Here's to you, Mr Robinson
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's to you, Mr Robinson
So - that's the R&D costs for the R66 taken care of.....
New Helicopter production figures released by the AIA for the first three months of 2004 show Robinson leading with 158 deliveries followed by Bell with 16, Sikorsky with 8, and Schweizer with 7. Robinson deliveries for the quarter included 104 R44s and 54 R22s, a record high for the company.
This is an 82% increase over the first quarter of 2003 when Robinson delivered 57 R44s and 30 R22s.
To accommodate the higher rate of production, Robinson has expanded its workforce from 600 employees in early 2003 to more than 1,000 in 2004. An additional factory building is scheduled for completion in July, which will nearly double Robinson’s manufacturing floor space. This should help shorten the order backlog, which is currently over six months for both the R22 and R44. Robinson Helicopter Company is the world’s leading manufacturer of civil helicopters.
New Helicopter production figures released by the AIA for the first three months of 2004 show Robinson leading with 158 deliveries followed by Bell with 16, Sikorsky with 8, and Schweizer with 7. Robinson deliveries for the quarter included 104 R44s and 54 R22s, a record high for the company.
This is an 82% increase over the first quarter of 2003 when Robinson delivered 57 R44s and 30 R22s.
To accommodate the higher rate of production, Robinson has expanded its workforce from 600 employees in early 2003 to more than 1,000 in 2004. An additional factory building is scheduled for completion in July, which will nearly double Robinson’s manufacturing floor space. This should help shorten the order backlog, which is currently over six months for both the R22 and R44. Robinson Helicopter Company is the world’s leading manufacturer of civil helicopters.
Somebody closer to the coalface could tell me the real prices, but a SWAG* at the revenues looks like:
Robinson: 104x R44@$400,000=$20.8m
54 x R22@$200,000=$10.8m
Total $31.6 mill
Bell: (no listing, so a guess) 10 x 206 @ $1mill = $10 mill
6 x 430@$5 mill = $30 mill
Total (SWAG)* = $40 mill
Sickhorsey: 8 x S76 @ $6 mill = $48mill
Spritzer: 7 x 300s @ $500,000=$3.5 mill
So who's the winner? Robinson certainly turns out the most sausages, but whose shareholders are smiling most at those figures? (Disregard the cancellation of the Comanche!)
*SWAG = scientific wild-@ssed guess
Robinson: 104x R44@$400,000=$20.8m
54 x R22@$200,000=$10.8m
Total $31.6 mill
Bell: (no listing, so a guess) 10 x 206 @ $1mill = $10 mill
6 x 430@$5 mill = $30 mill
Total (SWAG)* = $40 mill
Sickhorsey: 8 x S76 @ $6 mill = $48mill
Spritzer: 7 x 300s @ $500,000=$3.5 mill
So who's the winner? Robinson certainly turns out the most sausages, but whose shareholders are smiling most at those figures? (Disregard the cancellation of the Comanche!)
*SWAG = scientific wild-@ssed guess
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's sustainable? What is predictable income on a recurring basis? Lot's of different angles to look at, but Frank has you locked in to the 12-year refurbish... that's guaranteed revenue that will continue to grow year after year (12 years from now, he'll need ANOTHER building just to keep up with parts and maintenance). Frank's company is privately held with limited debt, and the major share holder is Frank's original investor (wealthy friend). Also, most of his assets are in overseas corporations. Pathfinder insurance, owned by his brother-in-law, is also an off-shore corporation. He has access an enormous labor pool in southern California that is inexpensive. He will continue to pay low-wages for the production line, because many of his workers are trained in-house. Overhead may be high, but he's spent the last few decades fine-tuning and developing effecient manufacturing techniques. At this point, almost EVERYTHING is made in-house (except engine and a few minor parts).
Compare the above scenario to the other companies. Sikorsky, Bell, and Eurocopter... those are the elephants of the industry. Times, philosophies, and the accepted standards are changing over time. I bet their sales department will continue to have challenges... it is harder to "bag that elephant." In contrast, Robinson is producing rabbits and squirels. You can consistantly put meat on the table by "shooting rabbits and squirels" on a routine basis... it is much harder to get that elephant.
Frank can't do it with his current product line, but he is on course to be in the top 2 manufacturers. However, he realizes that... hence the future development of the R66. What's important here? Who has he been grooming to take over the business? I don't see anybody, and it is a private company. Will Frank Robinson live long enough for the development, testing, certification, and eventual production of the R66? Since they are only rumored to be in the initial draft phases (not even serious designs)... I don't think he has the longevity. What happens after he dies?
Compare the above scenario to the other companies. Sikorsky, Bell, and Eurocopter... those are the elephants of the industry. Times, philosophies, and the accepted standards are changing over time. I bet their sales department will continue to have challenges... it is harder to "bag that elephant." In contrast, Robinson is producing rabbits and squirels. You can consistantly put meat on the table by "shooting rabbits and squirels" on a routine basis... it is much harder to get that elephant.
Frank can't do it with his current product line, but he is on course to be in the top 2 manufacturers. However, he realizes that... hence the future development of the R66. What's important here? Who has he been grooming to take over the business? I don't see anybody, and it is a private company. Will Frank Robinson live long enough for the development, testing, certification, and eventual production of the R66? Since they are only rumored to be in the initial draft phases (not even serious designs)... I don't think he has the longevity. What happens after he dies?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may be difficult to determine the annual sales and impossible to determine the profit of all the companies, but the annual rate of growth/(contraction) should be readily available.
This should give an indication of who is going where.
___________
An interesting aside to this is the total sales of reciprocating engines to turbines, for rotorcraft.
This should give an indication of who is going where.
___________
An interesting aside to this is the total sales of reciprocating engines to turbines, for rotorcraft.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's worth pointing out that contrary to what is posted here, Frank Robinson is the only shareholder in the eponymous company.
RHC used to have other shareholders, including Frank's 'wealthy friend' (Gus LeFeill). In fact, at one point Frank owned only 23 percent of the company.
But he's bought back every last piece of stock and says the day he got back the last outstanding parcel was "the happiest day of my life."
So yes, Frank personally trousers every dime, and good luck to him.
RHC used to have other shareholders, including Frank's 'wealthy friend' (Gus LeFeill). In fact, at one point Frank owned only 23 percent of the company.
But he's bought back every last piece of stock and says the day he got back the last outstanding parcel was "the happiest day of my life."
So yes, Frank personally trousers every dime, and good luck to him.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So yes, Frank personally trousers every dime, and good luck to him.
The profits might be realized by associated companies, such as those that might provide the insurance, lease the production equipment, and rent the buildings etc. This might serve as a form of protection against the loss of reputation and money. Who would sue a company or person that has no assets?
Just a hypothetical question.
Last edited by Dave_Jackson; 15th May 2004 at 19:47.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My pockets are empty. So sue me.
To: Dave_Jackson
.
I have a Lawyer friend in California that brought two suits against Robinson and was successful in both cases yet he was unable to recover a dime. The reason was that Robinson kept all of his money in an offshore bank and the courts could not attach it. Robinson did not own the buildings nor did he own any machinery. The only thing he owned was the company, the helicopters on the production line and all of the existing spares. From what I was told he told the lawyers that they were welcome to that if they wanted to build and sell helicopters.
.
The profits might be realized by associated companies, such as those that might provide the insurance, lease the production equipment, and rent the buildings etc. This might serve as a form of protection against the loss of reputation and money. Who would sue a company or person that had no assets?
I have a Lawyer friend in California that brought two suits against Robinson and was successful in both cases yet he was unable to recover a dime. The reason was that Robinson kept all of his money in an offshore bank and the courts could not attach it. Robinson did not own the buildings nor did he own any machinery. The only thing he owned was the company, the helicopters on the production line and all of the existing spares. From what I was told he told the lawyers that they were welcome to that if they wanted to build and sell helicopters.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Daylight Saving Free Zone
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Bill Gates of helicopters.
If a Robbo crashed due to design/manuafacturing faults, in lets say Bermuda, would a suit against Robinson be more fruitful?
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To: sprocket
To my knowledge there has been only one fatal crash due to a component failure and that happened in the United States. The NTSB did an unusual thing and allowed the father of the pilot to participate in the accident investigation and the assignment of fault and he was successful in his lawsuit. If the same thing happened in Bermuda the trial would have the same results.
However, if the accident were the result of loss of contol the results would be different.
In almost if not all fatal accidents of R-22s and R-44s fault was assigned to the pilot. In every accident investigation of an accident the manufacturer will be involved but only to provide technical assistance.
In October of 2000 the Santa Cruz Sentinel (California) ran a series of articles revolving around the crash of an R-22 that resulted in the loss of control killing the high time pilot and his first time student. One of the articles was titled "Conflict of interest alleged in FAA crash investigations". One thing was noted that the NTSB commissioned the Rand Corporation to perform a study and issue a report. The report found that there is significant potential for conflicts of interest when manufacturers are asked to police themselves.
In every case of loss of control either Frank Robinson was involved in the investigation or one of his senior engineers was involved. In every case pilot error was the problem.
One of the articles indicated that Frank Robinson was the designated engineering rep for certification proving further conflict of interest. Mr. Robinson indicated that he removed himself from that position although the well-researched article said otherwise.
If a Robbo crashed due to design/manuafacturing faults, in lets say Bermuda, would a suit against Robinson be more fruitful?
However, if the accident were the result of loss of contol the results would be different.
In almost if not all fatal accidents of R-22s and R-44s fault was assigned to the pilot. In every accident investigation of an accident the manufacturer will be involved but only to provide technical assistance.
In October of 2000 the Santa Cruz Sentinel (California) ran a series of articles revolving around the crash of an R-22 that resulted in the loss of control killing the high time pilot and his first time student. One of the articles was titled "Conflict of interest alleged in FAA crash investigations". One thing was noted that the NTSB commissioned the Rand Corporation to perform a study and issue a report. The report found that there is significant potential for conflicts of interest when manufacturers are asked to police themselves.
In every case of loss of control either Frank Robinson was involved in the investigation or one of his senior engineers was involved. In every case pilot error was the problem.
One of the articles indicated that Frank Robinson was the designated engineering rep for certification proving further conflict of interest. Mr. Robinson indicated that he removed himself from that position although the well-researched article said otherwise.
Last edited by Lu Zuckerman; 15th May 2004 at 23:58.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cran: I'm sorry, I don't know. I didn't ask him.
I interviewed Frank Robinson last month for a UK magazine and he said some absolutely fascinating things.
The magazine comes out at the beginning of June, and once they've reached their readers I'll post some of what he said here.
I interviewed Frank Robinson last month for a UK magazine and he said some absolutely fascinating things.
The magazine comes out at the beginning of June, and once they've reached their readers I'll post some of what he said here.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That'll be General Aviation, the UK AOPA magazine, which has just gone to the printers.
A fuller version of the story will appear in Rotor Torque, the magazine of the Helicopter Club of Great Britain, which I also publish.
No need to go near Smiths.
A fuller version of the story will appear in Rotor Torque, the magazine of the Helicopter Club of Great Britain, which I also publish.
No need to go near Smiths.
