X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [97.101.0.114] (account marv@lancaironline.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WEBUSER 5.1.11) with HTTP id 2282091 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:28:30 -0400 From: marv@lancair.net Subject: Re: Lancair Avionics To: X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser v5.1.11 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:28:30 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <03b301c7e614$573e65f0$05bb31d0$@com> References: <03b301c7e614$573e65f0$05bb31d0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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.