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

[Larry Dighera]

GARMIN G1000 PROBLEM AFFECTS GA DELIVERIES
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/934-full.html#195931)
A problem with a component of the Garmin G1000 glass panel, a popular
choice for avionics in many general aviation aircraft, has stalled
production and delayed deliveries at factories around the country as
Garmin searches for a fix. The problem stems from a sudden increase in
failure rates in recent flight tests of new GRS 77 AHRS (Attitude
Heading Reference System) units used in G1000 installations, Garmin
said on Tuesday. A component failure in the GRS 77 results in a loss
of attitude information on the primary flight display. "After
communication with Garmin's OEM partners and the FAA, it was
determined that in all G1000 installations, continued safe flight can
be conducted with the stand-by attitude indicator and other available
instruments," the company said in a statement. "If pilots should
experience a failure of the GRS 77 AHRS, they should follow standard
procedures and refer to the standby attitude indicator."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/934-full.html#195931

COLUMBIA LAYS OFF 300, CITES GARMIN G1000 ISSUE
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/934-full.html#195932)
At Columbia Aircraft in Bend, Ore., the company announced on Monday ()
that it would halt its production line and lay off about 300 workers
until problems with Garmin G1000s could be resolved. Although Garmin
says the AHRS problem does not require limitations on use of the
aircraft, Columbia spokesman Randy Bolinger told AVweb that,
nonetheless, "the FAA will not allow us to complete Certificates of
Airworthiness with a known defect. The FAA will allow us to certify
the aircraft already on the assembly line for VFR only." Columbia said
in its statement that the production line will "grind to a halt" until
a fix is found and parts shipments are restored.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/934-full.html#195932

GARMIN SNAFU ALSO AFFECTS OTHER AIRFRAMERS
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/934-full.html#195933)
At Cessna Aircraft in Wichita, Kan., production has continued despite
the G1000 problems, Director of Corporate Communications Doug Oliver
told AVweb on Tuesday. "We anticipate a resolution from Garmin
literally any minute," he said. However, deliveries of single-engine
piston aircraft are suspended until the issue is resolved. "Mustang
deliveries were originally suspended as well," Oliver said, "but due
to its lower production rate its avionics systems were installed some
time ago, before the suspect batch was produced. This has, of course,
been confirmed through testing and approved by the FAA." Oliver said
he doesn't anticipate any impact on production at Cessna. At Diamond
Aircraft, spokeswoman Heike Larson told AVweb that production will
continue.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/934-full.html#195933

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:
>
> GARMIN G1000 PROBLEM AFFECTS GA DELIVERIES
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/934-full.html#195931)
>
The situation is quite unfortunate, but perhaps the "known defect" comment
and that units installed earlier at Cessna don't fail in some predictable
way indicate that the problem has been identified. Sounds to me like a
component issue rather than a design issue, and if so, should be resolved
fairly quickly.

Neil

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Neil Gould" wrote:

>
> Sounds to me like a component issue rather than a design issue

Yep. The nightmare of all mfrs that pull components from all over the world
into a complex, integrated product.

As a G1000 owner, I know I own a perishable system. How long before the
unavailability of a critical component makes it unmaintainable?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[[email protected]]

On Aug 17, 4:44 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Neil Gould" wrote:
>
> > Sounds to me like a component issue rather than a design issue
>
> Yep. The nightmare of all mfrs that pull components from all over the world
> into a complex, integrated product.
>
> As a G1000 owner, I know I own a perishable system. How long before the
> unavailability of a critical component makes it unmaintainable?
>
> --
> Dan
> T-182T at BFM

You better hope that Garmin does a lifetime buy on critical end-of-
life components to be able to support it for decades to come. All big
avionics companies do this as a matter of course since their product
life-cycles tend to outlast commercial electronics by many
generations. Processors and memory ICs tend to be the parts that have
the shortest life-cycles and need to be stockpiled.

Dean W
AeroLEDs LLC
www.aeroleds.com

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Dan Luke > posted:

> "Neil Gould" wrote:
>
>>
>> Sounds to me like a component issue rather than a design issue
>
> Yep. The nightmare of all mfrs that pull components from all over
> the world into a complex, integrated product.
>
> As a G1000 owner, I know I own a perishable system. How long before
> the unavailability of a critical component makes it unmaintainable?
>
Since the G1000 system is modular, a different configuration of components
could be made functionally equivalent or superior to the current design of
any of its modules, so it should be able to be maintained indefinitely.
This doesn't follow the computer-oriented model of selling system
"upgrades", but that is a different matter.

Neil

[Mike Isaksen]

"Neil Gould" > wrote ...
> Since the G1000 system is modular, a different configuration of components
> could be made functionally equivalent or superior to the current design of
> any of its modules, so it should be able to be maintained indefinitely.
> This doesn't follow the computer-oriented model of selling system
> "upgrades", but that is a different matter.
>

Two thought provoking sentences, but I don't see how the second supports
the first.

And where (at what levels) do you see the G1000 system as being modular? I
see the "system" as almost a "single box", and when components fail or
portions become obsolete (ie transponder upgrade to ADS-B, or internal
processing speed vs newer box) it might be cost effective to just dump the
whole box.

On another line, how well has Garmin demonstrated its understanding (or
commitmant) to the fact that lifecycle of GA avionics is 20+ years? In my
opinion: not much. Or maybe my opinion is based on the above, that I don't
view the G1000 as very modular or upgradable !?!

[Roy Smith]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> You better hope that Garmin does a lifetime buy on critical end-of-
> life components to be able to support it for decades to come. All big
> avionics companies do this as a matter of course since their product
> life-cycles tend to outlast commercial electronics by many
> generations. Processors and memory ICs tend to be the parts that have
> the shortest life-cycles and need to be stockpiled.

Not just stockpiled, but jealously hoarded and rationed.

A bunch of years ago I was doing a repair job on a piece of lab equipment
which had an embedded process control computer made by HP. One of the
eproms had been damaged. I tried to order a new eprom from HP but was told
they were no longer available. It took a while, but when I finally got to
the right person and explained to them that I had a piece of dead gear and
needed this part to fix it, the answer suddenly became, "Oh, of course
we've still got a few stashed away and can sell you one".

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mike Isaksen > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote ...
>> Since the G1000 system is modular, a different configuration of
>> components could be made functionally equivalent or superior to the
>> current design of any of its modules, so it should be able to be
>> maintained indefinitely. This doesn't follow the computer-oriented
>> model of selling system "upgrades", but that is a different matter.
>>
>
> Two thought provoking sentences, but I don't see how the second
> supports the first.
>
> And where (at what levels) do you see the G1000 system as being
> modular?
>
The G1000 seminar that I attended showed some of the various modules
located in the tail section of a Cessna. For example, the AHRS module that
is having failure issues is a separate unit ("box") from other components.
Garmin describes the G1000 as an "integrated system" of components:

https://buy.garmin.com/shop/store/manual.jsp?product=010-G1000-00&cID=153&pID=6420

> I see the "system" as almost a "single box", and when
> components fail or portions become obsolete (ie transponder upgrade
> to ADS-B, or internal processing speed vs newer box) it might be cost
> effective to just dump the whole box.
>
That's part of the "different matter" I wrote of previously. ;-)
The possibility or practicality of replacing the whole system does not
mean that the system could not be maintained or even improved by replacing
modules with updated components and/or design. This is a fairly common
practice in other areas of electronics where the system is modular and has
a high purchase price.

> On another line, how well has Garmin demonstrated its understanding
> (or commitmant) to the fact that lifecycle of GA avionics is 20+
> years? In my opinion: not much. Or maybe my opinion is based on the
> above, that I don't view the G1000 as very modular or upgradable !?!
>
More than likely. ;-)

Neil

[Vaughn Simon]

"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in message
news:wTBxi.3779$5y3.3374@trndny07...
> On another line, how well has Garmin demonstrated its understanding (or
> commitmant) to the fact that lifecycle of GA avionics is 20+ years? In my
> opinion: not much. Or maybe my opinion is based on the above, that I don't
> view the G1000 as very modular or upgradable !?!

This should be a major concern!

As an example of what can happen, I would mention the telecommunications
industry. At one time, the lifecycle of a typical telephone PBX system was 20+
years. Now, the computer networking industry (Cisco in particular) makes
telephone systems and the product lifecycle time is suddenly equivalent to that
of the computer industry. We switched to Cisco about 4 years ago. Already, we
have "upgraded" much of our hardware because it is no longer supported by Cisco
and are on our 5th generation of the operating system.

I think I can safely predict that 10 years from now, Garman will not be
supporting the first generation of their G1000 line, if they are even still in
that business!

Vaughn


>
>

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 09:22:53 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:


>That's part of the "different matter" I wrote of previously. ;-)
>The possibility or practicality of replacing the whole system does not
>mean that the system could not be maintained or even improved by replacing
>modules with updated components and/or design. This is a fairly common
>practice in other areas of electronics where the system is modular and has
>a high purchase price.

A-La the GIA63 becoming the GIA63W for WAAS? I think they're on the
3rd revision of the GEA and at least the 3rd revision of the GDU1040.

[NW_Pilot]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
>
> GARMIN G1000 PROBLEM AFFECTS GA DELIVERIES
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/934-full.html#195931)
> A problem with a component of the Garmin G1000 glass panel, a popular
> choice for avionics in many general aviation aircraft, has stalled
> production and delayed deliveries at factories around the country as
> Garmin searches for a fix. The problem stems from a sudden increase in
> failure rates in recent flight tests of new GRS 77 AHRS (Attitude
> Heading Reference System) units used in G1000 installations, Garmin
> said on Tuesday. A component failure in the GRS 77 results in a loss
> of attitude information on the primary flight display. "After
> communication with Garmin's OEM partners and the FAA, it was
> determined that in all G1000 installations, continued safe flight can
> be conducted with the stand-by attitude indicator and other available
> instruments," the company said in a statement. "If pilots should
> experience a failure of the GRS 77 AHRS, they should follow standard
> procedures and refer to the standby attitude indicator."
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/934-full.html#195931
>
> COLUMBIA LAYS OFF 300, CITES GARMIN G1000 ISSUE
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/934-full.html#195932)
> At Columbia Aircraft in Bend, Ore., the company announced on Monday ()
> that it would halt its production line and lay off about 300 workers
> until problems with Garmin G1000s could be resolved. Although Garmin
> says the AHRS problem does not require limitations on use of the
> aircraft, Columbia spokesman Randy Bolinger told AVweb that,
> nonetheless, "the FAA will not allow us to complete Certificates of
> Airworthiness with a known defect. The FAA will allow us to certify
> the aircraft already on the assembly line for VFR only." Columbia said
> in its statement that the production line will "grind to a halt" until
> a fix is found and parts shipments are restored.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/934-full.html#195932
>
> GARMIN SNAFU ALSO AFFECTS OTHER AIRFRAMERS
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/934-full.html#195933)
> At Cessna Aircraft in Wichita, Kan., production has continued despite
> the G1000 problems, Director of Corporate Communications Doug Oliver
> told AVweb on Tuesday. "We anticipate a resolution from Garmin
> literally any minute," he said. However, deliveries of single-engine
> piston aircraft are suspended until the issue is resolved. "Mustang
> deliveries were originally suspended as well," Oliver said, "but due
> to its lower production rate its avionics systems were installed some
> time ago, before the suspect batch was produced. This has, of course,
> been confirmed through testing and approved by the FAA." Oliver said
> he doesn't anticipate any impact on production at Cessna. At Diamond
> Aircraft, spokeswoman Heike Larson told AVweb that production will
> continue.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/934-full.html#195933

Scary!!!

[NW_Pilot]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
>> You better hope that Garmin does a lifetime buy on critical end-of-
>> life components to be able to support it for decades to come. All big
>> avionics companies do this as a matter of course since their product
>> life-cycles tend to outlast commercial electronics by many
>> generations. Processors and memory ICs tend to be the parts that have
>> the shortest life-cycles and need to be stockpiled.
>
> Not just stockpiled, but jealously hoarded and rationed.
>
> A bunch of years ago I was doing a repair job on a piece of lab equipment
> which had an embedded process control computer made by HP. One of the
> eproms had been damaged. I tried to order a new eprom from HP but was
> told
> they were no longer available. It took a while, but when I finally got to
> the right person and explained to them that I had a piece of dead gear and
> needed this part to fix it, the answer suddenly became, "Oh, of course
> we've still got a few stashed away and can sell you one".

Depending on the IC it can read, identified and/or programmed. I can read
and dump over 11,400 diffrent devices. I can even bypass security locks on
some microcontrollers, pals & gals. I miss the days or repackaging dies
becuse it was a once off unit and some monkey burnt /broke off the solder
lugs hahahaha them were the days. Or the days of People thinking they can
hide the identy of an IC by grinding off the numbers just lock it in the
programer hit auto find done 90% of the time it found it.

Most the time parts are good it's workmanship and assembly thats the issue.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in message
news:wTBxi.3779$5y3.3374@trndny07...
>
> "Neil Gould" > wrote ...
>
> And where (at what levels) do you see the G1000 system as being modular? I
> see the "system" as almost a "single box", and when components fail or

Key word: Component

Now, if Garmin is tied to and using only single source vendors for those
COMPONENTS, then it's a bad bet. Now, if there's a ton of companies
world-wide (including Garmin) who can DUPLICATE those components, it's a
whole different story.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Matt Barrow > posted:

> "Mike Isaksen" > wrote in message
> news:wTBxi.3779$5y3.3374@trndny07...
>>
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote ...
>>
>> And where (at what levels) do you see the G1000 system as being
>> modular? I see the "system" as almost a "single box", and when
>> components fail or
>
> Key word: Component
>
> Now, if Garmin is tied to and using only single source vendors for
> those COMPONENTS, then it's a bad bet. Now, if there's a ton of
> companies world-wide (including Garmin) who can DUPLICATE those
> components, it's a whole different story.
>
Point of clarity: I didn't write any of the above content (please edit
with a bit of care, Matt)!

If a module's design is dependent on a single-source vendor of components,
then that will be a determining factor in the longevity of that module.
OTOH, most of the modules' functions can be accomplished in multiple ways
using various sets of components, so I wouldn't expect this to be much of
an issue.

Neil

[Aluckyguess]

Sounds like a good excuse to layoff 300 people. It doesnt take that many to
install the G1000. I would say columbia is in trouble. JMHO

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
>
> GARMIN G1000 PROBLEM AFFECTS GA DELIVERIES
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/934-full.html#195931)
> A problem with a component of the Garmin G1000 glass panel, a popular
> choice for avionics in many general aviation aircraft, has stalled
> production and delayed deliveries at factories around the country as
> Garmin searches for a fix. The problem stems from a sudden increase in
> failure rates in recent flight tests of new GRS 77 AHRS (Attitude
> Heading Reference System) units used in G1000 installations, Garmin
> said on Tuesday. A component failure in the GRS 77 results in a loss
> of attitude information on the primary flight display. "After
> communication with Garmin's OEM partners and the FAA, it was
> determined that in all G1000 installations, continued safe flight can
> be conducted with the stand-by attitude indicator and other available
> instruments," the company said in a statement. "If pilots should
> experience a failure of the GRS 77 AHRS, they should follow standard
> procedures and refer to the standby attitude indicator."
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/934-full.html#195931
>
> COLUMBIA LAYS OFF 300, CITES GARMIN G1000 ISSUE
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/934-full.html#195932)
> At Columbia Aircraft in Bend, Ore., the company announced on Monday ()
> that it would halt its production line and lay off about 300 workers
> until problems with Garmin G1000s could be resolved. Although Garmin
> says the AHRS problem does not require limitations on use of the
> aircraft, Columbia spokesman Randy Bolinger told AVweb that,
> nonetheless, "the FAA will not allow us to complete Certificates of
> Airworthiness with a known defect. The FAA will allow us to certify
> the aircraft already on the assembly line for VFR only." Columbia said
> in its statement that the production line will "grind to a halt" until
> a fix is found and parts shipments are restored.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/934-full.html#195932
>
> GARMIN SNAFU ALSO AFFECTS OTHER AIRFRAMERS
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/934-full.html#195933)
> At Cessna Aircraft in Wichita, Kan., production has continued despite
> the G1000 problems, Director of Corporate Communications Doug Oliver
> told AVweb on Tuesday. "We anticipate a resolution from Garmin
> literally any minute," he said. However, deliveries of single-engine
> piston aircraft are suspended until the issue is resolved. "Mustang
> deliveries were originally suspended as well," Oliver said, "but due
> to its lower production rate its avionics systems were installed some
> time ago, before the suspect batch was produced. This has, of course,
> been confirmed through testing and approved by the FAA." Oliver said
> he doesn't anticipate any impact on production at Cessna. At Diamond
> Aircraft, spokeswoman Heike Larson told AVweb that production will
> continue.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/934-full.html#195933

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:01:40 -0700, "Aluckyguess" > wrote:

>Sounds like a good excuse to layoff 300 people. It doesnt take that many to
>install the G1000. I would say columbia is in trouble. JMHO

Then again, if they can't deliver any airplanes because they can't complete the
avionics installation, it makes little sense to keep *building* airplanes.

Ron Wanttaja

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:01:40 -0700, "Aluckyguess" > wrote in
>:

>Sounds like a good excuse to layoff 300 people. It doesnt take that many to
>install the G1000. I would say columbia is in trouble. JMHO

If the Garmin issue prevents aircraft from being delivered, perhaps
the lack of revenue impacts Columbia's ability to meet their payroll.

[Larry Dighera]

GARMIN RESOLVES G1000 ISSUE, MANUFACTURERS RELIEVED
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/938-full.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/archives/avflash/938-full.html#195978

[Larry Dighera]

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/archives/avflash/938-full.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/archives/avflash/938-full.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?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> GARMIN RESOLVES G1000 ISSUE, MANUFACTURERS RELIEVED
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/938-full.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/archives/avflash/938-full.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

[Scott Skylane]

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

[Neil Gould]

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]

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?

[Matt Whiting]

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/archives/avflash/938-full.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/archives/avflash/938-full.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

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:20:20 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >:

>> 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 thought that figure looked suspect. I was estimating that the
payroll cost may be about $25/hr. At that rate it would work out to
$300,000 using an eight hour work shift. Thanks for calling my error
to my attention.

>I think Henry Ford paid $4/day nearly 100 years ago. :-)

Ford is an apt analogy; he wouldn't put doors on the rest rooms, so
that his employees didn't waste too much time in there, from what I've
read.

>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

Agreed. That's about the price of twenty SR22s. Customers get a five
day delivery delay, and Columbia gets half a ~$million. Smooth.

[Al G[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:20:20 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote in >:
>
>>> Well, if the payroll costs of 300 employees averaged $25/each,


snip


> Agreed. That's about the price of twenty SR22s. Customers get a five
> day delivery delay, and Columbia gets half a ~$million. Smooth.
>

An Sr22 costs $30,000? Or are you talking about that insurance
paper...

Al G

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:20:20 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote in >:
>
[...]
>
>> 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
>> $600,000 which isn't chump change.
>>
>
> Agreed. That's about the price of twenty SR22s. Customers get a five
> day delivery delay, and Columbia gets half a ~$million. Smooth.
>
Following that line of thinking, if they laid off 300 people for a week
once a month, Columbia would collect enough in a year to make those 20
SR22s at 100% pure profit. OTOH, I'd buy an SR22 for $30k any day...

Somehow, I doubt it would work out that way. ;-)

Neil

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:11:11 -0700, "Al G"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:20:20 GMT, Matt Whiting >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>>> Well, if the payroll costs of 300 employees averaged $25/each,
>
>
>snip
>
>
>> Agreed. That's about the price of twenty SR22s. Customers get a five
>> day delivery delay, and Columbia gets half a ~$million. Smooth.
>>
>
> An Sr22 costs $30,000? Or are you talking about that insurance
>paper...
>
>Al G
>

Matt mentioned the figure $600,000, and it is my understanding that
the price of SR22s is ~$300,000 each, so it looks like by math was off
by a factor of 10 (again). Thanks.

[Scott Skylane]

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

[B A R R Y]

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.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"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?

[Thomas Borchert]

Aluckyguess,

> Sounds like a good excuse to layoff 300 people. It doesnt take that many to
> install the G1000. I would say columbia is in trouble.
>

Exactly my thought. Every other manufacturer can work around this, only
Columbia has to fire 300?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Larry,

> and it is my understanding that
> the price of SR22s is ~$300,000 each
>

Tell me where! Please!

The SR22 is much more expensive.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:01:31 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote in
>:

>Larry,
>
>> and it is my understanding that
>> the price of SR22s is ~$300,000 each
>>
>
>Tell me where! Please!
>
>The SR22 is much more expensive.

It would seem that you are correct:

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/sr22/