Saturday, April 07, 2007

Good Question

From the Eclipse Owners Board:

April 06, 2007, 02:05:57 PM

We are bumping forward. Got word today that our plane should be "delivered" next week. But there still is no training for owners, other than DayJet, I guess.

We were there this week and there were a couple of people in type training classes, but we were told mentor pilots are next to be trained. We have not been scheduled yet.

No word on how one can take delivery on an aircraft when there is no one type rated to fly the plane?

95 comments:

Gunner said...

New owner.
Been waiting years.
Should be ecstatic.

So why would he post on the Owners' Board with the word 'delivered' in quotes as though indicating that the event requires significant further explanation?

Welcome to the Wonderful World of The EA-50X. Just a couple minor formalities and we'll have you flying in no time. Here's your keys (umm, we'll hold those for now); Where's your check? ;-)

Gunner

airtaximan said...

Please explain what
"We are bumping forward" means?

- perhaps: bumping forward like bumping along as in slow progress

- perhaps: bumping forward as in filling in delivery slot gaps and getting the plane earlier than expected?

Say position number 10, taking S/N 5?

airtaximan said...

I'm not sure whether this has already been posted, but this article should be required reading for anyone looking at this blog, really.

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20020601/24256.html

- to me this article shows what Vern is capable of, and how someone had to dig deep to uncover the truth. This was the only real article published anywhere about the bogus "exclusive" 1,000 e-500 order from a company with no funds and no aviation history...2002 timeframe. Enjoy.

EclipseBlogger said...

ATM said... - perhaps: bumping forward as in filling in delivery slot gaps and getting the plane earlier than expected?

Give it up. There are no empty slots. All delivery positions through 50 have N numbers assigned to the serial numbers. Eclipse simply delivered out of order for possible reasons previously stated.

airtaximan said...

EB,
What does "bumping forward" mean?

And, why have we heard that recently communication went to delivery-position holders saying there is compression?

I think I covered BOTH scenarios in my post - the normal delivery book (bumping along as in slowly), and the cooked delivery book (filling in gaps).

You OK? Why so testy?
Any clue as to how many planes are being delivered this week? Sounds like real progress...big slap on the back coming your way from Ken!

Gunner said...

"Eclipse simply delivered out of order for possible reasons previously stated."

Yup, but that's not all.

- They "simply" had some install problems with wing attachments

- They "simply" had some install problems with window installations.

- They "simply" parted company with Avidyne because the company was inferior.

- They "simply" made a few design changes and increased speed and max range with tip tanks and "aero-mods" overnight; mods they evidently hadn't thought of in the previous 8 years.

- They "simply" refuse to show the AFM for the "A-Model" because it's past history; the next model will be much better.....in time.

- They "simply" demonstrated their performance guarantees with data that they won't even release to Ken Meyer.

Nothing to see here folks. Everything can be explained quite "simply".
Gunner

EclipseBlogger said...

ATM said... What does "bumping forward" mean?

I don't know as I didn't write it, but just like statements here they can be taken several different way depending on your bent.

ATM said... And, why have we heard that recently communication went to delivery-position holders saying there is compression?

I thought that comment was from a friend of a friend. I personally have not seen compression, although that is not to say it is not possible.

ATM said... You OK? Why so testy?

I wasn't feeling that way, and didn't think it can across that way. I haven't even called you Cabbie for a while. I guess you miss the old moniker.

ATM said... Any clue as to how many planes are being delivered this week?

I haven't a clue and wouldn't even venture a guess for fear of the possible blog backlash.

Stan Blankenship said...

Ken,

Against the previous post you wrote:

"The point is that if it were true that they're not able to make money on the 2500+ orders contracted for so far (a speculation, I hasten to point out, for which there is not one shred of evidence..."

A manufacturer can ballpark his cost to manufacture a twin at about 3 times the cost of the engines. The airplane will sell for about 4 times the engine costs..

Cost for the 610F is reported to be $285k. Doing the math, cost to build the Eclipse by this formula would be $1.7m. Selling price $2.28m.

a37pilot said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gadfly said...

When the gadfly speaks, there is usually a story . . . so get used to it.

One of my classmates back in highschool was Kathryn Beaumont . . . she was the “voice” and the model for “Wendy” (in “Peter Pan”) and “Alice” (in “Alice and Wonderland”). I visited with her at our fiftieth reunion in Burbank (Burbank High School), in the fall of 2005 . . . she is still a little wisp of a thing, with her English accent, freckles, and reddish blond hair, and lives with her one and only husband near the “Bob’s Big Boy” restaurant out in Toluca Lake . . . near where Bob Hope called home. OK, she’s near seventy, but not bad for almost seventy . . . not bad at all.

This “blog” is a reminder of the fantasy land she played in those long ago Disney films. All the characters are present. The story is the same. Dreams of things that have never been, and never will be.

But dream on . . . Eclipse yet lives in “Never-Never Land” . . . and like the “caterpillar” in “Alice . . .”, someone is smoking something not legal.

But then, it’s fun to “imagine”!

gadfly

(“Curiouser and curiouser!” Cried Alice)

EclipseBlogger said...

A37 said... EB This doesn't sound like "14, two classes of 7" that you posted on Tuesday. Where did that come from?

DayJet pilots, mentor pilots and instructors.

Stan Blankenship said...

Also from yesterday's EOB:


"Eclipse is in transition to become a real production company and the training department is where the actual customer interface is going to be located. Among the questions that were asked included :

No battery starts below 41F?
No starts with strong cross winds (14K ?)
No starts with tail winds (30K ?)
Field repairs AOG when unable to fly to one of only 5 service centers

These problems have to be solved for the Eclipse to be a practical tool especially when operated from non-hub rural airports.

All in all I was impressed and feel that we will get a good airplane although some problems will take more time to solve than any of us would like."

Ken Meyer said...

Stan wrote,
"No battery starts below 41F?
No starts with strong cross winds (14K ?)
No starts with tail winds (30K ?)
Field repairs AOG when unable to fly to one of only 5 service centers"


Gee, Stan, it's not like you not to do your homework.

Just 'cause it appears on the owner's forum doesn't necessarily mean it's right.

The tailwind limitation is wrong, and the crosswind limitation is WAY wrong.

There is an AOG process in place.

Battery starts are, for now, limited to 41F. That's the only one that is right. So you use an APU when it is cold out, ho hum. Word is that limitation will be history soon enough.

Gotta do your homework better :)

Ken

Stan Blankenship said...

Ken,

I only stated the coments were from the EOB.

I made no claim as to the veracity of the statements.

Now, do you still think Eclipse can turn a profit selling airplanes at $1m or even $1.5m?

Bambazonke said...

Ken wrote: The tailwind limitation is wrong, and the crosswind limitation is WAY wrong.There is an AOG process in place.

We all know if Ken says it is OK then we can all rest assured, all is well, we can now relax..he has been so right on these unsupported statements in the past.

Just as a matter of interest Ken, what can you provide to show this poster on the EOB was so wrong, we should go after him and straighten him up, but he won't believe us if we just say you said so, so what concrete facts can we take to him showing that his post was BS. Better stil maybe you should straighten him out on the EOB, then this crap would not appear over here...

gadfly said...

We had a "high" in the East Mountains of 37 degrees, today, so "Eclipse" would have had a brief window of opportunity at ABQ to fire up without an "APU" . . . they're down at, what, 5,300 feet or so? . . . so that would make their "high" about 42 degrees.

"Curiouser and curiouser", Cried Alice.

Metal Guy said...

Whoops, just another major miscalculation - this time the battery / power system. How many other major miscalculations are lurking? How many are not ho hum?

I propose a new Eclipse slogan - “Um, yeah, we’re gonna fix that too.”

Oh yeah, before I forget, it’s been another week. Another $7,000,000.00 down the drain that no one will ever see again.

thebigriper said...

I was watching the Masters today. I'm not a golfer or even a regular spectator but I do enjoy watching Tiger Woods work his magic (which he might yet do this weekend). While I was sitting there watching the show an analogy popped into my head.

Cessna Aircraft - Tiger Woods
Eclipse Aviation - Sergio Garcia

Proven track record vs brash upstart who lacks the maturity to reach the level of greatness.

Tomorrow is payday Sunday in Augusta. Tiger's in the final pairing. Sergio's cooling his heels somewhere sipping kool-aid.

Sergio burst onto the golf scene and caught a lot of attention with his raw talent and energy and cockiness. That was several years ago; about the same time that Eclipse showed up too. Sergio's brashness was appealing at the time. Not now. The act is old and he is an irritant. He doesn't win tournaments because he lacks maturity. Arrogance can only take you so far as everyone else has seen; yet Sergio can't see that. Everyone is getting tired of his act. Will he gain the maturity he needs to win major tournaments before it is too late?

Will Eclipse?

Sorry for the tangent but I'm trying to pick up the slack for Gadfly and Billy Goat.

Happy Easter everyone.

Stan Blankenship said...

A recently retired United Airlines pilot (Central Florida) found the blog. His friend, a position holder, asked him to look into the mentoring program.

The UAL pilot contacted me by e-mail. I referred him to the training section of the Eclipse website and added:

"...teenagers don't have many traffic accidents while driving on the streets with their high school driving instructor. Turn 'em loose Saturday night and too often bad things happen. I am not sure how you teach judgement."


Here is the UAL pilot's response:

To: eclipsecritic@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Upset training?
Date: Apr 7, 2007 10:03 PM

Stan - I checked out the web site. You're right, they have a different set of ideas of how to keep the new jet owners out of the trees and off the rocks.

When I was a right out of flight training, I qualified for F-4s out of Miramar and got tail hook qualified to boot. There was a rule of thumb applied to the first 600 hours in that airplane: ie. if you lived thru your first 600 hours in the airplane, you just might live thru a whole career.

But those first two years without an instructor watching over your shoulder had the highest accident rates in tailhook aviation. (As if just flying a Mach 2 airplane off a flight deck wasn't interesting enough.)

It's going to be interesting to see how Eclipse does in the long run. God forbid they should have a couple of their early airplanes go down with pilot error as the implied reason. The Feds would have a field day in ABQ.

KEN

Black Tulip said...

Happy Easter to All

Let us reflect on the Miracle of Easter. The stone was rolled away from the mouth of the tomb and the tomb was empty...Resurrection!

Is another Miracle in the offing at Albuquerque? Shall the High Priests of Eclipse roll open the hangar doors tomorrow? Lo, behold the finished aircraft rolling out. Two per business day - as required to deliver four hundred by the end of the year. This would quell the Insurrection.

Resurrection versus Insurrection. Two faiths separated by two thousand years.

Black Tulip

EclipseBlogger said...

Seen on the EOB this morning:

...I was scheduled for a Mustang demo flight 2.16.07, the 2nd of two days in the DFW area. It was cancelled late in the afternoon of the first day. I learned that when ATC requested a deviation or a change once a STAR had been entered into the flight plan and the pilot tried to enter the change into the Garmin 1000, all the displays died (end of demo sessions and back to the factory).

Two and a half weeks later, 3.17.07, I did the demo. The software "fix" had apparently been applied, but the pilot had to delete the entire star and start over with a new one, rather than making changes within the existing STAR (as I was led to believe would be the proper fix). When I asked why the demo aircraft now had EXPERIMENTAL on it's side I was told the FAA wanted 50 hours to prove the reliability of the "fix".

That was over a month ago and I would have thought that plenty of time to reach 50 hours. I do not know if they are still doing demo flights at this time. They are not, however, delivering airplanes yet.

Bambazonke said...

EB- Mustang deliveries delayed (my paraphrasing).

I am prepared to bet if the Mustang was made by Eclipse it would have been delivered with this 'flaw'. At least the Mustang autopilot is coupled to it's GPS system. KKA wants you to fly with a Garmin 496 (not coupled), broken wing attachment bushing, broken window, broken starter, battery issues, DME issues, break issues...to name but a few..

This demonstrates to me that the FAA standards being applied in ICT and the standards applied in ABQ are not the same. This does not stop at the Certification level, it goes to the amount of resources being deployed in ABQ, for the periods of time that they are being deployed, and I suspect that there is some pressure being brought on the inspectors in ABQ by their higher ups, (I am not suggesting that they are being asked to turn a blind eye to safety, but being pressured to work overtime to get the plane certified) in particular a Ms Garvey, she is still predicting the skies are going to be darkened by the "dawning of the new age in aviation" that she so eloquently described at Osh Kosh last year with a grinning KKA by her side. If they can't get the wonderjet into the skies this is not going to materialize. I predict that EAC is going to be her undoing....

Gunner said...

Bamba-
Before you be taken to task for the Capital Crime of committing a typo while questioning Elipse, I think you may have been referring to Marion Blakey. Garvey was her predecessor until '02.
Gunner

EyeInTheSky said...

It's not the first time that Bamba has gotten his facts all bollixed up. He's proven to be unreliable on all comments.

Gunner said...

See what I mean?

[Insert rolleyes icon here]

Gunner

EyeInTheSky said...

"Gunner the Prognosticator"

(eyes rollin' right back at ya)

Ken Meyer said...

Bambi wrote,
"KKA wants you to fly with a Garmin 496 (not coupled), broken wing attachment bushing, broken window, broken starter, battery issues, DME issues, break issues...to name but a few.."


Are you a pilot, Bambi?

I can't imagine any actual pilot getting too worked up about the aircraft temporarily lacking coupling between the GPS and the autopilot. The Eclipse autopilot holds an altitude and tracks a course just fine. Pilots know how to turn the bug when they want to turn the plane. I can't recall the last time I actually coupled the autopilot to the GPS. You're making it sound like a big deal when it's just not.

And what about that other stuff you wrote? Naturally, you have facts to back up your claim. So, let's have them. Let's see if you actually can show us that you're not just making this stuff up:

* The airplane has a "broken wing attachment bushing"

* The airplane has a "broken window"

* The airplane has a "broken starter"

* There are battery "issues"

* The airplane has "break issues" (whatever the heck that means)

So, if you're not just blowing smoke, let's see your facts.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

stan wrote,
"do you still think Eclipse can turn a profit selling airplanes at $1m or even $1.5m?"


How the hell should I know?

It doesn't make any difference. They'll ultimately price the airplane wherever they have to in order to sustain the company. So what?

I do know that the manufacturing techniques put in place are completely scalable and allow this company to produce a capable aircraft for much less than its competitors. How many airplanes and at what price are both adjustable to the market.

Ken

Gunner said...

"break issues" (whatever the heck that means)

Two typos? Good Lord, Bamba, you may have lost all credibility now.

[Insert second rolleyes icon here]

Ken-
Let's not nitpick, OK?
The wing spar attachment problem is documented. A fix has yet to be approved, except by Eclipse.

The window problem is documented. A fix has yet to be approved, except by Eclipse.

The battery issue has been admitted...by you.

The brake issues have come from several different sources and deserve further attention.

Gunner

EyeInTheSky said...

Easy Ken, Bamba only knows what he reads here. He keeps repeating the same old party lines as if they are designed in features. Everyone knows the mistakes of Eclipse. Some just won't admit that they are fixable, and he's got nothing else to say. But he has a need for attention. If we could see his bio, I'd bet we find he's a highschooler that's been kicked off mySpace by his parents.

Ken Meyer said...

"When I was a right out of flight training, I qualified for F-4s out of Miramar and got tail hook qualified to boot. There was a rule of thumb applied to the first 600 hours in that airplane: ie. if you lived thru your first 600 hours in the airplane, you just might live thru a whole career."

Bearing in mind that Eclipse pilots are not new pilots. I'd be surprised if any have less than the magic 600 hours this ex-Navy guy describes.

And Eclipse pilots will not be asked to make carrier landings :)

In fact, there are very, very few things Eclipse pilots will be doing that they aren't already doing. If you're already flying a high performance twin-engine aircraft in the flight levels, what really are the differences you'll encounter?

* Higher--you bet. And the pilots will need to understand the risks of high altitude flight. The Eclipse, incidentally, has no coffin corner.

* Faster--enroute yes, so you'll get less magazine time. But the Eclipse Vref is actually lower than that of my Cessna 340. Approaches will be no faster than most Eclipse pilots are already doing.

* More weather--could be. The Eclipse covers more distance per flight; pilots will see more variety in the weather they encounter.

* Safer--Yep, and it's the biggest single difference. Turbofan equipment is dramatically safer than piston equipment. The Eclipse is, by all accounts, easier to fly than a piston twin; there's just less to do--no mixtures or props to adjust; no half-dozen tanks to manage; no shock cooling, LOP, any of that. Throw into the mix the workload-reducing features and built-in redundancy of the Eclipse, and you've got a lot safer situation.

Eclipse pilots will be moving into a safer situation than they're flying today. That's right; the main difference between flying a high performance piston twin and flying the Eclipse will be that the Eclipse pilot will be safer, not less safe than he is in what he is flying today.

Ken

Gunner said...

Eyein the Sky-
Gratuitous Ad Hominem attack questioning another's maturity level. I think that redefines the term "irony".

Can we get back on track, now? At least Mr. Meyer is debating the issues.
Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

gunner wrote,
"Let's not nitpick, OK?"


Rich, it's not nitpicking to point out that both you and Bambi are citing problems that you don't actually know even exist today. You guys are citing things that either never were a problem, have been fixed, or whose status is unknown. Of course, none of that matters to you--"if it sounds bad, let's go for it and say it's true; nobody will notice!" But somebody did.

And, in a way, you compliment the plane every time you do that--obviously you haven't got anything substantial to hit with, so you're dredging this junk up.

Ken

Gunner said...

Ken-
You continue to speak of an aircraft that has yet to be produced in the present tense. That's just wrong.

The Moller does all the things you claim even MORE safely; heck, it "doesn't" even require a pilot, using your definition of what's available.

The Eclipse needs to be FLOWN by owners in order for you to make these sweeping claims; Currently, it has yet to be flown by the Aviation Press! More importantly, the aircraft you describe needs to be Certified. The currently certified, paper model does not meet your description.

Gunner

Gunner said...

Ken said:
"you and Bambi are citing problems that you don't actually know even exist today."

And let's get something else straight, Ken. It's not incumbent on the Consumer to demonstrate that a problem has been fixed; that's the role of the Manufacturer.

At last report, the entire fleet was grounded due to wing spar attachment problems and window cracks; it did not have DME; it could not file at RVSM altitudes.

Nothing that has come out of ABQ has addressed these issues in a manner that puts them to rest. And given ABQ's reputation for outlandish claims and releases, there's even greater cause for skepticism by those of us who are not jaundiced by a vested interest in believing that they've cleaned up their act "this time".
Gunner

Ken Meyer said...

Gunner wrote,
"The Eclipse needs to be FLOWN by owners in order for you to make these sweeping claims"


Not at all. The plane is in production, the AFM is available for all to read. We know what equipment the plane has today and what equipment it will have later this year. We know the FAA found the plane has lower workload than most other planes.

We do not actually need to have 5 years of NTSB data available to formulate the opinion that the plane will be safer than a high performance piston. That conclusion follows from facts already in evidence.

You're reaching.

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

Gunner wrote,
"At last report, the entire fleet was grounded"


Well there you have it. They're not flying. How silly of me to think I saw and heard those planes dozens of times in the air!

Your idea is ridiculous--"They didn't tell Gunner that they're flying again, so they must not be." That's a good one, Rich; thanks for the laugh.

As always, you're reaching for something that isn't there, so it is no wonder you keep coming up short.

Ken

Gunner said...

Ken-
Just when I thought you were engaging in honest conversation, you go and get all specious again.

The company needs tell me NOTHING. Ken. But it needs to the the WORLD a great deal. More important, it needs to DOCUMENT, other than by Press Release, E5C Feel Good meets and Ken Meyer reports that these admitted DESIGN PROBLEMS are behind them.

Me, I need do nothing more than I would do with any company that has a history for lying, hyping and publicity stunts. That is to maintain a healthy skepticism.

You may leave yours at the door; that is your right. Just don't ask us to suspend ours. We have history to support our position; you have only "proposed" AFM's, unreleased details of "performance verification" flights, more publicity stunts and lots more "promises".

OK?
Gunner

Bambazonke said...

O.K. bloggers, couple of typos and missed names on my post...sorry, glad that some of you were more alert than I was when I wrote what I did..

For Ken and Eyeinthesky, David Crowe's plane SN-1 was delivered with no DME, no GPS, wing attach fitting problems, window cracking issues, brake binding issues, no FIKI, no RVSM, these are facts, I got to see the plane AFTER it was delivered, and verified these items personally. IF ANY OF YOU HAVE OTHER INFORMATION PLEASE PRODUCE PROOF NOT INNUENDO.

The point of the previous post that I admit was poorly made, Cessna have delivered one plane with a STAR software conflict, no other reported problems, surely you cannot think that these issues are comparable to the issues that were knowingly delivered in David Crowe's plane..

As we have seen before with the KAF, when there is an Op Ed moment,they jump on it, end of year delivery, end of quarter deliveries. It is so disingenuous.

Ken, for the record I have 4000 hourS total the majority of it in turbine equipment. The debate was not whether or noT a plane could fly without a GPS, it was whether or not this was an acceptable practice. No, I do not think it is acceptable for an aircraft to be delivered with inop GPS and give the pilot a hand held GPS to substitute for this, certainly none of the OEM's that I have worked for would even allow themselves to think that this was OK, let alone the other issues raised above.

I would be surprised if you come back and try and argue this is acceptable, but who knows looking back on the past..

With respect to the compression, yes EB there has been compression within the first 100 SN's in the past 30 days, ask EAC, you eclipse die hards all have access to them. It they tell you there wasn't I will prove to you there was...hows that for a challenge..

eyeinthesky, do you know anything about the number of FAA inspectors that are in ABQ, the overtime that they are being instructed to work, and the pressure that there is on them to get aircraft out the door? IF not suggest you ask some questions before you post what I write is not correct. It is very easy to try and debunk what others have written with simple pen strokes like 'He's proven to be unreliable on all comments' do you want to back that up with some facts other than the Garvey/Blakey typo, for which I have taken credit for making.

airtaximan said...

boys and girls:

One thing is very obvious... look at Ken's comments and realize his greatest fear -

On whether he believes the $1.5 mil price is sustainable, he says:
"It doesn't make any difference. They'll ultimately price the airplane wherever they have to in order to sustain the company. So what?"

Well, "so what" only applies to the fact that you think your price will be lower, and therefore a good deal, or saleable for a profit...again. BUT, when companies cannot make money on their products, and have pre-sold a lot of them, and they are losing money, they:
1- cannot pay suppliers (sound familiar?)
2- have a lot of trouble with meeting training and other services (sound familiar)
3- usually change their pricing related to maintenance plans (sound familiar)
4- generally cut corners on everything as much as possible (sound familiar)
5- free modifications and upgrades usually are no longer free...(sounds...)
...which leads to failure - you probably don't care about this either, BUT, there are many reasons to care about this - If your position is early enough, you'll get stuck with a plane that has many problems, and will not be well supported. Maybe, if you are one of the first 50 or 100 customers. Later, and you'll just lose your money.

When you say:
"I do know that the manufacturing techniques put in place are completely scalable and allow this company to produce a capable aircraft for much less than its competitors. How many airplanes and at what price are both adjustable to the market."

This is unproven. Period. So far, they are WAY behind the curve on demonstrating scalability, quality, or even competency. They do not have a PC, and they SAID they were going to have one a long time ago. Also, they are WAY behind on deliveries - HUNDREDS of planes behind. You cannot claim to KNOW anything except they have delivered a hand full of planes, and they have 1,000 employees. BTW, using 1,000 employees to produce a few hundred planes a year is industry standard practice today. They would have to reach a high rate to demonstrate ANY benefit, scalability or success.
NONE of this has been demonstrated.
I would add your statement "I do know the manufacturing...." to be complete BS. Swallowed another Vern-hook, really. Which is sad, because often you make some good points, here..like your post on training. Its true the e-clips buyer have some experience, and are not like “new” pilots or teenagers. But when you deny factual problems, and make statements as if e-clips had demonstrated capability that they have NOT, you lose all credibility.

The plane has had many, many serious problems. Most indicate a lack of competency. The way they have all been handled demonstrates a lack of conscience, as well as dishonesty. The problems MEAN the plane has not been designed for high cycle use, and it is not a durable aircraft. You can believe whatever you like, and try to make everything seem rosy - but, long term, the business is not sustainable. The price is a low introductory price, designed to foreclose competition - and e-clips probably lacks the ability to meet the price. They also lack the orders to make anything even close in price a reality.

Very few folks will want this plane, from this company, at the price required at normal production rates. Very few.

Some folks do want to perpetuate the myth, for their own pocketbook - RIGHT KEN?

BIG SLAP on the back for that one! and Enjoy your Easter Holiday. It celebrates a divine miracle, and I know you belive in miracles!

Stan Blankenship said...

Ken,

You wrote:

"I do know that the manufacturing techniques put in place are completely scalable and allow this company to produce a capable aircraft for much less than its competitors. How many airplanes and at what price are both adjustable to the market."

Eclipse established their pricing long ago, bumped your prices what, a year ago? Yet, until just a couple of months ago, did not understand what QC requirements had to be in place to hang a C of A on an airframe.

This is only one example which IMHO leads me to conclude this company does not have a clue what its manufacturing costs will be and is in fact is operating with no visible means of support.

airtaximan said...

BBZ,
When you say:
"do you know anything about the number of FAA inspectors that are in ABQ, the overtime that they are being instructed to work, and the pressure that there is on them to get aircraft out the door?"

Are you suggesting this is, or is NOT the case?

Do you belive the post that one Dayjet plane did not even have an interior when signed off?

I wonder if the Dayjet planes have been flown?
Anyone know...its been more than a week - and I'm sure they were excited to take "delivery".

I like the idea of putting quotes around the word delivery...suggested by an e-clips delivery-position holder, recently.

they also should be applied to:

"FAA certified"

"designed for high cycle"

"air taxi jet"

"guarantees"

"delivery position"

"fix" as in "wing spar attachment bushing fix" "window cracking fix"

"mods and upgrades" "as in mods/upgrades REQUIRED to MEET performance guarantees on aircraft that were sold"

"NG", or "next generation" - as in "the replacement of a system that did not function and was thrown in the garbage with a new on that should work.

and finally...

"orderbook"

Enjoy the Bunnies...

Gunner said...

All this facile co-mingling of present capabilities with future promises brings up one more inconsistency that I've been mulling over. If, as Ken states, the "A-Model" is fully functional under a published AFM and DME/RVSM are good to go, why would DayJet not use their three planes to start up service TODAY?

Sure they need to sign off maybe six pilots in the jets and add the third AHRS but these should be small hurdles for a company that can just add tip tanks and a few mods to increase performance on an already "revolutionary" design; a company that can certify the redesign of their entire [failed] avionics package in a matter of a few months.

As Ken has pointed out, DayJet's business model centers around 300-600 nm trips. The A-Model, as "advertised", loses nothing against the B-Model for this purpose. So why id DayJet waiting for the "upgrades" when those can be just plugged right in down the line after they received another couple dozen aircraft? Seems to me, they could easily train up and start operations on May 1. After all, every day they delay, they're leaving money on the table.

Gunner

employed@eac said...

BBZ: eyeinthesky, do you know anything about the number of FAA inspectors that are in ABQ, the overtime that they are being instructed to work, and the pressure that there is on them to get aircraft out the door?

The FFA representatives are completely professional and will not be backed into a corner by Eclipse. They have walked out before, when compliances were not met. They have walked out before when promises were not kept. Don't think for a minute that they would not do it again if EVERYTHING was not right. The CofAs were issued in full compliance to all standards, and totally above board.

bill e. goat said...

Just passing through and getting caught up for now...

ATM, "I AGREE"

:)

Ken Meyer said...

Bambi wrote,
"For Ken and Eyeinthesky, David Crowe's plane SN-1 was delivered..."


...over 3 months ago.

You seem to think that whatever problems S/N 1 may have had persist today and will persist tomorrow.

Yours is a bad approach--you assume, without any evidence, that because the first airplane out the door had some teething pains, those same problems are present today. Maybe they are, but it's not a given. You need facts to support that allegation; innuendo and ill-will are just not enough here. Let's see your facts.

Rich's approach is very similar--he suggested that the aircraft were grounded in November and therefore must be grounded today because he didn't get the memo saying they're flying again :{

Ken

Ken Meyer said...

airtaximan wrote,
"1- cannot pay suppliers (sound familiar?)
2- have a lot of trouble with meeting training and other services (sound familiar)
3- usually change their pricing related to maintenance plans (sound familiar)
4- generally cut corners on everything as much as possible (sound familiar)
5- free modifications and upgrades usually are no longer free...(sounds...)"


I believe every one of those allegations is false or unsubstantiated. You're slinging mud without any facts to back you. Join the crowd; that's what we get here--mudslinging and innuendo without facts.

You might as well say "The Eclipse fleet is grounded." Oops, gunner already said that ;)

Ken

bill e. goat said...

Ken,
"I AGREE"
.)

Gunner said...

Welcome e@eac.
I sincerely appreciate the first hand info and I will not dismiss you (as others have to former EAC employees) because you have not provided complete personal identification. Your wish for anonymity is understandable and I commend you for stepping up.

Can you put these rumors to rest once and for all:
Were ALL THREE DayJet planes released with full CoA? Were the interiors complete in ALL THREE?

Thanks much.

Ken said:
"Rich...suggested that the aircraft were grounded in November and therefore must be grounded today because he didn't get the memo saying they're flying again"

That's wrong; but at least you're consistent. ;-)

Ken said:
"that's what we get here...innuendo without facts."
Were you referring to parroting future "promises" and presenting them as current "capabilities"? Yeah, I've noticed a lot of that, too.
Gunner

EclipseBlogger said...

ATM said: "1- cannot pay suppliers (sound familiar?)

Funny thing. I spent the $125 to get a full Dunn & Bradstreet Business report on Eclipse Aviation Corp in Albuquerque, NM. I was quite surprised to see that they pay almost all accounts promptly and on time, or in some cases Slow 15 days. There is only one reporting source that shows late payments, and wouldn't you know it, it is an electronics manufacturer. Given the disputes, incomplete product delivery, and contract cancellation negotiations, that one doesn't surprise me. All in all the D&B shows pretty good status such that if they came to me to buy product from my company, I would give them terms of open account Net 30 days. The money does seem to be coming from somewhere, and continues to flow smoothly. Go figure. They may not be anywhere near the dire straights that are assumed on the blog.

airtaximan said...

Ken:

you forgot to include " in your post: "when companies cannot make money on their products, and have pre-sold a lot of them, and they are losing money, they: (add your snippit)"

My post was designed to refute what you said, which is "if" eclipse raises the price (as someone suggested they will have to), YOU SAID "who cares?"

Did they raise the price?...according to your wild accusation of me with the snippit you chose from my post, YOU ARE SAYING THAT THEY DID, as much as I am saying this would be the result which you SHOULD consider, instead of not caring.


Don't accuse me of saying something I did not say - all I said was, given the scenario which you do not care about...there would be things to consider.

Fly straight. Lotsa good meat for you to feast on and debate - try to avoid putting words in anyone's mouth -you have enough arguments without this kinda tactic, I would think.

Peronally, I think you wouldn't care if the price went up, actually your biggest fear is if the price doesn't go up - which one might argue is the case today. It could be argued the price has gone down.

Here's what real pilots think when they look under the hood:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=249497

They seem to care about a lot of things you don't

airtaximan said...

EB,

All I said was "given the scenario Ken doesn't care about....these sorts of things could occur...sound familiar?

I guess somehow it does sound familiar.

Hey, folks...all's well in ABQ...Vern just got another $50M - no big deal.

Given the scenario offered, where prices were escalated... it would probably be a big deal.

airtaximan said...

employed@eac

Welcome, enjoy the show!

There are a lot of folks here, with their own ideas - seemslike you could provide a good view into the inside. I warn you, though. Make one comment that seems to substantiate anything negative, or provide any insight into something negative going on inside E-clips, and some folks will try as hard as they can to make you go away.

It has happend a few times already.

Back to square 1:

- Have the Dayjet planes flown since delivery?
- Any clue as to what is holding up the S/N 4&5 - Why were they not CofA in line?

thanks

Ken Meyer said...

EB wrote,
" I spent the $125 to get a full Dunn & Bradstreet Business report on Eclipse Aviation Corp in Albuquerque, NM. I was quite surprised to see that they pay almost all accounts promptly and on time, or in some cases Slow 15 days."


I see it hasn't changed much since I bought the report a few months ago.

It's an excellent point that you're making--despite all the mudslinging on this blog suggesting Eclipse is on the verge of bankruptcy, the fact is that the company who specializes in identifying exactly that prospect, at a price, says it's baloney.

Ken

employed@eac said...

airtaximan: - Any clue as to what is holding up the S/N 4&5 - Why were they not CofA in line?

Given that Dayjet has the greatest "need" to get things moving, what do you think? The CofA was never an issue and was misreported. You should be seeing s/n 4 and 5 (N229BW, 504RS) fairly soon.

EclipseBlogger said...

ATM said... Hey, folks...all's well in ABQ...Vern just got another $50M - no big deal.

Hey, what's another $50M among friends?

Bambazonke said...

employed@eac The FFA representatives are completely professional and will not be backed into a corner by Eclipse.

Welcome, it will be interesting to get an insiders perspective.

To clarify one point, I am not suggesting for a minute that the FAA would not do anything other than the right thing at EAC. What I am remarking on is the unprecedented efforts that are taking place by the FAA to get these aircraft certified. I am sure that if you have been around other OEM's it is not usual for these good men and women to be away from base for extended periods of time, to work weekends and overtime to get aircraft certified for an OEM. Why are they being asked to do this at EAC? We don't need these jets for a strategic purpose, I just don't see the pressing need for the urgency of certifying these aircraft..Would you care to comment on this?

airtaximan said...

Kenny:

Did D&B report that E-clips stiffed a supplier $250,000 a few years ago when they ran out of money the first time? Did D&B come out with an indication the senior management didn't get paid but 1/2 their salary for months?

I personally have said on numerous occasions I do not think they are going bankrupt.

The only reason I bring up issues like "why have they stopped the color photocopies" in in relation to the spending on advertising - and the reason they would have to do this, IF they had 2500 orders, as they claim.

In fact, I've debated a few times, saying that Vern could easily churn up another fat check to keep them going.

I do not think his ability to get more money will end, soon, either, unless they cease deliveries or have more quality problems or Dayjet does not take their planes.

But, your reference to D&B is very weak.

Especially considering that the suppliers are in bed at this point. Their only prayer is that the line starts moving and the planes somehow get delivered and they get paid. If anyone reported on VErn at this point, I'm sure they know, it's curtains.

I guess I need to start putting "just one airtaximan's opinion" at the end of every post, again, as a reminder that this is just my opinion. I DON't want to be relegated to Cabbie again!
;)

airtaximan said...

employed,

thanks.

Do you think this is fair? Someone slept overnight many years ago, and has had their money tied up to receive a jet, and they get BUMPED because someone else has a need?

Its been a week...why have the other planes received CofA right away? They were as ready, right? And we've been told there are 30 or so planes completed and waiting for months now...

Why the hold up?

airtaximan said...

EB,

I can tell you one thing - there's a whole world out theere that I know nothing about - and like I said before, G_D bless Vern Raburn for having the friends he does!

It's amazing, isn't it?

"What's $50 million between friends" Something I WISH I could say!!!

airtaximan said...

employed,

You say the CofA was never an issue, then why the "no comment" when asked the direct question.

Apparently this was a few days before the CofA was actually issued, and FI was dying for the story and subject to a deadline. So they had the "dayjet takes delivery" story...and asked if the CofAs were in place.

If there was not an issue, why did it become an issue? Why not say, "we belive the CofAs will be issued, if not the planes will not be delivered" ?

I just don't get it? Somehow the CofAs were an issue - and I do not think anyone can say for SURE that one WILL be issued in a few day, without already having it, right?

Seems like the "no comment" meant "not yet".

Seems like "no problem" means somehow "it was known that the CofAs would show in a day or two.

Given the poor trackrecord of prdicting deliveries, CofA, PC, etc... I'm scratching my head as to how they KNEW it would be no problem. How you can make a statement that deliveries have been made/will be made (I do not remember) BEFORE you actually have a CofA... especially when you've been days late and dollars short before, to the tune of many onths and hundreds of airplanes.

Help?

bill e. goat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
employed@eac said...

bambazonke: To clarify one point, I am not suggesting for a minute that the FAA would not do anything other than the right thing at EAC. What I am remarking on is the unprecedented efforts that are taking place by the FAA to get these aircraft certified.

It's not like is was at Mooney where planes come off the line one at a time, and the inspections are performed on an as needed basis. There are plenty of planes here waiting for inspection, and plenty of work to go around. It's also in the FAA's interest to get these inspected, get Eclipse's manufacturing and quality straightened out, and the production certificate signed off. The FAA is all about putting planes in the air, not keeping them on the ground.

gadfly said...

Just for fun, on this “Resurrection Day” look up www.questaircraft.com and do a Google search for Quest Aviation Company and their new turboprop, Kodiak. It seems that New Tribes Mission, MAF (Mission Aviation Fellowship), and JAARS (Jungle Aviation And Radio Service) got behind the need to replace the Cessna 206, after many, many years of excellent and dependable service.

Avgas is costing these three missionary groups up to $14 per gallon in the remote areas in which they serve missionaries, so the need to go “turbo-prop”, plus the greater capacity of ten passenger seating, plus pilot, plus massive amounts of cargo space. The only real comparison between the “Kodiak” and the “Eclipse” is their timing, and the fact that the Kodiak uses a Garmin 1000 flat screen layout . . . along with a complete set of the dinosaur gages for backup.

Many years ago, my flight instructors at Moody were pilots from JAARS and MAF. Some of my classmates have served with these groups, and are now retiring. This new aircraft is most welcome for this work. MAF has moved from Southern California up to Idaho, near where “Quest” is located.

Me thinks you will be entertained by looking into what a hand full of personnel have achieved in a relatively short time, with this fine new aircraft. And it’s easy to gain good information related to their inner workings, actual flight testing, and financing.

Enjoy!

gadfly

Gunner said...

Gad-
Give them this advertising tagline from me, free of charge:

"Kodiak:
Because Christ flies a 'dinosaur'"

Happy Easter!
Gunner

bill e. goat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
employed@eac said...

airtaximan: You say the CofA was never an issue, then why the "no comment" when asked the direct question.

When the punch list is short, it's just a matter of fixing the squawks and paperwork, and writing up the final signoff. I don't know what the actual question was that was asked of Andrew, and I don't know Andrew's actual response. What I do know is that the story deadline was before the third signoff. FI later retracted the accusation and corrected their story.

airtaximan said...

employed@eac:
you say:
"To clarify one point, I am not suggesting for a minute that the FAA would not do anything other than the right thing at EAC. What I am remarking on is the unprecedented efforts that are taking place by the FAA to get
these aircraft certified."

Nice to know it's impossible to predict, under the circumstances WHEN a plane will recieve cofA...
BUT HOW DID THEY KNOW...for sure?

I am curious, because of the musings of insiders at the FAA saying there was pressure. Much pressure...a lot of pressure - WHY?
Some even say the planes were not completed, WHY the pressure? How come the were certified?

no way these planes would have been signed off...unless?

So, you have it: accusations of fauty play.

Quell the accusations with available facts;

try this post for size:

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/archive/index.php/t-9733.html


these pilots basically accuse E-clips of complete BS... try, try agiain...

present facts..

employed@eac said...

airtaximan, sounds like anything I post won't satisfy you. I suggest you do your own legwork and if check directly with the FAA and you can confirm the certificates for yourself. Alternatively, you can put your trust in the FI reporters, since it appears that they have already confirmed it, and retracted their previous report. Do you really think they would have retracted it if they felt there was any misrepresentation on the part of Eclipse or the FAA.

bill e. goat said...

Welcome to the new folks today.

A fellow blogger said:
The FFA representatives are completely professional and will not be backed into a corner by Eclipse...

Goat:
Agreed, from the FAA folks I've met elsewhere. This pleases the goat.

A fellow blogger said:
”the unprecedented efforts that are taking place by the FAA to get these aircraft certified...”

Goat:
Agreed. But this does NOT please the goat.

Goat rant follows (mostly, re-bleat from before, but with (tiring, but timely) elaboration- sorry...

Vern's chummy proclamations of the FAA as “a partner”, while intending to reassure the investors and customers that “things are under control”, strikes me as pretty unseemly. So did the Marion/Vern schmooze-fest at Osh Kosh in 2006. So did the “provisional” TC. (While legal, it was still,...tacky).

I don't mind Eclipse partnering with NASA, or DARPA, or Santa Claus, but to “partner” with a regulatory agency, nuh-uh, in my book.

I suspect the upper management of the FAA is “leaning on” the front-line guys pretty hard. No punishment or retribution, just, “who gets along well” will “be remembered” when promotions come up...It would take a lot of gumption to resist the double play (pressure from Eclipse, pressure from “upstairs”). Thankfully, most rank-and-file FAA types do have, lots of gumption.

Speaking of that, there was some mention of the FAA regional office NOT being ICT. That's true, it's normally based on geography. This strikes me as a little nuts, in this case anyway, since it is the Texas ACO that is the player. I don't know how many decades ago they certificated a clean-sheet fixed wing program. I've been told the ICT office is pretty “cooperative” until a few years ago, when some misplaced trust came back and burned them- now they are rigorous (appropriately and commendably so, I think).

When I hear that the FAA has extra staff at Eclipse, and is working mandatory overtime to “get the planes out”, I'm concerned. It's the FAA's job to be available, M-F, to inspect paperwork and aircraft presented to them. It is Eclipse's job to have the paperwork and aircraft in order BEFORE presenting them to the FAA.

The fact that Eclipse is presenting defective/deficient/inadequate paperwork and aircraft, means extra work for the FAA. Sorry, the FAA does NOT work for Eclipse, they work for the tax payer. I know the FAA guys are “can do” types, and off-hour and weekend support is not uncommon for any new program, from any manufacturer, but only to some degree.

Fine, Eclipse got special treatment during TC, and the first delivery. The fact that it is STILL going on, is WRONG. It is incumbent upon Eclipse to have the airplane AND paperwork ready to go when presented to the FAA. Someone reported a few weeks ago that there has been an 80 percent turnover in Eclipse QA. I don't know what the manufacturing turnover rate is.

But it sounds like Eclipse is still trying to “push” sloppy work through- both hardware and paperwork- either due to incompetence, or deliberate construct. The FAA should be allowed to walk away* (and I mean, for as long as it takes to force* Eclipse to get it's manufacturing and QA process straightened out: not just for a week or two to “send a message”). I guess FAA big wigs would consider that “unbecoming” for a partner to act so “uncooperative”. I'm glad I'm not in the shoes of their on-the-floor people...

*this is in the best interest of Eclipse, as well as the taxpayer. Eclipse should be instilling confidence in the minds of the FAA, to facilitate a timely PC, rather than instilling doubt and suspicion. I have never seen a manufacturer act like Eclipse- either in attempting to co-opt them through “partnership”, or by trying to slide through sloppy work.

I feel bad for the many good people at Eclipse, in both manufacturing and QA, for being pressured into presenting this substandard work to the FAA. It shouldn't require “unprecedented effort” by the FAA to issue CofA's”; it should be cut and dried, either pass, or fail. And the FAA's time shouldn't be wasted by inspecting deficient work.

bill e. goat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stan Blankenship said...

goat,

"Texas ACO that is the player. I don't know how many decades ago they certificated a clean-sheet fixed wing program."

Better I correct you than somebody else, the Ft. Worth ACO had the Sino-Swearingen project.

You are sort of right on the timing, it was a 1.5 decade program.

gadfly said...

Nobody cared much when the “goat” was out back chewing on the cans in the trash, . . . in fact, it was all rather amusing. But he just recently found the ones in the pantry . . . the cans of beans that were “for sale” . . . one can tell by the “fragrance” (of the beans, that is).

gadflies are alert to this sort of thing, you know!

It’s OK, goat, you just go on about your business.

(For you newcomers, goats and flies seem to congregate in the same place . . . sort of professional courtesy, as it were!)

bill e. goat said...

Thanks Stan,

I forgot about Sino.

(I suppose the FAA transfers folks between offices to some degree, and maybe ship paperwork around for review. Sure seems like the ICT boys would have been more seasoned though).

BTW, did you know (from their web site):

"The SJ30-2 is, quite simply, the world's fastest and best performing light busness jet at the world's best price value"

"Fuel Economy- INCREDIBLE"

"Blinding speeds approaching the sound barrier"

Egad!! anyone seen Andrew Broom lately?

:)

bill e. goat said...

Gadfly,

Me, chewing on the cans in the trash?

I just like to think I'm "on the top of the heap!"

(and having heaps of fun with such good company!)

.)

gadfly said...

goat

It continues to be a pleasure . . . and the "position on the heap" is in the eye of the beholder (or is it the "nose" . . . I forget).

gadfly

bill e. goat said...

Gadfly,

Top of the heap, or in the middle- I'm just looking for that lutefisk ! :)

gadfly said...

goat

When you run out of re-fried . . . correct that, re-sold canned beans, I'll share the lutefisk.

gadfly

(goat ain't never goin' to get the lutefisk on those terms . . . don't ya know!)

bill e. goat said...

Gadfly,
Why thank you! I consider myself sort of an aroma enhancing ar-tiste'
(sort of like Andrew Broom's job...)

BTW, I think an artist which we both admire, just passed away this evening: Johnny Hart, of the B.C. Comic strip (died of a sudden stroke).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070409/ap_on_en_ot/obit_hart

I enjoyed the B.C. strip, and also miss the fun of a Sunday morning paper, to read the kind and gentle wit of Charles Shulz (died Feb 12, 2000). For our younger bloggers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanuts

EclipseBlogger said...

Now you're making me feel old, when you have to explain to the youngsters who Charles Schulz was.

bill e. goat said...

EB,
another favorite of mine passed away this year too- Yvonnve DeCarlo (Lily Munster).
I won't bore the youngsters with that link :(

gadfly said...

Goat

Your news about Johnny Hart reveals much about the association between “goats” and “gadflies”. Although I personally know the owners of the local paper, and have been closely associated with their CFO for many years (on some medical inventions), I rarely read more than the comics. Johnny Hart’s comments often revealed his trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. We’ll visit with him once again, and this day is proof of that. But in the mean time, we’ll miss his daily wit.

Thanks for the update.

gadfly

Now, back to the local soap opera!

(By the way, my introduction to private business jets was aboard the "owner's" Lear 25, to take care of patent issues, in person, in Delaware. Neat, huh! . . . flying at 49,000 feet, with the sky above a deep blue, similar to swimming under my submarine in open ocean south of Japan . . . it's remarkable how similar the upper and lower limits of man appear. But I almost became a lunch for a shark . . . I saw no sharks at 49,000 feet.)

gadfly said...

Stan

On behalf of many people whom you have allowed to come together, to discuss issues close to our hearts, regarding primarily “Eclipse Aviation”, Thank you. But sometimes we go astray . . . most of us love “flight”, simply for the joy of flying, and also, for the desire to continue on the constant battle to keep flying both safe and free of unnecessary control.

Some of us, ‘older than dirt, cut our teeth on aviation . . . long before most of us were a gleam in our father’s eye. Yet, we sincerely desire to see legitimate companies succeed, if they are truly worthy of furthering the art and joy and safety of flying. If they are in it, for the “hit and run”, we rise up to get them out of an otherwise honorable industry.

Without any further preaching, all of us are grateful for your forbearance of the many diverse comments . . . and the special privilege of interacting with many people across this little planet . . . another time, another place, none of this could be possible.

We do not take this privilege for granted.

gadfly

bill e. goat said...

Gadfly,
Well said, and Amen, good friend.

airtaximan said...

Employed@eac:

I do not think they retracted the report. They said that the planes received CofA... eventually, when they were delivered.

At one time, there was "no comment" from EAC - which was never retracted.

All I'm asking is, how did EAC KNOW FOR SURE a few days before, the plane would receive the CofA?

According to the report, they did not have them at the time of the report, and the report said the planes were delivered.

- do all the Dayjet planes have interiors completed?

Thanks.

airtaximan said...

FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL
Eclipse delays 'will benefit rivals'

Eclipse Aviation risks losing orders for its pioneering very light jet to rivals if it does not sort out its production problems imminently.

That is the view of aerospace consultancy PMI-Media, which says in a new report on the sector that Embraer's Phenom 100 and Diamond Aircraft's D-Jet will "see increases in demand" if the Albuquerque-based manufacturer cannot get the Eclipse 500 into service in the next four months. Eclipse has faced problems with key suppliers that have led to delays in obtaining certification for the aircraft.

PMI has revised its 2007 delivery estimate for the VLJ sector from 205 to 125 units because of the effect of the Eclipse delays on the overall market.

Analyst Rainer Vogel says the company's problems are more deep-seated than previously thought and that it could take "far longer to achieve the 1,000 aircraft a year production rate it is currently planning",

The report estimates the backlog for VLJs at more than 4,000 aircraft, with 14 types now competing in the sector.

It forecasts that more than 4,120 very light jets will be delivered between 2007 and 2016.

Interesting timing on this report, too...it was the 27th of March...

gadfly said...

Back in submarine school, there was a large poster, near the 100 foot tower escape training tank, which “back then” every submariner had to go through, once every year. The lower chamber would be pressurized to “44psi gage”, and we each had to ascend through a heavy steel door, to the surface, “free ascent” (the Momson Lung is no longer used) . . . which seemed about a hundred miles straight up. On the way up, we had to blow out air as fast as we could exhale, or our lungs would literally explode, causing death, before reaching the surface.

On the poster, one of the cartoons said, “Who fluffed in the tank?”

And without any blogs all day, I’m wondering what happened to the blog . . . was it “goat”, “airtaximan”, “gadfly”? . . . who? . . . everyone seems to have cleared out.

You can all come back . . . the windows have been open all day, and it’s safe now . . . air is all clear.

gadfly

Black Tulip said...

Gadfly,

No one 'fluffed in the tank'. However, the aviation media has picked up the trail and is reporting on the Eclipse situation. Aviation International News showed up in my mailbox yesterday and you can read between the lines. Maybe the gravity of the situation is sinking in and has people reflective and silent.

I found myself lucky yesterday as some of it was spent at 31,000 feet, in the front left seat, with a big tailwind component and my wife and her childhood girlfriend chatting in the back. Even though we weren't very high, I savored the light-blue to dark-blue sky transition and watched the world roll by.

I'd like to think Eclipse owners could enjoy their jets and their own experience. It would be good for them and aviation.

Black Tulip

airtaximan said...

good article in AIN

http://ain.gcnpublishing.com/content/news/single-news-page/article/production-and-deliveries-challenge-jet-oem-start-ups/?no_cache=1&cHash=ade9e5000d

thanks Tulip

I wonder if all buyers through S/N 191 have paid their 60% progress payment on top of their initial deposit deposit?

I wonder if Dayjet has paid theirs, or even has to?

-Lets say they have 1/2 the orderbook to position 200...
- lets say their average price is $1.3 million (who knows???)
- lets say they actually had to place a 5% deposit for each plane...let's just say...

5% deposits = $6.5 million
60% deposits = $78 million (more)

I wonder if Dayjet has put up the deposits? $84.5 million

But as my buddy EB says "what's $84,500,000.00 among friends?"

Interesting that an Eclipse- insider said on this blog that some folks deliveries were neglected in favor of Dayjet, "because they had the greatest need".

Is this in your delivery-position contract, too?

twinpilot said...

OK here we go:

Plan 1: Why doesn't E-clips just announce that they can't sell airplanes for the 1.2 mil. price they promised and declare a refund event. (that "you have to buy but we don't have to sell" language was in the original contract) Let's say 100 buyers cancelled. They have to pay out 12,500,000. in refunds at say 125k per airplane but they then sell the airplanes at 1.8 million and make 600 million in additional profit. What if 300 buyers cancel? It costs E-clips 37,500,000 in cash flow and they net 1.8 billion in additional profits.

Plan 2: If they declare Chapter 7 bankruptcy (liquidation), they stiff all of the position holders, stiff the vendors they don't need, pay a few they do need or promise to pay them when they go back into production etc. The big players then make sure they are the high bidders on the sale of assets and buy the assets back. That means at say 700 position holders at 125K each they don't have to pay back the 87.5 million and get to make another 4.2 Billion in EXTRA PROFIT. Even if they had to pay back some of the 87.5 million, it is a no brainer.

gadfly said...

When I was a kid, I raised “Hamster’s”. They would get in that round cage and run like there was no tomorrow. They wouldn’t get anywhere, but they sure put on a show. They thrived on Frisky’s Dog Food. They would produce offspring . . . the promise of enough hamsters to supply every kid on the block . . . but before the new crop was a day old, the “parents” had eaten most of the litter. ‘Kinda reminds me of what I’m watching.

Try as I might, I cannot find a single website (other than the Eclipse and Dayglo websites) with good news, and firm affirmation of a bright future.

‘Maybe they need a bigger cage . . . or more dog biscuits . . . who can tell!

gadfly

Gunner said...

The aviation press has not been treated well by Vern Raburn, except in terms of advertising. But, once they smell blood in the water, they will savage him without remorse.

There is not one person on this Blog that has anything to gain by an Eclipse failure. If the company can do a fraction of what it claims, the opportunities for Vendors, Pilots and Aircraft Owners will only increase as technology and money flows into this particular market (Personal Jets).

That may still happen, but not before this company gets knocked way back a few pegs. 'Bout time the Aviation Press started analyzing as opposed to regurgitating.
Gunner

Gunner said...

From the AIN piece:
"one seasoned player in business aviation suggested to AIN that perhaps Administrator Blakey’s appearance at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh last summer to hand Raburn an ill-defined provisional type certification for the first VLJ was setting the stage for the dire predictions of clogged airports and airways that the agency is using to justify its now public position on user fees and tax increases."

Following the money (politics).....it's not just for Bloggers anymore.
Gunner

bill e. goat said...

Gadfly,
"but they sure put on a show" !! :)

Twinpilot:
nice analysis.

ATM:
You're right about Dayjet, I don't think they can cough up that much, I suspect Vern made them a sweetheart deal to be his "poster children".

Gunner:
I agree- I think the press fawned a bit to try to "an exclusive". Instead, they were getting played.

New blogger from yesterday:
Please come back!
Feed us hampsters on the treadmill of Vernian intrigue!!
(Just don't use an incriminating "handle" that might jeapordize this blog, or yourself!)

bill e. goat said...

Ken:
Please come back!
Feed us hampsters on the treadmill of Vernian intrigue!!
It's okay to use an incriminating "handle" !!