gbigs Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT2kflyer Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Icon is dead. A gold-plated vanity project for guys with too few brains and too much money......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cluemeister Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 It really is sad in many ways because GA could use a good success story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SportFlyer1 Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frfly172 Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 Too much money spent on marketing,without follow through on providing a product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted July 20, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted July 21, 2016 Report Share Posted July 21, 2016 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted July 22, 2016 Report Share Posted July 22, 2016 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frfly172 Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 Nobody did better marketing ,of a new aviation product.unfortunatley they couldn't produce a reliable product. Not sure they can survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted July 26, 2016 Report Share Posted July 26, 2016 I find it odd, but Icon still has a big display here at Oshkosh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted July 26, 2016 Report Share Posted July 26, 2016 I find it odd, but Icon still has a big display here at Oshkosh. Of course, they are not going to let money troubles get in the way of marketing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cluemeister Posted July 26, 2016 Report Share Posted July 26, 2016 Their email notice about their Oshkosh exhibit seemed a lot more subdued this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.