DG's new requirements for older DG ships

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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

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.