Tuesday, October 16, 2007


Press on Regardless


FlightCenter reminds us of how DayJet costs changed but the business plan remained steady on course.


We've (the blog) talked a lot about the performance guarantees made by Eclipse to its customers.


As a number of folks have pointed out, Ed should have been able to find any number of other aircraft with the performance numbers required to start an air taxi business.


That's true except for the amazing direct operating costs originally promised for the Eclipse 500.


The promise that convinced Ed to launch his air taxi busines with Eclipse, was that the Eclipse 500 would have a direct operating cost of 56 cents per mile. ($204.52 DOC per hour)


Ed's initial air taxi model and his customer demand projections were based on the assumption that the Eclipse 500 would achieve that direct operating cost and based on that cost, DayJet (Jetson) could very profitably sell seats at between $1 and $2 a mile.


At the time, the IRS was allowing 34 1/2 cents a mile for automobile mileage deductions.


If Ed could profitably deliver a flight in an jet aircraft to his customers for 3x the price of driving their own car, the problem was going to be getting enough aircraft, not getting enough customers.


And that is why Jetson (now DayJet) booked 715 orders and 715 options for the Eclipse 500.


Then came the decision to switch from Williams to Pratt. Direct operating costs were raised to 69 cents per mile ($262.61 DOC per hour) in January 2003 and have been rising ever since.


According to the Eclipse website, the current DOC is $424.75 per hour or $1.28 per mile.


That's 2.3x the original promise of 56 cents per mile.

254 comments:

1 – 200 of 254   Newer›   Newest»
Dan Swanson said...

One thing that seems lost in the discussion of Eclipse, is that the timing of the certification of the aircraft looks like it coincided with the global oil production peak.

Whatever the future of aviation is with oil prices increasing exponentially, it will not be thousands of toy jets with almost no payload range performance.

Vern's just didn't study the future of oil production when planning his business venture. He is not the only one, Airbus also missed this, hence their giant white elephant that costs over $200,000 to top off with fuel at the time of first delivery.

Dan

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Look for Brother Billboard and the rest of the Faithful Following of the Church of Flyantology to chime in how even being roughly 3 times the original projected DOCthe wee-jet is still CHEAPer than 'the competition'.

Just like being 2X the original cost, several years behind schedule, hundreds of planes behind promised production schedules (and DEMANDED progress payments), hundreds of millions of dollars deeper in the hole than expected (perhaps even a Beeeeeeelllllllion), it is all just 'teething pains'.

Ken Meyer said...

What is very attractive about the Eclipse is that it can be operated for the price of a pressurized piston twin. It's the only jet that comes anywhere near that pricing level. The DayJet per-seat on-demand concept would not have worked with any other jet.

And the low operating cost is why hundreds of individual owners lined up to buy the Eclipse.

According to B&CA, the hourly cost of operating an Eclipse is $445.56 (excluding crew expenses). The annual fixed expenses are $27K. For a pilot flying 150 hours a year (over 46,000 air miles), that comes out to $94,000. That's less than my 340 cost me over the last 12 months. Add in engine reserves ($17K) and you're still at just $111K for the year. People like the Eclipse because it is cost effective to operate.

Note that B&CA omits cost of capital. DayJet's investors provide that, but for an individual owner, that would come out about $100K annually. The annual cost of capital for a CJ1+ would be about $300K; for a CJ2+ it would be about $400K. Both are high enough that those planes are are difficult for most individual owner/operators to justify without resorting to the unpleasantness of a leaseback arrangement. The Eclipse is low enough upfront and low enough ongoing that many individual owner/operators currently flying lesser aircraft can justify it.

The cost is low enough upfront and low enough ongoing that DayJet can afford to operate it with a single passenger onboard while still charging a rate competitive with other means of transportation. Unlike traditional jet charters where a single passenger has to be rich or the company CEO, a single passenger on DayJet does not pay a huge premium over traveling by airliner or car.

The Eclipse is amazingly cost-effective. And that is central to DayJet's business plan just as it is a powerful attractant for owner/operators.

Ken

cj3driver said...

Ken said:

“ … The Eclipse is amazingly cost-effective …”

Or is it?… There are many other types of aircraft which may be just as efficient.

Using your numbers (which I don’t agree with) the annual cost for an E500 is over $200K. But, a prudent buyer/investor would also consider resale value/depreciation. This is where the Eclipse has a major problem.

If you plug in the current cost of a typically equipped E500 from the factory (if it were available today, at today’s dollars), the price would be about 1.85 million. A quick look on controller reveals that several positions, for deliveries in the next few months, can be purchased below $1.6 million … including options.

This gives a depreciation rate of $250,000 over new, even if you could purchase one at the factory today. Even being conservative at half, this puts depreciation at $125K for the first year. Probably more (please refer to last weeks posts on future value). This phenomena will continue for the foreseeable future due to the hundreds (if not thousands) of pre-sold delivery slots, and the fact that a used aircraft with 300 hours on is will have a tough time competing with a factory new one …. with warranty.

Therefore the annual budget for the E500 is $325,000 per year using your operating costs and expected depreciation of $125K per year. Even more with a commercial operator with higher annual utilization.

Ken,

You keep glossing over this issue. Do you think resale value is not a legitimate concern? Do you have reasons that you believe massive depreciation losses/risk is not there?

If you do, I would sincerely be interested to hear the reasons.

BTW - I still think my estimate of $355K is closer to reality.
... we'll see in a years time.

Black Tulip said...

Ken closes with:

“Eclipse… is central to DayJet's business plan just as it is a powerful attractant for owner/operators.”

Attractant is a forbidding term. A Google search turns up dire implications for the aircraft user. The word attractant is most often linked to a method of luring insects into a trap. The most common chemical method involves the use of pheromones, chemicals that trigger a natural behavioral response in another member of the same species.

Black Tulip

airtaximan said...

Ken:

when you say "The DayJet per-seat on-demand concept would not have worked with any other jet." Well, so far, it does not work with this one, either. SO what?

I'll tell you waht does work, for air taxi - Satsair using SR22s.

I hear they can fly 7 days a week, and they do not require 20% of their fleet on the sidelines as spare planes... either.

The SR22 can do 80% or so of the e-500/Dayjet per-seat taxi missions, at only $500 for the whole plane per hour.

YA THINK THEY COULD HAVE TRIED THE PER-SEAT ON-DEMAND IN SOME WAY WITH ANOTHER PLANE... EVEN AS A TEST? Maybe even as their real business plan?

NOPE - the e-500 is the only taxijet according to Ken.

Will you admit you were wrong all along, when you discover the companies are more incestuous that you ever imagined, and basically, Dayjet OWED buying the e-500 to their "investors"?

You have no clue what would make a good taxi plane for per-seat service, except the BS you read on e-clips/Dayjet websites.

You just try as hard as you can to keep writing nice things about the plane, becasue you have a delivery deposit and progress payment that went up in smoke - and you are sick about receiving nothing for your money.

Problem is, your repetition of the cost and performance advantages, without proper analysis of the market requirements. You really know nothing about this.

cj3driver said...

It appears another sad revenue day for the DayJet fleet.

Only one mission DJS131 so far today as of 8:45pm EST. The flights GNV-TLH-BCT-LAL consisted of three legs totaling less than 3 hours. It was scheduled to depart LAL an hour ago, so there may still be a leg left today.

Its probably a good thing that Eclipse hasn’t delivered the promised planes to DayJet yet, because instead of 11 planes on the ground, there would have been 23.

airtaximan said...

CJ3, in reality, your analysis of depreciation of the plane is accurate. BUT, this ain't your Daddy's transaction.

-dayjet price = $1.1 million
-dayjet has at least $400K PER PLANE built in equity.

Incestuous = someone's getting porked... but it aint Dayjet or e-clips.

While every "Ken" is ponying up real dollars as progress payments, Dayjet has planes reserved at 30%-40% off with no money down for most of them.

The implications regarding depreciation, with THIS in mind, is very discouraging. I have asked Ken about RISKS, all along. ONE POTENTIAL HUGE RISK TO HIS E-500 (if he ever sees it) RESIDUAL VALUE IS THE Dayjet SCHEME.

Someone keeps writing something to the effect that "if Dayjet fails, they could just just sell their planes"...

What would the Value of Ken's plane be, then?

- you know who would be good at looking at this issue - EO...

airtaximan said...

CJ3,

perhaps you can feel the impact of my last post.

23 planes on the ground, and someone gets itchy to sell pretty quickly. I know, its only $26 million or so... and the market of "Kens" who would love to trade up to the E-500 is in the tens of thousands (rrriiiggghhhtt!!!)... but somehow, I THINK this number of cheap E-500 sitting around will begin to looked at as a problem that needs to be resolved.

BUY!
SELL!
BUY!!!
SELL!!!

hummer said...

ATM
You're right on the money.
1,400 options/planes makes
DayJet the largest dealer
of light jets in the country.
In fact, Eclipse can't even
match their prices on new
aircraft sales.

Ken Meyer said...

CJ3 wrote,

"Using your numbers (which I don’t agree with) the annual cost for an E500 is over $200K. But, a prudent buyer/investor would also consider resale value/depreciation."

They are not MY numbers. They are the carefully-considered opinion of the nation's expert in this matter.

And the numbers are these:

$94,000 operating expense annually for 46,000 nautical miles of flying.

You naysayers would like us to believe the $94,000 is really $200,000. OK. You do get that figure if you include engine reserves and the cost of capital. But the cost of capital puts the CJ1, CJ2 and especially the CJ3 out of the ballpark for most pilot/owners. I mean really--who is going to spend $400,000 in cost of capital (just cost of capital) for a CJ2 when you can fly a jet with cost of capital less than 25% of that? It's crazy. No sane pilot/owner will do that without an awfully strong need for such a big plane. Trust me on this: you don't want us to consider cost of capital--if you consider cost of capital, practically nobody would ever buy a CJ3 (which is probably why very very few pilot/owners actually do buy a CJ3).

You would like to consider market depreciation. OK. My two Eclipse positions have each appreciated, not depreciated. So, rather than figuring in your silly depreciation figures of $125K or $250K per year--trumped up figures you need in order to make the Eclipse look expensive--let's put the actual appreciation figure of $50K per year.

The truth is after a pilot/owner like me writes the check for the Eclipse, we can operate it for $94,000 a year and fly 46,000 miles. That's pretty doggone good, and it goes a long way toward explaining why there are 2700 Eclipse orders waiting to be filled.

Ken

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Sometimes I even scare myself.

Not 25 minutes after my prediction it came true.

The trail of broken promises, failed achedules, missed guarantees and hundreds of millions of wasted investor monies would be enough to cause any normal person pause - add in the 'sister' company in DayJet, questionable vendor relationships, and the recent need to staff up Stress guys in Service Engineering and again, I smell something fishy and it ain't me......

Lloyd said...

This comment is directly in line with what I have been saying for years, that the DOC's for the Eclipse will be about the same as the Pilatus PC-12, and I was right almost to the penny.

cj3driver said...

ATM,

Surely the Eclipse “air-taxi” contract must have “Use and Resale clauses” … ?

Incest aside, you may be right. It may be that DayJet that ultimately forces Eclipse into bankruptcy. Not because of the failure of the business model, but because DayJet became a pseudo manufacturer/distributor. DayJet could exercise its options for 1,400 units as “air-taxi’s”, run each plane a hundred hours (at a loss), and turn them at a profit. With a market of 150 per year, DayJet could have it all … for the next ten years, at the expense of the position holders.

airsafetyman said...

"Its probably a good thing that Eclipse hasn’t delivered the promised planes to DayJet yet, because instead of 11 planes on the ground, there would have been 23."

Something very weird is going on with DayJet. It would have been cheaper to offer free flights for a day or so so generate interest in their service, than to sit around and stare at the airplanes sitting on the ramp for days on end. It's almost as if they don't want any business. Maybe they have determined that will lose less money by not flying than if they do? I hope they don't get caught up in the sleaze business that so many Florida part 135 operators get caught up in.

airtaximan said...

Ken:

"But the cost of capital puts the CJ1, CJ2 and especially the CJ3 out of the ballpark for most pilot/owners."

Interesting comment: As if there are so many "pilot/owners" for the e-500.

There have been 1,000 CJs sold, and a total of 5,000 Citation models... many for personal use, and many for company use.

Who cares?

You ASSume there is a large enough market of private pilot/owners to make a case for a $1.5..6..7 million e-500?

Perhaps the market is a lot msmaller than you think, and even at a money-losing $1.2 million price, there's only 700-800 "buyers"...plus Dayjet.

Some smart person here has aid, jets are not for pilots conscious of every dime...they burn Dollars. The market for a $1.6 million cheap-jet may be no man's land.

I get the impression that if the plane is 10%-20% more costly to operate in reality...in the field... all realities considered, YOU probably will have to sell, Ken.

Just my opinion.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Just in case the Faithful Following might have missed them, I will ask some questions again and see if Brother Billboard or any others care to take up the flag for L Vern Raburn and the Church of Flyantology.

Anyone care to address the shortfall at Eclipse to EVER sell enough individual aircraft in any year to meet the volume they themselves say they NEED to breakeven.

Anyone care to address the FACT that they demanded '6-month' progress payments from hundreds of depositors last fall (appr. 300), and have only delivered 4 dozen, partially functional crippled little jets in the ensuing 12 months.

Anyone care to address the FACT they demanded those '6-month' progress payments knowing that they were scrapping Avio for Avio NfG as they ADMITTED when they said they had the program underway well before the announcement was made.

Anyone care to address the FACT that displays, autopilots and actuators are failing enough to garner a comment from Vern himself.

Anyone care to address the FACT that the jet is years late and now costs more than twice the original prediction, goes less distance, and weighs more than half a ton more than originally projected.

Anyone care to address the FACT that Eclipse lied about their absence from AOPA last year and they only admitted they LIED about it, 3 weeks later.

Anyone care to address the FACT that the critics were right all along about the RVSM issue for months re: the GPS database issue.

Anyone care to address the FACT that Eclipse is now seeking several Service Engineering Stress Engineers and Experimental Flight Test Mechanics, people who are only required in multiples if there is a significant project for the fielded fleet.

Anyone care to address the FACT that Eclipse was, according to its CEO, almost bankrupted by the collapse of a $200M finaincing deal only a couple months ago - a common issue we critics talk about - the financial stability of the company.

Anyone care to address the FACT that the major criticisms made here over the last year and a half, Eclipse underestimated the task, Eclipse made mistakes, Eclipse mismanaged the vendors, Eclipse is on shakey financial footing - all have been vindicated, stated by Vern himself.

Anyone care to address the FACT that the critic suggested issue of limited range and payload are being proven nearly daily, even the beloved aero-mod birds.

We look forward to some answers from those folks who are plugged in.

airtaximan said...

wetfish-
Yup, impressive call on how "someone" would reply...

Q? I noticed e-clips looking at new technologies for inspecting "welds" this year. I find it curious, asking: why now? Why not have a system for this before if it was going to be a concern...or is there a new issue.

With what you see in the ramp up of stress guys/in-service engineers... what do you suspect?

hummer said...

Always leave yourself a way out.
One of the first rules of flying.
Ed certainly understands this
principle and has contingency plans
in place. The east coast from
Bean town to Miami is a gold mine.
Look for this to be plan B.

airtaximan said...

I get the feeling...

Ken's on the phone with Vern, RIGHT NOW:

"What Ken, Its getting late"
"Did Dayjet promise not to sell their planes?"

WHAT?
"Vern - is Dayjet able to flood the market with planes at $400k less than what I'm paying, and make money?"

"Ken, Dayjet IS NOT a distributor - they are in the TAXI business...Jeezzz"

OH, and the coldwetfish guy is bringing up the same issues as last week...

Ken, as long as you stick to the revised, revise speed and cost numbers, your coo-el. R-E-M-E-M-B-E-R - no one KNOWS anything about what is really going on....take solace in that. Speed, and DOC.

But Vern, someone keep coming up with residual value, and Dayjet buying their planes for $500k less than ME, er I mean the position-holders...

Ken, I told you, Dayjet has nothing to do with anything - they are per-seat on-demand taxi-service... they are not selling planes...SHEESH... and if they were, their planes have like what 1 hour on them - why would the discount?

But, can they?

Click.

Niner Zulu said...

Ken,
I think your true cost of ownership will be more like 3 or 4 times $94,000. Maybe even 5 times. But if it is really $94k, I hope you'll let me park MY Eclipse next to yours ;-).

airtaximan said...

Hummer,

I'd love to see Boston - Miami on the e-500 with pax and bags...

What would you charge for the trip?

- how many real live pax w/real bags?

airtaximan said...

9Z,

if its MORE, he aint a buyer anyMORE.

airtaximan said...

Hummer..

4 hours in that thing? no toilet?

funny man.

I guess that's the beauty of the design...

hummer said...

ATM
Place a/c & pilots in:
Boston,
New York City, area
Baltimore
Washington, DC
and hub down through
to Miami
Not a direct flight.
But this time of year you need
FIKI or it's a no go.

Niner Zulu said...

My prediction: counting all costs, Ken, you'll spend more in 1 year owning your Eclipse than your C340 is worth.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

ATM,

My put would be that there are some cracking issues in a FSW area, possibly very thin skinned, and the nature of the shape or access requires some unconventional inspection techniques.

Not saying that this is necessarily a fielded fleet issue (if you can call 4 dozen partially completed aircraft a 'fleet').

It could be that they saw some trending during fatigue testing that gave them a heads-up on possible trouble areas at say half-life (or earlier - beyond half-life there would be little reason to tackle it right now).

All pure speculation on my part as our Flock brethren will no doubt point out, but my speculation is based on nearly 2 decades experience covering light, small, and big aircraft - an activity I am reasonably well rewarded for.

My best guess would be cracking in the crown area above the cockpit or the window surrounds as most likely culprits. Next best guess would be repair development for some other structural issue, engine beams are welded I believe, maybe excessive wing flex (one of the skins is welded to spars and ribs I believe).

I have heard rumblings that the quality on the wings from FHI is very, very poor, and that the tools are suspect. The FSW process requires a good fitup, so maybe they need a way to inspect the wing assembly from the next future ex-eclipse vendor.

Whatever it is it would probably not reach light of day any time soon unless somebody in the know actually lets it spill.

hummer said...

Va. Beach/Norfolk
Charolette
ATL
Jacksonville
Only 135 Operator on the east coast.
Got the money, pilots, a/c to pull
it off.
All he needs are paying passengers.

Ken Meyer said...

AT wrote,

"I get the impression that if the plane is 10%-20% more costly to operate in reality...in the field... all realities considered, YOU probably will have to sell, Ken.

Just my opinion."


And I appreciate you sharing your opinion.

But since you shared yours; I'll share mine--

I know you don't own a plane.

I believe you cannot afford a plane.

I suspect you do not fly a plane.

Personally, I think your notions are so FOS that you're just trolling here. I'll bet you're a big hit on the "John Lennon isn't dead" blog!

Ken

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Curious what ATM or Hummer see as the potential fallout within the Eclipse market from the revocation of AMI Jet Charter's 135 certificate given that the AMI approach is similar to what I would expect to see as the majority approach for anyone trying to offset their cost of ownership?

TIA

EclipseOwner387 said...

Off Subject,

I am thinking of installing the Chelton system in the Mirage I just bought. Anyone with hands on Chelton experience? The specs appear very impressive.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Another good candidate for needing potentially unusual inspection techniques could be the main cabin door which I also believe is welded. Probably sees more flexing stress under enplaning/deplaning than any other part of the jet save the wings. I'll bet there are some very tight areas in that small space.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

To clarify, lest the Faithful suggest I don't know every detail about the plane (and should therefore not be trusted at all - lol), I am referring above to the lower door shell. The upper shell too could be subject to some twisting\flexing due to wind loads as well but there are steps built into the lower door as I recall and I would think it takes a real beating.

hummer said...

CWMOR
I think it is very serious.
FAA isn't playing.
If you bend the rules, be prepared
for the consequences.
Past that point, I'll plead ignorance
because I haven't studied it in depth.

hummer said...

ATM
$1,300/hr plus
fuel surcharge
$100/hr crew waiting
$600 crew overnight stay

mouse said...

Ken,

Your airplane $0 + $50K = 0

You have nothing... You have a cancelled check, some paper manuals that you quote like the bible, and a bathtub full of airplane sounds coming out of your rear.

The only two positions you have is "Bent" and "Over"

Need a Barrel? Vern has a whole warehouse full of them...

hummer said...

CWMOR
If I were going to cheat
(which of course I wouldn't)
I would look to go up to 8%
over on gross weight for the
increased load factor.
I wouldn't play games with the
CG because it's not worth it.

Dave said...

I've been following this blog for awhile, but this is my first time posting.

Anyway, seeing most of the 2300+ Eclipse orders were puffed up by Iacabucci isn't really surprise. Iacabucci has shown himself to be dishonest and unethical with his involvement in SCO.

Iacabucci was head of the Litigation Commmittee on the SCO Board where he was basically in charge of running an extortion racket and theft (the judge on the case ruled that SCO engaged in "conversion").

SCO (under Ed's direction as Litigation Chair) made wild claims about having proof of coypright infringement so companies were supposed to pay SCO billions, but once SCO got to court it turned out there was no proof and SCO didn't even own the copyright property even if they had.

Not to digress, but seeing the goings on at DayJet and Eclipse doesn't surprise me given past history. Also it wont surprise me if DayJet and Eclipse end up like SCO - in other words filing for BK. Over and above having fallout from dishonesty, I think both Vern and Ed blew it by trying to treat aircraft and air transportation like a piece of computing software...they seem to have ignored the customer in their quest to rewrite the rules. Vern in not making something practicable for a restroom facilities and Ed in making his method very un user friendly where you don't get your flight information until the last minute. You'd think that Ed if he cared a lick about customers would have insisted on only getting an aircraft where customers could use the lavatory because that's extremely limiting - most likely automatically turning off women in particular.

The rules can and should be rewritten, but they have to be done from a customer-centric standpoint instead of being so self-absorbed and arrogant.

FlightCenter said...

Hummer and ATM,

Ed's plan B should be giving his customers, who are after all expecting a premium service, the ability to specify when they want to fly without having to worry about whether they are going to have to stop somewhere along the way to pick up another passenger.

That would change the whole customer experience immeasurably and would almost certainly bring a whole lot more satisfied customers into the fold.

Sounds a lot easier to tweak the current model until it works, than to roll out DayPorts along the whole east coast.

They need to make their model work in Florida first, before rolling into new territories.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

This is the sound of me not hearing you Hummer ;^)

Remember there are two aspects to weight, the impact on strength (probably not an issue with the Eclipse, parts of it look like they were designed by the Electric Boat Company), and stall performance (probably IS an issue with Eclipse, that wing was designed for a plane that weighed as much at takeoff as the Eclipse currently weighs at MZFW). I am glad to see you clarified on CG though.

The Limitations section exists for a reason my friend.

hummer said...

EO387
Hi.
Missed you and your expertise
here.
How the Mirage flying?
Anything exciting in the Eclipse
market or are sellers not moving
on prices?

mouse said...

ColdWet,

The door only has 4 little bity hinges and two pins that secure it in the middle, one into the forward door frame, and one into the aft door frame.

The are two more pins that help hold the two halves together. Lots of stress..

hummer said...

FC
"They need to make their model work in Florida first before rolling into new terrritories"
Yea
And what if it doesn't work?
Multiply your gains,
Cut your losses quickly!
And don't look up a dead dog's ass.

bill e. goat said...

CWMOR,
good point about the wear and tear on the door sections, but I think cabin pressurization forces would be around 6 psi x width x height...I donno,
maybe? = 6 x 24 x 24 = 3500 lbs.

I'm waiting for the fat lady to sing, but I think even SHE won't break the door.
:)
-------------------
Not to say there isn't some flimsy, underdesigned brackets or flanges or some such though, but probably no major structural deficiency related to pax loading.

EclipseOwner387 said...

Hummer,

It is still a "buyers" market for positions and a "sellers" market for freshly delivered or imminently delivered airplanes. AVIO NG certification should help the seller's gain more ground. Some well equipped positions are available for decent prices that should appreciate nicely as they near delivery. However, I am sitting tight looking for that perfect deal and thus far it has not fallen in my lap. If you want to discuss in more detail you have my contact info and I would enjoy a chat!

The Mirage I bought is very nice. Going to have fun converting it to a turbine with cool avionics.

I got my Jetprop back today with the Garmins upgraded with WAAS and installed a new GMX 200. Sweet! So much fun flying an LPV approach. Seems magical.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Just curious if anyone else chuckled out loud when Capt. Zoom dutifully reported that 'Raburn Squashes Eclipse-Columbia Rumors'?

I mean, they are $1.X B raised AND SPENT so far, were just days away from locking the doors themselves due to financing issues only a month or two back, and have SIGNIFICANT hurdles remaining to complete the design and certification of their first plane (not to mention 1000 or so planes to delver) - and now we are supposed to believe that there were rumors that Eclipse might buy Columbia?

I wonder how Vern got that rumor started.....maybe Ken has Capt. Zoom's phone number too.

cj3driver said...

FC said,

“ … They need to make their model work in Florida first, before rolling into new territories… “

The other component to the DayJet business model was traditional charter, the DayStop. In reviewing the flight histories, I can only find one “DayStop” (whole plane charter) trip, in the month of October.

This trip DTS-MAI-DTS on DJS132, flown Oct 13th, a 110 mile trip. Using price quote on DayJet’s website, the trip cost $5,460.00.

I guess the charter industry must be relieved. DayJet is certainly not taking this segment of the market by storm. Definitely not an instant “revolution”.

Like the aircraft, too many other choices for a similar budget.

cj3driver said...

Ken said,

“… You would like to consider market depreciation. OK. My two Eclipse positions have each appreciated, not depreciated. So, rather than figuring in your silly depreciation figures of $125K or $250K per year--trumped up figures you need in order to make the Eclipse look expensive--let's put the actual appreciation figure of $50K per year…”

Excuse me Ken, but I posted 10 reasons why I think the Eclipse will not hold its value. Do you really think, that if a person placed an order for a brand new factory Eclipse today, at over $2 million dollars it will appreciate $50K per year? Please give me ONE reason you will think this could/would happen.

My figures for the Eclipse are taken directly from the Eclipse website.

500 miles (1.6hrs) 761 lbs fuel at $4.00 per gal, 200 hrs per year (62,000 mi) $55,000

Jetcomplete at $225/hr (est) $45,000

capital at 6.5% on $2m $130,000

Hangar and ins $50,000

Depreciation $75,000

$355,000 total


BTW- congratulations on the money you made on your Eclipse(s). I hope I can also congratulate you when your planes are actually delivered.

…Huge congratulations will also be in order, when you sell your 4 year old Eclipse, with 800 hours on it, for $2.2 million dollars.
(DayJet should be taking delivery of S/N 2700 by then).

cj3driver said...

Ken said;

“… So, rather than figuring in your silly depreciation figures of $125K or $250K per year--trumped up figures you need in order to make the Eclipse look expensive…”


Trumped up? … Lets see, Eclipse just auctioned S/N 38 for $1.85 million. S/N 154 is still on the Market for $1.6 million including options. $250,000… plenty of other serial #’s in the 200’s for less. Trumped up? … I think not.

But, to give you the benefit of the doubt. I used $75K per year average. As I have posted before, I think the number will be larger than $75K first year, and go down in subsequent years, with a larger hit for hours over 250 per year.

All this, assuming Eclipse/DayJet stays viable.

Redtail said...

ExEclipser said... I hope this rumor about Ken Harness is true. OH how neato that would be if he left Eclipse!

That info came directly from Vern's lips.

Gunner is OK, he's locked in the trunk of his Mercedes and can't get an internet connection.

airtaximan said...

amazing...

"paper profits"

I guess this all explains why you are twice as motivated to pump e-clips than any normal person... two positions!

Hey Ken, what position numbers are they? I want to calculate the risk, as I see it, of you ever getting a plane.

Or are you perhaps a "buyer and seller" to make some paper profits?

mouse said...

Anything that comes from Vern's lips is at best a rumor, and usually smells like the south end of a northbound horse...

ExEclipser said...

Got secondary confirmation that Harness is going to Diamond.

I think I actually feel sorry for Diamond.

Like I posted in the now-lost previous thread, I doubt that Harness can do too much damage to a company that already has processes in place and an established marketplace. Talk about lucky. The guy was a propulsions engineer and worked up to COO in just 5 years.

airtaximan said...

Ken:

"I'll bet you're a big hit on the "John Lennon isn't dead" blog!"

- John died a long time ago.

PS. your flock says my intel is so good, I have a mole inside e-clips, or I am a mole.

- Keep quoting the e-clips website for us - we cannot read, or is it, we have the good sense not to believe, anymore?

BUT, you are hog-tied, now, aren't you? You are holding 2 positions?

DayJetStudent said...

Kudos to Rob Fox for nabbing dayprop.com

airtaximan said...

CW,

I am not intimate with this, but main issue in that case is foreign ownership of the company which was in fact in operational control in countervention of their OPSpec and the regs. They were warned, and apparently thumbed their nose.

I would suspect anyone with a compliant OPSpec and in compaliance with their Spec will be fine.

Today, many issues regarding taxi, such as posting empty legs, is being construed as potential contravention of "on demand" versus scheduled service. I see this as a BIG deal for the "new" air taxi companies who might try to load up by the seat.

Ed does not seem to have this problem. I think they have solved for this. Actually, nice job - might not be an easy thing to do.

airtaximan said...

dayprop... NOW THAT's impressive!

ExEclipser said...

Dayprop.com - content filtered for porn.

ExEclipser said...

Something that was sort of the premise for this new thread that hasn't been answered -

Why is Eclipse being picked on when ALL aircraft DOCs went up after the rise in oil price after Katrina?

Niner Zulu said...

Ken, you gambled on 2 positions and it has paid off (I think...since none of us know what you paid). Anyway, good for you. Now, are you going to be smart and take that profit, or bet your principal and your profit that Eclipse isn't going to run into another major problem. It would be a shame to see your premium erode as you join the other Eclipse resellers just trying to get out at break-even.

You do have the opportunity to eat your cake and have it, too. You can take your profit, remove all risk from the buying equation, and watch Eclipse from the sidelines. Any time you want to buy one, I am sure someone will be happy to accomodate you.

DayJetStudent said...

According to Google Trends, Dayjet has never reached even half the search volume since it's launch PR statement in early 2005.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=dayjet&ctab=0

airtaximan said...

execlipser,

you make a very good point..."Why is Eclipse being picked on when ALL aircraft DOCs went up after the rise in oil price after Katrina?"

- I do not think anyone is comparing e-clips DOC's rise with other planes at a prior low price. The statement that the company enables people to change the way they travel, and open up the market to millions more AS THEIR BUSINESS PLAN.... is suspect more than the other companies.

The reliance on massive infusion of jets, as an affordable transportation solution, is probably the major issue.

One could argue, you either can afford $2000/hour, or you cannot. Nothing has changed as far as charter goes, with e-clips, if you look at POGO and Dayjet charter prices. Certainly nothing to attract millions more passengers. And, I am not saying, give them a chance to prove it out - so far, there's nothing but initial operations, and we should not judge... but intuition says, if the charter prices approximates the rates of conevntional charer, the market should be around the same... not grow dramatically.

So, DOC's going up for everyone, and those that can afford private jet travel can afford private jet travel. EVen Dayjet's maiden voyage resulted in the "member" saying he's going to wait for the price to come down.

Perhaps a single engine prop is a solution for most of the 200-400 mile trips planned by Dayjet? At a fraction of the cost? especially considering the rise in fuel price?

All jets are expensive to operate - and within a reasonable band, the affordability is limited to a small market. Taxi service prices are the same - unless there's a real plan to get the price down - like by the seat - but you need more folks showing up to fly on the plane...more seats...lower prices...more passsengers.

I would think.

For today, $2000 per hour jet prices seem to be attractive for a limited discerning population.

ExEclipser said...

ATM: Nice rebuttal. To that, I must add that DayJet's total carrying capacity is about the same as the first five rows of any Southwest airlines.

Another way to look at it is that it's about the same as any first class section of other carriers. That being said, for that price, I hope that the convienience factor pays off for DayJet.

I think cost is right (for DayPort ops, not DayStop). I think schedule is right. I think equipment is right. I think that as the market 'finds' DayJet, it will be available for the discerning passenger.

Dayjetstudent: Nice link. I compared it to "Eclipse Aviation", and DayJet has more search requests currently than their airframer. FWIW, Paris Hilton reduces BOTH of those blips to the approximate equivalent of null.

WhyTech said...

EO said:

"I am thinking of installing the Chelton system in the Mirage I just bought. Anyone with hands on Chelton experience?"

Well, yes and no. I have twirled the knobs on the Chelton, but only on the ground. This will be the EFIS in my helicopter if I can ever get it delivered. Delay is due to Chelton certification issues - apparently not major, but pushing out the date. The Chelton system is pretty much the de facto standard for light turbine helicopters - Bell, MD, Eurocopter, and Enstrom all offer it. Its pretty much the only game in town for light turbine helos.

Do you homework carefully. I continue to hear about an even balance of pros and cons. Chelton is in the middle of a changeover program, moving to a new system configuration with new softwrae (version 6.0B), a new ADAHRS, and a new Beta 3 capable GPS receiver (required to be legal for LPV and LNAV/VNAV approaches). I'd definitely wait until all of this settles down a bit before writing a check - expected to be 2Q08 per current schedule estimates.

Also note that Chelton does not currently support XM weather (but does support WSI weather, which is superior IMO). The Chelton is an older design, having been around for about 5 years, and ist shows it age when compared with more modern EFIS/FSM equipment. Fore example, the syntehtic vision images are pretty rudimentary compared to Honeywell or Universal. OTH, it is STC'd for a great many acft, and is relatively cheap.

WT

airtaximan said...

execlipser,

I would question:

cost (for DayPort ops, not DayStop) - single prop for most of these trips -same overall time, especially if you just charter and have no window to deal with...

schedule is right - I actually think THIS is the big deal breaker - Ed once said...folks will GAME the system, and this is a result of no schedules and price breaks based on flexibility. I don't think thisis a game for anyone - big waste of time, perhaps playing witht the reservation aspect.

equipment is right - for short trips on Dayjet type arrangements, the plane might be no real benefit over a prop.
...I think they base their decision on the "fact" that people want a jet... but they also argue, that people don't need a lav, and do not care about the small size. I just say, they are right, except I'd add the jet(s) to that argument. For 1/2-1/4 the price, folks will be OK with a prop. Satsair is (a degree of)proof. are there THAt many more folks who would NOT fly the SR22 and would pay 2-4x the price for the e-500?If it was MUCH bigger and better, perhaps.

YOU think that as the market 'finds' DayJet, it will be available for the discerning passenger. - if a network affect is required, where more users meand lower fares, and lower fares means new users and more users...you can be right. I just do not see it working this way -- they service is too limiting in convenience and too expensive for "enough" people to even want to find it! But, I'll admit - your opinion is at lest as good as mine on this!

- I'd love to see even 10 dayjet revenue trips in one day, or two revenue trips per plane in one day... this would be a nice indication.

ExEclipser said...

Unfortunately we'll never know which aircraft are being used for training, backup, or revenue.

I don't see a lot of LAL-GNV or PNS to TLH flights. It's the PNS, TLH & GNV to BCT that are where the advantages are. These are relatively long distances that can show an advantage over a propjet.

And when you look at acquisition costs of a propjet, what is available for the $1 Mil that DayJet paid (not the $1.6 Mil that is the current price)? Even the A500 costs more than that, as do the top two Piper products.

ExEclipser said...

(By the way, a quick search revealed nothing unless you are OK with 30 year old aircraft).

Maintenance is hedged with the one-model plan like Southwest. Having 3 different models in 30 aircraft isn't very efficient.

airtaximan said...

sr22... fleet of Satsair....$300k... and they are partners with Currus, the manufacturer. At NBAA they said they were doing a lot of cycles and moving a lot of passengers. $500 per hour, blobk charter basis, whole plane (3 passenges).

You might say it goes too slow...I'd say, for the price, the "on-demand" charter aspect and the extra hour... non-stop...no 7 hour computer games they call "windows"...

I say, tough argument.

Jets are nice - but as you pointed out, the DOCs are going up...and , what's an hour worth?

Even Dayjet says customers are willing to wiggle a few hours here and there to save money, right?

execlipser, I just don't see it - but maybe you are right? I will NOT say you are wrong, that's for sure.

airtaximan said...

"Maintenance is hedged with the one-model plan like Southwest. Having 3 different models in 30 aircraft isn't very efficient." This is very true, and a major driver. Maintenance is a big driver in this business...

But they could have started 5 years ago with a few planes, say 12, and showed how it could work - is this why you wrote this, now?

I agree one model is importnat...but it has to be the right model, from the right manufacturer - and I do not see the e-500 as a hedge...unless of course you paid 40% off!

Nice one.

DayJetStudent said...

ex, I'm showing more interest until recently under an "Eclipse 500" search.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=eclipse+500%2C+dayjet&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

Niner Zulu said...

Another downside of only having one model aircraft in your fleet - what do you do if there is an AD that requires grounding of the fleet?

You are effectively out of business until their is a fix.

I don't know what Dayjet's staying power is, but they had better hope that Eclipse is as reliable and well built as Eclipse says it is. At this point, there is no proof either way.

ExEclipser said...

I like the SR-22. Satsair and another company out of Atlanta have it good with that plane. But if you think that people already have a predisposition to small airplanes....

And, they are closer to $500K than $300K. $429-$479 for a fairly new resale.

SO, for twice the price, you get 50% more carrying capacity, 150-200% speed increase, pressurized cabin, fly above the weather, and the other pax doesn't have to be your intimate significant other.

Still no potty.

The E-500 is a hedge, though, with JetComplete. Cost is predictable. Service center is in their back yard.

ExEclipser said...

It's very very rare that an AD would ground an entire fleet all together. Even the one AD the EA500 got didn't prevent flights - just narrowed the envelope by a LOT.

Even when it was proven that the 737 had a wing bolt problem, they were allowed to be cycled through for inspection. Southwest wasn't grounded at all.

ExEclipser said...

And that AD was created because planes were freakin' catching fire and killing people.

twinpilot said...

DayJet sounds more like an air bus service than an air taxi service. For instance we are going dayport to dayport (sounds like bus stop to bus stop). And, oh by the way, we need to stop at the next bus stop, excuse me, dayport and pick up a passenger along the way. "This is our new passenger Mr. frugal traveler, and it looks like he picked up a bucket of Col. Sanders for the trip, so would you mind letting him sit in the middle seat near the napkin dispenser?" Air Bus service doesn't sound like a winner to me. The only reason to take the bus is that it is really, really a lot cheaper than the taxi or limo. When is the last time one of you guys took the bus?

airtaximan said...

execlipser,

sorry about the misque on the retail price of an SR22...

by your reasoning, you could double the price of an eclipse and get a mustang or phenom..

;)

Kidding of course... I see your point - well taken.

ExEclipser said...

Just sorta sensitive about the SR's. Eclipse's flight club ditched three 'legacy' Cessnas (70's 172, 182, 152) and bought an SR20. An SR20. Someone forgot that ABQ had a field elevation of 5000 ft. When asked why didn't they get an SR22 (which would have no major problem flying out of ABQ), was told it was twice the price.

The SR20 essentially couldn't fly during about 90% of daylight hours for 8 weeks a year.

Kinda like the EJ22. DOH!

ExEclipser said...

Attention Eclipse Flyers -

I have a question about P&WC's ESP program. Have y'all signed up for it? Is it above and beyond JetComplete? Is it a part of JetComplete? I'm just interested to know if this is value added to the cost of the little jet.

Thanks.

gadfly said...

airtaximan and coldfish

You mentioned, yesterday, some concerns about FSW. Here’s some facts to consider:

Flying from a temperature of, say, 60 degrees F, to -40 C or F (. . . they “match” at that number), a ten inch strip of aluminum will change in length by about 0.013 inches in that 100 delta “T”. (That, by the way, is equal to the thickness of four sheets of 24lb computer paper.) ‘Doesn’t sound like much, but an inner rib that stays at the 60 F temperature, in near contact with the fuel (wet wing), is attempting to stay at the original ten inches (fairly stable for awhile at the take-off temp of 60 F). The outer skin is attempting to shrink by 0.0013 inches per inch, in all directions (over a 100 F degree change in temperature). Aluminum is a wonderful conductor of temperature and electricity, third in line behind silver, #1, and copper, #2. A characteristic of welded joints . . . aluminum, steel, whatever, is that the weld has a tendency to be somewhat brittle, and subject to cracking. This is just a fact of life, and many methods are used to deal with this fact. Great stresses occur in the crystal structure of the base metal, especially in the welded area . . . it’s been studied and investigated for centuries. (The Japanese used such knowledge to develop the samurai swords of legend.)

In the case of a welded aluminum joint, normally, welding is usually found in lower strength aluminum that allows an elastic compliance to varying conditions. But with a 70xx series aluminum, the strength does not readily adapt to these stresses.

Other manufacturers use rivets and/or adhesives, which allow a slight “bulging” between rivets, and compensate for the differences in lengths, as inner and outer components expand or contract at different rates . . . lagging behind ever so slightly, but significantly over time.

The short term concerns of the “stir-fried-weld” are, as you alluded, of immediate concern . . . and there are hints that Eclipse is also concerned. The long term concerns of Eclipse, as previously discussed, include the inter-granular corrosion realities of welded (and non-welded) joints over time, as moisture and “salts” (not necessarily “table salt”) attack and penetrate the high-strength joints. None of this is new . . . the dinosaurs have been fighting these same battles for a century.

But the new kid on the block seems to be waking up to the fact that maybe the “dinosaurs” may know more than was assumed.

gadfly

(Me thinks that discussion on this subject will bring great emotional reaction, and an attempt to change the subject . . . ever so quickly.)

EclipseOwner387 said...

WT,

Thanks!

airtaximan said...

At the time, the IRS was allowing 34 1/2 cents a mile for automobile mileage deductions.

I'm not sure I comprehend the relevance, here...

100% of air travel at the cost of the travel (price paid by the traveler) is allowable.

airtaximan said...

"Epic has recently experienced an unprecedented surge in sales, booking orders more than $23 million at the Sun n Fun fly in April this year. It also sold aircraft worth $40 million three months later at AirVenture in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, said a company release."

Mallya's going to produce the planes, once certified, with help from Airbus and Pratt Whitney...

Hmmm...

Intends them as air taxis...

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Exe asked:

"Why is Eclipse being picked on when ALL aircraft DOCs went up after the rise in oil price after Katrina?"

Because fuel typically amounts to around 50% of DOC - and the Eclipse DOC jumped by 130%.

The jump literally would require a 4X increase in fuel costs, using the Eclipse definition of fuel cost as a portion of DOC, to result in the change seen without increases in JetInComplete and P&WC engine reserve costs.

We know that the JetInComplete price changed by 30% if I remember right, but engine reserves (which are NOT included in JetInComplete) would also need to have increased to help explain this.

Since there was not a 4X increase in fuel costs, even after Katrina, the only conclusion is that the real costs of operating the Eclipse are not well established yet. Even the projections from the same folks that gave us 957, I mean 700, I mean 500, I mean 250, I mean 'never right anyway' are not easily manipulated to figure this out - but Fuel is not the major driver in this overall DOC

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Since my 'big' list of program level questions seems to be too overwhelming for the Faithful Following to answer, I will focus on one question for now.

Anyone care to address the shortfall at Eclipse to EVER sell enough individual aircraft in any year so far to meet the volume they themselves say they NEED to breakeven?

rcflyer said...

cwmor said,

"Anyone care to address the shortfall at Eclipse to EVER sell enough individual aircraft in any year so far to meet the volume they themselves say they NEED to breakeven?"

Yes, I'll address that point.

1. They haven't done it yet.

2. They will most likely do it eventually, if they don't run out of money first.

Next question, please.

R.C.

airtaximan said...

There must be a revival, retreat, or a Church of Flyantology strategy session.

- are you serious? There are over 2800 orders? Where have you been?

Hahahah!

airtaximan said...

RC,

he said "Sell" not "make"

am I right on this CWM?

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

RCF,

Thanks for your 'amswer'. To dig a little deeper, why do you say they "will most likely do it eventually"? What makes you believe that?

Understand, I am not talking about missing it by 'that much' ala Maxwell Smart (Agent 86). Not 5%, or 10% or even 25%, but missing by 50% or more - and not once or twice, but EACH AND EVERY YEAR SINCE INCEPTION.

There are about 1400 firm orders (using industry conventions), and that is after 7 years of selling, with the initial hype after program announcement, after special clubs, after auctions, after top-secret handshakes, and with internet shills comparing anything with wings to the wunder-jet - no matter how ridiculous the comparison.

How does Eclipse go from selling an average of 200 jets per year, to 3 times that amount? TC is done (sort of), PC is done (sort of), and yet the floodgates have not opened. Why?

The price has gone up by more than 100%, DOC's have gone up by 130%, weight is up by 25%, range is down by 10%.

The Ken's of the world who appear to be so focused on fuel costs measuered in CENTS per MILE that it makes them seem barely able to afford a jet in the first place, they have likely nearly all ponied up.

Do you see this as a major issue?

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Yes ATM, I am focused on sales, specifically, the apparent lack of sustainable sales based on Eclipse's own suggestion of 500-600 per years as required to break even.

Brother Billboard himself has said, rather cavalierly even, that if the volume is not there the price will 'have to go up' - as if there is just a simple wave of the magic wand and the price goes up.

NEWSFLASH, the price has ALREADY doubled, DOC's are up 1.3X from projected.

If they cannot sell enough at $1.8M, how can they sell enough at $2.8M when they will be in direct, dollar for dollar competition with TBM's and Mustangs and slightly used Citations - and MORE EXPENSIVE than interesting offerings from Sierra Industries, from Epic, from Piper, and perhaps more?

airtaximan said...

CW, or should I WC?

You are being very, very generous, here.

1430 are Dayjet of which 300 were admittted to, and only 229 of those were orders, the rest were options.

There are other 50-50 fleet orders... there's euro-ed orders and options (a couple hundred) and then there's what one might call gaps...

I think you might be around 400 hight, there, buddy.

Of course, I do not KNOW this, I am just using common sense - like I did when Ken refsed to be me that Dayjet had (according to HIS understanding of the FACTS) less than 1,000 orders/options.

Dayjet plus 700 or so, (heck, even Ken says he has two "positions"...one "option" perhaps? Who knows???!!!) plus a ffew hundred sweetheart fleet deals.

CW, ask how many orders they need to make money on the "Sub-prime" e-500s sold at $1.X instead of retail? I'd be curious how many need to be produced to break even is at the low Dayjet price?

Sorry...there I go again....

Troglodyte said...

Gadfly:

Is there a way to check the FSW joints to assess the effects of the stresses and inter-granular corrosion you describe? It’s reasonably easy to detect working rivets...

Also, how do you fix an Eclipse that’s been damaged, say hangar rash? Can you rivet along the same seam with reasonable results? Do you have to engineer fixes for every type of damage?

--Trog

Ken Meyer said...

coldwet wrote,

"the only conclusion is that the real costs of operating the Eclipse are not well established yet."

But that is the conclusion of a guy whose writing highlights his lack of knowledge about aircraft costs.

For those readers who prefer to get their data from slightly more accomplished experts, Business and Commercial Aviation has concluded that the hourly cost of operating an Eclipse is $445.56 (excluding crew expenses). The annual fixed expenses are $27K, excluding cost of capital. For a pilot flying 150 hours a year (over 46,000 air miles), that comes out to $94,000 a year. That's less than the cost of operating many piston twins.

People like the Eclipse because it is cost effective to operate. Those smart enough to realize that fact get jet performance at piston twin pricing.

Among the owners are a number of guys who can easily afford a much more expensive jet. They like the Eclipse because it gives them a
"smart plane" discount: they suddenly have a bunch of money to buy a vacation house in Baja or a ski condo at Vail. That gives them a jet and a place to fly it to :)

And that is what the 2700 orders are all about.

Ken

FlightCenter said...

ATM,

The reason the 34 1/2 cents per mile for automobile allowance was mentioned was because DayJet plans that their primary customer base is going to switch from driving to flying.

The intention was to compare the cost of traveling by car back when Ed started building the business model vs. the cost of traveling by DayJet.

At the time cars cost 34 1/2 cents per mile, Vern promised the Eclipse would achieve 56 cents per mile.

Today auto travel costs 48 1/2 cents per mile and Eclipse / C&D believe that the Eclipse 500 will cost between $1.28 and $1.34 per mile.

Exe asked a question which seemed to imply that the primary reason for the increased DOCs was a result of fuel costs increasing post Katrina.

Eclipse 500 DOCs were increasing substantially well before Katrina, as mentioned in the post. The reason for the initial increase in DOCs was related to the switch from Williams to Pratt, which resulted in significantly higher engine reserves per hour as well as significanly higher fuel burn per hour.


Eclipse operating costs are now(according to Eclipse website) $1.28 per mile or (according to Ken's post quoting B&CA) $1.34 per mile. Both numbers are based on Eclipse provided data and should be regarded as best case numbers.

For example, the Eclipse numbers are based on $3.85 per gallon of JetA. Your price for fuel may vary.

That is an increase of 2.3x to 2.4x over the original promise of 56 cents per mile DOCs.

gadfly said...

Trog

Even with a normal aircraft (with flush and/or raised-head rivets), inspection can be very difficult. Gaining access to a continuous weld within a wing would be extremely difficult, at best, especially inside a “wet” wing. So, to answer your implied questions about “inspection and repair” of a cracked weld, etc. . . . I haven’t a clue! As far as repairs by riveting, I know of no acceptable method of riveting along a previously welded seam inside a wet wing. And I’m sure that by now, such issues must be of concern among responsible people at Eclipse.

gadfly

(These are questions that should be openly answered by the "faithful", etc. If they are a "non-issue", an explanation should be forthcoming.)

rcflyer said...

cwmor,

I'm afraid I misunderstood your question. I was thinking of sales as in "delivering an airplane and collecting the money," rather than booking the sale of a plane.

As to booking sales, I think the reason for the fall-off in new sales is that Eclipse has already picked the low-hanging fruit -- the risk takers like myself and Ed Iacobucci.

I do believe that once Eclipse gets FIKI and Avio fixed, and starts producing in volume, that new sales will come. It's a good jet, at an attractive price. I think many potential buyers are hanging back and waiting to see how it turns out.

I don't have any facts or figures to back up this opinion. This is just my feeling.

R.C.

Niner Zulu said...

rcflyer,

I think you're probably right that more buyers for the Eclipse will come out of the woodwork IF Eclipse will just shut up, quit making grandiose promises they never keep and start delivering fully functional jets.

That's a big IF though - the critic in me says "Yeah, like that's going to happen."

But I don't think there will be that many new orders, just because Eclipse isn't able to produce in the numbers they have been talking about and who wants to wait 4 years when their are other choices?

My guess is Eclipse's real order book is probably 1/3 of what they claim. The 2,700 orders was pure exaggeration and Eclipse backed itself into a corner and now can't change it's story without looking really stupid. The orders aren't there - never were. 1,100 "options" from Dayjet - a startup company with NO money other than that which might be given to them, maybe, someday in the future, to buy a jet at some unknown future date - well, a reasonable person would say that hardly constitutes an order. It's more like wishful thinking.

ExEclipser said...

Gadfly - not in a wet wing, but there has been a major repair of the belly skin that was previously stir-fried and repaired with rivets. It wasn't cheap, but it established a methodology to repair a welded section with rivets. That plane is still flying today. I presume that a similar repair could be accomplished in a wet wing.

As for inspections, x-ray (or similar) can find intermolecular fatigue cracks. Have you ever seen the thousands of micro-images of the stir fried bond? There has been extensive research, testing, accelerated aging, etc done on these parts. I really think it's a non issue. They convinced the FAA. As much as you can say that Eclipse was in bed with them, I saw first hand that the Feds were and are Vern's worst nightmare.

Black Tulip said...

Thank you Ken,

We can add another term to the Golden Phrases of Eclipse:

Disruptive Technology

Value Proposition

and now

Smart Plane Discount

airtaximan said...

FC, thanks.

I just keep thinking dayjet is per-seat... and the key to new air taxi is "per seat" all you have is charter, otherwise.

$1.50/3 seats is 50cents... all tax deductible...

Imagine if DOCs were $2.50/mile and you could divide by 8?

Its pur fantasy, really - but fun to imagine a full plane with taxi passengers, per seat... going a decent distance...

-the jet cost for short flights per mile or per hour is a bitch.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken,

My professional background, for which I receive a six figure consulting income, specifically includes reporting responsibility for operating costs, spares determination, as well as other major supportability issues on more turbine aircraft programs than you probably have aircraft types in your Parker 51 logbook - you do not want to bark up this tree.

Mouse told us recently about how Eclipse's original DOC estimates included no profit margin on parts costs and you want to suggest that I am the one that doesn't know what the deal is?

You just keep missing the train you insist has already left the station Ken.

You are the one who does not comprehend what this jet will cost you if you ever actually receive one - you are blindly accepting the DOC projection, like you blindly accepted the party line that they were not at AOPA last year because they were too busy in flight test (rather than GROUNDED as they admitted to, 3 WEEKS later).

You are blindly accepting their DOC projection like you blindly accepted the story that there was no RVSM issue, until it was explained in simple enough terms for you to understand the avionics that Eclipse had accepted and installed for delivery could not be updated for GPS database changes and once that info was out of date the polkane could not be olperated in RVSM airspace.

You are blindly accepting their DOC projection like you willingly accepted a 2X increase in cost, a 1200# increase weight, a 3 year increase in delay to certification.

You continue to parrot the 2700-2800 'order' number like some chant straight out of the hymn book for the Church of Flyantology even though it has been clearly shown to be, at BEST, half that in terms of actual orders, the remainder being vaproware options.

Every time you put your fingers on your keyboard, I am sure that Vern and the sales staff in ABQ cringe, wondering what untold damage you and the drive-by brothers will wreak.

But by all means, you keep on 'representing', we need the entertainment value.

airtaximan said...

CW,

he just wants to get something for his 2 deposits and progress payments that have been flushed. He's trying to buy the cheapest jet, he's already hog-tied to it, and he knows the chances of his ship coming in, is slim to none.

So he prays: soomeone else will come along and place a bet, I mean progress payemnt... so MY plane can get started... perhaps one of the 2700 other depositors, or a new one?

Its no way to buy a plane... and yes, he's going to be very unhappy with the operating cost, should he ever get a plane for his deposit and progress payment.

How do we spell progress? Dayjet got their planes...that's how!

bill e. goat said...

Exe,
"I saw first hand that the Feds were and are Vern's worst nightmare".

I think Vern's pleasant sleepwalking in the land of aviation manufacturing will be "disrupted" by reality knocking on the chamber door:

1) FAA regulatory process (even though he's getting some breaks)

2) Marketplace reality

3) BoD, eventually

...Sort of reminds me of A Christmas Carol, and the three "disruptive" visitors- I think those Spectres had their own agendas, and were not disuaded with charms or wiles (nor rants or IOUs :)

I suspect the contemporary spectres will be equally immune to such attempts at persuasion or manipulation...

Sweet Dreams?
(er, I think NOT!)

Shane Price said...

Smart Plane Discount.

A classic oxymoron, when linked to the E499.5

Let's examine the phrase.

1. Smart. This word implies native cunning or intelligence, as in born and bred rather than taught. It can also mean well appointed, as in good looking. Vern Raburn fails on either count.

2. Plane. In the context above, any reasonable person would pause before using the term in connection with the half finished construction currently issuing from ABQ.

3. Discount. In terms of purchasing something, it means you pay less than market price. However, in Ken's case (as for the rest of the position holders) he has no 'discount', since he's got no 'plane'.

All in all, this term was an early case of 'Friday Giggles'

Thanks Black Tulip (ably assisted by Ken), for making my day...

Shane

Ken Meyer said...

coldwet wrote,

"My professional background, for which I receive a six figure consulting income, specifically includes reporting responsibility for operating costs,"

Good, good! Then you'll be very interested in what Conklin and deDecker report the operating costs of the Eclipse are. Probably you've heard of them, eh? They're very well-respected in the field of aviation cost analysis.

Conklin and deDecker say the Eclipse costs $1.72 per nautical mile in direct operating costs based on $4/gal fuel and including engine reserves.

Business and Commercial Aviation says the plane costs $1.63 per nautical mile in direct operating costs, based on a 600 nm trip.

Anybody can look in Controller to see that the plane is cost-effective to acquire. Both Conklin & deDecker and Business & Commercial Aviation agree that it is very cost-effective to operate.

But some guy on a blog who is afraid to tell us his real name and is openly anti-Eclipse would like us to disregard those well-respected experts and take his opinion instead.

Think anybody will?

Ken

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Ken,

Since I did not say anything of the sort re: problems with the Eclipse provided numbers, as reported in C&D (with whom I have worked) and aB&CA (also with whom I have worked), I am unsure why you would say what you did.

Except of course that it would serve as a distraction from the content of my criticism re: DOC's being 2.3 to 3 times HIGHER than projected - just like the price of the jet is 2X higher, just like TOW is 25% higher, just like fuel burn is higher, just like JetInComplete is higher, etc.

FWIW, I am using Eclipse's numbers. Eclipse's numbers have gone up to 2.3X from their original $.56 per mile.

You can very clearly see that reading my comment if you care to remove the Church of Flyantology blinders for even a moment.

My identity is none of your concern. Your creepy obsessions with trying to out people truly borders on the pathological Ken. I have made my bona fides clear time and time again. It is why you habitually refuse to engage me in discussion on ANYTHING of consequence, preferring instead to deliberately misrepresent what I say in Vernesque diversionary tactics.

The C&D and B&CA numbers are LESS beneficial in this discussion than the basic Eclipse numbers which CJ3 uses in his critiques, which I have used in my critiques, which Eclipse istself uses in its own presentations, which C&D and B&CA use within their calculations, and which you dutifully regurgitate like Pavlov's dog anytime anyone makes a cogent criticism of any of the many issues still facing Eclipse, after 10 years and $1.X Beeeeeeeeeelion dolllllllllllars.

Cognitive Dissonance Ken, look it up - the guy in the picture is you.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

C&D $1.72 divided by $.56 = 3X

B&CA $1.63 divided by $.56 = 2.91X

Eclipse $1.29 divided by $.56 = 2.3X

It is not rocket science Ken.

The plane costs 2.3 to 3 times MORE than Eclipse projected, that is all I said before, it is all I am saying now. I personally expect that when it is all said and done the numbers will be higher.

After the engine swap, Eclipse said it had gone from $.56 to $.69 Ken, remember?

On which plane of existence does $.69 equal $1.72? Oh yeah, the Eclipse plane.

Ken Meyer said...

Well, Coldwet Fish, it seems you no longer dispute the C&D and B&CA numbers showing how cost effective the Eclipse is.

In that case, we have no disagreement.

Your argument now appears to be simply that the price of operating the plane went up over the years.

So what? I went out to dinner last night and it cost me more than it did in 2000. Ho hum.

Yours is a silly point. Mine isn't: The Eclipse is a phenomenally cost-effective jet to operate. As the price of fuel goes higher and higher that will become increasingly important to owner/operators like me and air taxi outfits like DayJet.

Ken

FlightCenter said...

A relatively minor point, but the DOCs that Ken is quoting are in dollars per nautical mile.

C&D - $1.72 per nautical mile
B&CA - $1.63 per nautical mile

That would be

C&D - $1.50 per statute mile
B&CA - $1.42 per statute mile

The numbers from Eclipse are in dollars per statute mile.

56 cents per statute mile - Original
$1.28 per statue mile - Current website #

airsafetyman said...

"Both Conklin & deDecker and Business & Commercial Aviation agree that it is very cost-effective to operate."

Good grief! NOBODY knows what is costs to operate the Eclipse yet, because there is no maintenance history, no depreciation data, not even any reliable fuel burn data. Without reliable instrumentation, icing/deicing, and a host of other characteristics of reliable, safe airplanes, it could be argued that it is not really an airplane. Only a complete idiot would put themselves of their family in one of these things.

sparky said...

ken wrote:

"Then you'll be very interested in what Conklin and deDecker report the operating costs of the Eclipse are. Probably you've heard of them, eh? They're very well-respected in the field of aviation cost analysis."

ken,

If they're so well-respected then why do you discount their numbers when they don't suit your needs.

In a past post you told us they were wrong.

In fact, every time anybody says anything bad about the wee-jet you claim that we either miss-understood what the person was saying, or they miss-understood the question.

Why don't you wait until you get the damn thing and then tell us how good it is instead of parroting marketing brochures to the 3rd decimal place.

Give it rest, it's pathetic.

DayJetStudent said...

Posted this to Mouse's article, thought it wouldn't be seen anymore....

DayJet has one of Ed's Lears on the certificate, so Eclipse is NOT their only horse in the race. I have not heard any other mention of this aircraft.
http://dayjetdiscussions.blogspot.com/2007/10/kissing-

This might be related to airsafetyman's fantasy.......

airtaximan said...

Why not? They loved the plane, they own none of them... they make money from management fees!

Hummer, you there?


"The company expects to have three Eclipse 500s in service by year-end, and another three units by February 2008. NAJ doesn’t own any of its charter fleet, instead utilizing the aircraft via its aircraft management program."

hummer said...

ATM
Old stuff
Wake up and smell the roses.
A mind once stretched can never
return to it's orginal state.
Beware!

ExEclipser said...

The Lear is Ed's plane. Not used for revenue.

DayJetStudent said...

EX, understood. But why is wingedfeet's website down, and the Lear flies on FlightAware with a DayJet flight number?

mirage00 said...

EX, understood. But why is wingedfeet's website down, and the Lear flies on FlightAware with a DayJet flight number?

Ed must be part of the "Conspiracy"

Stan please look into this.

I remain amused!

double 00

ExEclipser said...

DJS (HA! Interesting DayJetStudent!): I'm going out on a VERY wild guess here, but I'm suspecting that Winged Foot went out of business, sold one of their two aircraft to DayJet who is using their pilots to fly Ed around the country in it. So long as it's DayJet, whether or not it's revenue, I'm gonna assume that they can (and are) using the DJS call sign.

What I DO know is that N268DJ is registered to DayJet. The C of A and registration hasn't hit the FAA website yet.

ExEclipser said...

Stan, wasn't name calling supposed to be not allowed in here?

Ken Meyer said...

execlipser wrote,

"Stan, wasn't name calling supposed to be not allowed in here?"

True, but don't bother Stan with it. That kind of stuff doesn't hurt my feelings, but it does serve to illustrate that the naysayers are at the end of their rope. By losing his cool, Coldwet is illustrating better than any proponent could have that the plane is actually very good :)
Ken

ExEclipser said...

CWMOR: Do you know John McCoury?

airtaximan said...

Hummer said:

"ATM
Old stuff"

precisely - nothing new, revolutionary or even profitable here...move along.

Hummer, folks are betting that neophyte jet plane owners will "fall for" the e-500 promise (Ken, Ken, you there) and pony up good money based on the promise of revenue for a "new" affordable taxi service that will be acceptable for millions.

Guess what? Nothing new hee, except "smaller" jets. WOW! Tahnsk, Millions of passengers really WANTED A SMALLER JET PLANE!

Cheaper to charter, not accordin to Pogo and Dayjet...now ay.

Cheaper to own? well, on paper, but seriously folks, the paper is soggy, isn't it?

Cheaper to own under management? Well, this seems to be the lowest common denominator, at this point. Seasoned owners of jets with their planes under management, understand:
1- you cannot make money
2- the more THEY fly and the more THEY make onmanagement fees (based on gross revenue) the MORE it costs YOU
3- if it was such agreat plane, and there was so much money to be made in taxi revenue, why don't the management companies OWN the planes? Too much BS? Too much risk? TRUTH, there's NO way to MAKE money under management, as an owner... it just a nice story (sound familiar?)

Anyhow, enjoy all the Kensian BS, and the refusal to even address the reality.

My feeling is, we are a few weeks away from:
1- major refinance from friends
2- major restructuring

...soon, someon will SAY, "hey, there's NO WAY to make money selling THESE planes for less than $2.XM..." WTF?

GOod news for Ken, He's in at a lOW, LOW, LOW price for his 2 positions - except, that is probably a Mirage -

NOT AMUSING FOR HIM...

hummer said...

ATM
Tell me, are there two of you?
Seem like some of the time, you
are logical and coherent. Other
times, erradict and over the top.
Drink a little, do you?

AlexA said...

From AIN

An Eclipse 500 flown by Eclipse senior fellow Don Taylor beat a barely two-week-old National Aeronautic Association very light jet-category speed record set by a Cessna Citation Mustang between Westchester County (N.Y.) and Atlanta Peachtree-Dekalb Airports on September 22. On October 7, an Eclipse 500 set the new VLJ record between the airports in 1 hour, 55 minutes and eight seconds, besting the Mustang's record by about 27 minutes.

JetFan said...

My first post on this blog.

I am eager to see what everybody thinks.

From the Eclipse website:

Eclipse 500 Breaks VLJ Speed Record Using Far Less Fuel
Eclipse Aviation’s very light jet beat the current NAA speed record by 20 percent while burning 25 percent less fuel

ALBUQUERQUE, NM — October 18, 2007 — Eclipse Aviation, manufacturer of the world’s first very light jet (VLJ), today announced that it has set a National Aeronautic Association (NAA) performance record that distinguishes the Eclipse 500 as the industry’s fastest jet aircraft weighing 10,000 pounds or less. This milestone was achieved in early October when the Eclipse 500 set a new U.S. national speed record in the NAA record category of Class C, Aeroplanes, Very Light Jets.

The Eclipse 500 beat the existing NAA record on October 7, 2007 on a flight from New York (Westchester) to Atlanta (Peachtree-Dekalb), with a new record time of one hour, 55 minutes, and eight seconds (1:55:08), averaging 393.32 miles per hour (341.79 knots). The previous record holder, a Cessna Citation Mustang set the record on September 22, 2007, flying the same route in two hours, 23 minutes, and 44 seconds (2:23:44), averaging 318.87 miles per hour (277.09 knots). The NAA requires the record to be broken by at least one percent to qualify. The Eclipse 500, flown by Don Taylor, Senior Fellow at Eclipse Aviation, exceeded the previous record time by 20 percent, while using approximately 25 percent less fuel. Using actual aircraft data as well as data obtained from the Citation Mustang’s flight planning guide, the Mustang used 1,330 lb (198.5 gal) cruising at FL400 while the Eclipse 500 used 987 lb (147 gal) cruising at FL320.

"Upon reviewing the previous record, I was extremely confident that the Eclipse 500 could defeat the speed, but more importantly, we could use significantly less fuel while going faster. So two weeks later we flew the same route with the Eclipse 500 using at least 50 gallons less fuel than the Mustang and beating the time by about 27 minutes," said Vern Raburn, president and CEO of Eclipse Aviation. "With oil prices climbing, we are proud to offer the Eclipse 500 as the most efficient VLJ to move travelers from Point A to Point B on a quick, affordable and convenient basis."

The NAA announced a new record class exclusively for VLJs in the summer of 2007. A VLJ is defined as a jet-powered airplane with a maximum gross takeoff weight of 10,000 pounds or less, holding a standard airworthiness certificate, and capable of carrying four or more passengers. Each year NAA tracks dozens of new world and national aviation record attempts from numerous companies, certifying new records as the official record keeper for United States aviation and ratifying them with the Federation Aeronautique Internationale (FAI), the world air sports federation.

airtaximan said...

Hummer,

whats not to love?

2 of me, YUP, precisely.

One is a MOLE inside e-clips, the other HAS A MOLE inside e-clips...

LIke I said, what's not to love?

What's wrong? I merely point out that, NE Jet DOES NOT LOVE THE E_%)) as Ken says... they just make money MANAGING E-500S.

Perhaps you do not (convenient?) see the difference? One rides the coat tails of unsuspecting neophytes to the owrld of jets while touting the wonderful world of e-500s...makng money all the while. Te other, actually OWNs the plane(s) as Ken inferred regarding NE jet...and suffers the risks, realities and consequences.

Drinking is NOT required to come to this (illogical?) conclusion. Its really a fact of life in aviation. Part 135 is lttered with thoe who have "convionced" other there's a way to make money with THEIR planes.

Funny thing is, if this was TRUe, the money would be made not as managers, but as owners.

The ownership picture painted by the "manageent" companies is pretty pathetic, all things considered.

Don't ask Ken, thoufgh... he's relying on this "new" business model to finance the development and production of HIS plane(s)...

Perhaps YOu, Hummmer, are in the same boat? Relying on those YOu convince to buy the plane, whicle your RISk is minimized, becasue no matter how wonderful your business plane is for them, FOR YOU, OWNING e-500's is, not such a terrific idea?

Sound familiar?

airtaximan said...

nice record.
I'm sure Ken will take solace in the FACT that the plane is 300 units or 500 units behind schedule, and HIS plane may never be delivered.

It amazes me that a company so BEHIND schedule delivering to their customers who were promised planes b a long time ago, would waste their time and precious resources with another PR stunt.

Sad.
Indicative.

No relevance for air taxi which is more than half their orders.

Reality bites.

Stan Blankenship said...

We need to keep the dialogue on the blog civil and not resort to harsh language.

The rules have not changed, needling is OK, (derogatory)name calling isn't.

FlightCenter said...

Congratulations to Don Taylor for setting the record.

He is one great guy.

gadfly said...

Once, a man set a new speed record going from the top of the Empire State Building, to the street below . . . and lived to tell about it . . . all the way down.

The real trick is to do it ten times in a row . . . and live to tell about it afterward after the tenth time.

The end of the year will come in a little over two months, and not a single E500 will have been delivered that meets all the promises made. Even “Vern” said as much in his last comments. Does that not bother anyone?

“Name calling”, and avoiding the issues that lie just under the skin of the wings, and fuselage, will not make the little jet reliant, nor make the company any more able to stay solvent. There is enough evidence for anyone to know, without doubt, that investment in this company is not the wisest decision a person could make.

Watching and reading the various comments is an education in human nature.

gadfly

(Some of us wonder why the technical issues are “pushed aside”, while name-calling and juvenile behavior seem to take the spotlight.)

mouse said...

ColdWet, Sparky, AirSafety,

Communicating with Ken is like blowing air up someones butt... when it fiils up with air, it just relives itself, and it's a fart...

If brains were dynamite, Ken could not blow his nose.

You really have to step back and laugh... Surely he is only here for the entertainment value, because in all honesty, nobody could be that %#$&^% stupid without working at it.

I hope Eclipse lasts long enough to deliver Ken an airplane. The we can all get the last laugh...

mouse said...

Miss Alexa,

Nice news, now go ask Don what book settings he used... Oh yeah, full throttle, the hell with the book...

Nice record, good for them. Also good thing it was VFR.

John said...

Fleet Hours at Dayjet this week
N109DJ --- 0.0
N110DJ --- 5.3
N115DJ --- 0.0
N116DJ --- 1.4
N119DJ --- 2.2
N126DJ --- 1.3
N130DJ --- 0.0
N131DJ --- 4.5
N132DJ --- 1.9
N134DJ --- 0.0
N135DJ --- 4.9
N136DJ --- 3.0
Total Fleet - 24.5 hours

8 planes had flights (some training) 4 planes did not fly
One high hour plane 109 -- 84 hr since June has not flown in 10 days. Plane 116 with 99 hours flew this week.

Stan Blankenship said...

jetfan,

Thanks for the input.

One could ask if the Mustang had to rely on a beanbag on the glare shield to make the trip, or if the Eclipse could have made the trip had there been reported in the HPN vicinity or if Taylor carried a bottle to pee in case that extra cup of coffee kicked in?

The Eclipse airplane and the program has many shortcomings, fuel efficiency is one of the few things they have to tout.

mirage00 said...

airplaneEclipse 500 Breaks VLJ Speed Record Using Far Less Fuel
Eclipse Aviation’s very light jet beat the current NAA speed record by 20 percent while burning 25 percent less fuel


We are about to enter the "Spin Zone"... Let the "naysayers" begin...

I remain amused!

mirage00

mirage00 said...

Mouse, are you OK? I'm sorry about the Eclipse news. Must really be tough for you to read?

I remain amused

double 00

Stan Blankenship said...

mouse,

What part of civil discourse don't you understand?

mirage00 said...

One could ask if the Mustang had to rely on a beanbag on the glare shield to make the trip, or if the Eclipse could have made the trip had there been reported in the HPN vicinity or if Taylor carried a bottle to pee in case that extra cup of coffee kicked in?

Oh Stan!!! Now what does this have to do with Speed and Range? We all expect more from you.

I remain amused

double 00

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

I for one would like to see the Faithful try and remember that the name of the blog is Eclipse Aviation CRITIC - you ought to expect CRITICal thinking here, especially if the facts don't match the promises made, like:

DOC (off by 2 - 3X depending on whose numbers you use e.g., Eclipse, C&D or B&CA)
Certification Schedule (off by a couple years)
Cost (off by 2X)
Weight (off by half a ton)
Capability (off by about 50% right now, as follows:)
FIKI (INOP)
GPS Moving Map (INOP)
Avio NfG (INOP)
FMS (INOP)
Autopilot (INOP save HDG and ALT HOLD)
Autothrottle (INOP)
Range (off by 10%)
Delivery schedule (off by, oh who the hell knows anymore but about 90% right now vs. the prediction in the Spring)

That misrepresentation, cognitive dissonance and crocodile tears are the only remaining weapons in the dwindling arsenal of the Faithful is rather amusing in and of itself.

Congratulations to Don Taylor for setting a speed record. I remember seeing Don as an aerobatic pilot back in the day, he and his wife are great people and he has done good things in his work at EAA.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Thus far, RCFlyer is the only one to attempt to answer any of the below questions and even he had to agree that Eclipse has probably already picked the 'low hanging fruit' and still failed to seel enough in any given year to meet breakeven.

So in an effort to keep the blog focused on factual exchange, I again bring a list of a few questions for the Faithful to address if they are able:

Anyone care to address the shortfall at Eclipse to EVER sell enough individual aircraft in any year to meet the volume they themselves say they NEED to breakeven.

Anyone care to address the FACT that Eclipse demanded '6-month' progress payments from hundreds of depositors last fall (appr. 300), and have only delivered 4 dozen, partially functional crippled little jets in the ensuing 12 months.

Anyone care to address the FACT that Eclipse demanded those '6-month' progress payments knowing that they were scrapping Avio for Avio NfG as they ADMITTED when they said they had the program underway well before the announcement was made.

Anyone care to address the FACT that displays, autopilots and actuators are failing enough to garner a comment from Vern himself.

Anyone care to address the FACT that the jet is years late and now costs more than twice the original prediction, goes less distance, cost 2 - 3X more to operate, and weighs a half a ton more than originally projected.

Anyone care to address the FACT that Eclipse lied about their absence from AOPA last year and they only admitted they LIED about it, 3 weeks later.

Anyone care to address the FACT that the critics were right all along about the RVSM issue for months re: the GPS database issue.

Anyone care to address the FACT that Eclipse is now seeking several Service Engineering Stress Engineers and Experimental Flight Test Mechanics, people who are only required in multiples if there is a significant project for the fielded fleet.

Anyone care to address the FACT that Eclipse was, according to its CEO, almost bankrupted by the collapse of a $200M finaincing deal only a couple months ago - a common issue we critics talk about - the financial stability of the company.

Anyone care to address the FACT that the major criticisms made here over the last year and a half, Eclipse underestimated the task, Eclipse made mistakes, Eclipse mismanaged the vendors, Eclipse is on shakey financial footing - all have been vindicated, stated by Vern himself.

AlexA said...

Angry Rat,

Time to go back and flip burgers. Ken H thinks very highly of you. LOL

airtaximan said...

Alexa, thanks for the revelation of who you might be:

"Angry Rat,
Time to go back and flip burgers. Ken H thinks very highly of you. LOL"

Ken Harnes is widely referred to in the industry as "wiring Harness"... for goo reason.

You see, wiring Harnesses are "simple" no mind type work, done by third world countries of the lowest echelon on the supplier totem.

Should tell the bloggers a lot about you, your judgment and your friends.

PS. who ever said it, any company that adopts Ken H in any capacity of authority is bound to be in deep doo doo. the last thing Diamond needs is him.
- fires one person a month to keep the faith, no matter what
- ej-22 track record
- technologically challenged- major basic comprehension issues
- a suck up to "Vern-type" manangement
- good riddence for even e-clips

... remember, he was at e-clips through it all... imagine what THIS means

flightguy said...

So Kenny boy is off to ruin another program? Eclipse must really be desperate to destroy their competitors.

AlexA you are right, the DJet may not be a viable program after all. Although, the fact this hasn't been publicly confirmed is interesting. I mean DJet canned Mike Harness (aka Ken's brother) a couple of years ago.

AlexA said...

Flightguy said “the DJet may not be a viable program after all.” I must disagree here. As long as the runway is perfectly clean (fod ingestion), water free (water ingestion) and over 6000’ (horrible power to weight ratio) the Djet is a viable program. IRC certification is around the corner, 5 months I believe.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

AlexA claims the D-Jet has a "horrible power to weight ratio".

Interesting.

From Diamondair.com - Ramp Wt D-Jet is 5,110 lbs, thrust from 1 FJ-33-4A is 1550 lbs - yields a power loading of 3.29 lbs per lb of thrust.

From Eclipseaviation.com - Ramp Wt E-500 is 6029 lbs, thrust from 2 PW610F is 1800 lbs - yields a power loading of 3.34 lbs per lb of thrust.

Yes, the Eclipse has a power loading within 1.5% of the "horrible power to weight ratio" of the D-Jet. Worse in fact than the "horrible power to weight ratio" of the D-Jet.

AlexA, do you ever engage your brain before you type things?

andy said...

CWMOR,
Do you engage yours? The numbers you quote are under ideal conditions.
The inlet ducts on the D-jet typically mean a 5-10% hit on the thrust numbers.

Redtail said...

ColdWet said... AlexA, do you ever engage your brain before you type things?

Right back at you. Thrust to weight is a deceptive number. It's great if you are looking at vertical climb. Try putting an FJ-33 on a 1550 lb block of cement and see how well it flies with a T/W of 1.

AlexA said...

ColdWet said... AlexA, do you ever engage your brain before you type things? Yup sure do. How bout you?


Eclipse Take Off-5995 1800-Lbs/Thrust 3.33
D-Jet-5110 14000-Lbs/Thrust 3.65

Here is the info from the Diamond web (with a link) site which doesn’t match you information. Now are you implying that Diamond already figured out that the performance is horrible on the D-Jet and up-rated the output of the engine? Or is Diamond playing fast and loose with the rating?

A little bit of research also shows Andy is on the money of the inefficiencies of the s-ducts.

Source

http://www.diamondair.com/news/09_03_03.php

Diamond selects Williams FJ33 for D-JET
London, Ontario

Diamond Aircraft announces the selection of the Williams International FJ33-4 engine as the power plant for the new D-JET.

The FJ33-4 engine provides 1,400 lbs of thrust flat rated to 72°F. The FJ33-4 is a scaled derivative of the highly successful and reliable FJ44 engine family used today on a growing number of business jets. The engine incorporates a dual-channel FADEC, along with the latest technology materials and design.

AlexA said...

Since everyone is so concerned about Eclipse’s order book I am curious about Diamond’s D-Jet order book. Diamond has been touting the 300 figure now for almost two years. Out of the 300 orders Point2Point had 50 orders. As most of you recall Point2Point went belly up. In addition the 300 orders (maybe 250 now) are orders placed by dealers which might not represent actual aircraft orders placed by end users.

Oh yeah this web site is only for bashing Eclipse forgive me for questioning another VLJ manufacturer;-)

Redtail said...

Not to mention, in the four months following NBAA where Cessna announced the Mustang, they stated sales of 330 units. Now, several years later they state sales at about 300 units. Curious.

ExEclipser said...

The whole "Don Taylor is a Stand Up Guy" is quite interesting. In his 6+ years at Eclipse, I haven't really seen him succeed at anything. He's failed to get at least two training companies on board. I've seen him totally dis 'fans' of his when they greet him.

How is this incompetency handled? He's promoted to Senior VP.

I'm sure he was a great Northwest 747 pilot and airshow stuntsman. I'm sure his 5-foot stature and 75 pounds helped make the new record.

ExEclipser said...

Don't worry about Diamond. Now that Ken Harness is COO, you can be rest assured of having precision accountability, exacting performance guarantees, and extreme quality of workmanship.

SELL SELL SELL SELL SELL!

airtaximan said...

Alexa:

FWIW, I asked a guy working for one of the distributors about the "sales" number. He said they are all retail sales with deposits...AND, I do not believe it. I really do not know, but I suspect they have deals with dealers as you mentioned.

BTW, the D-jet is a very cool looking plane, and the interior feels like a nice size apartment compared to e-clips - just my opinion.

airtaximan said...

execlipser,
MAN, talk about angry! I'm never disagreeing with you again - you seem to hate some folks from e-clips, and still you seem to like the plane. Meaningful.

- are you the guy with e-clips stock options?

airtaximan said...

redtail,

I had the same thought a few days ago. Seems like the sold 250 units beofre they announced the program at NBAA, and not many since then.

I do remember hearing something about Cessna, capping delivery positions before production. If they sold 50 Mustangs since production began, this might not be too bad.

Curious, though - I agree.

Stan Blankenship said...

From the Wichita morning paper:

Cessna backlog $11.9 billion.

They expect to deliver 44 Mustangs this year, around 100 next year.

So far this year, jet sales have outpaced deliveries by a ratio of 2:1.

ExEclipser said...

ATM: I don't have options. I'm a registered share holder. Not much. I didn't bet the house on the company, just the family car.

I am angry. I'm angry at the crap that these executives have put the company through. VPs that are paid hundreds of thousands that accomplish very little - three of whom had no direct reports! VPs that came to work drunk. VPs that refused to take random drug tests. VPs that don't care about the airplane, only getting filthy rich and lying their way to get there. Executives that hired golf buddies that crapped on everything and left.

But Vern?

As much vitriol there is spewed about him all over the place, he did manage to get the company up to a least a fairly steady level of growth. Love him or hate him, he is THE PR machine behind this plane and this company.

When the company is truly stabilized, you can probably anticipate a new leader at the helm. Wouldn't hurt my feelings if it were Peg. At least she has gravitas.

As for the plane, yes, I like it. It's cute. It's functional. It's revolutionary (even though it's been copied a dozen times now). But my fight is for the peons of the company that put in the hard work without being compensated for overtime - many working for 5 years at 60+ hours a week. For them, I want to see the plane be a long-term success.

hummer said...

Execlipser
As a "registered share holder" do you feel you are adequately advised as to the inter operations of the company?
Or do you feel like a mushroom?

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

For what it's worth, the EA500 is worth less than three sheets of paper with 41 signatures and a Haliburton briefcase.

airtaximan said...

Execlipser,

I don't blame you...

Did you work there?

BTW, I am not "outing" you... don't reveal yourself - I'm just curious as to how you know what you know.

Mouse worked there, and you and he seem to disagree a lot. Probably not too tough to explain, but curious for the likes of me.

I appreciate your honesty. Must be touch watching guys like me with nothing personal at stake, having so many opinions.

ExEclipser said...

Hummer - I've been given notices of risk, etc. I was even invited to an investors conference that I couldn't afford to go to. I haven't really gone through a whole year yet, but I'm eager to know what they're willing to tell me.

airtaximan said...

exec:

NOW THAT'S FUNNY!

ExEclipser said...

ATM: I don't think I knew mouse. I'm sure he came and went before I started there.

From what I understand, he was in manufacturing. I wasn't. 'Nuff of that.

I do get passionate. I still just want a freakin' ride in one. Mike Press, if you're ever in NE Florida.... :)

Dave said...

But my fight is for the peons of the company that put in the hard work without being compensated for overtime - many working for 5 years at 60+ hours a week.

If Eclipse is misclassifying employees as exempt when they should be non-exempt that could bring some serious penalties under the revised FLSA along with three years of back pay. Having to reclassify employees and pay them more due to overtime would certainly add to the cost of production. Screwing employees out of their overtime (or even breaks) can be very expensive as recent court rulings have shown.

hummer said...

execlipser
Thanks for your candor. LOL

ExEclipser said...

Dave: I'm referring to the exempt engineering class. Production workers are, and always have been non-exempt and paid their over time. Many of them were paid much more than engineers during the manufacturing of the flight test fleet.

ExEclipser said...

...per anum.

Ken Meyer said...

Alex wrote,

"In addition the 300 orders (maybe 250 now) are orders placed by dealers which might not represent actual aircraft orders placed by end users."

I think I mentioned a while ago that I was offered D-Jet S/N 50-something at Oshkosh at list price. From that, we know that it is absolutely true that some number of "orders" are really just aircraft allocated to dealers.

Ken

Shane Price said...

That record...

Now, that's a good thing for Vern to trumpet. Most of the reporting includes postive, upbeat spin which must help the WIDE circle of 'investors' in Eclipse.

Pity DayJet didn't do the trip.

Remember:-

No DayJet
=
No Eclipse....


Shane

jet_fumes said...

Alexa here we go again on the djet, you will never learn.
So the now defunct point2point ordered 50 djets? Wow. Did you just make this up? I suppose you do not even care to google your nonsense before posting it here. All they had were a few "options".
Regarding takeoff distance, you are of course completely wrong as usual. One can easily see the prototypes take off in London typically within 3000ft without trying hard - it is there for all to see.
Regarding the s-duct loss, "a little bit of research" like you say will show that the typical thrust loss is in the 3-4% range (about one and a half times pressure recover loss).

airtaximan said...

THIS FROM THE MAN WHO CONTINUES TO SAY E-CLIPS HAS 2,700 ORDERS.

I think I mentioned a while ago that I was offered D-Jet S/N 50-something at Oshkosh at list price. From that, we know that it is absolutely true that some number of "orders" are really just aircraft allocated to dealers.

WHAT A FOOL.

PS. By Q-1 07 Mike Press reported over 100 re-sales of e-clipses. i GUESS SOME EARLY E-CLIPSE LOVERS FOUND THEMSELVES IN THE ROLE OF "DEALERS", to the tune of at least 100 planes already by Q-1/07.

Ken, I'll save you the trouble of posting a nasty parse - read my previous email, I said I thought they had sold some D-jets to dealers...

AlexA said...

JETFUMES said “So the now defunct point2point ordered 50 djets? Wow. Did you just make this up?”

No Jetfumes I didn’t. Check the following:

http://linearair.com/Flight%20Global.

AlexA said...

JETFUMES since you are so well informed on the D-Jet program would you care to share the actual thrust of the FJ33-4.

According to the Diamond web site it says 1400lbs. Some Bloggers claim 1550lbs. So which is it?

AlexA said...

By Mac McClellan
February 2006
Referring to the D-jet

Instead of a central engine air inlet PJs will need to have twin ducts on either side of the fuselage, or an S-shaped duct that takes in air above the cabin. Diamond is showing wing root air inlets for the D-Jet in its preliminary design renderings, which is the most logical and probably the least complicated to implement. However, the ducts must make fairly sharp bends from the inlets in the wing roots toward the center of the fuselage and then back to the engine itself, and those bends will rob engine efficiency. Forcing the air through the duct adds drag so less ram air pressure reaches the engine, and turbulence can develop in the ducts when the airplane is flown at low speeds or high angles of attack. Too much turbulence in the duct can cause the engine compressor to stall and the engine to quit running. Inlet duct design has been problematic on most jet engines mounted in the fuselage, but modern computer design programs—plus the 50 year’s worth of experience in designing single-engine military jets—should help reduce surprises and minimize engine efficiency losses.

Further in the article

That thrust-to-weight ratio does not herald sprightly takeoff performance for the D-Jet, but the Williams engine is a turbofan that should be better at producing takeoff acceleration rates.

jet_fumes said...

Alexa said: "No Jetfumes I didn’t. Check the following:"

Of course you did. In the link you provided it is clearly written "...planned to acquire up to 50 d-jets".

planned... up to...

Did I tell you I was planning to acquire an Aston Martin? Up to five...

jet_fumes said...

If you check the web site, you will be hard pressed to find recent references to 1400lb thrust so you can suspect some bloggers are probably correct.

jet_fumes said...

What is it that you are trying to say by quoting Mac McClellan? That Andy was correct with the 5-10% losses?

airtaximan said...

jetfumes:

"Did I tell you I was planning to acquire an Aston Martin? Up to five..."

In order for it to be an "order" in Ken's mind, you would need to make sure you don't plan to take delivery of your Aston Martin, until say 5 years from start of production...

this is so AMUSING!

Ken Meyer said...

AT wrote,

"In order for it to be an "order" in Ken's mind..."

So now you're a mind reader in addition to a ersatz commercial operator. Do you do card tricks, too? :)

Ken

forward-observer said...

According to the Williams FJ33-4A-15 TC data sheet, that engine is rated at 1568 pounds of thrust.

See the TC data sheet on faa.gov, then click in aircraft, click on tc data sheets.

Don't know if D-Jet is using the 33-4A-15, or some other variation of the engine.

forward-observer said...

And the Williams International Website says they plan to have a 1900 pound thrust version of the FJ33 certified in 2008.

planet-ex said...

Alexa:

Your selective quoting is dishonest.

You just quoted:

"That thrust-to-weight ratio does not herald sprightly takeoff performance for the D-Jet, but the Williams engine is a turbofan that should be better at producing takeoff acceleration rates."

Why don't you quote the ENTIRE paragraph?

"But the turbofan engine and its issues will still be a challenge for new PJs. Diamond has announced some basic specifications for its D-Jet, including that it will use the Williams FJ-33 but hasn’t determined a takeoff thrust rating . According to Williams the FJ-33 is capable of producing around 1,200 pounds of thrust for takeoff, so with its expected maximum takeoff weight of 5,071 pounds the D-Jet should have a thrust-to-weight ration of around 4.2 pounds of airplane to each pound of thrust, the same as the Paris Jet has with both engines running. That thrust-to-weight ratio does not herald sprightly takeoff performance for the D-Jet, but the Williams engine is a turbofan that should be better at producing takeoff acceleration rates."

...and you say that we bend the truth...jeez.

My bolding...

As quoted earlier, the FJ-33 that is currently certified produces over 1,500 lbs of thrust.

cj3driver said...

Maybe they can find jobs here:


Cessna Still Shining Star of Textron

October 18, 2007
Business Aviation

Asked why Textron’s third-quarter revenues are up 15 percent, to $3.3 billion, and profits have skyrocketed 36 percent, to $423 million, company president and CEO Lewis Campbell said during an investor call this morning, “Aircraft deliveries by Cessna, and to a lesser extent Bell Helicopter.” Third-quarter deliveries at Bell came in at 40 helicopters, and Textron expects the division to ship a total of 175 this year. But that pales in comparison with the 103 Citations Cessna delivered in the third quarter and the estimated 380 business jets it will deliver for all of this year. Campbell expects Cessna to deliver 470 Citations next year. And thanks to more than $1 billion in orders for 178 aircraft taken at the NBAA Convention last month, Cessna’s backlog has ballooned to $11.9 billion, with Citation production entirely sold out for next year. Campbell said demand is so strong for Cessna’s Mustang very light jet and Caravan turboprop single that annual production rates will be boosted to 150 and 120 aircraft, respectively.

AlexA said...

Planetex said “Your selective quoting is dishonest.”

Really? Here is the entire release directly from Diamond’s web site:

Did Diamond make a mistake? No way
Did they underestimate the power requirements? Of course not!
Will they be running the engine at the limits? Oh no not Diamond


Sep. 03/03
Diamond selects Williams FJ33 for D-JET
London, Ontario

Diamond Aircraft announces the selection of the Williams International FJ33-4 engine as the power plant for the new D-JET.

The FJ33-4 engine provides 1,400 lbs of thrust flat rated to 72°F. The FJ33-4 is a scaled derivative of the highly successful and reliable FJ44 engine family used today on a growing number of business jets. The engine incorporates a dual-channel FADEC, along with the latest technology materials and design.

"The competition for the D-JET engine contract between Pratt & Whitney Canada and Williams International resulted in two excellent proposals," said Christian Dries, Diamond Aircraft CEO. "We selected the FJ33 because of its demonstrated outstanding performance, its advanced stage of development and because it will be both FAA and JAA certified in the timeframe needed to support our aggressive development program."

Publicly announced earlier this year, the D-JET is Diamond's first entry-level personal jet, with a cruise speed of 315 knots, and maximum operating altitude of 25,000 feet.

Williams' engineering team will work collaboratively with Diamond's engineering team to design the air inlets and on integration of the engine into the D-JET. Williams will also be providing a "built-up" engine, ready for direct installation into the production aircraft in support of Diamond's lean manufacturing process for the D-JET.

"Our newest customer has recognized the value in the FJ33's superior attributes including very low specific fuel consumption, low noise signature, and its lower total cost of ownership, said Gregg Williams, Williams International President. We are enthusiastically looking forward to working with Diamond to complete, certify and deliver the D-JET to their very rapidly growing list of customers."

For further information on Diamond Aircraft call 1-888-359-3220, or visit www.diamondair.com

For further information on the Williams International FJ33-4, visit www.williams-int.com


If there is another thrust rating anywhere on the Diamond web site please be kind enough to point it out;-)

ExEclipser said...

Move over everyone. Make room for new bloggers!!

ExEclipser said...

Too bad Cessna doesn't pay full relocation benefits like Eclipse did. I don't know what other aviation industry there is in ABQ and what jobs the Major and City Manager think Eclipsers are going to want to take...

ExEclipser said...

RE Diamond's FJ33:

"We selected the FJ33 because of its demonstrated outstanding performance, its advanced stage of development and because it will be both FAA and JAA certified in the timeframe needed to support our aggressive development program."

So, I don't think that there is ANY other definitive data on the engine they're planning on using. Remember, the FJ44 have thrust ratings between 1900 and 3600 lbs depending on one of four dash numbers. Not to mention all the secondary dashes... The base FJ33 has a thrust range between 1000 and 1900 lbs.

gadfly said...

Exe

“I don't know what other aviation industry there is in ABQ . . .”

Maybe “Adobe” will follow the lead of “Microsoft” and send someone over here to develop the “Adobe Jet” . . . we have plenty of raw material, and it could be propelled by “Hatch” green or red chili, depending on how much thrust is required. I can envision it now . . . The E5000 (E= Enchilada . . . the 5,000 . . . well, we’ll let that one pass).

And there are also opportunities for folks to stand around in circles, dressed in bright red tee-shirts, down at the White Sands Missile Range!

You underestimate the opportunities in New Mexico.

gadfly

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Should've known there was significant bad news coming after the 'speed record' run announcement yesterday.

ATM wins again, suggesting bad news following NBAA and blammo, 10% layoff.

10% layoffs in the face of a need to produce another 60 planes in the next 10 weeks to meet the latest, latest, latest, latest, latest, latest, latest, latest, latest, latest, latest, latest, latest, latest, latest, latest, latest, latest, latest, projection.

10% layoffs in the face of '2800' 'orders' all needing to be made so that Eclipse can realize some much needed capital.

10% layoffs in the face of a fialure to achieve 1-per-day, let alone 2-per-day production rates.

Some days you just can't make this stuff up.

How does a company that knows what it is doing end up with 10% staffing it can just shed? Answer, it can't.

This only happens if it does not actually know what it is doing. Where the knee-jerk reaction, over the objection of the folks who actually understand the issues, is to just add bodies as if having more people around in-and-of-itself will somehow fix process problems or parts shortages.

On the plus side, this does seem to indicate a realization somewhere within Eclipse that all is not well and that some cost savings are in order - more than color copies, FedEx and airline travel anyway.

JetFan said...

jet_fumes said...

One can easily see the prototypes take off in London typically within 3000ft without trying hard - it is there for all to see.

Have you seen the D-JET prototypes operating out of London? What more can you tell us?

paul said...

So they are chasing out the remaining contractors from e-cuse?
There goes all the experience!
Nevermind though, the thrust on the D-Jet is insufficient!!!

sparky said...

maybe they were replaced by the assembly robots that vern talked about a couple of months ago.

seriously though, I wish the laid-off workers the best of luck in finding gainful employment. been through that and wouldn't wish it on anyone.

sparky said...

Not even ken

planet-ex said...

"They are contractors and it’s what they do for a living," said Chavez. "The job base in Albuquerque is really rich right
now, so they’ll be fine."

That's a joke. ABQ is not rich in aviation related industries.

Looks like it's the twelve-week wonders who'll have to pull all the loads...

Stan Blankenship said...

The Eclipse web site is only showing job openings for 11 positions. Normally, there are 80-100 jobs listed.

sparky said...

ken,

If you were to sell your position now, you've got a good chance of picking up some idle hands that probably know enough to build your jet.

sparky said...

From the church of flyantology, second chapter, book of economics:

Laying of 10% of your workforce should be seen as a positive: You're now 10% more efficient.

anyone amused?

gadfly said...

Comments from an employer in ABQ:

Over a year ago, we “let go” our best “machinist/designer” because of the Wal Mart/Ford mentality of the USA . . . going to China and India. (Yes, we still produce precision “perishable tooling” for jet engines, certain proprietary instrument components for medical devices . . . which we invented, and certain testing components for underground high-voltage connectors (which no-one else seems to know how to manufacture). At that time, he was earning a base salary of over $60 k . . . plus benefits. He found other work at about $22 per hour (about $46 k per annum), far below his true worth, but the best available in the ABQ area. Very few top machinists’ earn this much in ABQ. Friends, we are being sold down the river, by a strange mentality. The person used as an example is worth double the “norm”.

So, if 150 personnel have been “let go” at Eclipse, that’s 150 times about $47 k ($15 per hour times 2,080 hours times 1.5 . . . includes benefits, FICA, etc. . . . times 150 = $7 million per year) . . . “Houston, we have a problem!”

This latest is not a good sign for Eclipse. A growing and healthy company would re-train such personnel for the next level of technical excellence . . . and help them achieve higher goals, bringing even greater excellence into the system.

To talk about “contract labor” in ABQ is a joke. That’s one of the oldest scams in the area . . . and long-ago “outlawed” by the federal government in contracts related to the various government labs (Sandia, Los Alamos, Air Force Weapon’s Labs, etc.). In the early days, many small shops either used, or abused the use of contract labor, to get work, without stiff competition. Any of us who obeyed the rules, had a hard up-hill battle. So to say that these “contract laborers can find other work, is completely false. Our illustrious leaders should know better. Technical workers, “let go” in ABQ, might just as well start packing . . . because other work at their level is simply “non existent” . . . period!

Sorry, folks . . . but you’ve ‘been had! Check out McDonald’s or Burger King . . . or maybe Cost Co . . . or maybe “Wal Mart”. “Rots of Ruch”, as they say.

Up until now, I could just watch from a distance, and offer funny comments. But not this time. I am truly angry. Can you learn to say, “Thank you for shopping at K-Mart?”

gadfly

('Been there myself in the past . . . and I hurt for these people that have lost their jobs. This is not a funny story, by a long stretch, and cannot be passed over quickly.)

anonymous avionics engineer said...

Seems to me they would cut 800 of the later and still be top heavy.

Sounds about right, then there would be no 'professional meeting attenders' rushing through the hallways to out posture everyone at the next meeting while engineers are trying to find them to corner them into making decisions. Who knows, this might be a way to freeze the design and the remaining people could simply left alone to do their jobs. Then we would see some progress with AvioNfG and FIKI.

Production AND morale would improve!

hummer said...

10% layoffs
Seriously, variable work force is number one strategy of the auto
industry and was long overdue considering their weak output.
AvioNG is to be phased in with three steps. . (so it takes ten years)
it will take about that for the land based operations ten years also.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 254   Newer› Newest»