If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
DG response re service fee
Actually,
After reading the other thread, I think it would be best for DG to abandon the airworthiness certificate for the older gliders and let owners fend for themselves, as PIK and owners of other older glider types already do. EASA has a procedure for these aircraft, they won't be grounded. This way DG could save themselves all of the expenses. Problem solved! Portraying this issue of support in a light that without DG support the gliders would be grounded I think is misleading. But that's just me and I could be wrong. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
DG response re service fee
"tommytoyz" wrote in message ... I don't own any of these gliders, but after reading Herr Weber's reasoning, it makes sense. He is not responsible to support those aircraft. The alternative would be for him to just drop all support. Would that be better? Maybe it would. But it is his responsibility ! What he and many readers are not acknowledging is the simple fact that he bought these companies out of bankruptsy FOR the name and the legacy , the legacy is the assets, the company names and along with their following and name recognition is this liability, which he assumed would also and I'm sure has brought his company many profitable sales and profits from support. He could have just as well started a new company, created a name, even used the design rights since he bought these out of bankruptsy and began anew, but without the name recognition would have had to struggle along with every other company to create a product and name that would be associated with the history he would have created. He does have a right to charge what he wants for the parts and even the manuals he produces and he could have turned away any responsibility for supporting old designs if he had not already claimed he IS the old company. Interesting would be to compare how the old Glasfluegel, Grob, and other owners cope with the issue of their manufacturers being out of business. Would it be better if nobody supported the aircraft, so long as no serious problems arise? The original Glasflugel gliders are still very well supported, probably better than many other old models from their respective manufacturers by Glasfaser-Flugzeug-Service GmbH, Hansjörg Streifeneder, After the bankruptcy of Glasflügel, Hansjörg Streifeneder felt committed to the work of Eugen Hänle and continued with the maintenance and certification of all Glasflügel gliders. He founded the Glasflügel Aircraft Service GmbH. http://www.streifly.de/glasfluegel-e.htm He also has the right to sell these parts and services for whatever he deems is fair and profitable. Grob has ceased production of gliders for many years and still offers support for most of their products. They too have the option to charge whatever they see as needed. But neither of these companies have come to all of the owners of their old and long out of production aircraft and demanded a royalty from the owners for something they don't even promise to support or supply parts for. tim |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
DG response re service fee
On Dec 31, 7:56*am, "Tim Mara" wrote:
"tommytoyz" wrote in message ... I don't own any of these gliders, but after reading Herr Weber's reasoning, it makes sense. He is not responsible to support those aircraft. The alternative would be for him to just drop all support. Would that be better? Maybe it would. But it is his responsibility ! What he and many readers are not acknowledging is the simple fact that he bought these companies out of bankruptsy FOR the name and the legacy , the legacy is the assets, the company names and along with their following and name recognition is this liability, which he assumed would also and I'm sure has brought his company many profitable sales and profits from support. He could have just as well started a new company, created a name, even used the design rights since he bought these out of bankruptsy and began anew, but without the name recognition would have had to struggle along with every other company to create a product and name that would be associated with the history he would have created. He does have a right to charge what he wants for the parts and even the manuals he produces and he could have turned away any responsibility for supporting old designs if he had not already claimed he IS the old company. Interesting would be to compare how the old Glasfluegel, Grob, and other owners cope with the issue of their manufacturers being out of business. Would it be better if nobody supported the aircraft, so long as no serious problems arise? The original Glasflugel gliders are still very well supported, probably better than many other old models from their respective manufacturers by Glasfaser-Flugzeug-Service GmbH, Hansjörg Streifeneder, After the bankruptcy of Glasflügel, Hansjörg Streifeneder felt committed to the work of Eugen Hänle and continued with the maintenance and certification of all Glasflügel gliders. He founded the Glasflügel Aircraft Service GmbH.http://www.streifly.de/glasfluegel-e.htmHe also has the right to sell these parts and services for whatever he deems is fair and profitable. Grob has ceased production of gliders for many years and still offers support for most of their products. They too have the option to charge whatever they see as needed. But neither of these companies have come to all of the owners of their old and long out of production aircraft and demanded a royalty from the owners for something they don't even promise to support or supply parts for. tim It might be a moral obligation to support the installed base, but it isn't clear to me that it is a legal obligation in this case. It may depend on how the bankruptcy sale was structured. Generally in bankruptcy you have the right to restructure, or in the case of a liquidation or asset sale, abandon entirely the old company's liabilities. I suspect the support for the installed base of gliders is helpful to the sale of new gliders by giving new customers some confidence that their gilders will be supported too. Market image is the real reason to keep up support if it's not in itself profitable. I wonder what the Glasflügel and Grob support business models look like. Do they have to deal with all the same regulatory paperwork and engineering support, or are they just parts businesses? Perhaps paring down support for older DG models to parts only plus maybe engineering for an hourly fee would be a more viable way to go economically. If Grob can turn a profit on support DG might be able to adopt the same model. This presupposes, a) that Grob does in fact turn a profit on support, b) that DG has as a practical option to adopt the same business model (legally and in terms of what customers demand from a going concern glider manufacturer versus a defunct one) and, c) that DG would be willing to go in that direction. That's a lot of supposing I think. Seems like most owners would rather roll the dice on expensive support on a pay-as-you go basis than commit to an annual fee, even if the former works out to be more expensive over time. Happy New Year! 9B |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
DG response re service fee
Actually Sunsetting support for older gliders is probably not a bad
idea as long as it is set at a reasonable time like 20 or 25 years since manufacturing of a type ceased. This would lower the resell value of older gliders and raise the resale value of newer gliders that still have support. Brian |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
DG response re service fee
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:27:22 -0800, Andy wrote:
I wonder what the Glasflügel and Grob support business models look like. Both have other sources of income as well. Grob supply the RAF's current basic trainer, the Tutor and, IIRC, have a considerable non-aviation machine tool business. Glasfaser seem to have quite a diverse aviation-related business as well. According to their news page they are involved in both the Nimeta and Concordia projects as well as supporting other gliders and aerobatic aircraft. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org | |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
DG response re service fee
Grob has folded this summer, Lindner (http://www.ltb-lindner.com/) has
taken over the support for all gliders. Jeroen On 31 dec, 19:15, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:27:22 -0800, Andy wrote: I wonder what the Glasflügel and Grob support business models look like. Both have other sources of income as well. Grob supply the RAF's current basic trainer, the Tutor and, IIRC, have a considerable non-aviation machine tool business. Glasfaser seem to have quite a diverse aviation-related business as well. According to their news page they are involved in both the Nimeta and Concordia projects as well as supporting other gliders and aerobatic aircraft. -- martin@ * | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org * * * | |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
DG response re service fee
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:25:02 -0800, jeroen pol wrote:
Grob has folded this summer, Is that the entire group that has folded or just the aviation section? I notice that the website is still there but only mentions machine tools as products. All traces of aviation stuff appear to have been wiped from the website. It also mentions a sales offensive this December Lindner (http://www.ltb-lindner.com/) has taken over the support for all gliders. I see that the Lindner website only mentions supporting the G.103, so what has happened about the various Astirs, both single seat and dual? -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org | |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
DG response re service fee
Here are two options for DG:
1. Assign Lindner or anyone else who is willing to take over TC and support for older DG aircraft 2. Keep on as is, However, if engineering issues arise, cover those costs on a case by case basis by requiring all owners to pay for an updated "expiring maintenance manual" which would include any new fixes. This should happen only once per incident. This would force all owners to pay up for the one shot engineering expenses+profit or else their gliders would remain grounded. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
DG response re service fee
On Jan 1, 12:02*pm, tommytoyz wrote:
Here are two options for DG: 1. Assign Lindner or anyone else who is willing to take over TC and support for older DG aircraft 2. Keep on as is, However, if engineering issues arise, cover those costs on a case by case basis by requiring all owners to pay for an updated "expiring maintenance manual" which would include any new fixes. This should happen only once per incident. This would force all owners to pay up for the one shot engineering expenses+profit or else their gliders would remain grounded. Not sure if you can require all owners to pay. What if several refuse to pay? Once the work has been submitted to the authorities, anyone refusing to pay becomes a free rider - I doubt you can ground specific S/N for not paying. You could refuse to do the work until 100% pay, but there will always be the holdouts who want a discount for their own selfish reasons. 9B |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
DG response re service fee
On Jan 1, 7:00*pm, Andy wrote:
On Jan 1, 12:02*pm, tommytoyz wrote: Here are two options for DG: 1. Assign Lindner or anyone else who is willing to take over TC and support for older DG aircraft 2. Keep on as is, However, if engineering issues arise, cover those costs on a case by case basis by requiring all owners to pay for an updated "expiring maintenance manual" which would include any new fixes. This should happen only once per incident. This would force all owners to pay up for the one shot engineering expenses+profit or else their gliders would remain grounded. Not sure if you can require all owners to pay. What if several refuse to pay? Once the work has been submitted to the authorities, anyone refusing to pay becomes a free rider - I doubt you can ground specific S/N for not paying. You could refuse to do the work until 100% pay, but there will always be the holdouts who want a discount for their own selfish reasons. 9B Or hold out for their own non-selfish reasons. Either way I suspect doomed to never work. Darryl |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
US, Retrieve Cell service getting worse, Analog service disappearing. | chris | Soaring | 10 | December 24th 07 11:50 PM |