tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post8671606256121364367..comments2023-09-17T04:46:20.879-07:00Comments on Eclipse Aviation Critic NG: Another important notice for the 'Honor Roll'Shane Pricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07181451780244241883noreply@blogger.comBlogger285125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-71321047323631620732008-08-07T08:24:00.000-07:002008-08-07T08:24:00.000-07:00I agree, there were many misrepresentations to the...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.<BR/><BR/>Such as the recent "received the first money required to become cash flow positive..." or whatever.<BR/><BR/>It would be easy to write, "we got $5 of the $300M we really need..." BUT, that would be too clear.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>See how this works. It's CRAFTY.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>And so, the "story" goes.<BR/>- due diligence on this comapny - I think anyone who did this, did not go anywhere near it.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>Tech - Greater fool - DOAairtaximanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12977944795556689805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-61869968047555621422008-08-07T08:11:00.000-07:002008-08-07T08:11:00.000-07:00"The point of regulation is not to prevent any and..."The point of regulation is not to prevent any and all unsafe aircraft/practices"<BR/>- 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. <BR/><BR/>*= probably not Vern, then...Cerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13532529144940481480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-17865245836433106952008-08-07T08:03:00.000-07:002008-08-07T08:03:00.000-07:00Dave: "So then the question I ask is what is to pr...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.<BR/>"<BR/><BR/>Completely agree with the sentiment. But it's a rat's nest of interlinked failures, isn't it? (... a bit like my software...)<BR/>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'. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Cerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13532529144940481480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-42424197254248913872008-08-07T07:57:00.000-07:002008-08-07T07:57:00.000-07:00seems to me it's going to be so easy to blame "som...<I>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><BR/><BR/>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.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08301246864437379349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-19458825041176660092008-08-07T07:54:00.001-07:002008-08-07T07:54:00.001-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02720325343754423616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-13711552290493774112008-08-07T07:54:00.000-07:002008-08-07T07:54:00.000-07:00Ceri,I agree.Sooo (drum roll, clash of symbols) ne...Ceri,<BR/><BR/>I agree.<BR/><BR/>Sooo (drum roll, clash of symbols) new post is up.<BR/><BR/>Enjoy the debate.<BR/><BR/>ShaneShane Pricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07181451780244241883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-88597931318171504232008-08-07T07:51:00.000-07:002008-08-07T07:51:00.000-07:00freedom ...your link is ...excellent ! ;-)freedom ...<BR/><BR/>your link is ...<BR/>excellent ! ;-)fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08144753596502433091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-31795605218951906532008-08-07T07:44:00.000-07:002008-08-07T07:44:00.000-07:00yes , dave ...#but rather as one of the mechanisms...yes , dave ...<BR/><BR/>#but rather as one of the mechanisms to achieve aviation safety #<BR/><BR/>in barrel of apples , if one is rotten ...<BR/>you've got to choose throw away one or throw all later !<BR/><BR/>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 ...<BR/><BR/>i wonder what is the relation between being a foreigner and the locals ...<BR/><BR/>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 ...fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08144753596502433091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-22693861712169752932008-08-07T07:40:00.000-07:002008-08-07T07:40:00.000-07:00"If NM SIC wanted audited order numbers according ..."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?"<BR/><BR/>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.WhyTechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08316462511388173480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-71729119931272962912008-08-07T07:27:00.000-07:002008-08-07T07:27:00.000-07:00If NM SIC wanted audited order numbers according t...<I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/><I>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...</I><BR/><BR/>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.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08301246864437379349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-13472539948958834912008-08-07T07:17:00.000-07:002008-08-07T07:17:00.000-07:00Check out todays dilbert...www.dilbert.com. The fo...Check out todays dilbert...<BR/><BR/>www.dilbert.com. <BR/><BR/>The footnotes do smell.FreedomsJamtartshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18240818544017409683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-41222245072192735082008-08-07T07:08:00.000-07:002008-08-07T07:08:00.000-07:00Although the fraudulent/not fraudulent debate is r...Although the fraudulent/not fraudulent debate is reaching/has reached the point of diminishing returns...<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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...Cerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13532529144940481480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-8702874141941047232008-08-07T06:24:00.000-07:002008-08-07T06:24:00.000-07:00yes dave ...the context is important ...!Roel deci...yes dave ...<BR/><BR/>the context is important ...!<BR/><BR/>Roel decided to get into the E500 story ... (over a year ago , remember ...!)<BR/><BR/>first bad move !<BR/><BR/>he knows vern/ed for a long time , so either he knew what to expect or he is plainly stupid ...<BR/><BR/>second bad move !<BR/><BR/>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 ...<BR/><BR/>third bad move !<BR/><BR/>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 ... ?"<BR/><BR/>fourth bad move !<BR/><BR/>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 !<BR/><BR/>fifth bad move !<BR/><BR/>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 !<BR/><BR/>sixth bad move !<BR/><BR/>now i read that it is ok , if he has all cards in his hands and doesn't want to play "open" ???<BR/><BR/>what is story ,again ?<BR/><BR/>you get me once = shame on you !<BR/>you get me twice = shame on who ?<BR/><BR/>problem is = the second time to "be done" is over since a long time ...<BR/><BR/>what is the word for "after" the shame ??? incredible stupidity ? madness ?fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08144753596502433091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-86313522169569797582008-08-07T05:31:00.000-07:002008-08-07T05:31:00.000-07:00While many of us here abhor such deceptive practic...<I>While many of us here abhor such deceptive practices, from a legal standpoint, probably not fraudulent or criminal.</I><BR/><BR/>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.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08301246864437379349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-74740650446677127642008-08-07T05:20:00.000-07:002008-08-07T05:20:00.000-07:00As a matter of fact, I'd venture to say that many ...<I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>Again, there is no need to find fault with everything associated with Eclipse/ETIRC - there are plenty of real issues.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>Just because someone is the largest shareholder, it doesn't mean that all other shareholders have no rights.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>They don't need Pieper to be their nanny</I><BR/><BR/>No, they need Pieper to do his duty that he agreed to do:<BR/>http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f026.htm<BR/>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/trusting/unit5all.html<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiduciaryDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08301246864437379349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-24173579671724961762008-08-07T04:52:00.000-07:002008-08-07T04:52:00.000-07:00"While many of us here abhor such deceptive practi..."While many of us here abhor such deceptive practices, from a legal standpoint, probably not fraudulent or criminal."<BR/><BR/>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.airsafetymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923869957339462116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-82021403066968651992008-08-07T04:12:00.000-07:002008-08-07T04:12:00.000-07:00"There is nothing criminal with Roel fraudently tr..."There is nothing criminal with Roel fraudently trumpeting imaginary orders?"<BR/><BR/>While many of us here abhor such deceptive practices, from a legal standpoint, probably not fraudulent or criminal.WhyTechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08316462511388173480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-30912724174315446372008-08-07T03:47:00.000-07:002008-08-07T03:47:00.000-07:00"If a single individual controls two entities that..."If a single individual controls two entities that do business with each other, so be it. Nothing wrong with it."<BR/><BR/>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?airsafetymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923869957339462116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-86166686742786173672008-08-07T03:03:00.000-07:002008-08-07T03:03:00.000-07:00#The EAC holding may very well be ETIRC's largest ...#The EAC holding may very well be ETIRC's largest asset by far#<BR/><BR/>to me , remember , i have lots of good connections in Luxembourg , it sounds more like :<BR/><BR/>it is the only one !<BR/><BR/>etirc is an empty shell managed by someone more known for his failures than success ...fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08144753596502433091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-1012223188938830282008-08-07T03:00:00.000-07:002008-08-07T03:00:00.000-07:00#Same between EADS and Airbus. #yes , may be ...as...#Same between EADS and Airbus. #<BR/><BR/><BR/>yes , may be ...<BR/>as long as things are transparent and more or less well working ...<BR/><BR/>as soon as it smell like something is bad (remember , eads has LOTS of success ...) or just a plain scam ...<BR/><BR/>everybody is offered free accommodation and free meals ...<BR/><BR/>but there is bars at the windows !;-) <BR/><BR/>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 !)<BR/><BR/>so for E-trick /EAC , the whole thing is only a sham !fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08144753596502433091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-90215112638235505822008-08-07T02:30:00.000-07:002008-08-07T02:30:00.000-07:00GettingReady2FileSuit,Would you be so kind as to c...GettingReady2FileSuit,<BR/><BR/>Would you be so kind as to contact me at the following email address, for an 'offline' discussion?<BR/><BR/>eclipsecriticng@gmail.com<BR/><BR/>Many thanks<BR/><BR/>ShaneShane Pricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06571348452899329376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-63968518644536583932008-08-07T01:53:00.000-07:002008-08-07T01:53:00.000-07:00Dave said ... such as taking actions that profit E...<I>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. </I><BR/><BR/>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.Baron95https://www.blogger.com/profile/01421355643916832199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-68613640867594832722008-08-07T01:47:00.000-07:002008-08-07T01:47:00.000-07:00Flight test said ... Eclipse had to know this befo...<I>Flight test said ... Eclipse had to know this before the first flight. </I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Then everything stopped for almost 2 years asthey re-engined the beast.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Baron95https://www.blogger.com/profile/01421355643916832199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-67961108366551651582008-08-07T01:41:00.000-07:002008-08-07T01:41:00.000-07:00By the way TBM - I understand what you were trying...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.Baron95https://www.blogger.com/profile/01421355643916832199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3817101653623448889.post-64412165487726522882008-08-07T01:39:00.000-07:002008-08-07T01:39:00.000-07:00TBM said ... What would create a conflict of inter...<I>TBM said ... What would create a conflict of interest would be for Roel to negotiate both sides of an agreement between EAC and ETIRC. </I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Again, there is no need to find fault with everything associated with Eclipse/ETIRC - there are plenty of real issues.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>They don't need Pieper to be their nanny, nor do they need this blog to rescue them.Baron95https://www.blogger.com/profile/01421355643916832199noreply@blogger.com