Icon A5 Purchase Contract Details - Just Awful

Brad Z said:
As a buyer for that aircraft sold by an estate, I'm not so sure I'd be comfortable with buying a plane that violates a contract with the manufacturer, and like you said, might even result in loss of support. ...
If the company not supporting the transfer to a second owner results in the aircraft eventually being unairworthy, the second owner will end up with a very expensive paperweight.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure ASTM requires that an S-LSA be "supported" to remain airworthy.

If a manufacturer goes under, and nobody picks up the "orphan", the only option the owner of an S-LSA has is to switch to E-LSA.

Any prohibition from doing that by a defunct ICON would be unenforceable.

I think. But what a can of worms this has opened!
 
Brad Z said:
But what about everyone else. Even AOPA mentioned it with the journalistic version of raised eyebrows (that's about as scathing as they're going to get with anyone in the industry).
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree the agreement is as onerous as AOPA, AVweb, and the folks here with knowledge of it say. I just believe that if Icon had been advertising on ANN, editorial coverage there would have been less negative. Note the context of my previous post...I was responding to the suggestion that Icon might be contemplating legal action against ANN by suggestion advertising might be cheaper. Recall how Cirrus changed from "Great guys" to "Terrorists" in ANN's book, when Cirrus decided that Campbell should *pay* for his airplane in money, rather than advertising.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Oh, I agree the agreement is as onerous as AOPA, AVweb, and the folks here with knowledge of it say. I just believe that if Icon had been advertising on ANN, editorial coverage there would have been less negative. Note the context of my previous post...I was responding to the suggestion that Icon might be contemplating legal action against ANN by suggestion advertising might be cheaper. Recall how Cirrus changed from "Great guys" to "Terrorists" in ANN's book, when Cirrus decided that Campbell should *pay* for his airplane in money, rather than advertising.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...


But as a buyer, why would I care, cats out of the bag and icon is a scummy company, that contract is a straight biotch slap to anyone who wants to give them their hard earned quarter million bucks!

That said I already have a amphib and could care less, minus the disappointment this has been to GA in general, crap... I actually liked that little plane before all this came out :(
 
isn't the plane's fault the company is run by jerks... :)
 
Brad Z said:
As a buyer for that aircraft sold by an estate, I'm not so sure I'd be comfortable with buying a plane that violates a contract with the manufacturer, and like you said, might even result in loss of support. Considering ICON is attempting to control so much of the process, the airframe could arguably be worthless if the manufacturer won't support something life-limited. On top of that, the insurance companies may not even want to insure you.
Click to expand...

How is Icon enforcing the time-limited (disposable) nature of their contraption ? Are there time-limited components in the type certificate (do LSA even have a type certificate?) ? Is it via chapter 4 of the maintenance manual ?

I'm not aware of any law that requires a manufacturer to support a product. The best one can do is to sue the manufacturer for breach of contract, etc.
Click to expand...

That'll be an interesting question. For certified planes that are unsupported, there are things like owner supplied parts and ways to produce orphan parts. Not sure how that works under the ASTM process.

If the company not supporting the transfer to a second owner results in the aircraft eventually being unairworthy, the second owner will end up with a very expensive paperweight.
Click to expand...

Eclipse has turned some of the early airframes into paperweights. A very risky thing for a manufacturer to do.
 
wanttaja said:
It'd be cheaper to just take out some advertising. That'd end the criticism.
Click to expand...

Only a temporary fix. The moment the money stream stops, there is hell to pay.
 
If they get the FAA to add language to the TC that specifies who must do the support work or maintain the aircraft (or how it must be done but then they don't provide authorized info to anyone else), then the buyer is stuck. And if an authorized shop is the only one that can maintain yet their contract with the manufacturer doesn't allow them to maintain except if the new owner were factory approved, the buyer is stuck.

There is legal precedent in the auto world that (for warranty purposes) the manufacturer cannot deny warranty service if the car has been properly maintained by an outside shop. And some state law to back that. But this is the airplane world, and the FAA regulatory structure is more restrictive.

At the very least, a buyer might challenge it in court and force the issue with the FAA, but that will be a long, plodding, and not necessarily successful process. Especially if there is a 15 calendar year airframe overhaul - and service life no greater than 30 years.

All of which is why, as a potential buyer, I would stay far away from this and not reward their contract terms/behavior.

weilke said:
They can write a lot of things into the contract, if the original purchaser chooses to ignore them, their only remedy is to deal with the original purchaser, not the surbsequent ones. This is a LSA, many of them will be sold by the original purchasers estate representatives. The only thing Icon can get is $5000 + interest, they have no control over someone elses property once it has been legally sold. The only way they could have achieved that would be through a lease or licensing deal, similar to how GM only 'leased' their initial electric car offering in the 1990s. Once the cars had fulfilled their buerocratic requirement, GM pulled the cars back and ran them through the shredder.

Now they can choose not to support any subsequent buyers that were not factory approved, not sure whether there is any legal concept that guarantees you factory support of a purchased product. Lots of opportunity to rack up billable hours.

And I agree, this may harm them more than it's worth. People who can write a 250k check for a toy didn't get there by being stupid (trust-fund babies excluded).
Click to expand...
 
UngaWunga said:
What makes the Icon that much better than a Searey?
Or a Seamax?
Click to expand...

An AOA indicator for those who don't understand aerodynamics???:p

Maybe the extra 100K makes it go faster? Ah, nope. Fly farther? Nope. Take off and land shorter? Nope and nope. You can trailer it on trips though! As if I want to tow a plane with me when I go on a trip.
 
timwinters said:
Wouldn't that make it kinda like the Harley-Davidson of aviation?
Click to expand...

I'd actually rather tow a Harley. At least everywhere you go you can off load the thing in a snap and drive it around. They make the Icon out like there's a lake at every rest stop and it's so easy to get it flying. Finding the right lake and getting the aircraft ready to fly seems like more of a hassle than it's worth. Then, bouncing around in a hot cockpit in the middle of summer doing a whopping 100 KTS doesn't meet my idea of fun either.

If I'm going on a trip, I'm taking my plane to go the farthest distance in the least amount of time for the money. The Icon doesn't go very far, doesn't go very fast and doesn't haul very much. I don't even find it attractive. As said above, it's a jet ski on wings...at $250,000. Really I'd have more fun with a jet ski than this thing.
 
Maybe a good chunk of the buyers should save the "I can't sue" money, all get together and spend that money to hire a law firm to toss icons chit in court.

Toss a few hundred thousand at the "justice" system and I'd wager they'll end up letting you darn near write the contract yourself, heck they'd probably even send you the word template lol
 
wsuffa said:
There is legal precedent in the auto world that (for warranty purposes) the manufacturer cannot deny warranty service if the car has been properly maintained by an outside shop. And some state law to back that. But this is the airplane world, and the FAA regulatory structure is more restrictive.
Click to expand...

It's actually federal law (the Magnuson-Moss act) that states that a manufacturer can't require the use of factory parts or use of a factory service center to maintain the validity of a warranty. But all that deals with warranties, not support as a whole.

All of which is why, as a potential buyer, I would stay far away from this and not reward their contract terms/behavior.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
wsuffa said:
If they get the FAA to add language to the TC that specifies who must do the support work or maintain the aircraft (or how it must be done but then they don't provide authorized info to anyone else), then the buyer is stuck. And if an authorized shop is the only one that can maintain yet their contract with the manufacturer doesn't allow them to maintain except if the new owner were factory approved, the buyer is stuck.
Click to expand...
As a Special Light Sport, the Icon doesn't have a Type Certificate. Icon is allowed considerable leeway in defining what's required for the airplane to retain its airworthiness. As has been mentioned, the owner can change the licensing to Experimental Light Sport and get freed of all this.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
As has been mentioned, the owner can change the licensing to Experimental Light Sport and get freed of all this.
Click to expand...

Is that something you can do with a factory built LSA ?
 
Just noticed, you can buy a certified SeaRey LSA !

Can't see a price anywhere.
 
weilke said:
Is that something you can do with a factory built LSA ?
Click to expand...
Yep. Simple switch from Special Light Sport to Experimental Light Sport was a key feature of the program.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Yep. Simple switch from Special Light Sport to Experimental Light Sport was a key feature of the program.
Click to expand...
That's what makes the most recent idiocy by Icon fun. They can put an airframe life limit on the plane, since the Light Sport rules allows them and them alone to denote what must be done to maintain airworthiness. But the owner can transition to Experimental Light Sport, and that takes Icon out of the picture, from the FAA's point of view. The only drawback is that the ELSA version can't be used commercially...something not like to affect most owners. As of 1 January this year, about 430 SLSAs have made the transition to ELSA.

Not sure how it affects the contract with Icon. One could claim that the original SLSA was scrapped and the ELSA raised from the bits and pieces. If the DAR didn't make you use the SLSA's serial number, it'd even be hard for Icon to prove it was the same plane....

Ron Wanttaja
 
Sounds like a great "DEAD ON ARRIVAL" approach to me. The love affair of the company with its own product is producing some pretty weird results. The founder being a "fighter pilot" somehow might have this "BIG BROTHER" entitlement that he adopted from the government.

I was thinking of how like attracts like. There might be those who put money down and feel like they have been taken advantage of on this aircraft idea and might get together and join forces on a class action law suit to sew the ICON company for not telling them the truth about the intention of the contract up front.

As a compensation it would be fair that they want their total deposit back plus interest of 1.5 % per month like in the ICON contract, add factor 2 in for the emotional pain plus the lawyer costs.

How good will that feel to the investors? I think the deposit holders should do that as a good example to following the lead of ICON on how they trust them as their customers, After all it is their own idea. This is the result of the two class thinking and entitlement. I don't think that I am the only one who is coming up with this, as I am not even an investor or deposit holder. LOL ....... really loud!
 
FastEddieB said:
Yes.

I took my S-LSA Sky Arrow to E-LSA status years ago and could not be happier with the decision.
Click to expand...

Makes ICONs posturing kind of moot. Once an owner has it with their nonsense, he can write a check for $5000 tear up the contract and take the flying jetski to elsa. No more need for manufacturer exclusive parts.
 
As an aside, some manufacturers - CubCrafters, for instance - will deliver a new plane as either S-LSA or E-LSA, buyer's choice.

I believe I read that in their case, the majority are going out the door as E-LSA's.
 
weilke said:
Makes ICONs posturing kind of moot. Once an owner has it with their nonsense, he can write a check for $5000 tear up the contract and take the flying jetski to elsa. No more need for manufacturer exclusive parts.
Click to expand...
Considering the hefty price tag, how many buyers would be willing to bet on parts being available from someone other than Icon? (I'm assuming that Icon will not be willing to sell parts to owners who don't follow their rules.)
 
FastEddieB said:
As an aside, some manufacturers - CubCrafters, for instance - will deliver a new plane as either S-LSA or E-LSA, buyer's choice.

I believe I read that in their case, the majority are going out the door as E-LSA's.
Click to expand...
About a third of those registered at the beginning of this year are ELSA....

Ron Wanttaja
 
After reading the contract is looks as though Icon are trying to eliminate those who will be buying one of the first 100 or so that are price locked much cheaper than later models and selling for a hefty profit. The whole contract smells of something stepped in. This whole affair has looked to me like the rest of the "schemes" we see every year, a nice picture and a ton of promises to attract investors then they never deliver.

I have never liked the plane or how they have marketed it and now the initial cost is a quarter mil ? I will now sit back and enjoy watching the next few shovels of dirt being tossed on their coffin.
 
weilke said:
Makes ICONs posturing kind of moot. Once an owner has it with their nonsense, he can write a check for $5000 tear up the contract and take the flying jetski to elsa. No more need for manufacturer exclusive parts.
Click to expand...

I'd just register and not say a thing.

The issue is the parts, and that's what icon will try to hold over people's heads. Parts of the engine, electrical, misc generic stuff wouldn't be a issue, but some of that icon specific stuff like airframe, landing gear and that type of thing would be a issue.
 
Production number 23 is up for sale on EBAY, starting bid is 250K and buy it now is 975K!
 
Acrodustertoo said:
Production number 23 is up for sale on EBAY, starting bid is 250K and buy it now is 975K!
Click to expand...

If you can get your medical you're better off with a PA18-180, 185, 206, etc for that money.

Heck for the buy now price just get a DHC2t amphib!
 
hey everyone from Sydney after hearing about icons 41page conditional ownership from a friend who was sent one along with pressure to sign over the phone I went in search of forums and here I am. yes I am a position holder no I'm not some rich ahole I worked hard saved and sacrificed to hopefully one day own an A5 but now I'm not sure to go ahead I am further up the list and am hoping for some sanity to prevail before I receive 41pages of head aches. I have 2 friends who have already got the contract 1 has a meeting with icon and test flight soon and will be waiting for his report about everything to do with this democratizing aircraft company. I like POAmerica yes its the first google found typed in (icon a5 forum) for years I typed this and found nothing but 41pages later its everywhere anyway I hope this can sorted and not damage or change the aircraft industry in ways the majority does not want. thanks from DOC.
 
Welcome to the forum, Darren!
 
Anymouse said:
Hi Daren,

If you want, you and your friends can secretly call this Pilots of Australia. We won't tell. ;)
Click to expand...
thanks for welcome all but POamerica is just fine by me and I hope icons biggest market (USA) will decipher the 41pages and make things great again its a tough industry to survive in and we need growth but in the right direction that benefits GA LSA as the majority wants. thanks
 
It'll manage liability all right, can't crash a airplane you don't buy
 
James331 said:
It'll manage liability all right, can't crash a airplane you don't buy
Click to expand...
And their version of "democratization" looks more like dictatorship to me.
 
Indeed.

Perhaps we will luck out and Icon will go out of business and a better owner/company will take over.

I've said it a thousand times, I like the airframe, the company is the issue.

Between their reckless and overblown marketing, pushing this amphib to in house trained ink wet 30hr pilots complete with images of low level flying, to their contract which makes the plane a short lived and highly restrictive piece of equipment.
 
Shepherd said:
I've flown both the Searay and ther Seamax. I prefer the Seamax. JMHO
Click to expand...
Do you have an idea why Seamax isn't selling? Everything I heard about the airplane was positive. More than a thousand flies all over the world, sometimes in business roles. It's not unduly expensive. And yet when I checked 2 years ago, there were only 5 of them registered in the U.S. What gives?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top