The figurative Duke of Albuquerque, Mayor Marty Chavez, announced on Friday, July 31, that he was "98 percent certain that Eclipse has been saved.". Perhaps he meant, 98% certain 2% of it had been saved, as the rumored offer is $40M, for what had been a $2B investment...).
A group of investors formed Eclipse Aerospace (I believe, formerly calling themselves Eclipse Jet, when Roel Pieper was associated with them mid-year- Mr. Peiper has since moved back to Europe to carry on his pen-pal relationship with Al Mann, and perhaps avoid a different pen-pal relationship with other former Eclipse managment).
The new cast of characters:
Mason R. Holland Jr., Benefitfocus of Charleston, S.C., (Holland held a position on s/n 473-or so, and had made the 60% progress payment).
Mike Press, president and CEO of Single-Pilot Jet Management in Chesterfield, Mo.,
Raul Segredo, president and CEO of Miami-based Avionica, a provider of aircraft data communications products and services, and
John Cracken, a managing director of Cracken, Harkey & Co., a Dallas-based private equity firm.
Mason and Mike were kind enough to copy Shane on an email explaining their intentions in April- things might have changed a little, being as that was a few months ago, but I suspect the basic intent is the same. Shane kindly posted their information on April 26, 2009.
I'm not sure Raul is still with the group- his avionics experience would definitely be a strong plus for the group.
KRQE in Albuquerque has a recent "extended interview" (well, it's a 3 minute telephone call) with Mason Holland.
Time line for the court events ahead:
August 10 hearing (I believe to discuss the current offer).
August 24 hearing (Going once, going twice, ...)
There is rumor of another bid or two, possibly forthcoming- but Mayor Chavez seems to feel this one is likely to be the winner. And if anyone knows how to pick a winner... (Just Kidding!)
Not to be un-"enthusiast"-ic, I do feel an obligation to caution a certain degree of "critic"-al evaluation, particularly for those in Albuquerque, who might be expecting too much, too soon, from the new ownership. While the mayor refers to some part of a former employment level of 800 (odd, it's not 2000), and Eclipse Aerospace mentions 100-200 intially, I feel perhaps we should be discussing dozens rather than hundreds, at least for the first few months. I hope things accelerate quickly, but still, it's a tough market.
Well, that pretty much assuages my urge to issue a cautionary note. These are the things a critic frets about. But as an enthusiast, I'm happy the offices and factory and hangar doors will be unlocked. Long time blog participant Ken Meyers, an EA500 owner himself, feels this is a well-prepared group, who seem to have been doing their homework. The announced long term intention of reopening the production line and building 100-200 airplanes per year seems quite reasonable once the economy improves, and until then, everyone will welcome the near-term effort to bring updates and improvements to the existing fleet, and offer parts and training for pilots and maintenance personnel.
Good luck, Eclipse Aerospace.
(It will be interesting to see what's "just around the bend"!)
266 comments:
1 – 200 of 266 Newer› Newest»Phil,
please, be quite for a while!
You can hear? There are some people working in the tunnel!
We can see their flood lights - in the distance!
Where are we now?
RiP's sales 363 seemed to be a no brainer, just $M28, plus running horse expenses ($M20), plus "notes".
Now everything is easier?
The newco must get all certs or outsource every aviation related tasks for some months.
Staffing in ABQ?
Perhaps I'm too pessimistic!
I think there is a positive example ..hmmm... or better different approach:
The bankers (or some at least) know how to turn their capitalistic system into a communistic system (all power to the workers): they pay boni for their work to themselves (with the help of their friends in the bod) independant of the economical results of the bank. Thus they will survive these stormy weathers!
Next 24 of August is a Monday - I will learn the outcome on the Tuesday!
Anyhow good luck!
(to be true: thanks for the next act of the EAC saga!)
Julius
P.S.: Perhaps I make a mistake and the bankers are really "good": the boni are fair and represent the actual positive results of the banks...
"I wonder if we could have a similar situation in the PC-12 crash. An aircraft climbing 2,000 feet above its certificated ceiling in heavy weather must be a handful."
The flying characteristics of the PC-12 at FL300 were quite benign. With all the wing on this acft, I doubt that the 2000 additional feet would make a significant difference. The exception to this statement is the rate of climb - no more than 200 FPM at this altitude typically.
"It does seem a larger, vacuum-powered stand-by attitude indicator maybe would have made a difference"
Agree in principle, but I doubt that vacuum power would be the best choice. I'd opt for one of the ESIS (Electronic Standby Instrument System) instruments from Honeywell, L3, Meggitt, and several others, as used on the PC-12 NG, newer King Airs, Citations, etc. These provide much more comprehensive capabilities and are powered by a separate backup battery. I tried to get Pilatus to install one of these systems when I purchased my PC-12/45 but they declined, citing "certification issues."
Perhaps I make a mistake and the bankers are really "good" ...
sorry to remind this Herr Julius ...
Neutral position does not exist with Bankers ...
they make profits (on everybody) and they share it among themselves ...
when they make deficits , they call public subsidies ...
so basically talking , Bankers cannot be good !
(just an other iteration of : "profits for me , risks for others !")
this where "some" are lured into believing anything =
Bizz Banks are making huge profits ( Using TARP [even if they paid it back , now] an other word for Tax payers money ; on one side and imputing the credits on their Cayman Islands Sub. for the IRS ...)
normal every day and every joe's Banks are still experiencing bankruptcy (therefor not making their core-business = lending with some kind of expected profits !)
an other fact that amuse me :
10th of August and 24th of August are both Mondays ...
therefor the good or bad news are going to be released on a Tuesday ...
Old-Habits are the most difficult to kill !! ;-)
(this saga will never end amusing me !)
taken from previous post :
What concerns me is that the dollar will be dumped for the Euro or some other currency. ...
i am as well !
If Euro is taking too much space = what are the chances of seeing European Politics being any better than their americans homologue ?
in other terms : did you ever see someone getting elected for saying to his electors " We are deep in it !" ?
this is where dominance is a trap and citizenship only one of the way to dupe peoples ...!
as for being "Free" in the "Free World" ...
freedom is a real weird concept !
a baby born in jail does not have any idea of what is "conventional freedom" ... still he might be more free than most of us ...
who is the most free ?
the one staying home in fear that anybody out may want to do some harm ...
or the one driving his convertible open in a (mostly) Muslim country , not fearing that what may happen anywhere on earth is going to happen ?
freedom is free of fears , isn't it an american who said "nothing is to be feared expect fear itself " ?
Hi Julius,
"please, be quite for a while!
You can hear? There are some people working in the tunnel!"
I'm a little suspicious of the noise coming from the bright end of the tunnel-
I think I'll put my ear to the rail...
:)
"If you come to Nantucket, contact me. I'd love to say hello face to face. The aviation world is a small community."
Small world, indeed! I've seen your plane on the ramp a number of times. Perhaps we can email addresses through the blog administrator at:
eclipsecriticng@gmail.com
I don't know if this still goes to Shane or to the new administrator but I'll bet someone can hook us up!
Whooppiiiiieeeee....
The Chief cheerleader, Mike Press gets the dregs.
I'm with Gadfly on this. No Eclipse will ever be completed.
"The Return of the Ecorpse" will be a poor low budget remake of the classic Aviation horror film.
They will not get a single complete A/C out the doors, if they ever get the productions doors reopened.
The will never get a production certificate.
They will never make a profit.
All the money they invest will be flushed down the same loo as the other $2B.
Some people don't know when to cut their losses.
Never change a losing team!
"I doubt that vacuum power would be the best choice. I'd opt for one of the ESIS (Electronic Standby Instrument System) instruments from Honeywell, L3, Meggitt,..."
You are probably correct, I was thinking of something dead simple and reliable, but I'm sure the ones you mentioned would probably be more appropriate and a better choice. Should the current stand-by attitude indicator in the PC-12 be updated?
I'm afraid Mr. Freedomsjamtarts has called this one right, and right into the bullseye.
You hate to rain on another man's parade but this buy offer is just m-bation. There are two key things missing:
1. Money
2. Management
A third is probably
3. a market beyond the "installed" base; I do not believe there is any demand for the E500 beyond the 230 already produced, at least in the medium term.
The E400 actually strikes me as more fun and an opportunity to avoid the expenses associated with ABQ production by utilizing the designer/maker in the Carolinas.
They may be able to have a kind of "demand pull" model that keeps OH low and can live in a low-production world.
Right, Mr. Deep Blue. I'm interested in this just to see how it unfolds from a technical point of view: how do the credit markets value a company that has just come out of Ch7?
In the context of General Motors, I'm pretty sure all the bond holders are ticked off. And therefore, the dice will have memory, especially once Uncle Sam is out of the picture. IMHO, the same will (or should) apply to Eclipse Aerospace. There is no Kool Aid anymore. So the questions are, in terms of a rational business model, where is the BIGGEST chance to have net income? Servicing the 230 planes? (230 since the DayJet birds are more-or-less orphans as of today).
Or could Holland and Press seriously raise $500 million in the capital markets? And IF they do get that kind of cash, do they use it to fix the EA500 and restart EA500 production ....or try to certify the EA400? I'm really dying to see how they get any operating capital to hire more than 10 people. IF they do, it must be at an interest rate that is substantially higher than a venture with a "normal" risk assessment (and that cost has to be passed on to all players). OR, they will slowly be forced to parce out ownership in the company in exchange for $$$, just like Vern was forced to do when he got into bed with ETIRC and Roel Pieper. Hmmmm. Isn't this just like Hollywood: the sequel is really the same movie all over again, but with new villans for Batman to fight. Ha!!
Speaking of my own self-interest, I would still take my old job back mainly because I love working in a factory AND I do truly hope to be proven wrong. Maybe a bigger fish/angel investor buys in 12 months from now. There is a lot of fecal matter under this bridge, but at least this time we all can say we know how deep it is. Yes?
Ken-
If the costs to fly/maintain your EA500 go up 50%, would you still keep your plane? For the reasons I've just listed, I think it will be a miracle to see costs come down in the short-term. Mason and Holland will be under pressure to show a profit ASAP...
e.d.t.
"Should the current stand-by attitude indicator in the PC-12 be updated?"
It has been updated in the current production aft - the PC-12/47E, MSN 1000 and on (aka NG). If I were still operating a older PC-12 I would definitely try to find a way to incorporate an ESIS. The 2" standby gyro requies too much of the pilot in an emergency, IMHO.
Mason and Holland will be under pressure to show a profit ASAP... ...
yep ...
ultimately that's what is going to kill the baby in the water of his bath ... just before throwing all together !
I just love it when Cessna and the Mustang are mentioned in the same breath as EAC...
Somone forgot that Cessna enjoys positive cash flow and net income from all aspects of the Mustang program, including Service.
Also, they have a sane price, based on realistic volume over an accpetable time period.
Comparing the Mustang to EAC/EA50 is rediculous, IMO.
If the EA50 or EAC had a prayer, Cessna or another legit OM would have snapped it up, with $3B, sunk... and a pricetag of $40M.
Reality is, this is goin to be extremely challenging, sor anyone, let alone a computer guy from the insurance industry and his Colonel flier friend.
But, I promise ONE thing - -it will continue to provide some comic releif, unless you are an owner.
Just remember, EAC was built on the idea that the world needed a cheap jet to own and operate - -and the ONLY path to profitability for this crew, is to fleece the owners. So...
The Cheap Jet is Dead, long Live the Mini-Jet...
EDT said...how do the credit markets value a company that has just come out of Ch7
===================
They don't - Companies don't "come out" of Ch 7. Ch 7 is LIQUIDATION. As in Al Capone liquidating his acquaintances.
GM SOLD their good assets to a brand new company and changed its name to Liquidation Motors to DIE.
The markets will value new GM on the merits - its past history (or the past history of the assets) is of no consequence.
It anything, capital markets attach a premium to these companies as they left a lot of bagage, liabilities, contracts, behind. For example, ALL of new GM's dealer contracts are brand new, on new paper, with modern conditions.
The 363 Eclipse asset sales should be no different. Except, they are too small for the "capital markets" to notice.
Incidentally, S&P 500 is trading above 1000.
But the world may be still coming to an end. At least Fred's anyway.
airtaximan said...
Somone forgot that Cessna enjoys positive cash flow and net income from all aspects of the Mustang program,
=====================
On what planet? Cessna is not enjoying positive cash flown on anything. They are trying to cut costs by laying off 50% of their workforce and other measures, to try to stop the money hemorrhage.
ATM said... Reality is, this is goin to be extremely challenging, sor anyone,
==============
Hummmm....and water is wet!!! Big news a new GA venture is challenging. Geez. I'm shocked - I thought it was so easy. That is why they have all failed.
Baron said,
They don't - Companies don't "come out" of Ch 7. Ch 7 is LIQUIDATION.
Doh! My bad. This 'feels' more like a Ch11 with the proverbial Phoenix rising out of the ashes. GM will still need access to cash, and so will Eclipse Aerospace. With the air-taxi biz model dead and buried, we are back to low-volume Aviation Manufacturing 101. In other words, EA won't/can't promise above-normal profits via high volume production as a means to 'trick' the capital markets into flowing money to EA. They should still have a harder time accessing cash/credit until the new Mgmt team can deliver a profit.
On the other hand, maybe it isn't all that hard to be a Howard Hughes in this day and age, if one just plays the role properly. From AVweb.com:
August 2, 2009
Teenager Tried To Start His Own Airline
By Mary Grady, Contributing editor
A 17-year-old from Yorkshire, England, met with various aviation industry executives and government officials in the U.K. recently and convinced them that he was a tycoon about to launch his own airline, when in fact he had no such plans or funding, the London Times reports. The boy used the pseudonym Adam Tait, and used other false names in emails and phone messages to convince contacts that he was working with a team of employees. He proposed to launch a cut-price airline serving most of Europe, based in the Channel Islands. His scheme unraveled when he was stopped by police at an airport while trying to get access to a 93-seat jet he had said he wanted to lease. The story is getting wide play in the mainstream media as reminiscent of the Hollywood movie, Catch Me If You Can, based on the true story of an American teenager who impersonated an airline pilot.
On Sunday, the Times reported that the boy has approached a range of businesses, claiming to be the UK manager for American Global Group, an imaginary company. "He said his name was Tait and that AGG owned 28 airlines, 55 hotels, 12 shopping centers and 28 petrol stations," said Debi Clark, who runs a modelling agency that Tait approached to find models for ads he said he was working on. Melanie Cole, who brought her 13-year-old daughter Sophie to a modeling audition for the fictional company, told the Times: "Adam said Sophie would be great pictured coming off the plane and he wanted to take us to Spain for four days, too. He seemed quite personable, though, and he definitely had the gift of the gab."
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/TeenagerTriedToStartHisOwnAirline_200933-1.html
ATM said...-it will continue to provide some comic releif,
-----------------------
I fail to see what is comic about someone putting their money on the line to try to improve and continue a light jet design.
Whatever happens, I am SURE Ken and the other owners will be no worse off with this group than watching the assets rot away in bankruptcy.
Now what is truly tragic, are the continuing smallmindness of people on this forum, that seem to relish in the challenges and failures of those that try to do something.
Clearly criticizing those that DO is very easy. Relishing on it is pathological.
EDT said.... back to low-volume Aviation Manufacturing 101. In other words, EA won't/can't promise above-normal profits via high volume production as a means to 'trick' the capital markets into flowing money to EA.
============================
Correct.
But also remember that job 1 is servicing/upgrading the current fleet. That is a relatively low risk and requires no long term large capital bets.
It is almost a no-brainer business. The market is semi-captive and willing. I don't think Ken will object too much to paying say $250K to add FIKI, NG 1.5, Garmins, and on-going support.
Why? Because that will translate directly into higher resale value and utility to him.
This is as close to a win/win situation as you see in GA.
Baron,
You referenced Cessna's Mustang in relation to EAC, as if they were analogous... they are not. Cessna can lose money as a company, and make mmoney on the products from a cash flow perspective - this is dissimilar to EAC that undersold their product on a unit cost basis.
Trying to right size their company in this recession is a different animal than losing money on every unit out the door, plus... they have service revenue...
You simply want to characterize Cessna in the same light as EAC, which it is not... not even close.
Somehow, you are trying to look at Cessna Mustang and clump ALL THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS into the first unit... it does not work this way... no business works this way.
If you would like to calculate the total loss per jet at EAC - -its $3B/260 jets... so I guess they LOST $12M per plane.... according to you... well, YES they did, in fact - -Cessna enjoys remaining in business, so they can continue to work off the sunk costs...
Also, I remind you that the Citation program was home rown at Cessna, and it has been very successful - unlike EAC, and dissimilar to the other program which you refer to as "all failures"... There are many GA jet programs that have been successful.
Oh, I forgot... "sustained profits"...
When I said challenging... I meant EVEN within the normal challenging context of THIS industry - -I give them lttle chance. I personally think its a shame anyone is throwing more capital at this BS story... but, some may believe there's a market, and there's a possibility of delivering inexpensive little jets for a mass market... I just do not see it, Cessna does not see it, and no real OEM sees it.
But, Baron... he somehow THNK this EAC debacle is similar to Cessna's Mustang. I guess for some, the writing is on the wall, and for some, they still want to believe...
OK, we'll have fun watching some more entertainment.
I suspect:
1- sale
2-PR... medium level of BS
3- 20 or so after market sales for around $1M
4- a few months of "sink-in" time regarding reality of mods and service pricing
5- some heafty BS
6- some talk of an investor
7- angry EAC owners looking for alternatives
8- within 18 months, closed
Just my thoughts.
OH YEAH - Cessna will still be around, and so will the Mustang
;)
The real cost to own and operate an EA50 will be around 1.25x or more compared to the Mustang, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED...
"This is as close to a win/win situation as you see in GA."
I guess all the other GA companies delivering and supporting planes are no better than a bankrupt con-game $3B failure, according to Baron.
There are many better choices than this plane, all things considered. I think especially when you take into account what is probably going to happen when these folks start to try to run a GA aeroplane manufacturing and support company.
No one wanted this tar baby, and it ended up in the hands of the greater....
Sorry, just how I see it.
And, Baron, you should remember you are insulting a lot of great people and companies when you make statements relating to Cessna dn EAC, or broad generalizations about GA, like THIS is a win-win.
It's no win-win, it a lose-lose... we can and have done much better in GA than THIS
"This is as close to a win/win situation as you see in GA."
Only if you overlook the fact that Avio NG upgrades were supposed to be free. I wouldn't exactly term paying an extra $250k to get what you were supposed to have in the first place win/win by any measure, unless you're wearing rose-colored glasses.
Also, I fail to see how this is a win/win for the Eclipse depositors who lost everything when the company went under. Tell them this is a win/win situation and they're likely to plant a fist on your face.
Baron, there are at least 6 people who I know personally on this blog, ALL OF THEM ARE BIG DOERS.
So was Maddoff, so was Milken, so was Bugsy Segal, for that matter.
There's no reason to try to insult folks on this blog for having a different opinion than you - mischaracterizing them... and some are pretty serious GA folks, as well... gets you nowhere.
How these guys are going to make a success of EAC is beynond me, but I am curious to see it. I only find it humerous, becasue it engenders such funny remarks, like this is a win-win in GA... or comparing a defunct company with no marketable product to Cessna...
You must admit, that is kinda funny to hear.
forget anything free, forget anything promised... you will get a kluge job, pay through the nose, and enjoy dealing with a neophyte group trying to run an aeroplane company.
In the end, you will have a plane that was supposed to be a value compared to the other new little jets - the Mustang for example... and the value was half the cost to own and operate.
This plane will cost MORE to own and operate, all things considered... MUCH more...
If they keep the same management team and salaries, I'll give them until 9/25 to spend all their money.
I see it this way - the current highest part of the operating cost of EA500 is its very fast dwindling market value. With this new lease on life there is no doubt that flying EA500 will be more expensive for their owners however it may solve the problem of their aircraft rapidly depreciating value - so this could be a net plus for the owners. But it will definitely be interesting to watch how it all turns out ...
"however it may solve the problem of their aircraft rapidly depreciating value "
Well, ... maybe. As I see it, there is an enormous stigma associated with this acft as a result of events over the last two years. IMO, it will require a near flawless performance by Eclipse Aerospace over an extended period of time to get back to the point where serious acft users would even consider this acft. It will be somewhat like other orphans such as the MS Paris Jet, with a tiny cult of hobbyist followers who put a priority on cheap above all else.
Fred,
good
thanks for your hint!
Naturally "good" is the absolute wrong word (even with in quotation marks) - I should have used "criminal"!
Julius
ATM said... airtaximan said...
I guess all the other GA companies delivering and supporting planes are no better than a bankrupt con-game $3B failure, according to Baron.
============================
Dude. You have to let go of the past.
EAC went through Bankruptcy. Piper went through Bankruptcy. Cessna has bees sold in distress to avoid bankptcy.
So what? This is of no consequence to the current owners and future of the aircraft.
Live in the present dude.
For Ken (as an owner) and for me as a GA enthusiast, it is BETTER not worse, to see the Eclipse assets be picked up in a concerted manner than to see them rot away.
Simple as that.
Will they fail again. Probably. ALL pure play GA airplane companies fail sooner or later.
Who cares. It is still o "less bad" outcome to continue organized support for a nice innovative airplane.
Be it for 6 months or 6 years. It is still better than the alternative.
I could care less if Al Naive Mann lost $200M or if Roel TheDutch Pieper lost $100M or whatever.
I care about Ken, the 260 other owners and a nice innovative GA personal jet.
If someone wants to put $40M on it, I am all for it.
Phil,
I think I'll put my ear to the rail...
even if I can see a train, I do have problems to estimate it's speed or the time when it is near me!
With the ears on the rail, I do not know. With ties - it's dangerous!
Julius
WhyTech said...
"however it may solve the problem of their aircraft rapidly depreciating value "
Well, ... maybe. As I see it, there is an enormous stigma associated with this acft as a result of events over the last two years. IMO, it will require a near flawless performance by Eclipse Aerospace over an extended period of time to get back to the point where serious acft users would even consider this acft.
=======================
Correct.
But still the fact remains that a group of people, with more/better info than any of us here, managed to put together $40M+ to make a go of it.
We have to give them some credit.
And Ken is no worse off after this deal closes (if it indeed closes) than he is now.
How much better off he will be remains to be seen, but he will be no worse off.
(P.S. Apologies to Ken - I'm using your name now just as a stand-in for the personal EA500 owner - I hope you don't object)
EWS - the thing I can't figure out is why it is that folks like ATM are so invested in demonizing the EA500, the EA500 owners like Ken, etc.
How can it possibly be bad to GA to have a twin fan jet entry at the light/inexpensive end of the market and have a serious attempt to support the jet in place?
I can't figure out why any positive developments elicit such an off the wall response on those people.
It's really quite remarkable.
Maybe I am too much of an aviation/GA romantic/enthusiast to grasp.
God knows I have been critical of the Eclipse's shortcomings and of Vern's "ways" - but I am always rooting for the EA500 to improve and the owners to get support and for it to serve as a reasonable entry point into personal fan jet.
Isn't that almost like apple pie?
"But still the fact remains that a group of people, with more/better info than any of us here, managed to put together $40M+ to make a go of it."
Well, ... yes and no. AFAIK, the $40mm just gives them access to a miscellaneous assortment of "stuff" and rights to some IP. They will need much more to make a sustainable business out of this pile of "stuff."
"And Ken is no worse off after this deal closes (if it indeed closes) than he is now."
Well, ... maybe. Unless Ken ponies up, say. $250,000 for mods and it get incinerated before he gets what he paid for - just like his E400 deposit. Very high probability of this IMO. I'd only do business with these guys on a COD basis, and even then, I'd be leery, as they would have possession of my airplane with likely a lien on it.
WhyTech said... I'd be leery, as they would have possession of my airplane with likely a lien on it.
==================
Good points, but if I understood correctly, the strategy is to enable independent service centers/mod shops. Is that not so?
Anyway - I think every one will be taking one step at a time before writing checks.
EWS,
Come back when your meds kick in.
From previous headline discussion...
Fred said...
but if you believe that Goldmann&sachs is paying tax to the US Gov. , the size of your glasses has to revised ...
======================
Hey Fred. Is there ANY information that you post that is correct and based on facts, rather than hatred of America?
From the lasted AUDITED 10K financial report available from GS (Jan 2009)...
In 2006 they paid over $5B in income taxes. In 2007 they paid over $6B in income taxes. In 2008 $14M in income taxes (we all know 2008 was the worst year for GS). So that is an average of about $4B a year in income tax (even throwing in the bad year)
On top of that, GS paid in salaries and compensation over $16B in 2006, over $20B in 2007 and almost $11B in 2008 (again an exceptionally bad year), an average on $16B/year. Typical employment and income taxes on that compensation to Social Security, Medicaid, Fed, NYS, NYC, would total about 50%. So that is another $9B in tax revenues generated by GS and their employees.
Tell me Fred, how many manufacturers in the US or even in Europe pays more than $13B/year in taxes?
Geez man. I knew you were biased, but I thought you at least had a clue about finances.
Now it is obvious you just make stuff up to spew your biased hatred.
Oh - by the way. S&P500 above 1000, Nasdaq above 2000, great results by European banks, Ford reported sales up by 2% year over year. Eclipse assets maybe being put to productive use on Aug 24.
Things are just not going your way are they?
Baron,
Well, here's a good ole boy for you to contemplate:
Paul Craig Roberts
Tempted think this guy is some clueless crank?? Then I URGE everyone to read this short (1.5 page) article:
The Coming End of the American Superpower
Written in--- March 01, 2005.
"This will put more pressure on the dollar. At some point the flight will begin. Instead of buying fewer dollars, central banks will sell dollars hoping to get out before the dollar hits bottom."
"Overnight those cheap goods in Wal-Mart...(will skyrocket)"
"Interest rates will escalate..."
Well, he sure blew it there, right? Maybe not- I wondered what the panic in Oct 2008 was about, when Bush, Bernake, and Paulson were all preaching doom and gloom and "a crisist was at hand". Maybe this was the bullet they were trying to dodge. It worked- once. Will it work- next time?.
Otherwise, he's got it pegged- to a scary degree of accuracy- I encourage everyone to read this. I'm no economist, but this guy IS. (Lots of economists, and lots of theories- this guy's explaination seems to match my observations though).
---------------------------------
Paul Craig Roberts, Wikipedia
The "Father of Reagonomics", is advocating manufacturing sector jobs.
---------------------------------
Ah, Baron- what flavor of shoe leather tastes the best? :)
Goldman Sachs pays 1 percent in taxes in 2008
please reconcile:
"I could care less if Al Naive Mann lost $200M or if Roel TheDutch Pieper lost $100M or whatever."
and
"Clearly criticizing those that DO is very easy. Relishing on it is pathological."
PLus, you ask that I not live in the past, while you refer to restructings of companies from years and years ago...
Dude (as you say) you should get real regarding a simple fact... all of those companies had products worth saving... and this is a turd - it has but a few hundered early adopters who bought into the idea of a plane that WILL NEVER MEET ITS MARKETING PRICE OR HYPE.
It is nowhere near the low cost it needs to be, for anyone to care for it, except those who got suckered...
Buddy, as with all hollow arguments, yours is full of holes.
Get out of the past, stop equating EAC with any real program, and any real company, and face up to the reality that this plane has no place in GA except as a relic reminder of how inexpereinced folks with more money than brains can get fooled.
Sorry, but reading your posts makes me think you have a lot of misplaced ill will towards the REAL aviation industry, and just wish somehow EAC fits in.
It does not...
BAron, please refrain from insulting our eurpean friends... their perspective is valid... somhow, when a company has a former high level exec installed in Gov't (to whom taxes are paid) plus they are the sole survivor of a "dying industry" AND they obtain Billions in subsidies... and them pay back a mosel in tax....
I think they guy has a point - -no matter how painful it might be for you to actually see....
"How can it possibly be bad to GA to have a twin fan jet entry at the light/inexpensive end of the market and have a serious attempt to support the jet in place?"
Are you a complete idiot? You have not yet recognized that waht you describe DOES NOT EXIST?
The plane you support is higher in price and cost all things considered than the competition, and there's tons f added ownership risk...
So, I ask you? Why can you not call a spade a spade?
Becasue you seem to be in fantasy land.... well a lot of folks have realized, this is a bad place to be...
It costs a lot of money, wastes a lot of time, and distracts from real developments.
Sorry - you have seemed to miss the point - your dream was a mirage - I just call a spade a spade, and refuse to HOPE more AL Manns and Depositors lose their shirt on this mess... you on the other hand seem to dismiss this as hatred - which is kinda comical.... considering Ken will lose some money AND Mann lost a lot... and I feel for them both - you want the velocity to continue for velocity sake, all the while notcaring one iota if a guy loses his ass on this mischaracterized tar baby...
pretty sad... I thinkyour decree of hatred is misplaced, there buddy -
"Anyway - I think every one will be taking one step at a time before writing checks."
there's no way this is the plan...
and IF you are right, you should dismiss these careful naysayers as HATERS... along with the rest of us...
The only way to make a go of this, is to have steholders write BIG checks upfront...
And this should be fine with you, becasue you care not who loses money, just that some is circulated and spent, and cycled, and calculated as someones gain, even if its someone's loss...
I used to think this way, then I graduated high school
"But still the fact remains that a group of people, with more/better info than any of us here, managed to put together $40M+ to make a go of it."
please review chapter 1, 2, 3, and 11 and 7...
all these smarter people lost their asses before, too...
FACT -- this plane has no appreciable market and any realistic price/volume projection....
Sorry, your dream is dead - buy something real, from a real company, and pay less in the long run.
"ALL pure play GA airplane companies fail sooner or later."
FYI, a perfectly good exit strategy is to be acquired by a major company.
I wish my company would be bought by a major, nand deal with the inherent scale/commodity economics of our service industry, with huge coffers and better ability to manage a potentially HUGE business, with tremendous resources...
And you describe this as failure - -that's hysterical.
I welcome more funny statements from you trying to glorify EAC - -and I refer you to RA who nicknamed this endeavour the "cash arsonist"
the program you promote is well know to be a hige economic failure, as well as a farce.... keep defendng - it's fun to watch somone stretch and squirm... I just ask "why?"
Now ATM,
Let's give Baron a chance to get the shoestrings out of his teeth...
.)
Baron,
I do admire you for not "caving in" on your beliefs, even if I don't agree with them.
ATM,
You took the words right out of my mouth- most of them, anyway (for which our fellow bloggers owe you a great deal of thanks !! :)
Fred,
I'm not sure if you're a "person of interest", buy you ARE an interesting person!
Whereas our dear Wedge more a literal "person of interest; around -35% interest, as a matter of fact:
For a $2B investment to be degraded to $20M, in 10 years, represents an annual interest rate of ($20M/$2000M)^(1/10) = -36.9%
Now, the cash wasn't all delivered 10 years ago. So, that means they lost an even HIGHER percentage in the last few years.
The number $3B has been mentioned too- there was considerable discussion on it a few months ago- once the real numbers came out in BK procedings. Seems like the last $1B was a matter of interpretation- and I was convinced it was closer than the $2B figure. That would make the "simplistic" (hey, I know my core strengths!) interest rate (loss) = -39.41%
In both examples, the "present value" used was $20M, as the other $20M is notes.
But, if one thinks the tooth fairy will appear overnight and turn them into something besides kindling lighting material, the "improved" simplisitc (optomistic) ROI was -32.38% for the $2B number, and -35.06% for the $3B number.
(Clearly, a marvelous example of the theory of compoun interest. And of, uh, well...never mind!)
AT wrote, "In the end, you will have a plane that was supposed to be a value compared to the other new little jets - the Mustang for example... and the value was half the cost to own and operate.
This plane will cost MORE to own and operate"
That's one opinion; here's another, this one based on actual expense data. Since the announcement of Chapter 11 in November, my aircraft has flown over 37,000 statute miles. Today I compared the per mile cost of operating the Eclipse since the bankruptcy in November 2008 to the total cost of operating my Cessna 340 the last full year I owned it.
The per mile cost of the Eclipse (including fuel, maintenance, insurance, hangar, parking, weather, charts and cleaning) was 17 cents *less* than the per mile cost of operating the 340. And the Eclipse goes farther, higher, and nearly twice as fast as the 340.
Find me *any* jet, including the Mustang, with costs lower than a piston twin and I'll eat a healthy dose of crow. With low costs like that, one doesn't need a great deal of imagination to see how Eclipse Aerospace can sell the EA500 profitably both here and abroad.
Ken
I agree with Mr. Meyer. I wish the best to all. I was heavily involved with some neat programs at EAC and the record of the Jet safety wise is still super. No matter how you slice it its going to benefit owners especially with parts. Sure there were some loose ends here and there but hopefully things such as maintenanca documentation and life limits will be addressed. I must ask forgiveness for former derogatory comentary. It was very frustrating at times when issues were overlooked since so many staff just wanted out. Best regards to all!
". . . my aircraft has flown over 37,000 statute miles . . ."
It would seem, then, that this aircraft has approximately 120 to 150 hours on it during the time frame mentioned (not including taxi and "run-up"). Is that correct?
gadfly
It's quite amazing how desperate and irrational some here become when news don't go their way.
Amazing.
Fact: As a starup stand alone company that set out to deelop VLJs, Eclipse got farther than any other company since Lear 45 years ago.
Fact: 250+ certified planes were produced and delivered and the majority continues to fly regularly.
Fact: If this asset sale closes, it appears there will be a (at least in the near term) funded program dedicated to upgrade and support the type.
Fact: If this latest venture fails, it should be no surprise, it will still be par for the course for GA, and in time others will step in.
Fact: How much money was or was not spent by Eclipse on the program and whatever marketing goals they had is of no great consequence now.
Fact: Mustangs, Phenom 100s, CJ1+, etc, are all very nice planes, produced by some very nice companies, that are also suffering financially to some extent.
Pilots and prospective GA fan jet owners probably want to see an entry point below the Mustang/Phenom from a weight, price, fuel burn perspective. And they are probably rooting for the success of the type as a supported secondary (and perhaps even new in the future) entry.
I get it. For some reason, those facts upset people. To an extent that they seem personally invested in its repudiation. Yikes. But hey - it is a fun debate.
I guess in every internet blog we must have all types.
We have the googlers. We have the experienced old timers. We have the editors. We have the anti-Americans. We have it all here.
The only part I can't figure out is why people who seemingly have no direct involvement on this project, are not even prospective fanjet owners, are so personally invested in its demise.
Incredible. Live and learn.
BEG said... Ah, Baron- what flavor of shoe leather tastes the best? :)
Goldman Sachs pays 1 percent in taxes in 2008
=======================
I fail to understand your comment.
Did you not read exactly how much GS paid in INCOME taxes above in 2006, 2007, 2008? Are you trying to make a point that GS had a tough year in 2008 like all financial firms and therefor didn't pay a whole lot in INCOME taxes.
Incidentally your assertion above is INCORRECT. GS paid *A LOT* more in taxes in 2008. Had you said INCOME tax, you'd be partially correct, if you said 1% of WHAT?
Anyway, I know you mean well. Read the GS 10K filed in Jan 2009. You'll be amazed by that company.
It is one of the true corporate gems we have in the US. The institutional knowledge available at that firm is breathtaking.
Be careful aligning yourself with the anti-American Fred and demonizing Goldman Sachs.
If we lose many firms like that, then you WILL NOT like what will happen to the American economy.
Be careful drinking the wrong cool aid. It may sound cool to demonize firms like Goldman, but they are a big part why we have the most dynamic economy on the planet.
You probably would be paying twice the interest rate on your home if Goldman did not package, traded and CDS-ed mortgages like yours.
You would not have Intel, Google, Oracle leading the tech world if Goldman didn't fuel those ventures.
Be very careful who you demonize.
There is a reason even your chief, the Obaminator would rather see 60,000 UAW jobs disappear rather than lose a single floor of traders are Goldman.
Can you figure out why? (Hint: UAW contributions to the Chief where a lot higher than Goldman's - so that is not the reason).
Ken,
seems that the repair/maintenance scene is much more creative than I explected!
Kathy and you said that updates to AVIO NG 1.5 (this includes FIKI) are now available - without the newco.
RiP asked for $60K (when it still was promised as "free"). Thus $250K sounds a little bit too high?
How many EA500 are flying with AVIO NG 1.5?
Are you going to be number 20+x with x>1?
Julius
Be careful aligning yourself with the anti-American Fred and demonizing Goldman Sachs. ...
ME , anti- american ? you still don't get it ...
why should i do something while you seems to be so much better at it that i could be ?
If we lose many firms like that, then you WILL NOT like what will happen to the American economy. ...
OH yes ... that is real weirdo statement : Goldmann & the like will sell you for a profit , this is where you are grossly wrong !
(I have been working INSIDE such a firm while i was in N-Y !!
just between us ( ;-) ) i give you a remark made by a top-brass about me working in the tax-evasion-dep.
[renamed to be politically correct : offshore assets management] "He is very good for the Job , being a foreigner he won't have a second thought when screwing IRS to death !" )
they are a big part why we have the most dynamic economy on the planet ...
just remind me ... HOW much is your current deficit ? (to date : 1.2 Trillion $ ; expected for end of year : 1.8 to 2.0 Trillions $ )
but i MUST acknowledge you 're being right on something :
since such madness-deficit has never been experienced before in ALL human economic history put together ...
YES , you are very dynamic on trying new case !!
You probably would be paying twice the interest rate on your home if Goldman did not package, traded and CDS-ed mortgages like yours ...
oh , yes !
but unfortunately this is what brought this very crisis !!
you seems to think like a drug-addict :
There is 99% risk of dying taking this stuff , but it will take you SOOOO high just before ...
You would not have Intel, Google, Oracle leading the tech world if Goldman didn't fuel those ventures. ...
NOT exactly , they use what is created by the Fed.Res ...
FED which is private (they only have to refer to senate ) and therefor control the monetary mass suited the need of such firm as G&S and the like ...
NO really anything out of miracle or even out of genius-practice :
if there is some need = they just call the buddies to "let the printing machines run for a few extra hours " ...
once again , you have shown a wonderful capacity of seeing the world in ONLY 2 colors !!
"The only part I can't figure out is why people who seemingly have no direct involvement on this project, are not even prospective fanjet owners, are so personally invested in its demise."
Fact: EAC was a scam that bilked hundreds out of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Fact: EAC "delivered" an incomplete and inferior product very late.
Fact: EAC has left hundreds of orphan aircraft with no visible means of ongoing technical support.
Fact: EAC has done (almost) irreparable damage to GA.
Gutten tag , Herr Julius ...
i tend to agree ...
the assets sale MAY ONLY be a good news for previous victims ...
but things being what they are , i would personally fear that what is (since nothing is done yet) :
40 M$ to buy IP and everything else ...
154.000 $ (or so ) to be asked to those victims to have a zero risk exposure ...
anything above this number is actually a profit
(in the case the NewCo close offices before upgrading anything with some kind of a good BS excuses as "Sorry to acknowledge the damage to the brand is beyond control and financial possibilities" )
so the NewCo can ask any numbers north of this and actually make a profit on something previous victims ALREADY paid for ...
the best of this New commercial practice = Victims have a very simple choice (as previously with Vern :)
Loose all now or pay more in hope to keep something ...
the more it change , the more it remain the same !!! ;-)
WHYTECH :
you are 100% right !
actually , Someone who hasn't put a cent in this scam Has OR doesn't have the right to DEFEND such a crime ?
i would say it is a 50/50 situation , only real victims should have this right ... and the ones who almost fell into the trap !!
the current highest part of the operating cost of EA500 is its very fast dwindling market value.
Is the market value of an Ecorpse still dwindling?
Is the market at all liquid?
Are any actually selling?
Seems more like sellers are still in fantasy land, and buyers rarer than tooth fairies, so the real market value of an EA-500 is pretty much a guess.
I would guess really really low. Baron might guess at the lowest published for sale price.
Ken might guess the value at the last offered retail price from Ecorpse plus two years interest :)
It's quite amazing how desperate and irrational some here become when news don't go their way. ...
"HEY , POT you are black !" said the kettle ...
Freedom :
sorry to say this to you :
"EA500 market is a guess..."
actually not , ZERO is null , not really a guess ! ;-)
Fred,
Let's for a blogger's union.
I think that's the only way to insure our rights are protected.
I want my work week limited to 40 hours per week fact checking Baron.
And I want donuts with sprinkles in our lunch room.
Ken,
How many extra years of structural fatique life could Ecorpse have installed in your plane for 17c/mile?
Does your calculation include engine reserves (Doubt it seeing as those Pratts are going to cost your at least 5-10x the conti's when they hit the shop).
I guess most of us here (except Baron) are a little to jaded with Ken statistics to accept at face value your 17c/mile cheaper than the C340.
Please post the spreadsheet so we can check your apples to apples comparison.
Someone at newco needs to find a fix for the static port placement, the trouble with the ADCs, simply the fact that the E500 is a fair weather plane. This plane in its current configuration was not made to fly in hard IFR and rain. It is a great aircraft, however there are still a few fundamental things in the design of this plane that need to be addressed. In addition, I have had to replace my elevator servo twice in 1 year. It seems to me in my humble opinion that the servos are working too hard to keep the aircraft flow within a certain envelope, therefore they burn themselves out faster. These problems need to be addressed.
In the 'for what its worth' department the FAA accident run today (8/4) states that an EA 500, N62RC, sustained minor damage when it ran off the end of the runway at the Millard Airport in Omaha, Nebraska, on July 31st.
EPO
Thanks for the unbiased report.
Whey do you source elevator servos from? Does the liquidator sells parts from stock?
Redesigning an elevator servo can be a big $$$$ job.
If the current one is undersized for it's duty cycle, will an adequate servo fit in the current space?
Who will do the flight testing?
Who will do the software change to implement the changed control rates?
Is the software adequately documented to ensure the new people can find and address any changes needed?
Are the environmental conditions for this installations adequately defined?
How cooperative will the FAA with this program.
I could picture it being very differcult to certify any change to the EA-500, because anything you touch could have existing open items and IOU's to the FAA attached to it.
When you flush millions down the crapper in the northern hemisphere, does it circulate clockwise or anti-clockwise while making a sucking, slurping sound.
Freedom asks, "How many extra years of structural fatique life could Ecorpse have installed in your plane for 17c/mile?"
You should know that many new aircraft are assigned an initial fatigue life that is raised as fleet experience and testing warrants.
"Does your calculation include engine reserves (Doubt it seeing as those Pratts are going to cost your at least 5-10x the conti's when they hit the shop)."
Actually, according to Conklin & deDecker, reserves for the 340 amount to just 12 cents per nm less than for the Eclipse, not 5-10 times.
"Please post the spreadsheet so we can check your apples to apples comparison."
I think you'd find some complaint with it. Why don't you just buy the Conklin & deDecker reports for each and tell us what they say?
EclipsePilotOMSIV--do you *religiously* cover the static ports when parked? My plane has been in a *lot* of rain and weather without the problems you describe. My sense, in talking to other owners, is that those with air data problems have let water into the system at some point when parked.
I do agree it was dumb to put the static ports pointing up. I was curious why they wound up there, and asked around. Harco personnel told me that *Harco* recommended the static port placement; they said that the sites were selected by computer analysis for the most accurate reading given constraints of the airframe.
Ken
When you go to the shop on a "time and materials" quote and complain that the invoice Pratt sends back is not in line with Conklin & deDecker fantasy numbers (which are based on the same fantasy cost per flight hour that Ecorpse marketing dreamed up), will you be willing too front up here and admit that you made a mistake.
Thought not.
Ecorpse reamed you.
Pratt will ream you.
Return of the Ecorpse will ream you.
Get used to it.
FreedomJamstarts writes,
"Ecorpse reamed you.
Pratt will ream you.
Return of the Ecorpse will ream you.
Get used to it."
All you're doing is expressing anger. Why are so angry?
If you want to discuss the subject calmly and intelligently, I'm delighted to participate. If what you want to do is toss slurs, I fail to see the point. You're obviously discontented about Eclipse and somehow think that you won't be happy until I'm unhappy. But it doesn't work that way.
Ken
"Find me *any* jet, including the Mustang, with costs lower than a piston twin and I'll eat a healthy dose of crow."
Is there a crow called "depreciation"
Is there a crow called training?
I think there's a crow called warantee work on the Mustang, compared to the EAC... as well..
I think there's a crow called MRO for engines, based on 3-5 years of use, as well... normally calculated in a MRO plan or reserve.
I just LOVE your shady claims regarding this lane.. it would be best if you just said I like burning a few less drops of fuel per mile, even IF the total cost all things considered makes this plane a loser.
and Mr. Baron:
For someone who could not care less about a company losing hundreds of millions of investors and clients money, you sure like to defend the "idea" or "dream" of a few hundred folks perhaps saving some fuel money or obtaining a heavily subsidized jet at the cost of many many more people who lost a lot.
I do not think this makes for a reasonable position - -so it is you who are demonizing us... and me in particular for pointing out some FACTS.
The future is not a bright one for anyone owning this plane, and the current attempt to provide (what some here describe as "redundant" Service that is already avaialble cheap and quick, is quite silly, IMO.
Another pipe dream... and if that's OK with you, you should just say so.... but, do not characterize my statements as "demonizing" EAC or Ken... that's just a personal attack - try to make a sensible argument for your position...
This would be a pleasure to read...
BTW, I wish no one would have to eat crow - not Ken, not any of the depositors, not any of the investors, not anyone... BUT, people lost a lot, for a very good reason - -
they were misled, and they were mistreated, and they bought into the silliness you seem to be defending.
So, I champion the reality - many folks say they were saved some money, made a better decision, understood another angle, because of this blog.... I like that.
I thik they need to see the other side of the discussion, contrary to YOUR posts... because your posts need explaining! Mstly, explaining away - see Ken's cost calcs, for example... huge caveat needs to be provided -- only a calculation designed to mask the real costs of owning and operating this jet...
That post did look angry didn't it.
Funny cause I don't feel angry. I thought I was a stating of facts.
Ecorpse did ream you. To the tune of the E400 deposit. (Which the critics at the time said was a BS marketing gag to deflect attention and fleece a few more suckers). With jet incomplete. With the depreciation rate.
There are fantasy book values for maintenance reserves for the little Pratt turbo fans, but the numbers are pure speculation, based on marketing bullshit. The real numbers are going to be way higher. Okay we disagree on that now, but wait till Pratt reams you. I don't need to be right just now. Time will tell.
Return of the Ecorpse will need revenue. You are the mark! They will need to ream you, as they need to divide all their costs to provide continued airworthiness support for an highly integrated twin turbo fan, still in it infant mortality phase, by the small number of active operators. If you get really unlucky, they'll even try to restart production on your coin.
I realize it must not be much fun for you to hear this sort of thing from the critics, but the truth can hurt. This is all just tough love :)
Billy :
(all others = please close your eyes and DO NOT read ... )
Actually , one thing strikes my mind :
USA start to look alike France ...
let me explain :
Usually in France nobody voted for the guy who got elected ... ;-)
since i have heard of some wackos who do not want to obey a direct order from the Commander in chief (Pres. Obama) for the reason that he wasn't born in USA (allegedly in Kenya which is wonderful from peoples who would very probably put Africa in the middle of China ...)
it seems to sound something like the same ...
deficits : France is making deficits since LOUIS XIV (the king who build Versailles castle )
since in USA everything has to be Taller , Wider and Bigger , you are doing some that wouldn't be snob-ed by this king ...
(actually less than 3 months of current US deficits would repay all debts France has amassed since 1685 , but that's only a detail ;-) )
Unemployment :
France 9.5% ; USA 9.2 (both officially , which means totally worked out ... ) still very the same ...
unfortunately , if you add the part-time , silly jobs and all this kind of stuff , USA has 17.3 % of its workforce who cannot make a living from work alone ...
here we have a difference (no , it's not wine) here , unemployed have quite decent benefits from job-insurance (in many cases , too much ... so easy to trick the system ...) while in USA , i am not so sure ...
SO , don't you want UNIONS (in fact , France has one of the lowest unionizing rate in E.U.!)
on top of it ???
PS: instead of donuts , wouldn't you prefer "pains aux raisins" , "chaussons aux pommes" and "croissants " ? (i make them myself !!!)
Ken
(you don't imagine how strange i feel to call you "Yes" )
i don't think Freedom will be happy when you will be UNhappy !!
only that it sounds a bit scary to hear someone putting himself in a position to do :
A raid in your own bank !
IF it turns out to be good , i will be the first one to offer you a bottle of Dom Perignon ...
but i doubt it !
in the best case , they are dreaming ... in the worst , you're going to be their hostage ...
I want my work week limited to 40 hours per week fact checking Baron. ...
sorry , one of my current citizenship requires that i am not allowed work more than 35 hours per week (it requires as well a minimum of 5/6 weeks of paid vacations every year ...which is a bit odd since i do not work anymore at all , i am getting trained to cross the Atlantic Ocean on my 58 feet sailboat safely !)
i have an advice for you (on fact checking) :
emptying the sea with a tea-spoon might sound glorious ... still it remain useless !
Ken said... All you're doing is expressing anger. Why are so angry?
---------------------
That is what I want to know. Why are people so angry about the simplest things related to Eclipse.
They are angry about the very concept of a sub 6,000lbs MTOW jet.
They are angry at an Eclipse and Mgmt that does not even exist anymore.
Now they are angry that someone is supposedly buying the assets to try to improve support for the fleet.
They are angry that the EA500 burns little fuel.
Why is that?
It is a difficult Industry GA/Aviation. It is VERY HARD to bring innovation to this industry - particularly when trying to lower costs.
We should acknowledge the shortcomings of the EA500 while being supportive of the concept and attempt to make fanjet ownership more affordable.
The way people talk about Eclipse and the EA500 is like it is a personal threat to their existence.
Weird. But interestingly enough - I keep coming back for more - LOL - I better get my head checked.
ATM said... they were misled, and they were mistreated,
=======================
WERE ATM - were. PAST TENSE.
I found your last long post very well reasoned. And I DO see the other side. I simply don't dwell on the past that can't be changed.
Please answer this. Given the PRESENT situation withe 230 owners who have paid $1M+ for their jets, what would you like to see happen?
I want them do have the best post-Vern/post-EAC support for the type they can possibly find.
What do you want to see?
Some here talk as if they want to flog and torch Ken and his plane with JetA. Even that may not make them be less angry.
So please, ATM, leaving the past behind. On the here and now, what would you like to see happen with the ex-EAC assets, the planes, the owners?
That is what I want to know. Why are people so angry about the simplest things related to Eclipse. ...
NO , any crook on earth should be glued with Tar and feathers ...
They are angry that the EA500 burns little fuel. ...
actually , i don't think anyone mentioned apart Kenny ...
what an exploit to use 0.5 Gallon less ... especially when other costs are rocketing !
We should acknowledge the shortcomings of the EA500 while being supportive of the concept and attempt to make fanjet ownership more affordable. ...
YES , but that is meaning to get rid of this joke turned into a scam , first !
The way people talk about Eclipse and the EA500 is like it is a personal threat to their existence. ...
are you sure you know anything else than the culture of fear ?
It is VERY HARD to bring innovation to this industry - particularly when trying to lower costs ...
please tell me one introduced by EAC which is not a joke ..
KnotMPH said....Does this critical eye of battery pack assembly and government loans equate to a hatred of Tesla cars?
====================
Absolutely NOT. You had a very well reasoned and fact-full (vs fact less) post. You did not YELL that Tesla REAMED their customers, etc, etc.
As for Lotus check out the new Evora. It is a mini-Ferrari California ;) - You will find that you will fit in it.
As for the Elise - yes it is tiny - you should know that Lotus will start to offer this week a supercharger kit for it - so at least you'll get more power from that Toyota engine even if you don't fit in it ;)
fred said...
please tell me one introduced by EAC which is not a joke ..
=========================
First comprehensive use of electronic circuit breakers in light GA.
Want more?
"I better get my head checked."
Now you are beginning to make sense!
"First comprehensive use of electronic circuit breakers in light GA."
OK. Now, how about one that is not in the "So What Who Cares" category?
"Keep in mind, if all goes well with the battery pack it will meet the end of its service life around 400 to 600 charges and must be replaced."
Just like Pammy - limited utility, high maintenence. Who needs it?
Hi Baron,
I'm back from my union negotiated blog break, so-
Good point about electronic circuit breakers...not sure it was worth the cost, but it is different. (Sort of like Phostrex).
"Want more?"
? Yes please ?
"[The EA500 under the same conditions gets 369 knots and 6.26 statute MPG, about 44% more.]"
Ken, but I see nothing extraordinary here. If you compare interior cabin space or MTOW or take any other metric that would account for Mustang's larger size you would see that there is about 40% difference between both aircraft. So Eclipse really is not delivering any magic in this respect. If some other currently built VLJs ever start flying they may get even better mileage than EA500 by virtue of being even smaller. In short, you get what you paid for.
static ports are religiously covered. This plane gets in rain and we get strange errors, autopilot fail, stickpusher fail, yaw damper fail etc, I am attributing half of this to poor life of servos, half to wet ADCs. No my friend the static ports are always covered when on the ground, we don't even take that chance anymore.
Well WhyTech - we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
I think that ECBs are a very important weight, safety and reliability factor.
Tell me, when a breaks pops on your PC-12 do you get a clear alert/indication on you MFD?
If you flying night-IFR-IMC, are you able to reset them always from a single location on your MFD or do you have to reach all over the cabin find and reset the right one? Are you even able to read the circuit breaker lable - or do you first need to put on reading glasses, then lower your head to read it?
Hummmmm..... me thinks you should care ;)
"I simply don't dwell on the past that can't be changed."
2 things... you actually DO DWELL ON THE PAST... becasue as part of your arguments, you never fail to mention how hard it ws for all the other GA companies, and how they all went through mergers/acquasitions and financial issues in their PAST HISTORIES.
How is this relevant? Well it is, only in that you try to say EAC was no worse, and in FACT they were much worse in many ways.
All in the past, as is the failed product offering.
So, provide a caveat to everyone when you write here, and Ken should as well... that while the plane may sip fuel, it is a drastic financial choice which will, all things considered, fail to ever (past or future) come close to its initial on in Ken's case, continued value proposition.
Why buy a smaller, more fragile, less robust and riskier twin jet, compared to any other VLJ? The reson used to be economic, when promises were made and cheap support was supposed to be available... as well as an intial cheap price... this is all gone.
So, in future, I think folks should know, this plane has lost it's appeal, except perhaps as a hobbiest who just does not care about the cost all things considered, or a museum...
The economic promise of a cheap jet, based on small size, all electric, flat panels, thin skins, novel manufacturing techniques, tiny little engines, low cost complete support, car like interiors, an "old" new fire supression system, and other such BS... is gone. Don't ever mention this as a low cost solution - it competes poorly on this parameter... compared to props and even the mustang...
be real...
Baron,
"It is a difficult Industry GA/Aviation. It is VERY HARD to bring innovation to this industry -particularly when trying to lower costs."
... really... we are angry that anything people were told was progress, was simply BS... a way to get more money from investors and clients... none of it was real... the low price was based on a curve.... related to volume production, related to an orde book that was BS...
You are proposing there was some real important innovation, and in reality, there was little, especially for the cost.
They missed the low cost jet by a factor of 2 or 3... which makes this no better really than the Mustang, from an innovation stand point. You refeences are truly rediculous to anyone who knows about the industry from a manufacturing and development perspective.
There is real innovation happening all over the place, and just because no one else cared to miss the market on price/volume and burn $3B with the wrong spec, does not mean there isn't adequate innovation.
maybe not for you, but that's just one guy complaining about something that does not exist (innovation not yet produced to his liking) versus real money lost on a blow hard scam that failed to come anywhere near innovation.
ATM - I am NOT recommending that anyone buys the EA500. I have been ON RECORD here, multiple times, with the reasons NOT to buy.
I don't even order a car from established manufacturers, let alone a plane in the design or to-be-upgraded stage.
The discussion has shifted ATM.
It is about supporting the EXISTING owners and fleet.
Please, move with the discussion - I think you have much to contribute to THAT discussion.
If I were in the market for a $2.5M-$3.5M fanjet, I'd be waiting to pickup a completed, debugged, depreciated Mustang or Phenom on the used market. Buy on Monday fly on Monday basis.
I would like to see a 260-strong fleet on EA500s upgraded to latest config, supported and available as a vibrant option in the USED market at a $1.5M give or take price.
That would be wonderful. It will hold prices for us (consumers) and provide a lower acquisition/fuel cost entry.
That is all.
I am not suggesting that ANYONE consider buying an EA500 now. But two years from now, if the above comes to pass, it can be an option.
What is bad about that?
"Hummmmm..... me thinks you should care ;)"
Every (design) choice comes with tradeoffs. In 40+ years of flying, I have had only one (non critical) breaker pop, and have never needed to replace a breaker. I'll take simplicity/reliability over elegance in this case. When ther is 50 years of favorable service history on electronic breakers, then maybe.
This is my first--and maybe last--entry into your illustrious blog.
I have casually followed the entries from this blog--and its predecessors--for many months. When chapter 11 first hit Eclipse, I began reading it for the occasional tidbit of real information regarding the status of the company. The vast majority of us within the company were told nothing about what was happening--the silence was deafening.
I am a former Eclipse employee--2 1/2 years as a company pilot-- instructor pilot, production test pilot, demo pilot, and corporate pilot (hauling around Eclipse employees/leadership from California to Moscow).
One thing has struck me about the blog from the very beginning--several of you seem to have a miraculous ability to look into a person's soul and determine that he/she is a fraud/crook/con-artist/etc and know exactly what their intent was/is. If so, I would love to meet you and have you walk on water for me. If it is not true, .....well, it reminds me of words spoken to Senator McCarthy many years ago: "Sir, have you no sense of decency?"
I was certainly no fan of many of the so-called 'leaders' at EAC. They must bear the responsibility for the failure of the company and the alienation of those who did the work. However, comments on their character by people who probably never even met them is simply not right.
Now, as for the airplane itself---I loved it--warts and all.
You folks appear to be smart and successful people in your own rite. You may be right and the Eclipse will end up as scrap. I just hope you are wrong.
I saw the Eclipse 500 grow--slowly and painfully--during my stint at EAC. No, it wasn't 'complete' yet, but given a bit more time (and yes, $$), it would have been close to what it was originally advertised to be. I, for one, hope that someone can and will do the impossible and resurrect Eclipse. It's the American thing to do.
"Are you even able to read the circuit breaker lable - or do you first need to put on reading glasses, then lower your head to read it?"
Baron, you need to embrace innovation! I made up a largish map of the breaker panels which sits in the side pocket. If I need to find a breaker, a quick look at the map (at eye level) and I can find the breaker with my eyes closed. The piece of paper is as reliable as a stone. Too much technology ( because you can) is a bad thing. And, no, I dont need reading glasses even though I'm an old fart.
"warts and all. "
This is the crux of the matter: way too many large warts for the price and with lives at risk.
“EclipsePilotOMSIV said...
Someone at newco needs to find a fix for the static port placement, the trouble with the ADCs, simply the fact that the E500 is a fair weather plane. This plane in its current configuration was not made to fly in hard IFR and rain. It is a great aircraft, however there are still a few fundamental things in the design of this plane that need to be addressed. In addition, I have had to replace my elevator servo twice in 1 year. It seems to me in my humble opinion that the servos are working too hard to keep the aircraft flow within a certain envelope, therefore they burn themselves out faster. These problems need to be addressed.”
I worked with a gentleman who was heavily involved in the RVSM certification effort on the E500.
He described it as his worst nightmare.
They could not get consistent static air pressure data, so they began a laborious process of changing port placement and flight testing. It was a difficult nut to crack, and dragged on for months, with the best “solution” also having the problem of rain ingestion.
Despite the current problems with upward facing ports, I doubt anyone familiar with the original RVSM effort would be willing to attempt an improvement, if their compensation was based on a successful outcome.
Newco might find some eager young engineers, willing to solve all the world’s problems, that could try for a better fix, but I hope they realize they have many more problems of higher priority.
I wish Newco good luck. I admire the entrepreneurial spirit, if not their choice of product. They are certainly starting out in a very deep hole, since Ecorpse burned so many of their suppliers and customers. I hope they can keep the egos under control, because they are doomed if Newco starts sounding anything like the old Ecorpse. Most of the fools have already been parted with their money.
Ecorpse
- 5 AD's
- Suspended EASA TC
- No Fiki
- No RNAV
The wedge used a quote from one of his handpicked leaders as court evidence stating "the quality of the planes is shit".
EPO wrote:
This plane gets in rain and we get strange errors, autopilot fail, stick pusher fail, yaw damper fail etc
Doesn't this thing scare you? This is not normal! No other certified jets do this.
Normally the advice would be "get it fixed", but you can't.
The normal Part 21 safety net is currently non-existent, as the FAA has no TC holder actively performing the 21.3 responsibilities. As long as the operators are not reporting, the FAA are blind to any short comings of the design.
The NTSB and FAA will jump on the unsafe condition and AD it, after it kills someone.
Then all you owners can take a hard look at yourselves, and blame yourselves for knowing for months or years what the unsafe conditions were, and doing nothing about them.
Maybe I am angry. I think it would be a shame for the owners to kill one of their own through arrogance, greed and denial.
"However, comments on their character by people who probably never even met them is simply not right."
I am far from casting the first stone against the officers of EAC but some questions are simply inescapable. Like Ron Lebel stated on owner's forum this airplane could never make any money - not even at higher production rates and not even at the final $2.15M price. They now know this because they looked at the books (available since after bankruptcy) and all parts contracts. He was saying that any professional should have been capable of doing a simple math and conclude that this business was doomed based on the all available numbers. So it is not unreasonable to ask questions whether it was a case of deliberate fraud (accusations of pyramid scheme) or a case of total incompetence.
"it would have been close to what it was originally advertised to be"
$775,000 ?
It was designed to be a robust low cost air taxi plane with a customer bsed of 2500...
You are a pilot, and the thing flies - -this is what you see, and I respect that, but plese do not think that anyone who can see something else regarding the business of EAC, needs to have the capacity to walk on water.
All it takes is some common sense.
Many people think Pilots re gods, because they cannot even imagine flying a plane... this is not the case... and if someone knows more about a situation than you, you need not call them a god... just respect their view and ability for what it is.
EAC promoted an order book of 2,500 or more, and stated that Dayjet only had 229 plus 70 orders, until Dayjet admitted having more than 1400 of those "orders"... most of which had no money or even obligation behind them.
Do you think Vern knew this was a lie, when he was telling it? Over and OVER again for years....
What is bad about that?
nothing, very nice...
Just admit the plane is not lower cost than the Mustang all things considered, and we're all done...
;)
ATM, pigs will fly before Baron ever admits that.
On that note, I hear Wedge is trying to start up a company that will genetically engineer pigs so they can indeed fly. He's just looking for a few investors who "know a winner when they see one". Any takers?
ATM said...Just admit the plane is not lower cost than the Mustang all things considered, and we're all done...
--------------------
Which plane? IF (big if), two years from now, there are 100+ upgraded config EA500s flying with proven and decent support by this newco or someone else, and I can pick one up for $1.5M, it will indeed be, by far the lowest cost modern jet to operate.
If support is not in place, the operating costs would be all over the place - but then again, I could probably pick one up on the cheap and treated as a toy.
So hard to say where "cost" for the EA500 will end up.
That is why I would not recommend that anyone buy one now.
But conversely, I would not recommend that Ken toss his plane overboard either.
A measured, wait-and-see attitude is called for.
This plane may end up as an MU-2 or Aerostar.
Michal writes, ""[The EA500 under the same conditions gets 369 knots and 6.26 statute MPG, about 44% more.]"
Ken, but I see nothing extraordinary here. If you compare interior cabin space or MTOW or take any other metric that would account for Mustang's larger size..."
You seem to want to overlook the fact that the Mustang, despite costing more than twice as much and burning 40% more fuel than the Eclipse, still carries the same number of passengers and just 100 lbs more full-fuel payload.
Not germane to the efficiency issue, but having flown both, I can tell you that the Eclipse is about 40% more efficient than the Mustang, but about 100% more fun :)
Not that there is anything wrong with the Mustang. Just that it is a downsized CJ with a different avionics package. There really was very little "innovation" in the Mustang. There was a lot of innovation in the Eclipse, and the company paid a hefty price for that.
Ken
"...ahhh...0 to 60 in 5.6sec....innovation...helping mankind...orphans....environmental concern....did you see it?"
My pickup truck will do this at about 1/5 the cost. What's it going to cost to recycle/dispose of those batteries every 12-18 months?
"There really was very little "innovation" in the Mustang. There was a lot of innovation in the Eclipse,"
Much of it mindless innovation.
WhyTech said... My pickup truck will do this at about 1/5 the cost.
===============
SRT8?
"SRT8?"
Tundra 5.7L TRD
AT opines, "Why buy a smaller, more fragile, less robust and riskier twin jet, compared to any other VLJ? The reson used to be economic, when promises were made and cheap support was supposed to be available... as well as an intial cheap price... this is all gone."
No, it's not.
Today, I received the 2009 Operations Planning Guide from Business & Commercial Aviation.
In this thread, I said the Eclipse cost me *less* than my 340 to operate. Today's B&CA Operations Planning Guide confirms my findings:
They said the going price for an Eclipse 500 right now is $1.1 M, and variable costs are $553/hour. For a typical 600 nm hop, that's about $1.66 per nautical mile.
According to B&CA, the Eclipse is the most cost-effective jet on the market, both in terms of initial acquisition and ongoing expense.
For comparison, a TBM 850 costs just 11 cents less per nautical mile while travelling lower, slower, noiser and unable to top some of the worst weather.
An MU2 costs $1.08 *more* per nautical mile. A C90 costs *twice* as much per mile as the Eclipse. The Mustang, CJ1+, Phenom 100 and every other jet in the survey cost more to buy and operate than the Eclipse.
Ken
from our friend Ken:
"despite costing more than twice as much"
referring again to the Mustang compared to the EA50...
this is not a seriosu discussion anymore... talking about the EA50 cost, in relation to any ongoing program that did not lose $3B... and a finiahed well supported jet from a major OEM, compared to a BK company with no real support, and no aftermarket value, is well...
ridiculous.
"You seem to want to overlook the fact that the Mustang, despite costing more than twice as much and burning 40% more fuel than the Eclipse, still carries the same number of passengers"
Ken,I beg you pardon? The same number of people squeezed in 30-40% less room? What kind of argument is it? And costing twice as much - the last factory price of Eclipse was $2.15M, a new Mustang sells for around $3.1M, that's twice as much? We really don't know what the market price of a fully equipped new Eclipse will be unless you want to use current depressed prices - effectively admitting this airplane is dead and worth the scrap. And clearly at these distressed prices this airplane is grossly incomplete in terms of equipment. My eyes keep rolling at your apple-watermelon comparison.
Ken, I admire you for sticking around this blog with the shots they take at you. However I have flown both the Eclipse and the Mustang and the Mustang feels much more solid than the Eclipse. It has speed brakes like a real jet. A very functional cockpit and it has brakes that can actually stop the aircraft. The demo pilot made me stand on them to try and burn the tires off. Try that on your plane. Also you can put your luggage outside the cabin which is a lot easier on the interior. Ask any early Lear pilot about that. I have about 15 hours in the Eclipse and it is a nice aircraft just not finished. Reminds me of flying a high performance hombuilt I own. Fast but still a little homemade. Thanks for your input. I own a big twin turboprop.
$2.15 plus the upgrade costs... to bring the EA50% (my new name for it) plane close to spec... which could easily cost $2.5 when all is said and done... or more, because as someone wrote here, the numbers at $2.1 were not even close to profitable...
So either Ken is just posting BS, or he figures HIS plane cost him $1.x plus upgrades and completions, and this is an OK price for him, knowing it was subsidized by other deposits... I would think he should at least account for the other deposit money he lost in this scheme, as part of his true cost, or provide TODAY (not PAST, as in Baron's post) pricing which makes little sense given the realities of today.
Bottom line, there ain't no way the ea50% is competitive with any real OEM offering in ths space... unless you only look at fuel burn, and this my friends is amateur hour...
No one in their right mind evaluates on fuel burn alone... a real cost evalauation including ALL costs is not difficult, and unknowns like completion/upgrade and support costs are usually laden with added risk... in cases like EAC.
All the talk of development otechnology and inovation in regard to the EA50%, is mindless, as is anything related to low cost - this idea is DOE...
so hoobiests and museusm are the pastures for this plane... and owning and flying them will be at a cost that makes little sense compared to what is available in the market.
Flyforfun writes, "I have flown both the Eclipse and the Mustang and the Mustang feels much more solid than the Eclipse."
One man's "solid" is another man's "truck-like." I thought the Mustang was remarkably like my 340, while the Eclipse is remarkably like a Mooney with it's crisp, fighter-like handling.
I like them both, but I think the Eclipse is just more raw *fun* to fly. It's all a matter of preference, of course.
AT says, "So either Ken is just posting BS, or he figures HIS plane cost him $1.x plus upgrades and completions, and this is an OK price for him"
No need to speculate what I'm talking about. If you don't know, please just ask. It's always better than putting words in your colleague's mouth, no?
I was referring to the current going price of the Eclipse 500, which is right now less than half the current going price of a Mustang.
The plain fact is that the plane is more cost-effective to operate than any other jet. It is faster than the Cessna VLJ. Those two items are facts, known and quantifiable. The rest of the stuff you're writing is, well, opinionated fluff not worthy of answering.
Ken
Hi Fred,
I think the blogger union break room should be upgraded to include your home made croissants (with raisins -AND sprinkles! :)
"I am getting trained to cross the Atlantic Ocean on my 58 feet sailboat safely: I have an advice for you (on fact checking) : emptying the sea with a tea-spoon might sound glorious ... still it remain useless !"
Now THAT's funny!!
(The graphical image is hilarious- I will even allow Baron to substitute "admonishing Goat" in the parentheses so he can chuckle with us)!
Gadfly,
You're flying "under the radar" lately-??
I trust you're not suffering the after-effects of over-exuberantly celebrating this week's announcement of the pending sale of EAC ??
I would say, it was news worth cheering and celebrating. Okay- maybe the news isn't all THAT good, yet anyway, and perhaps a bit premature.
But sometimes, especially with a challenging economy, we just need to go out and cheer and celebrate a bit of promising news anyway, just to stay in practice...
Let's all have some cheerful good wishes for our friends in ABQ, and those with airplanes, that good developments will come to fruition in the days ahead.
ATM...
If you wanted to buy a Mustang to fly tomorrow (only choice for that being the used market), how much would you have to pay?
If you wanted to buy an EA500 to fly tomorrow (only choice being the used market), how much you would have to pay?
What is the difference in price? That IS the spot market price for the planes, by anyone's definition.
Now, if were to fly both planes for one hour tomorrow, how much would you have to pay for that one hour? That is the present direct operating costs for those planes.
I's say you'd be able to pick up the EA500 for less than half the price of the Mustang and that first hour will cost less on the EA500 than the Mustang. (not to say that the planes are of different size, different capabilities, etc)
But the PRESENT numbers are the present numbers.
But you can't deal with the present. I'm sure you will bring up the $3B that Mann and Roel et al invested, and the fact that in the future you'll spend more or lose more with the EA500 (all of which are prob true). But that is a different discussion.
On the Citation Mustang v. the Eclipse...
When one considers the cost of ownership of an aircraft, you need to consider the cost of capital. (For me, I believe the cost of capital will be higher than my fuel bill.) My cost of capital has three parts. First part is the investment return I forfeit by having cash tied up in a plane. The second part is the interest I pay on the portion of the plane financed, if any.
The third part is how much of my original investment in the aircraft will I be able to recover when (or if) I sell my aircraft.
This third factor depends on (1) how well regarded is my aircraft type in the overall market and (2) how fast do I need to sell the aircraft. Do I need to sell in 3 days, 30 days, 3 months or a year?
I have the personal view that my money is safer in a Citation Mustang (backed by Cessna who has sold more business jets than anyone else) than in an Eclipse 500. I place a high value on Cessna's established track record and their Citation Service Centers for ongoing support of an expensive asset.
Only time will tell if I am right, but so far I am in my comfort zone.
I am making these points so that readers who might be in the market for turbo-fan also consider the benefits of a Mustang.
A few other points re: the Citation Mustang...
The Citation Mustang tooling and production facility in Independence, Kansas was sized to build a maximum of about 150 Mustangs per year. Cessna management considered an investment in additional tooling (when the air-taxi craze was at fever pitch) but felt that the market size wouldn't support an additional 150 units per year. So 150 units per year is the rough max right now.
Cessna delivered 29 Mustangs in Q1 2009 and 38 Mustangs in Q2 2009. 213 Mustangs in total had been delivered thru 6/30/2009 (source: Barclays Capital report 7/29/09)
Cessna estimates that they will build and deliver 125+ Mustangs in 2009.
On information and belief, the Mustang program will be considered profitable at 250 units which should be achieved this year.
On other News Rich Santulli founder of NetJets resigned abruptly today - word is he was pist off for being taken out of contention to replace Buffet and BH.
And Gadfly - what do you make of the two Akula-class boats paying hide and seek off the US eastern seaboard? First time in like 15 years.
Ooops we only have 3 Seawolf-class and 5 Virginias. Would that be enough if all the Akulas come to the playground? I'm told the LAs sound like a washing machine out of balance to the Akulas ;)
What is next? SU-30s coming out to play over Alaska, Japan and Scotland? More F22s on the way? I figure the Airforce and LM should just pay the fuel tab for a couple of poke and dashes in that airspace ;)
Well, at least another 112 Typhoons will be built for 9.1B euros. That is $115M per plane, for a non-stealthy fighter - go figure.
"That IS the spot market price for the planes, by anyone's definition."
Sure, lets wait another 3 yrs and say this new Eclipse venture proves a total debacle and you will be able to pick up a little used EA500 for half of today's price, what a wonderfully affordable airplane it is going to be? By that time it is going to be a 1/4 of the Mustang or even less. Whether you will be able to get any service or financing for it .. who cares, it will be so cheap you won't afford not to buy it...even for a few annual trips, it will break all world records of personal jet affordability. It's an absolutely breathtaking logic indeed.
Yes , ATM ...
that's sounds like the story of a pharmacist who was selling condom ...
Normal condom = 1$ /piece
cheap condom = 10c/ piece ... but they have a hole in it !
yes , i have difficulties to find seriousness in this talk about EAC costs ...
seems like yesterday never happened and tomorrow will never exist !
If you wanted to buy a Mustang to fly tomorrow (only choice for that being the used market), how much would you have to pay?
If you wanted to buy an EA500 to fly tomorrow (only choice being the used market), how much you would have to pay? ...
translated in "understandable speech" :
would you prefer to pay 2 now for something still valid the day after ...
or pay 0.5 now (and 10 later ?) for having nearly nothing ?
Oh gosh , we are doing metaphysics now ! ;-)
Real Planes for real life,
what short name!
IIRC your figures show that the Mustang doesn't perform as anticipated in May, but it's the best sell jet of Cessna. Is Embraer better with the Phenom 100?
If the Mustang sales will be about 100 this year it (its revenues) will contribute a lot to the operational cost at Independence
and will do something for reducing the financial burdens and is in "budget".
If one isn't interested in ramp riding (even under nasty conditions; with an ... ...dard!), the Mustang will be the least expensive jet.
I do not know the real intentions of Col. Mike: He sold or organized the sales of a lot of fpjs - knowing that they were incomplete and that EAC was always on the brink of implosion.
How much money is needed to run the TC holder job? Will he organize his business through mandatory SBs, which must be done in his shop?
The big is still in the poke!
On Tuesday I will see the cat out of the bag!
Julius
Fred,
bonjour!
Oh gosh , we are doing metaphysics now !
Thanks for your translation!
I think, that is the "American way of life" - but only for some!!!
Julius
Real plane :
On information and belief, the Mustang program will be considered profitable at 250 units which should be achieved this year. ...
it cannot be possible under the opinion of someone here ...
if the market is not flooded by unsold mustangs , then they didn't push production to its limits ...
therefor it cannot be profitable !
;-)
(only humor : i considered buying a mustang and i may do it in near future ... )
Herr Julius :
i don't know if it is "the american way of life" ...
for sure , it is not the type i really liked when on the other side of the pond ...
hope they are only a tiny minority !
it would have been close to what it was originally advertised to be ...
+
No, it wasn't 'complete' yet, but given a bit more time (and yes, $$) ...
i hope you won't run away after only one post , there is to learn from anybody and everybody !
but :
don't you think the two things i quoted are opposite and contradictory ?
advertised would mean CHEAP and finished ...
the WHOLE problem with EA500 = it can be one or the other ...
BUT (IMHO) NOT both at same time !
it can be a enjoyable plane , still it is not finished and probably very from being cheap in the long run ...
to finish it only add some drag to the equation !
Ken likes to keep the discussions on the basis of theoretical cost rather than actual cost.
And please don't go anywhere near Value or Worth.
Concerning Santulli's sudden "resignation" my understanding is that the losses just kept rolling in and the Bershire investment has been under water since they bought it.
Santulli didn't resign because he was off some short list at BH; he was fired and replaced in classic private equity fashion by a member of the investment/ownership group, that is worried about their investment.
BH is now especially worried about this company which is (and has been) bleeding cash for years and years. Now it's in the emergency room, but don't expect BH to admit it any time soon.
Expect to see a sale shortly.
Concerning FJT's comments, he is quite correct, regardless of how his comments may be taken.
I like the "mark" comment; that's exactly right. The current buyer gang has likely written a business plan (of sorts) that has a top line revenue entry in the pro forma based on selling upgrades and maintenance to owners; a second line showing some "sales" but any smart investor will realize the second entry is pure speculation.
EAC V.3 is banking on owners with AIDS (aeronautical immune deficiency syndrome) who cannot overcome their sunk cost fallacy and keep pumping money into the aircraft (and into E V.3, like they did into E V.1; I think Mann funded V.2 but he's out and the money gone).
Odd that P&WC is not more involved but they never have been a venture shop.
"BH is now especially worried about this company [NetJets] which is (and has been) bleeding cash for years and years. Now it's in the emergency room, but don't expect BH to admit it any time soon."
NetJets has an impeccable maintenance, service, and safety record. Maybe now they can hire an airline "exec" like United's Glenn Tilton who can run it into the ground on all three aspects. Obviously they need to outsource the aircraft maintenance to Haiti and the call centers to India for starters. Then they can start having the pilots sleep in the airplanes instead of getting a hotel room...and on and on.
ASM: agreed; they do indeed. I've used them many times for charter and was very pleased (but no more so than any other good charter firm).
What BH may be planning will be interesting to see. It's always a very bad sign when a founder leaves; I've never seen an exception to this "rule" (Vern included).
It seems no one is immune to aviation's ruthless economics.
Blue, NetJets is and has been a class act in an industry and time not known for class or integrity. Hope they can hold it together.
FreedomJam'sFarts said, "Ken likes to keep the discussions on the basis of theoretical cost rather than actual cost."
Huh?
I posted an actual comparison of per mile all-in pricing for the Eclipse vs C340. Direct Operating costs (i.e. fuel plus maintenance) were $1.39 per nm, which compares well with the $1.53 per mile Business & Commercial Aviation came up (the published $1.66/nm minus the $0.13 per mile they included for catering, cabin supplies, crew travel expenses, etc that do not apply to my operation).
According to B&CA, the Eclipse is the most cost-effective jet on the market, both in terms of initial acquisition and ongoing expense.
That's the bottom line. Even an old MU2 costs $1.08 *more* per nautical mile. A C90 costs *twice* as much per mile as the Eclipse. The Mustang, CJ1+, Phenom 100 and every other jet in the survey cost more to buy and operate than the Eclipse.
But an interesting issue is "what about the drop in value of the plane?" At a going price of $1.1 million, haven't Eclipse buyers *lost* a lot of their initial investment?
Yep. Many of these planes sold for about $1.3 M, so many lost $200K. Guess what? Mustang and CJ owners who bought a year ago have lost more than that in the downturn.
Just take a peek at the Vref Light Jet Index for the same time period.
The argument that an Eclipse isn't as cost-effective as it should be because it lost value in the last year is hardly unique to the EA500; it applies to all jets, indeed all aircraft.
Ken
Regarding Netjets...
The industry has shifted... and this started a few years back.
It used to be that if you waqnted reliable access to private jets, you needed to OWN one... so fractional ownership made sense, bringing down the cost and providing the service in a more affordable unit.
Today, the charter fleet has ballooned - there may be 4x the number of jets under 135 certs today than just a few years ago.
Accessing private jets on demand is easier and way more affordable in a charter arrangement than fractional ownership or even jet cards.
So, the frax model is probably broken. Its WAY more expensive all things considered than charter, and you can charter reliably and easily today.
So, as with another example we've been discussing) a business model created to leverage lower cost (frax) is in BIG trouble IF and When another incumbent arrives on the scene at a lower cost by a large factor. The only way to justify frax is using outdate math... and relying on pumped up resale values that have not held.
There is a much lower risk, more cost effective solution to accessing private jets - all things considered.
Ken what was the basic initial cost number BCA used for the EA50?
I'm afraid Ken makes a good point about residual values: they stink across the board.
Take a look at the Falcon fleet; the Falcon 2000 or 900 series for example; the Canadairs; the Lear fleet; the Citation fleet; the HB fleet.
All are down on a FMV (fair market value) basis; their OLVs (orderly liquidation values) are down and the distress liquidation values of course as well. In fact, FMV is almost useless.
Moreover, banks aren't advancing at the same rates, by far, and more equity is required to trigger a financing.
On a nominal dollar basis, the EAC owners are actually way ahead of the pack as far as dollarized depreciation.
Keep in mind the IRS at-risk rules for depreciation require 10% at risk equity; with hits to value there can be equity calls: a big number if you're in a LJ, cabin or trans-con aircraft.
The VLJ crowd by comparison have no where near the risk.
Goat: “You're flying "under the radar" lately-??”
No . . . ‘just laying low under the surface on passive sonar. All the name calling and character assassination detracts from intelligent information gathering.
Baron: “what do you make of the two Akula-class boats p(l)aying hide and seek off the US eastern seaboard? First time in like 15 years.”
When a great beast is badly wounded, the “jackals” begin to gather . . . ready for a free lunch.
gadfly
The US Submarine Service is not called the “Silent Service” for nothing. Far more has been going on than you will ever read in the news.
DB, you make a decent point, but... I think, as a percentage, EA50 owners have lost more, and something tells me, their loss is more painful than an owner of a Falcon... ;)
Also, of interest to me is the statements regarding the affordability of the ea40 compared to the Mustang.
I find it pretty sad that folks are trying to cling to some notion that the manufacturer of the EA50 did a good job of competing in this market, or that they have fielded a competitive product.
Some folks received a plane which needs more work at their cost, to be completed. The true cost of any delivered EA50 is unknown, at this point, as is the true cost to support the thing.
This is a simple FACT.
Anyone referring to anything other than "I do not know"... regarding the cost to own and operate on of these planes, is blowing smoke.
Also, there is no current price for an EA50 delivered new. There is no track record of anyone delivering one of these planes at a price that makes financial sense - it is a money loser thus far, for anyone to make and delvier. The real price, based on realistic volume, might be $2.8 million for all we know.
Once again, anyone claiming to know what the real delivered cost will be of a new EA50, is FOS.
So, I like to think, reality is, the Mustang is a better choice, and a better deal, in the real world. Heck, it may actually be less expensive to buy than an EA50, if anyone ever dares begin production of this again.
That's why I say, DOA. It never was a good deal, it was for some folks who piggybacked a scam, and got a subsidized plane (I am not blaming them, its just what occured).
So, in the end, somene MAY chose to say the plane burns a little less fuel... but this is just smoke, all things considered, comparing the cost to own and operate the Mustang to the EA50.
Gad said:
"When a great beast is badly wounded, the “jackals” begin to gather . . . ready for a free lunch."
That's quite a startling way to view the U.S. Quite effective really. Some argue that certain of the political class are quite happy with the prospects of a "decontructed" America.
Of course war with Russia--of any kind, hot or cold or warm--is great business. And it's all about bucks.
As far as not knowing what the silent forces are up to, yes you're right.
Of course what the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public.
ATM: agreed; the E500 "numbers" as far as nominal depreciation etc are only of any use if the rest of the plane's total cost of ownership (and risk) is relatively "normal." The unfortunate EAC owners face a terribly uncertain future along with all the other problems that have yet to be solved--and paid for.
It is interesting to witness the NetJets drama insofar as costs of ownership, fractional or whole. Charter just looks better and better.
As for a "ponzi scheme" some feel that fractional wasn't too far away from that label. It lasted as long as the front end sales were growing and growing very fast. The current economic shock put a sharp knife to sales and the fractional model really got revealed for what it is: a dealership program. Imagine an auto dealer trying to make money without gangbuster sales; same model. Plus the "used car lot" is chock full of planes.
BH is not likely going to be able to work their way out of this one and their management has been dodging the crappy economics question for a long time.
Imagine: who would buy NetJets right now?
"For sale: federally regulated dealership with managed mixed aged fleet of numerous makes and models; high mileage. Business includes a management company, some real estate and customer list. Salaried labor unionized with contract negotiations upcoming. Business unprofitable but may include NOL carryforwards under certain conditions. Founder recently resigned; financial owners acting as interim management. Make offer."
I know Ken is out flying his EA50 all day everyday, BUT, I would still like to know what BCA used as the intial purchase cost of the EA50, in his comparison.
"Yep. Many of these planes sold for about $1.3 M, so many lost $200K."
Again, interesting one-sided tunnel-vision arithmetic. Sure they lost only $200K from the initial, heavily subsidized price of $1.3 (subsidized by all those who lost their deposits). This logic repeated here by Ken over and over again really bothers me on many counts - it is like bragging that since I happened to be at the top of the pyramid scheme everything looks fantastic from my vintage point, it is a wonderful product delivered at great price point!
Deep Blue,
under normal conditions a nuclear sub marine would show up at surface?
I think it's just the normal game.
The US Navy or Intelligence will never say "Oh, we didn't konw" or the opposite.
The Russian puplic or part of it might be delighted if the US puplic or part of it is "not amused"....
Julius
Santulli stepped down... I can;t wit for someone to say, see EAC is no worse than any other company in GA...
Michal:
This has ben my point for some time, and you put it much better than I ever did.
Any claim that the EA50 achieved its low cost promise is perverted.
Claims regarding technological innovation related to the EA50 are even more perverted.
There was very little that was a leap in technology that enabled the value proposition, in fact, one could easily conclude it limited the company's ability to deliver on its value promise.
The low cost was predicated on suppliers delivering high volume low cost parts, systems, etc... and EAC assembling the planes at a rate of a few a day. The design proved not to require any such rate, as it was not in enough demand.
No high demand (3 planes per day), no low cost - no low cost, no demand...
More people eat them, because they're fresher and they're fresher because more people eat'em.
Real planes for real life said...
Cessna estimates that they will build and deliver 125+ Mustangs in 2009.
------------------------
RPFRL, thanks for the detailed factual info on the Mustang - I stand corrected on factory utilization, assuming the rate is carrying into 2H/09.
My apologies for posting bad figures on this. I'll ask the baroness to flog me with the heavy chains tonight.
michal said...
"Yep. Many of these planes sold for about $1.3 M, so many lost $200K."
Sure they lost only $200K from the initial, heavily subsidized price of $1.3 (subsidized by all those who lost their deposits).
======================
It is the price Ken and other owners paid. What price do you want him to use? The low intro price is Ken's compensation for taking the risk of an early order, early delivery.
You guys have a lof of difficulty dealing with the facts. Ken paid $1.3M. "Oh, but he should have paid more". Eclipse's going price is $1.1M (according to one source). "Oh, but it should be $2.5M". Eclipse burns little fuel. "Yes, but it incinerated $3B and is not as cheap as Vern said 20 years ago".
Geez. Let's stay with facts.
Depositors lost their money. Period. End of story. Owners have incomplete planes with uncertain support. Period. Vern blew his forecasts. Period.
Now can we focus on what an Eclipse cost today. What support will be available from this niewco initiative. Etc. How much fuel it actually burns. Who cares what was promised 10 years ago. 260 planes exist today. The burn rate is known. The resale value is becoming known. Support costs may become more clear by year end.
Gadfly...When a great beast is badly wounded, the “jackals” begin to gather . . . ready for a free lunch.
------------------
Yep. It is just a bitch when the big beast dusts itself up and squishes the jackals. Such a nice boat the Akulas - good to know they can come and play.
Must have been mighty boring patrolling the eastern seaboard in the past 15 years.
Ken paid $1.3M..
and he lost 2 deposits, and he has to pay a lot more (how much?$$$) to have his plane finished...
Be fair.
Also, we comment on the price of the EA50, because there are claims made regarding the cost as it relates to the future of he EA50, viability and supportability, including re-starting the factory.
You know, the FUTURE, not the PAST....
Any statements regarding the EA50 as the best value or least expensive jet to own and operate, especially as it relates to Mustang, are false.
I am glad Ken got a good deal on his plane, and I am sad it was not sustainable, and lots of folks lost money.
Perhaps we should use VErn's cost for his ea50... I hear that one was an even better deal, and his cots were even lower than Ken's... see how this works?
Reality:
The EA50 never met the market, and failed on all commercially reasonable parameters regarding low cost. If anyone tries to make more, they will be priced such that there will only be a fetish market - because all the initial low priced planes that were subsidized are taken. Reality needs to set in... DOA.
"It is the price Ken and other owners paid."
And other owners paid.. interesting, there is not a single owner who paid $1.68M or even something in the neighborhood of 1.8M, sorry I lost track? What was exactly paid for s/n 259 or 260? I thought these were the last factory prices. So how much those poor suckers' aircraft depreciated? Or is Ken's EA500 the only copy that counts in this discussion? Is Ken's and yours the only myopic point of view that counts?. Is staying with FACTS so hard here? Geeze
I find it impossible to picture a production restart of the EA-500. Who would buy New Eclipse Sn #1?
Any projections of yearly EA-500 sales in the triple digits are clearly ridiculous.
If the EA-500 is priced above cost of production there is just too much competition from established companies and existing owners to sell more than a few dozen a year.
The supply of jet airplane buyers who value good fuel mileage above all else is pretty small really, and those that do are going to buy a used Eclipse for a song, not a new one.
On the other hand, is it not possible that a company could make at least a small profit by maintaining the current fleet and providing upgrade modifications? Not glamorous, but a win for everyone if it happened.
OK - this is my math...
I don't know what the average/mean price the owners of the delivered EA50 paid. It is prob something like $1.2-$1.4M. Lets use $1.3M. (note that there is a lot of variability based on ETT and NG - so there are actually probably 3 separate sub markets - ignoring that for now)
If this new venture gets going and by early next year it is upgrading the planes for say $300K/piece (again 3 separate sub markets being ignored).
Then, I'd say it is very likely that un-upgraded plane will continue to sell for about $1.1M and upgraded planes will sell for $1.4M or so.
So typical owner will have sunk $1.3M+$300K = $1.6M. For something that has a market value of $1.4M or so.
On-going support costs, will likely be high and unpredictable - remember no warranty, etc.
The above figures may be high or low by $1/4M or so. But it is in that ball park.
IF there is no organized support by next year - reduce value by $1/2M.
So, in my mind, having effective organized support for the planes is worth quite a bit - perhaps up to $1/2M for existing owners.
Building new planes (other than DayJet fleet and 1/2 dozen in process) is a future, future, exercise as in 2-3 years from now, if ever. So I see little value in trying to predict what a "new" EA50 would sell for. But if it were to make a profit, it would be over $3M IMHO. Again, this last part is irrelevant for the present discussion.
Owners math should be simple.
How much can I sell my plane for now? If I upgrade, how much should I sell it for or is it still the best bang for my buck to do it?
The variable is how organized and affordable the support will be. It will take 12 months+ to find that out.
baron
The first thing on the agenda of “Newco, Inc.” should be a definition of a complete “E50-Mark II” . . . for the 260 “aircraft-assembly-in-progress” that you mentioned. Then, and only then, can any sense come from a discussion of numbers.
You mention “. . . burn rate is known” . . . and you are correct: Something between $200 million and $300 million per year (your actual mileage may vary) to produce 260 incomplete aircraft.
And here, we have to add a disclaimer, that amounts do not include tax money and the “free time” contributed by the former employees of the little bird factory . . . time and family sacrifices that made all this possible. Occasionally, I still get job applications from folks that lost their jobs from the Eclipse fiasco.
Do you detect a slight sense of animosity on the part of the “gadfly”? It is not because of anything I suffered, because I didn’t . . . directly. But I have observed some of the still unhealed “wounds” among the companies, with whom I have over the past four decades, observed . . . often in friendly competition, more often they were my customers . . . suffering from still unpaid debt owed by those that treated Albuquerque like a cheap motel on “Old 66" . . . rooms rented by the hour, and never gave it a second thought.
If there is a “Newco, Inc.”, the new management should do more than talk to the mayor and governor . . . future manufacturing in Albuquerque may not meet with smooth sailing. But then, what would I know!
gadfly
(And thinking back on your earlier questions . . . you may be sure that the launching ceremonies, and complete sailing records of the “Akulas”, and everything back to the old “Whiskey Class” subs, that so often went directly overhead (over "my" head, without the slightest clue that their every move was coming in loud and clear, literally) every morning and evening, are on file within the logs of our own “Silent Service”. I have sometimes wondered if they ever got that one “squeaky shaft” fixed . . . sometimes, it seemed like an “old friend”, making its way out of port in the morning, and then back into harbor every evening . . . in those cold North Pacific waters.
It took almost fifty years for the “secret” patrol reports to be declassified, so we could share our experiences . . . guess they figured by now we wouldn’t remember all that sort of thing. 'Reading those old reports in "PDF" scanned image format is most interesting, as recorded by the "Exec".)
Baron, how about lunch this weekend? I'll be at your home base for fuel. Interested?
ATM said... Perhaps we should use VErn's cost for his ea50... I hear that one was an even better deal, and his cots were even lower than Ken's... see how this works?
Vern price was even lower than you think. He was given access to an aircraft that he made good use of, but the title was never transferred into his name. The plane remains registered to Eclipse Aviation, and therefore is part of the assets belonging to the noteholders, and soon to Mason Holland and Mike Press. Vern got nothing, and according to court document, only received half of the agreed to severance package.
ATM said... Ken paid $1.3M.. and he lost 2 deposits, and he has to pay a lot more (how much?$$$) to have his plane finished...
ATM, you just love to exaggerate to make your point. But you are wrong. You are wrong when you state #3B, you are wrong when you state 13 years, and you are wrong here, too. Ken only paid $995K, and he sold his other EA50 position long ago. He did have a EA400 position. But whatever serves your purpose.
BAron, I like the math better now... just remember it when comparisons are made, and perhaps we can have some risk adjusted numbers as well...
;)
IIRC, many if not most EAC customers placed multiple deposits on planes... indulge me here... so it might be fair to say that some if not most had another $100,000-$300,000 on average into EAC when their planes were delivered, and this means they subsidized themselves,a dn the planes really cost them more. Some folks had 2,3,4,5 deposits and some may have had anothe 60% deposit or two... bringing the cost of ending up with one of these 260 EA50's pretty HIGH.
I am sure someone (like Shane) has a handle on this sort of thing, but I would bet, on average, the delivered planes cost their owners another deposit or two...
Why do I bring this up?
Becasue saying and EA50 cost $1million or so is like saying Bernie Madoff's clients were getting a 14% return on their investment...
They got a peice of paper saying they had X when they had ZERO when all was said an doen... and they thought they were receiving 14% interest, except they had no capital, and if they were lucky enough to be taking the interest to live on... the revelation they had no capital came later.
I equate the 14% interest to the fuel burn numbers...
I equate the delivered jet with the bogus statements showing a bank account with a number on it that is pretty meaningless
I equate the current promises of inexpensive upgrades and affordable continued airworthiness support to be one more thing that keeps the scheme going a lot longer than it should...
Just my opinion, we will see how it wll works out, and of course, YMMV...
FAE, he denied selling his wife's deposit... and how much was the E400 dpeosit...
What's 13 years? I forget?
I wonder how come you say I exaggerate... if you were involved with EAC, and you are now defending them, you might wish to reconsider your remarks towards me....
FAE, so Vern got to use the plane free, and has no liability related to the plane, or any reason to spend more on upgrades, mods, fixes, and he does not suffer depreciation...
please make a point!
Half his severance... I wish he had half the ordes he claimed, delivered the plane to half the depositors, and returned half the ROI promised to investors... but hey, I guess he did OK for himslef all things considered.
Please make a point!
ATM said... if you were involved with EAC, and you are now defending them, you might wish to reconsider your remarks towards me....
And why would that be? I only defend the plane.
ATM said... IIRC, many if not most EAC customers placed multiple deposits on planes... indulge me here... so it might be fair to say that some if not most had another
There you go again. Who do you think the owners are, Gunner?
FAE,
Does this refer to the plane?
"when you state #3B, you are wrong when you state 13 years..."
Please explain how this relates to the plane.
Ken said, "For comparison, a TBM 850 costs just 11 cents less per nautical mile while travelling lower, slower, noiser and unable to top some of the worst weather.
An MU2 costs $1.08 *more* per nautical mile. A C90 costs *twice* as much per mile as the Eclipse. The Mustang, CJ1+, Phenom 100 and every other jet in the survey cost more to buy and operate than the Eclipse."
My guess is that 99% of the Mustangs, Phenoms, and TBMs are airworthy and flying. Something that cannot be said about the Eclipse. When your aircraft goes AOG it really doesn't matter how efficient or "fun to fly" it is. At that point a 1963 Dodge provides better, and more reliable transportation!
And BTW, I've flown an Eclipse. Fun to fly? The thing handles like a 1950s Mack truck! Hand flying the damn thing will nearly cause your left arm to fall of due to the high roll control forces needed to horse the thing around the sky.
It has been revealed on this blog by those who passed their time reading court reports, that MANY depositors placed MULTIPLE deposits...
Some placed 4, 5, 6 deposits... Ken for example, had 3 at one point...
Gunner, I believe had none...
You seem to be trying to make some point(s), but I cannot read into your poss what they are. You do not want to be revealed as someone defending EAC the company, just the plane... BUT, I see many remarks that make me think you have an agenda which is ties to the company, even more than the plane.
I have some advice for you: do not try to discredit me by correcting my posts regarding th emarketability of the ea50 or the honesty of the company formely known as EAC... you will be digging a big hole...
Know why?
Because the FACTS are in my favor...
So, if you are trying to make some point, and it relates ONLY to the plane as you suggest, please make it.
fae,
you suggested I exaggerate, and I suggest that you have some involvement/agenda regarding EAC the company... whatever tresspass I make here (perhaps) on the absolute truth pales in comparison to the exaggeration EAC provided for years...
So, I would concentrate hard before my next post, if I were you... you seem to be taking exception with my opinions, while defending EAC, who lied for years, openly about a lot of easily demonstrable things... like the orders...
"C90 costs *twice* as much per mile as the Eclipse"
And again we are supposed to be impressed. No consideration is given to size/volume of aircraft (C90 is over twice as roomy inside as Eclipse). I guess Ken should strap himself onto a single jet engine and boast about its low operating costs.
I've been real busy with travel and meetings and haven't had much time to check in on the blog. It appears there has been an outbreak of Stockholm Syndrome and I'm worried that it might be contagious. Most of the electronic 'ink' seems to be devoted to deciding whether Ken made a wise and useful purchase and supporting him in his 'one great hour of need'. I guess this just shows how sympathetic and caring the aviation community really is. At this rate I expect some real conversions and seeing some bloggers lining up to buy the next Eclipse that comes on the market. "You know dear, if we just pack a little more carefully we could get to like an Eclipse. Besides I've always wanted to land in Peoria. It's not fair to call that fly-over country and Jet-A is cheap. We could get up to 6.2921 nautical miles per gallon and beat out Ken and Shari."
Fly-an-Eclipse said... Baron, how about lunch this weekend? I'll be at your home base for fuel. Interested?
===================
I never got back to you, huh - my apologies. This Saturday I'm on a 4PM to MIA and on to GRU - back on 16th.
But I would love to buy you lunch this summer - question is time ;)
Well - it is clear we are talking past each other on the EA500.
I guess it is time to let it be - lets see if newco picks up the assets, if they start upgrades, and see where the upgraded EA50s will sell for.
Forget Aviation...
"Goldman Sachs traders made more than $100m in revenues on each of a record 46 days during the second quarter, while losing money on just two days, the bank said on Wednesday, in a filing that underscored the strength of its trading operations."
These guys are freaking unbelievable. $100M/day on 46 out 60 trading days and only 2 down days.
Those are the guys that will be buying jets.
"As in past practice, Goldman has set aside almost 50 per cent of net revenues, or $11.4bn, over the first six months of this year, for compensation and benefits."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0860e006-81f4-11de-9c5e-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
Talk about a company that shares the wealth with its employees.
And BEG - not a single unionized employee. How do you figure the "deamons" of capitalism do it?
"Well - it is clear we are talking past each other on the EA500."
I agree, the discussion reached its inconclusive end. Lets wait for more developments regarding the Eclipse fleet and then we could restart the topic.
Meanwhile, the entire GA industry (represented by GAMA) sold only 1,037 planes and had $9B in revenues in the first 6 months of 2009.
Think about it GS in a single quarter of a tough year (Q2/09) had close to $14B in revenue - 3 times as much as the entire GA industry.
Give you a perspective of what is important to the US economy.
If all GA manufacturers moved to China, no one would notice.
If we lost Goldman - well - lets not think about that.
Sorry for the piecemeal posting - I'm shocking myself as I read the report....
EADS/Socata shipped a grand total of 15 TBM 850s in the first half of 2009 - a rate of 30/year.
Piper shipped 45 planes total in the first half. Mooney only 5 planes total.
Quite amazing. And sad.
But since a simple jet design like the EA50 is not challenging enough, A Wisconsin company has been launched to build a ..... drum....roll....
VTOL personal jet - yes that is right vertical take off and landing...
and....
drum roll....
the state is providing a $30M aid package to build a 600,000 sq ft factory.
The Baron predicts this one will be certified and enter service on time and under budget - NOT.
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NewAircraftCompanyToLaunchInWisconsin_200950-1.html
Is that how the professionals land an A380. Bring on the student pilots please.
And the Klapmeir deal to buy the CirrusJet program is DEAD.
How long before the whole program is dead?
baron95, Ken,
that's called "positive" landing at least with the main gears and a lot of smoke like at a biker meeting!
By the way the tyres smoked at lot -
what about those of the fpj?
Are the "better" Michelins available?
Julius
P.S.:On Youtube there are some cross wind landings with the 777
(not for students or normal pilots!): "All fours to the floor" and turn the a/c on the tyres to the run way heading - this is the standard procedure!
Do you know the A380 procedures?
Julius ...
Shame on you !
how dare you suggest that Baron may have unknown zones in his vast culture ?
;-)
These guys are freaking unbelievable. $100M/day on 46 out 60 trading days and only 2 down days. ...
in fact : YES !
while millions of Americans have been shafted , lost their jobs and such "nice little details" ...
they are going to share about 33 Billions US$ in bonuses ... (in G&S alone ... mind you )
here baron is going to praise the vast superiority of the US Capitalism ...
do you think any of this money is going to be spent in USA ?
no ! most of it will land in exotic places like : Luxembourg , Caymans , Bahamas ...
(an internal note from G&S advice traders to spend those bonuses discreetly ...)
but the starting point of those bonuses IS PUBLIC and GOV. MONEY ...
When Smith was talking about the "Invisible hand" he forgot to warn others that this very hand can be a crook itself !!
i would like to remind all the ones who can be fooled by such :
How many hundreds of billions of tax-payers money put on the table ?
with that much , any Eco. Student after the first month of his first year of study could probably do it with a bit of dedication ...
i suspect that EVEN Vern The Wedge would have done miracles ...
(do not dream too much : miracles would have been limited to make a few lawyers richer or an other bunch of Public Relation specialists vastly richer ... not finishing the Fpj ! ;-) )
because firms like Goldmann&sachs have benefited from 2 different effects which are IN ABSOLUTELY NO WAY any proof of masterworks or genius ... (sorry , baron !)
1° = hundreds of Billions have been launch into market , they were supposed to help average Joe to get credit on an easier way , but credit are even more difficult to get !
in fact few of the recipient of those 100's B have just done what has caused the problems in the first place = Speculation !
and where to go when you want to play a bit with shorting-strike , bulls and bears ?
to firms like G&S , off-course !!
(with the only difference that what has re-amorced the Money-Pump = Tax-Payers money ...)
2°= this is the indirect effect :
in the wake of the crisis , many financial have gone bankrupt ...
so actually the "cake" (the amount of business) is smaller ... BUT with a MUCH SMALLER numbers of competitors to firms like G&S ...
(when you have a cake for a family of 8 = slice are thin , kill half the family = slices become bigger !)
so if the guys make only a 100M$ per day , it sounds nice ... but it is VERY FAR from being an achievement !!!
BTW , the other day it's been written about CD's and interest rates + mortgages...
said it was good ...
an other effect of blindness =
the way it was done brought the crisis , that is understood by now ...
but what you forgot to mention :
How many poor gullible have decided to buy a house (pushed to do so by their crook-credit dealer ) ...
a house that was much too expensive for their revenues ...
a house paid at a much too high price , because of the madness ...
a house which is now only half of buying value , but the credit remain to be paid in full ...
ALL because of this politic of Easy , unchecked loans and CD's ...
you see NO action WITHOUT reaction ...
just a shame it was so easy to blind-cheat so many !!!
(i suppose now you understand WHY it is no need for anyone out to be Anti-American ...
still that good old Israeli officer's comments : " with such friends ... who need enemy ?" )
Julius :
The Russian public or part of it might be delighted if the US public or part of it is "not amused".... ...
well , freund , you know i have this presumptuous idea that i know a bit Russians ...
so i can venture to say :
they don't give a flying plum !
they have other cows to milk , so to say ...
i can give you a comment made by a russian official when i was still working there :
"I am very glad Copernic was polish , if he would have been american = everybody would believe all the solar system revolve around the USA ..." ;-)
... And the Klapmeir deal to buy the CirrusJet program is DEAD.
How long before the whole program is dead?
well, I would observe that the deal was canned by the Cirrus board, so, perhaps they believe it was worth more than what was being offeed/discussed?
If this is the case, I do not think it is closer to death, quite the contrary.
Michal writes, "And again we are supposed to be impressed. No consideration is given to size/volume of aircraft (C90 is over twice as roomy inside as Eclipse). I guess Ken should strap himself onto a single jet engine and boast about its low operating costs."
Gosh, Michal, tell me who makes a certified single jet engine aircraft you can strap yourself in (or on), and maybe I'd try it, otherwise it's just another dumb comment that doesn't add much to the discussion.
The King Air is roomier than the Eclipse, for sure. But that's immaterial if you do not *need* all that room for your flight. It's amazing how many times a King Air pulls up and two guys with briefcases emerge. Amazing and wasteful.
They could get there faster, in quieter comfort, topping (rather that going through) the weather, and still spend less money by going in an Eclipse. It's really rather elementary. There is little point in hiring a C-130 Hercules if a CJ2 can do the same job faster, better, and cheaper.
I just learned that a buddy of mine who owns a nice, late-model C90B, is in the market for an Eclipse after seeing how well it has worked out for other owners. Doesn't surprise me. Pilots are smart people.
Ken
AT wrote, "Some placed 4, 5, 6 deposits... Ken for example, had 3 at one point..."
Not so. Let's keep it honest.
Ken
Bubba writes, "My guess is that 99% of the Mustangs, Phenoms, and TBMs are airworthy and flying. Something that cannot be said about the Eclipse."
Well, you can't say it about Mustangs, Phenoms, or TBMs either as your comment itself admits ("My guess is..." means you don't *know*; my *guess* is you didn't think your comment through very carefully before writing it).
As for Eclipse 500 flightworthy status, the latest Owner survey of EA500 availability lists 85.7% of reported aircraft as available, but the survey's universe is small (owners who choose to report their plane's status).
A broader analysis comes from looking at Flightaware data. That analysis shows that 75% of trackable Eclipse aircraft have flown in the last 2 months.
And that is an amazing testament to the aircraft, given that there has been no factory support and very little ability to obtain certain parts for months.
The FA data shows that the fleet accumulated *more* flight hours in July than in March, which indicates that there has *not* been a progressive problem with EA500's being increasingly grounded as the months pass.
Ken
AT writes, "I know Ken is out flying his EA50 all day everyday, BUT, I would still like to know what BCA used as the intial purchase cost of the EA50, in his comparison."
Well, as a matter of fact, I did spend yesterday flying the plane. Love it--fast, fun and cost-effective. I don't have to have a dozen good reasons to go flying 'cause the plane doesn't bankrupt you every time you push the throttles forward.
You fly a desk, I fly a fun, little jet :) Sux for you, I guess.
But I'm not flying today. So, since you have been patient, you certainly deserve an answer to your question.
B&CA listed the price of the Eclipse as $1.1 million. They got that from Vref and used the 2008 model pricing in their aircraft comparison table.
Ken
"And that is an amazing testament to the aircraft, given that there has been no factory support and very little ability to obtain certain parts for months."
Ken, only you could be proud of this sutuation.
Post a Comment