Peter wrote:
There is no alternative to Vans – most in that sphere would say RVs are simply the best, and most of the rest of the business exists simply because most cannot afford an RV.
The ‘alternative’ to which I allude is not an alternative aircraft but simply not increasing your exposure further.
Used prices remain strong, second-hand kit prices too. Unless your emotional attachment to building the aeroplane is completely dominant, the exit options right now are not unattractive. Sell what you have and what you’re due to get, and perhaps get a good chunk of your money back.
I don’t doubt many with deposits down will accept the new pricing (as an alternative to getting pennies on the dollar from the court) but then sell on their kits as soon as they receive them. Van’s may get a clue about this if customers start phoning them up keen to ensure that their kits aren’t shipped with parts on backorder.
Graham wrote:
1) A series of really dumb management decisions
2) Trying to argue black was white about cracked LCPs
3) Reneging on a prior commitment to replace all LCPs
4) Missing every shipping estimate for the last couple of years
5) Missing the deadline for every promised update in the last few months
4) Blaming everything on outside forces and never once apologising
6) Trying to collect a lot of early final payments back in October when they obviously knew the the writing was on the wall (in the UK this would mean a criminal prosecution for trading whilst insolvent, I don’t know if there is a US equivalent)
7) Prioritising the shipping of tail kits in recent months in order to add to the pool of ‘captive customers’
8) Putting forward a Chapter 11 plan that ultimately sees the customers pick up the tab for the whole mess
@Graham, I’ll give you a ++1 and a virtual handshake for that, first beer on me 
This Motion to reject customer contracts unless new terms agreed gives some hindsights as to things to come… Motion_to_reject_customer_contracts_unless_new_terms_agreed_pdf
As to my deposit, and the agreed price of my engine, placed a 1 1/2 year ago…
Based on that motion, you will either accept a new (presumably higher price) and keep your deposit, or reject and your deposit goes into the creditor queue with all the others.
Dan wrote:
As to my deposit, and the agreed price of my engine, placed a 1 1/2 year ago…
It’s just a feeling, but suspect you may be in a slightly better position that those with deposits down on kits.
The motion makes much of the need to get out of contracts that Van’s would otherwise have to deliver on at a loss. QBs (with the shipping issues) are obviously the worst ones.
However engine, propeller and avionics contracts have locked in prices from the vendors. Van’s doesn’t stand to make a loss on your engine or any other similar contract. If they try to force a new price on you then it makes a mockery of their profitability argument and exposes them as simply scalping you because they can under the Chapter 11 rules to improve their overall cash position.
Thanks for your kind words, BTW. I’m going to see what the revised pricing is before I decide whether to (1) order the fuselage and carry on, or (b) claim on my credit card, sell what I have, and bail. The problem with option (1) is who on earth would be crazy enough to send them another deposit now?
who on earth would be crazy enough to send them another deposit now?
Decisions, decisions… reading the well known RV reference forum (the one where everybody has to sound positive to Van’s lest getting eradicated….), a lot of people are on the fence too. Which sure is no consolation for none of us.
Guess we’ll know more by mid-January.
24 hopefully
@Dan you may need to investigate how your claim would be treated as an executory contract/lease. I think the court has to deal with these before a plan, doesn’t mean you rank higher but may result in a quicker resolution…possibly.
Thanks @RobertL18C.
There is a dedicate thread on VAF, and I’m following that closely.
Being here in the middle of EU with no clue of EU consumer rights, the US ones are far away on the horizon… in any case I’ll first wait some for the dust to settle.
Graham wrote:
Putting forward a Chapter 11 plan that ultimately sees the customers pick up the tab for the whole mess
He he. I have worked in the energy sector my whole life, supplier industry mostly. If our customers (very far from individuals, but still) were even a fraction as “consumer oriented” as you seemingly are, there would be no suppliers left. The result would be the entire western civilization would grind to a hold due to lack of fuel and electricity. That’s pretty much my view here also. We are after all a tiny community, even if you count world wide, and Vans is our best bet for cool aircraft to “serve” that community today and in the future. For the most part they are in essence the only one capable of doing it on the required scale and with the “right” aircraft. Things don’t always go as planned and hoped. In those cases the only thing that counts is to solve the problems. This is difficult for everyone involved, but it has to be done.
I thought someone else would take over the whole thing, perhaps even Textron. This would perhaps have been simpler for the current customers with “faulty” investments, but very bad for GA. Vans will have to change nonetheless though. They have to focus more on “doing business” and less on “serving the community”. The only tangible result of this will be greatly increased kit prices at negligible increase in quality (with the exception of the LCP episode, which was something different altogether).
It will be interesting to see how this develops. Increased prices at Vans will also create opportunities for others. Did Vans succeed only because they made good aircraft, or because they made very reasonably priced good aircraft? In fact a bit too reasonably priced as history now has shown us.
LeSving wrote:
He he. I have worked in the energy sector my whole life, supplier industry mostly. If our customers (very far from individuals, but still) were even a fraction as “consumer oriented” as you seemingly are, there would be no suppliers left. The result would be the entire western civilization would grind to a hold due to lack of fuel and electricity.
Yes…… I am an individual, and thus I approach things as an individual. Van’s is a retail business, this is not B2B. How your corporate / government / institutional customers in the energy sector behaved is totally irrelevant. Whether my attitude is ‘consumer orientated’ (and what that even means) is up for discussion, but the legal rights one has a individual retail customer sure are useful in a situation like this. You obviously mean it in a disparaging manner, but I’d rather be a ‘consumer’ and get my money back than lose if through some idiotic sense of pride about being a ‘builder’. I’m just me, at the end of the day. I don’t identify as either a consumer or a builder, but if it makes a difference to you then…….. whatever.
Earlier this evening I drafted a letter to my credit card company, which if I send it will see them legally obliged to wire me about £15k in fairly short order and then go after Van’s if they want to see it again. Van’s being a foreign entity and the subject of bankruptcy proceedings, and the amount being relatively trivial to a major credit card provider, I doubt they’ll bother. I’ll likely sit on the letter for a while until they release the future pricing. If I was really cynical about things I could send the letter, get the money back, and then continue the build. No-one else in this game has any compunction about ripping me off, so what’s the difference if I use the rules to my advantage?
No-one else in this game has any compunction about ripping me off, so what’s the difference if I use the rules to my advantage?
Do whatever you feel is best for you. You are a free man. But let’s be honest. Vans didn’t go bust deliberately for the purpose of ripping people off. As of yet, no one has been ripped off.
