Jump to content
gbigs

ICON Sales Contract V2

Recommended Posts

ICON is back with a 'new' sales contract after being spanked by their customers over their first version.  Is it fixed?  No.

 

ICON seems to think they can convince customers to let them make product without liability on their part...and to force customers to conform to THEIR idea of how an aircraft must be flown to be safe....they actually refer to 'bush flying' as their idea of the gold standard flying skill set in order to own and operate their products. 

 

Check this list of 'requireds.'

 

1. Required ICON-authorized training: to ensure all pilots are qualified to ICON standards.

2. Required ICON-authorized maintenance: to ensure airworthiness to ICON standards.

3. A Managing Pilot: a specific designated individual responsible for safe operation.

4. Flight Data Recorder: for aircraft maintenance information as well as accurate accident reconstruction.

5. Covenant Not to Sue: an agreement to not sue if ICON is shown not to be at fault. 

 

1. It's already an SLSA for over $250k  no mention if 'authorized training' is included, no doubt it isnt.

2. pretty vague and sinister sounding isn't it?  Especially considering they do not list what is required in the sales contract.

3. A managing pilot?

4. Data Recorder - no wonder the cost is so high.

5. 'if' ICON is shown not to be at fault....imagine how that gets played out in the courts.

 

In the end ICON not only came late to market and chewed up tons of venture money, but they are letting lawyers destroy what's left of their feeble brand before they deliver a single plane.

 

ICON_A5_Purchase_Agreement_with_Cover_Letter.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Courts throw contracts like this out. It is in no way fair to the consumer to force them to conform to the manufacturer's requirements and then tell them they can't be sued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Courts throw contracts like this out. It is in no way fair to the consumer to force them to conform to the manufacturer's requirements and then tell them they can't be sued.

 

Not to mention it in no way is binding on people who did not sign said contract.  Like the widow of the owner/pilot.  Or his parents.  Or his best friend.  Or his co-workers.  Or anybody else that can show harm from the loss of the dude hurt or killed in the crash.  It's a silly thing to put in a contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Icon is dead.  A gold-plated vanity project for guys with too few brains and too much money......... 

Time will tell, but I'm of the opinion you may be right.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted them to succeed, in fact I wanted to buy the plane. But they have consistently closed all the doors to success. Now it only remains to see who will sweep up the mess after the implosion. And of course that is just my humble opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too much money spent on marketing,without follow through on providing a product.

Were these people , aircraft engineers designing a product, or were they marketing guys looking for "a pot of gold" ?

Me thinks the company is "toast".

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ICON came from the mind of a combat pilot.  He was not a businessman.  He got venture money and that led to over hiring and long, poorly managed development and cost overruns.  The VC own the company and their lawyers came up with the weirdo sales contract and no doubt the absurd pricing.   The PR messes are a reflection of this tangle.   Now the window is closed for them and other SLSA makers thanks to PBOR.

 

This is an opinion not based on any inside information but on personal experience with startups, VC, some rumor and the same public information everyone has seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're in serious financial trouble right now.

They wanted 40 units out to customers by the end of June and 200 by the end of the year. Nothing has been delivered to my knowledge and they have had layoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A college buddy of mine has a cousin who was hired as their head of engineering.  He ended up leaving in a year or so because the entire company was run from a marketing viewpoint, to the point where engineering considerations were ignored.

 

Anecdotal, but it matches up with what a lot of us perceive from the outside... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A college buddy of mine has a cousin who was hired as their head of engineering.  He ended up leaving in a year or so because the entire company was run from a marketing viewpoint, to the point where engineering considerations were ignored.

 

Anecdotal, but it matches up with what a lot of us perceive from the outside... 

Agree !

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody did better marketing ,of a new aviation product.unfortunatley they couldn't produce a reliable product. Not sure they can survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×