From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: D2 Update part deux
To: lml
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:02:02 -0500
Message-ID: <web-1740666@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <8984A39879F2F5418251CBEEC9C689B3287469@lucky.dts.local>
References: <8984A39879F2F5418251CBEEC9C689B3287469@lucky.dts.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1";format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


Posted for "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>:

  Brent,
  May I suggest that your representation that "D2 had a license to purchase 
the
parts for, assemble and "D2 label" the experimental displays and that these
were then D2 labeled products that would run CFS software. I never saw a
"Chelton" logo on the display systems D2 sold" is simplistic and perhaps bit
disingenuous.
  
  A quote from today's Aero-News states "D2A originally purchased Crossbow
NAV425EX-200 AHRS products for installation in its customers' Chelton avionics
systems."   Of course, Aero-News is by no means a legal authority, but that
quote may well be representative of the perception in the market place---and
we all know that perception is 90% or reality.  For those interested, the link
to the article is:
http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav.cfm?ContentBlockID=ea0a55f2-a02a-420f-85ed-43c85f5888dc&Dynamic=1s
<http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav.cfm?ContentBlockID=ea0a55f2-a02a-420f-85ed-43c85f5888dc&Dynamic=1s>
  
  In reading the article, we see key words of wondering, confusion, troubling,
byzantine, fate and refusal by Chelton, Pinpoint and other parties to respond
to questions, emails or other inquiries--not warm-n-fuzzy stuff.  One may see
the refusal to communicate as holding their word until they are ready to
speak, however, the next person (especially troubled customers) may see it as
stone-wallling.
  
  In your own words, you proposed that "I think we can agree that corporations
are bodies without souls, and therefore without morality."  I'm sure you were
indicating that corporations are amoral, not immoral?  It seems to me that
there is a problem here for CFS, Pinpoint and the other involved parties.
  Instead of being out front and ahead of the news, they are already behind 
the
curve and may be perceived as stonewalling and hiding behind legalistic
veils---which is okay, because, after all, corporations have no soul....or
morals?
  
  How much better would it have been for Chelton to come out with a statement
to the effect that "we are concerned about the recent developments at D2A, and
while Chelton does not believe we have legal liabilities in this matter (the
lawyers always want to put this type crap in there), our concern, even
obligation to our aviation market rises well above simple legal
responsibilities.  It may take us a few days to sort out the facts, but we
will come back to you in the near future with the best plan we can propose to
for assisting those whose products have not been delivered and who may have
doubt about future support for their D2A products.  We may not be able to
solve all of the unfortunate problems that have arisen, but we are committed
to being part of  the solution."?
  
  I'm sure the PR types could have polished and puffed up this message before
release--as long as the lawyers didn't come along and gut it first.  Such a
message shows the customer that the soulless corporation at least has a heart.
  Even if Chelton's proposed solution is to do next to nothing, at least
they've managed the whole sordid affair, instead of being driven by it.
  Whatever Chelton comes out with now, they will be percevied to have done so
only after being forced to by public opinion and bad publicity; not very
flattering and little credit will go to Chelton for what they ultimately
offer, since it had to be twisted and extracted from them instead of them
voluntarily stepping forward to do the best they could.  Someone who enlists
is always thought more highly of than someone that is drafted.
  
  In sum, Chelton, PinPoint, et al, can remain incommunicado (which some
perceive as stonewalling) and rely on strict legalistic positions, but as I
recall, the last person that resorted to that haven took brickbats for years
afterwards.  Of course, then again, it depends on what your definition of "is"
is.
  
  Chuck Jensen