Al Mann
Well known as a serial inventor and latterly investor, Al is one of the most significant people in the past 10 years at EAC. He's currently a Director, as well as a significant shareholder. During the most recent restructuring I had several independent reports of his presence at ABQ, and he also took delivery of a very early s/n FPJ for his own use. Needless to say, anything he does in aviation is bound to attract attention, so when I first heard about a possible 'air taxi' venture, my antenna sprung to attention. I now have several reliable sources linking Mr. Mann with Van Nuys and a 'very light jet' company. My only problem with this is that it appears this 'company' is currently flying a Mustang, prior to commencing service.
Say it ain't so, please. His fellow members on the EAC BoD will be most disappointed if it's true....
Vern Raburn
This you will enjoy. Vern has his very own FPJ, or at least the use of one. He naturally went to NBAA in it, and attended various stands and other events at the show. In an effort to appear important he went in disguise, wearing a beard and casual clothing. A number of people failed to recognize his eminence, and one who did (after a double check) said he 'looked like a mountain man'. The usual rabble, including Zoom, were trailing around after him, lap dog fashion. Vern, in a desperate effort to attract attention, regaled anyone who would listen with tales of Microsoft and Bill Gates. What any of this had to do with EAC or even aviation in general was beyond my (limited) comprehension.
Vern did, however, give an interview to Aviation Week, which is available as a podcast here. Needless to say, nothing is his fault, everyone else was to blame, the suppliers were useless etc etc.
Maybe the disguise was a genuine attempt to avoid angry depositors, several of whom were hoping for a quiet chat....
Aha, you say, what of those 'Depositors'?
First, I've been quietly in contact with a number of them for some months now. They are not in a good place, as EAC have made it very clear that a) any attempt to force bankruptcy will be resisted and b) even if successful, they will get nothing. Second, a number of these people are convinced that it will be possible to 'nail' the officers of the company for fraud. If that were to happen the consequences for EAC senior managers will be unpleasant, at the very least, and likely very expensive. So, what are their options? Most are not short of a few dollars and will proceed to purchase something else which has two undesirable effects for EAC. One, they lose the order(s) and two they strengthen their competitors. Finally, by acting in this dishonorable manner they have created 'bad blood' which will hang around long after the company ceases to exist. The outcome will not be good for the value of used FPJ's.
The 'Jets America' offer
A chap called Brandon Carlson of Jets American, one of the most successful brokers for FPJ's and a man who's had the odd brush with EAC in the past (and I do mean odd) issued the following letter addressed to the finance company with the first lien on the DayJet birds on the 1st of October. I've clearly removed any sensitive information, as I know the banking system worldwide is in enough trouble already...
I am pleased to inform you that ____________________ (Buyer) is offering Pratt & Whitney / UT Finance (Lien Holder) $500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Dollars) for (1) one Dayjet Corporation Eclipse 500 aircraft.
1. Buyer agrees to deposit an earnest $100,000 refundable deposit into an escrow account with xxxx xxxxx of Oklahoma City, OK. (escrow agent) upon written notification to Brandon.Carlson@jetsamerica.com .(Buyers Agent) of acceptance of this offer by Lien Holder.
2. Lien Holder understands and agrees that this is only an offer to purchase an Eclipse 500 aircraft from Lien Holder and that Lien Holder shall consider this offer non-binding to the Buyer until a formal aircraft purchase agreement can be mutually executed between the Lien Holder and Buyer.
3. Buyer agrees to pay all escrow fees incurred as a result of this transaction. Escrow fees shall not exceed $2,000 (two thousand dollars) for this transaction
We've discussed this on the blog, and some think $500k is too much for these birds. However, I'm reliably informed that 13 people produced the $100k to show they were serious, which is pretty impressive. I'll be curious how this pans out, and will of course keep the blog up to date.
An interesting new group
Mark was kind enough to email the blog (eclipsecriticng@gmail.com) with the following, which I told him I would be delighted to post as part of my next headline. It just shows how well read 'we' are and that Cessna buyers are a clever bunch of people. No, not just for buying a Mustang, but for doing their research properly.
"Shane, this is not directly related to the Eclipse 500, but something I wanted to make you aware of. I am writing to tell you about a new group I have formed for Citation Mustang owners called the Citation Mustang Owners and Pilots Association (CMOPA).
You are welcome to participate in the group or even in its formation, as I am actively seeking ideas and help. If you run across others that may be interested please let them know we are out here. And if you ever make it to Houston, please look me up, as I would love to meet you over lunch or dinner.
Sincerely,
Mark J. Baumgartner"
The Parting Shot
EAC always exuded class and style when dealing with staff.
Not!
But this takes the biscuit. It's in the 'Termination Agreement' otherwise known as the waiver, which all ex employees end up signing. Naturally, a copy has made it's way to me. One paragraph stood out:-
"On your termination date, your stock grants will cease vesting. If you wish, you may exercise
your vested stock options anytime prior to 30 days from your date of termination, or the
expiration date of the option, which ever comes first. If you do not exercise your options before that time, the vested options will expire."
OK, let me work this through. The company, which has no money to pay refunds to customers, has shed half its staff, slashed production by 80% and increased the price of the product by 40% wants to sell stock to a person who's just signed a termination waiver?
expiration date of the option, which ever comes first. If you do not exercise your options before that time, the vested options will expire."
OK, let me work this through. The company, which has no money to pay refunds to customers, has shed half its staff, slashed production by 80% and increased the price of the product by 40% wants to sell stock to a person who's just signed a termination waiver?
Only one word for it. Someone at EAC is just plain bonkers....
Another headline, another milestone.
This is Number 50 in the series I've been responsible for since taking up the baton. The future looks bright and the blog is now widely quoted and discussed. I probably shouldn't tell you, but even the Eclipse Aviation web site for customers called E5C has taken up reposting from here!
Take good care of your friends and wrap up warm before you venture out. I will anyway, as I head to my local pub for a pint (or three) to celebrate....
Slan go foil,
Shane
273 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 273 of 273Dave said... Firearms haven't changed significantly since the second half of the 19th century and the invention of cartidges...
Sorry dave, but they have advanced quite a lot in almost all aspects that count.
Reliability is way up - i.e. fires when you pull the trigger, does not fire when you don't (i.e drop it).
Rate of fire in many weapons is way higher, along with capacity, while weight was kept in check e.g. M16/Glock) by using pollimers, etc.
Cartridge shelf life, submersability, etc is way up. Cost is way down. Balistics (aerodynamics and terminal expansion to name two) are off the charts.
Then you have laser aim, night vision aids, computer locks, and the latest programmable munnitions that can explode at measured distances hitting targets behind a wall for example.
Environmentally, we have lead free munnitions, depleted uranium rounds, etc.
There has been a quantum leap in firearms design since the BaronBonanza first flew.
You'd be hard pressed to find a technical field that has eveolved so little as low-mid end GA airframes and powerplants.
Even the avionics advancements, only came about because of the automotive develloped MEMS and solid state accelerometers and "gyro" references.
Whytech said ...IMHO, to stimulate demand, is to largely take thhe pilot out of the loop,
Whytech is 100% correct - there are huge obstcles in "ability" of pilots and "useability" of airplanes.
We need a 75 hr, 2-3week ZERO to JET IFR training program for specially certified planes that require no reconfiguration (e.g. gear and flaps), have single lever FADEC control, fully automated fault isolation and recovery, auto take-off/cruise/approach/landing, mandatory SVS and always on redundant autopilot, active traffic scanning and resolution, active and passive weather detection and avoidance.
So pilot stays in the loop, but as a manager of managers.
The thing is that ALL the technology to implement this is readily available. Most new high-end cars already can stay in the highway lane and slow-down/break for cars moving in front of it, and the new BMW 7 even recognizes a human being on the side of the road and allerts the driver. These are much harder problems to solve than keeping the centerline on T/O or autolanding for example.
It will happen. But it will take an innordinate amount of time. The mind set is totally off.
Baron, I love you man but you just jumped the freakin' shark.
Avionics development in GA, AND the development of most other tech comes from defense aerospace spending, the car makers have been benefactors, as have biz av, and the airlines.
The car maker contribution to the Eclipse fiasco is the CAN Bus, Byteflight and Todd Fierro - think we can pass judgement on all that at this point.
Modern EFIS, soft radios, high efficiency turbofans, digital autopilots, durable and repeatable composite construction in (relatively) high rate production, improved aerodynamics, energy absorbing seats and primary structure, whole aircraft recovery systems - that is nothing to sneeze at. And BTW, ALL of those things have been in work since well before and almost in spite of Eclipse.
To suggest that GA or light biz aviation has been stagnant is just plain wrong. And comparing aviation to auto is just not sensible.
There is a reason we see evolution, not revolution in aircraft - and frankly it is the same as for autos - there is a need for safety, efficiency and profit. That need requires careful development and testing.
Comparing introduction rate of new technologies per unit volume favors aerospace by an order of magnitude over auto.
And to add, Adam and CompAir have reported they have $350M in monies available to them, Epic has three different airplane designs completed and flying, with perhaps more on the way.
GA and light biz are so far from stagnant, and it has very little if anything to do with Eclipse. CompAir is older, Adam is the same age as Eclipse (although on attempt #2), and Epic is rewriting some rules about time-to-market.
"..have single lever FADEC control, fully automated fault isolation and recovery, auto take-off/cruise/approach/landing, mandatory SVS and always on redundant autopilot, active traffic scanning and resolution, active and passive weather detection and avoidance."
And when all this crap fails you subject the occupants to seconds or minutes of absolute terror before impact. This was essentially the original promise of the Eclipse, but somebody at the FAA, not bought and paid for by Peg and Company, figured out that the pilot needed to be able for fly the airplane while taking care of any reasonable computer failure. In the case of the Eclipse no one has yet been able to map all the permutations and combinations of computer and hardware failure and interactions.
"And when all this crap fails you subject the occupants to seconds or minutes of absolute terror before impact."
The whole point of this is that it cannot fail. There must be enough redundancy so that the "pilot" is never required to exercise what we consider today to be basic stick and rudder and partial panel skills. As long as this condition is not met, the "pilot" will need to be a "current" ATP, and this isnt goint to happen in large numbers. This is, in part, why it make take a century to get there.
"The whole point of this is that it cannot fail."
I didnt really mean that the failure rate is zero, but it needs to be low enough that the safety record is in the zone that corporate and alirline aviation currently exhibit.
ATM makes a good point; indeed, it is utterly illogical to see the way EAC is interacting with its customer base.
But it all makes sense when you realize that this is the way companies behave when they are desperately underfunded.
EAC/Etirc isn't running an aviation OEM; they are running a confidence game (poorly played, one might argue) to raise capital.
"The whole point of this is that it cannot fail."
'The only parts that never fail are the parts you leave out' - a quote from Ed Heinemann, designer of the Navy's A-1 Skyraider and A-4Skyhawk, as well as many others.
CSC Signs $106 Million IT Outsourcing Agreement With Eclipse Aviation Corporation
CSC signs an 8-year, $106 million contract with Eclipse.
Tell me again where Eclipse is getting the money? They are not going to make a profit on any of the jets they have on order, which means years of losses yet to go, plus a whole new batch of diehards need to sign on at $2.15+ million dollars.
Really, what are the chances of this happening? And what are the chances of Eclipse continuing to be spoon fed money to burn over the next few years, while the U.S. economy stays in recession? How many years can this company stay on life support before backers say enough is enough?
"CSC...provides Eclipse with the opportunity to focus on their drive to bring very
light jets to the market in an accelerated pace."
How's that working out?
From a May, 2008, United States Depart of Justice publication:
"Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), an information technology and business services company, agreed to pay $1,370,000 to settle allegations that it solicited and received improper payments and other things of value on technology contracts with government agencies, the Department of Justice announced today. The settlement resolves an action against CSC under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730, filed by Norman J. Rille and Neal A. Roberts in September 2004. After an investigation, the Department of Justice joined the action.
The complaint alleged that CSC knowingly solicited and/or received payments of money and other things of value, known as alliance benefits, from a number of companies with whom it had global alliance relationships. The government intervened in these actions because the alliance relationships and resulting alliance benefits amount to kickbacks and undisclosed conflict of interest relationships in violation of contractual provisions and the applicable provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations."
Legal update: The Mayer v Eclipse refund case has moved from federal court to state court. That was why the case was voluntarilly dismissed in federal court.
BT,
funny comment that outsourcing IT can allow the company to focus on accelerating bringing VLJs to the marketplace.
I guess someone's analysis was that the IT guys were slowing down production? Perhaps, the IT department was a distraction?
I am not saying its not a good appraoch, but how much could this really have any effect on output?
Also, considering all the other "supplier relationships"... I doubt this will go well, or even be less of a distraction.
I am not saying its not a good appraoch, but how much could this really have any effect on output?
If Eclipse has all this money to pay others for this brand new contract along with their previous comments of having money in the bank to operate for months and only needing UBS for an IPO, why not give Eclipse's customers their money back? I don't see why Eclipse's customers let Roel decide who to bestow their money on. If Eclipse has all this money, needs two factories to meet with all the demand and will be having an IPO, then they can give back what doesn't belong to them. If on the other hand Eclipse is lying about how close they are to success, then there wont be any money left to get back and Eclipse will just out of the blue close up shop having spent all the money while the secured creditors get everything else.
If Eclipse is telling the truth about their status, then there's no reason for them not to give back what doesn't belong to them; If Eclipse is lying about their status, then there's no reason to wait in customers pursuing their interests in getting back what belongs to them. Once the money is gone, it will be hard to get it back - particularly if Roel is sending assets outside the US.
I expect the threshold for incident reporting changed in Feb/March, not the actual number or incidents. Remember that Eclipse's defense at the Congressional hearing was that DayJet was "over-reporting" SDR's for non-legitimate complaints.
That said here is a table of hours per tail and SDR per hour:
Tail .. Hours .. SDR .. SDR/Hour
109 .. 130:43 .. 3 .. 43:34
110 .. 89:16 .. 2 .. 44:38
115 .. 135:06 .. 2 .. 67:33
116 .. 177:10 .. 1 .. 177:10
119 .. 162:21 .. 4 .. 40:35
126 .. 82:01 .. .. .. ..
130 .. 134:26 .. 3 .. 44:48
131 .. 78:36 .. 3 .. 26:12
132 .. 150:36 .. 3 .. 50:12
134 .. 119:40 .. 2 .. 59:50
135 .. 117:41 .. 5 .. 23:32
136 .. 111:36 .. 1 .. 111:36
139 .. 238:52 .. 7 .. 34:07
141 .. 369:46 .. 5 .. 73:57
142 .. 262:48 .. 7 .. 37:32
145 .. 257:07 .. 7 .. 36:43
146 .. 242:39 .. 7 .. 34:39
147 .. 309:10 .. 1 .. 309:10
148 .. 305:57 .. 1 .. 305:57
150 .. 281:23 .. 1 .. 281:23
152 .. 241:08 .. 4 .. 60:17
153 .. 236:20 .. 6 .. 39:23
156 .. 267:00 .. 2 .. 133:30
158 .. 200:47 .. 5 .. 40:09
160 .. 244:57 .. 3 .. 81:39
161 .. 300:49 .. 4 .. 75:12
162 .. 282:25 .. 6 .. 47:04
163 .. 158:16 .. 6 .. 26:22
Total .. 5688:36 .. 101 .. 56:19
airtaximan,
perhaps some EAC employees will enjoy a better employer!
RP must proof that he (and perhaps Barratt) made a good deal...
(I knew a multi B$ company that changed the outsourcing partner at least three times within 12 years.)
If EAC could not manage its IT (expenses), why should CSC help EAC to do its job...
Julius
Norman Augustine, former CEO of Martin Marietta, wrote an excellent book – ‘Augustine’s Laws’, now in its sixth printing. One chapter of the book contains a graph of aircraft cost (vertical axis) versus aircraft weight (horizontal axis). It shows a ‘vee’-shaped plot with the bottom of the ‘vee’ at the ‘current’ aircraft weight. Starting at the current design, Augustine offers the following analysis: Making the aircraft heavier will incur more basic material costs and heavier, more robust systems and subsystems. Making the aircraft lighter will require costly advanced materials and more sophisticated lightweight avionics and other systems. The moral is that the no matter the state of your present design, it will be the least costly to produce.
I bring this up in light of what I view as the myth of Eclipse Aviation. Cessna is a going concern and has priced the Mustang to stay in business even if it is subsidized by other products. Assume the Eclipse 500 weighs about thirty percent less than the Mustang. It might require one or two thousand pounds less aluminum and steel, but at a few bucks per pound that is lost in the noise. However both aircraft have engines, avionic packages, landing gear assemblies, transparencies, wing sets, empennages, seats, interiors, antennas, FADECs and cable harnesses. Tell me why any of these will be dramatically less expensive for the Eclipse 500 than Cessna Mustang? And yet even at the increased price the Eclipse sells for more than a million dollars less than the Mustang.
Looking out the window today, I do not see the sky darkened by very light jets. I think we can discount the very high volumes that were supposed to bring these material costs down the price/elasticity curve. The avionics are cobbled together and might well cost more than an integrated package from one supplier. The engine compressor section produces enough air to propel the aircraft and adequately heat the cabin… but not at the same time above FL350. Pratt is working on a fix; what will it cost?
Even if they raise some money how is the Eclipse pricing sustainable… and who would pay more?
Based on the SDR data provided by 'X' - it looks like we should all fight for S/N 126!
Remember that Eclipse's defense at the Congressional hearing was that DayJet was "over-reporting" SDR's for non-legitimate complaints.
Eclipse claims that DayJet only had one legitimate complaint out of all the SDRs that were filed:
Eclipse has analyzed the 93 SDRs submitted by DayJet and has concluded that only one
meets the requirements of an SDR. It is our assessment that DayJet went beyond the
required reporting requirements of significant difficulties and chose to report through the
SDR process additional maintenance events and other issues. We believe DayJet did so
out of an overabundance of caution and a certain amount of inexperience with the SDR
process in an effort to build robust communications with its FAA Flight Standards
District Office (FSDO) in Washington D.C.
Peg's Written Testimony to the House Transportation Committee
bt,
I do not necessarily agree with the whole post, BUT, with the exception of the engines (arguably) you are correct, the remaining systems do not scale DOWN in cost. PLUS , my sense is, some of the parts, systems, and the whole cramped assembly process works against lowering the cost - as did the expensive development cost.
A long time ago, someone right here said, had they used COTS, and didn't worry so much about the smallness and lightness, they would have been much better off.
Heck, this is a little silly, but, had they just bought 700 CJ2s, they probably could have attained a large discount, and resold them at a profit... at least they would not have lost money on every plane or blown $2.x B... plus, plus...
Any clue what sort of discount you can get ona few hundred Cessnas?
Show up with $400-$500M in cash...
- the op cost are in the noise, as well... just use a prop for the ea50 mission and be done with it.
- the resid value, no brainer...
Total .. 5688:36 .. 101 .. 56:19
Not exactly robust for high utilization!
"only one meets the requirements of an SDR"
and how many requirements DID you meet over there at EAC, Madame?
I don't think you could meet a requirement if it kissed you on the arse.
Once the money is gone, it will be hard to get it back - particularly if Roel is sending assets outside the US.
Is there any actual evidence of assets being sent outside the US?
When a company is forced into BK, money paid out to parties where preference isn't an issue IS hard to get back. Any cash or assets transferred to ETRICK-anything would not be protected as such. And this gets right to the meat of the matter as to why Eclipse is so eager to refurbish / update the former Dayjet aircraft - proceeds from their sale might possibly provide enough liquidity for the clock to expire on any preference-affected ETRICK transactions - and Eclipse doesn't have to dip into their limited supply of Hampson empennages to sell 'em. That is, IF the demand actually exists for them...
Would you like to try the blue plate special?
DI
I do not necessarily agree with the whole post, BUT, with the exception of the engines (arguably) you are correct, the remaining systems do not scale DOWN in cost. PLUS , my sense is, some of the parts, systems, and the whole cramped assembly process works against lowering the cost - as did the expensive development cost.
There's all sorts of issues with scaling down. Scaling down can bring up costs. Since Vern/Roel/Etc like the computer industry, look at how expensive laptop computers are for the same performance as desktop computers. You can scale down, but you either have to spend a lot more or drastically lose functionality. With aircraft in particular, you have to have much greater precision because the smaller the aircraft, the greater the surface area to volume ratio is.
Also I've been thinking about the engines getting gunked up with carbon if people turn put on the heater at altitude. Could that have anything to do with the kluge redesign that happened when Eclipse went from Williams to Pratt? As I recall a number of parts were affected and could Eclipse throwing the parts back together in new places explain the heater problems that can damage the engines?
Orville said...
"Based on the SDR data provided by 'X' - it looks like we should all fight for S/N 126!"
Absolutely not. That is tail number 126DJ which is S/N 2! S/N 2 is not a prize for anyone.
Is there any actual evidence of assets being sent outside the US?
For me the main evidence is how Roel became CEO - Eclipse missed a payment to ETIRC. Presumably those payments would then continue as that was the cause of the CEO getting fired. Additionally there's other such things such as Ed Lundeen's job where he seems to be a de facto ETIRC employee:
Edward M. Lundeen - Vice President, International Business
Ed Lundeen is responsible for the expansion and development of Eclipse's international business activities and is presently working with Eclipse's partner, ETIRC, on the establishment of a factory in Russia in conjunction with the expansion of sales, marketing and services operations in Europe.
Then there's the very fact of who the CEO of Eclipse is now - ETIRC's CEO. It doesn't take hard evidence, but rather I think it is just a safe assumption where if I had my money tied up in Eclipse, I would presume Eclipse was doing this rather than presume Eclipse wasn't.
Dayjet aircraft - proceeds from their sale might possibly provide enough liquidity for the clock to expire on any preference-affected ETRICK transactions
Exactly. I think what Eclipse is saying is true to a degree. They do have the money to keep going if they simply don't pay bills that are inconvenient. Eclipse by dodging their creditors can probably last until February or March and that changes the timeline of what can be pulled back. Eclipse is running red and there's only so much that isn't secured and what isn't secured will be all gone and potentially out of the country if Eclipse gets to do BK or whatever it is they want to do at the convenience of ETIRC.
x said...
Orville said...
"Based on the SDR data provided by 'X' - it looks like we should all fight for S/N 126!"
Absolutely not. That is tail number 126DJ which is S/N 2! S/N 2 is not a prize for anyone.
Yeah - I was just joking. Found it quite amazing that only 1 a/c didn't have an SDR - AND that it was S/N 2.
For me the main evidence is how Roel became CEO - Eclipse missed a payment to ETIRC.
Dave,
We all know that you have it in your head that ETIRC is taking assets from EAC, and that Roel has a conflict of interest as CEO of both firms and that these are REALLY BIG ISSUES.
Where was it reported that EAC missed a payment to ETIRC as the reason for Vern's removal? Must have missed it. What they said was that as a condition of new financing Vern had to go.
Again, being an officer of two firms (even CEO), one of which has voting control of the other, is not generally considered to be a conflict of interest. Certainly conflicts of interest could arise, but there is no prima facie existence of a conflict simply based on Roel's position as CEO. These aren't public companies. It is not at all uncommon for an officer of an investment company to become the CEO of a troubled company in which the investment company holds an interest. Roel only had one vote on the board (two now it appears), so the BOD elected him, and the BOD represents all of the shareholders of EAC.
Besides, the saying goes, "no conflict, no interest"!
dave,
Is there any actual evidence of assets being sent outside the US?
please remember, someone stated, RP as an investor may take money out of the company - if the company doesn't become TU within a certain time after his investment.
Therfore RP is still refunding ( Shane's notice), if the people are knocking at the door with fist! Furthermore an early BK may endanger the Russian business!
Perhaps there is a new investor who doesn'nt look into the oderbook, balance sheet, ... who will pay 200M$ for 2009 operations - for getting positive cashflow - who wants to start IPO with a big orderbook...
Julius
Where was it reported that EAC missed a payment to ETIRC as the reason for Vern's removal? Must have missed it.
I believe Shane reported it. I can't give you the exact location of that post.
Again, being an officer of two firms (even CEO), one of which has voting control of the other, is not generally considered to be a conflict of interest.
The question was if Eclipse was sending assets outside the country.
Certainly conflicts of interest could arise, but there is no prima facie existence of a conflict simply based on Roel's position as CEO. These aren't public companies. It is not at all uncommon for an officer of an investment company to become the CEO of a troubled company in which the investment company holds an interest.
Again this is mostly irrelevant to what the question was. It doesn't matter how common or uncommon it was, the question was whether or not Eclipse was sending assets outside the US.
Roel only had one vote on the board (two now it appears), so the BOD elected him, and the BOD represents all of the shareholders of EAC.
Which is it - Does ETIRC have voting control or not? Your own post doesn't even seem to be clear on what exactly ETIRC can and can't do. I'm saying people should recognize that ETIRC is a foreign firm and the ETIRC CEO is the Eclipse CEO and it is simply wise to presume the worst things are happening to the depositors money rather than presuming the best. Depositors are not shareholders.
Besides, the saying goes, "no conflict, no interest"!
I don't see why you take issue with me saying it would be safe to presume Eclipse is rather presume Eclipse isn't if you had your money tied up in Eclipse. Eclipse might not be doing that but if you had money tied up in Eclipse as a depositor, do you think it is better to sit back and leave it up to Uncle Roel or to proactively protect yourself?
please remember, someone stated, RP as an investor may take money out of the company - if the company doesn't become TU within a certain time after his investment.
That's actually my whole point and why I draw a distinction between foreign and domestic business transactions. To pull money back from ETIRC can't just be done by the US BK courts unlike domestic transactions. A US BK court could tell deposit holders who asked for a refund that they are entitled to one and can have the $10 million dollars Roel transferred to ETIRC (this is a theoretical example), but that would be just the beginning. Then the deposit holders would have to go to Dutch, Russian or whatever courts to get that judgment enforced and it is basically opening a big can of worms once the you're having an international legal case rather than purely a domestic one.
Therfore RP is still refunding ( Shane's notice), if the people are knocking at the door with fist!
Exactly. I'm saying it is better to take action than just sitting around. The more forceful one is, the better off you'll be.
Me asked: Is there any actual evidence of assets being sent outside the US?
Dave replied: For me the main evidence is how Roel became CEO - Eclipse missed a payment to ETIRC.
Okay now, let's ask ourselves 'what kind of payment did Eclipse miss'? Repayment of debt financing, that's what kind. IOW, Eclipse owes money to ETRICK that ETRICK leant to it. Furthermore, that event almost certainly cut off further funding from ETRICK's upstream investors. Let's be clear - from the purest standpoint, this is a result of Vern's utter lack of ability to mind a company's finances ( we can talk about inadequate board oversight, but it misses the point ).
So Eclipse has an obligation to repay ETRICK, just as it has an obligation to pay P&W, Hampson, Michelin, Garmin, et al. Considering the necessarily dire cashflow position of Eclipse, it's unlikely that ETRICK is being repaid at any more accelerated a pace than any of the vendors are being paid. If they are, and doors close anyway ( and remember, I predicted November 24th or 25th for my BK WAG ), we'll find out if any assets have been moved.
You're gonna need more popcorn than that,
DI
So Eclipse has an obligation to repay ETRICK, just as it has an obligation to pay P&W, Hampson, Michelin, Garmin, et al. Considering the necessarily dire cashflow position of Eclipse, it's unlikely that ETRICK is being repaid at any more accelerated a pace than any of the vendors are being paid. If they are, and doors close anyway ( and remember, I predicted November 24th or 25th for my BK WAG ), we'll find out if any assets have been moved.
The clock is running. Given all the contradictory statements coming from Eclipse, I think one can only assume the worst. Eclipse on one hand claims to have the Russian royalty payments in its pockets, can run for months and just needs some more to get to an IPO, while on the other hand Eclipse claims if the depositors attempt to get their money back Eclipse is so flat broke a court wouldn't give them a dime.
It ultimately doesn't matter whether or not preferential payments are being made, it just a matter of any payments at all being made without the deposit holders having a seat at the table. Each dollar that Eclipse runs into the red is one less dollar available to the depositors. The more time that passes, the more red ink there is. Eclipse by their own forecast (and we know how reliable they are) wont be out of the red until the middle of next year.
Non-jet pilot hires were the largest group last month:
ANN:AIR Inc. Reports Increase In Monthly Pilot Job Hires
Dave,
Be a little careful when quoting me!
As you know, I've 'fired' Peg, said Vern had ordered a Mustang and other rumors too numerous to mention.
However, I try (hard) to be careful about the difference between a single source, what I now call a 'snippet' and something that has more heft.
My comment on which you base your own, was posted on the 3rd of September and read (in part) as follows:-
I hear that Vern lost out in a most peculiar way. Seems that EAC are making payments to ETRIC on a regular basis but one failed to make it on time.
Whatever rules governed this deal, the failure meant Roel was entitled to take control, which he did, and promptly offered Vern the door.
My source claims the failure was Peg's 'fault' and that she admitted it, but Roel still went ahead.
It took me a while to dig it out, but you will note that I was quoting one source, and that I said it 'seems' to be the case.
Sorry if I've misled you. In my defense I will state that I'm not alone in that 'crime' around here....
Shane
It took me a while to dig it out, but you will note that I was quoting one source, and that I said it 'seems' to be the case.
Sorry if I've misled you. In my defense I will state that I'm not alone in that 'crime' around here....
Thanks Shane. I had a devil of a time trying to find it. So we take it as something that might or might not have happened, it does not discount the fact that position holders should protect their interests. They would have a very difficult and expensive time getting anything back to the US from Russia or the Netherlands even if a US BK court fully backed them and ruled that ETIRC had received preferential payments that by court order have to be given back. My posts are intended to show that Eclipse's desire to have deposit holders do nothing is in Eclipse/ETIRC's interest but not in their interest and they are better off taking action sooner rather than later.
CW said...The car maker contribution to the Eclipse fiasco is the CAN Bus, Byteflight and Todd Fierro
I'm sorry CW, but it is a totally known fact that it was the availability of mass-produced, MEMs-based innertial sensors from the automotive world that made the G1000, Entegra, etc possible.
Every early presentation of those systems stressed that as THE KEY enaber of the system. Garmin even bought Sequoia a provider of MEMs. Without that, the laser-gyro's alone would cost over 2 times the price of an entire G1000 system.
Just google it and you will have your eyes oppened. Below is one link for you, with quotations like:
"inertial sensors originally developed for automotive and consumer-electronic markets are being applied to lower-cost aircraft without sacrificing functionality or reliability."
http://www.ainonline.com/ain-and-ainalerts/aviation-international-news/single-publication-story/browse/0/article/aircraft-electronics-association-convention/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Bstory_pointer%5D=9&tx_ttnews%5Bmode%5D=1
As for auto-executives running GA, that is the direction. The entire interior of new planes e.g. PC12, etc is being done by BMW Design Works - that is why GA interiors are slowly ceasing to be a disgrace.
Cirrus themselves just put an auto exec in charge of production, including for their SEJet.
Please don't extrapolate Eclipse's problem to the entire industry. GA mannufacturers have a lot to earn, and are learning from auto mannufacturers. Auto mannufacturers on the other hand, have NOTHING, at all to learn from the archaic GA OEMs.
And comparing GA to specialty very-high-end auto and boat mannufacturers is a worthy comparisson. The design of a low volume $250K Ferrari or Lambo involves a lot of aerodynamics, a lot of advanced matterials (Carbon Fiber, Aluminum alloy, GLARE, break and tire heat mannagement, multiple integrated computer sensors, synthetic vision, autopilot (a.k.a adaptive cruise control and lane maintenance assystance), traffic detection and warning (a.k.a. blind spot monitoring), etc.
The electronic and safety sophistication of a modern car completely dwarfs the light GA counterpart.
UNFORTUNATELY.
ASM said ... And when all this crap fails you subject the occupants to seconds or minutes of absolute terror before impact.
I'm sorry to break this to you ASM, but the concept of a super-pilot saving the day when the computers fail is a myth.
In fact gross pilot error is behind 90%+ of GA accidents. The best thing you can do for safety is to remove most of the pilot actions from the loop.
ASM - here is an example. Go to ATL airport or Denver or DFW.
You will be transported by TRAMs with no train Engineer. And there has never been a crash there. Ask yoursef how many times Engineers have driven too fast, blown through signals and caused massive train accidents. Same with elevators. It used to be consider unsafe to have an elevator without an elevator attendant to close the doors, press the buttons. 50 years ago, if you had proposed trains transporting miions of people with no conductoor people would laugh at you. Now people don't even notice.
The time will come for GA, but it will be several decades. Not for us.
BT said ... Tell me why any of these will be dramatically less expensive for the Eclipse 500 than Cessna Mustang?
You guys can go on and on and on about how Cessna knows how to design planes (e.g. aerodynamics) better than Ecipse, etc, but it is simply not true.
The aero package for Eclipse is much more successful than the Mustang. Even though Eclipse faced (a self inficted) massive weight increase and the dreaded wing tips, it met its design point.
But most importantly, for instance, the EA500 receive FIKI with no aero changes to the airframe.
Cessna had at least THREE SIGNIFICANT AERO CHANGES REQUIRED FOR FIKI.
1 - Bottom trail strakes - more weight and drag.
2 - Boots on the vertica tailed - they tried to pass FIKI without it and failed, had to redesign with boots in.
3 - VGs on THE LEADING EDGE OF THE WING/BOOTS - where they will certainly be damaged by line crew during washing, re-fueling, etc.
So count it - 3 major aero redesing to pass FIKI for the Mustang vs ZERO for the Eclipse.
Eclipse got the design right and requires no boot on the vertical tail, no additional VGs, no additional strakes.
Question: How can Cessna screw up the aero design like this? What did the Eclipse aero designers knew that Cessna's didn't?
Dave said ... Scaling down can bring up costs.
You guys are just too funny.
Yep a 739 costs less than a 738 that costs less than a 73G that costs less than a 736. An A321 costs less than a A320 that costs less than an A319 that costs less than an A318. A C206 costs less than a C182 that costs less than a C172. A B77W costs less than a B773 that costs less than a B772. A G550 costs less than a G500 that costs less than a G450. A DA40 costs less than a DA20.
For crying out loud!!!!
Name a single similar technology, similar capability plane where the smaller variant costs more to produce than a larger variant.
The things that get argued about in this blog - it is beyond a jihad sometimes.
I could care less what assets ETIRC takes or does not take from Eclipse. AFAIK, Eclipse would be dead and liquidated already over 6 months ago, if it were not for ETIRC.
So, for all purposes, ETIRC legitimately took over Ecipse as the white knight. Whatever preferential treatment or actions they take THEY ARE 100% ENTITLED TO IT.
As bad as they may be, they are infinitely better than the alternative - an immediate death of Eclipse with 100 less planes delivered and 100 more depositors stuffed, etc, etc.
Just ay off it - they took over Eclipse fair and square when no one else would come close to Vern.
The spoils are theirs to do as they please. If they want tp give a contract to Pieper's lover to build planes in the Urals near her winter cabin it is his prerrogative.
Don't like it? Go buy Eclipse back.
baron,
truth be told, scaling down, beyond a "reasonable size" actually might increase cost.... talking dollars to donuts here -
The smallest production jet plane cmpared to the larger ones, might be more difficult to produce... and the engines actually do not scale well.
Try finding a place for a landing gear and fuel in a really small plane - systems become MORE complex and tougher to design, build, support... as they get too small.
So, your whacky examples are just reflections of improper thinking...
Solve the problems I outlined, beyond a reasonable smaller version, and you get a gold star.
BTW, EAC is fighting some mighty strong scale rules here... see the limited utlity, payload range, and various cracks and systems failures....
It would have been easier to go larger ad just forward price the plane into oblivion, instead of trying to tackle the challenges of making things so small and farail, while NEEDING commercial reliability to even just promote the air taxi application.
See dayjet
See linear
see no real established fleet operators making orders
See EJ22 engines, for example
DOA - too small, frail, unreliable... sorry
BTW, anyone notice UT played in the self-dealing-order business here, too? Ever wonder why Dayjet was so important? Look at a major US copr, financing their orders... to understand how anyone sees this as a joke of a program from an economic standpint. Dayjet HAD to work...
"Don't like it? Go buy Eclipse back."
Baron, you in a crowded airport somewhere... at the bar, buddy?
If Roel IS paying himself while not paying others, IMO, he should go to jail.
There is a higher duty here, and its just a plaine scam if he's stringing position-holders along, not paying for mods, etc... while taking HIS payments, instead.
Operative word: INSTEAD.
He's feeding the depositors, suppliers, etc... BS, while paying himself? This does not irk you?
Seems like it should... but its the US, where everyone has a right to get sc*&^%^D.
Baron said: "But most importantly, for instance, the EA500 receive FIKI with no aero changes to the airframe."
So how many of the 20+ changes for the aero mods are needed for FIKI? I'm not buying your "zero" number, here?
ATM said...
Baron, you in a crowded airport somewhere... at the bar, buddy?
Holy smoke - how did you guess? Seriously, I am at the SJU airport about to take off. ;)
If Roel IS paying himself while not paying others, IMO, he should go to jail
Why? Where is that a crime. "He" bought a business, how he decides to use remaining resources is entirelly up to him. He may decide to buy a corporate G550 instead of issuing refunds and there is NOTHING you can do about it. No laws being violated.
If you have a contract with Eclipse, you can sue Eclipse and try to impound the G550, though.
But jail? Come one. We are getting a bit too populist here, no?
How about just executing him instead - isn't that how they did with the French Monarchs? Or how about sending him to forced labor in Siberia?
ATM said ... So, your whacky examples are just reflections of improper thinking
Feel free to use ANY example you choose to show ANY similar tech/similar mission plane where the smaler variant costs more than the larger one. I know of none.
As for the how small a turbine engine can go, try this one at 4" diameter and 6" lenght for size:
http://www.pinktentacle.com/2007/08/worlds-smallest-gas-turbine-engine/
Dave -
Get a grip. Your concern for the common man (aka depositor) is noble, but such a waste of bandwidth.
Have you read all of the sales contracts and refund offers and determined IF these folks are actually owed anything?
Granted in a perfect world these folks would get their economic stimulus (refund) check with an extra couple of bucks tucked in for their troubles.
But love is love, and business is business, and all contracts are not created equal.
Like it or not, Eclipse seems to be stretching pennies to keep the core workforce in place, sustain supplier relationships, and pay taxes. In any business, those obligations come long before refunding deposits.
Regarding RP moving assets offshore -- of course he is! That has been the plan for some time -- establish a factory "Back in the USSR" and send components/kits there. Knowledge, processes, the PC, the soon to be EASA cert, people, parts, tooling, etc are all assets, and they are all headed to Vodkaland.
Despite that fact that $106M over 8 years doesn't grow on trees, outsourcing Eclipse IT is an compelling proposition. IF managed properly (yes, that IS a joke) having a fixed-price for global IT equipment, services, and support greadly reduces (nee eliminates) acquisition/depreciation issues as well as security and regulatory nightmares (such as SarBox), especially if an IPO will ever be at hand. How many new hires and former auto-industry execs would it have taken to manage global IT?
Finally (for now) easy does it on the UT self-feeding baby rant ... Textron provides customer funding for Cessna, Boeing certainly has an equity ties to ILFC, and Detroit is fueled by GMAC and Ford Motor Credit. Big companies have financial arms that get first right of refusal on all significant orders. Welcome to business finance 101.
Zed
Thanks for your post Zed.
For a while I thought I was on a twight-light zone, where normal business practices get demonized for the sake of making ALL Eclipse/ETIRC actions "evil".
At least I know that at least 3 people: you, me, TBM have the ability to keep the proper perspective on the business decisions.
B95 -
Concur, but after the safety slapdown the past few days I had to go verify my logbooks before I posted again.
I will stick around a long as my hard IFR hours still outnumber some of the more the whimsical blog posts.
Z
Zed,
That's good: blog currency.
Gotta throw in the hold too...
The things that get argued about in this blog - it is beyond a jihad sometimes.
I was discussing how the miniaturization of technology can bring up costs. Rather than insulting me you could have addressed what I had to say where I gave the example of a laptop versus a desktop. Do you dispute that laptops cost more than desktops for the same features?
Get a grip. Your concern for the common man (aka depositor) is noble, but such a waste of bandwidth.
That's funny. I've never considered Eclipse depositors as the common man.
Granted in a perfect world these folks would get their economic stimulus (refund) check with an extra couple of bucks tucked in for their troubles.
Why do people who can afford jets need an economic stimulus package? Perhaps you see logic in giving stimulus checks to people who were out buying jets anyway, but I don't.
Like it or not, Eclipse seems to be stretching pennies to keep the core workforce in place, sustain supplier relationships, and pay taxes. In any business, those obligations come long before refunding deposits.
Then the courts will agree with Roel. I've been very specific in my concern that a judgment that could otherwise be enforceable wouldn't be enforceable because ETIRC is a foreign entity outside the jurisdiction of the US courts. If the courts rule were to rule that the depositors weren't owed money anyway, then what I had said wouldn't apply. This had to do with discussing preferential payments with how a BK court could pull back payments, but they couldn't enforce it outside the US.
Finally (for now) easy does it on the UT self-feeding baby rant ...
Huh?
The spoils are theirs to do as they please. If they want tp give a contract to Pieper's lover to build planes in the Urals near her winter cabin it is his prerrogative.
Don't like it? Go buy Eclipse back.
Baron, do you flip a coin to determine whether you'll make a post encouraging depositors to quickly take action or discouraging them to? I've seconded your posts many times when you've said that the depositors should band together and act quickly and now you're acting like you've never said that and it is crazy to even think it.
Dave,
what might be RP's objectives?
I think:
- He wants back his investment in EAC!
- He wants Etirc aviation /Uly plant running (with profit! IPO?)!
- He will support EAC as long as needed for his private businesses (ETIRC)!
- He will drop EAC when it is not needed (Peggy wake up!)!
And RP will behave as CW (IIRC) pointed out in a post (head count reduction, money conservation mode, ignoring "bad customers", postponing payments...).
There is nothing wrong - perhaps not a fair play.
Judges and legal advisors will help in case of misunderstandings!
Julius
P. S.: RP is not linked to ABQ and NM like VR - ABQ is just a tool to build up Uly!
Gutten Tag , julius
i am sorry to disagree ...
most peoples i have been talking with about Roel , presented him a "champion" of the failing business ...
one said : "he had nothing but failure in his career , nonetheless , he made a fortune out of failing (or seems) each time ! a bit like if you would need someone to "terminate" your venture and give you enough "room" to be free from the shrapnels out of the explosion , then he his the guy for you !"
so as for investment in EAC , first investment as to be considered ...
then HOW could he be successful in Russia ? the market there (for such toys) isn't great ... and EACH minutes passing by a competitor is filling the vacant space a little more ...
(any firm which has something finished and ready to export there is making huge sales = ANY plane sold now is NOT going to be sold later by EAC/Etirc !)
then WHAT is the need for Ulyanovsk ? they couldn't make a kopeck with a plant producing a smaller number , so they go for bigger number ? if you loose 10K$ per plane , making them by hundreds is not going to change data this much to enable PROFITS ! it is one thing to loose less , but a totally different matter to make profits ...
but i think you are right on
Roel can support the project up to the moment "someone or something" is going to buy it out ... (the reason for claiming about orders , when 99% of peoples know it cannot and has never been true !)
he may try to wait for IPO ! (but as much as is the situation for the 2 or 3 years to come , good-luck with that !
He will dump ABQ as soon as needed ! no consideration for anything or anybody on this ...without even thinking about it !
he plays "dirty" , but there is no laws against this ...
if you are not happy about your bread , why do you keep going to the same bakery ?
ZED,
Good points, especially regarding the UTF issue. Engine companies often finance engines, especially for commercial operations/airlines. I think they showed some balls backing Dayjet... I give them a lot of credit for helping - very entrepreneurial for a large company.
When you say: "Have you read all of the sales contracts and refund offers and determined IF these folks are actually owed anything?"
I think its fair to say, EAC admits they owe a bunch of refunds.
They are strapped for cash, and I guess I just have a problem with everyone waiting BEHIND ROEL, if he is paying ETRICK while not paying others. Perhaps a perk of beng CEO?
BTW, every time someone like you posts, we take a step back and re-think... thanks
Fred,
bonjour,
C'est vrai:
he plays "dirty" , but there is no laws against this ...
if you are not happy about your bread , why do you keep going to the same bakery ?
I didn't say that our baker is a good craftsman and that his breads are at least standard. He pretends he is just somehow doing and doing...
I think if everybody acts according to your last rhetoric question then there are no problems.
BTW: There must be a dream team in Uly... dreaming of hundreds of orders coming from western Europe.
Meanwhile Honda (jet, EU) is selecting and preparing its
dealers and maintenace shops - RP is skipping these tasks, as there is obviously no need for that (perhaps after FAA cert, after FIKI, after EASA cert, after Uly start, after...). Perhaps Uly may spend the money. But the shops need an EASA cert!
Julius
dave :
i am sorry to point out a mistake you seems to make quite often :
Roel is Dutch but Etrick is from Luxembourg ...
Etirc is a holding in Luxembourg having (future) interests in a plant in Russia...
so for any legal action which country is going the one with a legal power to judge ? knowing that the 2 showing the best options are the ones from Benelux ... as for the other 2 , just no way each one would recognize any decision made in the other ...!
so this is probably already the worst (or best) that could happen on a legal point of view !
"I'm sorry to break this to you ASM, but the concept of a super-pilot saving the day when the computers fail is a myth.
In fact gross pilot error is behind 90%+ of GA accidents."
I'm sorry to break this to you Baron, but you couldn't be more wrong. Accidents are rarely the result of any one event or occurance. Accidents are the results of chains of events of which the pilot may or may not be one event in the chain. It is simplistic in the extreme to say 90% of GA accidents are pilot error. I can think of six ADs/Service Bulletins/Manufacturing Change Orders off the top of my head that were the result of catastrophic engine failures that led to fatal aircraft accidents. I can think of several more where the pilot was vectored into a mountain or thunderstorm by ATC. And on and on. Even your train example is fatally flawed. The Washington Metro has automated trains as well as drivers on board. One day when the tracks were getting icy the driver repeatedly requested to take manual control of the train as it was slipping on the track. He was told no by the control center personnel. The end result was a fatal crash of the train in the automated mode.
julius :
genau , the world would be simpler if peoples could stick to the "bread story" ! ;-))
we happily keep the vicious circle going ...
with ONLY one OBVIOUS result :
the more time passes by , the lesser the eventual share of market is going to be for EA500 ...
so keeping the same pace , soon , without or with EASA cert (this being only ONE aspect of the problem) , i fear that anybody who had in mind to buy such an item would have either dropped the subject or bought something else ready and finished NOW , not in ....months(Years , Century ...)
BT:
concerning your post on cost:
EAC was looking at three areas to reduce cost: 1. engines (originally the Williams); i.e. they were looking for "cheap thrust" to really lower input costs from this key cost area; I don't know the whole story on this saga but the Williams/low cost engine issue is central to the EAC story; 2. some efficiencies in assembly/outsourcing (clearly, there were some supplier problems and many self-induced there); and 3. some scale from outsized volume.
If all three of these elements had lined up, they would have had some significant cost advantage.
If all three of these elements had lined up, they would have had some significant cost advantage.
I believe the biggest driver was supposed to be volume. After the change in engines Vern said the "real original price" (I forget his exact quote but it is along those lines) was the $1M+ figure. As far as the manufacturing efficiencies go I don't think Eclipse really believed their own words that much. I say that since the staffing levels the factory was build around don't jibe with the number of hours per plane they said it would take (Eclipse touted that their production process was going to take 600 hours plus painting and testing, which would only require around 300 factory employees, but Eclipse never actually designed their factory that way).
Theorizing about why DayJet didn’t succeed, Linear Air president and CEO Bill Herp suggested that starting on-demand, per-seat operations–an entirely new concept to the flying public–in a secondary market such as the Southeast was the wrong move. “[DayJet] should’ve tested the per-seat, on-demand model in a primary market like the Northeast,” he said.
If fact, Herp told AIN that Linear Air is now doing that by offering per-seat, on-demand service with its Eclipse 500s between Bedford, Mass., just outside Boston, and White Plains, N.Y., in the New York City metropolitan area.
TAA/VLJ Air Taxis Optimistic Despite Failure of DayJet
According to Eclipse chairman and CEO Roel Pieper, interviewed at last week’s NBAA Convention, JetsAmerica won’t get to buy those jets without Eclipse’s explicit approval. Those airplanes, Pieper said, “don’t belong to DayJet, but they definitely do belong to [UT Finance] and Eclipse.
AIN:Eclipse Claims Co-lienholder Role in DayJet Fleet Sale
Deep Blue,
The engine story is quite interesting and best told in this three-year old article:
The Little Engine That Couldn't
It includes the quote,
“Eclipse hurriedly signed a deal with Pratt & Whitney to develop a smaller version of a more conventional engine. The PW610F would develop 900 pounds of thrust, but it would weigh 260 pounds—triple the weight of the EJ22. The extra power would give the Eclipse 500 a bit better speed and climb, but there was a big downside: an empty-weight gain of 700 pounds and a 20 percent increase in fuel consumption.”
"Feel free to use ANY example you choose to show ANY similar tech/similar mission plane where the smaler variant costs more than the larger one. I know of none."
Baron, they don't make them smaller than a certain size... for a reason.
Your turbine example (linked above) is a poor example (I am not being mean, just trying to be clear)... there's no telling what the cost will be, viability, etc. There are a lot of issues with that tech demo, before it comes to market, or if it comes to market. Sound familiar?
I would put forth that the e500 cost MORE to develop and manufacture than say the Mustang.
- in aircraft C'ost" is a funny thing - especially when comparing aircraft size: Boeings cost $200-$300,000 per seat... Gulfstreams cost $2M-$3M per seat.
I like examples like phones to cell phones... laptops to desk tops. Then again, PDA/Smartphones can do pretty much the same thing as a laptop today, for less money!
I'll leave it at this: regarding jet engines and planes, the size, beyond a certain point smaller, becomes a limiter, and given what we know today, makes it more expensive to achieve similar performance compared with a larger version.
The only way to have similar performance (all things considered) in a smaller plane compared with a Citation 2, for example.. is to use 3 smaller planes. Take 6 non-pilot passengers 1,000 miles. BOTH solutions require around $6M. You could also use 1 Phenom 300, for around $7M.
Anyhow, you make a good point... I hope mine is not lost in this jibberjabber post
Black Tulip,
An excellent article on the Williams/EAC 'interaction'. Thanks.
ATman,
I hope mine is not lost in this jibberjabber post
A fan of Mr. T !
As it happens, I agree. Soooo...
A new post is UP.
Shane
TBM
I was never big on holding, and avoid it whenever I can. Usually ask for a fix-offset or a short turn to align.
Dave
I used several contemporaneous phrases metaphorically. WRT the term economic stimulus package as prompting for folks to re-spend their deposit refund checks to stimulate the economy. Clearly at some point the money was disposable income for them.
The “who gets paid, and in what order” is rather clearly spelled out in law. I am confident that RP and the Board are operating in close consultation with the room full of advisors still in SP1 -- CFO (Mark Borseth), VP Finance (Andy Kamm), Controller (Andy Vikta), and General Counsel (Bruce Castle). The Board may also (should) have separate counsel during these turbulent times. Unsecured creditors are always at the tail end of the list.
Self-Feeding Baby, Self-Licking Ice Cream Cone, etc. are all analogies for systems with a sole purpose of both consuming and sustaining oneself. Even before the recent Wall Street troubles there were only a few investment banks substantial practices in aircraft leasing … United Technologies Finance being one of them. Yes, someone at PWC probably dropped the UTF business card on DayJet, but they were on the short-list anyway.
Fred
Given the rapidly growing economy, someone will make many, many $ millions selling business/personal jets in Russia. It just could be Eclipse-Russia. Maybe, maybe not.
Zed
Post a Comment