lawyers, and irate "customers"

I wonder how long Roel keeps his job as CEO of Eclipse. I would expect many creditors (other than ETIRC) wouldn't want an Eclipse creditor running Eclipse. Roel as CEO totally defies good corporate governance practices due to the extreme conflict-of-interest.

Dave said...

Eclipse is being sued by another depositor now...

eclipso said...

FAA Audit: Aug 18 + 10 days to peform audit + 5 days for debrief and final report (based on 5 day work week)

My pediction for locks on the doors = Sep 8


Wonder if we could get odds in Vegas

Dave said...

My pediction for locks on the doors = Sep 8

Musical chairs have already started with trusty Roel in the catbird seat.

Unknown said...

I would think it would be more their style to close thier own doors if they have a feeling that the FAA will be doing it anyway. They have always had the "get them before they get us" attitude. Then they can say it was their idea and all part of a master plan. :)

Baron95 said...

eclipso said...
FAA Audit: Aug 18 + 10 days to peform audit + 5 days for debrief and final report (based on 5 day work week)


Well, if the FAA found something trully out of wack, they could suspend/revoke the PC on the spot, till the deffficiency is corrected.

eclipso said...

My prediction is for locks on the door....

FAA, EAC, ABQ, LSD. MDA....no matter. I just think that will bw the nail in the coffin. The FAA can pull the cert in 10 min if they find something wrong. My contention is EAC will be closed.

Anonymous said...

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Even with the newly established pricing, the EA-400 and EA-500 are being sold at a loss.

We can actually compute the loss per airplane to some degree.

In mid January, ETIRC invested "substantially in excess of $100M" in Eclipse.

In mid July, Eclipse needed more money, so the $100M was gone.

In those 6 months, Eclipse delivered about 100 airplanes.

$100M lost on 100 airplanes is $1M lost per airplane. They lost more money per airplane, even with the delivery revenue (typically $1.7M per), than they said the plane was going to cost originally! They raised the price about $600K, so they are still loosing $400K per airplane.

So, it seems to take about $2.7M to build an EA500. Got to love that "high volume low cost manufacturing plan" Eclipse has.

WhyTech said...

"So, it seems to take about $2.7M to build an EA500. "

Well, you are to be commended for your effort, but it doesnt quite work this way. You may have arrived at the right answer, but the method is flawed. Cash flow and profits are only loosely connected.

Al Petrofsky said...

New depositor lawsuit from Ice Blue Air Limited (IBAL)

On the court documents page at eclipse-vs-does.blogspot.com, I've added a new section for Ice Blue Air Ltd. v. Eclipse Aviation Corp, No. 6:08-cv-728 (D. N.M., filed August 5, 2008).

Here's an excerpt from the Complaint:

"9. IBAL made pre-delivery payments and deposits in the amount of $180,000 in accordance with the terms of the Deposit Agreement.

10. By letter dated June 6, 2008, Eclipse informed IBAL that it was unilaterally increasing the Standard Aircraft Price in an amount of almost $500,000. Eclipse attached a 'Selection Form' to its June 6 letter, requesting IBAL to elect one of three options in response to Eclipse's increase in the Standard Aircraft Price. IBAL chose the option to terminate the Deposit Agreement and have all its deposits refunded.

11. Beginning on June 13, 2008, and continuing thereafter, IBAL communicated its decision to terminate the Dealer Agreement and have all its deposits refunded by Eclipse. Eclipse acknowledged receipt of IBAL's Selection Form and agreed to refund IBAL's pre-delivery payments and deposits.

12[.] Pursuant to the terms of the Deposit Agreement, Eclipse was required to refund IBAL's pre-delivery payments and deposits within thirty days of receipt of the refund request, on or before August 1, 2008, at the latest. Eclipse did not refund IBAL's pre-delivery payments and deposits on or before August 1, and has not done so to date.

13. The Deposit Agreement further provides that for litigation commenced in connection with the Deposit Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reimbursement of its attorneys' fees, expenses and costs."


This appears to be a more straightforward case than the one by Geiger Excavating. If Eclipse persists in nonpayment and has no plausible excuse, then I expect that in as little as 90 days (if Eclipse has not filed for bankruptcy protection before then), Ice Blue could obtain a summary judgment and a Writ of Execution commanding Eclipse and/or its bankers to hand over the cash (if any still exists) to the U.S. Marshal.

gadfly said...

baron95 said:

“Well, if the FAA found something truly out of wack, they could suspend/revoke the PC on the spot, till the deficiency is corrected.”

That is probably the best answer. The FAA needs something, just now, to correct for their previous “booboo” . . . and this is their golden opportunity to make things right . . . hopefully before someone gets killed.

And it also give an excuse to the “new management”, to stop the bleeding from the right carotid artery before the patient is totally brain dead.

This is a time when the suspect is pleading for “suicide by cop” . . . hoping for incarceration before the final shot is fired.

You fill in the rest of the blanks . . . ‘just borrow whatever you need from any of a dozen TV cop shows. And come next Fall, we’ll see an entirely new series in the media.

gadfly

(“Help!, Help!, ‘Don’t taser me, Dude!”)

AvidPilot said...

Meanwhile, we have the used-Eclipse-salesman out there telling people that the prices are headed to $1,900,000-$2,000,000 as "supplies dwindle."

Uh huh. Looks like supplies are dwindling. More Happy Horse S**t.

Depending upon the outcome of the FAA investigation and the next few weeks, I think you could slice about a million off of those numbers and be about right.

Dave said...

An article that mentions Vern in regards to his Icon pronouncements of hundreds of thousands of Icon aircraft selling:
http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsiderBlog_CheapFlyingNot_198547-1.html

20yearmechanic said...

9Z: "I predict BK in less than 12 months."

Well, I predict it in less than 12 weeks. Anyone want to better that?



Hey Yall!

One of my best friends that used to work here at ECLIPSE, spoke to a FED today that was investigating ECLIPSE for the upcoming congressional hearings coming up in September. He is going to testify as is a few others that worked with him. He knows some real interesting stuff that should help the FED’s shut this operation down. If I was a betting man, after what I heard today but wont repeat. My money is on ECLIPSE losing its TC and being shut down in September if they don’t go BK first. GO FED’s

As for me, I would love to say a few things, but don’t want to get BLACKBALLED from the industry. Now tomorrow is my last day here at Eclipse and on Monday Im at BELL in Amarillo Texas. Wish me luck BLOGGERS.

20 YM

Dave said...

Perhaps there should be a total list of all the public/private money that could be down the tubes with Eclipse/DayJet with an emphasis on non-equity money and money not going to pay salaries (like the last $1M that was announced for Eclipse employees). Like:
* ABQ Industrial Revenue Bond - $45M
* GRA Airport Revenue Bond (to build the Eclipse Service Center) - $6M with a threat of having to turn over parking revenues/pay $200K until 2027
* FPJ/Frankenjet Depositors - $300M (that is an estimate of 200 deposits @ $150K, though not all depositors are asking for refunds, this is meant as an estimate of amount at risk rather than amount demanded right now)
* Any idea for the outstanding parts bill?
* Labor bill?

Dave said...

As for me, I would love to say a few things, but don’t want to get BLACKBALLED from the industry. Now tomorrow is my last day here at Eclipse and on Monday Im at BELL in Amarillo Texas. Wish me luck BLOGGERS.

Good luck. It should be much more enjoyable watching this from afar rather than being right in the middle of it.

gadfly said...

Dave . . . re: “Cheap Flying Not”:

That’s the most sanity I’ve seen in a few hours. Cars are two axis machines (2x2=4).

Aerioplanes are three axis critters (3x3=9 . . . plus lawyers, etc., etc. . . . a magnitude above those two axis creatures).

My only contention with the “Legend Cub” is with the “O-200" engine and “aluminum spar and ribs” . . . there’s something special about chugging around behind an “A-65", sitting in the back seat, watching a wire attached to a “cork”, and hanging from a wood spar and ribs . . . especially, if the “pilot” was the one that re-built the spar, a few ribs, stretched the Irish linen, sewed it with waxed thread, maybe even did some of the oxy-acetylene welding on the “chrome-moly” tubing, and beat out some of the aluminum cowling with a sheet metal hammer and bags of lead shot.

But that article explains the difference between “Vern’s Dream” and reality . . . and why it’s turned from “pleasant thoughts” to a nightmare.

gadfly

(Add to the above, driving a tractor all summer in the hot Illinois sun, mowing four turf runways on 82 acres every two weeks, making sure that the alignment was correct, and painting all the main hangars white with green trim . . . and riding 25 miles each way on a Schwinn to date my bride-to-be. Yep . . . there’s far more to aviation than meets the eye.)

Dave said...

That’s the most sanity I’ve seen in a few hours. Cars are two axis machines (2x2=4).
Aerioplanes are three axis critters (3x3=9 . . . plus lawyers, etc., etc. . . . a magnitude above those two axis creatures).


Yes, aircraft are waaaay more complex than cars. I think another part of the calculation besides the third axis is also the speed. At best a car would have a value of say (2x2x70=280) while the Eclipse is (3x3x400=3600). That's about a power of ten difference between a car and the jet. Aircraft take time to build for a reason. Treating an airplane like a car or worse yet a computer or an OS looks at it all wrong, though I imagine it feeds off people's egos to tell a bunch of tech people that those in the aviation industry are in the stone age and that there's a Messiah they can fund who will change this. There are improvements that can be made in aviation, but not by treating the aviation as ignorant while treating an aircraft as a car.

I'm someone who comes from the tech industry and I find all this appalling. Vern/Roel/Ed are set to do a great deal of damage to both aviation being seen as an investment as well being seen as having poor quality while also making those in the tech industry appear like snakeoil salesmen. It seemed like the dot com bubble bursting was water under the bridge, but not any more. Most of the dot com bombs were of relatively small size compared to Eclipse. Most were like DayJet in only having in the tens of millions at risk instead of being massive like Eclipse. Eclipse is much like WebVan though and if this makes a lot of news, it wouldn't surprise me seeing all the comparisons between the two.

WhyTech said...

"A compulsive liar will resort to telling lies, regardless of the situation. Again, everyone lies from time to time, but for a compulsive liar, telling lies is routine. ...It becomes a habit - a way of life...Making matters even more complicated, compulsive lying is often a symptom of a much larger personality disorder, which only makes the problem more difficult to resolve (see, narcissistic personality disorder and borderline personality disorder). "

Sound familiar?
See http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/confront_a_liar/public/compulsive_lying.html for more.

gadfly said...

Dave:

Somehow, I think Eclipse will fall somewhere between “Webvan” and maybe “Shaklee” . . . with a touch of Amway and an attitude of Scientology. Did I miss anyone critical? . . . Oh yes, how could I have forgotten Aimee Semple McPherson (Sister Amy)! . . . and Herbert W. (although, he wasn’t selling anything for $)!

Being a native of Southern California, we’ve seen it all. So Eclipse was easy to recognize, early on.

WhyTech . . . you certainly have a good point. The problem here is that the one most likely to believe a lie, is a liar, himself. ‘Ever buy a used car from a less that reputable dealer? . . . or for that matter, any of a few “new car dealers” in Albuquerque? . . . we seem to have more than our share of liars . . . it’s easier to deal with someone out of state.

But the bottom line in all this, is not to sort out the psychological disorders of the characters in this overrated production, but to protect others from becoming trapped into thinking it is legitimate.

It is difficult for the naive to realize that liars exist . . . and you rarely are rewarded for alerting the gullible . . . but we’ll continue to carry on the battle, because when all the dust has settled, we still need to look ourselves in the mirror, and know we did what we could.

gadfly

Carry on, my friends, carry on!

Shane Price said...

Inbox is filling up...

I'm spending as much time on email as I am on posting and reading the blog.

Can't say what the next bombshell is yet, but that's only because there is a choice.

I'm with 20yr (and good luck at Bell) on this one. Some people say months, others say weeks. From where I'm sitting, it's hard to be exact. But I would be very, very surprised if EAC last until Christmas and they could pull the plug, or have it pulled for them, sooner than that.

Oh, and while the FAA are in ABQ, would someone ask them to check the training records?

They may be a little difficult to find...

Shane

Dave said...

Roel should resign immediately from Eclipse. He never should have taken the position. I cannot see why he would unless he was up to something. As Chairman and CEO of Eclipse Roel now has a fiduciary duty to do what is in the best interests of Eclipse Aviation (that includes what is best for the other 49% owners of Eclipse) but as Chairman and CEO of ETIRC his fiduciary duty is to what is best for ETIRC. Particularly given the situation now what is best for Eclipse most likely isn't best for ETIRC and vice versa and now that he's making the day-to-day decisions, he's got many opportunities for violating his fiduciary duties to Eclipse. If it comes out that there's been any sort of preferential treatment of ETIRC since Roel became Chairman and particulary if this happened when he became CEO, that could cause a real mess. Roel as a fiduciary in the US is supposed to exercise the highest standard of duty and loyalty in his actions with Eclipse. Fiduciary duties in the Netherlands and Russia might be different and Roel probably could argue whatever he was doing he was fullfilling his fiduciary duties as ETIRC CEO, but those differences in international law could cause an intentional or unintentional head-on collision with those Roel owns a fiduciary duty to in the US.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

If we are making suggestions on where the intrepid investigators might want to look, I would like to suggest a review of Non-Conformance Reports in the quality system - especially for vendor items.

Along with a TC review I think the real risk for EAC is a review of the Production Certificate and of the Quality System that EAC has represented to FAA as ensuring that the airplanes actually meet the Type Design.

I suspect both to be very broken.

In all OEM's it is a careful balancing act, schedule, money, quality, and safety.

Eclipse has simply failed to show the maturity in design making that would support a quality system. When given a choice between honesty and bringing in a couple more dollars, Eclipse has routinely chosen money over other more pressing issues.

Teresa Kline said...

Insight

As a clinical therapist I have been baffled throughout my personal and professional life as to why some people seemingly sane and responsible lie and cheat and then seem to have no remorse. Or worse don't even realize what they are doing due to their severe narcissism. They hurt/destroy others and feel good about themselves, as they see themselves as infallible.

The DSM 4-R (the diagnostic bible for mental disorders) has never had a fitting category for this type of behavior. Sociopath's are easily recognizable as their behavior is so far from what is considered normal that they are easy to diagnose. They are the serial killers and serial rapists of the world. But what about the "looking goods"? They appear respectable, even extraordinary in their careers and social relationships.

I have recently found a book that explains people like Vern, Roel and many of the die-hard eclipse employees. If you want to get a look into the minds of these folks check out People of the Lie by M. Scott Peck, MD the author of the Road Less Traveled.

This book has given me some understanding of a previously baffling affliction. Actually these people are to be pitied.

For those of you who want to not only look behind the curtain but need to make sense of the events. Take a look at the personalities of the players.

It's quite enlightening. The book will also help you to protect yourself from the future Vern's of the world.

Happy reading

MS, MSSW

TBMs_R_Us said...

I would expect many creditors (other than ETIRC) wouldn't want an Eclipse creditor running Eclipse. Roel as CEO totally defies good corporate governance practices due to the extreme conflict-of-interest.

Dave,

I've been thinking about this conflict of interest stuff.

If ETIRC owns the majority of the equity of EAC, that makes EAC a subsidiary of ETIRC. If they own a majority of the votes, that makes EAC a controlled subsidiary. It is very common in either circumstance for an officer of a company to also serve as an officer of a subsidiary. That, in and of itself, does not create a conflict of interest, nor would it, in and of itself, be a source of concern for the various parties involved (it being a common arrangement amongst affiliated companies).

What would create a conflict of interest would be for Roel to negotiate both sides of an agreement between EAC and ETIRC. There really isn't any evidence that this has happened or is happening. Naturally, with minority shareholders in EAC, and other interested parties, it would be expected that any and all negotiations between EAC and ETIRC be conducted at arms length. Again, we don't have any evidence that this wasn't the case in the past, nor are we aware of any current dealings that are not at arms length.

It must be that the board of EAC appointed Roel to be Acting CEO. They certainly have a fiduciary responsibility to all of the EAC shareholders, not just ETIRC. Is there any reason to think they acted inappropriately in appointing Roel?

Granted, all of this is angels on pinhead at this point, given the state of affairs at EAC. Even Roel doesn't want a minority shareholder lawsuit to add to his woes, although he may well get one.

Dave said...

If anyone is planning on trying to pierce the corporate veil and go after Vern/Roel personally, I'd suggest they become familiar with the legal concept of "constructive fraud" (basically it means something that isn't actually fraud, but doing something that breaches the duty of loyalty...such as taking actions that profit ETIRC above Eclipse) I believe that it would most likely apply to Roel, who has $300 million dollars. If there is a significantly large class action or if there is a strong suspicion of criminal infractions, it might be worthwhile pursuing despite the complications of this involving so many businesses in so many countries.

airtaximan said...

funny thing about Vern... he almost always provided a hint (veiled of course)regarding what was really going on... even since naming the company

eclipse Synonyms
eclipse

solar eclipse, eclipse of the sun, lunar eclipse, eclipse of the moon, total eclipse, partial eclipse, annular eclipse, penumbra, obscuration, dimming, darkening, concealment, shroud, shadow, veil, extinguishment, obliteration.

(I prefer concealment, myself...)

DOA
DOA

they've known this for a long, long time... just concealed it...

as with many other facts regardng this program.

airtaximan said...

for Gadfly,

Penumbra (synonym)

"An area in which something exists to a lesser or uncertain degree"

somehow, I thought you would appreciate THIS description

;)

airtaximan said...

Dave:

"it has received first funds in a new round of financing..."

get seriosu, man... read the PR and put on your shit vision goggles.... see right through the BS.

Unless it states exactly waht you think, it means something else.

So, all this statement means is, someone provided the first dollar required in a new round (not completed, just the first dollar) that is required to get the company to cash flow positive....

It really means they have a few hundred million (at least) to rais BEFRORE this round is over.... and yup, they have received the first dollar...

Then... the no-refund policy and layoffs begin...

See how this works... its an eclispe of the truth

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

As a professional in this industry I have to say all the focus on internecine financial deals and fiduciary responsibility falls on deaf ears - we are talking about an aircraft that has been made out to be some kind of commercial platform for transporting people.

The responsibility that may not have been met, the only one that matters, is one of designing, building and delivering a safe aircraft.

All else is secondary, meaningless fluff for regulators and lawyers to argue over the corpse of a company - the first and foremost responsibility is only to design and build a safe plane and to not hurt people - nothing else matters.

Ceri said...

"get seriosu, man"

I like that. It's got a hip-Tokyo-teenager vibe. The 'man' adds a nice retro feel, too.

We should all work together to get this phrase accepted into everyday conversation.

You heard it here first: Vern, Roel, position holders - get seriosu, guys!

airtaximan said...

CW,

I agree...

These guys stomped on the graves of all those who came before them in aerospace...

And the defecated on the engineering tradition of integrity and safety in this industry.

They deserve a full investigation, on all fronts. I think they intentionally misled the public about:
-the design goals
-the implementation
-the safety

...of the plane.

It was a sham.

AND, it was easy to see... there was no real interest beyond a few amateur hour dreamers... and speculators... nothing nearly as compelling as the revolution in the air promised to everyone.

DOA

airtaximan said...

ceri,

sorry

no can typee...

Dave said...

All else is secondary, meaningless fluff for regulators and lawyers to argue over the corpse of a company - the first and foremost responsibility is only to design and build a safe plane and to not hurt people - nothing else matters.

I'd hardly call legal and regulator matters meaningless fluff. It is by penalizing companies and individuals via regulatory sytem, civil litgation and criminal prosecution that you achieve the goal by discouraging those thinking of putting out unsafe products from going through with it. Though these matters do not directly relate to the aircraft itself, they directly relate to achieving the goal in which you seek - that of there being safe aircraft made.

For instance someone previously in the thread mentioned that Training Records had apparently disappeared. I automatically think Sarbanes-Oxley violation, which destruction of documents can carry a prison sentence equal to that of manslaughter.

Flight Test said...

I remember when Eclipse had their first flight in 2002. When they announced they had to go to a larger engine, I smelled a rat. I think all of us in the industry immediately suspected that Eclipse had to know this before the first flight. Everything since then was predictable.

Dave said...

I remember when Eclipse had their first flight in 2002. When they announced they had to go to a larger engine, I smelled a rat. I think all of us in the industry immediately suspected that Eclipse had to know this before the first flight. Everything since then was predictable.

True. That is when Eclipse first showed their true colors and they've been doing the same thing to depositors ever since.

fred said...

magicsky :

i think i came across what you mean (?!)

all the crooks of the world have a common point :

they always look very good !

fred said...

dave :

since anyone looking to pick a fight with Eac/Etrick is probably going to have to do so on the old-continent (if there is any chances to get anything back on day ...)

i would suggest that peoples get used with " actions dolosives" instead of "constructive fraud"

the general idea remain the same , but "Dol" is something which will sound much easier to any legal worker on this side of world ...

quite funily a steal in French is "Vol" , anything between a "normal appropriation" and a real "vol" is a "dol" !

the french system of law is basis for lots legal system in E.U. (because it is/was mainly Latin system , re-organized by Napoleon , this still wear the name of "code Napoleon" ) so the concept of "dol" is common into few systems (especially the one of Luxembourg and Nederlands )thru its fatherhood of latin + napoleon ...

fred said...

airtaxi ...

i think you're right ...
i am going to repeat myself :

i think/feel/deduce the 100M$ from Etrick has been total BS ...

right from beginning !

this is what my hunch give me :

the Russian part of the story is 99% BS ...
they claimed to have a "100M$" deal because they needed time ...

they , at one point , probably had the idea of getting in Eastern Europe on a "normal" basis (as far as Eac can be "normal")

they needed time because out of the story of "Ulyanovsk" they probably had the idea of having russian bank(s) to pour money into the pit , which would be a very good reason why everything was so inflated in term of needs and costs ...

unfortunately Russians are "kind of crazy" but not stupid ...

so they needed time to try to hook a "big fish" on this side of the "Volga" ...

but sometimes prey are smarter than hunters ...

since last dev. roel/vern probably understood that salvaging funds are not going to come from baboushka's pot ...

they had to act :

1° take out Vernicus from liabilities = fire him from his CEO post
( but keep him in the staff ??? , would you at the same time say to anyone "you are fired because you're a dreamer, not a manager" and at the same time keep him at a key(?) position into your organism ?)

2° prepare the field for "evacuation" ...
( by saying to suck... err , depositors " we would like to build your acf , but currently we don't have any money left to do it"

3° provoke a "coming from outside" BK ...
(why outside ? because it is a good way to preserve the doubt into the minds of some ...do you really believe guys like "kenny" are going to accept the "we've been done , big time" with a smile ? no! if there is a doubt =it leave them the opportunity to tout " if only ...." and like this buy some more time to escape = remember : what is the best and oldest way to rule ? A: it is to divide ! )

4° eventually keep the paper-rights for the bird ... and in some time , do it again or sell the concept to some sucker in a hurry to be departed from his cash ...!

as for the story Roel is only discovering the chaos ....

well , i don't buy it ! he has been directly involved in EAC since more than a year ...

so he is either blind or lying !

would you believe a friend who would tell you :

"i have been married to my wife for the last 20 years , and found out , yesterday morning, she was a man ! " ??

Baron95 said...

TBM said ... What would create a conflict of interest would be for Roel to negotiate both sides of an agreement between EAC and ETIRC.

No it would not. AMR executives and board members routinelly negotiate deals and re-structuring between AMR, AA, AE. Same between EADS and Airbus. there have been co-chairmen, co-CEOs, between these entities, etc. Same thing between IBM and IBM Brazil or IBM Mexico. It is done ALL the time between parent company or controling shareholder and subsidiaries. And this is on public companies. When it comes to private companies, it is even more comon.

As a matter of fact, I'd venture to say that many people in this blog have done this, when we set up LLCs to buy/hold/operate our planes. We shift debt and assets from personal to LLC and from LLC to LLC and "negotiate" both sides of the deals.

In private equity, virtually any major (equity) rescue investor is also a secured creditor (at least some of the time). They often take control of the board via a third entity that they also control and "negotiate" all sides of the deal.

Again, there is no need to find fault with everything associated with Eclipse/ETIRC - there are plenty of real issues.

Pieper is the Chairman and CEO simply because he (ETIRC) is the largest shareholder. If a single individual controls two entities that do business with each other, so be it. Nothing wrong with it.

If someone else has lent money to Eclipse or ETIRC, it is up to them to structure it so they are protected. Piper is under no obligation to look out for them. These are all smart boys and girs.

They don't need Pieper to be their nanny, nor do they need this blog to rescue them.

Baron95 said...

By the way TBM - I understand what you were trying to say, and I generally am in violent agreement with what you post. So my comments were not directed at you, I just quoted your post to pick on the theme.

Baron95 said...

Flight test said ... Eclipse had to know this before the first flight.

Exactly right. As a matter of fact, I believe that the single EJ22 flight was an unsafe flight and was taken only to reach deposit conversion milestones.

Then everything stopped for almost 2 years asthey re-engined the beast.

At that precise moment that you describe is when I knew I would not get anywhere near Eclipse with my money. They proved to be a slick operator.

Then, when they decided to band-aid tip tanks (it is the 21st century ppl) instead of redoing the wing right, I knew it was going to be engineering by band-aid from that point on.

Baron95 said...

Dave said ... such as taking actions that profit ETIRC above Eclipse) I believe that it would most likely apply to Roel, who has $300 million dollars.

Hard to do, but possible. In the end, though, I bet that the EAC/ETIRC arrangements are fairly simple, so there is not much that Pieper can do one way or another to disadvantage one party vs the other. The EAC holding may very well be ETIRC's largest asset by far, so their fates are kind of married to some extent.

Shane Price said...

GettingReady2FileSuit,

Would you be so kind as to contact me at the following email address, for an 'offline' discussion?

eclipsecriticng@gmail.com

Many thanks

Shane

fred said...

#Same between EADS and Airbus. #


yes , may be ...
as long as things are transparent and more or less well working ...

as soon as it smell like something is bad (remember , eads has LOTS of success ...) or just a plain scam ...

everybody is offered free accommodation and free meals ...

but there is bars at the windows !;-)

the last CEO of Airbus, despite being one of the "chosen ones and cherished" by one of the biggest shareholder (french Govt) , is still into big troubles and i wouldn't be surprised him to spend sometimes in "free accommodation" because he made profits on the problems with A380 ... ( which is only fair , i would have already seized all his belongings !)

so for E-trick /EAC , the whole thing is only a sham !

fred said...

#The EAC holding may very well be ETIRC's largest asset by far#

to me , remember , i have lots of good connections in Luxembourg , it sounds more like :

it is the only one !

etirc is an empty shell managed by someone more known for his failures than success ...

airsafetyman said...

"If a single individual controls two entities that do business with each other, so be it. Nothing wrong with it."

There is nothing criminal with Roel fraudently trumpeting imaginary orders from himself to hype his own order book? What planet are we on this morning, Baron?

WhyTech said...

"There is nothing criminal with Roel fraudently trumpeting imaginary orders?"

While many of us here abhor such deceptive practices, from a legal standpoint, probably not fraudulent or criminal.

airsafetyman said...

"While many of us here abhor such deceptive practices, from a legal standpoint, probably not fraudulent or criminal."

I think it is both. Like the earlier scam where Eclipse got investors hooked because of the large imaginary order book from DayJet, and DayJet got financing because of the low imaginary price quoted by Eclipse. Now the road show is going to Euroland.

Dave said...

As a matter of fact, I'd venture to say that many people in this blog have done this, when we set up LLCs to buy/hold/operate our planes. We shift debt and assets from personal to LLC and from LLC to LLC and "negotiate" both sides of the deals.

Yes, that is 100% correct because the ownership is the same in the two entities. It is when there are other owners in the same entity where they then have rights.

Again, there is no need to find fault with everything associated with Eclipse/ETIRC - there are plenty of real issues.

You are free to feel otherwise, but I feel violating fiduciary duties is a real issue and I don't just apply this principle to Eclipse/ETIRC.

Pieper is the Chairman and CEO simply because he (ETIRC) is the largest shareholder. If a single individual controls two entities that do business with each other, so be it. Nothing wrong with it.

Just because someone is the largest shareholder, it doesn't mean that all other shareholders have no rights.

If someone else has lent money to Eclipse or ETIRC, it is up to them to structure it so they are protected. Piper is under no obligation to look out for them. These are all smart boys and girs.

They are supposed to be protected by the laws of this land. Roel as a fellow investor has no duty to look out for them, but once he takes on the role of a fiduciary then he does. The way to avoid having fiduciary duties is to avoid being a fiduciary, which being Chairman and CEO of a corporation is not avoid being a fiduciary.

They don't need Pieper to be their nanny

No, they need Pieper to do his duty that he agreed to do:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f026.htm
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/trusting/unit5all.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary

Dave said...

While many of us here abhor such deceptive practices, from a legal standpoint, probably not fraudulent or criminal.

It depends on the context in which it was done. Seeing how said fake orders were in the NM SIC minutes, I would say that it became fraudulent then (as opposed to merely being marketing fluff). I say this because it was used to induce a payment. The NM SIC does have its own set of problems of not apperaing to performing their own fiduciary duties (namely performing a lack of due diligence while simultaneously having the political fiduciaries of the SIC take money from Eclipse), but that doesn't mean that Eclipse is allowed to commit fraud. Also for the same reason I believe the 2002 flight where Eclipse subsequently required progress payments was most likely also fraudulent as it strains credulity that at the time Eclipse asked for progress payments they didn't know they'd drop Williams.

fred said...

yes dave ...

the context is important ...!

Roel decided to get into the E500 story ... (over a year ago , remember ...!)

first bad move !

he knows vern/ed for a long time , so either he knew what to expect or he is plainly stupid ...

second bad move !

He is european , so unlike some smart-ass claiming things which have no chances to become true , he knew perfectly well that E500 wouldn't be such a huge success in Air-taxi-bizz in Euroland , for multiples aspects already too much developed here in previous posts ...

third bad move !

he decided to become a manufacturer instead of being a simple buyer , like if it would be this easy ... sounds to me like " yawn ... this morning , i am a bit bored ...why not to become a jet-plane manufacturer ? or re-invent an atomic wheel , that would be disruptive ... ?"

fourth bad move !

then i decided to "officially" put 100M$ into the pit ... this is already amazing : if you read above , he has to be some kind of Olympic champion of stupidity or be really very , very blind !

fifth bad move !

now , he found out it is ok to say to customers " sorry , no more cash to build what you paid for ..." but still doesn't declare the whole thing as what it is : a scam in the form of a dream that became a nightmare !

sixth bad move !

now i read that it is ok , if he has all cards in his hands and doesn't want to play "open" ???

what is story ,again ?

you get me once = shame on you !
you get me twice = shame on who ?

problem is = the second time to "be done" is over since a long time ...

what is the word for "after" the shame ??? incredible stupidity ? madness ?

Ceri said...

Although the fraudulent/not fraudulent debate is reaching/has reached the point of diminishing returns...

I imagine that the response to the issue of order numbers being quoted in the NM SIC meeting and minutes would be that those were the order numbers according to the accounting practices used by Eclipse. Eclipse being privately held is allowed to define (pretty much) its own standards, and in doing so probably defined any pocket fluff option from Dayjet/etc as a real/substantive order.

If NM SIC wanted audited order numbers according to standard (listed) company practice, it would be up to them to ask specifically for that, wouldn't it?

As I say the debate is stagnant: Eclipse/Vern/etc lied, lied and lied again. It seems unlikely that they can be/will be prosecuted for any of it. Perhaps if we have an E500 fatality while all this is in the news that will change things...

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Check out todays dilbert...

www.dilbert.com.

The footnotes do smell.

Dave said...

If NM SIC wanted audited order numbers according to standard (listed) company practice, it would be up to them to ask specifically for that, wouldn't it?

Much of this depends on what exactly Eclipse said and who they said it to. There are also separate issues with whether or not the NM SIC fiduciaries performed their duties (I believe they didn't and they should lose their public office).

As I say the debate is stagnant: Eclipse/Vern/etc lied, lied and lied again. It seems unlikely that they can be/will be prosecuted for any of it. Perhaps if we have an E500 fatality while all this is in the news that will change things...

So then the question I ask is what is to prevent this from happening again? If somebody (Vern/Roel) can do or say whatever they want and not get civilly/criminally punished, who is to say that five years from now the aviation world wont have yet another Eclipse on their hands? It is too bad that some here dont see the relevance between financial/fiduciary matters and aviation safety. I don't bring these things up as a side issue separate from aviation safety, but rather as one of the mechanisms to achieve aviation safety.

WhyTech said...

"If NM SIC wanted audited order numbers according to standard (listed) company practice, it would be up to them to ask specifically for that, wouldn't it?"

Yes, a private equity investor is wise to check and re-check all material representations made by management. Many private equity investment agreements require management to attest that they have provided truthful and complete information re material issues, and include strong remedies for investors if it can be shown that management has not been truthful. Have to wonder if NM SIC required such representations and remedies.

fred said...

yes , dave ...

#but rather as one of the mechanisms to achieve aviation safety #

in barrel of apples , if one is rotten ...
you've got to choose throw away one or throw all later !

since there is signs of dubious involvement by "some" to who it was a duty to ask some nasty questions before it end-up into a mess ...

i wonder what is the relation between being a foreigner and the locals ...

seems to me it's going to be so easy to blame "someone who fled in a country where US has no juridiction..." instead of looking too closely on who did what and for what benefit ...

fred said...

freedom ...

your link is ...
excellent ! ;-)

Shane Price said...

Ceri,

I agree.

Sooo (drum roll, clash of symbols) new post is up.

Enjoy the debate.

Shane

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave said...

seems to me it's going to be so easy to blame "someone who fled in a country where US has no juridiction..." instead of looking too closely on who did what and for what benefit ...

I believe this primarilly can be laid at the feet of Vern and secondarilly at his political enablers who took money from him while not doing their jobs and giving him the taxpayers money and I also believe that Ed has a moral if not legal responsibility for much of this mess due to his collusion with Eclipse on the order book. I believe in prior interviews that Vern laid out what was required to get funding from those that he went to - Vern in previous interviews said the returns the tech industry investors were expecting. Vern then went about saying whatever investors wanted to hear irregardless of whether it was true or not. He repeatedly would say anything investors wanted to hear and would use that same type of dishonesty to also take money from position holders by calling for progress payments whenever it was convenient for Eclipse to get access to more money. Once you get intos something where you don't care about the truth, it is awfully hard to get out. Many traits that are good can also become bad. Trying to start a new jet business (or any type of business) is a good thing, but doing so with disregard to everything and everyone else is a bad thing, particularly when lives could be at risk.

Ceri said...

Dave: "So then the question I ask is what is to prevent this from happening again? If somebody (Vern/Roel) can do or say whatever they want and not get civilly/criminally punished, who is to say that five years from now the aviation world wont have yet another Eclipse on their hands? It is too bad that some here dont see the relevance between financial/fiduciary matters and aviation safety. I don't bring these things up as a side issue separate from aviation safety, but rather as one of the mechanisms to achieve aviation safety.
"

Completely agree with the sentiment. But it's a rat's nest of interlinked failures, isn't it? (... a bit like my software...)
Worthless dicks giving public money to slick salesmen without asking for evidence of their asserted orders; credulous investors and position depositors; 'regulatory capture' of the FAA by political influence of said salesman. There aren't clear legal fixes for any of this ('hard cases make bad law'). In a way, you could say that if we get to the point where the TC is revoked without a death/serious injury, the system has 'worked'.

Historically, you can look at the DC-10 as an example of the system not working. Whatever happens with E500, we won't see the scale of deaths caused by poor regulation in that case.

The FAA is known to look especially hard at the maintenance/safety compliance of airlines/operators in financial difficulties - I don't know, but would expect, that they will do similar for manufacturers.

The point of regulation is not to prevent any and all unsafe aircraft/practices - it's to create an environment in which well-meaning people are less likely to be led astray by their desire to keep their company going (for example). You can't (I submit) create a regulatory framework that prevents bad things happening under any circumstances.

Having said that, I'm sure the blog could suggest one or two easy improvements that would make a future E500 less likely to happen.

My suggestion would be to have a grown up with backbone on the board of directors, but I'm not sure how to make this happen next time.

Ceri said...

"The point of regulation is not to prevent any and all unsafe aircraft/practices"
- that's badly phrased. What I meant was 'the point of regulation is not to make any and all unsafe practices impossible' - ie you can't look over the shoulder of everyone in the industry and know whether they falsify paperwork (for example). You create a framework within which people of conscience*, when complying, won't cause unsafe stuff to happen.

*= probably not Vern, then...

airtaximan said...

I agree, there were many misrepresentations to the press... and MANY statements that were intentionally misleading, even if there "could be" another meaning to the statement that is less dishonest.

Such as the recent "received the first money required to become cash flow positive..." or whatever.

It would be easy to write, "we got $5 of the $300M we really need..." BUT, that would be too clear.

Dayjet ordered 310 planes plus 70 options is true, sorta... its just not the whole story - they had another 1100 options in the 2600 orderbook - no one wanted you to know this - ever.

See how this works. It's CRAFTY.

Like first flight... it was with an engine they had to know would never make it on the prime time plane... so why fly that thing and call it first flight? First flight of what? THEY NEEDED THE DEPOSIT MONEY.

And so, the "story" goes.
- due diligence on this comapny - I think anyone who did this, did not go anywhere near it.

Of course, the investors always just believed in the greater fool... at least at some point this was the rationale. What else could it have been?

Tech - Greater fool - DOA

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 285 of 285   Newer› Newest»