text:
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
353 comments:1 – 200 of 353 Newer› Newest»
- Shane Price said...
I want to thank my sources who made this headline possible. You know who you are...
As more details flow, I'll either update the headline or post a 'Court Notice' or a 'Snippet'.
Anyone who feels the need can of course contact me on the blog email
I'm always happy to answer questions if I can.
- January 20, 2009 at 1:57 PM
- gadfly said...
This is a scene right out of "The Apple Dumpling Gang", when the sheriff (Harry Morgan) orders Amos and Theodore (Tim Conway and Don Knotts) to show up for their hanging, next morning . . . and "bring your own rope!" . . . which is a problem because the hardware store is closed. The sheriff remarks that if they show up, they deserve to be hung.
- January 20, 2009 at 2:02 PM
- GettingReady2FileSuit said...
"Big Al's" ability to fund Eclipso 2.0 is declining on a daily basis... He still holds 40mm shares of MNKD (http://biz.yahoo.com/t/46/481.html). The value of that holding has fallen from 380mm since his open market purchase in Oct'07 to its present value of 136mm (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MNKD&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=). How the founder of the company could have been so WRONG adding to a massive position only 6 months prior to the stock collapsing is beyond logic... No wonder he's been an (dis)-investor in eclipso.
- January 20, 2009 at 2:26 PM
- AvidPilot said...
Well, EclipseJet Aviation is going to have a tough time selling the little E500 at $2.5 million, especially since new Mustangs are going for very little more and carry none of the risk associated with the new "re-started startup" company.
For example, I just received an email from St. Louis Aviation for a new Mustang April 2009 delivery:
$2,825,000 Total Price. Options:
Synthetic Vision Technologies
Chart View
Traffic Advisory System
ADF & HF Cabin Wiring
XM Radio/Audio Input Panel
40 cu. ft. Oxygen Bottle
Life Vest
RVSM Document Package (Domestic Only)
Who wouldn't spend 15% more to buy so much more capable of an aircraft with absolutely no risk, worldwide support and and better resale value? Not to mention it looks a hell of a lot better on the ramp.
- January 20, 2009 at 2:37 PM
- gadfly said...
"No wonder he's been an (dis)-investor in eclipso"
See: "bring your own rope" . . . above!
(The hardware store is, indeed, closed!)
- January 20, 2009 at 2:41 PM
- GettingReady2FileSuit said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- January 20, 2009 at 2:46 PM
- airtaximan said...
hmm... $1.35M on top of say $1M or so.
Sounds like a bargoon to me.
All this for a plane that will undoubtedly be tough to support and keep flying - except Ken's plane, of course.
Now, where's Mike Press? There should be a flood of EA50s positons back on Controller. OH WAIT... there are no positions left after tomorrow.
- January 20, 2009 at 2:48 PM
- airtaximan said...
just leave it beside the road somewhere....
- January 20, 2009 at 2:52 PM
- baron95 said...
BT said... If the Eclipse runs out of steam at FL410 then these aren't so helpful, as indicated airspeed would suffer.
EXACTLY my point. The EA500 max cruise happens somewhere between FL310 and 350 depending on temps. Also, the rules of thumb you mentioned (particularly the 2% one) does not hold in the upper flight levels.
Regardless, the EA500 flight manual is available to many. Why not look it up and report the actual (constant true airspeed) difference between Max cruise at FL370 vs 410, instead of speculating and assuming and implying that there is a *huge* difference, like drillinghead and others have done here, when there isn't?
Someone please look it up and post the difference. Is it 2% or so?
- January 20, 2009 at 2:52 PM
- baron95 said...
Carry over...
airtaximan said...
Baron, I just find it curious that the price increase equals the "coupon".
I think that makes perfect sense. It is a good ballance between offering some consideration, but still extracting the same revenue from a depositor that would be extracted from a buyers walking through the door today.
- January 20, 2009 at 2:54 PM
- baron95 said...
Carry over ...
Shane said... Why, on 29th August 2008, did Pratt & Whitney Canada repossessed 24 engines sold to Eclipse, valued at $5,165,744?
WOW!!!! $215K per PWC610. That is an incredibly low price. My estimate here on this blog had been $375K.
WOW again!!!! That is an amazing price, if it turns out to be correct (i have doubts). For comparisson, a Thierlert 2.0 + mandatory parts and services to last 3,500 hours costs more than that.
- January 20, 2009 at 3:01 PM
- baron95 said...
Carry over ...
Deep Blue said...
FJT makes an excellent point. The entire negotiated input cost base for the aircraft will recalibrate up.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe that. I can't think of ANY mannufacturing contract being drawn these days that has price increases. Vendors are being squeezed left and right - YES - Even as volume comes down.
All production lines from Intel Chips to Toyota cars to A320s/B737s are being slow down or in the planning/negotiating process of doing so. And ALL vendors are still being asked to maintain/lower prices at the reduced rates.
Buyers have ALL the power now. Not just a little bit. As I related on the other thread I have personally been amazed as to the extent of my buying power. I negotiated a deal at 33% LOWER PAYMENTS last week than the best deal I could get 3 months ago.
Timming is ALL in RP's favor. I would not bet agains him getting most/all suppliers on board on short order.
- January 20, 2009 at 3:10 PM
- baron95 said...
And now.... SOLD...
And as predicted, no drama, judge block, not even an auction. This one when by the book, fast and a quick saled to the DIP.
Now, there is a short term plan on how to price/finish the planes on the line and incent the depositors with coupons.
Longer term plans are dependent on EAI announcing outside financing.
Lets see. I hope the lack of drama and jailings and investigations was not a disapointment to the blog. Did you really expect that or were just hoping?
- January 20, 2009 at 3:21 PM
- gadfly said...
"I would not bet agains(t) him getting most/all suppliers on board on short order."
Watch carefully any suppliers who may come on board . . . these would be companies that are, themselves, in "desperate straits" . . . grasping at straws in their own attempt at survival.
It is not a pretty sight . . . watching folks drown in red ink . . . the "last gasp", promising everything, including their own souls . . . and disappearing below the surface.
(And the "lack of jailings" . . . that part of the story is far from over. Count on it!)
- January 20, 2009 at 3:34 PM
baron95 said...
Regardless, the EA500 flight manual is available to many. Why not look it up and report the actual (constant true airspeed) difference between Max cruise at FL370 vs 410, instead of speculating and assuming and implying that there is a *huge* difference, like drillinghead and others have done here, when there isn't?
Not that I don't mind a good argument, but data is useful, too.
My numbers come from a preliminary draft AFM, dated March 29,2007. Let's assume 5,000 pounds operating weight, ISA conditions. I'll linearly interpolate for FL370 since that isn't in the table.
For MCT, the numbers are:
FL410: 339 KTAS, 342 lbs/hour, 0.99 nm/lb
FL370: 361 KTAS, 426 lbs/hour, 0.85 nm/lb
A 24.6% increase in fuel flow yields a 6.5% increase in speed but a 14.1% reduction in specific range.
If you slow down to LRC:
FL410: 303 KTAS, 295 lbs/hour, 1.03 nm/lb
FL370: 294 KIAS, 310 lbs/hour, 0.95 nm/lb
A 5.1% increase in fuel flow yields a 3.0% decrease in speed and a 7.8% reduction in specific range.
The LRC cruise profile chart shows FL410 giving 1122 nm range and FL370 giving 1060 nm range. This is a reduction of 5.5%. This doesn't match the cruise change due to less time spent climbing to reach FL370.
If you need to go far (LRC at FL410), there are definitely some flights that a FL370 limited airplane won't be able to make that a FL410 airplane can. If you need to go fast (MCT at FL370), you were already operating in the mid 30s and the FL370 limitation will have no effect. If you would like a good combination of far and fast (MCT at FL410), you are also affected significantly since LRC isn't much slower at that altitude.
- January 20, 2009 at 3:59 PM
- airtaximan said...
"Lets see. I hope the lack of drama and jailings and investigations was not a disapointment to the blog. Did you really expect that or were just hoping?"
Its not over... this proceeding ddoes not bar anyone from suing for fraud, etc.
And yes, I guess this is "just hoping"...
Your opinion that EAC conduct as a normal part of the American free market system, is not mine... unless Enron etc... are "normal" as well. They ended up in jail, and yes, I think many of the characters at EAC knew they were just bilking customers - so, yes, they should end up in jail.
But, just as you were correct about the sale, you will probably be correct about the Jail!
I will be correct about there the lack of a market for this plane at this new price. Vern was right about another thing - the ONLY market for this plane was for a CHEAP aircraft, and this is gone.
So, the rest is just details.... about things that don't matter much
- January 20, 2009 at 4:17 PM
- Deep Blue said...
AvidPilot: you could likely negotiate that airplane (or any other Mustang) for $2.0-2.3MM; some even less, and also demand owner finance or a lease-to-buy, plus significant OEM concessions.
B95: yes, you're right, but I think consumer bargaining is different from industrial bargaining and many (not all) of the EAC suppliers are on to safer pastures; moreover, all suppliers have suppliers, and their costs may be rising or have been re-negotiated. At any rate, the mix of EAC buyer cost increases (financing, insurance, parts, training, after-market) and ETirc's effective "spot buying" for supplies and parts, is likely going to be expensive. Regards.
- January 20, 2009 at 4:33 PM
- bill e. goat said...
Well, well.
Thanks again to Shane for the coverage, which has involved some heavy-duty editor duties for the past few weeks.
Who wudda thunk it, a couple of years ago.
First flight (well, second first flight), on a Dec 31? Anyone think that sounded a bit...desperate?
What? "Provisional" TC, hmmm, a bit odd.
"Deliveries" (tm)- on Dec 31, Hmmmm. ??? That "desperate" thing again, maybe?
Anyone think that "something was not right", when the Wedge's duped the FAA with the Avio-NG surprise. That was the first real sign that there were going to be a LOT of unpaid IOU's...in more ways than one.
Then, CON-jets. (My, my- aren't we the clever ones. Indeed).
Then there was the bizarre "serial numbers aren't position numbers" thing- I still don't get that. What the heck is a "position number"??? It sounded like smoke and mirrors to me.
The nail was in the coffin with the "December surprise" of the "special limited time offer" of only $1.25M (pretty "Limited Time"- indeed).
Russian money? Controlling interest sold for $100M?
Progress payments, for what, serial number 400+ ?!?
Wedge intimidating the staff and harassing the public with the Polish Inquisition? (No offense intended to the Polish).
More weirdness with EAC going without a V.P. of Engineering for several months, despite the challenges with "finishing" the airplane (no joke intended).
FIKI taking 2 years??
Dayjet "bubble" ?? (Bubble heads, maybe :)
R-E-A-L-L-Y now.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. What a silly story.
- January 20, 2009 at 7:40 PM
- BassMaster said...
Barron not only would some bloggers like to see a criminal case, I'm afraid they'd like to see an accident! Mr Price you said there are no legitimate depositors that simply wanted an affordable jet. Ludicrous! You think they are all suckers. They would tell you to screw yourself. These are folks that have provided info to you. I don't get it. For any depositor that reads this blog realize that Mr Price thinks your a worthless sucker!
- January 20, 2009 at 8:55 PM
from Ebay
Eclipse owners are selling their handheld GPS units also but the ad reads like this: "For sale. One slightly used GPS. Low time!!! Never been IFR. Asking 2.3 Million. The airplane attached to it is free. Call PLEASE."
- January 20, 2009 at 8:59 PM
- baron95 said...
gadfly said...
Watch carefully any suppliers who may come on board . . . these would be companies that are, themselves, in "desperate straits" . . . grasping at straws in their own attempt at survival.
Errr.... you mean like virtually EVERY industrial company in America today, from the largest (GE) to the smallest? Did you know that Checker (yes the taxi cab company and a supplier of steel parts to the Detroit-3) just filed for bankruptcy, and is about the 1000th Detroit industrial supplier to do so since the recession started 14 months ago?
I really would like to see an Eclipse supplier say: "No, I won't take the hard upfront cash (even if pennies on the $). No, I won't take the equity. No, I won't take your order for more parts that I already invested millions to produce."
Lets see how many CEOs and board members go along with that.
- January 20, 2009 at 9:01 PM
- baron95 said...
Flyger, thanks for the numbers, but I'd like to run a more realistic apples to apples scenario.
On the prototypical VLJ stage length of 500 miles, at the same block time, how much more fuel would be burned on the flight if cruised at FL370 vs 410.
I repeat the question, because that implies the answer. Is it 2%?
- January 20, 2009 at 9:03 PM
- baron95 said...
BassMaster, unfortunately, you are correct.
When I first started reading the original Blog, it was clear that most posters were Aviation enthusiasts and savy people, that had genuine disagreement on technical and marketing decisions on the plane. That greatly interested me.
Over time, it evolve into discussing Eclipse's styles (which was still fair discussion).
Then if spin out on the turn from base to final into corkscrew plunge of personal vilification of Vern and Ken and anyone who had anything positive to say about Eclipse.
Over time, the Blog got more and more frustrated, that their "It will be over next week" predictions never came to pass and Eclipse soldier on, and on.
These folks are besides themselves now that their prediction of Ch7 liquidation didn't come to pass, their predictions of a court airing of dirty dealings never came to pass, and the assets sold as predicted and desired by RP and EAC.
These bloggers are not interested in the best outcome for owners, depositors, GA. They are frustrated that the worst outcome has not come to pass.
As you said, they are frustrated that the EA500 has exactly the same safety reccord as the Mustang, has had no fatalities injuries, has not gone TU, continues to somehow raise money, continue to somehow get approvals (EASA, FIKI, Avio NG 1.5).
And that, Mr. Bassmaster, is the sad part. Folks here get disapointed and frustrated when the worse does not come to pass.
Sad, sad, sad indeed.
I continue to wish well to the owners and depositors, that the fleed continues to find support somehow, and that production, even at a 50/year rate continues. I continue to welcome an evolution of personal/light GA from the general direction of my plane (Baron) and the likes of the Malibu and Duke and C340 to the general direction of the EA500 and SJ50 and DJet.
I'm sorry owners/depositors will have to pony up more money than contracted. I'm cautiously optimistic that they will have a supported and safe plane. I wish all involved with Eclipse well.
Sadly, the same is not true from most on this Blog.
- January 20, 2009 at 9:14 PM
- gadfly said...
You know my comment was within the context of Eclipse, and nothing beyond that.
- January 20, 2009 at 9:30 PM
baron95 said...
Flyger, thanks for the numbers, but I'd like to run a more realistic apples to apples scenario.
I actually don't think this is true. You are asking it to do a turboprop job, or even a P twin job, when it is a jet. People who can go 1,000 miles in a jet will do so and some of that was taken away from them with the AD.
On the prototypical VLJ stage length of 500 miles, at the same block time, how much more fuel would be burned on the flight if cruised at FL370 vs 410.
The AFM doesn't give enough numbers to do this computation without some serious and shaky interpolation. I can't arbitrarily pick a speed and have it tell me the fuel flow. It has MCT and LRC power settings. It also depends on what power settings you use.
I repeat the question, because that implies the answer. Is it 2%?
I am pretty sure it is quite a bit more than 2%, probably in the range of 8 to 10%, if one assumes FL410 MCT is the benchmark. The plane at FL370 simply isn't going that much faster and is burning quite a bit more fuel (14% per mile more).
You can keep playing with the initial conditions until you find some place where the difference is just 2%, but then I think we've lost sight of the point. A fairly significant part of the range/payload envelope was damaged by the AD.
- January 20, 2009 at 10:26 PM
- FreedomsJamtarts said...
The EA500 requires hundreds (if not thousands) of suppliers. Their supply chain will include everyone from PWC down to little one man shops stamping out LH rudder pedal intercostals.
Only a handful of suppliers choosing to move on, and leave this sorry experience behind them puts a big spanner in the works.
Some suppliers can be replaced easily, some (ISS) are essential.
As of today, they have no production certificate and about 26 partially finished planes in production. The will likely start production with individual FAA sign off on each plane. The FAA inspectors are going to be really super cooerative and flexible this time around, aren't they...
To believe that not a single critical/differcult to replace vender hasn't moved on permanently (or gone BK and been liquidated themselves) requires the same sort of rosy pink glasses as Ken always wears around his partial Eclipse.
Didn't ISS write off Eclipse in there press release to the Q4/08 quarterly report?
This second innings will be pretty short.
In ten years most EA500's will be in museums or beer cans. A couple of diehards will operate them as warbirds.
- January 21, 2009 at 12:18 AM
- fred said...
Baron :
even if i accept your critics about the "contents" of this blog ...
to some extent , remember ! Democracy is not about Nuking who has not the same opinion than you do ... but about sharing and confronting different opinions AND respecting who has other ideas ...
I think you got it WRONG on your Buyer-strength argument :
in the current situation , Buyers are almighty IF they have the cash going with their pretentious will ...
as far as we know , EAC had none (in terms of disposable profits and earnings ... living out on empty promises and false statements is NOT a guarantee of anything except of failure !)
EAI is starting is the same position , as the product remain the same , the profit-margin won't be that easy anymore to lure with smoke and mirrors ...
on top of it , there is history !
it is exactly the same than a restaurant = eternity to make good reputation , but a few seconds to loose it !
so the challenge is even more difficult , i would give it a a ratio 4/5 on a success/failure scale , without the current crisis ...
unfortunately things now are what they are ...
- January 21, 2009 at 12:59 AM
- Shane Price said...
I've reached an understanding with E5C. They don't post 'our' stuff over there, and we don't post 'their' stuff over here. Unless, of course, a specific agreement is reached.
Which we have done, in the past.
Please delete your comment, posted January 20, 2009 at 2:46 PM, and restrain yourself here.
- January 21, 2009 at 1:22 AM
- Shane Price said...
That is an amazing price, if it turns out to be correct (i have doubts).
Want a copy of the Bankruptcy Court documents to prove it?
Put it another way, if someone lied to the Court, it's perjury, and potential jail time.
That's the number my friend. I suspect the price was based on 1,000's per annum. Not a few hundred, which is all it every was or will be.
And that's the key. Many suppliers joined this party on the promise of VOLUME. This helped mitigate the costs of developing the parts but crucially did the same for the overall RISK.
A number of critical suppliers have told me they are out of this mess, and glad to chalk it up to experience. Like you, I'm a bit long in the tooth (purely in business of course) and have seen a recession or two. At times like these, the first thing I clamp down on are poor credit risks.
How poor a credit risk would you take on? Say, for instance, a company just out of Chapter 11, heading for 7 in short order?
Honest answer only please....
Finally, no one here wishes EAI people ill. Other than those who are guilty of illegal activities, of course. You fail to show any sympathy for the principle fall guys in this mess. What about those depositors who lost several hundred million dollars? The workers who moved to ABQ only to be dismissed. The suppliers who've been taken for a ride? This blog is a 'broad church', which includes people like you but also those who have paid a steep price for this 'experiment'. A little respect for each other's opinions would help...
- January 21, 2009 at 2:01 AM
- Shane Price said...
I have a question, for the blog!
It's about stock options.
Where these are granted in a company, which goes bankrupt before they are cashed, what are the tax liabilities for the individual concerned?
As most of you appreciate, I'm Irish and have little or no idea how the American tax system works. Over here, the answer is simple. No gain, no liability.
Answers to the usual address:-
- January 21, 2009 at 2:16 AM
- Black Tulip said...
The individual would derive no value from an unexercised stock option for shares in a bankrupt company. Therefore they have no tax liability. Let us suppose an employee had exercised a stock option and held shares. If they received no settlement in cash or equity in the new company then their old shares are worthless and their exercise price can be written off their taxes.
- January 21, 2009 at 5:15 AM
- julius said...
do you know that deposit holders of EAC may also be buyers like RP, EIA...?
Those 24 may argue: the wedge made a crazy deal with us - but you (RP)
confirmed it in May 2008 and knew about the finacial situtation with EAC! You (RP/EAC) got all parts according to EAC's conditions and postponed the delivery - you (RP) call that fair, ethical...Now we are your (EAI'S) first customers ...!
The rest of the 60% deposit holder will have other arguements.
If these gentlemen need to go to bank and ask for loans, is the fpj an accepted security? What about that special "s/n 260 sale"...
Maybe, it was absolutely according to the laws.
EAC/EAI situation isn't state of the art!
What about the full EASA-cert needed for RP's Spanish friends... ?
P.S.: Garmin is supplier of the
GPS 400Ws - no word about this in the supplier list!
- January 21, 2009 at 5:35 AM
- GettingReady2FileSuit said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- January 21, 2009 at 5:40 AM
- airtaximan said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- January 21, 2009 at 6:00 AM
- airtaximan said...
I am lucky, because I never predicted the demise of EAC, and I do not wish Ken or the other owners ill will. Also, some of my predictions did not come to pass, but most of them did.
When you say: "And that, Mr. Bassmaster, is the sad part. Folks here get disapointed and frustrated when the worse does not come to pass."
You are flat out wrong - the worst has come to pass - $3B of carnage, and it has not stopped yet.
I NEVER predicted the end of EAC - just marvelled at how this company, with that product, in the condition it is in, can continue to find money to incinerate - I even gave VErn credit for this, he is the Master.
Also, IMO, the prospects for EAC (I will continue to call the company EAC, I guess) are getting worse, not better. The business case is gone. No one on this blog or elsewhere has come up with a viable plan to move ahead and sell planes. Raising the price is a non-starter, IMO... BUT, like I always say, I am willing to hear ideas.
So, dismissing the blog as you do, is rather "over the top". Yes, there are other "over the top" posts and ideas on the blog too, so you are welcome.
Just be careful when you bunch the blog together ill-willing people. I do not think this is true.
We even allow Ken his moments of promoting the plane, eventhough its plausible that he's just trying to find/create more Peters, because he is a Paul. He even posts "differently" on the E5C... kinda transparent...
The best outcome, I believe is a viable plan to sell planes at a profit - a sustainable model, failing which, the company should be gone - the worst outcome is what I see - more investors losing more money. This is the reason the comapny is not gone today, and why I will never pick a date or predict it WILL be gone. FOr all we know, EAC could be a subtiered supplier of parts to someone else one day, or a mobile home manufacturer - who knows. It may never be gone.
I would ask that you be at least as charitable with the bloggers as you have been with EAC - IMO, you overlook a lot of their behavior and their tresspasses ($3B plus, plus, hundreds of customers stiffed, etc...) and you are being pretty harsh on the blog - kinda like the unions...
But, I am willing to watch and learn.
BTW, as you know, I am a big fan of yours - without you, there is no me... sotaspeak
- January 21, 2009 at 6:07 AM
- airtaximan said...
your post should be removed. This blog has been around for a long time, and IIRC, only one person wrote something along the lines of what you say - and it was removed.
I do not even want to think about a crash of any plane, let alone this one. Your post is just nasty -I would remove it, if I were you.
As far as jail goes, I believe there was a lot of fraud - but, I am no lawyer, and I do not have all the facts - just been proven correct on false announcements before more money was put up, and the false order book. I think the industry would be better off, if the standards for deposits and public statements were upheld, and so, I conclude.
I would not really care much if no one was prosecuted, but I would not be surprised if they were, as well.
- January 21, 2009 at 6:14 AM
- Ken Meyer said...
Baron asked, "On the prototypical VLJ stage length of 500 miles, at the same block time, how much more fuel would be burned on the flight if cruised at FL370 vs 410."
At ISA, a 500 nm flight at FL 410 requires 1hr 37min and 713 lbs. Block time matched, at FL 370, the fuel burn is 39 lbs more (about 5% more).
But I wouldn't actually power back at FL 370. I'd go for the speed--that shaves 4 minutes off the flight and adds another 15 pounds of burn. Remember that 15 pounds of fuel presently costs me less than 7 bucks. Four minutes of flight time costs more than 7 bucks.
It turns out the AD is almost never an operational issue for me; in the entire time I've owned my plane (now over 70,000 nm of flight), I've actually NEVER been to FL 410 (FL 400, yes; FL 410, no). Where the limitation is a potential issue is for maximum range flight, and my flights are seldom over 800 nm.
There will of course be an AMOC restoring FL 410 to the Eclipse. The hang up right now appears to be adequately convincing the FAA that the behavior of the flow control valve actually is what the engineers say it is. Have no fear; we're working on it :)
- January 21, 2009 at 6:38 AM
- FreedomsJamtarts said...
Are the MRO's still operating? WHo owns them now?
- January 21, 2009 at 7:30 AM
- Jim Howard said...
BT, I think there is a possible Alternative Minimum Tax due for some higher income Eclipse employees who received incentive options, even though the options latter became worthless.
- January 21, 2009 at 7:42 AM
- Black Tulip said...
Good point. I guess this would depend on whether they were qualified or non-qualified options.
- January 21, 2009 at 7:46 AM
- Adam Hunt said...
Some articles on the court's decision you may want to read:
Judge Approves Sale of Eclipse Aviation's Assets to EclipseJet Aviation International, Inc. - Eclipse press release
Federal judge OKs Eclipse Aviation sale - The Associated Press
- January 21, 2009 at 7:51 AM
- baron95 said...
Ken said ... At ISA, a 500 nm flight at FL 410 requires 1hr 37min and 713 lbs. Block time matched, at FL 370, the fuel burn is 39 lbs more (about 5% more).
Thanks for the apples to apples numbers Ken. About 5%, less than 6 gallons seems to be the answer. Which is pretty modest.
Not trying to minimize the issue, just wanted to put it in perspective. The previous poster on this issue always tried to make it seems like it was "death" to the airplane.
Another death.
BTW, I do respect the rights of others here to hope and wish for doom and gloom for Eclipse and EA500. I simply do not share the same opinion. I'd like to see them soldier on, even if at a very reduced capacity, servicing planes and occasionally building new ones.
- January 21, 2009 at 8:27 AM
baron95 said...
About 5%, less than 6 gallons seems to be the answer. Which is pretty modest.
That number grows with increasing distance. 500nm doesn't have much cruise portion, less than an hour, so the effect is minimized. The "go fast and short" people won't care about FL370 since they weren't flying higher anyway.
The previous poster on this issue always tried to make it seems like it was "death" to the airplane.
If your mission profile is 750nm or more, then it is a big deal. Now you are approach 10% more fuel used (double the cruise portion of 500nm), plus you've lost range above 1,000nm.
Like I said, you can find some small region where the effect is small and base your argument on that situation. The AD takes away range and payload envelope and for some, that is significant.
BTW, I do respect the rights of others here to hope and wish for doom and gloom for Eclipse and EA500. I simply do not share the same opinion.
I think it is unfair to say others "wish" for doom and gloom when they have looked at the fundamentals and come to a conclusion based on reason and not just emotion as you are trying to imply. If you think Eclipse can truly survive, tell us how.
I want to know how Eclipse can owe vendors $200M for parts that went on less than 100 airplanes? Do the math, and the per airplane number doesn't include a dime of expense at Eclipse!
- January 21, 2009 at 9:03 AM
- AvidPilot said...
If you are going to claim that this blog consists mainly of people who are not savvy or aviation enthusiasts, then you should offer some names. Most of the people I've seen posting are very astute, informed, and definitely aviation enthusiasts, so I couldn't disagree with you more.
As for villifying Ken and Vern, well - Vern should be villified. Maybe he is not a crook, but he is "borderline". He is full of BS, and 90% of the people who entrusted him with a deposit lost all of their money. 100% of the people who invested with him lost all of their investment. The balance didn't get what they paid for.
Vern has a track record on par with Bernard Maddoff's.
So I think the villification is justified.
Ken is nothing more than a shill for Eclipse. He is an arrogant, condescending blowhard. Never willing to admit he was wrong even when he lost his deposit on a 2nd aircraft. Definitely not a villain, but he was certainly supportive of Vern for the past couple of years.
- January 21, 2009 at 9:11 AM
- Black Tulip said...
With the recent developments at Eclipse we can continue to expand our vocabulary. The company has always pushed the envelope, and kept us reaching for the unabridged dictionary.
Take the term 'position' as in position holder. One definition is 'a place on a list or sequence'. The blog has generally accepted a second definition, 'the arrangement of the body and its limbs'. Events have proved uncomfortable with unfortunate results for position holders.
Now we have the term 'coupon' issued in the Eclipse bankruptcy. One definition is 'a negotiable certificate which can be redeemed for a discount'. Another is 'a sample cut from a larger piece, used for testing, and often sacrificed in the process'. Which coupon are we dealing with here?
- January 21, 2009 at 9:34 AM
- Ken Meyer said...
Baron, on a 1000 nm flight in the Eclipse, the penalty for flying at FL 370 instead of FL 410 depends entirely on the power setting.
At mid power (which yields about the same block time as max power at FL 410), there is an 8% penalty for flying at FL 370. But at longrange cruise, the penalty drops to just 4%.
And at longrange cruise, the plane would complete a 1000 nm flight at FL 370 with 1:28 reserve.
And, as for Avid Pilot, what a pleasant thing to say, thank you. You and many of the others here are having a bad week, with the Eclipse design living on and guys flying the planes every day, loving them. Sucks for you, I guess :)
- January 21, 2009 at 9:37 AM
- Shane Price said...
Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part. The 'customers only' section of the Eclipse website is what I mean when I say E5C.
I do that to a) make it clear it's not the 'public' part of the Eclipse web site and b) because that's what the moderator of the site calls it.
When he drop's me the odd (very polite) email....
So, yes please, remove your comment.
- January 21, 2009 at 10:28 AM
- GettingReady2FileSuit said...
I was CERTAIN that E5C referred to eclipse500club.org, but nontheless i have deleted the entry.
- January 21, 2009 at 10:36 AM
shane wrote....
As most of you appreciate, I'm Irish and have little or no idea how the American tax system works.
don't feel bad, I'm an American and I have no idea how our tax system works either... LOL
- January 21, 2009 at 1:00 PM
- julius said...
And at longrange cruise, the plane would complete a 1000 nm flight at FL 370 with 1:28 reserve.
for whom is this an "information"?
Normally "45 min" or "NBAA IFR 100 nm (or 200 nm) alternate" are standard terms to describe the reserves ....
Ok, Ken, we got it: 1000nm at longrange speed in FL 370 with standard reserves are still possible.
Thank you!
- January 21, 2009 at 1:14 PM
- Ken Meyer said...
Freedom--I forgot to answer your question, sorry.
Until the sale closes the shops will be open for maintenance under EAC. Regular maintenance has been available throughout the Chapter 11 (they were closed for Xmas of course). Heck we got a nice EFIS upgrade (for free!) last week.
I'm assuming the shops will be assumed by EJ and stay open under their control, but Shane (or anybody else who wants to wade through the contract assumptions) can tell for sure.
Julius--yep, that was the point. You do lose some range, but you can still do 1000 nm with good reserves.
The funny thing is that owners found out about the carbon issue at Oshkosh. It was months later that the FAA finally issued the AD. We were flying the plane for months at and above FL 370 without any problems just by making sure the flow control valves didn't go into high.
It's a simple enough fix that owners had already instituted. Oh well. "Your government at work..."
- January 21, 2009 at 1:43 PM
- Shane Price said...
Assume nothing, until Roel makes some public announcements, and even then be very careful where you 'park' your bird.
Remember s/n 260....
I also hope you get something back from Shari's ConJet deposit.
Even if it's only a coupon for maintenance.
It would be a good idea if the lawyers present the video of Wedgies statements at Oshkosh to the judge next time. I'm sure Zoom will be happy to provide a copy. After all, he's down almost as much as you are in this mess.
- January 21, 2009 at 2:29 PM
- gadfly said...
". . . don't feel bad, I'm an American and I have no idea how our tax system works either".
Don't you love Tail.Dragger's comment? Oh, for a Luscombe "Silvaire" . . . to "float forever", and wonder if you'll ever again plant the main gear on the turf. (And "save us all" from a cross wind landing.)
There isn't one in a hundred, that has a "clue" as to what transpired yesterday . . . and I dare say, the same applies to what's going on in Albuquerque.
Ken talks endlessly, about the fuel economy of the little bird . . . May his tribe increase! . . . And maybe he'll eventually get his money's worth from his efforts. Hey, anything is possible!
B95 . . . who knows where he stands (or sits)?
Shane (he's the "good guy", the "Quiet Man") . . . he sits in an Irish Pub somewhere on that "Emerald Isle", of which dreams are made . . . overseeing a bunch of experts and clowns . . . May he forever maintain his Irish sense of humor, and keep his distance from all who claim to be experts on things that fly through the atmosphere. (Some of the "experts" seem to do a lot of flapping . . . we call them "bats".)
And then there's the "goat" . . . chewing and chewing on that famous can of beans. (We were once given some "chickens" . . . "layers", if you will, long past their retirement . . . I attempted to cook them, to no avail . . . finally gave them to the dog . . . even the dog gave up after a week of chewing . . . Goodyear would have paid big bucks for the recipe . . . ) "Goat", keep chewing, but you'll wear out your teeth before you get through that can of beans.
And then there's the "Eastern Element" . . . every night/early morning (GMT), we're treated to European thinking . . . "fred", do your thing and keep tabs on the Russian front . . . but most of what you say is shrouded in mystery to us who live on the western side of the pond.
Did you expect some great pronouncement from "the fly"? Sorry to disappoint, but with the "feds" closing in on the politicos that supported the little bird . . . we all watch from afar, amazed (but not surprised) at the events that transpire from day to day in the little Spanish town, by the Rio Grande.
- January 21, 2009 at 2:30 PM
- airtaximan said...
gadfly, in reading your post, I almost felt there should be music to those words!
This whole mess was "created" by looking at 2% here, 10 lbs there, instead of what really matters.
I've always felt some of the supportive comments here, were like the snake oil salesman pointing to the Elixer recipe, as if it really mattered what the ingredients to the Snake Oil was.
I've almost always said this was a big picture problem... the things that matter, make no sense at all -they never did...
- January 21, 2009 at 3:03 PM
- gadfly said...
"gadfly, in reading your post, I almost felt there should be music to those words! . . ."
airtaximan . . . you are so very close to things . . . 'wish I could say more!
Not five minutes ago, I bade farewell to my oldest son (having just returned, and passing through from another day of meetings in Santa Fe) . . . and there should be not just music, but a full symphony, in four movements to what I just learned.
Since I cannot share what I know, I'll merely state that "all is not well" in the future of some of those that hold high office in the "Land of Enchantment".
Life can be a most interesting journey, within the limits of God's creation . . . I'm so glad that He is in charge, and nothing is beyond His control.
Concerning coming attractions:
You will 'just have to wait. I've seen the preview . . . even I can't quite take it in . . . make sure you're sitting in the right section.
- January 21, 2009 at 3:22 PM
- airtaximan said...
if I somehow picked up one something... just call it:
"women's intermission"
Archie Bunker
- January 21, 2009 at 3:27 PM
- This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
- January 21, 2009 at 4:03 PM
- Shane Price said...
Snippet Time
1. Seems the PLG deal is not yet signed off, and is holding up other parts as well. Nothing serious, but I may have been a tad premature with my 'Sold' headline...
2. Regular reports reach me of an ongoing exodus from EAC. Not just troops, but engineers and specialist of all kinds. Those left behind are struggling to prepare for another round of Production Certification. It will be harder this time, without the 'Marion and Wedge' show....
3. Suppliers and depositors alike are not happy with the revised pricing being talked about by Roel. The former group think its too low to pay for the parts and the latter insist they won't pay more for an FPJ. Sounds like a difficult one to sort out.
- January 21, 2009 at 4:12 PM
- gadfly said...
We're playing with words, partly because we don't really know what's going on, but also because we hear enough to know that we shouldn't get too close to what we hear.
Have you ever been close to a truly large rattle snake? I have! The sound is enough to make you remember, and think twice about taking on the beast. At first, you 'just want to walk away . . . and let the thing do whatever it will do. And then, you see a little kid, playing in his own yard, not far away . . . and you think that maybe it's best to get rid of this large angry thing . . . and maybe save a life.
That was my choice, one day . . . and it is similar with the Eclipse. Left to its own devices . . . who cares! But others may be affected . . . and so it does matter what we do . . . we who see the danger, and may have some effect on the outcome.
Eclipse has done damage, financially to many people. Are the others guilty of negligence? . . . greed? . . . ignorance? . . . political ambition? . . . other? Sure, all of the above, and then some. But there are those, who do not even know about the little bird . . . and have been "stung" by this creature, without ever having known its presence. And I can do something about it . . . even if it is only something small. Sure, there are those like "Ken", that like this thing . . . and see it as a something good. But to those that don't understand how to handle a rattle snake (or a very light jet), it can be fatal.
(The "snake"? . . . it measured exactly 50 inches . . . not 49 ½ inches, nor 50 ½" . . . I discovered that you cannot stretch or shrink a snake. I took the thing home (dead, you know) . . . gave it to my oldest son, who sent it to a friend in Minnesota (frozen) . . . and it became a "belt". The snake was not happy about the events of that Sunday afternoon, but the story had a happy ending. Hey . . . someone will have a bigger snake story to tell, but for the "gadfly", it was plenty big, plenty mad, and plenty dangerous.)
- January 21, 2009 at 4:26 PM
- Niner Zulu said...
I see a few big red flags waving over the Eclipse sale, namely....
1) Roel's lack of experience in aviation. By the way, does anyone know if he is even a pilot?
2) the economy
3) the fact no other manufacturer would touch this deal, even at the bargain basement price for which it sold
Can't say I'm convinced that all is hunky dory in Eclipse land
- January 21, 2009 at 6:21 PM
- eclipse_deep_throat said...
yes, even my antennae are twitching with activity. "i got a bad feeling about this ...i got a bad feeling..." then the guy later gets creamed. ok. so mebbe i've seen Aliens about 100x too many times...
regarding your point #1, there seems to be A LOT missing from the Wikipedia bio on our dear Mr. Pieper; i would wager that he is not pilot. considering the few times that i've been in the same room with him, i got the vibe that he's cut from the Gordon Gekko cloth: someone who will chop up EAC into tiny little pieces if it suits his agenda. EAC = blue star airlines? hmmmm, on one level, the metaphor works. ok. i watched Wall Street about 100x also.
seriously, i think we have to put this in context. if ***I*** just shelled out $180 million for a company, well, i'd be filled with a mild form of humpf if people implied that i wasn't allowed to do what i want with it. Roel emigrated to France last year. ETIRC is based in Luxembourg. do the math. at least it was common knowledge that Wedge had/has a house on the Rio Grande. i bet Roel is living in a hotel when he is in Abq...
- January 21, 2009 at 7:18 PM
- chickasaw said...
US manufacturing is in a sad state. The Markin family still own Checker. I hate seeing family businesses going belly up.
- January 21, 2009 at 8:55 PM
- FreedomsJamtarts said...
Ken, Thanks for the update on the status of the MRO's.
- January 21, 2009 at 11:13 PM
- FreedomsJamtarts said...
Door number one.
a. Approve the deal on the table, but just walk away from your deposit FOREVER. Tell your friends at the country club bar how bad you were shafted.
You stand up straight, look yourself in the mirror and admit. "I made a mistake. This was always too good to be true. I didn't do due dilegence. My money is gone. How do I learn from this and move on."
Door number two.
b. Approve the deal on the table, and execute the option to pay another $1.375M cash for the jet. Tell your friends at the airport bar in Cabo how bad you were shafted.
" If I just believe enough, I can fly. They took $100K for a $985K twin jet certified in 2004 with delivery in 2005. I paid a $900K 60% deposit on a $1.6M twin jet without FIKI for a delivery in early 2008. Now if I just pay another $1.35M they promise that I can have a $2.8M jet on the tueday after full production restarts. I wonder whether I'll look more intelligent if I wear an airforce green flight suite or the leather bobmer jacket and jeans for the delivery flight. I must make a note to bring my new camera, so I can get a photo of the curvature of the earth and the blackness of space from FL410. Do I get astronaut wings for FL410?...."
Door number three
c. Approve the deal on the table, and NOT execute your contract option until later … pay somewhere around $2M more for your jet ... a price that is $400K to $600K more than this deal. Avoid the country club and airport bar because folks will be laughing at you.
I don't trust Piper further than I could spit him. He and those other crooks took me for nearly a Mill so far. Now they think they can take me for another Mill and a half. I don't even want the stupid POS, I was only taking a flutter on market. If I sign up, I can still play at the table, without putting do wn another dime. Gives me more time to unload my stake on one of those fools in the E5C club."
Would you like a Brooklyn bridge with order?
- January 21, 2009 at 11:50 PM
- fred said...
Edt :
technically speaking RP did not emigrate to France for 2 reasons :
Being E.U. , any citizen from any country within E.U. can settle anywhere within the boundaries of European Union .
there cannot be exception , with only a slight difference for new eastern states as their citizens can come freely but in some cases need to apply for Job-permit before getting a job ...
Within the E.U. , the tax-system is somehow good to be worked out...
as in France , the Tax laws prescribe to pay where you live (once you got your wages you declare how much you've earned and pay tax the year after)and some others tax-systems prescribe that you should pay where you work (tax paid directly out of wages on pay-slip like Germany)
so ...from far , i smell very well that the "French Domicile" has nothing to do with a wish (other than to have a nice and quiet life in a part of this country really nice ! hint : R. Pearl , the Bush's gray eminence of the Anti-French campaign when the US troops decided to go to Irak , is living there and declared on the F.TV-channel right in the heat of the hysteria "that for nothing in the world , i would leave my house in Provence "... go figure ...)
BUT with a Tax-evasion proceeding which happen to be legal , in this case ...!
i use the same ! the trick is to never stay 6 months in a row in any country where you "normally" live , this is very probably the explanation for RP "emigration"
- January 22, 2009 at 4:04 AM
- fred said...
the question about EAC should be :
anyone has seen any flag NOT being RED , lately ?
- January 22, 2009 at 4:08 AM
- airtaximan said...
thanks for doing the typing for me - I contemplated pretty much the same post...
A- learn from my mistakes
B- refuse to learn from my mistakes
Does anyone think RP would not offer MORE if somehow this deal fell apart? Do you think he could find more?
For me, the question is who will buy these planes at close to $3M? Answer almost no one. So what does it mater anyway?
I think if you remain in the ball game for this little plane, coupons and sicounts and all the schmoozing, you are just signing up to providing more deposit money to burn... aren't you?
If you REALLY want one of these, I am sure there's a bunch for sale in the aftermarket...for less risk and less money than ANY DEAL RP will offer you. You need to believe someone is going to be around to upgrade and support your e-jet - so? Just wait a while and see.
I would almost bet that there will be an EA50 for sale for ANYONE who wants one, very soon... and the 260 or so abortions, will continue to remain for sale angain and again, for anyone who cares to try one.
Approve the deal, but do not provide any more deposit omney, OR if you think RP has the capital to actually make a go of a $3M EA50 business plan, then wait him out and make him offer a greater deal.
Either way, unless you provide any more deposit money, it doesn't really matter.
- January 22, 2009 at 5:51 AM
- julius said...
how many "work in process" parts
are listed in the documents, passed to the judge?
These parts contain labour expenses and are the base for RP's restart - hmmmmm - proposal.
Take fasteners, which are not in the stock , but used in the a/cs!
If you add the WIP to the inventory stock, then RP and his CFO have collected a lot of value before they prevented the involuntary BK by filing their CH 11 sec 363 sale...
Unless there are no "implementing rules" for the coupons (new deposits, unsecured creditor...) RP might misunderstand all this as a chance for new ch 11 sec 363 sale...
As Fred said there are only red flags!
BTW: Zed's overview ist a little suggestive: Option c includes: I pay, when I am sure that EAI is stable and vital and not a balloon in the storm!
- January 22, 2009 at 6:30 AM
- Adam Hunt said...
Another article that may be of interest:
Eclipse Sale Approved By Russ Niles, AvWeb, January 20, 2009
- January 22, 2009 at 7:27 AM
- airtaximan said...
interesting little tidbit - how is ETRICK the largest single shareholder... IIRC, reports were that Al Mann put up a lot more than $150M...
Also, if $150M is the largest investor, I guess the position-holders, really are the largest investors, if they were a class or group??
I guess this is all "dead horse" stuff
- January 22, 2009 at 7:53 AM
- fred said...
Adam (or anyone ...)
in the news bit from AvWeb , it is said the RP proposal is XX + 160M$ shares ...
what shares are we talking about ?
Etrick = it's an empty shell , so where are the 160M$ ?
EAI = if it is the case , i have a firm to sale ... its value is 10 Times whatever you offer for it , you do a good deal ... you give me XXX in cash , i'll give ten times more in paper ... ;-)
- January 22, 2009 at 8:32 AM
- Deep Blue said...
9Z is right; there are many other flags but those are a few.
It should be clear to the Blog and any experienced businessman that RP/Etirc are focused strictly on a plan to raise capital from the "order book" and deposit holders to pay off their bridge loan (BTW, what happened to Etirc's/RP's loan in the BK?).
Since, as 9Z points out, no other OEM would touch EAC, and as the capital markets will not either, RP's only source, the only single source of fresh money, is from the deposit holders who may, he hopes, suffer from sunk cost fallacy ("I already put up $X, so I better protect my investment").
Etirc is not focused on, nor financed sufficiently, to actually re-start production, let alone service the plane and owners.
This is a sad, desperate attempt (and very naive) to rescue a venture investment, or lower the losses.
- January 22, 2009 at 8:56 AM
- Black Tulip said...
Deep Blue,
Antidote for the Sunk Cost Fallacy:
Every dollar lost is a hostage that has been shot.
- January 22, 2009 at 9:35 AM
- Adam Hunt said...
That is a very good question! I have posted links to three different articles here and they all say slightly different things:
* Eclipse press release: "$28 million in cash, plus promissory notes and equity for the assets of Eclipse Aviation"
* Associated Press: "$28 million in cash, issue $160 million in new notes and offer 15 percent equity in the company to senior secured note holders."
* AvWeb: "$28 million in cash, plus $160 million in shares and 15-percent equity in the company for secured shareholders"
"Notes", "promissory notes" and "shares" - not all the same, I think. Perhaps someone else can explain?
- January 22, 2009 at 9:56 AM
- Delbert Grady said...
I have a question for the Eclipse supporters or current owners....Is there really any "value proposition" anymore? I'm not trying to be silly either. I actually thought that Ken and others had a legitimate argument for the AC despite all the delays and short-comings. It was reasonably priced with the promise of JetComplete service and good performance numbers. Some may argue this but I for one believed it. However, can this argument be made by any of the so called "faithful" anymore? Would you still buy your plane today knowing that the price will likely be in the 2.5M range with probably no JetComplete (assumption on my part)? The only constant left is the efficiency. The rest of the proposition has changed, correct?
Which leads me to my next question....Why buy this plane? At least at this point in time. There seem to be similar alternatives that may be slightly more costly but with much better upside in other areas. For instance, if you had to pay $250-500K more and have a slightly less efficient Mustang, why not do that instead? Isn't the Eclipse uncertainty worth much more than the higher upfront cost and more expensive operating costs? Maybe a more important questions is why an Eclipse now? After all that has gone on in the last year, does someone so desperately need a jet today that they are willing to risk so much? Why not wait a few years to see if they can really turn this around. Make sure they can actually deliver and service planes. Establish some sort of successful track record. It just seems confusing to me at this point in time why anyone would want to be an Eclipse customer today. Maybe down the road.
I would really love to hear from some level headed supporters and not just the typical bashers since I already know what your answers will be (I think). Maybe I just have this totally wrong but to me many of these things seem to be rather simple questions I would ask myself if I was in the market. Please help me understand. After all, without customers, there will be no Eclipse V2.0.
- January 22, 2009 at 10:03 AM
- FreedomsJamtarts said...
You are really not helping. Clear thoughtful statements/ questions like that blow big holes in the smokescreen.
How is anybody to suspend belief, when reality comes knocking in the form of Grady Questions.
Repeat after Ken...
It was a value proposition at $750K and Jet complete.
It was a value proposition at $1.6M No, FIKI, No FMS, and looming BK.
It is still a value Proposition at $2.8M, G400 FMS, no support, no future.
For a limited time, you have have a free milkshake with your order.
Anyone who dares to venture otherwise is a hater, and has no clue about aviation, regardless how long they have been involved.
- January 22, 2009 at 10:14 AM
ATM, DB, 9Z, et al –
Per the Court record this week …
The terms of the sale were: DIP Paid + $28M + $160M in ETIRC Notes + 15% equity in EclipseJet
Recall that any other bidder would have to cover the DIP in addition to their winning bid.
The seller was really the Ad Hoc Committee of Senior Secured Noteholders, so they effectively get $28M plus whatever value exists in the ETIRC notes and EAI equity –minus– the $50K in cash and $30K in notes for each of the PLG jets actually sold –minus– the likely $3.2M they will pay the E400 depositors in the end –minus– their approximate $7.5M share of the burial fees (this number has been quoted between $1.25M and $7.5M, take a number you like).
So, in the end, the Ad Hoc Notes get maybe 3-cents on the dollar in cash, and a promise for another 24-cents on the new notes and equity. They swallow more than $400M in lost notes.
Regarding ETIRC'S 68-percent equity stake for $165M to that point … that was part of the deal signed by Eclipse back in 2007. Wedge needed money so badly that they began selling pieces of the house. The note holders weren't putting in new money, nor were the other big investors, so RP gets a big potential equity for $165M.
The Judge issued her final approval for the sale this morning, after 27 of the 28 PLG members accepted the deal. Those 27 will get the opportunity to buy their aircraft in order, and will pay additional deposits over time to be held in 3rd party escrow until delivery. The 28th party will pursue theyr adversary action separately.
If they win that action, they get their WIP #10, and can cart it away from EAI's hangar as scrap on a U-Haul.
It seemed that they didn't understand the Federal or NM state law, but they are adults who have made a choice.
- January 22, 2009 at 10:17 AM
- Ken Meyer said...
Delbert wrote, "Is there really any "value proposition" anymore?"
For whom?
Existing owners?--Sure. I'm flying to Mexico again this weekend--844 statute miles. At FL 370, the Eclipse will use less fuel than my 340 would have, and I'll arrive an hour and a half earlier in a lot better mood since I was in quiet, vibration-free comfort above the weather. Oh yes, I'm spending less on maintenance with for the Eclipse than I was for the 340.
For new buyers?--Only if they want a cost effective jet. Remember, the Mustang costs more upfront (less so than before, but it still costs more). The Mustang burns 35-40% more fuel every mile. It's certainly true that EclipseJet will have to fashion a competitive maintenance program with solid benefits in order to attract buyers from Cessna in light of the new, higher pricing of the Eclipse. They'll have to convince buyers that they're going to be a solid, dependable company that will survive for the long haul, and that will take some doing. But the plane is fundamentally more efficient than anything else out there, including the Mustang. That attracts guys like me and commercial operators for whom life or death revolves around the per-mile costs.
I think it's a valid point that potential buyers will want to wait for EJ to establish a track record. But, heck, nobody in the U.S. is buying jets right now anyway. In my opinion, EJ will have to sell much of their factory output abroad for a couple of years anyway until our market turns around.
In the meantime, they can and should be doing a lot to regain the confidence of the marketplace. We'll see if they do.
- January 22, 2009 at 10:37 AM
- Delbert Grady said...
Thanks Ken.
Next questions...Why do you assume that this jet is so desired abroad? Wouldn't these buyers be asking the same questions? In fact, IIRC, someone suggested the EASA jets would be even more expensive. Wouldn't that make this plane even less attractive? Also, let's say that it does take off abroad and the US appetite is still small, does that spell doom for ABQ? Why have such expansive facilities here when all the demand is elsewhere?
- January 22, 2009 at 10:56 AM
- FreedomsJamtarts said...
So where is this overseas demand to come from?
Europe? In recession.
Russia? Economy tanked with Oil price.
Middle east? Ditto.
Asia? Weren't buying before, why start now?
South America? Ditto.
- January 22, 2009 at 11:11 AM
- Adam Hunt said...
Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed explanation.
The only part I am not clear about then is who holds the "$160M in ETIRC Notes"?
- January 22, 2009 at 11:13 AM
- airtaximan said...
"That attracts guys like me and commercial operators for whom life or death revolves around the per-mile costs."
there ain't one commercial operator that is surviving on the EA50, Ken. Not one. and the worst end fot he market now is the light jet catergory - the VLJ category is nonexixtent at this point.
Please remove needle from arm before posting such wildass BS.
- January 22, 2009 at 11:22 AM
- Shane Price said...
Good questions, all of them.
Ken agrees (as we all do) that the MARKET for very small jets has tanked.
Ken agrees, as we all do, that it will take some time for EAI to establish itself.
Ken agrees (this is REALLY novel) that the Mustang will appeal to many more of the same customers now than heretofore.
But you both seem to think that the market is booming 'abroad' for this bird.
Well, I don't agree with either of you.
This bird is a turkey. It's as reliable as a turkey, flies like a turkey (very rarely) and looks like a turkey.
The old company was a scam, pure and simple. They took money, right to the very end, and KNEW they could not deliver on their promises. I heard Roel say he would take deposits at a time he was refusing refunds.
Ken knew this, but at the same time was trying to sell his second FPJ position. Which cost him $150,000 And we also note that his wife lost a ConJet deposit.
Which cost her $100,000
You'd imagine the Meyer's would have learned their lesson, but no, Ken continues to talk about 'fuel burn'.
Ken, you're down almost a quarter of a MILLION bucks and counting. Shari might, just might, get a few dollars back if you can put your hand on the video evidence, and I wish you every success.
But $250,000 would buy you enough fuel for a Mustang to go around the world. Lots of times.
So Delbert, back to your original question.
Who would pay EAI any money?
My two cents. A sucker, with no internet connection and more money than sense.
Since Ken has an internet connection, I presume he'll not be buying another FPJ.
Will you, Ken? Show your 'faith' in the new company, take the coupon, stump up the difference and order another?
Go on, we know you can do it...
After all, you guys seemed to need not one, not two but THREE very small jets.
- January 22, 2009 at 11:30 AM
- Delbert Grady said...
Shane said...."But you both seem to think that the market is booming 'abroad' for this bird."
Never said that. In fact I was questioning the validity of the "abroad" market. Please re-read my post.
- January 22, 2009 at 11:42 AM
- Black Tulip said...
ALBUQUERQUE, NM - January 22, 2009 - Today, Eclipse Aviation announced that one key asset had been overlooked by Judge Mary Walrath of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in approving the sale of its assets for a combination of cash, equity and debt to EclipseJet Aviation International. The oversight may cause the case to be reopened, an unusual circumstance.
The error was discovered by a member of the Ad Hoc Committee, composed of owners and depositors. A spokesman said, "We suddenly realized that the recipe was lost in the transfer from Eclipse to EclipseJet. You might ask what recipe? Well, I hesitate to use the word Kool Aid because of the Jonestown connotation. "
"This is very important and potent stuff," he continued. "Over the last decade, when things got tough Vern Raburn would always dispense a little bit to each of us. It took us through the ten percent phase, to putting sixty percent up, and for many of us… a dandy little jet. I don't know about the ingredients, but it sure does work."
He sighed, "I woke up this morning and the afterglow of the inauguration is wearing off. I wanted a little Eclipse pick-me-up. I called Albuquerque and they told me that they are down to about a dozen doses and they are only dispensing those to the real true believers and the most heavily addicted. We're all calling the judge; she's gotta help us out."
- January 22, 2009 at 12:08 PM
- Ken Meyer said...
Shane--you're mixing apples and oranges, and coming up with...goulash! :)
What I deposited with Eclipse Aviation, Inc. has nothing to do with whether the Eclipse 500 is a good plane or not (and incidentally your comment about its reliability was IMHO pure kaka).
Everybody in the world knows that EAC's customers, suppliers and employees got the short end because of mismanagement and deception. But that has nothing to do with how good the plane is. It turns out that it's a real good design. There will probably not be a nicer, more cost-effective twin jet delivered in our lifetime.
EAC is gone. What they did or didn't do no longer matters except to guys who live in yesterday-land, always reminiscing about the $1 million jet Vern Raburn once promised.
You're a lousy moderator if you don't see that. Yes, we'll look to hold the old company responsible for its actions, but what really matters now is what happens going forward.
I don't live in yesterday. I'm happy with today. And I'm very happy with the plane I'm flying these days.
P.S. You sure blew it on the 400 group, didn't you?
- January 22, 2009 at 12:48 PM
- Niner Zulu said...
Please remove needle from arm before posting such wildass BS.
Airtaximan, thanks for the laugh! Bestline of the day!
Getting back to comparisons - the annual cost of fuel and maintenance between an E500 and a Mustang is so really so small for most pilots that it is not even worth considering in the decision-making process.
You're only talking about - what - 30gph max difference between the E500 and the Mustang? Using an average 120/hrs per year that most pilots fly, that's around $18,000. Big deal.
I don't think the Eclipse was ever a "value". The cheap, early ones needed too many retrofits. The later ones cost a lot more and have already dropped some $300,000-$400,000 in price.
So where is the value?
- January 22, 2009 at 12:51 PM
- gadfly said...
Your turkey analogy is correct, provided you are thinking of the "domestic/commercial" turkeys. Every year, the President grants a stay of execution to the "White House" turkey . . . but the press rarely reports that the domestic turkey does not live a long life . . . a few months at best . . . they are way over "MTOW". . . and what's that other requirement? . . . Oh yeh, . . . Endurance in "flight". And I'm sure there's something in there about "stir fried turkey" . . . but I'll leave that for another day.
(An American Indian comedian once said that Columbus was looking for India . . . so identified the American aborigines, "Indians", by mistake. The same comedian said he was glad that Columbus was not looking for "Turkey".)
(Good design? . . . I still remember the "Brandywine" turkey, with drumsticks poking through the wings!)
- January 22, 2009 at 1:02 PM
- julius said...
I don't live in yesterday. I'm happy with today. And I'm very happy with the plane I'm flying these days.
that is your point of view.
Fact is, that nobody - apart from RP rep. the EAC owners - was really interested in EAC.
In other words there is no futher investor how believes in EAC's "tomorrow"!
Perhaps RP has to learn a lesson even it sounds like a bad joke: if the 27 (or so) 60% depositor take "their" WIP stuff on trailers he will not only lose some money and some time for ramping up! It would be just bad luck like the "s/n 260 sale"...
P.S.: Ken, my impression is, that you personlly do not need FIKI and AVIO NG?
- January 22, 2009 at 1:43 PM
- Ken Meyer said...
AT wrote, "the worst end fot he market now is the light jet catergory - the VLJ category is nonexixtent at this point."
Not according to today's ARG/US report. Among Part 135 operators, large cabin flight activity decreased a whopping 44% compared to the previous year. Small cabin flight activity dropped HALF AS MUCH (22.1%).
"According to ARG/US vice president Shirley Mason, program manager for the TraqPaq program that is licensed to track aircraft arrival and departure information for all IFR flights in the U.S., the drop in overall large business jet flight activity is due mainly to reduced charter activity among large jets. Organizations are choosing to charter smaller airplanes because of the cost savings, she said."
Smaller, more cost-effective airplanes are the way the market is going. Would you happen to know which jet is the most cost-effective by any chance?
It appears it is you who posted the BS, AT.
P.S. You need a spell-checker pretty badly
- January 22, 2009 at 1:54 PM
- gadfly said...
"EAC is gone. What they did or didn't do no longer matters except to guys who live in yesterday-land, always reminiscing about the $1 million jet Vern Raburn once promised."
You may wish to rethink your statement.
It isn't the jet that Vern promised . . . we can all agree on that. But it is the jet that was designed, redesigned, and designed again . . . a few years back, put together by a "green" crew, that did not have the skills and knowledge that we would expect and require from any other company.
So, as long as you continue to fly in the little bird from ABQ, you are by default, forever locked into those early unfulfilled promises, and the less than excellent quality, put in place by employees with questionable skills, managed by people of questionable ethics.
Shane has been an "excellent" moderator . . . perfect? No! But for an Irishmen he is absolutely "OK" . . . and coming from a "Scot", that's a high compliment.
(Oh . . . then there's that little part about not having gone through life cycle testing. But then, we have you to thank, . . . conducting those experiments on the behalf of Eclipse. But personally, I would rather do that in a lab, 'having "been-there-done-that".)
- January 22, 2009 at 1:57 PM
- TBMs_R_Us said...
Organizations are choosing to charter smaller airplanes because of the cost savings, she said
We'll all be holding our breaths waiting to see who is the first commercial operator to embrace the EA50, now that EAC is gone and the new team is in place, and given that the EA50 is such a well equipped and reliable aircraft (forgot to mention, fuel efficient). Please keep us posted as to these great new developments!
- January 22, 2009 at 2:45 PM
TBM, others ...
Regarding what happens now.
In many ways this is a rehash of what other have posted since November.
The EAC team is in place until the closing. The sale order is NLT 30 January, but it could and should happen earlier.
After the closing, expect the new owners to arrive bright and early with the "transition team" and begin two processes: (1) inserting a management team to run EAI, and (2) taking stock of everything they bought under "substantially all assets".
Then, eventually whatever is left of EAC as a closed/sold company will be liquidated.
The Secured Note Holders will run that process, as they get the first ~$400M or so from the proceeds ... which they will be lucky if it hits $1M not counting all of those collectors items t-shirts.
- January 22, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Adam asked ... The only part I am not clear about then is who holds the "$160M in ETIRC Notes"?
The Senior Secured Note Holders who used to own EAC and sold it to EAI (we can get the names from the record) will have the paper as a souvenier of a deal gone bad.
- January 22, 2009 at 3:21 PM
- Shane Price said...
P.S. You sure blew it on the 400 group, didn't you?
But, unlike you, this scam has not cost ME a quarter of a million dollars....
That's the real killer with Chapter 11. Everything is out in the open. I could post headlines for the rest of the year with the material which poured out of that process.
But I won't.
The next few weeks will be really interesting. Several articles are on the way, from many parts of the globe. All with different approaches, points of view and with one common purpose.
Illuminate the dark corners.
Illustrate the mistakes.
Inform the 'illiterate'.
Even, possibly, provide the video evidence you need to mitigate your losses.
Sorry, Shari's losses.
Did I mention how much this mess has cost you, recently?
Let's see. If you were flying a Mustang, average hours, and spend $18,000 per annum extra on JetA , your $250,000 loss would be 13 years and 10 months flying.
Now, I'm prepared to offer you a small bet.
I'll pay for the pint of Guinness if you're still flying your FPJ in 13 years.
When YOU break even on this 'value proposition'...
- January 22, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Ken Meyer said...
EAC is gone. What they did or didn't do no longer matters except to guys who live in yesterday-land, always reminiscing about the $1 million jet Vern Raburn once promised.
You're a lousy moderator if you don't see that.
So all those *YEARS* you spent defending the company's actions, accepting the delusions they fed you, you just wave away with your hand. It's all in the "past" now, huh?
You are some piece of work, to have been so wrong about something, defended it so vigorously, and then call others "lousy". If it upsets you that people remind you of this, well, that's the bed you made!
- January 22, 2009 at 4:11 PM
- WhyTech said...
"I'll pay for the pint of Guinness if you're still flying your FPJ in 13 years."
I'll buy you a pint of Guinness everyday for a year if ANYONE is still flying your Eclipse 500 in 13 years!
- January 22, 2009 at 4:12 PM
- WhyTech said...
"Your turkey analogy is correct, provided you are thinking of the "domestic/commercial" turkeys. "
Not to be confused with domestic/wild turkeys. Our woods are home to a flock of about 50 of these creatures, and they are superb flyers. QUite a sight when they all decide to levitate at the same time.
- January 22, 2009 at 4:19 PM
WhyTech ... define "flying" ... I am considering a side bet.
Something to ponder ... Is the PW610F subject to a carbon-neutral surcharge when operated above 37,000 feet?
Should those depositors still planning to take deliver just start planting trees now?
- January 22, 2009 at 4:23 PM
- gadfly said...
No, Zed . . . they don't count unless you buy them from Al Gore . . . only "his" are certified to remove carbon from the atmosphere.
(The word is that termites are the biggest source of carbon emissions . . . How does one control a termite fart?)
- January 22, 2009 at 4:28 PM
- WhyTech said...
"WhyTech ... define "flying"
In airworthy condition under the regulations of the country in which it is registered and routinely operated at least 100 hours per year. No "Wright Bros" stunt flights (120 ft)to collect the Guinness!
- January 22, 2009 at 4:29 PM
- airtaximan said...
"UBS: Business Jet Flight Activity Down 11% YTD
By Chad Trautvetter
January 6, 2009
Business Aviation
UBS Investment Research's recently issued business jet update indicates that flight activity, measured by takeoffs and landings, was 10 percent lower in November on a rolling 12-month basis and down 11 percent year-to-date. According to UBS analyst David Strauss, the decline has been led by reduced charter activity, which dipped 15 percent in November, while all other business jet activity fell 9 percent.
Domestic business jet flight activity dropped 11 percent in November and international flight activity declined 4 percent, UBS said. Light jets logged the largest year-to-date decline in flight activity (14 percent lower), though midsize and large-cabin jet traffic also fell by 8 percent and 9 percent, respectively.
However, there were notable exceptions to these averages in the UBS data showing activity by aircraft type–Gulfstream III/G300/G350 flight activity plummeted by 24.2 percent year-to-date; Citation CJ2 activity increased by 2.5 percent over the period; and Challenger 300 and Gulfstream G100/G150 flights increased by 14 percent and 13.1 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, UBS reiterated its warning that fewer sources of aircraft financing, a large increase in pre-owned aircraft on the market and a decline in flight activity "presage what we think will be a significant slowing in new aircraft demand."
So Ken, believe and rad into any report you want what you wish, but accuse me of BS at your own peril. I for one would triple check and BS you provide on this blog, or anywhere else - which in FACT provides your own conflicting opinion from time to time.
So, call ME on BS and suffer at your own pen - cite my arthritic typig, and so what, you are nothing really but a big time loser - as everyone else here points out, you lost your ass on this business deal and plane. I for one, defend youropinion from time to time... but the latest makes me think....
You are at you old HOPEFUL tricks that someone will make the same dumb risk-laden moves you have made, and end up with the POS you call a jet.
Back off - my data, knowledge and reports are the reaosn you alomst lost $10,000 more dollars two years ago, when I refuted your order book claims.
You've lost your ass, and been very wrong a lot of the time. Stick to minute details regardng the plane, which are irrelevant. Stick to spelling, stick to things that matter least... you are best at that.
Spend more time seeking the truth and finding out why you got stiffed again and again.... oh no... you will just try to divert the truth, to find another idiot who could possible provide funding in the form of deposits, so you might continue to obtain MRO...
how sad.
- January 22, 2009 at 4:46 PM
- airtaximan said...
PS. KEn, if you want to know why ARG/US data is inaccurate, just ask... its simple. It may not help your stupid thinking, but its simple. Everyone in the industry knows why - its SIMPLE.
- January 22, 2009 at 4:47 PM
WhyTech -
... In airworthy condition ...
There you go ruining my dream of 365 doses of pure enjoyment.
Gad -
Itty bitty corks.
- January 22, 2009 at 4:52 PM
- airtaximan said...
"Everybody in the world knows that EAC's customers, suppliers and employees got the short end because of mismanagement and deception. But that has nothing to do with how good the plane is. It turns out that it's a real good design. There will probably not be a nicer, more cost-effective twin jet delivered in our lifetime."
Ken, THIS QUALIFIES AS THE DUMBEST COMMENT EVER POSTED ON THIS BLOG.
including all the ones I posted with misspelled words and lousy punctuation.
- January 22, 2009 at 4:57 PM
- Ken Meyer said...
Shane, lots of people were hurt by the Eclipse reorganization. But it is surprising that you seem to want to celebrate other people's bad luck. Is that really what honorable people do in Ireland?
I think I tuned into the wrong channel. Ring me up sometime when you become a regular guy again.
- January 22, 2009 at 5:10 PM
- baron95 said...
Is any one missing the main fact here?
Someone just put in another $38M-$48M of hard cash into the EA500 venture. And these are the very people and their associates that have the most inside info and that you guys accuse of scamming people.
So, you have to assume that they have a very good plan to get much more than the $38M-$48M back, right?
So everyone needs to settle down and let things play out. It will take time, but odds are that Roel and co have a plan that will keep the EA500 alive for quite a bit longer.
So this Blog, apparently, will live for quite a lot longer.
- January 22, 2009 at 5:48 PM
- Black Tulip said...
Now let's go easy on Ken. He's only got a few more cups of Vern's Kool Aid left... then he's gotta go cold turkey.
- January 22, 2009 at 5:52 PM
- Ken Meyer said...
AT--Just remember, in the end, I fly a very nice jet. And you fly a desk.
Is there anything else anybody really needs to know? :)
I gotta sign off a while, guys. I'm going flying. And it isn't a desk I'm flying. Or a computer screen full of nasty words from jealous people. You obviously wanted a ghetto here where nobody ventures. Well, you got it!
See ya!
- January 22, 2009 at 6:13 PM
- WhyTech said...
"So, you have to assume that they have a very good plan "
I dont have to assume anything. These are mostly the same people who participated in blowing at least $3 billion on EAC prior to this; yep, very good plan!
- January 22, 2009 at 7:31 PM
- bill e. goat said...
Hi Ken,
Glad you came back for a bit- have a nice flight to Mexico.
Sorry you lost the $250K+$100K, but I suspect your delivery price was low enough it was still a tolerable exchange.
I think we're all happy your plane is flying okay too, and hope it continues to be reliable.
Please keep us posted on how it's working out, and how the new company treats you.
- January 22, 2009 at 7:35 PM
- bill e. goat said...
You beat me to the punch on that $3B analogy!!
- January 22, 2009 at 7:36 PM
- bill e. goat said...
Well Baron !!
"So everyone needs to settle down and let things play out."
"It will take time, but odds are that Roel and co have a plan that will keep the EA500 alive for quite a bit longer".
"So this Blog, apparently, will live for quite a lot longer".
(Hey, 2 out of 3 ain't bad- looks like we're starting to converge!!:)
- January 22, 2009 at 7:41 PM
- bill e. goat said...
Hello Bassmaster,
"Barron not only would some bloggers like to see a criminal case..."
"I'm afraid they'd like to see an accident!"
(Please- really now).
"Mr. Price you said there are no legitimate depositors that simply wanted an affordable jet".
Well, I missed that part. But IMHO, over 2/3 of the airplanes were going to be "flipped".
"Ludicrous! You think they are all suckers".
Well, they WERE all suckers.
And WEDGE did the suckering.
You might even say he SUCKS.
"They would tell you to screw yourself".
Mr. Bass, it sounds like that is what YOU would like to say...How come?
"These are folks that have provided info to you".
Mmmm, yes...and ??
"I don't get it. For any depositor that reads this blog realize that Mr Price thinks your a worthless sucker!"
Bass, you are out in the weeds here. WEDGE treated the depositors like worthless suckers. WHY are transferring hostility to Shane??
What did Wedge do? Screwed hundreds of people out of thousands of millions of dollars.
What did Shane do? Well, re-read the headline post for this thread:
"So, if you are one of those who's serial number is lower than 296, and you have paid your deposit/progress payments, but have NOT been represented by a lawyer, contact me promptly and I'll email you the appropriate details. But be QUICK. You have until 12 noon ET tomorrow to agree to the 'deal' and get included in this part of the Court documents. The usual address will get me at ..."
Bass, if you are at all rational, you will acknowledge Wedge (NOT Shane) "damaged" the customers, and substantially so. Accidentally, or intentionally, TBD (and I DO hope the matter IS evaluated in a court of law- probably multiple courts of law. It deserves to be, given the magnitude and consistency of the damaging actions, whether through blithering incompetence, or deliberate malfeasance, I'm not sure which- of if both, apply. But I trust it WILL come out in court).
- January 22, 2009 at 7:43 PM
baron95 said...
Someone just put in another $38M-$48M of hard cash into the EA500 venture. And these are the very people and their associates that have the most inside info and that you guys accuse of scamming people.
They are also the same people that, almost exactly 12 months ago and with inside information, put in something more than $100M thinking that would save the company. Otherwise, they would be better off having it go bankrupt then and buy the pieces rather than lose $100M in the process.
How did that plan turn out?
So why do you think the outlook is better now? It is much worse with injured vendors lying all about and no production going on.
So, you have to assume that they have a very good plan to get much more than the $38M-$48M back, right?
Where was their plan for the $100M investment? Why do you presume there is a plan now that will work?
It will take time, but odds are that Roel and co have a plan that will keep the EA500 alive for quite a bit longer.
Jack prices on service centers (captive customers), don't restart ABQ production (just a money waster), "sell" factory machines and jigs to Russia (transfer any value out of the country and company), let EAI go bankrupt *again* to kill those $160M in notes and any other obligations (but EAI will be just a worthless shell by that time), attempt a restart in Russia as a new company, which will ultimately fail as well because the fundamentals stink no matter where it is made.
That's the plan! Anybody who thinks otherwise is a dreamer who has been suckered in by Roel's salesmanship. Now sit back and watch it play out.
- January 22, 2009 at 9:40 PM
- FreedomsJamtarts said...
Since Ken is so fond of narrow pedantic answers limited to the strict interpretation of the words, rather than the intent of what was said, I must offer this rebuttal to his comment:
There will probably not be a nicer, more cost-effective twin jet delivered in our lifetime.
There is, it is the 777!
- January 22, 2009 at 11:14 PM
- fred said...
Please don't be so hard on our Kenny !
(if he wants to sell off his bird , he need to "entertain a bit" potential buyers ...)
This RP is the last hope for the shadow of the dream that he wasn't so wrong into buying Fpj and that what he is saving in fuel is going to be TOTALLY erased by maintenance-costs ...! IF there is any kind of service ... so far his only hope for an hypothetical future on Fpj is : RP ... !
- January 22, 2009 at 11:55 PM
- julius said...
good morning or later,
you right,
"our" Ken is once and a while in "self protection mode".
He doesn't know anything about his fpj's future: AVIO NG 1.5, FIKI,
maintenace - after full EASA cert, after UWLW ramp up or closure...
Looking into the mirror, thinking about the blog's hints about the wedge and EAC's development - hmmmm - not so brilliant.
Anyhow he says he is lucky with his plane, without FIKI and AVIO NG 1.5 - just his point of view.
The non-auction is another indicator for non-emotionally linked bloggers...
We will see the final ruling of the judge and RP's actions!
P.S.: When will EAI offer SV, which will be standard in the sub $1M piston class and is standard in the VLJ class... nada
- January 23, 2009 at 3:24 AM
- Black Tulip said...
I believe Ken has perfected Synthetic Vision... for himself, if not his airplane.
- January 23, 2009 at 5:19 AM
- WhyTech said...
"S/N: 100, Under Full Factory Warranty"
The above from a Controller listing today. I havent paid close enough attention to know if the service centers are honoring warranties on the EAC 500. My guess is that these are likely history, or soon will be.
- January 23, 2009 at 5:31 AM
- This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
- January 23, 2009 at 5:56 AM
WhyTech stated ... I haven't paid close enough attention to know if the service centers are honoring warranties on the EAC 500.
You are correct. From the November 28 edition of the blog that directly quoted the letter from EAC to their customers :
Warranty - Warranties are no longer covered by the new company, post petition. Any and all maintenance work performed on aircraft will be on a time and materials basis during debtor-in-possession operations. The new company must decide if it will honor any part of past warranties. Any outstanding warranty claims submitted pre-petition will not be honored by Eclipse or the new company.
(close quote)
RP stated in court that "none of them" would be honored. They will get some coupon for their warranty ... or was that a warranty on their coupon?
So, SN- 100 might need a reminder what the words "truth in advertising" ... or maybe make a caveat to that emptor.
- January 23, 2009 at 5:57 AM
- julius said...
Black Tulip,
yes, this SV was included in the 60% deposit resp. 10% deposit for the frankenstein as "security".
But - like nearly everything with EAC - it is unreliable as someone asked for refund...
P.S.: It's still partially active as there are some 60%er who believe resp. insist that RP/EAI must sell fpjs at prices below costs....
- January 23, 2009 at 6:04 AM
- fred said...
Gutten tag , Julius ...
yes , our Kenny is acting a bit weird , sometimes ...
as anyone would or could believe anymore anything going thru RP's lips ... ;-)
but to his defense , i must admit that it can be a terrible moment to be in front of your pair to say "yes , i have been wrong !"
- January 23, 2009 at 6:22 AM
- fred said...
Baron ...
i leaning to feel that you are grossly wrong on something ...
it is only a matter of opinion , obviously yours and mine are opposite ...
with all the stunts previously done by the Merry-band , it is not really hard to imagine a little scenario :
RP + Etrick got control over EAC after a missed payment ...
payment for what ? since Etrick was passing orders on fpj by the hundreds , it should have been the other way round ...
how many chances the money offered in the bid was actually EAC money ? transfered along to Etrick as one of the many "duties" of EAC toward Etrick (once again , this is a miracle in wonderland : one of the biggest buyers get paid ???HOW ?)
OFF-COURSE , this is ONLY speculations , but who could be surprised by such a move ?
in fact it would be quite clever !
Wedge + RP smelling that situation was totally out of control , managed to find a way to keep control over EVERYTHING while washing away 3 Billions $ of poop , due service , past bills ,due contracts and warranties ...
the only one thing not under their direct control = Judge decision !
which would be a very good explanation for the timing and all the BS RP has done before court earing ...
it would be very clever in the way that it would have "saved" a bit of the cash EAC had still left from the deposits ...
manage to keep this cash in a stunt with Etrick ...
cash that would have been shared in between creditors in case of a involuntary BK ...
and use that very money to buy the very same firm at the origin of the funds , with all liabilities gone in the process
Keeping what can have any form of a value in an official manner !
unfortunately , i fail to see any good in the Cash offered in the Bid ...
even if this little scenario is NOT valid , it sounds EXACTLY like the Russian who just bought the Second Biggest UK newspaper for a total price of ONE$ and 30 Cts , the remaining and most important question is NOT what is paid ...
in the case of Fpj and EAC/EAI , i would say that 28Millions$ in cash is only about a good joke , a few meals in fancy restaurants and a DESPERATE NEED for some more cash REAL SOON !!!
the Bonds , Promissory notes and shares having about the same value as the toilet-paper they are written on ...!
i told you before , i think it is a great gift to see always the good side of things ...
the last question should be : is there any good side in this mess ?
- January 23, 2009 at 6:48 AM
- WhyTech said...
"So, SN- 100 might need a reminder what the words "truth in advertising" ... or maybe make a caveat to that emptor."
Roughly half of the 23 listings on Controller are for positions, including this gem:
"S/N: 722, TBD, IFR, Only asking $25k over deposit. 3Q 2009 With FIKI, Avio NG, and more. Be the envy of the early owners! "
Can there be anyone on the (aviation) planet who does not yet know of the demise of EAC? Caveat Emptor indeed!
- January 23, 2009 at 7:31 AM
- Shane Price said...
Anyone able to help?
Seems there is extensive interest in the legal profession. Several have contacted me for the following:-
Would anyone have a listing of the officers at EAC (name, position) and their start dates?
Answers to the usual address
- January 23, 2009 at 8:12 AM
Shane -
Will take a little digging but that's why they have junior associates and paralegals ... but a trip through the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org will produce some of the desired results ... including the press anouncements for some of the major players.
- January 23, 2009 at 8:32 AM
- baron95 said...
Flyger said... Where was their plan for the $100M investment?
Isn't it obvious?
Certify the final config EA500 (FIKI, EASA, NG1.5), secure the Russian investment, pump out a few more jets and get a few more deposits without a whole lot of money going out, trim the staff, get rid of Vern.
I'd say they accomplished it all brilliantly.
Now, they might have had a secondary goal of securing additional financing, and in that they failed.
As for the plan for the $38M. Clean slate reboot, with their choice of which contracts to keep. Also accomplished.
Now give them some time, and lets see what the new phase will bring.
As for chances of success, AGAIN, I repeat myself. EJ will, like every other independent GA company, ALWAYS be teetering on the edge. Nothing new there.
So if you measure success the same way you do for Mooney, and Piper, and Adam, and Columbia (pre Cessna), and Cirrus, etc, that is your range of success/failure. I'd say EJ is about middle of the pack.
- January 23, 2009 at 8:34 AM
- Black Tulip said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- January 23, 2009 at 8:43 AM
- Black Tulip said...
Former employees will seek plausible deniability. I suspect the search will show that Eclipse Aviation had no officers or directors. It just ran on autopilot (heading mode only with no altitude hold).
"One lawyer in a small town will starve to death; two can make a very nice living."
- January 23, 2009 at 8:55 AM
- AvidPilot said...
Ken said AT--Just remember, in the end, I fly a very nice jet. And you fly a desk. Is there anything else anybody really needs to know? :) I gotta sign off a while, guys. I'm going flying. And it isn't a desk I'm flying. Or a computer screen full of nasty words from jealous people. You obviously wanted a ghetto here where nobody ventures. Well, you got it! See ya!
Like I said - arrogant, condescending and a braggart. Delusional also fits.
- January 23, 2009 at 8:59 AM
- AvidPilot said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- January 23, 2009 at 9:05 AM
- sparky said...
this wouldn't happen to be the same Ken Meyer that was asking for money to help sue the manufacturer of the workds greatest jet only a short while ago
- January 23, 2009 at 9:44 AM
- Black Tulip said...
Ken's airplane and my desk are similar. Neither has a complete flight director, autopilot, avionics suite or known ice approval. My airplane is so equipped.
- January 23, 2009 at 9:49 AM
- sparky said...
you keep saying that eclipse is just like any other aircraft company.
Are you conciously choosing to overlook the fact that they called up progress payments after first flight, knowing full well that they would have to re-engine the aircraft and could not deliver on ANY of their promises?
You have one of two choices here. Admit that they deliberately lied to customers about delivery possabilities, which makes them VERY different from any other manufacturer. Or admit that they didn't have a clue as to how much thrust it would take to keep this thing in the air, which again makes them not only different, but dangerous as well.
Which is it?
- January 23, 2009 at 9:51 AM
- baron95 said...
I am on record here, multiple times, stating that Eclipse:
a - had depositor/position holder agreements that were very one-sided.
b - took full and at times unfair advantage of those agreements (e.g. calling for progress payments based on projected production rates they were nowhere close to achieving.
c - used every trick in the book to conserve cash outlays and increase cash inlays to stretch the company from funding round to funding round.
What else is new? As Ken said, move on. How many times can we discuss a first flight event that took place 5 years ago?
At THIS TIME, Eclipse Jet is just like ANY independent GA company: chronically under capitalized, on the verge of going into Ch 11 or just emerging from it, looking for funding or a buyer.
Eclipse Jet has just as big a chance of closing its door tomorrow as Piper and Mooney.
- January 23, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Just heard about this today.
An existing Eclipse owner desparately looking for a way to access replacement parts outside the EAC system contacted Aircraft Spruce and Specialty in Southern California. He spoke with a nice young lady at the parts desk explaining that he would like a new gas cap for his Eclipse 500. She admitted that she did not know much about the Eclipse but that she would check with her supervisor if he would be kind enough to hold the line. She came back 3 minutes later and said that her supervisor felt that would be a fair trade, but only if it was an NG with the LX package and that he would have to deliver it to their ramp at Corona Airport.
- January 23, 2009 at 11:33 AM
- gadfly said...
Me thinks you just made our day!
(Don't tell Ken . . . you'd break his heart, not to mention his ego!)
- January 23, 2009 at 12:10 PM
- Black Tulip said...
Your story brings to mind one told in the South. A woman enters a hardware store in Louisiana looking for a 'little brass hinge'. The clerk helps her sort through the various sizes until she finds the one she needs. He then asks, "Would you like a screw for that hinge." She pauses, looks around wistfully and replies, "No, not for the hinge but maybe for that blender over there."
- January 23, 2009 at 12:18 PM
- Dave said...
Here's an aviation job listing I ran across today if anyone is interested:
- January 23, 2009 at 1:08 PM
- FaithFul said...
As an ex-eclipser, one who met you and your lovely wife on more occasions than once- give it up.
It is an unsafe plane, and it was an even riskier investment.
Take the loss. Get out.
- January 23, 2009 at 1:51 PM
- sparky said...
No baron, you've been spouting this drivel since you first logged in.
I'm not going to argue the point with you, as you have obviously NEVER been wrong in any of your assertations.
- January 23, 2009 at 1:54 PM
- airsafetyman said...
"..chronically under capitalized, on the verge of going into Ch 11 or just emerging from it, looking for funding or a buyer."
You mean just like Delta or United Airlines, or GM, or Ford or about any company that is not propped up by an overblown defense budget delivering crap for the taxpayer dollar?
- January 23, 2009 at 2:06 PM
- gadfly said...
"How many times can we discuss a first flight event that took place 5 years ago?"
That is both an interesting and revealing statement.
The Bible speaks of people that build a house on "sand", and the ultimate results. And here we are encouraged to "move on", as if that early indication of the honesty/foundations of Eclipse are to no longer be considered.
The basic philosophy upon which any organization is founded will, forever and ever, influence/infect each and every following decision of that organization . . . forever!
That first flight revealed everything a person needed to know about Eclipse. Everything that followed confirmed that first revelation.
It revealed the underlying true nature of those who were in charge, and managed "Eclipse" . . . it doesn't take genius to figure out this simple basic principle.
It also reveals much about anyone who attempts to say, "move on", as if the basic foundation of sand, has no relevance in the present.
Some will attempt to reverse the issue . . . claiming that some of us wish for the aircraft to suffer a fatal crash.
Actually, a fatal crash will occur . . . sooner or later, and some of us are doing what we can to prevent that from happening. But when it happens (not "if"), there will be some that will make the false accusations . . . so be it. The more that the little bird is flown, the nearer to that event we get. The little bird, "fun to fly" for some, is in reality, a death-trap. I've spoken with those (more than one) who sit in the "left seat", and that is a fact. Ken's testimony, not withstanding!
- January 23, 2009 at 2:54 PM
The EAC sale order has been signed, and the order entered on the public docket.
Closing must occur by 30 Jan 09 to preserve the next payday in ABQ.
Some interesting winners (like CSC who get $1.8M for less than 30 days of work) and interesting loosers (like Wedge or any depositor or vendor).
For those who do not have access to the Court records I can provide a copy of the final docs.
Let the games begin !
- January 23, 2009 at 3:06 PM
- gadfly said...
"Stick a fork in it!"
That brings to memory a message given by "J. Vernon McGee" a long time ago. And I think you'll need more than a "fork". In fact, the thing is so far overcooked, that you'll need a large "ladle" to lift the thing . . . and even then, I think you'll end up with nothing more than "thin soup".
(Let those who might remember, understand. To the rest, it may remain a mystery.)
- January 23, 2009 at 3:13 PM
- flyboymark said...
Hot Damn!....Gahhhhhhhhly
I'm guilty as charged Ken! I'm jealous as hell!!!!
But Ken.....
Only of a guy that owns a Mustang.
Not an incomplete jet like your EA500.
I'll jus' keep plod'n along in the FULLY Certified, complete and supported Aerostar 600 for now.
Ken, I jus' feel so guilty for you!
(Glad #260 got his plane!)
- January 23, 2009 at 4:40 PM
- bill e. goat said...
I don't know if Wedge's goose is cooked, but I would offer an observation other silly gooses (particularly of Canadian Geese), and the SEJ situation.
Now consider what happened to a twin engined airplane, with widely separated engines, and not much in between but empty space (sort of like Wedge's ears).
A flock of birds still brought it down. (I am unaware of any other specific case of this happening, but I am sure there have been hundreds over the decades). Maybe all this SEJ stuff will need to be re-evaluated.
(Perhaps driving a Verntatistic resurgence of interest in the Eclipse 500 twin jet, with thousands of orders. Or, maybe not...)
Now, this does seem to make one consider the vulnerability of a SE (ah, anything). The Piperjet in particular seems to have a very efficiently designed "Goose Scoop". Perhaps the Cirrus and Eclipse 400 would offer somewhat better engine protection. Maybe the Diamond's twin ducts even more so, although I would think operating on one duct might not be a very "ducty" (er, "ducky") situation. Although things might get a little "loosey goosey" in such a situation.
Thanks to the blog for the very informative discussion some many months ago, regarding the engine placement of the EA-500, with respect to bird strike protection- re: the engines were originally small enough to be "tucked in" tight enough to the fuselage to have them out of the trajectory of a bird- more so with the Williams, less so with the Pratts.
(I don't think we ever resolved whether the windshield had been bird strike tested- it vaguely seems to me we decided it didn't need to be for the particular category ??).
Cirrus SEJ
Piper Jet
Eclipse CON jet
Diamond SEJ
- January 23, 2009 at 7:41 PM
- baron95 said...
BEG said ... A flock of birds still brought it down. (I am unaware of any other specific case of this happening, but I am sure there have been hundreds over the decades). Maybe all this SEJ stuff will need to be re-evaluated.
Yep. I agree. Lets stop FAR 23 certification of every single engine plane to study the on in 100M flight-hours events.
In the meantime, lets just pretend that it is not the pilots of part 23 airplanes that bring down 95% of them.
How about requiring all part 23 airplanes to carry bird radar tracking and shoot-down gear?
I'm sure Gadfly can "invent" double barrel shotgun wired to an analog weather radar, that would fire in the direction of any 6lbs and smaller object flying between 5 and 50 mph. And I am sure that BEG's fine IAM colleagues can build the thing in under 4,000 hr, and under 600 lbs.
Don't you guys ever give up? You DON'T need to find fault with EVERYTHING Eclipse or VLJ or SEJ. Just find fault with what actually IS an issue. There are plenty.
- January 23, 2009 at 8:17 PM
- baron95 said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- January 23, 2009 at 8:22 PM
- baron95 said...
B.E.G, sorry to burst your bubble, but this is what typically happens when birds hit planes
- January 23, 2009 at 8:23 PM
- gadfly said...
Please just back off. There's far more to the birds and Airbus than first thought.
Regardless of what you may think of the "gadfly", I have never taken my own responsibilities lightly, in designing AND fabricating aircraft devices . . . including electromechanical instruments hanging under the chin of the C135 Airborne Laser Lab, subject to 450 knots and low temperatures, far exceeding anything the little E500 will ever see.
(According to tonight's FOX News, there was an "A-D" (December 2008) on the Airbus in question, and compressor stalls in flight of that very aircraft, a couple days before the landing in the Hudson. We await further developments.)
- January 23, 2009 at 8:38 PM
- BassMaster said...
MR Price if lawyers are looking to YOU for simple stuff like exec start dates and I said IF then they've got quite the uphill trudge ahead of them. Amusing at least!
- January 23, 2009 at 8:40 PM
- bill e. goat said...
"Amusing at least!"
Duck (or Goose) and Cover !!
MOO is back !?!
(Bassmaster, you might have missed out on one of our friends from months ago, M00).
I wish he would stop back for a visit now and then...
- January 23, 2009 at 8:58 PM
- baron95 said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- January 23, 2009 at 9:34 PM
- baron95 said...
Bassmaster, these must be "Professional Lawyers" representing Shane's "Professional Pilots" friends.
You know, the ones that think the CG LIMIT moves forward, and claim there is not IOE require for first type rated pilots, are confused by simple things like pressure altitude and Vref.
I'd love to see the action they will file.
"Your honor, according to an Internet Blog, defendant is the EAC officer that failed to inform my client that he should land at or close to Vref and that the CG LIMIT does not move for a given weight based on load location, and that Vref is not adjusted for pressure altitude, therefore causing my client to overrun a runway by landing ONLY 25 kts too fast and with a CG ONLY 2.5 inch forward of the limit, showing a clear, intention, again according to the Blog, of said officer to induce my client to said overrun"
- January 23, 2009 at 9:35 PM
- baron95 said...
Sorry, Gad, for involving you in my poor attempt at humor. No disrespect intended - seriously.
I just thought that if anyone could do it (analog radar directed anti-bird shotgun) it would be you. But I now see that you moved to lasers and digital fire control.
Once again, my apologies - it was never my intention to make light of your work.
- January 23, 2009 at 9:40 PM
- bill e. goat said...
I believe you are imputing some hostility to my post that is simply not there.
My point was not to reevaluate the FAA regs (which are adequate, I believe), but rather, to reconsider the marketing buzz about SEJ's.
To wit: the engines themselves are phenomenally reliable, to a degree that external events have become a more tangible concern.
I posted a few weeks ago, that perhaps the PWC610 is as small as a jet engine will ever need to be, given the emergence of the SEJ market (with somewhat LARGER engines that the PWC610. Having posted that, I felt somewhat responsible for pointing out that perhaps that argument might have a flaw, which would indeed favor twin engine airplanes over singles, including the EA-500.
"Just find fault with what actually IS an issue".
Well, apparently EAC did consider bird strikes an issue. And I did mention and commend EAC for the engine placement on their twin, for birdstrike protection, thank you very much.
"And I am sure that BEG's fine IAM colleagues can build the thing in under 4,000 hr, and under 600 lbs".
"Don't you guys ever give up"?
Baron, Don't YOU ever give up??
Also, "this is typically what happens" is incorrect.
Reported birdstrikes in the US 1991-1999; 20.8% were propulsion systems (engine/prop), and 18.5% were windshields. Only 5.2% were landing gear. And I don't think an airplane has ever crashed because a bird hit the landing gear. Not so for engines and windshields.
Bird Strikes
BTW, a constructive suggestion: maybe Dick Cheney and his shotgun can be stationed at wetlands near airports, as he has some time on his hands of late.
- January 23, 2009 at 10:05 PM
- bill e. goat said...
Please do not sell any lasers to Dick Cheney.
The radar guided croquette ball catapult is okay though.
(In 2009 I will stop in for a visit- New Year's resolution!)
- January 23, 2009 at 10:13 PM
- Black Tulip said...
Regarding bird strikes, I have averaged one about every ten years:
Flew through a flock of quail on landing, and felt a thump in a Taylorcraft. Bird remains on the horizontal stabilizer but no damage.
Hit a seagull departing into low IFR in a Beech Baron. Crumpled main landing gear door - $2,600 replacement.
Found blood and feathers on the inner leading edge of Turbo Commander on post flight inspection. Did not feel or see the bird – no damage.
Encountered large hawk in Robinson R-44. Landed immediately to find feathers and guts on the main rotor. No damage but very scary – the bird filled the windscreen, spreading its wings broadly, and it was all over in a flash.
Other blogger's experience?
- January 24, 2009 at 5:57 AM
- WhyTech said...
"Other blogger's experience?"
No bird strikes so far in airplanes or helicopters. Tens of thousands of insect strikes, however, but no damage. :-) Just got a series of photos of a medevac Astar helicopter that experienced recent multiple bird strikes. No fatalities, but a pretty ugly sight. Makes one think seriously about wearing a helmet for helicopter flying.
- January 24, 2009 at 6:39 AM
- Deep Blue said...
Faithful: you said the E500 was an "unsafe airplane." Could you elaborate?
- January 24, 2009 at 7:06 AM
- flyboymark said...
Passing down thru 6,500' on a decent heading S.E. on the S.W. side of Lake Okeechobee, FL, jus' clipping some clouds, heard and felt a very large thump. Landed at FLL and found seagull feathers embedded in the leading edge sheet metal seam about 2' out from the left side of the fuselage in the H model Bonanza I was flying. No damage..
Second event was not an impact but an aerobatic maneuver in a V36TC bonanza departing runway 36R @ North Perry airport in the Hollywood Florida area. Early morning, High gray overcast, departing, between the end of the runway and fence about 300' up, full bore with one other person aboard. Large flock of gray/white colored seagulls appears in front of me....see a break between them and fly knife edge between them....
..And I've lost count of my earlier years flying slower aircraft at low altitudes in S. Florida and dodging turkey buzzards and other birds...
- January 24, 2009 at 7:19 AM
- gadfly said...
Apology accepted. Frankly, making fun of the gadfly is fine . . . please continue . . . that's the reason I chose the "pseudonym".
But we do not want to give the false impression that criticism of the Eclipse includes some sick desire for it to crash, or for someone to get hurt.
The group in general . . . on both sides, desires for all aircraft to be safe at all times.
(The project on the Airborne Laser Lab involved many things . . . not the least of which was to assure that under any and all conditions, the thing (weighing in the neighborhood of maybe eight pounds . . . far more dangerous than a bird) would not come loose, be ingested by the #2 or #3 (inboard) engines, or go flying back to damage anything else on the aircraft.)
Bird strikes are "real", even though almost non-existent at "altitude".
(But I must admit, I've never heard of an aircraft at ABQ hitting the New Mexico State Bird, "Paisano" or "El Correcaminos" . . . "Road Runner", to most of us. The little "Scrawny Chicken" is so small, a jet engine would barely burp, if it took one in.)
The margins of safety are minimal on the E500 . . . and should be of concern to anyone connected with it.
- January 24, 2009 at 8:41 AM
- Adam Hunt said...
For those asking about what the safety concerns are of those who fly the EA500, this article sums some of them up:
Teal Group's Richard Aboulafia's First Eclipse Aviation Report By Karen Di Piazza 21-Oct-2008
- January 24, 2009 at 9:17 AM
- airtaximan said...
from the article Adam directs us to:
"Recently, a corporate pilot who is typed rated in several FAR Part 121 and 135 aircraft as captain, with extensive flight hours, said, "When I have to fly the Eclipse, I am on the edge of my seat waiting for the next disaster to take place. For instance, I've been flying for over 30 years and have never had to go on emergency oxygen, except during routine training. Since flying the Eclipse, I've had to go on emergency oxygen twice now due to fumes in the cockpit and in the cabin. Eclipse seemingly has no idea how to fix these aircraft problems. Flying at 41,000 feet, you don't have much time to deal with these continuous, on-going, very serious issues. All I know is that every time I've had to fly the Eclipse, I'm truly scared."
- January 24, 2009 at 1:28 PM
- BassMaster said...
Mr Hunt.Id be hesitant to compromize the integrity of wiki with what appears to be third person copy. Don't quite know if that is your intent.anyway I'm sure the blog will enjoy that read. AT was even kind enough to regurgitate it for those that don't have a mouse for their computer.
- January 24, 2009 at 3:13 PM
- Adam Hunt said...
It all hinges on whether you consider Karen Di Piazza and Charter X News a reliable source or not.
- January 24, 2009 at 3:23 PM
- airtaximan said...
funnny, especially considering you have not posted a single original thought or piece of data on this blog.
Mirror, mirror....
the truth hurts, I guess.
I have an idea for you Bass-ter, why not actually post a logical and factual rebuttal? Why not dig up some supportinve data? Come up with a theory about why this post is wrong?
- January 24, 2009 at 3:33 PM
- bill e. goat said...
Hello Adam,
Thank you for your excellent work on Wikipedia!!
I find it the most amazing web site out there, and it gets better every week, thanks to good work like yours.
I consider Karen DiPiazza and Rich Aboulafia both excellent sources, with good writing.
(Enough so, I enjoyed reading ATM's excerpt above, even though I DO have a mouse!! :)
- January 24, 2009 at 3:55 PM
- airtaximan said...
Bill, thanks for the comment... apparently attracting attention to some aspect of a link, is a problem for some...
You know, one of the aspects of this whole saga that has intrigued me from day one, is, the refelction of human nature brought abobout by EAC. What sort of person does it take to take such a risk, defend the company beyond belief, and disregard all of the realities that should make anoyone buying/flying this plane really afraid?
When I read Bass-ter's comments, it irks me to know that the ability to suspend disbelief, or just plain disregard the facts, is alive and well, and reflected on this blog by the still-die-hard defenders.
I am truly in disbelief that anyone would defend this product, the decision to buy it and the decision to fly it. This now goes in the impossible category - BUT, there are those who will keep the nightmare alive...
- January 24, 2009 at 5:03 PM
- BassMaster said...
AT wtf is supportinve data? Spellcheck again! Happy to spool you up though!
- January 24, 2009 at 6:30 PM
- baron95 said...
B.E.G., I'm sorry if I sounded hostile or misunderstood your post. I thought your were bordering on making the point that SEJ certification/safety had to be re-evaluated because of bird strikes.
As common as they are, they are a very, very insignificant factor in fatal accidents, regardless of how many engines the plane has.
The issue is that it is always much more sexy and newsworthy to discuss thinks like bird strikes than pilot error/training, even if the latter causes 100,000 more fatal accidents.
- January 24, 2009 at 7:11 PM
- BassMaster said...
BTW Mr taximan you also asked for theory. Wtf good is theory for anyone but this blog!
- January 24, 2009 at 7:13 PM
- bill e. goat said...
Hi ATM,
My pleasure to concur with you once again, as we most often do!
Sometimes we all make posts which express more frustration, than exchange ideas.
Our chum Bassmaster seems to be doing that of late- which does not promote a fruitful or satisfying exchange or dialog.
Bassmaster, I believe you are a probably a smart guy, as most folks involved with aviation are. Please- state what your proposition is.
Most might not agree with what you have to say, but if you are right, I want to hear it. If you are wrong, well, so what- this is a good place to express your ideas.
And btw, I find when I get a negative response, it prompts me to scrutinize my opinion, and either sharpen my argument if I still believe I am correct, or change my opinion. Either way, I come out the better for it. Which makes the dialog worth participating in.
(When it reaches a point of diminishing return, that's when it's time to move on. But with all the twists and turns in the Eclipse story, I don't see that happening for quite a while though! :)
- January 24, 2009 at 7:13 PM
- Orville said...
Black Tulip,
My bird stike experience:
Nailed a duck square on the landing light in a Beech 18 - pushed the landing light housing back to the spar. Barely felt it. That's it for me in 35 years of flying - however, the company I fly for had 2 bird strikes in the past year. A goose came through the windshield in a Cessna Caravan - fortunately on the co-pilots side with no one sitting there. We also had a duck come through the windshield of a Cessna 310 - which ricochetted of the pilots right headset cup. Needless to say - not a good night for either pilot - and a worse night for the fowl.
- January 24, 2009 at 7:25 PM
- BassMaster said...
BEG, eloquently said.My proposition may come in time. Your respect is contagious.
- January 24, 2009 at 7:28 PM
- bill e. goat said...
Hi Baron,
Thanks for elaborating- and I'm sorry if my post was misleading.
I concur, pilot error is by far cause in accidents. Which I think speaks very well of the FAA TC process. I know the planes that are certified now, including the EA-500, are much better planes than even 20 years ago.
Which, brings us to an interesting topic. I personally think the EA-500 is a pretty good airplane. From what I've heard, it has:
1) safe handling characteristics
2) safe engines
3) mostly adequate structure
4) questionable avionics
Item 3 is probably ignorance on my part, and I'm not arguing otherwise, but Gadfly has brought up some good items. Still, it seems to be holding up okay so far.
If it had an independent standby indicator, my concerns with item #4 would be removed, even if the avionics functionality is not yet complete.
So, it would seem advantageous for Eclipse to- get some flying reports out there for the public to read. I really like Cessna 340's, but I have to say, I think Ken's made a dramatic leap forward in upgrading to the Eclipse, even in the 90% finished phase. (particularly as you correctly point out, pilots cause most accidents, and Ken stays "within the bounds", as I trust he will, until all the functionality is incorporated).
- January 24, 2009 at 7:39 PM
- bill e. goat said...
Hi Bassmaster,
I look forward to your ideas- thanks!
I am sad to make this precautionary statement, but I suspect as you have already noted, too often rebuttal turns into rebuke. I find this very disheartening, and I agree with you on an appeal to everyone to be courteous and respectful.
(Realistically, I have reluctantly come to accept it as a given in some percentage of responses. I suppose when conducting anonymous exchanges, it is an inescapable element of human nature. It is still discouraging, and frustrating, but I hope it doesn't keep anyone from participating. At times it does take a thick skin- and I find my thick head helps too! :)
- January 24, 2009 at 8:00 PM
- BassMaster said...
BEG don't get used to it. I'm an SOB. I know more about EJAI than anyone on this blog. Fred and julius will continue to amuse!
- January 24, 2009 at 8:40 PM
- bill e. goat said...
In the interest of completeness, I must say, while I am upbeat about the airplane, I would advise caution in participating in the economic venture.
I think all the suppliers will indeed have a great eagerness to sell components to Eclipse to recoup their development cost, but will also have great hesitation in extending any credit (perhaps even reluctance to extend 30 or 60 day billing cycle credit), to Eclipse.
And I suspect that while potential customers will be willing to chance a 10% deposit, they will be reluctant to make progress payments (indeed, I would have to caution against this for a while- I agree with ATM, the aftermarket is probably a more prudent approach). There is a substantial argument to be made in favor of a "new product" with all the updates incorporated right off the line, and I would indeed favor this, if there the 60% progress payments are eliminated.
So, I think we will have more entertainment watching Eclipse the company evolve. Perhaps good textbook material for risk management, on the part of suppliers (credit, or no), customers (progress payments, parts, training), finance institutions (credit, or no), the company (what upgrades, what new models, what degree of honoring clients from EAC-pre BK), employees (bail or stay, benefits, talent mix, morale).
There is one aspect that I am honestly enthusiastic about though. I offer this in a non-judgemental way; in the EAC-Wedge era, I though we were watching predictable, but irrational, behavior. Now in the EAC-RP era, I think we are watching rational, but unpredictable behavior.
Somehow, I take more comfort in the later. (I still think it will be a tough "row to how" though).
(As a parting "teaser", I have a theory on the ultimate business motives in both era's, I'll try to get that posted in a few days- one is appropriately "disruptive"; the other is appropriately rational).
- January 24, 2009 at 8:57 PM
- bill e. goat said...
I just noted your most recent post- it will be interesting to see if your awareness of Eclipse-NG substantiates, or repudiates, my theory (coming soon, to a blog* near you).
I trust your comment about being most aware of EJAI, and hope you can and will share with us.
(Regarding the SOB bit, I've seen nothing to suggest that is true, but will take comfort in knowing your feelings are not easily hurt by some of the silly contentiousness that occasionally pops up).
*I almost said theater- friends just gave me a favorable critique of Gran Torino. Perhaps one day, "Eclipse, The Motion Picture".
(If there is ever an Oscar award for "Most SOB-ish" character, in the two years I've been reading the blog, there are few individuals that would offer some pretty stiff competition!! :)
- January 24, 2009 at 9:16 PM
- Shane Price said...
I'm interested in the 'trend' over the past dozen or so comments.
My engagement with this saga commenced some two years ago, when researching a business idea and looking for a jet to fulfill a specific mission. As it happens, the FPJ was never going to do the job, but I came across Stan's blog.
Pretty quickly I started smelling rattus.
That would be Latin for rat, in an effort to inject a little 'tone' into the blog today....
Anyway. back to my point. What struck me then was the degree to which supporters of EAC made light of the difficulties and seemed to believe every idiotic statement Wedge came out with. It reminded me of faith based pyramid selling scams (what you Americans call Ponzi schemes) that were very popular in Ireland during the '80's.
So, I did a bit more digging around, saw what other aircraft companies were doing and decided that EAC was, indeed, a Ponzi scheme.
Recent events go a long way to prove I was right.
When our 'original home' closed it's doors, I was one of those who looked elsewhere for a forum or blog that would continue the task of alerting people, like me, before they got sucked in. After looking for some time, it was clear 'we' needed to keep the blog together, so I shamelessly copied the style and even the name of Stan's blog. He was kind enough to support us, and the rest is history.
Have you considered the possibility that lawyers might ask us questions to confirm what they already know?
Or that this site is noted amongst lawyers for defeating Wedge, in Court, when EAC attempted that rather crude SLAPP action last April?
Criticism I welcome. Information, especially since you claim to know more than anyone about the subject, would be much more useful.
Like, how will Roel finance EAI during the 6 months it will take to get a PC?
Or how many of the the 60%ers will pay MORE money, in advance, to prove their commitment to the cause?
How about a list of the suppliers who've offered credit? Please don't bore me with the 'office cleaners', I want to know who will supply the critical bits...
Come with information, and you'll gain respect.
Use some to justify your criticism and even I will be impressed...
PS It's not called the 'Critic' blog by accident.
- January 25, 2009 at 3:58 AM
- airtaximan said...
who's spoolin' who?
I asked for data and theory...
I figured you did not have an appreciation for either.
Instead, you can just keep bashing away. Its a free blog, and just because you say you know so much more about EAC2.0 than anyone on this blog, means very little.
Enjoy the fun
- January 25, 2009 at 6:00 AM
- Adam Hunt said...
airtaximan asked: You know, one of the aspects of this whole saga that has intrigued me from day one, is, the refelction of human nature brought abobout by EAC. What sort of person does it take to take such a risk, defend the company beyond belief, and disregard all of the realities that should make anoyone buying/flying this plane really afraid?...I am truly in disbelief that anyone would defend this product, the decision to buy it and the decision to fly it. This now goes in the impossible category - BUT, there are those who will keep the nightmare alive...
That is a good question and there is an equally good explanation. I'll try to keep this as brief as possible, so please bear with me.
True story: In the mid-1950s there was a woman named Marion Keech who lived in Chicago. She was given a message by "automatic writing" from aliens from the planet Clarion. While engaged in "automatic writing" she would enter a trance and the aliens would guide her hand and her pen on the paper by telepathy. They told her that the earth would be destroyed in a huge flood that would happen just before dawn on December 21 of that year. She gathered around her a group of people who believed that her automatic writing was genuine. These people made strong commitments: they quit their jobs and schools, they left their spouses, gave away their money and possessions to be ready for their departure on the flying saucer, which the writing said would rescue only that small group of true believers.
The group met regularly at Mrs Keech's house in Chicago and were very secretive, they told very few people, although when the story did get out they refused to talk to the press or anyone else.
They got together on the night of Dec 20 to be rescued by the flying saucer precisely at midnight, as the writing told them. They carefully checked each other to make sure that all metallic objects were removed from their bodies and pockets, as instructed and they patiently waited. At five minutes past midnight nothing had happened, but one of the members pointed out that another clock in the room said that it was still five to midnight. They waited. By the time all the clocks said at least quarter past midnight the flying saucer had not shown up. They were stunned and silent, after all the earth will be destroyed in just a few hours. By four o'clock in the morning they were starting to make guesses at explanations as to what had happened. Mrs Keech broke down in tears. People were getting scared and crying, convinced that they would all die soon. At quarter to five in the morning Mrs Keech got another automatic writing message that indicated that due to their faith, the cataclysm had been averted, saying "The little group, sitting all night long, had spread so much light that God had saved the world from destruction."
Now most of you would think at this point that most of the participants would admit they did something dumb and just go home and get on with their lives, but that is not what happened. Instead they called the media, gave interviews and the group increased its membership with the aim of spreading the word of their part in the world's salvation as far as possible.
Eventually the little Doomsday UFO cult did dissipate and it doesn't exist today, some 50 years after these events.
A story like this should have been mercifully forgotten, so how do we know all these details about what happened in Mrs Keech's living room fifty years ago? Well the in the early stages three people joined the group, one of whom was Dr Leon Festinger, one of the pioneers of social psychology. He and his partners infiltrated the group to study what was going on and he wrote a book about the UFO cult called When Prophecy Fails. The book was part of Festinger's studies on the subject of what he called "cognitive dissonance". Cognitive dissonance is the tension that occurs when our attitudes don't match our behaviour. Festinger discovered that we don't generally, as you would expect, change our behaviour to match what we know is true, instead, more often, we change our attitudes to match what we have already done with the aim of justifying that behaviour.
Cognitive dissonance is now universally accepted within social psychology as a strong effect of human behaviour and is taught in all university first year psych classes.
Now some people may ask what the connection is between the sales and marketing of aerospace products and a Doomsday UFO cult, but I think the parallels are interesting to consider. Certainly cognitive dissonance is present in both cases.
- January 25, 2009 at 6:44 AM
- julius said...
thank you for your review on roots of "cognitive dissonance"!
Some threads ago - in summer ? - this was a subject when pondering about the wedge's - I say - business behaviour.
Nobody seemed to be competent to say just more than I think that a good description of the wedge's attitude, behaviour.
I digress a little bit: How is the cognitive dissonance annihilated?
- January 25, 2009 at 7:38 AM
- airsafetyman said...
"I digress a little bit: How is the cognitive dissonance annihilated?"
Good question. Apparently drinking the financial Kool-Aide is not enough.
- January 25, 2009 at 8:07 AM
- Adam Hunt said...
As you have seen here trying to talk people out of their beliefs actually strengthens them and all disconfirming evidence is reason to hang on to the beliefs, not abandon them.
In most cases over time the beliefs will change on their own. The Doomsday UFO cult drifted apart over time on its own. No one bothered to try to show them that they were deluded. Perhaps some of them read the book when it came out!
- January 25, 2009 at 8:15 AM
- WhyTech said...
"instead, more often, we change our attitudes to match what we have already done with the aim of justifying that behaviour."
Thanks for that! Ken explained in 20 words or less!
- January 25, 2009 at 9:29 AM
- sphealey said...
> I think all the suppliers will
> indeed have a great eagerness to
> sell components to Eclipse to
> recoup their development cost, but
> will also have great hesitation in
> extending any credit (perhaps even
> reluctance to extend 30 or 60 day
> billing cycle credit), to Eclipse.
Any supplier that sells to the New Eclipse on any other terms than list price, cash in advance, FOB plant (ex works) with a lien waiver signed by two fiduciary officers of New Eclipse will, IMHO, get what they deserve. Fool me once shame on you, fool me five times...
- January 25, 2009 at 9:37 AM
- TBMs_R_Us said...
The funniest part of this back and forth to me is that Bass-ter and Ken come to this blog for whatever reason they have. It's like they have a chip on their shoulder that can only be worked on by jumping into the midst of the critics, and bashing us. Their cognitive dissonance must be eased by lashing out at those whose attitudes represent the other side of the coin for them. As basster would put it, wtf?
- January 25, 2009 at 9:59 AM
- V2 said...
The funny part is why youre here. TBMs_R_US, why do you come here?
How bout all the other members? Every one of u (maybe not B95 and one or 2 other) seems to cme here to bash Eclipse and congrats to yourself you didn't buy one.
The plane seems nice, i want one. You don't like the new company already? Most people dont even know them, you already hate them. Hmmm
- January 25, 2009 at 10:31 AM
- TBMs_R_Us said...
The funny part is why youre here. TBMs_R_US, why do you come here?
How bout all the other members? Every one of u (maybe not B95 and one or 2 other) seems to cme here to bash Eclipse and congrats to yourself you didn't buy one.
The plane seems nice, i want one. You don't like the new company already? Most people dont even know them, you already hate them. Hmmm
My answer is the same as B95's: For fun. For the record, I'm not congrats to myself for not buying one. I never wanted one and am quite happy with what I do fly. I'm not alone in not being interested in an aircraft with so many problems, short comings, bankrupt manufacturer, etc. But those are just my choices.
If you think the plane seems nice, go for it. Most of us wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole, but, YMMV!!
- January 25, 2009 at 10:42 AM
- airtaximan said...
"You don't like the new company already?"
What give you this idea? I do not think I've read one post about anyone not liking the new company.
Many people are curious about what will be new, except for the drastically inflated price, and the apparent lack of real consideration for depositors who got stiffed, we have not seen anything except a name change.
Many folks here have made comments like they welcome someone at the helm with real aviation expereince... this would be good. A moral and ethical revival might be nice. Even some really strong business case for who is going to buy this plane at around the same price as the Cessna product, would be refreshing. So, were WAITING for a new company. All we see is same old.... with a few really difficult new aspect to the business like alienated suppliers, the liklihood of very difficult financial terms for procurement, perhaps the need for a new TC, a shrunken market, skiddish buyers, much higher prices... all with no answers regarding how these challenges will be dealt with.
RP did claim the ABQ non-manufacturing plant would be ramping back up to high rate production soon... who is the custoemrf or this $2.XM plane?
If you are, perhaps you can explain why you don't just by a Cessna Mustang and be done with the hefty risks associated with the EA50 and the Newco?
- January 25, 2009 at 11:05 AM
- airtaximan said...
What is the highest pricce anyone has ever paid for an EA50?
I believe some were sold for $1.25 M, and some at $1.5 or so.
Does anyone know of a higher price actually paid for an EA50- new, aftermarket, position premium then the price combined if this exists?
- January 25, 2009 at 11:07 AM
- TBMs_R_Us said...
Not sure anyone would readily admit to having paid more than $1.5M!
It is preposterous to think this aircraft is worth $2.5M, even with GNS400, FIKI and EASA cert. Maybe a couple of hundred buyers will prove me wrong -- not!
Was it worth what Ken paid for it, all in? I doubt it, but time will tell. At least he's a happy camper, for now.
- January 25, 2009 at 11:12 AM
- Marion Keech said...
As a long time viewer of the blog, I wish to warn each and everyone that the Very Light Jet revolution may be over. Unless you follow my instructions carefully, all that you have worked for may be for naught. I will be back in touch once I have fully processed the instructions that I am receiving from planet Clarion.
- January 25, 2009 at 12:33 PM
- airtaximan said...
There never was a VLJ revolution.
It only occured in the minds of a very small group of people.
- January 25, 2009 at 12:38 PM
- Dave Ivedorne said...
A-4 asked:
The funny part is why youre here. TBMs_R_US, why do you come here?
How bout all the other members? Every one of u (maybe not B95 and one or 2 other) seems to cme here to bash Eclipse and congrats to yourself you didn't buy one.
The plane seems nice, i want one. You don't like the new company already? Most people dont even know them, you already hate them. Hmmm
Despite my mastery of physics, I simply found the early story of the FPJ & the rise of the enterprise intended to build it, um, interesting. And I casually followed the development of the aircraft blissfully unaware of the fatal flaws in the business model. My first exposure to an actual EA50 was at one Oshkosh or another - I thought it was pleasingly quiet. The following year, I "test sat" one, as well as the Cessna & Embraer - the Embraer was actually attractive & impressive, the Mustang was a smallish, plain vanilla Cessna, and the FPJ too small for my tastes ( for what it purported to be. I'm perfectly content in a C172, but my wife isn't. I'm sure the FPJ cabin scores a bullseye for the members of its limited perfect market ).
When I first stumbled upon Stan's original blog, I was intuitively skeptical, but his detailed dissertation on the root causes of his various doubts ultimately convinced me that his viewpoint was worth granting credulity. It wasn't until the rise of the "Fluffboy Posse", with their smear tactics and unrelenting derision at the mere idea that somebody could disagree with the notion that Everything Eclipse Is Wonderful And Getting Better, that I felt the story was worth following with any regularity.
Most particularly striking was the absolute accuracy and relevance ( 106 weeks later ) of the concerns raised in Gunner's debut post to the blog, and the exponential increase in derision observed in members of The Faithful in response to it. Gunner refused to allow cognitive dissonance interfere with his decision making process - others weren't so smart.
When, demonstrating the absolute heights achievable in human stupidity, Wedge decided to sue Google ( under seal ) in an attempt to quiet dissenting opinions about Eclipse on the new blog, I became irrevokably hooked and decided to start posting. Originally in an attempt to be informative on a subject with which I am peripherally knowledgeable, but ultimately to deliver punchlines to the jokes for which EAC and its followers so kindly provided setup material. It doesn't hurt that the regulars who post on the blog write - by and large - extremely readable stuff.
Besides which, it sometimes gets slow at the drive-thru window.
So. Why are you here?
Would you like fries with that?
- January 25, 2009 at 1:24 PM