Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Eclipse Is Sued By Supplier

By Andrew Webb
Albuquerque Journal

Eclipse Aviation took another hit Tuesday, this time from a U.K.-based company building tail sections for the Eclipse 500 jet.

Hampson Aerospace sued the Albuquerque jet maker,alleging failure to make required payments.


The rest of the story is on line -
www.abqjournal.com

115 comments:

fred said...

is that the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning ?

chapter 11 isn't far off anymore ...

high-time to run for exit ...!

Dave said...

Plus right now Eclipse has two federal employment cases going.

Turboprop_pilot said...

and Eclipse claims fraud- amazing how their view of the world turns everyone into an incompetent!

Would you keep delivering to a company that has way underperformed its delivery schedule and then does not pay you for delivered parts?

How long will it take Eclipse to find a replacement for a critical airframe part, while the cash clock keeps ticking?

How will this look to new investors- real due diligence would involve talking with the many, many vendors still bleeding under the bus- and what a tale they would tell.

TP- the critic, not the beliver

bill e. goat said...

?smoke screen for Avio-NG delays?

Niner Zulu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FreedomsJamtarts said...

This must be why the Con-Jet got a V tail - they couldn'
t afford a vertical stab vender any more.

Turboprop_pilot said...

hey Ken, ya wanna spin this for us??

flightguy said...

Another supplier problem? How ironic is that when more deadlines have been missed.

Shane Price said...

Looks like another bus strike.

You know, like a bird strike, but with added Vern....

After several meetings, Hampson agreed to reduce required payments, the lawsuit says. Eclipse then said it was entitled to rescind the agreement on the basis of fraud.

All credit to the Albuquerque Journal for putting this 'on the record'.

The questions now are, who will supply Eclipse with the required parts? How long will it take to get a new vendor? Will anyone WANT to step in?

And, most important of all....

Will this delay Kens' Christmas present(s)?

Shane

Gunner said...

In this industry, bad news lags.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Ken, Alexa and others: your choice of deck chairs awaits. Nothing to fret, though; at the risk of mixed metaphors, I'm reminded of the Faithful mantra, "the train has left the station".
Gunner

Black Tulip said...

I don't understand all the commotion. The tail of the airplane is right at the back and doesn't seem that critical.

eclipso said...

Well now....Having been there before, it is not surprising at all...even tho the vertical had numerous problems to begin with...(as in a "gurney" flap to correct roll (what the hell is a gurney flap, anyway?)Sounds like hospital equipment. Off the subject, what about their fine taxi procedures? Guess the needed some "extra" power. HEY..."won't that power unit create drag?"

airsafetyman said...

"The tail of the airplane is right at the back and doesn't seem that critical."

Well, they have left pretty much everything else out of the airplane, so why not?

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Actually this is the first step in the AEROMOD II program. You would not believe the drag caused by the vertical stab.

Rather than fixing the unreliable autopilot servo, in a flash of disruptive technology, it was identified that removing the servo would result in an LRU MTBF of infinity (greatly helping a number of other statistics). Since the servo was bolted to the stab it was consider easier and quicker to just delete the stab. This way the partial elipse is guaranteed to not need a vertical stab deicing boot, if FIKI testing ever commences.

Vern is now sueing Hampson for illegally fitting stuff to the wonder jet which is neither needed nor performance enhancing.

EASA approval of this minor change is expected on tuesday, once the team works out how to stop the horizontal stab getting left behind on the ramp. In the mean time the MMEL is being revised to make it a D item.

anonymous avionics engineer said...

Any idea who the attorneys are for the employment lawsuit?

Ken Meyer said...

turboprop_pilot wrote,

"hey Ken, ya wanna spin this for us??"

Why? You guys are having too much fun spinning it yourselves. BTW, a lot of the stuff written here today was just plumb wrong.

Enjoy it while you can, but don't have the wake just yet. Eclipse has had plenty of disagreements with suppliers in the past and yet the company is still around delivering airplanes in ever-increasing numbers, and the airplanes are still flying (5 of them at once a few minutes ago).

I think this may be just about the last great hurrah you naysayers get before you finally realize that all your dire predictions just aren't going to come true.

Ken

Dave said...

Case 1:
Plaintiff
Tom Bernache represented by Jeffrey A. Dahl
Keleher & McLeod, P.A.
P.O. Box AA
Albuquerque, NM 87103
505-346-4646
Fax: 505-346-1370
Email: jad@keleher-law.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


V.

Defendant
Eclipse Aviation Corporation
a Delaware Corporation represented by Repps D Stanford
Moody & Warner, PC
4169 Montgomery, NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109
(505) 944-0033
Fax: 944-0034
Email: stanford@nmlaborlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Whitney Warner
4169 Montgomery Blvd. NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109
505-944-0033
Fax: 505-944-0034
Email: warner@nmlaborlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 2:
Linda D. Pendleton represented by Donald G Gilpin
Gilpin & Keefe, P.C.
5100 Indian School Rd., NE
Albuquerque, NM 87110
505-244-3861
Fax: 505-254-0044
Email: ggd48@aol.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


V.

Defendant
Eclipse Aviation Corporation represented by Whitney Warner
4169 Montgomery Blvd. NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109
505-944-0033
Fax: 505-944-0034
Email: warner@nmlaborlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie Fritsch
4169 Montgomery Blvd. NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109
505-944-0033
Email: fritsch@nmlaborlaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

FlightCenter said...

Here are a couple links to Eclipse's website on the subject of the contract with Hampson.

Eclipse & Hampson Sign LTA



Vern Won't be Stopped


A few highlights from those webpages.

Vern on Hampson

Raburn also signed a 10-year agreement with Hampson Industries, the British firm that is a supplier to Rolls-Royce, Boeing, Airbus and Short Brothers.

“The Hampson team has demonstrated strong expertise in structural part fabrication and component assembly, proven knowledge of production logistics, and an ability to scale their manufacturing to support our high volume production,” said Vern Raburn, president and CEO of Eclipse Aviation. “This contract once again demonstrates Eclipse Aviation's commitment to search globally to find the most qualified partners, who share our vision to change the way people travel and have the capability to support our value proposition.”

Vern on developing aircraft
"Developing new aircraft isn't easy; it's full of risk," he explains.

He added that Adam Aircraft has missed every stated certification date on the A500.


Vern on Eclipse Aviation
"Our plant is capable of building 1,500 jets a year; we've never said we'd do that, but right now we think we probably will build 1,500 jets a year," he said,

Raburn said his company has been "open and honest about everything."


Vern on Vern
Vern Raburn has been described as a tsunami; he can't be controlled or stopped.

The truth is that Raburn can't help himself when it comes to change.

"I'd get bored without it," he says.

"I was always labeled as the guy who couldn't keep a job," he laughed.

When asked why it takes so long to build a new airplane, Raburn laughed and said his board of directors ask that same question all of the time.

planet-ex said...

Anyone have any information concerning the DeVore Aviation vs. Eclipse lawsuit? Records show DeVore getting a roughly $580k settlement from Eclipse in June 2006.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Lies, all lies, the ABQ Journal is pathetic former rag, there are no Americans in Baghdad!!!!

Sorry, I must be channeling the Faithful that are sure to chime in any moment now.

Actually I am sorry to hear this as the run on deposits is about to begin (already has if you believe the new number of 2600 compared to 2700 and 2800 thrown around by the Faithful in the past couple months).

From the Hampson Interim Management Statement (July-Aug 2007):
"Production of the Eclipse 500 Very Light Jet is starting to increase progressively although it is likely that deliveries of aircraft to customers by Eclipse Aviation in 2007/08 will be lower than previous guidance. The Group has in place processes to mitigate the financial consequences of any such shortfall. The Eclipse order book remains strong and is reported at just under 2,700 aircraft, including orders and options.

Against this positive market background, both the Aerospace Components & Structures and Composites & Transparencies divisions generated improved results compared to the same period of the previous year. With the exception of the Eclipse programme, results in these businesses have also been ahead of management expectations to date. In particular, Composites Horizons Inc. which was acquired in January 2007, continues to trade strongly, performing at better than expected levels."

airtaximan said...

2 things:

Sh&T... no way they get to 105 deliveries this year...

Maybe the grind to a halt after the first 55 or so plus a few will be correct.

Gunner... the first move like this usually starts a landslide...

SRMach5 said...

Does anyone know if Hampson is still building the tail section? The article indicated it was not clear about Hampson's status as a Vendor.

What I also found interesting on Hampson's website is their most recent press release (www.hampsongroup.com) indicating they were recently chosen to provide the empennage section for the HondaJet.

JetProp Jockey said...

Just a speculation:

Eclipse might have negotiated contracts with suppliers that did not requrie payment until the aircraft is delivered.

I have actually had customers demand this arrangement - I didn't need their business that badly.

If this is the case, then the problem is that this vendor has not been paid after the deliveries.

If this is the case, the cash flow implications would be negative cash flow for every plane delivered - 40% payment from the customer and big bucks due to suppliers.

I do find it hard that P/W would deliver engines without payment.

airtaximan said...

FC,

Jan 1
Feb 0
March 0
April 1
May 8
June 6
July 10
August 7
Sept 11
Oct 10
Nov (half month) 2

Seems like 54 planes delivered until November... only 2 idicated deliveries in first 2 weeks of November. I did not see a week by week summary, so who knows, perhaps they push more out the last few days of the month...

Plus, I am sure the 1500 folks at e-clips were starting some planes after the first 55 or so, during this year... in fact, plane 71 was started in Sept timeframe...so there were around only 15 planes "started" between Q1 and Q3 (how SAD is this?) leaving some room to continue production/deliveries.

- MOUSE says S/N84 is being painted... this is a good sign - it means 13 planes (at least) were started and completed since September.

I'm not sure my prediction of "grinding to a halt" will come true, but the 2 deliiveries in the first half of November so far looks like a BIG slowdown -its fair to say, the delta between the prediction and the 2 (one-per-day in Sept and ramp UP from there) and the reality is growing, not shrinking.

(probably a whole different production profile now...ain't it)

mirage00 said...

I guess the sky ISNT quite falling.

Dubai! Eclipse Signs 12 Plane Deal With DAE Flight Academy


I remain amused

double 00

airtaximan said...

Moo,

wasn't this posted here about a month ago as great news?

didn't you post it already?

why do you keep posting this?

(I think we all know why)

Black Dog said...

SRMach5 said...
Does anyone know if Hampson is still building the tail section? The article indicated it was not clear about Hampson's status as a Vendor.

I can confirm they are still building the tail and I can also confirm that they are no mugs when it comes to court cases.

This MAY be Hampsons excuse to dump Eclipse for bigger and better projects?????

Dave said...

I guess the sky ISNT quite falling

According to the article the aircraft are to be delivered in 2008. That sounds bad either way. Either this isn't a new sale at all, but someone else taking over an existing position or it is a new sale but Eclipse is letting this new position step over position holders who paid up years ago to get to the head of the line just so Eclipse could put out a press release. So is Eclipse deceptively acting like this is a new order when it's just an existing order changing hands or is Eclipse treating their existing position holders like crap to the point where someone new can go right to the head of the line?

Black Dog said...

mirage00 said...
I guess the sky ISNT quite falling.


No but its getting very dark best break out some of those amusing light sticks

mirage00 said...

According to the article the aircraft are to be delivered in 2008. That sounds bad either way. Either this isn't a new sale at all, but someone else taking over an existing position or it is a new sale but Eclipse is letting this new position step over position holders who paid up years ago to get to the head of the line just so Eclipse could put out a press release. So is Eclipse deceptively acting like this is a new order when it's just an existing order changing hands or is Eclipse treating their existing position holders like crap to the point where someone new can go right to the head of the line?

Or maybe,just maybe, Eclipse has company allocated blocks reserved to sell at any time.

Let the spin continue...

I remain amused

double 00

mirage00 said...

An Eclipse spokesman told the Journal the suggestion the planemaker would need more money to last through 2007 was "absolutely untrue," and asserted the company was not in financial trouble.

But but but, this blog knows better and we say they are!!!....

I remain amused

double 00

Dave said...

Or maybe,just maybe, Eclipse has company allocated blocks reserved to sell at any time.

So then this isn't a new sale, but is a transfer of an existing position. You're only confirming what I said. If it is a company allocated block, it would be interesting to see how these blocks affect the reported order book and if everyone is aware that Eclipse is selling to itself. You're answer doesn't exactly paint a pretty picture.

mirage00 said...

So then this isn't a new sale, but is a transfer of an existing position. You're only confirming what I said. If it is a company allocated block, it would be interesting to see how these blocks affect the reported order book and if everyone is aware that Eclipse is selling to itself. You're answer doesn't exactly paint a pretty picture.

As I said, "Let the spin continue"

I remain amused

double 00

Dave said...

As I said, "Let the spin continue"

I did no spin. You claimed it was from an existing block, yet you wont admit that's exactly what I had said. By the way, I'd like to hear your explanation on how Eclipse accounts for their blocks on making progress payments to itself, where the planes would be stored, etc. You're the one who brought up Eclipse selling to itself, so I'd really like to hear more about how this works and how these sales are represented.

HotDog said...

Mirage00….I’ll admit that this blog has not always been accurate reporting facts and also twisting things a bit to fit a particular position but what makes an “Eclipse spokesman” any more creditable? Whether it’s true or not, they have proven time and time again that they will distort the truth to fit their particular position as well. This current lawsuit is not amusing.

Ken Meyer said...

The company has previously said that it utilizes strategic delivery positions (other companies do, too) in order to be able to accommodate customers who need to take delivery sooner than would be possible if they just got at the end of the line.

One doesn't count a strategic delivery slot as a sold position until it is a sold position.

Ken

Dave said...

The company has previously said that it utilizes strategic delivery positions

Where have they said that? I searched Yahoo and Google and found nothing:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22strategic+delivery+position%22+and+eclipse&btnG=Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=my_mod&p=%22strategic+delivery+position%22+and+eclipse

(other companies do, too)

Just because more than one person/company does something, it doesn't therefore mean it's ethical.

in order to be able to accommodate customers who need to take delivery sooner than would be possible if they just got at the end of the line.

One doesn't count a strategic delivery slot as a sold position until it is a sold position.


How can it be considered an existing position if it's not sold Eclipse? If Eclipse doesn't have to book progress payments or take delivery of the positions it owns, it just sounds like Eclipse scewing existing paid position holders whenever it's convenient. If all of Eclipse's "strategic delivery positions" are phantom transactions that are not treated like every other position, it just looks like Eclipse is shafting their own existing customers.

Gunner said...

Dave-
I walked out on Eclipse when they told me they were revoking all serial number assignments for exactly the reason you bring up. It allows all manner of games with the infamous "Order Book" and can never be good for the unsecured lender, oops, "Position Holder".

The train left the station without me, I guess. I'm shattered. Then again $130K in the bank provides great "solace". Come to think of it, the fact that I could buy that position today for less than it would have cost me in June '06 takes me beyond solace the place Mirage lives.
Gunner

Stan Blankenship said...

Was watching N504EA en route to Wichita this morning when it deviated from a direct course in an odd manner.

I needed to go to Sam's near the airport to pick up some test pictures being developed from my new $30 underwater camera. So I decided to head out that way.

Sure enough the little bird landed with only the pilot on board, dressed in a khaki jump suit and matching ball cap.

He immediately went out the FBO's front door, placed a call on his cell phone and lit a cigarette...maybe it was the other way around.

I concluded since it was a flight test airplane, he was here to pick up probably cargo, perhaps a repaired black box from Collins or Honeywell, so I went on about my business. He is on his way home now.

All-in-all, a non-event, should have introduced myself, then it might have been an event.

gadfly said...

If the train has left the station . . . is the new term for the rear end, the "caboose"?

Either way, the CG limits may require modification.

gadfly

gadfly said...

M00

Me thinks I saw you in a movie a few years back. It was called “Groundhog Day” . . . and playing it backwards, I was truly amused!

gadfly

Ken Meyer said...

AT wrote,

"I'm not sure my prediction of "grinding to a halt" will come true, but the 2 deliiveries in the first half of November so far looks like a BIG slowdown"

You keep making the same pitch, but it's just as wrong today as it was yesterday. Here's what we do know about current production--

We know that S/N 67 was delivered on 10/25/07. We know that S/N 84 is ready for paint, and we know that the owner of S/N 97 has been told his plane will be delivered between 11/27 and 12/3.

That's 30 aircraft in about 5 weeks. Not quite one a day, but getting closer, not farther from it.

I just don't see how anybody can conclude that production is "grinding to a halt" without invoking pure fantasy and wishful thinking mixed in with a dash of malice.

Ken

gadfly said...

Black Tulip

There’s no problem: The “empenage” (or is it the “caboose” . . . I get confused so easily with this eclipse thing . . . you know, my age, etc.) . . . is simply placed over in the “to do” list, for things that will be added at some time in the future. No problem! In the mean time, just tweak the CG envelope a little, here and there . . . and who knows, you might have a much faster, lighter, and more responsive VLJ . . . sort of like the “low riders” around here (just watch out for those speed bumps . . . they are killers on the pneumatic suspension).

gadfly

(Check out those cool blue neon lights under the wings . . . the chicks love ‘em! . . . so I’m told.)

(Oh, and Ken: The word is “further”, not “farther” . . . and then there’s that little problem of “payroll” . . . a year ago the “burn rate” was said to be about $30million per month, of which at least about half was payroll . . . but you will correct me, I’m sure! And, No, production will not grind to a halt, but without the “tail feathers”, things may get rather strange . . . I cannot imagine the next chapter in this mystery. And even you probably cannot imagine the next turn of events. Remember? A long time ago, I suggested to you to stick with what you know, and you’ll do just fine. Somehow, I think you have forgotten . . .)

Sorry, Tulip, but had to add that suggestion to our “doctor friend”.

Niner Zulu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gadfly said...

And as for you, Black Dog, . . . you and ‘Black Tulip’ don’t fit.

Eclipse is in the Red . . . Big Time. It’s all just a matter of time . . . as “black” fades into “red”.

Actually, it has always been “red” . . . that has been the obvious ever since we saw the “red” in the faces of those who first came on the scene. For us who have been in business for longer that we can remember, there was always a “tinge” of red in the picture, when we first considered doing business with Eclipse. Something told us to watch at a distance . . . this is a repeat of something we’ve seen all too often.

For most of you, who continue to watch this saga (and may not yet wish to admit it) . . . the final scene is all too clear . . . and for you who have so much invested, I feel for you. It’s a much too often repeated scenario. Soon, you will watch the final act . . . painful at best, but as sure as tomorrow’s sunrise . . . or should I use a more appropriate term, the “sunset”.

“Fade to black . . . as in the deepest red . . . as in “lights out”.

gadfly

Dave said...

For most of you, who continue to watch this saga (and may not yet wish to admit it) . . . the final scene is all too clear . . . and for you who have so much invested, I feel for you. It’s a much too often repeated scenario. Soon, you will watch the final act . . . painful at best, but as sure as tomorrow’s sunrise . . . or should I use a more appropriate term, the “sunset”.

I have seen all this before with Iacobucci's SCO, which is now in BK. Everything I've seen from Eclipse is so familiar, just Eclipse is a bit further behind on the timeline than SCO.

gadfly said...

Congratulations, Dave!

You've got the picture . . . well composed, in focus, and in perspective.

gadfly

('Had a few more had such understanding, there would be no "Eclipse", at least in its present state, and much less grief.)

Shane Price said...

Hey, I've just had a thought.

If Vern keeps falling out with vendors like this, pretty soon you could 'roll your own' E500 by picking up the bits yourself.

Think of the advantages:-

1. You could be certain of a delivery date.

2. The aircraft would be complete.

3. Someone, somewhere would sell you a toilet for it.

4. The paint job would be damm near perfect.

5. You could probably fit a Garmin suite to suit your needs.

6. The windscreen would probably last longer.

7. Vern would have had nothing to do with it!

AND...

8. As a result, its' resale value would be more than you paid for it.

What's not to like about that, eh?

Shane

gadfly said...

Shane

The problem . . . pardon, "problems", are beyond number. This aircraft has next to nothing new to offer . . . never had, but had a spokesman of exceptional talent, that could sell a palm tree to an Eskimo, or "shoes to a dead man" (a family joke). So, if you had knowledge of everything inside . . . and out of the Eclipse, you would still have an empty sack.

'Sorry, but "parts is parts" and "facts is facts".

End of story!

gadfly

(What's not to like about that? . . . New Mexico can't afford another Eclipse.)

rcflyer said...

dave said,

"I have seen all this before with Iacobucci's SCO, which is now in BK. Everything I've seen from Eclipse is so familiar, just Eclipse is a bit further behind on the timeline than SCO."

Dave, I like your logic. Eclipse has a customer who was involved in a company that is near bankruptcy. Therefore, Eclipse must be near bankruptcy.

I happen to know that Diamond has a D-Jet customer who has had legal problems. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that Diamond is on the verge of having legal problems. QED.

R.C.

mouse said...

Ken,

I know this is like pissing into the wind, but try and get a refund on whatever you can before December 15th.

No response necessary.

SRMach5 said...

Ken:

I know this is old news, but as long as you are mentioning serial numbers, what of s/n 73. You know, N156DJ? I wonder what 'position holder' that is? Last I heard, this airplane was for sale. I wonder why that is?

Things that make you go hmm....

airtaximan said...

Ken:

"I just don't see how anybody can conclude that production is "grinding to a halt" without invoking pure fantasy and wishful thinking mixed in with a dash of malice."

Better than you I said I might not be right with that prediction, BUT, after a number of months with 8-12 deliveries/month, E-clips has only 2 deliveries recorded in November, and its half way through November, Ken - that's how.

No fantasy involved, and certainly no malice... how could THAT prediction do harm?
- did my prediction that they would produce a con-jet months before it happend, cause harm?
- did my prediction Dayjet had more than 1,000 orders and options at e-clips cause harm?
- what about my suggestion they would deliver 105 planes in 2007? Did that cause harm?

Keep up the remarks - it demonstrates to all what a die-hard is made of.

BTW, I provided the rationale, chock full of numbers for my thoughts. Did you find time to back up your claims about how fantastic the finished AVIONG is compared to the systems on the market today? You said you wopuld do this? Its been a day, and the more I look into it, the more I think the assertion that AVIONG is terrific is completely misguided.

I'll give you another day... but if history is any indication, I'm certain you will not live up to your word, and just leave the open ended BOLD comments as a lame billboard for e-clips and AVIONG.

Let's see...

mouse said...

The production line was slowed down early last month due to parts shortage issues. Tails and engines were no longer being delivered. The production team was told the ramp up was being curtailed to allow for "catch-up" of parts by the vendors. This announcement was the day before the layoffs, by Vern, to the production leadership.

Guess Vern forgot to brief Ken, and he could not find Mirage.. guess he was off in the corner amusing himself...

mouse said...

Gadfly, Ken knows all about tales and tails.. Dr. of Proctocology and all...

gadfly said...

The strangest thing . . . somehow a “mouse” seemed to speak, as if in a dream . . . almost like a ghost of “Christmas Past”. There seemed to be something of things to come, as if I could change the future. There was “Tiny Tim”, and someone called “Scrooge” . . . and a turkey, called “Eclipse”, stir fried . . . and a warning . . . it all gets dark . . . and suddenly I awoke . . . and it wasn’t yet December 15 . . . and I could yet make things right.

‘Must have been a nightmare!

gadfly

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

FC,

Can you ascertain if the FAA CofA database only shows standard CofA's?

That might answer how there appears to be almost as many EA-500's flying without a CofA as there are those flying with a CofA.

To quote from Alice in Wonderland 'curioser and curioser'.

How anyone with access to the facts just out there in the open can conculde anything other than the wheels are about to fall off is a testament to the faith of the Faithful.

gadfly said...

mouse

You are probably referring to Dr. Colon Prowl, MD.

gadfly

mouse said...

I rectum Yur correct!

airtaximan said...

mouse,
amazing.
things make sense...

even a asshole reading the press and keeping track can see from 1,000 miles away

I'm glad you are back. We need corroboration.

PS. someone is going to call you malicious... funny how they do not say that of e-clips, lying for years and taking their money and all... all you are doing is reporting what you hear.

Ken Meyer said...

AT wrote,

"E-clips has only 2 deliveries recorded in November"

Huh?

First off, it is Eclipse, not E-clips. Attention to detail is important in this business or you may wind up like that broken down charter operator on the anti-Eclipse blog who can't keep his facts straight :)

I guess you didn't get the memo--it is a fact that they have delivered far more than two aircraft in November. You persist in promoting this particular falsehood because it makes you feel better, right?

That's okay with me. Everyone else in the world but you seems to know that they are cranking out these airplanes at a rate very nearly hitting one per calendar day.

Ken

airtaximan said...

good news!

Controller has only 50 e-clips listings -down from a high of 54, I believe.

Some numbers of note...
83, 111, 88 (1/2 interest), 90 (1/2 interest), 17, 100, 103, 65, 76, 80, 69, 32, 05

That's 14 listings regarding planes already delivered, or being delivered in a few weeks (supposedly).

There are a bunch for sale scheduled for delivery early next year, too..

I suspect Controller will have more than 60 listings for e500 soon... let's follow the bouncing ball here.

airtaximan said...

Ken:

try this... its provided by FC, and it reflcect the FAA delivery data. it could be wrong, but its what we are using... I think its updated every 2 weeks.

Jan 1
Feb 0
March 0
April 1
May 8
June 6
July 10
August 7
Sept 11
Oct 10
Nov (half month) 2

Thanks for correcting my "e-clips"... I had no clue it was Eclipse.

Vernacular is wrong too...

I guess you are not amused...sorry - it's gotta suck.

gadfly said...

Ken

In case you hadn't noticed, Eclipse has not "cranked out" a single E500 since "Day One", that meets the promised performance, and complete equipment. So, what's all this talk about "one per calendar day"?

gadfly

(Sorry, but all the "smoke and mirrors" sometimes clouds the facts.)

airtaximan said...

Ken,

your keen sense of detail and your intelligent analysis of the facts (as you put it) led you to where you are today.

- you got suckered into 2 e-clips positions. You love the plane. You have none. You are out a lot of money. You still defend the company... but I guess you are relying on the "greater fool" theory? Someone will come along and put up money, to finance YOUR plane... you financed someone elses...

You are a shallow promoter, and given the chance to provide details to back up your opinion, you cave every time. Saying I have a problem with my facts is an empty statement from you, Ken. You make promotional statements, and throw insults when the opinions here do not suit your needs. Why not just provide the details...

It's so much nicer, Ken It reflects better, and perhaps people will even feel sorry for you when all is said and done. You are a lot like Vern - normally we would chear for the underdog, but you make that so hard...

airtaximan said...

GAd,

its so surreal.

One-per-day...

Starting when? Finishing when?

David Crowes plane meets the current definition.. one per day. January1, they delivered one per day. OK, so what if it took 700 direct laborers almost a year to get that one "almost" done and delivered. Then, no deliveries for a few months, then a few more. Then 8-12 a month for a few months... to finally delivered planes that took around 800 people almost a year to build?

The way I see it, they are no where near one a day.

But, Ken's happy.

Dave said...

Dave, I like your logic. Eclipse has a customer who was involved in a company that is near bankruptcy. Therefore, Eclipse must be near bankruptcy.

That wasn't my logic however. My logic is that the same patterns of deception that I saw from SCO I'm seeing from Eclipse and I'm not the least bit surprised to see Ed caught up right in the middle of the deceptions.

airtaximan said...

Dave,

apparently Ed and Vern go WAY back. This is not just a simple "customer" relationship - that's obvious, unless you don't want to look!

So, you could say the misunderstanding of your comment, led to an important realization... some people still think Dayjet is just another customer.

We're not in Kansas anymore, THAT's for sure.

Gunner said...

In case anyone missed the full story:
"Eclipse Is Sued By Supplier

By Andrew Webb
Copyright © 2007 Albuquerque Journal; Journal Staff Writer

Eclipse Aviation took another hit Tuesday, this time from a U.K.-based company building tail sections for the Eclipse 500 jet. Hampson Aerospace sued the Albuquerque jet maker, alleging failure to make required payments. The tail sections are being built at Hampson's plant in Grand Prairie, Texas, and shipped to Eclipse Aviation in Albuquerque for mating to the rest of the six-seat jet's fuselage.

A spokeswoman for Eclipse Aviation, reached late Tuesday, said she couldn't comment on the pending litigation. It was unclear Tuesday whether Hampson was still supplying tail sections to Eclipse, which has changed other key suppliers in recent years, including the companies that were building the original engine and avionics system.

Eclipse has been unable to meet projected production rates, forcing it to lay off 100 temporary workers last month. And last week, an aviation analyst said the company would need to seek another round of investor financing to make it through the year. Eclipse has denied that the company needs more cash to survive the year.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in state District Court in Albuquerque, alleges that Eclipse made a required first payment in March but failed to make further payments called for under their agreement. After several meetings, Hampson agreed to reduce required payments, the lawsuit says. Eclipse then said it was entitled to rescind the agreement on the basis of fraud. The lawsuit did not detail the fraud alleged by Eclipse, and the amount of the disputed payments wasn't included.

Hampson's attorneys said in documents that they planned to request court permission to file the original agreement between the two companies under seal. When the contract was announced in 2003, it had an estimated value of $380 million. In its suit, Hampson seeks court enforcement of the agreement and unspecified damages.

Eclipse has been plagued in the past year by problems, including slower-than-expected production and problems with some components that will require retrofitting of already-delivered aircraft.

Eclipse, which has said it expects to transform the aviation industry with its low-cost jet, has raised an estimated $1 billion from investors.

The state holds $19 million in equity investments in the company."

airtaximan said...

normally we would chear for the underdog, but you make that so hard...


cheer

airtaximan said...

"nowhere near a $billion" I believe is what a bunch of die-hards said a while ago...

baron95 said...

For a start up company with no previous aerospace experience to deliver 10 or 11 certified jets in one calendar month is a *huge* accomplishment.

That is the highest production rate of any GA biz jet - period.

The fact that performance is reasnably close to book and better than any plane costing up to twice as much is also *HUGE*.

The issues are that:
1 - The jet is incomplete - no usable aviaonics, AP full of strange behaviours, no FIKI.
2 - They are selling building so many because of an unrealistically low price.
3 - The hyperbole from Vern/Eclipse talking about a plane a day, etc is out of wack.

I think sooner or later, Eclipse goes into Ch11. A settlement with position holders would force them to take a price increase. A settelment with the vendors would force them to delay receivables. Early investors would be now minotirty holders. Some financial group would put a debtor in possesion finance package to get them out of Ch 11 and will gain control, or someone will acquire them - Prob Hawker Beech.

Production will resume at more sane prices and levels. FIKI will be secured with some AF changes. Avio NG may be completed or may be swapped out for G1000.

Single engine jet will get the green light and the company will put all its energy on it rather then on EA500 product improvements.

So there is nothing new here. This is par for the course in aviation startups. Sino-Sweringen has gone through it, Adam had a mini version of it, Columbia is going through it now.

bill e. goat said...

Thanks to Ken and M00 for posting a spritely rebuttal during these "difficult times":), at least on this string of the blog. Let's hope the difficulties will be short lived (maybe Diamond will soon hire Vern, too- helping Eclipse in two ways).

Anyway. I remain suspicious of any proclamations about Avio-NG being "done" and ready for "cut-in". I suspect Eclipse is squirming to find a way to postpone sn105, and if they can blame an unrelated supplier, that would seem to fit scenario I expect from them.

Maybe not, and I'm all wet (pardon to CWMOR). But it just smells, well, fishy to me.

Thanks to Mouse for some more of his insights. I think the real bellwether on Eclipse's financial health is:
How many engines are sitting on the docks at Eclipse? (I don't think P&W will be outfoxed by Vern, and he can't afford to screw around with them).
------------------------
Or. Does P&W have some financial stake in Eclipse (who paid for the R&D of the 610's?), maybe enough interest to cut them some slack if they are delinquent?

Thanks.
------------------------

During composition, I notice Baron95's posting. I concur. It is a nice airplane, and biz jets by the dozen per month (for a particular model) is unprecidented- nobody else does it.

However, I would also note, nobody sells for a loss either. I think if Cessna were selling the CitX for $4M, they'd be able to sell a dozen per month**. For a while. In the case of Eclipse (as Baron95 points out), we're all waiting to see how long "a while" is.

**maybe even have "thousands" of orders :)

airtaximan said...

baron,

what would you say the new production rate and corresponding price will be for the E-hawker-500?

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

I predict there will be no e-Hawker 500 ATM. I said this recently and felt it bears repeating.

The Onex guys are too smart and Vern does not have the connections to Goldman that Adam did (past tense, since Adam was forced out of his own company after GS ponied up).

I don't see Hawker-Beechcraft needing the E-500, they would be better served by something in the Phenom 100 class that is a real jet and not more competitive with their piston offerings in the Bonanza or Baron than with any turbine aircraft.

How pathetic is that, having to compare a 'jet' to piston aircraft.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

On a side note, curious what some of our other industry insiders know about the G-650?

bill e. goat said...

Hmmm.
I was pondering the proposition of a CitationX for $4M.
I really DO think Cessna would have a market for thousands.
This perplexed me a bit, because it seems to run counter to my belief that Eclipse market equilibrium will be around 200 per year- I initially would have expected the CitX to have similiar market saturation, even at $4M.

Then it dawned on me, somewhat by accident- that there is a weakness in the Eclipse marketing plan:

A CitationX for $4M does things better, for less money, than competing designs. This amounts do doing things better, for less money, than, say maybe 600 other bizjets per year, worldwide.

And an E-500 for $1.6M does things better, for less money, than competing designs. But in this case, it amounts to doing things better, for less money, than say maybe 150-200 airplanes per year, worldwide (the number of piston twin sales).

Otherwise, the E-500 doesn't do things better, but just cheaper, than the hundreds of other light/very light jets sold every year. But it's size, speed, and range constraints aren't going to be enough to sway those folks (from bigger/better/faster/-and yes-more expensive) jets into accepting the tradeoffs*.

(This is the main reason I think the second Eclipse product should be upmarket, rather than a single).
---------------------------
*Certainly, the operating (and acquisition) expenses are much lower- and this will appeal to, well, 150-200 purchasers per year- the same folks who would otherwise be looking at piston twins.

airtaximan said...

CW,

Baron suggested there would be... so I am interested in the "value proposition".

If someone thinks there's a market for the "fixed up e-500", I'd be interested in understanding how?

- increase price from $1.6 million to what? Remember, MOST folks bought at $1.2 or so... so at MORE than $1.6, is Ed still around? If not, half the order book - Poof!

- how many folks who were in at $1.2 or so would stick around?

We pontificate that much above $2.1million, the real buyers are over at Cessna looking to buy Ken's wife's Mustang. But, who knows?

At 500 a year they can almost make money, according to Vern. According to you, they do not have enough orders to sustain even THAT rate.

Auppliers bought into the program on a curve, with premiums at lower rates and discounts at higher rates. This is a HUGE problem. It means that if we believe Vern, there's some magical pricing volume at 500 planes per year, that makes break even work.

If they miss this, it sounds like its a major loss, not even close to break even... becasue they do not get the volume discounts. So, not only do they lack the revenue from the B/E point they missed... their COGS goes UP, making the situation worse.

I do not see a solution.

Flyer's ed with driver's ed at highschool and lower the price so that every tennager can get a plane?

airtaximan said...

bill-e,

false premise... the e-500 is designed to compete with cars, not planes.

see Dayjet reference.

Black Tulip said...

I wonder where the Faithful go to commiserate. Obviously this is not the place. The Eclipse 500 Club can’t be either. That’s partially supported by the factory. I would imagine writing a comment questioning Eclipse there would be like a Russian citizen baiting the Soviet Union in a letter to Pravda. Today’s news must be generating tension that needs to be released.

FlightCenter said...

Ken,

Thanks for the info on serial #97.

You mentioned that a postion holder with serial number greater than 100 has been told to expect delivery in December.

Would that be for an aircraft with serial number 105 or greater?

Seems likely given that #97 is expecting to take delivery on or before 12/3.

Niner Zulu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FlightCenter said...

ATM,

The FAA "in process" data shows 11 aircraft that have not yet been entered into the FAA database.

2 of those are certain to be entered as November aircraft in addition to the 2 that are already in the registry database.

That makes 4 aircraft delivered in November as of Friday last week.

Of the other 9 still "in process", some of those aircraft have a high probability of being counted as November aircraft in the eyes of the FAA database.

To early to tell where they'll land.

JetA1 said...

Goat said:
Or. Does P&W have some financial stake in Eclipse (who paid for the R&D of the 610's?), maybe enough interest to cut them some slack if they are delinquent?

Cessna paid for the R&D of the 600 series, by mounting the 1st one on the CJ flying test bed.

planet-ex said...

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...
On a side note, curious what some of our other industry insiders know about the G-650?


You mean the "fat" Gulfstream? That's still in preliminary design the last I heard - say goodbye to the big windows on that bird.

There's also the G-250 in the works (re-done G-200 like they turned the G-100 into the G-150).

rcflyer said...

black tulip said,

"I wonder where the Faithful go to commiserate. Obviously this is not the place. The Eclipse 500 Club can’t be either. That’s partially supported by the factory. I would imagine writing a comment questioning Eclipse there would be like a Russian citizen baiting the Soviet Union in a letter to Pravda. Today’s news must be generating tension that needs to be released."

BT, you might well imagine that, but you would be wrong. I am a member of the Eclipse 500 Club, so I can say that with authority.

If the tension that needs release becomes too unbearable for you, I suggest a cold shower :)

R.C.

FlightCenter said...

CWMR asked,

"Can you ascertain if the FAA CofA database only shows standard CofA's?"

You can see the difference between serial #38 and serial #39 by clicking on these links.

Eclipse 500 #38 Registry data

Eclipse 500 #39 Registry data

Scroll down to see the airworthiness section.

Serial #38 shows a normal airworthiness certificate has been issued on 7/21/2007.

Serial #39 airworthiness section says - None.

mouse said...

Just to set the record straight at Adam. Rick was not forced out, he left when it stopped being fun, on his own terms, and like a gentleman.

Eclipse has no value to any other manufacturer, because they do not have a design that is supportable, is too prone to long term defects, and has no control over any of the part suppliers.

The P&WC engine was indeed funded, to the tune of $53M for development, by.... P&WC. They essentially loaned Eclipse the money, and then were paid back to develop the engine. No conspiracy, just the facts. The reason the E500 powered by P&WC flew on December 31st was to save the company (Eclipse) from being turned over to P&WC for default on getting their engines in the air that year.

Ed was shopping other airplanes, under the name Jetsons, as late as the fall of 2004 at Adam.

The only airframe currently assigned to Dr. Ken is S/N 151, and as of yesterday it was on the production schedule for delivery in the summer of 2008.

There are very few parts on the docks, because very few vendors will ship without payment, even though most had agreed to accept payment 20 days after the delivery of the plane, because none (as in not a one) of Eclipses projected dates or rates has ever been met.

AVIO NfG is nowhere close to certification. There are significant communication issues and code issues that have yet to be solved, and many more issues yet addressed or discovered.

Other than that, I'm sure college students will be learning about the Eclipse Business Debacle for many years to come...

rcflyer said...

bill e. goat said,

"Does P&W have some financial stake in Eclipse (who paid for the R&D of the 610's?), maybe enough interest to cut them some slack if they are delinquent?"

As I understand it, Eclipse has made no payments to P&WC for PW610 R&D. The story, as I heard it, is that P&WC did extensive due diligence on Eclipse before agreeing to develop the engine and supply it to Eclipse. The CEO of United Technologies himself signed off on the deal.

R.C.

FlightCenter said...

RC is correct.

P&W did do extensive due diligence before agreeing to supply the engine to Eclipse. The fact that the CEO of UTC signed off on the deal isn't that unusual though. This was true for Embraer's engine deal for the Phenom as well.

Interestingly, P&W had an incentive agreement with Eclipse. If Pratt met certain milestones by certain dates, then they would be issued Eclipse stock as a reward for meeting those milestones.

Eclipse was pretty open about this arrangement with folks who asked about the risks associated with P&W delivering the engine cert in time to meet Eclipse's cert schedule.

I'm not sure whether P&W earned their stock incentives or not.

Any one else have the background on that?

As a side note, other suppliers (and some ex-suppliers) currently hold Eclipse stock. I don't have any information regarding Hampson, but it wouldn't be surprising to hear that they also were holding some Eclipse stock.

One point / counter-point, P&W paid Embraer a substantial sum of development money to earn the right to be the supplier to Embraer. Eclipse offered P&W Eclipse stock as an enticement for P&W to supply Eclipse with their engines.

FlightCenter said...

Linear Air is flying their aircraft.

They had 16 flights last week and 17.2 flight hours.

That works out to an average of 3.2flights per aircraft per day.

That's quite a bit better (3x) than the utilization DayJet is currently getting.

FlightCenter said...

CWMR asked,

"Can you ascertain if the FAA CofA database only shows standard CofA's?"

Sorry, I guess I didn't really answer the question.

The database can show different classes of CofAs, including experimental CofAs and also shows the category of ops approved. (For example normal, R&D, etc...)

You may remember the discussions from 6 or 7 months ago that we discovered that a number of the initial aircraft had initially been issued experimental R&D CofAs.

Today the database shows standard airworthiness certificates for normal operations have been issued for the first 38 serial numbers.

Not so for serial 39 and beyond.

Here's the cut and paste from the FAA document describing the database.

The airworthiness certificate class which is reported on the Application for Airworthiness, FAA Form 8130-6.
1 - Standard
2 - Limited
3 - Restricted
4 - Experimental
5 - Provisional
6 – Multiple
7 - Primary
8 - Special Flight Permit
9 – Light Sport

Turboprop_pilot said...

Interesting news about Linear Air from Flight Center (I received an invitation to invest in Linear Air and decided not to- "How do you make a small fortune ...). They had a reasonable business plan and proved its viability with Caravans. They still are flying Caravans in addition to the one Eclipse, so have flexibility to fly an appropriate sized/speed/ranged/payloaded aircraft for each mission. It is not surprising that they have 3x better utilization than DayJet.

A couple of guys from the software world start their businesses with "revolutionary, breakthrough" technology with no tests, just leap off the cliff.

I submit that the software business is a very poor training ground for the real world- you can make wild claims and toss a poorly done product into the marketplace and fix it as you go- the insides are mysterious and marketing claims are more important, as is first to market. With hardware, customers can see the bad job, see that the claims are spurious and use alternate products. Changes cost real money and, in aviation, your friendly FAA is right there to ensure the product meets very hard requirements. Market size makes outcomes pretty different too.

TP

Redtail said...

Mouse, you have a penchant for warping and twisting, and providing incomplete facts and explanation of the actual details...

mouse said... Just to set the record straight at Adam. Rick was not forced out, he left when it stopped being fun, on his own terms, and like a gentleman.

Rick was forced out by those that put up the cash and held the cards. The job stopped being fun, because that's the way the investors made it for him. Yes, he left like a gentleman, with no other choice.

Mouse said... The P&WC engine was indeed funded, to the tune of $53M for development, by.... P&WC. They essentially loaned Eclipse the money, and then were paid back to develop the engine. No conspiracy, just the facts.

P&WC funded the development for the engine. Eclipse offered P&WC stock and options for meeting performance goals and schedules.

Mouse said... Ed was shopping other airplanes, under the name Jetsons, as late as the fall of 2004 at Adam.

The Jetson name was in use since 2001 and is the company used to place the original orders to Eclipse. Ed has made it very clear that they have looked at other aircraft, and probably will in the future as well. That's called good business practice - nothing telling as you suggest.

Mouse said... The only airframe currently assigned to Dr. Ken is S/N 151, and as of yesterday it was on the production schedule for delivery in the summer of 2008.

Ken's second aircraft is in his wife's name, and scheduled later. So what. Is Ken's middle name pertinent as well?

Mouse said... There are very few parts on the docks, because very few vendors will ship without payment, even though most had agreed to accept payment 20 days after the delivery of the plane, because none (as in not a one) of Eclipses projected dates or rates has ever been met.

Well, no surprise there, but parts continue to be delivered as needed, and on time. Since the production has not been up to projected levels, there's not much need to stockpile parts for 500 shipsets per year. Duh.

Mouse said... AVIO NfG is nowhere close to certification. There are significant communication issues and code issues that have yet to be solved, and many more issues yet addressed or discovered.

Yes, there are some issues and communication problems on certain functions. That would be why there will be more that just the initial software release. Those functions not yet complete and fully tested will be scheduled for a later load. Again, duh.

Mouse said... Other than that, I'm sure college students will be learning about the Eclipse Business Debacle for many years to come...

Oh, so correct. What they will learn is how start-ups can falter and still be turned around to be a great success.

Ken Meyer said...

Mouse's guesstimate of when my plane is scheduled for delivery was wrong, too. Way wrong, he missed it by months!

I guess his old drinking buddy from the line got mixed up...or maybe he needs new glasses :)

Ken

flightguy said...

Maybe he needs some rose colored glasses, right?

Redtail said...

Maybe Mouse's information is old, outdated, unreliable, outright incorrect, or purposefully distorted.

FlightCenter said...

According to Mike Press's newsletter, serial #151 would be delivered in February 08.

Ken,

Is that closer to the date you would expect to see serial #151 delivered?

bill e. goat said...

"_____________ guesstimate of when my plane is scheduled for delivery was wrong, too. Way wrong, he missed it by months!”

"______________ information is old, outdated, unreliable, outright incorrect, or purposefully distorted”.

Ummm, are we talking about Mouse, or Vern !!!

Shane Price said...

I think we should track the volume of Faithful comments.

When the news from/about Eclipse is good, I detect a drop. But look what happens when the brown stuff interacts with the air movement device....

I also think that Reverend Feelgood (Ken) of the Faithful Few was mentioned as serial number 154, rather than 151.

Personally I don't think it matters very much. The chances of him getting ANYTHING for his troubles declines with each passing week.

Mouse may be on to something on December 15th. That would be pretty hard on the line workers, just before Christmas and all, but it would be about right based on cash burn in the past 6 months. I suspect that the benchmarks imposed on the company in June, during the last panic funding round, would be dated around then.

In any company funding exercise, conditions are attached. Makes sense that there would at least a 6 month review, and possibly something more demanding.

Oh, and the Brazilans sold 20 jets this week. 18 x 100's and 2 x 300's. Nice going. Grob sold 8 x SPn's. Cessna sold shedloads, including Mustangs.

And all Eclipse could do was re announce an order for 12. Which 'might' be E500's or 'might' be ConJets. Depending. For delivery in 2008. On a Tuesday.

Shane

Niner Zulu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
airtaximan said...

Ken:

"Mouse's guesstimate of when my plane is scheduled for delivery was wrong, too. Way wrong, he missed it by months!"

Boy, ain't that a bag full, Ken!
The guy running the company already missed by YEARS a few times.

If I were you, I would congratulate Mouse for being a lot more accurate and honest than you've become accustomed to.

airtaximan said...

Redtail,


Thanks for the lengthy corroboration of details provided by Mouse.

JetProp Jockey said...

Relative to the Hampson legal action:

I have owned my own manufacturing business for the past 24 years and worked for a fortune 500 manufacturer before that.

In all of those years, the basic rule of thumb between vendors and suppliers in manufacturing is:

Negotiate until the relationship is beyond repair. Legal action is a last resort only after either the supplier has decided to dump a customer or visa versa.

If this is the current state of affairs at Eclipse, delveries will come to a screaching halt after the last tail section is attached.

You guys who have made a living in the industry can better estimate the time to develop and qualify a major supplier but my guess is that it would be many months.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

JPJ,

A prudent company will qualify more than one partner for any major assembly just in case something like this happens. While I have significant doubts about the competency of Eclipse's Purchasing/Contracts guys insofar as vendor management, I will bet a dollor to a doughnut that they began qualifying an alternate vendor the first time Hampson raised a stink about getting paid on time.

I have heard that Eclipse already has an alternate for the work performed by a certain asian company - the likely excuse for that divorce will be the vendor's inability to keep the tolerances that Eclipse established and then siad itself were too tight for practical manufacturing - I have heard that the quality of those large assemblies from a certain asian supplier are very, very poor.

One challenge is that some vendors will quit if the relationship is already strained and then you go out and qualify a possible replacement. Seems to me that the relationship with Hampson has been on the decline for some time. I will bet there is truth to Vern's complaint about quality - I question whether that is a result of Eclipse schedule pressure, design, Eclipse supplier quality surveillance, Eclipse receiving inspection, or just bad work at Hampson.

At the end of the day, Eclipse is responsible for the quality for any part it chooses to install on a plane - once you start to use the part, you assume the responsibility - if the parts are that bad, why is Eclipse accepting them in the first place? Were those bad parts used in the 'delivered' aircraft? What rework was done?

The real question is, is Eclipse a victim in this as Vern seems to always believe (parroted by the Faithful), or is Eclipse responsible for the creation of the problems it seems to encounter with alarming regularity?

Vern's whining raises more questions than it answers for those of us with experience in industry.

Niner Zulu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

N370P is flying to Jacksonville

This is serial 66 on it maiden voyage.

John said...

Dayjet #147 and #150 arrived in Gainesville on 11/13. These are serial 59 and 62.

Dayjet now has 20 aircraft.

Next Dayjet block is 8 aircraft
SN 71-74, SN 77-9 and 81

rcflyer said...

cwmor,

I think most of your comments about Hampson and second-sourcing are spot on.

I've no doubt that some of the problems in the Hampson-Eclipse relationship are of Eclipse's doing. However, schedule pressure or no, why would a respected aerospace vendor EVER ship substandard parts? Yet, it seems that has happened.

Eclipse may have been faced with the choice of reworking the tails themselves vs. slowing production even more.

As far as a certain Asian vendor, I've seen the crates with the non-conforming parts, ready to be returned to said vendor, at said vendor's expense.

I think the tolerance issue is nonsense. If you make a quote and sign a contract, you produce the parts to the tolerance to which you agreed. If your customer changes the spec, you either accept or reject that change. If you accept it, you ship conforming parts. That's the way business is supposed to be done. Any talk of tolerance that are too tight is just making excuses for poor performance, either in contracting or production.

R.C.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

RCF,

If Eclipse simply 'had' to accept the empennage to meet schedule, how would they ever meet schedule without the large aerodynamic assemblies created by a certain asian vendor?

I have seen vendors cave to pushy purchasing folks many times - usually it does not result in truly substandard parts being delivered, but it can result in rework or completion work taking place at said customer.

The tolerance issue was broached by Eclipse in the person of Vern hisself, in an interview around OSH as I recall - not an excuse offered by the certain asian vendor.

The tolerance issue has been backed up by former employees as well as a couple vendors who occasioanlly participate here if memory serves. The actual tolerances themselves are too tight and actually specify exact temperatures as well - just too much to control.

eclipso said...

I find it amususing that there are that many empanagge problems when one of the faithful's higher up quality persons "resigned" and went to work at Hampson, "resigned" from Hampson and went back to the faithful, but no one knew of the problems?

fred said...

sorry to bring it on the table ...

but the "news" from dubaï is hilarious ...!!

if you understand 1+1 = 2 , you can see some fun in it :

lots of buzz has been made for "the european order(s)" and the airtaxi concept (i believe none of them exists in reality...and anyway public trasports is not under-develloped in western europ , since beginning of the month when you do a paris/london ,if you take the train you beat the plane of some 10/15 minutes ...!)

then no more smoke-screen about european ...

later ,it wa sai we misread , european was to be read "eastern or turkish" (what a joke ... mostly no infrastructure in eastern europ and air taxi in turkey for what ? belly-dancers ?)

now it moved to Dubaï , for a school intending to train pilots to "fill the gap of the missing pilots in europ ..."


wait a second = how could they imagine a air-taxi concept , if there is NOT enough pilots ???

all SMOKE-SCREEN ...!!! hilarious ...:-))

i predicted some times ago a Mega-order from zimbabwe (paid with waga-waga) , dubaï is south from europ , so we are on due course ..... :-))

anonymous avionics engineer said...

The blog is dead, the blog is dead!

Sorry guys, I just wanted to see what it feels like to be one of the faithful.

It isn't that bad other than the greasy feeling around my buttocks.

JetProp Jockey said...

Gadfly

Thanks for your insights into how things work in the aerospace industry. I assumed that there are big costs involved in "tooling up" for a major system and a second source would be difficult to develop.

The interesting part that I find when I read the limited information presented by the press is as follows:

The vendor had certain obligations realtive to a product to be supplied and Eclipse had an obligation relative to the time and amount of payment for those services.

There was some difficulties between the two parties. Apparently one issue was that Eclipse was not making timely payments. Reading between the lines I would assume there were issues relative to the quality of the product provided.

This resulted in a revised agreement. All we know about this agreement is that Hampson agreed to extended payment terms. Again reading between the lines, Eclipse must have agreed to some relaxation of specifications.

Now, it appears that Eclipse is not meeting the payments of the revised agreement, hense the legal action.

BUT, Eclipse wants to have the court require the conditions of the first agreement to be imposed - My interperation - Hampson is meeting the requirements of the revised agreement and wants to be paid. Eclipse doesn't want to pay and thinks the old specs should be imposed.

Unless there was a really bad attorney reviewing the documents, the first agreement become null and void the day the second agreement was signed.

Unless there is some reason the the courts seal the documents for this action, the actual complaint should be public information and privide some interesting reading.

fly in the ointment said...

eclipso said...
I find it amususing that there are that many empanagge problems when one of the faithful's higher up quality persons "resigned" and went to work at Hampson, "resigned" from Hampson and went back to the faithful, but no one knew of the problems?

Yeah that is one of the inside jokes around here.