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

"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.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news




GARMIN G1000 PROBLEM AFFECTS GA DELIVERIES
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.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/archive...ll.html#195931

COLUMBIA LAYS OFF 300, CITES GARMIN G1000 ISSUE
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.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/archive...ll.html#195932

GARMIN SNAFU ALSO AFFECTS OTHER AIRFRAMERS
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.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/archive...ll.html#195933

Scary!!!

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
news




GARMIN G1000 PROBLEM AFFECTS GA DELIVERIES
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.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/archive...ll.html#195931

COLUMBIA LAYS OFF 300, CITES GARMIN G1000 ISSUE
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.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/archive...ll.html#195932

GARMIN SNAFU ALSO AFFECTS OTHER AIRFRAMERS
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.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/archive...ll.html#195933

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

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.

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)

GARMIN RESOLVES G1000 ISSUE, MANUFACTURERS RELIEVED
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.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/archive...ll.html#195978

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

GARMIN RESOLVES G1000 ISSUE, MANUFACTURERS RELIEVED
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.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/archive...ll.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

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/archive...ll.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/archive...ll.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?

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