What's it gonna take?

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...
Eclipse will survive only if they can deliver 500-600 planes a year, and
if they do not encounter engine or avionics issues along the way (as they
already have). Their current production is less than around 20-30 a month,
not enough to keep the cash flow going for very long.

Well, they have 2000 on order, so 500-600 a year isn't going to be to tough
once they get going.

Read their whitepaper on their production methods.


There is also no way an Eclipse will cost $415 an hour, even if flown
hundreds of hours a year. Fuel alone will cost $300 an hour,

At full power, it's 90gph; at cruise it's 55 to 60. That 90gph is when it
climbs to FL350 in 21 minutes.

and insurance for 2 million is around $25,000 a year.

Insurance is 32,000K divided by an estimated 500 hrs a year = $64/hr.

At 200 hours a year this already

Not too many jets fly 200 hours a year - more like 500, or more for air
taxi/charter.

adds up to over $500/hr. Figure any regular maintenance and engine
reserves, hangar, etc, and it'll be at least $750 an hour.

Maint and reserves come under their "Jet Complete" program which is $150/hr
and covers scheduled and unscheduled maintenace, flight support, recurrent
training, a fuel program that discounts fuel 40 cents a gallon, AOG over
night, nav and WX database updates, rental engine coverage, etc.

As for engine TBO reserve, it's going to be far less than a TP engine (with
prop OH)or a Williams FJ-44 or 33.


They are also range and payload limited, particularly compared to
turboprops.

Their NBAA ranges is 1125 nm, for a King Air C90 it's 831.

They are small and tight inside, especially compared to a King Air.

They have more leg room (18") than a King Air C90 (7.5"), are 1.2 inches
narrower, and 4" shorter (47" vs 51") They fly 100 kts faster, and climb
nearly twice as fast, s your trip time is less.

Their market may be smaller than they originally proposed, and with lots
of competition. Unless they ramp up significantly and start rolling a lot
of planes out the door soon, they will run out of cash unless they get a
ton more venture capital.

Having Bill Gates, whathisface Allen, and several other high rollers is a
pretty good influx of capital.

(What Denny says)
"Ahhh jeez guys, the solution is so simple... Reinstitute the CAA with all
their original powers to regulate the airlines and presto-chango:
.....snip...."


(What Montblack hears)
"blah blah NUBILE blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah NUBILE blah blah
blah blah blah..."

Jay Honeck writes:

Agree. (This is the same problem, BTW, that is addressed by private
aircraft. It's the reason we can easily beat the airlines to Florida
from Iowa, even though I'm only flying at 160 mph.)

If commercial flights were as easy as flights in a private plane (and they
once were, although they aren't now), I'd still be finding excuses to fly from
place to place, as flying itself is fun. But flying is only the tip of the
iceberg nowadays, and the rest of the overhead completely erases the fun of
flight on a commercial airliner.

When I was a boy, people in Iowa City routinely flew United and Ozark
Air Lines to anywhere in the country. This was possible because the
US Air Mail paid the airlines to fly mail to hundreds of smaller
airports, like Iowa City -- and the passengers were literally just
gravy. (They broke even whether they carried passengers or not.)

Some commercial airline flights are the same way, depending on the route.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Jay Honeck writes:

Agree. (This is the same problem, BTW, that is addressed by private
aircraft. It's the reason we can easily beat the airlines to
Florida from Iowa, even though I'm only flying at 160 mph.)

If commercial flights were as easy as flights in a private plane (and
they once were, although they aren't now), I'd still be finding
excuses to fly from place to place, as flying itself is fun. But
flying is only the tip of the iceberg nowadays, and the rest of the
overhead completely erases the fun of flight on a commercial airliner.

When I was a boy, people in Iowa City routinely flew United and Ozark
Air Lines to anywhere in the country. This was possible because the
US Air Mail paid the airlines to fly mail to hundreds of smaller
airports, like Iowa City -- and the passengers were literally just
gravy. (They broke even whether they carried passengers or not.)

Some commercial airline flights are the same way, depending on the
route.



How wouls you know, you don't fly lightplanes or airliners, fjukktard


bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Dan Luke writes:

The trouble is, we have been too short-sighted for too long to
correct the situation. The cost to create the infrastructure to
support HSR would make even a congressman blanche. So we are stuck
with automobiles, which are inneficient, and airlines, which are
unreliable.

It's being done in Europe. What prevents it from being done in the
U.S.?


Wrong again **** for brains

Bertie

"Paul Tomblin" ...
Or decide how many landing slots they have in the peak
hours, and auction them off to the highest bidder with the
starting bid "free".

Help me out on my fuzzy memory: About 8 years ago, didn't somebody sue LGA
(nyc port authority) when they restricted the gate slots,... and won??

The details I recall is AirTran had half a dozen cheap flights out of ISP
(Long Island) to Atlanta and Florida. Then the lawsuit concludes, AirTran
moves 35 miles west to LGA turning ISP into temporary wasteland. The next
thing I start hearing about daily flight delays at LGA, even on the good wx
days.

Also, I remember JFK seldom with delays before the JetBlue expansion.

So I support your idea, but I'm not sure I'll fly.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message


The Hub and Spoke system relies somewhat on the fact that a pretty
good number of the passengers want to go to the hub cities.

No, it doesn't. FedEx uses the H&S, for example, with a *very* limited
number of passengers. The model is merely a means of moving large numbers of
objects (passengers, freight, etc.) efficiently.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

In a previous article, "Mike Isaksen" said:
"Paul Tomblin" ...
Or decide how many landing slots they have in the peak
hours, and auction them off to the highest bidder with the
starting bid "free".

Help me out on my fuzzy memory: About 8 years ago, didn't somebody sue LGA
(nyc port authority) when they restricted the gate slots,... and won??

Isn't that what the FAA does when it does flow management in bad weather?


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
"What we obtain too cheap we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that
gives everything its value." - Thomas Paine.

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message ...
Help me out on my fuzzy memory: About 8 years ago,
didn't somebody sue LGA (nyc port authority) when they
restricted the gate/slots,... and won??

Isn't that what the FAA does when it does flow management in bad weather?


Right, and I thought that morphed into the Gate Hold procedure following the
Avianca (oops, I circled so long I may have just run out of fuel) crash.

But what I'm recalling is a definite hold on empty gates at LGA. Lots of
airlines wanted a gate & slot, but some entity would not allow access to
them and someone sued. Then the flood gates opened to the smaller airlines,
and now if a problem arrises there isn't an open gate to return to. Well,
that last sentence may be an exaggeration, but not by much. I haven't found
the web reference yet, still looking.

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:29:08 GMT, "Mike Isaksen"
wrote:


Right, and I thought that morphed into the Gate Hold procedure following the
Avianca (oops, I circled so long I may have just run out of fuel) crash.

You mean the guy who never said "Emergency", and landed in residential
Queens?