But countering the success of the company’s designs and their unprecedented popularity were challenges compounded by the COVID pandemic, a failure by a key supplier and missteps of its own. Monday’s Chapter 11 filing gives some clues to the situation Van’s faces that pushed the company into a form of bankruptcy that most often precedes a reorganization and recovery. (Van’s is not liquidating. Chapter 11 is designed to give a company some relief from liabilities and enable a reorganization into a sustainable business.)

In the Chapter 11 declaration is this summary: “Until recently Van’s operated successfully without bank loans or other lines of credit, relying on customer deposits and earnings for its working capital.” But then Van’s faced “a combination of unforeseen, significant events occurring over a relatively short period of time increased Debtor’s [Van’s Aircraft’s] costs, doubled its normal inventory levels, slowed deliveries, and strained Debtor’s cash flow to the breaking point.” Support from founder Dick VanGrunsven since September has kept the company afloat.

• READ MORE: Van’s Aircraft Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection

One could argue that Van’s trouble started with an issue regarding quickbuild kits. The offshore constructor failed to adequately corrosion-proof parts of the assembly, which led Van’s to a time-consuming side project to understand the nature of the problem and its scope, and construct a remedy. The issue is described in the declaration as a “multi-million-dollar setback” for Van’s. Moreover, it contributed to a growing backlog in ordered kits and extended delivery times for customers.

At the same time, there was unprecedented demand for kits during the early stages of COVID. (In fact, the entire homebuilt industry witnessed a surge in popularity, with all major kit manufacturers reporting greatly increased sales in 2020 and 2021.) For Van’s, kit sales rose from 1594 during 2019 (already a very good number for the company) to 2508 in 2020 and 3982 in 2021. According to the filing, revenue actually decreased from $31.5 million in 2019 to $31.1 million in 2020, despite a 1000-unit increase in orders. Van’s didn’t get the bulk of the kit payment until shipment. In 2021, however, the big increases in order began to show up in revenue, increasing to $37.6 million in 2021 and $52.6 million in 2022. Net income, as described in the declaration, was $2.6 million in 2019, $3 million in 2020, but dropped to $2.1 million in 2021 as investments to increase capacity began to appear in the financials. In 2022, Van’s net income turned red, with a loss of $3.3 million; it lost $1 million through the end of August this year against revenues of $43 million.

It’s important to understand that Van’s was already operating at or near capacity in 2019. Along with technical changes to the kits over time that placed more work at the factory (steps the builder would not have to perform, an expectation in the modern kit-aircraft world), Van’s found itself with greatly increased demand and set about finding ways to meet it.

Because the vast majority of the company’s kit parts are known as “pre-punched” parts and the machines that do the punching formed the production roadblock, Van’s looked for ways to increase capacity by outsourcing some of this step. One way was to have the parts normally punched instead have their holes cut by a laser. This is a common method for automating manufacture of sheet metal parts, along with CNC routers, punches and water-jet cutting. In fact, Van’s had been using laser cutting for some parts and then elected to laser-cut more of them.

Builders began to notice that some laser-cut parts would crack during the dimpling process—where the metal is formed for the purpose of installing flush rivets—and that eventually started Van’s engineering department down the path of discovering why this was happening. Many builders felt that Van’s was slow to acknowledge the problem and that by the time it did, there was a significant quantity of laser-cut parts out in the world. Van’s turned its full attention to the problem and identified the parts in question—more recently, they were able to far more accurately predict which specific airplane kits were likely to have the suspect parts. Latest estimates are that some 1800 kits are affected.

These issues would challenge many companies but they were compounded by other events, as the declaration shows. “Van’s order file doubled in the 2020 and 2021 period. At the same time, supply chain issues, and supplier shutdowns slowed productions of key components, increasing back orders and delaying order completions, requiring Debtor to hire and train more staff. Wages increased, and shipping costs rose more than four-fold during this period. Stated simply, without realizing it, Debtor was selling a high volume of aircraft kits below its cost. The combination of all these factors overstressed Van’s workforce, operating support systems and management skills resulting in a series of one-off but very costly errors.” The declaration also notes that, “Some of its senior employees with deep familiarity with both office and manufacturing process workings chose to retire during COVID.”

The picture painted is of a company overwhelmed by overlapping challenges, started by the primer issue with quickbuild kits and followed closely by a global pandemic that simultaneously cut into its manufacturing capacity, dramatically increased costs and, perhaps ironically, also greatly boosted demand. That in the effort to catch up with demand the company also lost track of internal costs and failed to increase kit prices (as one remedy) is one inescapable takeaway from the factual descriptions in the Chapter 11 declaration—and a good indication of the remedies needed to define its path forward.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on KITPLANES.

The post Van’s Bankruptcy: How Did It Get Here? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The move comes a little over a month after Van’s announced a series of changes designed to combat “serious cash flow issues, which must be addressed quickly to ensure ongoing operations.” According to the company, the problems stem from COVID-related supply chain challenges, faulty primer that led to corrosion problems on quick build kits, and recent issues with defects in laser-cut parts.

• READ MORE: Van’s Updates List of RV Parts Reportedly Forming Cracks

“As a result of this combination of issues, the company experienced serious cash-flow problems from which it could not recover through the normal course of business,” Van’s said in a statement. “During that time, Van’s built up a significant and high-value parts inventory. As we manufacture the additional parts needed to balance this inventory, we will leverage it to fulfill orders for kits and parts over the next 12 to 18 months.”

Van’s is expected to file a proposed reorganization plan with the court within the next 90 days. The company says it will continue to provide parts, service, and support, along with shipping kit orders, during the reorganization. Plans are being developed for customers affected by the Chapter 11 filing, though the company noted that those plans are ultimately dependent upon court approval.

Plans for Existing Customers

For customers who received laser-cut parts, Van’s says it has now “completed a careful, detailed review that delineates the specific list of laser-cut parts for each individual customer kit order.” If approved, the company says it intends to begin contacting impacted customers with detailed information on the parts and its parts replacement program with the goal of beginning to ship replacements this month. Van’s hopes to have delivered replacement parts to all affected customers, estimated to be more than 1,800, by the end of 2024.

Van’s reported that it is also reviewing all open parts orders, some of which will be hit with price increases. “Customers with open parts orders that require updated pricing will be contacted soon and will receive access to a website where they will be able to review and act upon the details of their existing orders and Van’s proposed order modifications,” Van’s said.

In addition, prices for kits and parts are expected to increase. Van’s plans to “begin contacting customers with open kit orders that were placed prior to the filing date within the next 7 to 10 days with an offer to apply the full amount of their existing deposits toward the purchase of the same kit, under new terms and conditions including a price increase.” Customers with deposits on kits should be on the lookout for an email with a link “to a website where they will be able to view the details of their existing order, the amount of their deposit and Van’s proposed order modifications.”

“Van’s expects to resume shipping in-stock kit orders within the next 7 to 10 days,” the company said. “We will do our best to prioritize those who have waited longest, but our kit fulfillment schedule must be financially acceptable to the court, based substantially on cash flow rather than the traditional and historical method of order fulfillment that Van’s customers have experienced in the past. We will be constrained by – and will make prioritization decisions based on – the rate and timing of order renewal, availability of in-stock parts, and our need to ship kits that generate positive cash flow. Where we are able to do so, we will also consider the age of the original customer order.”

The company says it is still working with its engine, propeller, and avionics partners to get a plan in place for customers with deposits on those products. Van’s noted that orders that don’t require modifications will be shipped as usual.

“The purpose of the Chapter 11 filing is to allow Van’s to continue to provide ongoing support for its customers, suppliers, and employees for many years to come,” Van’s said. “We understand that this situation creates a hardship for everyone involved. However, without these changes we do not see a viable path forward that would allow Van’s Aircraft to remain in business and support its customers.”

Editor’s Note: This story was originally reported on by KITPLANES.

The post Van’s Aircraft Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Per a press release viewed by FLYING, the New York City-based company, which last week sought and received $15 million in emergency funding from the airline, will cede 95 percent ownership in exchange for a $500 million capital infusion from Delta, Knighthead Capital Management, Certares Management, and others.

The raise will save Wheels Up—plus the 11,639 active members who would have become unsecured creditors—from bankruptcy, which it said Monday it was considering as a “strategic alternative.” But the company’s survival, and potentially that of the industry, will come at the cost of equity.

“If a brand as important as Wheels Up were to fail, it would have had trickle-down impacts across private aviation,” Lance Tweden, vice president of membership for private aviation firm Jet Agency, told FLYING. “Wheels Up’s failure would have caused concern and anxiety among customers, whether they are with Wheels Up or not.”

The nonbinding agreement comprises a $400 million term loan (including $150 million from Delta) coupled to a $100 million liquidity facility from the airline. Delta and other investors will in turn receive newly issued Wheels Up Class A common stock representing the lion’s share of the company.

Ironically, Delta once owned Wheels Up’s private jet management business in full—it sold its Private Jets unit to the startup in 2020 in exchange for a 20 percent stake. The business changed hands again last week, when Wheels Up sold it to Airshare for an undisclosed fee.

“The partnership will create new opportunities for Wheels Up to drive strategic, operational, and financial improvements for its customers in the months and years ahead,” said Delta CEO Ed Bastian. “Delta’s unmatched expertise in premium travel, customer loyalty, corporate sales, operational reliability, and aircraft maintenance, combined with Certares’ and Knighthead’s experience and global reach, are expected to speed Wheels Up on its path to profitability.”

Wheels Up CFO Todd Smith will continue to serve as the firm’s interim CEO, while Delta CFO Dan Janki is replacing Wheels Up chairman Ravi Thakran.

“Over the past few months, we have been intensely focused on taking clear steps to improve our product offering and our operational delivery,” said Smith. “Those actions are already showing results, and we look forward to continuing and accelerating that progress with the support of our new partners. Our continued close work with the Delta team will enable us to further integrate our digital experiences, member benefits, and our operations.”

Similar to on-demand rideshare services such as Uber and Lyft, the private aviation business has struggled to reach profitability while burning through cash. Since filing for an initial public offering in 2021, it has consistently posted quarterly net losses. In the second quarter, that net loss widened to $160 million, a 73 percent increase year over year.

Wheels Up reported $152 million in cash on hand at the end of Q2, a fraction of the $586 million it had at the end of 2022 and even the $363 million reported in Q1. In that same period, adjusted earnings before taxes, interest, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) have held relatively flat.

The company’s woes could be in part because of its string of acquisitions over the past five years. Since 2019, it has added five different charter operators—Delta’s Private Jets, Mountain Aviation, Alante Air Charter, Gama Aviation Signature, and TMC Jets. But not all fly under the same certification, which limits its ability to reallocate crews across providers.

Wheels Up has also continued to add members and maintain certain policies—like its capped hourly rate—as its competitors have pulled back due to macroeconomic conditions. That’s driven more revenue for the company but at the expense of inflated operating costs.

For example, in the case of a mechanical issue, Wheels Up guarantees a replacement aircraft to the customer free of charge. That means if the charter rate rises between the time of booking and the mechanical issue, Wheels Up has to eat that cost. The issue can be exacerbated during stretches where demand is strong, as was the case with fractional jet ownership company Jet It, which folded in May.

The COVID-19 pandemic also had an impact on Wheels Up’s ability to crew flights. But on the flip side, the business likely would not be viable today had the pandemic not driven an uptick in private jet demand.

Luckily for new majority owner Delta, that volume is expected to be sticky. An eye-popping 93 percent of customers who began flying privately during the pandemic say they have continued to do so. The question now is what Delta and the other investors will do with that demand.

With the sale of its private jet management business, Wheels Up’s fleet is largely composed of King Air turboprops, Citation Xs and XLs, and Hawker 400 light business jets. Prior to the $500 million investment, the company was reportedly looking to grow its corporate business, its fastest-growing segment responsible for about one-quarter of all sales.

Currently, Wheels Up and Delta have an exclusive partnership through which customers can receive Delta benefits with a Wheels Up membership. Part of that arrangement focuses on business charter customers, which Delta could leverage to continue building out the more lucrative area of the business. However, Wheels Up’s membership program may require an overhaul to eliminate the issues that landed the company in a cash-strapped position in the first place.

“It will be interesting to see how they change the structure of the membership program going forward,” said Tweden. “There is no way it could be status quo.”

The new management team may also shed some of Wheels Up’s previous acquisitions to build stronger synergies. And Certares, which owns Internova Travel Group—ranked as the 11th largest U.S. travel agency with more than 100,000 advisers—could open new sales channels.

“Delta will likely make a lot of these changes quickly, as another challenge will be trying to maintain [Wheels Up] members that may be just now becoming aware of the precarious place the company is in,” said Tweden. “Despite this bailout, ultimately Wheels Up did fail, so how do they win that customer confidence back?”

Whether Delta is able to restore confidence in the Wheels Up brand or not, the latter’s struggles could have wide implications for private aviation as a whole. Given its size and high profile, rivals will likely look to the company as a case study of the industry’s challenges and how (or how not) to overcome them.

The post Delta, Others Invest $500M in Wheels Up Bailout appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

A bankruptcy restructuring has been expected for weeks because of collapsing revenues, a heavy debt load and the decision by credit rating agencies to pull their coverage over the company’s lack of financial transparency. Bloomberg previously reported that Estero, Florida-based Western Global Airlines was arranging debtor-in-possession financing to support ongoing operations under a court-approved bankruptcy plan. 

Western Global founder and CEO Jim Neff reinvested in the company along with new investors and existing stakeholders, according to the announcement. The reorganization will reduce the company’s debt by more than $450 million and give the cash-strapped airline capital to operate its aging fleet of 21 freighters, two-thirds of which are currently out of service.

“WGA will continue to operate as usual and provide reliable and safe service to its customers throughout the reorganization process and going forward. The company, the founder, the plan investors, and the ad hoc group (bondholders) are focused on moving through this process expeditiously and thoughtfully to the benefit of employees, customers, and other stakeholders,” Western Global said.

Neff on June 29 also purchased the company’s $115 million of outstanding senior secured debt for $45 million in a competitive process, a move that reduced repayment pressure from lenders but also angered creditors that were moved to the back of the line for any claims on the company’s assets. Under the restructuring, Neff has agreed to forgo some of the statutory rights he would otherwise maintain as a holder of the distressed debt and pass on the $70 million benefit to other stakeholders, including employees participating in the Employee Stock Option Plan. Western Global employees own 37.5% of the company under the 3-year-old retirement plan. 

Unsecured debtors include U.S. Bank ($419.1 million in outstanding loans); aircraft maintenance company Lufthansa Technik (owed $10.4 million); GE Engine Services (owed $7.4 million); Eurocontrol ($388,000 for navigation fees); the Shreveport Airport Authority ($292,573 for facility rentals and other fees); and the city of Chicago ($191,000 for landing and other fees at O’Hare), according to court documents.

Radiant Global Logistics in March sued Western Global for nonpayment of $556,000 in freight transportation services.

Eighteen other companies affiliated with Neff filed for bankruptcy protection along with Western Global. Neff owns companies that lease the aircraft operated by Western Global. The filing seeks to have the bankruptcy cases consolidated and jointly administered by the court. A holding company comprised of Neff family members, including his wife, Carmit, owns Western Global Airlines.

Western Global’s business has significantly declined in the past year from the peak shipping demand triggered by the coronavirus pandemic, making it more difficult to make debt payments and leading to a liquidity crunch. The overall market is down 7% to 10% over the past 16 months and airlines are reporting sharply lower revenues for cargo. Amazon, Western Globa’s largest customer, ended its contract in January. Western Global has a fleet of aging MD-11 and Boeing 747-400 freighters that are expensive to operate and maintain. Fifteen of its 21 aircraft are older than 25 years and the average fleet age is 28.4 years. 

“As the founder and CEO of Western Global Airlines, I have always understood the unique value proposition that WGA brings to the world as a reliable, responsive, and low-cost international air cargo provider,” said Neff. “I am — and always will be — loyal to WGA and its employee team. As such, my number one priority is preserving the long-term viability and value of WGA and protecting our employees. All my objectives regarding the company align with this overriding goal. The plan we have outlined in the restructuring agreement reflects my continued dedication to and belief in WGA, along with the overwhelming support of our key financial stakeholders. I am confident that this plan will tremendously strengthen our financial position and ensure a better future for WGA, our people, and our customers. As always, we have the utmost gratitude to our employees, loyal customer base, and industry partners for their enduring support and appreciate the continued collaboration with our largest financial stakeholders.”

Western Global has filed motions with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware seeking to maintain regular operations, including paying employees and vendors. 

Three employees, who are seeking class-action status, last year sued Neff and his wife for allegedly profiting from a bond sale made to finance a loan to employees buying into the company.  The lawsuit alleges the sale price for the employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) was based on 20 times the company’s fair market value and that when Western Global issued a bond offering that shot up to 10.375% because there were no takers, Neff bought the bonds himself and stuck the employees with heavily devalued shares.

Western Global noted that ESOP participants didn’t purchase their shares but rather were granted them at no out-of-pocket cost and that participation is voluntary.

Western Global said its restructuring adviser is FTI Consulting and that Seabury, an Accenture company, is acting as commercial adviser.

Editor’s Note: This report was previously published on freightwaves.com.

The post Cargo Operator Western Global Airlines Files for Bankruptcy Protection appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The Chapter 11 announcement follows the revelation last week that Virgin Orbit was cutting most of its staff because of its inability to raise enough capital to continue operations. The company apparently was not able to recover following a failed satellite launch in January from its Spaceport Cornwall base in England.

• READ MORE: Virgin Orbit Cuts Most of its Workforce, Cites Lack of Funding

The company, which Virgin Group founder Richard Branson started in 2017, developed a system called LauncherOne that uses a modified Boeing 747 to carry its rockets aloft before launching, essentially giving them a head start into orbit. This method contrasts with the traditional large, pad-launched rockets that rivals like SpaceX use to carry satellites.

“The team at Virgin Orbit has developed and brought into operation a new and innovative method of launching satellites into orbit, introducing new technology and managing great challenges and great risks along the way as we proved the system and performed several successful space flights—including successfully launching 33 satellites into their precise orbit,” said Virgin Orbit CEO.Dan Hart. “While we have taken great efforts to address our financial position and secure additional financing, we ultimately must do what is best for the business,” he said.

The company said Virgin Investment Ltd. has committed to provide $31.6 million in financing expected to give Virgin Orbit the liquidity it needs to continue operating as it pursues a sale transaction “that positions our company and our technology for future opportunities and missions.”

The post Virgin Orbit Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Cessna joined Lloyd Stearman and Walter Beech in establishing the Travel Air Company as 1925 began. Though the trio had the backing of the local business community, each had a financial stake as well—Cessna’s being the largest, at $25,000, according to The Legend of Cessna, by Jeffrey L. Rodengen.

They rented a building in downtown Wichita, Kansas, and brought to life their first biplane, the Travel Air Model A. The fledgling company built and sold 19 of the OX-5 powered airplanes, at $3,500 each, in the first run. The popular biplanes would evolve into the line of Travel Air 2000s/3000s/4000s.

The Type 500

Cessna had never been a fan of the biplane design—so although he kept working with Beech and Stearman on the Model As, he rented his own place and built a monoplane to his standards.

The five-seater was unique in that it had an enclosed cabin and a semi-cantilever wing—braced by a strut rather than solely holding its own weight. Aimed at carrying the mail, the Type 500 scored its first sale to National Air Transport (NAT) in January 1927, with a contract worth $128,676.

Buoyed by the 500’s success, the Travel Air shop updated the model into the Type 5000 with a 224 hp Wright Whirlwind engine, and a new tail more in the style of its previous models. The company set several milestones with this improved monoplane, including:

• July 14, 1927: Earnest Smith and Emery Bronie flew the City of Oakland from Oakland, California, to Hawaii.
• August 16 and 17, 1927: Arthur Goebel and William Davis won the Transoceanic Air Race, also flying from Oakland, to Wheeler Field, in Hawaii, in 26 hours, 17 minutes, and 33 seconds.

Full Cantilever Wings

Cessna grew enamored with the prospect of building a strutless monoplane—a full cantilever wing that would reduce drag by removing the strut and designing the wing’s internal structure so that it would support the load.

His partners at Travel Air—Beech included—were not as compelled by the concept, so it was at this point Cessna struck out on his own again. Though the date is not official, April 19, 1927, is generally accepted as his starting point with the Cessna Aircraft Company iteration with the famous brand that continues today.

With two designs, Cessna moved to a shop on West Douglas Avenue in Wichita, and began building the Cessna Common (The Legend of Cessna). Because it would be the first full cantilever winged airplane to gain a type certificate, Cessna had to concoct a way to prove the strength of the design.

The workers turned the airplane over on its back, suspended it, and loaded the wings with 3,700 pounds of sandbags, according to an article in Wichita magazine. This met the requirement, but Cessna wanted to see just how much the wings would hold. The men loaded up to 15,752 pounds of the bags—and the wings sagged a little, but they did not break.

With the first flight of the follow-on model, the All Purpose, on August 13, 1927, Clyde Cessna renamed the aircraft The Phantom—and sold the stock that would allow him to organize the company officially. With investor Victor H. Roos, the Cessna-Roos Aircraft Company was born in September 1927. However, Roos departed the business when the board opted to change the name back to the Cessna Aircraft Company in late November. He sold his stock to Cessna, and left the aviation legend to lead his namesake company once more.

The post Cessna’s Pursuit of a Full Cantilever Monoplane appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Despite building more than 1,300 helicopters that were sold to customers in more than 50 countries, the Michigan-based company announced that “several financial difficulties,” some related to the pandemic, compelled its owners to close the company.

Dennis Martin, Enstrom’s director of sales, shared the news in a letter to its suppliers and dealers in which he confirmed “all existing contracts and agreements [with the company] will become null and void.”

“Enstrom understands that you all have customers you are supporting and that this will put both you and your customers in a difficult position,” Martin said.

All employees, about 30 in total, lost their jobs, Enstrom’s president Matt Francour told the Eagle Herald.  

Enstrom’s final delivery—a pair of 280FX aircraft—was to the Peruvian Air Force in December 2021. Meanwhile, Enstrom ceased its parts and overhaul supply services on January 7, before ending its technical support on January 19.

New Investment Couldn’t Outlast Waning Demand

Enstrom was acquired by Chinese firm Chongqing General Aviation Industry Group (CGAG) in December 2012. CGAG offers a bundle of other products and services, including emergency rescue, aerial forest fire protection, agricultural spray application, aerial photography, and a host of others through its subsidiaries.

The new owner tried to turn the storied brand around by investing up to $8 million to upgrade Enstrom’s factory. They nearly doubled the space, expanding it to a 160,000-square-foot FAA-approved manufacturing facility. The company also hired more than 200 new employees.

• DON’T MISS OUT: Subscribe to FLYING Magazine

The company showed signs of tenacity when it celebrated its 60th anniversary in 2019. In an interview with Vertical Magazine at the time, CEO Matt Francour gushed over his company, sharing “how many small aircraft manufacturers have been in business for 60 years, continuously, with no bankruptcies…It’s really a testament to the people we have here, our workforce, and our local community.”

Indeed, in 2019, the company ranked third in sales of piston helicopters, with 38 sold between 2018 and 2019, but the overall rotorcraft market was in the midst of a slump. The 2019 annual report from General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) that tracks aircraft deliveries showed that 2019 was the slowest year for rotorcraft sales in the preceding seven years.

Then the pandemic hit.  

GAMA’s data showed that from 2019 to 2020, the overall piston helicopter market sales and deliveries decreased by 20.7 percent.

Company History

In the 1950s, when Rudy Enstrom first had the idea of building a helicopter, he’d never even seen one before. As FLYING previously reported, the mining engineer worked on many prototypes that barely got off the ground. A local businessman, Jack Christensen, injected enough cash into the startup, and in December 1959, the R.J. Enstrom Corp. was formed.

The brand had early success. Even in 1965 when Ford introduced its legendary Mustang muscle car, it was Enstrom’s newly FAA-certified F28 that won Michigan Product of the Year.

In the 1970s, the company was building more than 100 aircraft per year. Even when the general aviation market experienced a downturn in the 1980s, Enstrom outlasted the recession to bring its 480 series turbine helicopters to market in the 1990s.

When the factory closed last week, Enstrom’s production fleet still included the turbine 480B and the piston F-28F and 280FX.

Its newest project was to be the two-seat trainer, the TH180, that it announced at the Helicopter Association International (HAI) Heli Expo in 2014. Though progress was made, the macro trend of declining helicopter sales seemed to have bested the brand.

“It’s an incredible legacy, and the people of Northern Michigan and Wisconsin who helped start the company, and especially the hard-working employees who kept it going all these years, should be proud of what we accomplished,” Martin said in his statement to suppliers.

A Second Chance?

Meanwhile, Enstrom’s leaders are optimistic about the chance at a second run. Francour said they have already fielded multiple requests from interested parties who would like to buy the company’s assets out of bankruptcy, and maybe invest in revamping the company.

In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the assets of a company are usually liquidated and the proceeds are used to pay off outstanding debt to creditors.

“I don’t know how, and I don’t know when, but I have a feeling [the Enstrom brand will] be back,” Francour said.

The post Enstrom Helicopter Files for Bankruptcy After 64-Year Run appeared first on FLYING Magazine.