[DanFrazer]

As I understand it, all new money is going into escrow, which should protect you if the reorg doesn't work.

This was also my concern. I am already $11k in the hole on my engine kit, how should I have confidence when I give them $33k more that I’ll either get my engine kit or the $33k back?

Do you know which filing document spells out this escrow commitment for the new money?

 

[spatsch]

As I understand it, all new money is going into escrow, which should protect you if the reorg doesn't work.

As I understand that is what Van's is petitioning the court to approve. So it is not quite true until the court does.

 

[rhill]

Go Easy Bro

Nothing has been announced yet, yes, prices will be going up.How much we don't know yet. CH11 is needed for a pause in the bleeding out. Have a little faith, pray for a good outcome.

 

[britbuilder]

Is there any chance that document with the list of everyone's names and addresses could be removed from this post. I suspect Google will index it and won't index the court site. Some of us work in professions where having our name and address online is a risk.

 

[jhrubos]

Amen brother. I will stand with Vans.

 

[Jetmart]

Kit deposits used as operating capital - sure, no issue. Millions in deposits for engines, props and avionics supplied by others, not Van's - not so sure that's acceptable.

I'm asking because I really don't know and want to wrap my around this.
How are deposits for engines, props and avionics supplied by others any different than wheels, brakes, canopies, etc supplied by others? Engine, props, and I assume also avionics are ordered and purchased from, and paid to Van's.

 

[spatsch]

I'm asking because I really don't know and want to wrap my around this.
How are deposits for engines, props and avionics supplied by others any different than wheels, brakes, canopies, etc supplied by others? Engine, props, and I assume also avionics are ordered and purchased from, and paid to Van's.

They are not different.

I think the perception is that deposits which require Van’s to do physical work ( build a kit ) are fair game to be used but the once which are straight resale are not.

That’s just not true in a lot of industries. So Van’s didn’t do anything unusual.

Oliver

 

[Brantel]

Is there any chance that document with the list of everyone's names and addresses could be removed from this post. I suspect Google will index it and won't index the court site. Some of us work in professions where having our name and address online is a risk.

Those docs are public record and by now are all over the web. They are being shared in several other Van's related online forums, social media groups, chat rooms, and messaging apps that I monitor.

There is no putting that Jack back in the box unfortunately. The court clerk should have redacted those pages but its too late now.

 

[1001001]

Thanks for the documents!

Exhibit 2 on Doc 9 has a long, long list of people with pending sales orders that are all going to get rejected and offered at a new price. If you are one of those folks, you may want to download the file. You're a "part of legal history" now.

My name and kit number are not in that list. I presume this may be because the items outstanding are part of a partially filled order, rather than an order that is under deposit and not yet shipped, even in part.

 

[sc_pilot]

My name and kit number are not in that list. I presume this may be because the items outstanding are part of a partially filled order, rather than an order that is under deposit and not yet shipped, even in part.

Then I guess the question is, are their customers who paid in full with no kit delivery yet on that list? Or is it all partial payment customers? I feel less bad about paying more on a deposit. I feel upset paying more on a final payment. Especially in my case where I know my avionics are outside of Van’s facility and are currently at Stein. That feels like a bait and switch if product has left their doors and is drop shipped from their supplier. What keeps me me from going and paying the balance owed to stein vs vans new inflated price? I guess vans/stein work contract and the bankruptcy court. Doh

 

[Jack_G_S]

They are not different.

I think the perception is that deposits which require Van’s to do physical work ( build a kit ) are fair game to be used but the once which are straight resale are not.

That’s just not true in a lot of industries. So Van’s didn’t do anything unusual.

Oliver

I’m definitely no business expert and I will not argue that industries often use some portion of deposits toward operating expenses but, it was my understanding that a good CFO could determine the invisible line between solvency and insolvency.
[ed. Deleted one line I think crossed the rules line. My call. v/r,dr] I thought it was a little odd when Van’s mentioned they were focusing on shipping mostly tail kits. Now we know all those kits were vastly funded from other orders and the tail kits customers are now captive customers that will have to pay way more than planned or lose their deposits?

 

[GrahamF]

Then I guess the question is, are their customers who paid in full with no kit delivery yet on that list? Or is it all partial payment customers? I feel less bad about paying more on a deposit. I feel upset paying more on a final payment. Especially in my case where I know my avionics are outside of Van’s facility and are currently at Stein. That feels like a bait and switch if product has left their doors and is drop shipped from their supplier. What keeps me me from going and paying the balance owed to stein vs vans new inflated price? I guess vans/stein work contract and the bankruptcy court. Doh

If we look at both those situations, the pertinent question would now appear to be "If I am not on the list but should be, how do I get onto it?" Do these folks have to register their claim with the court?

Personally I'm in a different category of 'not on the list but should be'. I have no deposits down or back ordered parts pending, but with plenty of defective LCPs in both of my delivered kits I don't consider Van's to have (yet) fulfilled the contract.

 

[spatsch]

I’m definitely no business expert and I will not argue that industries often use some portion of deposits toward operating expenses but, it was my understanding that a good CFO could determine the invisible line between solvency and insolvency.
[ed. Deleted one line I think crossed the rules line. My call. v/r,dr] I thought it was a little odd when Van’s mentioned they were focusing on shipping mostly tail kits. Now we know all those kits were vastly funded from other orders and the tail kits customers are now captive customers that will have to pay way more than planned or lose their deposits?

I am not a lawyer but from what I have seen working with many the difference of being OK or not depends on the details and intend. If you take the deposit and use it for your ongoing operations and you have a reasonable expectation and intend to fulfill your contract even if it doesn't work out like that at the end it's OK. If you don't it's not. Obviously what's a "reasonable expectation" can be debated and 20/20 hindsight is always better... .

A good CFO can also determine if the company is selling under or cost rather quickly too so I think we agree on that point.

Oliver

 

[Cholley6]

After watching this frenzy of people wanting to get their pitchforks I think I am starting to understand how a run on the banks in the depression happened. Until Van's or the Court says something about how much prices will rise and what prices will rise. Might as well sit back and wait. Only raising people's blood pressure at this point. They have not said that everything across the board is being raised some specific amount, it's all speculation at this point. I keep checking the forum for official news from Van's or the Court, like the public docs, the rest is distracting. And for those wondering I have plenty of skin in this issue with my rv-10 kits, some on order, others with LCP in hand.

 

[flyrlfs]

So everyone talking about the price increase on their order but what about the lead times. If I receive an email in the following weeks/months about my “order, deposit, and contract options”, and am asked to make a decision by Jan 15th or X date, the delivery timeline must be communicated in that info. For example I know I’m in the second later boat since I have engine and avionics on order so I won’t be the Jan 15th round.

Whether I decide to pay more money or cancel contract could be heavily enticed with a quicker delivery window. I think some people wouldn’t mind the higher cost contract if there was a guaranteed quick delivery. Otherwise there’s not much “positive” incentive other than not wanting to be in line with the creditors at the end of bankruptcy and taking a loss of some amount. I mean I’m realistic and would be willing to work with vans but drastically shortening lead times could help them “sell” the higher costs to disgruntled builders… But shortening lead times in this situation is likely impossible.

Then I guess the question is, are their customers who paid in full with no kit delivery yet on that list? Or is it all partial payment customers? I feel less bad about paying more on a deposit. I feel upset paying more on a final payment. Especially in my case where I know my avionics are outside of Van’s facility and are currently at Stein. That feels like a bait and switch if product has left their doors and is drop shipped from their supplier. What keeps me me from going and paying the balance owed to stein vs vans new inflated price? I guess vans/stein work contract and the bankruptcy court. Doh

They did mention that they were missing details on Engine/Avionic deposits. It seemed like Vans isn't sure if/how price increases would work here. You get to 'wait' more. Nothing worse than sitting in the information void when decisions need to be made.

 

[sc_pilot]

If we look at both those situations, the pertinent question would now appear to be "If I am not on the list but should be, how do I get onto it?" Do these folks have to register their claim with the court?

Personally I'm in a different category of 'not on the list but should be'. I have no deposits down or back ordered parts pending, but with plenty of defective LCPs in both of my delivered kits I don't consider Van's to have (yet) fulfilled the contract.

Unfortunately, I guess since you did get product, albeit crappy defective product… you were still delivered something for what you ordered. Your undelivered back orders and undelivered product is what the bankruptcy is for I guess. Cause they took money and delivered nothing. Those people are on the list. One poster commented their budget accounts for the laser cut program at a very high internal cost to vans… so appears they might plan to cover that at no charge to the builder, in which case no need to submit it to the court. But I have no clue how any of this works. I just know that taking money and having delivered product (even bad product) isn’t as bad as delivering no product at all.

 

[bertschb]

Then I guess the question is, are their customers who paid in full with no kit delivery yet on that list?

Yes. There are two listings for my name. One is for a kit I made final payment on in August which hasn't been delivered yet and another for a kit with just a deposit.

However, the order for my Thunderbolt engine is NOT on the list.

 

[sc_pilot]

They did mention that they were missing details on Engine/Avionic deposits. It seemed like Vans isn't sure if/how price increases would work here. You get to 'wait' more. Nothing worse than sitting in the information void when decisions need to be made.

The required payment date on their new inflated kit prices need to be explicitly clear if asking for more money. Use to be if you ordered and didn’t have funds in time, you could loose your spot in line and pay the next delivery window’s higher kit cost. I’m sure it won't work that way now. Basically, people will be forced to try and scrounge 30% (or some amount) more of their balance payment or more importantly, their paid in full amount. If you have engine and avionics orders that total over 83k in my case, how do people just find an extra $25k laying around in 2 weeks or a month to make that decision? Someone let me know cause pulling an unsecured personal loan out for a company in bankruptcy seems like bad financial planning… even more so than building a plane at 26

 

[flyrlfs]

The required payment date on their new inflated kit prices need to be explicitly clear if asking for more money. Use to be if you ordered and didn’t have funds in time, you could loose your spot in line and pay the next delivery window’s higher kit cost. I’m sure it won't work that way now. Basically, people will be forced to try and scrounge 30% (or some amount) more of their balance payment or more importantly, their paid in full amount. If you have engine and avionics orders that total over 83k in my case, how do people just find $25k laying around in 2 weeks or a month to make that decision? Someone let me know cause pulling an unsecured personal loan out for a company in bankruptcy seems scary to me even if theirs a court overseeing things.

You aren't alone here. 30% increase is speculative. But, I suspect that is a valid value based on spreadsheet from Vans. I truly hope Vans treats Engine/Avionics separately, with no increase. They have no stake in this. Unless the vendors raise their rates, Vans has no reason to arbitrarily add 'dealer markup' to your order.

 

[GregInIdaho]

...I feel less bad about paying more on a deposit. I feel upset paying more on a final payment. Especially in my case where I know my avionics are outside of Van’s facility and are currently at Stein. That feels like a bait and switch if product has left their doors and is drop shipped from their supplier. ...:

Looking at the top twenty creditors, notice that Lycoming is around $500,000. Those are engines customers have paid for, shipped by Lycoming and Van's has not paid. My guess is that Lycoming is probably not increasing further credit, and engines will be pay as you go. I do not see Rotax on the list, so Van's is not far behind with them. Their are probably more Lycomings customer paid in full but not paid to Lycoming.

SteinAir is seventh on the list at about $60,000. That means they are owed for three or four avionics packages, built not shipped. Mine is also one of them. Mine is sitting on their shelf with my name on it. Stein does not begin building until we pay Van's complete. I paid in full in August. I was told I had to pay in full so Van's could ship parts to SteinAir. Turns out the parts were a small part of the package.

My guess would be that on my $45000 avionics package, Van's would have made a commission (15%??) and supplied some (10%) of the parts for the panel. That would make maybe $34000 due to SteinAir on my package. That's a pretty big hole for me.

 

[GrahamF]

Unfortunately, I guess since you did get product, albeit crappy defective product… you were still delivered something for what you ordered. Your undelivered back orders and undelivered product is what the bankruptcy is for I guess. Cause they took money and delivered nothing. Those people are on the list. One poster commented their budget accounts for the laser cut program at a very high internal cost to vans… so appears they might plan to cover that at no charge to the builder, in which case no need to submit it to the court. But I have no clue how any of this works. I just know that taking money and having delivered product (even bad product) isn’t as bad as delivering no product at all.

I get where you're going on that, but the list of creditors is just an artefact of how Van's produced it. It's a simple extract from their orders database, filtered for 'deposit paid, not yet shipped' or 'paid in full, not yet shipped'. The bankruptcy court decides who has a claim, Van's does not get to decide that. LCP claims have not been included because they have no information they can supply on those who may wish to make a claim.

There are other interesting aspects to the creditors list. The first is that individual customers are split out into multiple claims based on their multiple orders. A cynic might say this conveniently allowed Van's to keep any customers off the top 20 list.

Then there is the fact that some of the trade creditors on the top 20 list are relatively routine amounts (20-40k) that a company the size of Van's might typically run as a credit line with its suppliers. There is every chance that these are just instantaneous 'when the music stops' amounts, and that Van's does not actually have overdue invoices from these companies nor does it intend leaving them unpaid. So yes technically, when the papers are filed they are correctly listed among the largest creditors, but it may be somewhat disingenuous.

If customers got onto the top 20 list then that might become really quite problematic for trying to get the plan passed by the court. Does any customer here believe they have a total claim for more than $27k, which is apparently the 20th largest unsecured creditor.

 

[bertschb]

Does any customer here believe they have a total claim for more than $27k, which is apparently the 20th largest unsecured creditor.

I have $30,337...

$11,687 Fully paid but not delivered fuselage kit
$4,300 Deposit on finishing kit
$14,350 Deposit on engine
$30,337

 

[Jonnyb]

Then there is the fact that some of the trade creditors on the top 20 list are relatively routine amounts (20-40k) that a company the size of Van's might typically run as a credit line with its suppliers. There is every chance that these are just instantaneous 'when the music stops' amounts, and that Van's does not actually have overdue invoices from these companies nor does it intend leaving them unpaid. So yes technically, when the papers are filed they are correctly listed among the largest creditors, but it may be somewhat disingenuous.

The same can be said of customers though couldn’t it?

Vans may have every intention of sending out kits and engines to fully paid up customers. Therefore are those customers creditors or not?

This is a difficult one for me. Here in the U.K. if a company goes bankrupt it stops operating, therefore if you have an order in for something you’re not going to get it and you become a creditor. Fairly simple. With chapter 11, you may well have an order in, but the company has every intention and the means to supply your order. Therefore are you a creditor or not?

 

[fr0gpil0t]

If you read the verbiage above “the list” you will see this is a sample of 100 outstanding sales contracts not all contracts. The purpose is to illustrate to the court what contracts should be rejected. Waste of paper to list every contract

 

[fr0gpil0t]

Way more than 100. Flyer of Brazil alone has 60+ individual kit orders on that list that if combined, would likely have them in the Top 20 creditors list.

May not have the 109 exactly right but the point is not everyone is listed.
The clear purpose of Bankruptcy Rule 6006(f) is to protect the due process rights of counterparties to Customer Contracts. Counterparties must be able to locate their contracts and readily determine whether their contracts are being rejected.
22. Bankruptcy Rule 6006(f)(3) and (4) are inapplicable here because this Motion seeks only to reject, and not assume at this time, executory contracts. By this Motion, Debtor seeks court authority to waive the requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 6006(f)(6). The due process rights of counterparties to Customer Contracts are protected if the Motion is not limited to 100 executory contracts, but the Rejection Notice is limited to no more 100 executory contracts. It is the Rejection Notice, more than the Motion, that the counterparties will be reviewing to determine if their contract is on the list. This process will essentially comply with the purpose and intent of BR 6006(f)(6) in that no customer will have to look through a list of more than 100 to find its contract. Moreover, each of the customers already know that they are a customer and because all Kit and Aircraft Contracts are being rejected, the Kit and Aircraft Contract counterparties know their contract will be rejected. Looking at the list to find their name is more of a technicality than a requirement in these circumstances, and given the list will be alphabetical and limited to 100 names, it will not be very burdensome to review. On the other hand, because Debtor is party to and rejecting over 1,500 Kit and Aircraft Contracts, it will be administratively burdensome for the court and burdensome and costly for Debtor to file and serve more than 15 separate motions to reject, which all seek the identical relief. In addition, Debtor intend to send a direct email to each Customer Contract holder informin

 

[gap]

Is anyone with an engine, prop or avionics package on the list?

The filings state Vans is rejecting kit orders first, and then will address third-party orders. The posted motion to reject contracts presumably only covers kits:

25. Customers with open kit orders that were placed prior to the filing date will be
contacted regarding pricing changes that Debtor will be implementing. These customers will be
sent an email directing them to a web-link where they can view and act upon the details of their
existing order, the amount of their deposit, and Debtor’s proposed modifications. Debtor is
offering to apply the full dollar amount of previously remitted deposits and payments to modified
kit orders. Customers with kit orders not agreeing to the changes proposed will be terminated as
of January 15, 2024.

26. Customers with open engine, propeller and avionics kit orders will be contacted in
a similar manner, but at a later date following discussions with these third-party suppliers, when
Debtor has a clearer picture for timing of product delivery and treatment of their deposit.

 

[gap]

My guess is that Lycoming is probably not increasing further credit, and engines will be pay as you go.

Maybe, but there's no valid business reason to do so.

Debts incurred after filing bankruptcy are first in line for repayment. It's pretty safe to extend credit to a BK company that has DIP financing.

 

[gap]

Then there is the fact that some of the trade creditors on the top 20 list are relatively routine amounts (20-40k) that a company the size of Van's might typically run as a credit line with its suppliers. There is every chance that these are just instantaneous 'when the music stops' amounts, and that Van's does not actually have overdue invoices from these companies nor does it intend leaving them unpaid. So yes technically, when the papers are filed they are correctly listed among the largest creditors, but it may be somewhat disingenuous.

When the music stopped, it stopped for ALL pre-petition debt, regardless of amount or aging.

The court must approve any payment of pre-petition debt. Vans can't unilaterally decide to pay one creditor over another.

 

[Kolg]

Good perspective

……I stand with Van’s (as I stand with all the small businesses that are part of the homebuilt community) - and I stand with the many good people at Van’s, many of whom I know and call friends.

We don’t know the details of what the future looks like, but I bet it will include Van’s designs, and people building Van’s designs. Good people find a way.

Paul

Well stated, Paul. Words of wisdom

 

[GregInIdaho]

When the music stopped, it stopped for ALL pre-petition debt, regardless of amount or aging.

The court must approve any payment of pre-petition debt. Vans can't unilaterally decide to pay one creditor over another.

However I suspect that the people with third party kits who have paid in full like sc_pilot should be in a better position than those with mere deposits. These contracts are not executory and thus not subject to cancellation/modification. It is a fight between the vendor and Vans about the payment terms to the creditor. Lycoming, SteinAir, Rotax are all going to reach an agreement with Van's. Once Van's get the product, they should pass it along to the customer who has paid in full.

 

[bmellis11]

However I suspect that the people with third party kits who have paid in full like sc_pilot should be in a better position than those with mere deposits. These contracts are not executory and thus not subject to cancellation/modification. It is a fight between the vendor and Vans about the payment terms to the creditor. Lycoming, SteinAir, Rotax are all going to reach an agreement with Van's. Once Van's get the product, they should pass it along to the customer who has paid in full.

It's more likely that Van's resells the vendors' products to you at a markup, instead of them just being a conduit for your payment to the vendor. It's also likely that Van's has not paid the vendors for any of the products that haven't yet shipped. So the contract would be executory because Van's has not performed by shipping the goods or paying the vendor to ship the goods.

As a general rule, if you have paid Van's for something and not yet received it then you are a general unsecured creditor.

 

[GregInIdaho]

It's more likely that Van's resells the vendors' products to you at a markup, instead of them just being a conduit for your payment to the vendor. It's also likely that Van's has not paid the vendors for any of the products that haven't yet shipped. So the contract would be executory because Van's has not performed by shipping the goods or paying the vendor to ship the goods.

As a general rule, if you have paid Van's for something and not yet received it then you are a general unsecured creditor.

I think an executory contract is one in which BOTH parties have something to perform. If I have paid in full, I have no further performance, and the contract is no longer executory, and thus not subject to assumption/rejection by the debtor.

But I think my point was that if a vendor is holding my avionics awaiting payment, that the fight is between the vendor and Van's. I don't think that upon payment by Van's to the vendor, that Van's can then take receipt of my goods (identified by the vendor for me) and hold them hostage for more money (by rejection of my contract). I may still be an unsecured debtor, but should not be subject to the forced price increase. Just my thoughts...

 

[sc_pilot]

However I suspect that the people with third party kits who have paid in full like sc_pilot should be in a better position than those with mere deposits. These contracts are not executory and thus not subject to cancellation/modification. It is a fight between the vendor and Vans about the payment terms to the creditor. Lycoming, SteinAir, Rotax are all going to reach an agreement with Van's. Once Van's get the product, they should pass it along to the customer who has paid in full.

Maybe. But at the moment I’ve paid them: $45,907.53. Not including roughly 4k in Rv12 finish kit backorders. So more like 50k but whatever. If my paid for dynon avionics that’s at steins shop currently gets reinvoiced, and my 39k balance payment on my rotax engine also raised at say the 30% people are guessing to cover lost deposits. Thats 25k I need to cough up. Some might say that I’m in a better position. But at 26 working an average blue collar job… spent life savings on a dream… I’d say I’m in no good position. No one’s in a good position. This means I have to come up with 25k in the time they’ll request payment to avoid taking a $46k loss in the bankruptcy creditor line. Hard pill to swallow at a young age that was caused through no fault of ours. I’m reasonable and would be willing to negotiate on a new contract… but there has to be a negotiation not an all or nothing situation.

Thats why when people like Paul write that just cause we’re purchasing aircraft we are better off financially than the employees at vans… I’d say not all of us are building on a retired nasa career budget. Some of us are working the same jobs as the punch press operators. Thats why I don’t have patience for opinions from those with no monetary stake in the game or wouldn’t be financially ruined if they lost $45,907.53 or more than their annual salary.

Remember this wasn’t an investment with risk or assumed possible lost. I purchased an item just like you would at the grocery store. If I wanted to invest… I would not be throwing Rv12 sums of money on any sort of risk at my age. I’m preaching to the choir on all this, we know where we each stand but thanks for coming to my ted talk

 

[mvs163]

Well said Jacob.
Mike

 

[Bolgarm]

Hello;
I have a complete rv-14 kit on order with a deposit paid via credit card. I contacted my credit card company and they indicated that if the order is not fulfilled thenI can dispute the charge and I am potentially able to obtain a refund with the credit card company essentially becoming the unsecured creditor. I did not get into the details of this precise situation . It was only a general conversion today but for those who paid by credit card it may be worth a call to the card issuer.

 

[flyrlfs]

Maybe. But at the moment I’ve paid them: $45,907.53. Not including roughly 4k in Rv12 finish kit backorders. So more like 50k but whatever. If my paid for dynon avionics that’s at steins shop currently gets reinvoiced, and my 39k balance payment on my rotax engine also raised at say the 30% people are guessing to cover lost deposits. Thats 25k I need to cough up. Some might say that I’m in a better position. But at 26 working an average blue collar job… spent life savings on a dream… I’d say I’m in no good position. No one’s in a good position. This means I have to come up with 25k in the time they’ll request payment to avoid taking a $46k loss in the bankruptcy creditor line. Hard pill to swallow at a young age that was caused through no fault of ours. I’m reasonable and would be willing to negotiate on a new contract… but there has to be a negotiation not an all or nothing situation.

Thats why when people like Paul write that just cause we’re purchasing aircraft we are better off financially than the employees at vans… I’d say not all of us are building on a retired nasa career budget. Some of us are working the same jobs as the punch press operators. Thats why I don’t have patience for opinions from those with no monetary stake in the game or wouldn’t be financially ruined if they lost $45,907.53 or more than their annual salary.

Remember this wasn’t an investment with risk or assumed possible lost. I purchased an item just like you would at the grocery store. If I wanted to invest… I would not be throwing Rv12 sums of money on any sort of risk at my age. I’m preaching to the choir on all this, we know where we each stand but thanks for coming to my ted talk

I agree! I would/could renegotiate. A better option is/was for Vans to ask for the deposit to go to 50% to help with the cash flow issues. It means they would still lose $ per kit, but that's an expense the stock holder(s) should absorb. Vans could increase prices on future kit purchases. Instead, they presented the "We'll get back to you with a $ amount we want or else go wait in line for a refund. Take it or leave it." Just because we have an expensive hobby, doesn't mean we have unlimited funds.

 

[GrahamF]

Maybe. But at the moment I’ve paid them: $45,907.53. Not including roughly 4k in Rv12 finish kit backorders. So more like 50k but whatever. If my paid for dynon avionics that’s at steins shop currently gets reinvoiced, and my 39k balance payment on my rotax engine also raised at say the 30% people are guessing to cover lost deposits. Thats 25k I need to cough up. Some might say that I’m in a better position. But at 26 working an average blue collar job… spent life savings on a dream… I’d say I’m in no good position. No one’s in a good position. This means I have to come up with 25k in the time they’ll request payment to avoid taking a $46k loss in the bankruptcy creditor line. Hard pill to swallow at a young age that was caused through no fault of ours. I’m reasonable and would be willing to negotiate on a new contract… but there has to be a negotiation not an all or nothing situation.

Thats why when people like Paul write that just cause we’re purchasing aircraft we are better off financially than the employees at vans… I’d say not all of us are building on a retired nasa career budget. Some of us are working the same jobs as the punch press operators. Thats why I don’t have patience for opinions from those with no monetary stake in the game or wouldn’t be financially ruined if they lost $45,907.53 or more than their annual salary.

Remember this wasn’t an investment with risk or assumed possible lost. I purchased an item just like you would at the grocery store. If I wanted to invest… I would not be throwing Rv12 sums of money on any sort of risk at my age. I’m preaching to the choir on all this, we know where we each stand but thanks for coming to my ted talk

Ouch, Jacob - you have my sympathy.

You've expressed that well. Van's is a retail business - this is not B2B - it's fundamentally no different to buying things at the grocery store and you expect to recieve what you paid for.

Two points:

1) If you possibly can, hang in there and take whatever hits are necessary to complete the build. That may require more resources now, but it's the route to the least overall loss.

2) If you can't, it's a very expensive but very informative life lesson about trust and putting money down.

 

[KRviator]

2) If you can't, it's a very expensive but very informative life lesson about trust and putting money down.

The problem with this last comment is, in the EAB world, if you can't (Couldn't) trust Vans of all the EAB options out there, who could be trusted with our $$$ for a kit?

While I don't have a dog in this fight, I would encourage builders to suck up the increased kit pricing, and perhaps offset these increases with simpler avionics or a used engine or prop to come out the end of it with a flying RV for 'the same' planned cost. It might not be exactly what is wanted, but I'd rather have my -9 flying with a 1000TSOH engine than a factory new IO-320 if that meant the difference between cancelling the order & losing the deposit, or copping that pineapple, building on, and coming out the other end to fly an aeroplane you built in your back shed.

 

[benbell4140]

The problem with this last comment is, in the EAB world, if you can't (Couldn't) trust Vans of all the EAB options out there, who could be trusted with our $$$ for a kit?

While I don't have a dog in this fight, I would encourage builders to suck up the increased kit pricing, and perhaps offset these increases with simpler avionics or a used engine or prop to come out the end of it with a flying RV for 'the same' planned cost. It might not be exactly what is wanted, but I'd rather have my -9 flying with a 1000TSOH engine than a factory new IO-320 if that meant the difference between cancelling the order & losing the deposit, or copping that pineapple, building on, and coming out the other end to fly an aeroplane you built in your back shed.

This was exactly my plan before all of this. Not sure what I’m to do. For now I’ll just be patiently waiting.

 

[N82VM]

I don’t disagree with your advice about figuring out how to make a flying airplane. If you can afford it, no reason to cut your nose off.

I can’t see how after doing so anyone in their right mind would ever be a repeat customer or encourage anyone else to build Vans. This will surely impact sales and growth for quite some time. All the talk of coming out stronger doesn’t mean much when there’s 1800+ LCP customers, unknown number of kits with increased pricing, and an unknown number of prop/engine/avionics customers with 5 figure deposits that may disappear. That’s several thousand folks that most likely won’t be singing praises. For the sake of argument let’s call it 2500 people including kit orders and engines/props/avionics. That number is more than one fifth the current flying fleet of 11k. That’s a lot of unhappy owners.

I had plans to build another aircraft with/for my son but after all this (my 10k engine deposit) it just won’t be a Vans. For the record I’m planning on absorbing the deposit loss and finishing. Other than a few LCPs I have the entire kit.

 

[cactusman]

Hello;
I have a complete rv-14 kit on order with a deposit paid via credit card. I contacted my credit card company and they indicated that if the order is not fulfilled thenI can dispute the charge and I am potentially able to obtain a refund with the credit card company essentially becoming the unsecured creditor. I did not get into the details of this precise situation . It was only a general conversion today but for those who paid by credit card it may be worth a call to the card issuer.

Yes and the downside to Vans is the credit card companies will probably start to withhold a percentage of their deposits to Vans. In airline BK, the credit card processors immediately instituted holdbacks on ticket purchases thus putting a further strain on cash flow.

Not saying this will happen here - and in fact it sounds like Van's has already taken steps to segregate deposit funds for kit and engine deposits - that may assuage the CCP from instituting a hold back.

 

[maxmirot]

Hello;
I have a complete rv-14 kit on order with a deposit paid via credit card. I contacted my credit card company and they indicated that if the order is not fulfilled then I can dispute the charge and I am potentially able to obtain a refund with the credit card company essentially becoming the unsecured creditor. I did not get into the details of this precise situation . It was only a general conversion today but for those who paid by credit card it may be worth a call to the card issuer.

Best suggestion so far. It may depend on the CC company and their policy.
Some deposits are years old. If I was less than 90 days they are more like to cover it.

 

[scsmith]

The list in the petition of all of our names doesn't seem to have everyone. A few of us who are waiting on backorder parts from "delivered" kits and have engine deposits from over a year ago aren't there. Guess we're in no mans land for now.

This post and others make reference to a list of "us" on a spreadsheet or something showing our orders. I looked through all the petition documents, and scanned the rest of the thread here, and I can not find such a list. Could someone point me to it?

Thanks

 

[Brantel]

This post and others make reference to a list of "us" on a spreadsheet or something showing our orders. I looked through all the petition documents, and scanned the rest of the thread here, and I can not find such a list. Could someone point me to it?

Thanks

It’s at the end of the motion to reject customer contracts.

Your on it by the way….

 

[Mistfarer]

..

Best summary I have read so far. Your story is painful to read, and I feel so sorry for you.

I do not think that this Chapter 11 is good news in any way, shape or form, like some have claimed. Van's needs customers to pay the bill, and Chapter 11 gives Van's the legal protection to minimize the impact of doing so. This is going to hurt.

 

[auburnaviator]

This post and others make reference to a list of "us" on a spreadsheet or something showing our orders. I looked through all the petition documents, and scanned the rest of the thread here, and I can not find such a list. Could someone point me to it?

Thanks

Page 2 post 12 from bmellis11 has all of the documents. The list of names document is the bottom left document and page 18 of 45 starts the list of names.
If you’re builder number 83585 you’re on page 41/45.

Regards,
Zach

 

[rocketman1988]

Or

Best summary I have read so far. Your story is painful to read, and I feel so sorry for you.

I do not think that this Chapter 11 is good news in any way, shape or form, like some have claimed. Van's needs customers to pay the bill, and Chapter 11 gives Van's the legal protection to minimize the impact of doing so. This is going to hurt.

Would you have preferred chapter 7? Then everyone loses everything as vans would be no more.

Chapter 11 is arguably better as they intend to stay in business.

 

[sc_pilot]

Would you have preferred chapter 7? Then everyone loses everything as vans would be no more.

Chapter 11 is arguably better as they intend to stay in business.

I simply prefer I was sent what I purchased…. as I’m sure everyone else.

I can’t see how after doing so anyone in their right mind would ever be a repeat customer or encourage anyone else to build Vans. This will surely impact sales and growth for quite some time. All the talk of coming out stronger doesn’t mean much when there’s 1800+ LCP customers, unknown number of kits with increased pricing, and an unknown number of prop/engine/avionics customers with 5 figure deposits that may disappear. That’s several thousand folks that most likely won’t be singing praises. For the sake of argument let’s call it 2500 people including kit orders and engines/props/avionics. That number is more than one fifth the current flying fleet of 11k. That’s a lot of unhappy owners.

That 1/5th the flying fleet is a viewpoint I hadn’t seen considered. That’s very damaging to public perception. Unfortunately I think their public perception is just too good to go sour. I say this in the sense that I still find rv owners who have no clue they’re in financial problems or bankruptcy, or continue to tell me my issues are just my “perception’. It will take some years before that generation is gone and the “bankruptcy” generation becomes the new majority. Conversely, if it does go sour… The bankruptcy generation may be a group of older builders that don’t exist 15/20 years from now. But seeing as Covid brought on a lot of what looked to be a younger crowd to the market, hard to tell. Some added debt to save face now might go a heck of a long way in the future. But I’m not sure they are considering that. Sometimes when you have a good perception you leverage that to help yourself out which I think Hamstreet sees and is planning on using. If canceling contracts is not Dick’s goal for customer satisfaction, he’s going to have a hard time differing with the hamstreet advisors that he’s paying several 100k for their opinion. If I hire someone’s opinion, I’m pretty inclined to want to listen to it.

 

[sc_pilot]

Ouch, Jacob - you have my sympathy.

You've expressed that well. Van's is a retail business - this is not B2B - it's fundamentally no different to buying things at the grocery store and you expect to recieve what you paid for.

Two points:

1) If you possibly can, hang in there and take whatever hits are necessary to complete the build. That may require more resources now, but it's the route to the least overall loss.

2) If you can't, it's a very expensive but very informative life lesson about trust and putting money down.

My build spreadsheet points to that the cheapest option is to continue forward. If it’s under 30% for my case with the engine and avionics (I hear some saying no reason to be 30% high on these items) It won’t be fun but I can probably sell some stuff, get a small loan to continue. I actually wouldn’t have a problem taking out a loan for this stuff if I could simply be shown my completed panel or engine/serial number in a crate with tracking label before making second “final payment”. It’s the trust. Yeah they will do me wrong by breaking contract but I can put that aside since I’m so close to being done with the plane. Hopefully I’m not the first round of people they ask for more money from and I can see they’re delivering.

But if the new contract states market price at delivery time, and there’s still no refund route, and no delivery timeline. How can any of us plan? That’s basically asking us for a blank check. Hopefully the judge will see that and ask what Van or Van’s thinks of that request.

 

[scsmith]

Page 2 post 12 from bmellis11 has all of the documents. The list of names document is the bottom left document and page 18 of 45 starts the list of names.
If you’re builder number 83585 you’re on page 41/45.

Regards,
Zach

Ah, thanks very much. I just didn't bother to read down through the exhibits.