Eclipse 500

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

You say a number of things in your reply.

Are there people who can afford more plane than they can safely fly? Of
course.

Are there full-time professional pilots who are not appropriately proficient
or skilled to fly their planes? Of course.

The question I am asking here is about your comment about full-time vs.
non-full-time pilots. Are you suggesting that no one can be a safe and
proficient pilot without flying 400-500 hours per year? And are you
suggesting that the NTSB agrees with you in this regard? If so, I strongly
disagree with you on both counts; I believe you are over-generalizing to an
unreasonable extent.

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

www.flyimc.com

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

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.

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

Were that really true, charter prices would rise unimpeded (as charter
companies try to make more profit). But they don't. The bucks may be
there, but value is demanded for them. Charter =is= price sensitive.

The E-500 would provide as much value to the passenger as a Citation,
and either provides more value than a piston twin.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
news:1120588811.57bca5da2d4bbba0ee41b1af085a611a@t eranews...

You say a number of things in your reply.

Are there people who can afford more plane than they can safely fly? Of
course.

Are there full-time professional pilots who are not appropriately
proficient or skilled to fly their planes? Of course.

The question I am asking here is about your comment about full-time vs.
non-full-time pilots. Are you suggesting that no one can be a safe and
proficient pilot without flying 400-500 hours per year? And are you
suggesting that the NTSB agrees with you in this regard? If so, I
strongly disagree with you on both counts; I believe you are
over-generalizing to an unreasonable extent.

I think he is saying your not going to be safe in a 400mph + plane. You may
be fine in a 200 mph but a 400mph jet is a different story.
--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

Were that really true, charter prices would rise unimpeded (as charter
companies try to make more profit). But they don't. The bucks may be
there, but value is demanded for them. Charter =is= price sensitive.

Lack of price-sensitivity does not mean price is irrelevant for equivalent
services, i.e. the less expensive of two identical CitationJets with
equivalent crews will be preferred over the more expensive one.

What lack of price-sensitivity means is that the market is not so quick to
jump on a service which is a lot less money if the product is not perceived
of being at least as good in quality.

An Eclipse will require a compromise in payload and/or range vs. a
CitationJet. In some cases an Eclipse will also require a compromise in
lavatory facilities if that option is not chosen for a given plane or needs
to be sacrificed for a passenger seat.

To the extent a price-sensitive market exists and WOULD be interested in the
value an Eclipse offers, the question begs to be answered as to why that
market will embrace the Eclipse but not piston twins or even turboprop
twins. I think the answer is that in order to reach this price-sensitive
market, the price would need to be much, much less than will be possible
with Eclipse economics.

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

www.flyimc.com

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 14:40:13 -0400, "Richard Kaplan"
wrote:


You say a number of things in your reply.

Are there people who can afford more plane than they can safely fly? Of
course.

Are there full-time professional pilots who are not appropriately proficient
or skilled to fly their planes? Of course.

The question I am asking here is about your comment about full-time vs.
non-full-time pilots. Are you suggesting that no one can be a safe and
proficient pilot without flying 400-500 hours per year? And are you
suggesting that the NTSB agrees with you in this regard? If so, I strongly
disagree with you on both counts; I believe you are over-generalizing to an
unreasonable extent.

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

www.flyimc.com


I guess you don't understand what I'm saying or maybe I'm not clear
enough or maybe I am over-generalizing. I'm talking about high
performance aircraft and pilots that don't spend 100% of their working
life with them. I don't know about you, but given the chance, I'd
feel safer with the 100% pilot that fly's 400 per year than some
lawyer or business man that fly's for pleasure when he has the
opportunity, no matter how well trained and conscientious. I think
your insurance man as well as accident statistics would agree with me.
Hell - you may be God's gift to aviation and it doesn't apply to you.
I don't have a clue.

As to the NTSB, I was referring to their conclusions to the
certification review of the Piper Malibu after many came apart in the
clouds. They determined that the decisions made by the pilots to fly
through convective air currents caused the wings to come off through
no fault of the airframe.

Now I really don't know how many of those were flown by professional
pilots, but my best guess would be zero. Guys that do this stuff for
a living give CB's a wide berth or they cease to make a living at all.

My observations come from being in the industry and spending the best
part of 35 years in corporate jets. I think I have a different
perspective (maybe not a correct one) than a light aircraft flight
instructor.

I'm sure the whole field is full of wanna-be's that would just love to
fly a jet and because of the low price will be able to afford them.
Having been-there-done-that for most of my life, those are the ones
that concern me. GA has take some big hits lately in the press, but
you haven't seen anything yet until a VLJ with another big ego
Kennedy-type guy goes smoking through a rather large house in
Westchester County, NY. Enough political pressure from the class-envy
masses and we'll all have to park our toys.

Nuff said!!!

What lack of price-sensitivity means is that the market is not so quick to
jump on a service which is a lot less money if the product is not perceived
of being at least as good in quality.

Yes, I agree that "a lot less money" presently buys "a lot less service"
and that's not what the market is. But when "a lot less money" buys "a
little less service", you'll find more takers. Some will come from the
piston twin regime, where now for "the same money" they can get "a lot
more service".

All this, of course, FSVO "a lot". That's the nut we're waiting to see
crack.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.