Columbia Aircraf: 300 Worker Lay Off Due To Garmin G1000 Issues

GARMIN RESOLVES G1000 ISSUE, MANUFACTURERS RELIEVED
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195978)
A problem that stalled shipments of Garmin G1000 avionics last week
(), affecting deliveries of some piston aircraft, has been resolved,
Garmin said on Monday. Garmin has resumed shipments of the GRS 77 AHRS
(Attitude Heading Reference System) units, which were the cause of the
snafu, used in G1000 installations. "All affected aircraft
manufacturers will begin receiving GRS 77 units immediately so that
they can resume aircraft deliveries," Garmin said. Production of the
GRS 77 will increase incrementally as Garmin ramps up the production
line. The AHRS problem was caused by a production process change by a
component supplier, Garmin said.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195978

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

GARMIN RESOLVES G1000 ISSUE, MANUFACTURERS RELIEVED
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195978)
A problem that stalled shipments of Garmin G1000 avionics last week
(), affecting deliveries of some piston aircraft, has been resolved,
Garmin said on Monday. Garmin has resumed shipments of the GRS 77 AHRS
(Attitude Heading Reference System) units, which were the cause of the
snafu, used in G1000 installations. "All affected aircraft
manufacturers will begin receiving GRS 77 units immediately so that
they can resume aircraft deliveries," Garmin said. Production of the
GRS 77 will increase incrementally as Garmin ramps up the production
line. The AHRS problem was caused by a production process change by a
component supplier, Garmin said.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195978

Thanks for the update, Larry. It seems to me that Columbia's layoff may
cost them more than if they simply retained the employees for the
duration.

Neil

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:40:21 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
:

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

GARMIN RESOLVES G1000 ISSUE, MANUFACTURERS RELIEVED
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195978)
A problem that stalled shipments of Garmin G1000 avionics last week
(), affecting deliveries of some piston aircraft, has been resolved,
Garmin said on Monday. Garmin has resumed shipments of the GRS 77 AHRS
(Attitude Heading Reference System) units, which were the cause of the
snafu, used in G1000 installations. "All affected aircraft
manufacturers will begin receiving GRS 77 units immediately so that
they can resume aircraft deliveries," Garmin said. Production of the
GRS 77 will increase incrementally as Garmin ramps up the production
line. The AHRS problem was caused by a production process change by a
component supplier, Garmin said.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195978

Thanks for the update, Larry. It seems to me that Columbia's layoff may
cost them more than if they simply retained the employees for the
duration.

Neil


Well, if the payroll costs of 300 employees averaged $25/each,
Columbia will have saved $7,500 for a five-day layoff. I'm not sure
about the costs of laying them off and bringing them back to work, are
you?

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:
(snipped for brevity)
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:40:21 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote in

Thanks for the update, Larry. It seems to me that Columbia's layoff
may cost them more than if they simply retained the employees for the
duration.


Well, if the payroll costs of 300 employees averaged $25/each,
Columbia will have saved $7,500 for a five-day layoff. I'm not sure
about the costs of laying them off and bringing them back to work, are
you?

No, I am not sure about the costs, as there are several factors that can
affect those costs. I'm pretty sure that it isn't a "clean" savings based
solely on payroll, though. For instance, some of those laid off workers
may have taken other opportunities, and if so, there will be training
costs for their replacements, and depending on the state laws Colombia may
have to cover unemployment compensation costs, etc.

Neil

Larry Dighera wrote:



Well, if the payroll costs of 300 employees averaged $25/each,
Columbia will have saved $7,500 for a five-day layoff. I'm not sure
about the costs of laying them off and bringing them back to work, are
you?


The reduction in employee morale will cost far more than $7500 in lost
future productivity.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:33:34 -0800, Scott Skylane
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:



Well, if the payroll costs of 300 employees averaged $25/each,
Columbia will have saved $7,500 for a five-day layoff. I'm not sure
about the costs of laying them off and bringing them back to work, are
you?


The reduction in employee morale will cost far more than $7500 in lost
future productivity.


Perhaps.

Or productivity might be increased by only calling back the productive
employees. Then, while moral may not be increased, an employee's will
to remain employed may spur her to increased production. Who knows?

Larry Dighera wrote:



Perhaps.

Or productivity might be increased by only calling back the productive
employees. Then, while moral may not be increased, an employee's will
to remain employed may spur her to increased production. Who knows?



Wow, did you get that out of "Management Secrets of the Late 1800's"??
You know, the saying "The beatings will continue until morale improves"
is actually a *joke*!

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:33:34 -0800, Scott Skylane
wrote:


The reduction in employee morale will cost far more than $7500 in lost
future productivity.

While it may be a stretch, I look at it this way:

Columbia may have laid them off based on a view that the problem would
take much longer to fix than it did. At this point, they could choose
to pay the affected employees or possibly provide some other perk to
improve morale. Or, they could do nothing.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

"Scott Skylane" wrote in message
...
Larry Dighera wrote:



Well, if the payroll costs of 300 employees averaged $25/each,
Columbia will have saved $7,500 for a five-day layoff. I'm not sure
about the costs of laying them off and bringing them back to work, are
you?


The reduction in employee morale will cost far more than $7500 in lost
future productivity.

Like people in the aerospace industry aren't used to these things?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:40:21 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
:

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

GARMIN RESOLVES G1000 ISSUE, MANUFACTURERS RELIEVED
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195978)
A problem that stalled shipments of Garmin G1000 avionics last week
(), affecting deliveries of some piston aircraft, has been resolved,
Garmin said on Monday. Garmin has resumed shipments of the GRS 77 AHRS
(Attitude Heading Reference System) units, which were the cause of the
snafu, used in G1000 installations. "All affected aircraft
manufacturers will begin receiving GRS 77 units immediately so that
they can resume aircraft deliveries," Garmin said. Production of the
GRS 77 will increase incrementally as Garmin ramps up the production
line. The AHRS problem was caused by a production process change by a
component supplier, Garmin said.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195978

Thanks for the update, Larry. It seems to me that Columbia's layoff may
cost them more than if they simply retained the employees for the
duration.

Neil


Well, if the payroll costs of 300 employees averaged $25/each,
Columbia will have saved $7,500 for a five-day layoff. I'm not sure
about the costs of laying them off and bringing them back to work, are
you?



Where do employees in the USA work for $25 for five days??? I think
Henry Ford paid $4/day nearly 100 years ago. :-)

Most places in the USA have fully burdened labor costs of at least
$50/hours. For five days this is $2,000. For 300 employees, this is
$600,000 which isn't chump change.

Matt