DG's new requirements for older DG ships

[Bernie[_3_]]

I'm wondering what other owners of older DG ships think of DG's
requirement to pay a fee upfront in order to purchase parts and
software to maintain their gliders.

I own a DG 202/17.

LL

[[email protected]]

I don't know of a single individual who's paying this ransom. Early
on I e-mailed Dr. Weber with some constructive comments and
questions. He didn't even address some of the points I raised.
Relevant portions of this exchange were posted on this newsgroup,
where they can still be read. Let the world judge.

[Andreas Maurer]

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 14:00:38 -0800 (PST), Bernie
> wrote:

>I'm wondering what other owners of older DG ships think of DG's
>requirement to pay a fee upfront in order to purchase parts and
>software to maintain their gliders.

In Germany there have already been the first cases where DG refused to
sell spare parts.

[SF]

On Feb 21, 5:00*pm, Bernie > wrote:
> I'm wondering what other owners of older DG ships think of DG's
> requirement to pay a fee upfront in order to purchase parts and
> software to maintain their gliders.
>
> I own a DG 202/17.
>
> LL

DG is now refusing to sell parts to US customers without service
contracts. Companies have traditionally spent a lot of money making
consumers want to buy their products. That is what we are used to,
and expect. In this case DG has told us that we have to buy their
product, and came up way short of making us want to. This is a
terrible marketing strategy that has more in common with the US tax
code than a valid sales plan. I suspect that they are even now
trying to come up with some face saving way to mitigate the damage
caused by this ill conceived plan.

[Grider Pirate]

On Feb 22, 5:28*pm, SF > wrote:
> On Feb 21, 5:00*pm, Bernie > wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering what other owners of older DG ships think of DG's
> > requirement to pay a fee upfront in order to purchase parts and
> > software to maintain their gliders.
>
> > I own a DG 202/17.
>
> > LL
>
> DG is now refusing to sell parts to US customers without service
> contracts. *Companies have traditionally spent a lot of money making
> consumers want to buy their products. *That is what we are used to,
> and expect. *In this case DG has told us that we have to buy their
> product, and came up way short of making us want to. *This is a
> terrible marketing strategy that has more in common with the US tax
> code than a *valid sales plan. *I suspect that they are even now
> trying to come up with some face saving way to mitigate the damage
> caused by this ill conceived plan.

With my apologies to all DG and LS owners: RIP DG

[ken]

Disclaimer: my DG 303 acro IS covered.

Whether this is a huge and fatal business mistake for DG or not, I don't
know. I, for one, would never again buy a product in any way "supported"
by the current owners of DG. I mean, how stupid would that be?

In article
>,
Bernie > wrote:

> I'm wondering what other owners of older DG ships think of DG's
> requirement to pay a fee upfront in order to purchase parts and
> software to maintain their gliders.
>
> I own a DG 202/17.
>
> LL

[Westbender]

I think in the end, he's only going to get what he should have asked
for all along. Owners who need service/parts will pay. The only
difference is now there's a 245 euro "surcharge". That's still better
than extorting payment from all owners.

Although if he can get the regulating bodies to ground aircraft unless
they pay, then that changes things. I'm very hopeful they won't allow
themselves to be used like that.

[JAS]

On Feb 23, 10:47*pm, Westbender > wrote:
> I think in the end, he's only going to get what he should have asked
> for all along. Owners who need service/parts will pay. The only
> difference is now there's a 245 euro "surcharge". That's still better
> than extorting payment from all owners.
>
> Although if he can get the regulating bodies to ground aircraft unless
> they pay, then that changes things. I'm very hopeful they won't allow
> themselves to be used like that.

Is there any case to involve monopolies legislation?

[Darryl Ramm]

On Feb 25, 11:10*am, JAS > wrote:
> On Feb 23, 10:47*pm, Westbender > wrote:
>
> > I think in the end, he's only going to get what he should have asked
> > for all along. Owners who need service/parts will pay. The only
> > difference is now there's a 245 euro "surcharge". That's still better
> > than extorting payment from all owners.
>
> > Although if he can get the regulating bodies to ground aircraft unless
> > they pay, then that changes things. I'm very hopeful they won't allow
> > themselves to be used like that.
>
> Is there any case to involve monopolies legislation?

Legislation in what country or state? Monopoly? DG has no monopoly in
the glider market. And actions like this may well result in less
market share for them. US Federal law regarding monopoly like the
Sherman act really does not apply, there is no action or conspiracy to
limit trade or monopolize a market. In the big picture, the market is
doing fine, customers are able to buy gliders from other
manufactures.

Darryl

Darryl

[jb92563]

In the US we should just ask Obama to bail DG out since DG is holding
our aircraft grounded
until owners pay the ransom....er...I mean extra expensive parts.

Hmmmmm....that sounds like a form of terrorism....grounding US
aircraft thru undo duress...... isn't it Obama?

I know some Execs at Toyota that would also like to copy the DG
business model. They could come out of their ordeal ahead, or with
their head at least.

Any DG owners want to register "Experimental" yet?

OK, sarcasm & jokes complete.....and laugh if your DG doesn't need
parts.

[noel.wade]

On Feb 25, 1:06*pm, jb92563 > wrote:
>
> Any DG owners want to register "Experimental" yet?
>
> OK, sarcasm & jokes complete.....and laugh if your DG doesn't need
> parts.

*begins laughing while looking lovingly at his Experimental DG-300 in
fine shape*

--Noel
(who's a smartass, who loves DG gliders but may never buy a DG or LS
again, if this policy remains)

[rocha]

Hi.

I also find this funny. We're going to pay a fee to ensure future
support for our "old" gliders. I guess this means mainly ensuring
we'll have replacement parts in the future.

The funny part: until now i needed two replacement parts.

The first one was the trim lock, the spring was no good: was told it
doesn't exist anymore, but i can take the dg500 one which is similar.
After paying/getting it, i found it's not really the same, the angle
it makes with the lock wheel is totally different and the only way to
use it is to redo the link of the host metal piece with the fuselage.
I wasn't expecting that, and it's no fun.

Second one... i asked for a replacement for the plastic tube which
goes into the water ballast bag, which was broken. Answer: the piece
does not exist anymore, but i can send it to them so they see if it
can be fixed.

And now i'll be paying for this... not so nice.

Cheers,
Ricardo

On Feb 25, 10:19*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 1:06*pm, jb92563 > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Any DG owners want to register "Experimental" yet?
>
> > OK, sarcasm & jokes complete.....and laugh if your DG doesn't need
> > parts.
>
> *begins laughing while looking lovingly at his Experimental DG-300 in
> fine shape*
>
> --Noel
> (who's a smartass, who loves DG gliders but may never buy a DG or LS
> again, if this policy remains)