Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 11:43:52 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-1758476@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.229.254.14; envelope-from=jschroeder@perigee.net
Subject: Re: [LML] Pinpoint
References: <list-1755853@logan.com>
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-15
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <list-1755853@logan.com>
User-Agent: Opera M2/8.54 (Win32, build 7730)

Aint got no dog in this one, folks, and I have no experience with Chelton/Sierra - other than what I have read of their literature; discussed with Gordon in the early days of Sierra; and absorbed from the many postings of satisfied customers.   Absent evidence to force a belief to the contrary, I sincerely believe they have high quality products and lots of satisfied customers. My quarrel here is their business practices and now, those of the company behind "Pinpoint".

Am I correct in saying that the experimental market could not obtain a Chelton Sport system unless it went through D2? And therefore, anyone wishing to use a great company like Aerotronics or another reputable panel maker to install a Chelton Sport in their panel had to pay two markups to get the product?

Note here, that the two sentences above are not assertions or conclusions. One question begat another.

Or was D2 performing another service to earn that markup? (Question)

If so, why couldn't any established and well known panel fabricator/avionics shop provide that service?

Has anyone here seen a three tiered system like this in the business world lately? On the contrary, the trend is toward easing out the middle man-distributor. (informed hypothesis, not an assertion of fact)

Why would a savvy, hi-tech business like Chelton want to funnel all the experimental product  through a small, startup business like D2?

Why wouldn't they want to deal directly with several established, competent and well known panel fabricators?

One reason and an insufficient one in my opinion (opinion, here) is managing the business relationship of a few more dealers.

Finally, why would they want to want to carry a product (Pinpoint) and agree to keeping its manufacturer anonymous?

And apparently from Brent's comments, that anonymous company likes anonymity enough to keep the identity of at least one of it's suppliers/designers anonymous?

My vote is for Crossbow on this round. They have had problems, but have been pretty honest and dedicated to working out the problems on their "experimental" line of products.

And now to the delete key after a respectfully few days to see if someone can answer the questions.

Cheers,

John


On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 01:00:34 -0500, Brent Regan <brent@regandesigns.com> wrote:

>  Pinpoint is the marketing name of the experimental product, not the name of the manufacturer, who wishes to remain anonymous."