From: Brad Wechsler To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 15:24:36 +0000 Definitely get your big point, obviously nothing to disagree with.... Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 09:54:10 -0500 To: Brad Wechsler< Subject: Re: no problem , the issue is simple, you have many people in your office. no one is looking at the numbers received to check for the most basic of errors. forwarding me, numbers that have not even been looked at seems a waste of everyones time, especially mine - not dissimilar to zero receiveables on art space. . I dont have the time to do the basic review that should have been being done. Sorry but i dont have the time this week to talk to rj, like my suggestion from day one, all needs to be redone, sorry, rich does not understand how fuel cost per hour times number of hours , needs to be accurate. leon and you told me that castrucii selling point was that he said his fundamental view was that he needed accurate numbers or everything else was a waste of time. here we are On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Brad Wechsler < > wrote: Jeffrey-some people here feel you are confusing certain items....which may or may not be true. May I suggest you organize your questions and get on the phone with rich j and then we can identify meaningful loose ends. Two things to remember: we don't control the form in which jet produces numbers and, I believe, most importantly you and I (and likely leon) agree that a simple restructure to part 91 is likely the best path. In addition--and on a separate front--we plan to scrutinize costs for potential savings. As you know we have not done this yet. Also, I'm a little unclear on what your ultimate goal is. B Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 09:20:34 -0500 To: Brad Wechsle Cc: Richard J Bronstein John Castrucci Richard