Eclipse 500

Recently, Richard Kaplan posted:

The plane looks great but the cost has risen so much from the
original plan such that it is now "evolutionary" and not
"revolutionary."

Evolved from... what? What other VLJs will be delivered within the next
year?

The ability of the company to provide long-term support is a key
question because an orphaned airplane would lose lots of value.

Ever look at the price of a North American P-51? You could have bought
several of the originals for the price of one today! ;-)

Therefore, I think for anyone considering a VLJ, the Cessna Mustang
is a better long-term investment. There is no doubt Cessna will be
around for the long-term; the jury is still out on Eclipse.

Well, this is a judgement call that would be dependent on many factors,
not the least being how many Mustangs make it to the market compared to
Eclipse 500s. Considering that Cessna and Piper are being outsold by
Cirrus, I don't see a company's history as a very good predictor of their
future success. People will buy the aircraft that they think represents a
better choice for their mission, and since the VLJ market will be at least
in part defined by return on investment, I think that planes costing
several times more to purchase and maintain will have an uphill battle
against the E-500.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote

Evolved from... what? What other VLJs will be delivered within the next
year?

Evolutionary compared with turboprop performance and price.

Cirrus, I don't see a company's history as a very good predictor of their
future success. People will buy the aircraft that they think represents a

The odds of Cessna being around in 20 years are outstanding. Even if the
Mustang is not a rousing success, it will still be supported by Cessna.
Cessna still continues to support every plane it ever made.

The odds of Eclipse being around in 20 years are unknown.

better choice for their mission, and since the VLJ market will be at least
in part defined by return on investment, I think that planes costing

I gather that means you believe in the concept of hundreds or more Eclipse
air taxis? Now that is very much an unproven business model. It is even
more of an unproven business model when you start calculating the payload of
an Eclipse. Charter operations almost never make a profit if the capital
investment in an airplane are considered; there are so many people who want
to buy an airplane that the free market has reduced charter costs such that
a charter airplane returns a modest return on incremental hourly costs but
no return on capital costs. I have yet to see a realistic spreadsheet of
any Part 135 charter operation which results in a net profit including both
the cost of capital and operating costs; there is no reason to believe the
Eclipse will be any different.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

Recently, Richard Kaplan posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote
(People will buy the aircraft that they think represents a...)
better choice for their mission, and since the VLJ market will be at
least in part defined by return on investment, I think that planes
costing

I gather that means you believe in the concept of hundreds or more
Eclipse air taxis? Now that is very much an unproven business model.

Yet, it is one that everyone entering that market with a VLJ believes to
be viable.

It is even more of an unproven business model when you start
calculating the payload of an Eclipse.

That depends on how correct Eclipse is about the seat/mile costs. A full
E-500 has to be cheaper to fly in than a half-full Citation.

Charter operations almost
never make a profit if the capital investment in an airplane are
considered;
[...]
I have yet to see a realistic spreadsheet
of any Part 135 charter operation which results in a net profit
including both the cost of capital and operating costs; there is no
reason to believe the Eclipse will be any different.

This is a problem that affects all operations equally. If one can reduce
their capital expenses by a significant amount, that results in a higher
net profit, and I have a hard time seeing how that is a Bad Thing.

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:


That depends on how correct Eclipse is about the seat/mile costs. A full
E-500 has to be cheaper to fly in than a half-full Citation.


Sure it may be cheaper. But the charter market never has been a
price-sensitive market; that is why jet charters are much more popular
than piston charters.

This is a problem that affects all operations equally. If one can reduce
their capital expenses by a significant amount, that results in a higher
net profit, and I have a hard time seeing how that is a Bad Thing.

My point is that when capital is considered, there never has been such
a thing as a "profit" anywhere in the charter industry except in the
very high-end VIP market which sells ultra-security and ultra-privacy
without regard to cost.

The reason the charter market exists currently is that owners who
already own airplanes for other reasons choose to lease them back to
Part 135 operators. The owners make a profit on the leaseback but take
a loss overall; that is OK since the airplanes can be justified on
other grounds and the leaseback is just a bonus.

In other words, no one today can go out and buy a fleet of CitationJets
and make a profit chartering them; what happens is that someone who
already owns such an airplane for other reasons chooses to earn some
incremental money on a leaseback.

The model of hundreds or thousands of Eclipse air taxis takes a
different route and assumes that a charter leaseback can instead be
profitable if the planes are bought strictly for leaseback, i.e.
profitable considering both capital and operating costs. I propose
that if iswere shown to be true then the free market will take over so
many people would get into the air taxi business such that the charter
price gets pushed down and once again the capital cost is not recovered
in the price.

In simplest form, every pilot would love to own an Eclipse if he could
pay its ownership costs in full via a charter operation, no less make
money on the deal. This would be so good a deal that the free market
will ensure that it is not possible.

What is your reaction to this plane?


It's the next doctor killer. No matter how much training, you can't
be a professional pilot flying a hundred hours or so with your mind
on other avocations.

"Don Hammer" wrote in message
news:1120503614.9d7845ef9042c76b51f36dc25d66bf98@t eranews...


What is your reaction to this plane?


It's the next doctor killer. No matter how much training, you can't
be a professional pilot flying a hundred hours or so with your mind
on other avocations.

It's probably less complex (i.e., easier to fly) than a piston twin.

It's probably less complex (i.e., easier to fly) than a piston twin.




I agree, but that twin doesn't go 400 kts either. Easier to fly
doesn't help the judgment issue when things are happening fast.

Thurman Munson had the full Flight Safety course before he flew his
Citation into the ground. Probably was thinking of his next baseball
contract instead of the best way to shoot an ILS. How many Malibu's
and Bonanza's have come out of the clouds minus their wings? Those
are singles easier to operate than any complex twin.

It is my observation and the NTSB's that it is the non-professional
pilots who lack the experience and singular focus of professional
pilots that find themselves victims of those accidents, through no
fault of the airframe.

Unfortunately I think you will see the same pattern with privately
operated VLJ's

"Don Hammer" wrote

It is my observation and the NTSB's that it is the non-professional
pilots who lack the experience and singular focus of professional
pilots that find themselves victims of those accidents, through no
fault of the airframe.

If by "professional" you mean full-time pilot, then I believe this is your
opinion and not that of NTSB.

If by "professional" you mean a pilot who is well-trained, proficient,
well-equipped, and following sound risk management procedures, then yes, you
are correct.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

If by "professional" you mean a pilot who is well-trained, proficient,
well-equipped, and following sound risk management procedures, then yes, you
are correct.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com


Richard,

I am in the business of consulting in corporate aviation and have for
the last ten years. As a company we own a Citation that we will soon
sell.

The point I am trying to make is even though some of us have as much
as 15,000 hours in jet aircraft, our focus is on the business we are
doing and not 100% flying. I can guarantee that none of us feel as
sharp as when we flew 400-500 hours per year and that was all we did.

We fly the Citation less than 100 hours per year and always hire a
full time contractor as PIC when we go. There is a time when the ego
has to stay home.

Are we well trained? - very
Proficient? - At 100 hours per year, not likely
Follow sound risk management procedures? - You bet

The issue is, we are dedicated to our business and that business is
not flying aircraft. Can we turn off that business when we get in the
cockpit? Again, not likely. If we flew full time our total focus
would be the job at hand.

By professional I mean someone that does it for a living. My fear is
that there are a lot of big egos with big pocketbooks and have their
deposit down that have no business flying around in a jet . All week
they will be cutting on people and think they are professional because
they went to school and can afford to make it to Florida on the
weekend.

Don

Too bad I have to sell my house and 5 of my neighbors' houses just to be
able to fly one!

AliR.

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
.. .
Hi all,

I was very impressed by the article on the Eclipse 500 in the latest AOPA
magazine. After so much skepticism, criticism, and so forth, it appears
that the promised aircraft is about to be delivered. I was particularly
impressed by the description of the development process, and by the
comprehensive training program that is being created. It's nice to see
such forward-thinking being implemented in today's GA environment.

What is your reaction to this plane?

Neil