At which point you stagnate, able to (just barely) do your job, but not in an exemplary or proficient manner. Good enough that you don't get demoted or fired, and far too poorly to ever get promoted. Here you are, and here you shall stay.
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Van's Files for Reorganization Under Chapter 11
- Thread starter greghughespdx
- Start date
At which point you stagnate, able to (just barely) do your job, but not in an exemplary or proficient manner. Good enough that you don't get demoted or fired, and far too poorly to ever get promoted. Here you are, and here you shall stay.
What bugs me about all of this the most is that the Van's leadership team seems to take little responsibility for this. Every announcement is a list of excuses followed by give us more time and in this round give us more time and money.
Have they really not realized yet that this wasn't a random sequence of outside events but it was a total failure of the leadership team (from CFO to QC).
I have seen CEOs stand up at many occasions saying: "I screwed up." Even though saying that doesn't fix anything by itself you do have to reach that level of self awareness to not make the same mistakes again. I am not sure they have.
Oliver
Have they really not realized yet that this wasn't a random sequence of outside events but it was a total failure of the leadership team (from CFO to QC).
I have seen CEOs stand up at many occasions saying: "I screwed up." Even though saying that doesn't fix anything by itself you do have to reach that level of self awareness to not make the same mistakes again. I am not sure they have.
Oliver
It is very difficult for any of us to know what is going on behind closed doors at Van’s. Ownership may come in time. Keeping the company afloat is likely the higher priority at the moment.
Without meaning to imply it's good or bad, you have to understand that everything they do right now will be under the advice of counsel. It's nearly certain that advice is to not say anything. What they do say is carefully reviewed, Van is reading from a prompter for a reason.
Spot on! Vans is not being transparent. And they don't make commitments. "Give me money and time". Both to be decided by them later. I waited 12 months on an RV6 order, from Vans. I never even got an expected ship date. I kept asking and all I kept hearing was 'wait'. I had to give up on that and move on to an RV14. Then this. sigh.
There's nothing stopping Vans from reopening the web portals with increased prices and taking new orders now! We'll have to wait until after 12/19, when they meet the judge again to get final approval on contracts before we learn about new pricing.
As for the 'whining' comment, from another poster. People with limited budget thought they had their dream in sight. We executed in good faith entering into a buy contract and assumed the price is locked and factored in our budget. No-one expects to renegotiate a contract after the fact while deposits are held hostage.
CORRECTION: I just learned they are opening the portal this weekend with 32% increases and increased deposits.
Last edited:
It is unfair that prices are changing after people entered a contract with Vans- that's why it's being handled in a court of law and credit card companies are willing to refund deposits.
Your signature states that you have your full RV10 kit in hand- your kit likely just got more valuable...you're seeing this situation from a very different perspective than most.
For example, I sent my fuselage deposit three days before they announced chapter 11- hard to not feel a little swindled.
We all get that they need to increase prices, but it doesn't change the fact that a lot of people are getting hurt from financial, emotional, and loss of time perspectives thru no fault of their own. It's natural for people to speculate on outcomes, especially with the wonky way information has been released.
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
Looks like 32% for most stuff is close.
https://www.vansaircraft.com/2023/1...k0MJJwbKEbaAr1CbKk44y38xtbdan0OpcULPAPTioL_0Y
https://www.vansaircraft.com/2023/1...k0MJJwbKEbaAr1CbKk44y38xtbdan0OpcULPAPTioL_0Y
pfitzuscg
Member
The RV-8 SB was $25,500 in 2020, $34665 in March, 2023 prior to the bankruptcy filing -- a 35.9% increase. The RV-8 QB was $36,900 in 2020, $52,375 in 2023 -- a 41.9% increase. The RV-10 QB went up 32.6% over the same time frame. Not sure where the narrative that they haven't raised their prices over the past few years comes from.
Some costly issues occurred that hurt cash flow, but it's not like they were oblivious to inflation.
Last edited:
Excellent point, and the primary reason why so many of us put full orders in when we did. We had a budget, and ran the calculus to know if this was doable. Life is never certain... Sucks!
32% is a bitter pill. I would like some insight into how they came up with that for all kits, across the board.
Got to go, I have to figure out if I can somehow manage to make a 32% price increase work in my budget.
In the best scenario, you get moved into the position of the Free-Floating Apex (ref. The Peter Principle book).
czechsix
Well Known Member
From my perspective, one of the worst (and unexpected) changes Van's has announced is no more deletions of individual components from kit orders. I already have the full Beringer wheels/brakes set that I bought before ordering my fuselage kit (because it would help me determine what components to delete from both fuselage and finish kits). And I ordered the empennage fairing early because I wanted to finish the emp fiberglass stuff all at the same time. Now I'm going to be forced to buy a new set of wheels and brakes and another emp fairing that I don't need, and find a way to sell them somewhere (and while I might find a buyer on eBay for the wheels/brakes, who is gonna want an RV-14 emp fairing?). And that failure-prone Andair fuel pump that most of us delete from our fuselage kits to replace with the more reliable AFP product? Now everybody is going to have one of those sitting on the shelf, money down the drain with only option to resell it at a loss of both time and money.
I sure wish Van's would at least grandfather in those of us who are past the wing/emp stage and work with us in a more flexible manner...a lot of us have made significant decisions that assumed we'd be able to delete some parts from fuselage and finish kits. I expected prices to go up to cover cost of inflation, LCP, etc, but the inability to remove parts that I planned my project around for years is exasperating.
This policy change will cost me at least an additional $7,000 (among many other things, I just ordered my full Beringer kit this morning).
BUT, these are the type of changes Vans needs to make to stay profitable. It makes MUCH more sense for Vans to not allow deletions and additions and get multiple kits stacked up and ready to ship rather than having every kit be a custom order. Cuts down on paperwork for the office staff. Makes it much easier for the crating/shipping folks. Easier to manage inventory, etc.
A very costly change for me personally but a good move for the company. I would have done the same thing.
Tdeman
Well Known Member
But if we take a step back...
From what I remember, and can find, the kit price for an 7/8/9 slow build in 2006 was about $20k.
(And at this time, I was in middle school, selfishly disappointed although unsurprised every Christmas that there wasn't an RV-4 kit under the Christmas tree with my name on it).
I'd suspect that the 14 year window between then and 2020, really should have seen increases greater than 5 thousand bucks. While the last couple years have seen price increases climbing up the ladder, the feet of the ladder were below the ground level.
For a comparative data point: My engine (which was the barn-find of the century when I bought it from a friend in 2019), was built by Aerosport power in 2007. The price paid to Aerosport for that fresh O-320-D1A?
$10,000.
If kits followed the same ramp up that engines did since than, an RV-7/8/9 kit would be 70k+.
From what I remember, and can find, the kit price for an 7/8/9 slow build in 2006 was about $20k.
(And at this time, I was in middle school, selfishly disappointed although unsurprised every Christmas that there wasn't an RV-4 kit under the Christmas tree with my name on it).
I'd suspect that the 14 year window between then and 2020, really should have seen increases greater than 5 thousand bucks. While the last couple years have seen price increases climbing up the ladder, the feet of the ladder were below the ground level.
For a comparative data point: My engine (which was the barn-find of the century when I bought it from a friend in 2019), was built by Aerosport power in 2007. The price paid to Aerosport for that fresh O-320-D1A?
$10,000.
If kits followed the same ramp up that engines did since than, an RV-7/8/9 kit would be 70k+.
Michael Burbidge
Well Known Member
Inaccurate
This is just factually inaccurate. I started my RV-9A build in 2006 and I remember engine prices to be around 20,000. Check out the way back machine. An O-320-D1A from Aerosport costs between 21,000 and 22,000, in 2006, depending on how you had it configured.
https://web.archive.org/web/20061105163312/http://www.aerosportpower.com/Prices.htm
And here's engine prices from Vans in March 2006: https://web.archive.org/web/2006031...44152-238-144&browse=engines&product=lycoming
Lycoming O-320-D1A $23850.00
If you put that in a standard CPI based inflation calculator it comes out to around $36000 today, which is close to what Van's was charging before things were shut down. (I can't actually see that currently)
You are correct about the kit prices. A slow build was around $18K. https://web.archive.org/web/20060209020427/http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/kitprice.htm, put that in a CPI inflation calculator and it would be about $30K today.
Michael-
This is just factually inaccurate. I started my RV-9A build in 2006 and I remember engine prices to be around 20,000. Check out the way back machine. An O-320-D1A from Aerosport costs between 21,000 and 22,000, in 2006, depending on how you had it configured.
https://web.archive.org/web/20061105163312/http://www.aerosportpower.com/Prices.htm
And here's engine prices from Vans in March 2006: https://web.archive.org/web/2006031...44152-238-144&browse=engines&product=lycoming
Lycoming O-320-D1A $23850.00
If you put that in a standard CPI based inflation calculator it comes out to around $36000 today, which is close to what Van's was charging before things were shut down. (I can't actually see that currently)
You are correct about the kit prices. A slow build was around $18K. https://web.archive.org/web/20060209020427/http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/kitprice.htm, put that in a CPI inflation calculator and it would be about $30K today.
Michael-
Last edited:
Kit policies
I see the order forms have been revised as described in the latest Vans Dec 9 release. I do not find a revised Kit and Shipping policy This is the old one you can search the Vans site:
KIT ORDERING AND SHIPPING DETAILS AND POLICIES
The following terms and policies apply to all orders for Van’s Aircraft RV kits.
I see the order forms have been revised as described in the latest Vans Dec 9 release. I do not find a revised Kit and Shipping policy This is the old one you can search the Vans site:
KIT ORDERING AND SHIPPING DETAILS AND POLICIES
The following terms and policies apply to all orders for Van’s Aircraft RV kits.
czechsix
Well Known Member
Customer Deposit Account
As previously noted the deposits for new orders will NOT be held in escrow. The announcement from today says:
"Deposits received for kits will be held in our newly established customer deposit account, which is not used for Van’s general operating expenses. Your kit deposit will remain in the customer deposit account until we start to manufacture, source, and or assemble the components of your kit. At that time, we will send you a “Notice of Production Commencement” and thereafter, we will move your deposit from the customer deposit account into Van’s operating account. Approximately 60 days before we crate your kit, we will contact you to let you know that you are within our “Kit Crating Window” and you will be given 14 days to submit the remaining balance due for your order."
It's going to be a pretty stressful time (months? years?) between deposit and kit shipment, because if Van's ends up in Chapter 7, that 'customer deposit account' isn't going to be a safe haven ensuring you get your money back if no kit is delivered. From an accounting perspective I'm glad Van's is making this change to help wean them off of spending deposit money on day to day operations, but they would instill a lot more confidence in would-be customers if they used an escrow account instead.
I'll add that if you read the wording carefully, "your kit deposit will remain in the customer deposit account until we start to manufacture, source, and or assemble the components of your kit". Heck, I'd expect some of the components in any given kit to be 'started' in the manufacturing/sourcing process so far in advance of crating/shipping that the funds might be pulled from the customer deposit account almost immediately after the order is placed, even if your kit is a year away from shipping. So the wording sounds good at first blush, but has enough wiggle room to allow Van's to pull it out and use it right away IMO...all they have to do is say they started sourcing any given component (like placing an order for AN3 bolts from a hardware supplier a year in advance) and they've met their criteria to start burning that money. Not making me feel any better at all.
As previously noted the deposits for new orders will NOT be held in escrow. The announcement from today says:
"Deposits received for kits will be held in our newly established customer deposit account, which is not used for Van’s general operating expenses. Your kit deposit will remain in the customer deposit account until we start to manufacture, source, and or assemble the components of your kit. At that time, we will send you a “Notice of Production Commencement” and thereafter, we will move your deposit from the customer deposit account into Van’s operating account. Approximately 60 days before we crate your kit, we will contact you to let you know that you are within our “Kit Crating Window” and you will be given 14 days to submit the remaining balance due for your order."
It's going to be a pretty stressful time (months? years?) between deposit and kit shipment, because if Van's ends up in Chapter 7, that 'customer deposit account' isn't going to be a safe haven ensuring you get your money back if no kit is delivered. From an accounting perspective I'm glad Van's is making this change to help wean them off of spending deposit money on day to day operations, but they would instill a lot more confidence in would-be customers if they used an escrow account instead.
I'll add that if you read the wording carefully, "your kit deposit will remain in the customer deposit account until we start to manufacture, source, and or assemble the components of your kit". Heck, I'd expect some of the components in any given kit to be 'started' in the manufacturing/sourcing process so far in advance of crating/shipping that the funds might be pulled from the customer deposit account almost immediately after the order is placed, even if your kit is a year away from shipping. So the wording sounds good at first blush, but has enough wiggle room to allow Van's to pull it out and use it right away IMO...all they have to do is say they started sourcing any given component (like placing an order for AN3 bolts from a hardware supplier a year in advance) and they've met their criteria to start burning that money. Not making me feel any better at all.
Last edited:
cgeyman
Well Known Member
Please no more whining
Please accept the situation and quit the finger pointing. Mistakes were made but never was there malintent. If you don’t want to build or can’t afford it, then please move on. Berating the managers is not helpful at this point. The prior pricing was a mistake and their product was underpriced by quite a bit.
Cal
Please accept the situation and quit the finger pointing. Mistakes were made but never was there malintent. If you don’t want to build or can’t afford it, then please move on. Berating the managers is not helpful at this point. The prior pricing was a mistake and their product was underpriced by quite a bit.
Cal
IMO escrow accounts would make more customers pony up with more confidence knowing that their funds are safe. Given what's happened, trust with Van's is at an all time low. I think many will be reluctant to send money now just based on what the company is saying. Why not escrow? Pretty easy and cheap to set that up.
No deletions, not a great idea. Lots of builders want better aftermarket parts on their build these days. This will cost them sales in my view. People often build a plane because they want it their way. Some good points made above.
No deletions, not a great idea. Lots of builders want better aftermarket parts on their build these days. This will cost them sales in my view. People often build a plane because they want it their way. Some good points made above.
czechsix
Well Known Member
Another good example is the FWF kit, even if you're not going to the level of customization required for SDS or EFII, lots of us don't want the Plane Power alternator which is widely documented to be unreliable. I'll be putting B&C alternator in my -14. And I'm using a quadrant, not the throttle/prop/mixture knobs that Van's includes. And will likely order a WW prop which comes with the spinner, so I don't need that from Van's either. I might forgo buying the FWF kit altogether, and just order the baffle kit parts from the web store and source the cables, hoses, alternator, and other stuff elsewhere (like I did on my RV-8A).
The VAF classifieds are going to be a lot lot busier in the future with everybody trying to offload stuff they don't want and can't delete, and if there are too many of the same components that aren't wanted, it won't take long to saturate the market and you won't even find a buyer for some of them. I hope Van's rethinks this...what they need to do is improve their processes to more efficiently handle kit modifications and not just force everyone to purchase components they don't want or need. If I just wanted the same airplane as everyone else, I'd buy a spam can where all the decisions were made for me at the factory.
kearney
Well Known Member
Deletions
I am on my 4th - 10 and I have a pretty fixed list of the deletions I like.
That being said, I fully understand why Van's doesn't want deletions. In any business process, it is the exceptions that eat your lunch. Deletions make it hard to balance inventory levels, prevents "pre packaging kits", causes tons of administrative work etc, etc etc. Van's is now in a recovery mode, it needs to become efficient and effective in getting stuff out the door as fast as possible.
I understand why they are doing it which is not to say I like it. If this is the policy going forward, people can either accept this policy or go elsewhere. For those in the queue already, that is a different matter.
For small parts, the impact is limited. For things like windows / wheels & brakes / cowls and other high value parts, the pain will be real.
I am on my 4th - 10 and I have a pretty fixed list of the deletions I like.
That being said, I fully understand why Van's doesn't want deletions. In any business process, it is the exceptions that eat your lunch. Deletions make it hard to balance inventory levels, prevents "pre packaging kits", causes tons of administrative work etc, etc etc. Van's is now in a recovery mode, it needs to become efficient and effective in getting stuff out the door as fast as possible.
I understand why they are doing it which is not to say I like it. If this is the policy going forward, people can either accept this policy or go elsewhere. For those in the queue already, that is a different matter.
For small parts, the impact is limited. For things like windows / wheels & brakes / cowls and other high value parts, the pain will be real.
dmattmul
Well Known Member
Lycoming does something similar
Excellent suggestion, even at $ 125/Hr. fully loaded cost Vans could take 8 hrs customer service and picking costs (260k a year) to place an order 6 months to a year before they ship it. Seems plausible.
We are EXPERIMENTAL builders and don't want what everyone else does. (I don't)
Excellent suggestion, even at $ 125/Hr. fully loaded cost Vans could take 8 hrs customer service and picking costs (260k a year) to place an order 6 months to a year before they ship it. Seems plausible.
We are EXPERIMENTAL builders and don't want what everyone else does. (I don't)
Last edited:
I ordered my emp kit for my 9A in 2008, the finishing kit in 2015, my final price for all the kits (emp through finish) was $25,491. I bought a 105TTSN O-360 for $4800 in 2015 to go with it.
Yes, things have gotten more expensive. I can't make it better for you, only tell you that this is the reality today.
bimmer1980
Member
Limited choices
My suspicion is that the no deletions is part of the process to get control of costs and cash flow as well as get thru the bankruptcy requirements. Since the kit modifications are all variable costs, both on a labor rate, part rate and profit margin, they need to stop that until they have a handle on it.
If they truly knew what their profit margin was on each part, then it would be easier to assign the correct part value and allow for modifications.
It may also require a better inventory control system to allow for accurate modifications. Software system updates require capital... Capital is a bit tough right now...
Hence, eliminate variables and focus on efficiency, inventory, profit margins and cash flow. As they come up to speed, maybe this custom feature will be added back in....
Regardless, it sucks for the time being. I'm going to need to order a -10 finish kit at some point in the "near" future.
My suspicion is that the no deletions is part of the process to get control of costs and cash flow as well as get thru the bankruptcy requirements. Since the kit modifications are all variable costs, both on a labor rate, part rate and profit margin, they need to stop that until they have a handle on it.
If they truly knew what their profit margin was on each part, then it would be easier to assign the correct part value and allow for modifications.
It may also require a better inventory control system to allow for accurate modifications. Software system updates require capital... Capital is a bit tough right now...
Hence, eliminate variables and focus on efficiency, inventory, profit margins and cash flow. As they come up to speed, maybe this custom feature will be added back in....
Regardless, it sucks for the time being. I'm going to need to order a -10 finish kit at some point in the "near" future.
Hopefully they will at least have a few options that can be chosen for what have been popular additions/deletions in the past. I can understand taking away letting every customer add/delete anything to their orders, but something like setting up for ER tanks seems like an easy option.
Except that there has been heartburn in the past about the ER tanks - leading to banning customers from ordering parts for them, only for that to be reversed later. Let's hope we are past that...
sc_pilot
Active Member
A gentleman on another site said he reached out to the UL Power distributor and got a quote for a 118hp UL350i engine and complete fwf package for 37k, 2 month eta. According to my spreadsheet, if you have an rv12is engine deposit placed, 21% Van’s balance payment increase is the break even point to have lost the deposit and buy the UL power engine. Not saying you’d have the same resale value but for dollars spent to get in the air, that’s the break even point if you never got your deposit back. Supposedly they claim it will work with the Dynon panel package as well. But this is all second hand info FWIW. And obviously no ELSA airworthiness certificate. Which if Van’s goes under completely, how are you going to get your paperwork for ELSA cert anyways? - Jacob
Publishing real-time complete kits inventory
I wonder how their prediction of 70% of customers with existing orders accepting new prices will work out.
If they could publish kit inventory on-line, that would probably go a long ways in making people order kits and/or accept the new prices. In other words, we have these complete kits ready to ship: RV-7 tail kit, .... etc. rather than the uncertainly of if I put down the deposit now, when is the kit going to ship?
Finn
I wonder how their prediction of 70% of customers with existing orders accepting new prices will work out.
If they could publish kit inventory on-line, that would probably go a long ways in making people order kits and/or accept the new prices. In other words, we have these complete kits ready to ship: RV-7 tail kit, .... etc. rather than the uncertainly of if I put down the deposit now, when is the kit going to ship?
Finn
Tdeman
Well Known Member
Michael,
I apologize for misquoting the engine prices of Aero Sport. I was going off what he told me he had paid, though it sounds like he may have misremembered. Now that I’m thinking about it, it was also for a remanned engine, not one of their new builds, but It looks like it still must have been over what he told me.
Even still, my point was I didn’t think that Van’s prices had raised in accordance with the rest of the industry (co-vendors or competitors) over the last 20 or 30 years.
Captain Avgas
Well Known Member
My reading of the new Vans NO DELETIONS/NO ADDITIONS TO KITS rule is that it doesn’t apply to the FWF kit.
1001001
Well Known Member
This has been my thinking for a while. In retrospect, it should have been a warning sign that Van's *wasn't* increasing prices faster than they were, because prices in general rose faster than the increases that they did pass along.
The fact is that people who bought kits in the last 3 years or so have experienced a boon relative to what they would have paid if Van's had had an adequate accounting system. Had Van's management fully understood the situation, they presumably would have raised prices to compensate, and kit buyers in the last several years would have been paying significantly more than they have actually paid.
The fact that this is happening in one big lump under stressful and difficult circumstances is annoying, and bad for business, but should have been predictable. The lack of a good accounting system and controls within Van's does not, however serve as an excuse for the situation, but highlights the management failures even more.
Additionally, based on a really rough overview of the comments on these threads, it appears to me that the bulk of negative comments come from a relatively large number of commenters who have small post counts. For whatever reason, these folks have not been discussing their builds here. This is a significant event for new builders, and if you look at post counts and make the assumption that they correlate with builder experience and time, you can see that a large number of new Van's customers have been introduced to this hobby and this company in an unpleasant way. This could reverberate througout the kit aircraft industry for a while, just based on word of mouth from new builders who have made their first purchases from Van's, a company that was widely regarded as the safest bet for new and inexperienced builders for years.
Though I started my project in 2016 and am still working on it, I purchased the bulk of my kits well before 2020, and have experienced the time slippage and price increase mainly in my finishing kit, which I took delivery of only after a 14 month wait, and which still has significantly costly parts backordered. But this has to be hitting newer builders even harder.
All that said, I think Van's has a good plan to make a solid recovery. While the cost of building an RV in the future will be significantly higher than it has been in the past, and they will suffer an inevitable slump in business due to reputational damage, they will likely survive, and the RV hobby will continue.
I, for one, look forward to finishing my RV-10, and probably building an RV-8 some day.
Yes - its bit of a problem to say the least
chrispratt
Well Known Member
+1 Vans is a business not a hobby. Could do this when the company was small, but not when it becomes as large as it has. Should have stopped this practice a long time ago.
sc_pilot
Active Member
How come the calendar for the court hearing on the 19th doesn’t list the motion to break contracts? The first calender for the hearing last week listed it with several others. I thought that breaking contract motion was what was left to be discussed, not these two? Does this mean the judge already signed off on it behind the scenes?
Attachments
There appears to have been an order entered on Friday granting that motion https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.orb.528157/gov.uscourts.orb.528157.32.0.pdf
(https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68061212/vans-aircraft-inc/ is a great way to follow activity in the case -- it has PDFs of most documents so far thanks to people using the RECAP browser extension).
Pilot135pd
Well Known Member
That motion gives you how to address your situation. The court can make a blanket ruling including you or they can exempt some individual contracts, but you have to speak up.
sc_pilot
Active Member
Thank you! Also found this link listed in one of those court documents. It lists the same documents but you don’t have to pay pager on any of them. This is also who is handling the notices and claims.
https://cases.creditorinfo.com/vansaircraft
BMC
Yes, a significant part of the almost 2 hour hearing was spent getting approval for using BMCgroup to send out a 40,000 names mass mailing of the motion to reject contracts (and additional explanation of what claims mean, etc.) rather than the court doing it and for BMC setting up a portal (website) where customers can either accept new prices or file a claim or at least make it easier to file a claim.
Finn
Yes, a significant part of the almost 2 hour hearing was spent getting approval for using BMCgroup to send out a 40,000 names mass mailing of the motion to reject contracts (and additional explanation of what claims mean, etc.) rather than the court doing it and for BMC setting up a portal (website) where customers can either accept new prices or file a claim or at least make it easier to file a claim.
Finn
sc_pilot
Active Member
Right but my understanding was that was for the sending out of the notice. Not the actual motion of the ability to break contracts. Or so I thought. It seemed like they put the cart before the horse because if the judge rejected the breaking contracts motion, they wouldn’t need as much involvement from BMC.
bk1bennett
Well Known Member
My concern is Back Order
I still have a bunch of finishing kit parts on Back Order from almost two years ago! They owe me brakes, a bag of bearings, and other parts.
Anyone else still have a lot of kit parts on back order?
I still have a bunch of finishing kit parts on Back Order from almost two years ago! They owe me brakes, a bag of bearings, and other parts.
Anyone else still have a lot of kit parts on back order?
Yea. And I’m freaking out a bit. I’m still owed -10 seats worth more than the empennage kit. Paid in full over 6 months ago. Worried it becomes part of the unsecured creditor mess to be sorted out by the court.
Van's filed financials with court
See attached for the financials submitted by Van's to the court today. Looking quickly at this, here are some of my takeaways:
1) According to their numbers, they would have been profitable this year if they didn't take a $5M write off for laser cut parts remediation and a $4M inventory write off (what's that about)?
2) They had $3.7M in cash on 11/30 and $22M in inventory (at cost or sale value?) against $24M in customer deposits. That says to me they had the inventory to ship our kits while being subsidized by new orders, but needed bankruptcy to deal with the LCPs issue and not so much the underpricing issue.
3) They only have $148k in retained earnings. So they pulled out all the profits previously and left a company that didn't have the equity to absorb these current issues.
4) They believe they would only get $2.5M in a liquidation of the inventory.
See attached for the financials submitted by Van's to the court today. Looking quickly at this, here are some of my takeaways:
1) According to their numbers, they would have been profitable this year if they didn't take a $5M write off for laser cut parts remediation and a $4M inventory write off (what's that about)?
2) They had $3.7M in cash on 11/30 and $22M in inventory (at cost or sale value?) against $24M in customer deposits. That says to me they had the inventory to ship our kits while being subsidized by new orders, but needed bankruptcy to deal with the LCPs issue and not so much the underpricing issue.
3) They only have $148k in retained earnings. So they pulled out all the profits previously and left a company that didn't have the equity to absorb these current issues.
4) They believe they would only get $2.5M in a liquidation of the inventory.
mackd
Active Member
QB kits with the bad primer they had to toss, maybe?
Kyle Boatright
Well Known Member
Possibly. Alternately, LCP's sitting on the shelf ready for kitting/shipment.
pjc
Well Known Member
So even with the charges, loss was only $7.8MM on $50MM in revenues or 15.6%. Hard to see how that justifies a 32% (or more) price increase …
Peter
Last edited:
An alternate explanation is that they have very uneven inventory which means they have nothing they could ship and need money to get the parts manufactured to complete the kits so they can start monetizing the inventory.
Oliver
Possibly LCPs in inventory which are scrap and QB kits which also contain LCPs and bad primer- probably also scrap.
sc_pilot
Active Member
What’s the creditor’s meeting on Jan 12? Docket #38… Is that for us or the creditors listed in the top 20 filing from the papers submitted on the 4th? Thanks for anyone who can explain. - Jacob
https://cases.creditorinfo.com/vansaircraft/documents/docket
https://cases.creditorinfo.com/vansaircraft/documents/docket
