DG response re service fee
Mike Yankee
regarding his proposed service fee policy, and am posting part of this
exchange because fellow DG and LS owners may be interested.
SUGGESTION: To the extent that service fees are really necessary, why
not add some reasonable amount to support services, parts, manual
revisions, etc. as they are ordered and needed?
REPLY: "Many additional information are available now and I really
like to ask you, to read the complete article carefully once more. I
am sure that then you will understand why this Service Agreement is
necessary to maintain our Type Support and keep the gliders flying."
SUGGESTION: At least give people a choice. I.e., if they elect to
pay 245 Euros a year up front, they enjoy your technical support for
free and some discount on parts; those who do not pay the annual fee
can be charged some nominal cost of $100 or so for a tech note or a
drawing, and will pay a higher price for parts -- but they will not be
shut out.
REPLY: "Many additional information are available now and I really
like to ask you, to read the complete article carefully once more. I
am sure that then you will understand why this Service Agreement is
necessary to maintain our Type Support and keep the gliders flying."
QUESTION: Suppose I choose not to pay the fee, continue flying my
DG-300 another five years, then sell it. Now what happens if the new
owner wants your technical support? Can he buy into the program?
And, if so, at what cost? Will he only pay the current year? Or will
you charge him also for five years I didn't pay? Will you make him
pay 1225 Euros just to order something simple like a tailwheel axle,
or get one "free" technical drawing?
REPLY: None.
asw22...@gmail.com
Looks like DG needs to roll over and die based on Webbers responses!!
Al
jcarlyle
It looks like Herr Weber is hunkering down, and now just parroting
things he's already posted on his web site. I think he knows that he's
made a big mistake in how he's handled the issue, but is too arrogant
to admit it and doesn't know what to do mitigate the damage. Hopefully
he'll take some time off, think things through, and come back from the
holidays with a better approach.
-John
vontresc
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hmmm I wonder if Mr Weber considered the increased call volume that
this plan will cause. Now that you are forced to pay your 245euros
owners will want to get some value for your payment.
Pete - Happy Schleicher owner
Mike Yankee
> this plan will cause. Now that you are forced to pay your 245euros
> owners will want to get some value for your payment.
Unfortunately, yes. DG says they will track their costs and adjust
the fee as required. So it's an automatic money-maker for DG, until
they calculate the cost of ticking off and losing customers.
As to "forced to pay," no one is. Certainly I am not. Only if and
when the FAA says I must pay this stupid fee will I be forced.
(Anybody want to bet on the likelihood of that ever happening? In
fact, I would not be surprised if the FAA flatly told DG they cannot
withhold support to US operators on the basis DG is proposing.)
I said to Dr. Weber in my initial e-mail, "I don't want to see your
company go out of business, but neither do I wish to be blackmailed
with a gun to my head because you cannot otherwise control your
costs. And I am not alone in this opinion! Please do not sleep until
you find a FAIR solution. Otherwise, you will have no rest."
DG should scrap this BS plan and replace it with a simpler pay-as-you-
go.
Andy
Unfortunately, this is a classic problem for long-lived, support-
intensive products, particularly as the growth rate in sales slows or
goes negative. You end up with a huge fleet to support and not enough
margin from the small volume of new product sales to cover the costs.
It's similar to what happened to so many General Aviation
manufacturers in the 80s - in their case it was exacerbated by product
liability insurance premiums to cover 50 years of production. In that
case the solution was simple - restructure the assets into a new
company and leave the liabilities behind. It's hard to cover these
costs by raising the price of new aircraft because it's a competitive
market. If DG produces 50 aircraft a year, the $500,000 in costs they
claim for support amounts to $10,000 per new aircraft. As a matter of
fairness it probably makes more sense to charge the costs to the group
that incurs them, the existing fleet.
Pay-as-you go is an alternative, but be prepared for pay-a-lot-as-you-
go. To break even on the costs as described on the DG website each
support incident would need to include a surcharge of several hundred
dollars, maybe more. You can perhaps vary the charge based on the type
of support, but if a fair amount of the costs they are trying to cover
are the fixed overhead of maintaining regulatory documentation it is
likely that even seemingly trivial requests will carry a heavy burden.
Then what happens is demand elasticity kicks in as customers start
looking for alternatives for DG services where possible and the costs
for the services that you can only get from DG go up even more as the
fixed costs are spread over an even smaller number of support events.
Imagine a pure pay-as-you-go world where an issue is discovered with
an older design and the entire fleet is grounded until the owners of
the affected S/Ns raise enough money to pay for the engineering for a
fix - it would be a mess. Then there's enforcement. How do you
restrict distribution of flight manual changes just to those who have
paid? For bigger stuff, let's say it costs $2000 per affected aircraft
to engineer a fix for an AD. How do you restrict the applicability of
the AD to just owners who have paid their share of the costs - can you
legally ground anyone who hasn't paid? Oh, and saying "ADs should be
free" doesn't resolve the basic economic problem - fixing stuff costs
money.
Sure, the manufacturers can tighten their belts some more, but if the
regulators say you have to comply, you have to comply - that requires
people and people usually get paid. I don't think any of us want the
companies that built our gliders to be slow in responding to ADs or in
issuing important TNs, or in providing parts. That can result in a
grounded glider - maybe for a very long time.
I'm not defending how DG has handled this. If I owned an older DG or
LS I'd be pissed and disappointed. I am also a bit skeptical of the
cost numbers they are quoting. That said, it makes me wonder if we all
are going to face rising costs of keeping our gliders flying -
particularly if the regulators keep piling on the administrative
requirements.
Hoping the new year brings a better solution to this.
9B
Bob Whelan
>>
>> DG should scrap this BS plan and replace it with a simpler pay-as-you-
>> go.
>
>
>
> I'm not defending how DG has handled this. If I owned an older DG or
> LS I'd be pissed and disappointed. I am also a bit skeptical of the
> cost numbers they are quoting. That said, it makes me wonder if we all
> are going to face rising costs of keeping our gliders flying -
> particularly if the regulators keep piling on the administrative
> requirements.
"What Andy said,"...with the following seditious (U.S.-centric)
observation regarding regulators and "safety."
Just as perfection is never an option, neither is 'perfect safety' and
no reliance on any government-based scheme (e.g. CAA/FAA-based AD's on
ATC'ed airframes, etc.) can change that fact. That said, maybe it's time
we - the aviation community as a whole - begin to look for 'the future
maintenance of safety' outside government-based bureaucracies. Certainly
a new bureaucracy (private?) will be required, but here's an aphorism
(origin unknown) that may apply to current European/U.S. realities:
"When a bureaucracy loses sight of the purpose it was originally formed
to serve, and begins to serve itself, it has outlived its usefulness."
Is it too much to append, ..."and its justification for existence)"?
Bob - living in the pipedream-created U.S. - W.
jcarlyle
rules. It was set up from the get-go to charge for everything that it
did. Herr Weber started complaining about EASA charges when DG was
issuing free technical notes for installing transponders. What we're
seeing now is the logical outcome of EASA making clear to DG (and
everyone else) that any interaction with them will be costly. I'm
certainly not defending Herr Weber, but I can see how this debacle
started. EASA needs to die, but I'm afraid it won't until only huge
aviation companies are left in Europe. By that time, of course, German
glider companies will be toast.
-John
stephanevdv
have to work with the national aviation authorities too, and they even
do not have the last word in the matter. They are very open to
discussion, but their proposals have to be approved at the political
level by the EU. And the national bodies that control aviation are
doing their utmost to keep everything as much under their control as
they can. So what results is often more stringent rules than
originally proposed by EASA. And then you can apply these rules in
different ways at the national level.
Changing a rule once adopted doesn't seem to be a realistic option,
the work has to be done during the rulemaking process. That's why we
have Europe Airsports and the European Gliding Union, who are battling
at every possible level to keep things as simple as possible.
For example, EASA rules should make it possible for sporting bodies
(national aeroclubs, or even indidvidual aeroclubs) to maintain
gliders themselves, but if the national FAA-equivalents impose long
waiting times, impractical procedures and high fees on the paperwork
this involves, such a system is not viable. Belgium is a case in
point. Many of our gliders are now German registered, because it is
much simpler (!) and even cheaper (!!!) to have them maintained by a
German workshop than working with our administration. The EASA rules
are the same in Germany as they are in Belgium, but...
Concerning costs for the glider companies, EASA is creating a new
category of aircraft called ELA (European Light Aircraft) that will do
much to simplify the certification procedure for new types of
aircraft. All gliders will fall into the ELA category, wich should
seriously cut costs in that department.
It is also a question of adapting to the system. If the glider
companies had included the possibility for transponder installation
into the original certification paperwork of a glider type, they
wouldn't have to pay for STC's now. The writing was on the wall for a
long time...
tommytoyz
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.
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?
tommytoyz
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.
Tim Mara
"tommytoyz" <tommy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9d7d8f87-0c43-49e0...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>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, Hansj�rg Streifeneder, After the bankruptcy
of Glasfl�gel, Hansj�rg Streifeneder felt committed to the work of Eugen
H�nle and continued with the maintenance and certification of all Glasfl�gel
gliders. He founded the Glasfl�gel 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
Andy
> "tommytoyz" <tommyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> 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
Brian
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
Martin Gregorie
> 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 |
jeroen pol
taken over the support for all gliders.
Jeroen
On 31 dec, 19:15, Martin Gregorie <mar...@address-in-sig.invalid>
wrote:
Martin Gregorie
> 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?
tommytoyz
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.
Andy
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
Darryl Ramm
Or hold out for their own non-selfish reasons.
Either way I suspect doomed to never work.
Darryl
Hagbard Celine
> 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?
My club purchased a new rudder for our Astir Standard III from Linder
just a couple of years ago. They took over support for the single
seaters even before Grob went belly up.
And lucky us! We just bought a DG-505 Elan Orion too....
Nick Hill
Check the serial number for the Orion. If it is in the following list
then there is continued free support as it was built by DG Flugzeugbau
not Glaser-Dirks.
DG-500 Serial-No:
161,162,165-176,178-193,196-204,206,209,211,213-221,223,225,228-230,232,234-247
Nick Hill