X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:07:23 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([63.240.77.81] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.11) with ESMTP id 2283553 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 25 Aug 2007 01:11:52 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=63.240.77.81; envelope-from=j.hafen@comcast.net Received: from hafenj1 (c-67-168-52-248.hsd1.wa.comcast.net[67.168.52.248]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with SMTP id <2007082505110301100lil59e>; Sat, 25 Aug 2007 05:11:14 +0000 From: "John Hafen" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Lancair Avionics X-Original-Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:11:03 -0600 X-Original-Message-ID: <000001c7e6d6$5bf7e130$c701000a@engagethoughtware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C7E6A4.115D7130" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C7E6A4.115D7130 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It is unfortunate that a climate exists where someone with valuable = feedback feels like they need to remain anonymous in an effort to maintain a relationship with a supplier. =20 I bought a panel from Aerotronics for the following reasons: =20 1. Expertise =20 2. Delivery time=20 =20 3. Price =20 4. Commitment to a long term relationship=20 =20 Having never built a panel, I knew that there was a lot I didn't know. = The Aerotronics team coached me as to what to buy, based on my needs, and = what NOT to buy. They also had a profound understanding of how various components interfaced with each other and the ramifications to consider based on my choices. =20 Aerotronics has a great reputation for delivering a panel on time. =20 Aerotronics was slightly less on their bid, but not significantly less = than Lancair. Price, for me, was not the deciding factor. =20 When the Direct2 meltdown happened, Lancair told its customers that they would meet them part way. Lancair would pay part and the customers = would pay part of getting a replacement system (for systems that had been paid = for in full before D2 disappeared). Aerotronics said, "We'll take care of = you." And they did. =20 Respectfully, =20 John Hafen =20 =20 =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of marv@lancair.net Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 5:29 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Lancair Avionics =20 Posted for someone who asked that his name be withheld: I apologize for asking Marv to post this anonymously, but I want to = maintain whatever relationship I can with Lancair. In response to Joe Bartel's post requesting feedback on why Lancair = builders are going elsewhere to have their panels built, I suggest that based on = my own experience it can be a bad situation to put all your eggs in one = basket. This is not a comment on the quality of Lancair Avionics' work, but if = there is ever a problem with the Avionics shop, it affects your relationship = with your airframe kit manufacturer as well. This, to me, is a bad situation = to find yourself in. Maintaining a good relationship with Lancair, = especially when you need help/advice during the building process but continuing on = to the ongoing questions that arise once you're flying is very important. Although they may be "separate companies", at the end of the day a = dispute with Lancair Avionics winds up on Joe's desk anyway. And I did not find = Joe to be a very cooperative or reasonable businessman when I ran into = problems with them and attempted to negotiate a resolution. More like an = attorney. =20 -- =20 For archives and unsub = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C7E6A4.115D7130 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It is unfortunate that a climate = exists where someone with valuable feedback feels like they need to remain = anonymous in an effort to maintain a relationship with a supplier.

 

I bought a panel from Aerotronics = for the following reasons:

 

      =       = 1.         = Expertise

 

      =       = 2.         Delivery time

 

      =       = 3.         = Price

 

      =       = 4.         Commitment to a long term relationship

 

Having never built a panel, I knew = that there was a lot I didn’t know.  The Aerotronics team coached = me as to what to buy, based on my needs, and what NOT to buy.  They also = had a profound understanding of how various components interfaced with each = other and the ramifications to consider based on my choices.

 

Aerotronics has a great reputation = for delivering a panel on time.

 

Aerotronics was slightly less on = their bid, but not significantly less than Lancair.  Price, for me, was = not the deciding factor.

 

When the Direct2 meltdown happened, Lancair told its customers that they would meet them part way.  = Lancair would pay part and the customers would pay part of getting a replacement = system (for systems that had been paid for in full before D2 = disappeared).  Aerotronics said, “We’ll take care of you.”  And = they did.

 

Respectfully,

 

John Hafen

 

 

 

 

-----Original = Message-----
From: Lancair Mailing = List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On = Behalf Of marv@lancair.net
Sent: Friday, August 24, = 2007 5:29 AM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: = Lancair Avionics

 

Posted for someone who = asked that his name be withheld:

I apologize for asking Marv to post this anonymously, but I want to = maintain
whatever relationship I can with Lancair.

In response to Joe Bartel's post requesting feedback on why Lancair = builders
are going elsewhere to have their panels built, I suggest that based on = my
own experience it can be a bad situation to put all your eggs in one = basket.
This is not a comment on the quality of Lancair Avionics' work, but if = there
is ever a problem with the Avionics shop, it affects your relationship = with
your airframe kit manufacturer as well. This, to me, is a bad situation = to
find yourself in. Maintaining a good relationship with Lancair, = especially
when you need help/advice during the building process but continuing on = to
the ongoing questions that arise once you're flying is very = important.
Although they may be "separate companies", at the end of the = day a dispute
with Lancair Avionics winds up on Joe's desk anyway. And I did not find = Joe
to be a very cooperative or reasonable businessman when I ran into = problems
with them and attempted to negotiate a resolution. More like an = attorney.





 

--
 
For archives and unsub =
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
<= /div> ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C7E6A4.115D7130--