Nice? Not. Great? hmmm…yes great products. Great folks? Not sure. Great company? Hell NO! The worst customer-oriented company I ve ever seen – an adhesion contract crammed down your throat if you want to have the privilege of purchasing an extended warranty.
I paid the ransom and am still gargling – left a horrible taste in my mouth.
So, when it was time to refresh my panel, there was no decision – straight Garmin. In fact, paid about $5 grand more and after 3 years, no complaints. Never looked back and I will NEVER buy an Avidyne product. I ain’t whining. I voted my pocketbook. All $50k worth.
And now a new customer-friendly warranty? Progress. But, for me, too little, too late. Once burned twice shy.
I had my first major component fail recently after 12 yrs in service my PFD died (actually R9 IFD). It was in stock and shipped out promptly in advance of my repair. This was around hurricane Dorian and they answered the phone solved the problem and was shipped out as soon as they re opened. Covered by the warranty and not too expensive etc. First class and fast. Without a hurricane would have been down only a few days max. I could have had my unit repaired (2 weeks) or exchanged with overnight shipping… pretty solid options
I’ve had a few other needs such as ADSB upgrade and bad com1 over the years and always perfect service and immediate response times with ample help.
The warranty especially if renewed is less than the service contract on some of my office x-ray equipment. The contract is something I can live with especially as it keeps costs down.
I have had nothing but stellar personalized service from Avidyne
Fortunately, I 've not had service issues in a long time and when I did, they handled it just fine. But, thats not my point. To be clear, let me explain simply my frustrations:
The cost to repair minor problems that should cost less than a hundred dollars – small repairs – are into the thousands! Its nothing short of predatory. Now, that may not offend your value system, but, it sure does mine.
It’s clear they want residual recurring income and they make the warranty a virtual necessity. Pure manipulation that I do not like.
And now the kicker – in order to buy a waaranty you are required to sign an indemnity. I am trained as a lawyer. In my former practice, we worked diligently to avoid accepting indemnities unless the context clearly justified one. Why? Because its kind of like shorting TSLA in a big way, …one day its like: who me? Worry? Then the stock soars 45 points in one day (oh man, that will never happen) and the next thing you know, you are selling the stock to cover the short and getingt a second mortgage to make up the difference.
That indemnity says that not only do you release Avidyne from any liability resulting from a product defect of theirs that may in fact have caused an accident but, you will also pay Avidyne’s legal expenses to defend it in the event they are sued in connection with an accident/incident involving your airplane…the cost of that could be astronomical, a proverbial bottles pit! That could wipe out an entire lifetime of savings and hard work! And, you cant insure against it!
It doesn’t matter if it could be proven the company was dead wrong! You just contractually agreed to pay to defend them!
Now, if you want to go there, have at it, but, it’s bad bad bad all the way around. Did you sign an indemnity to Cirrus? No. Garmin? nope. How about your o2 or AOA or Lopresti boom light you added? Nope…Avidyne. YES. BAD business IMO.
Much of your post, John, is personal opinion. Which you are entitled to have. More importantly, you’re fully entitled to spend your money as you like. None of my comments below are intended to deny these absolute rights, and I don’t in the slightest begrudge you for holding them. However, I have my own opinions as well, and since they differ from yours, I figured I’d add them to the thread. Not asking you to agree with them of course [:)]
To make this point valid, you need examples of published (or otherwise easily verifiable - not anecodotal) Garmin vs Avidyne repair costs - reasonably comparable apples to apples pricing comparisons. Otherwise, it’s just opinion without basis - which you are entitled to hold, regardless.
No C Corp survives without income, including Garmin. The income from both companies comes from you and me and other pilots. Suck it up. [:(]
Your gripe here is your follow through: “… they make the warranty a virtual necessity.” This is the same point as your first, just re-worded. Without reasonably comparable apples to apples pricing comparisons, it’s just personal opinion without supporting basis.
I’m a lawyer too! [:)] I signed the repair contract/warranty/indemnity/aeroplan - call it what you want. So we differ on what it means and what risks to us that it poses to us personally. To me, it’s a no-brainer. To you, it’s a no-brainer.
What we can agree on is this, and I’ve said this before: it’s a PR negative for the company. It drives away customers like you, and in my opinion does not have a corresponding financial benefit to the company that results in a net positive to the company’s bottom line. Some people are just outraged by “trial lawyers” and “greedy plaintiffs” to the point they can’t see straight, and actual facts are just so much BS to them. As Dale Carnegie said, “When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but creatures of emotion.”
To me, the best plausible explanation for the company’s AeroPlan warranty is that there is such a person with authority in the company to force that ideology down the company’s throat. It’s kind of like Hobby Lobby or Chick-fil-A, where the company’s leadership causes the company to reflect the personal values of the leadership, whether it’s good for business or not.
And if they own the company, those leaders are entitled to run their company any way they want to, so long as it’s legal. And it’s legal for Avidyne to offer the AeroPlan. I read it, and I signed it. I think it’s a good deal, for me. I’m not giving legal advice to anyone by saying that.
And I eat at Chick-fil-A too. Avidyne’s or Chick-fil-A’s politics don’t factor in to my buying decisions, it’s all about the product and whether I like it or not. I like my AeroPlan, and will get my favorite chicken sandwich for lunch today. Cheers John! [B]
OK, here’s some speculative hypotheticals. Don’t know that any of this has happened, I’ve not seen a case involving Avidyne’s AeroPlan yet. That could mean simply that all such claims have been settled without suit or any publicity. Regardless, none of the following is based on any particular actual case:
Litigation starts well before a complaint is filed. First, a potential client (the pilots survivors or the pilot himself or one of the pax blaming both the pilot and Avidyne) has to believe they have been hurt by Avidyne and /or the pilot, and they feel strongly enough by that to seek out a lawyer (or respond to an ambulance chaser who seeks out them). Some folks won’t sue no matter what. A business colleague of mine lost both his sons to defective pool equipment, and was so ideologically averse to becoming a plaintiff he did not sue the company that was plainly, legally responsible for the avoidable deaths. Other folks, however, will pay a lawyer to file suit over relative slights, even if they have no case. So for Avidyne to get involved, somebody has to feel strongly enough to contact a lawyer. If somebody died in an airplane accident, this is not much of a hurdle - lawyers most often get involved by some point.
So once a potential plaintiff retains a lawyer, he/she looks at the evidence, and decides whether to take the case or not. If the plaintiff is willing to pay him by the hour and puts up a nice retainer, and the lawyer feels competent, he’ll take the case advising his client of the odds of recovery and press on with the client’s OK. But in almost all cases it’s a contingency case - and if in the lawyer’s opinion the case is no good (just one lawyer’s opinion, nothing more) and declines, the potential plaintiff either drops it or stubbornly looks for another lawyer. So the value of the Avidyne repair contract starts right there: for some lawyers, the wording of the contract could make them think the case brought by the pilot or his estate against Avidyne is no good, and they won’t take it on contingency. The potential plaintiff may give up right there - a no-cost win for Avidyne. If it’s a claim brought by a passenger - no help to Avidyne there, it’s involved. It might try to bring in the pilot or his estate, but then the passenger has already done that anyway. If the pilot is insured, his insurer will provide the defense.
But the plaintiff might not give up, or may find a willing lawyer on the first try (easy to do if a pax is the claimant). With the plaintiff now represented by counsel, the lawyer reviews the facts, comes up with legal theories to win the case and overcome Avidyne’s defenses, puts a value on the case, and sends a demand letter. Avidyne’s lawyers respond. If the language of the AeroPlan has the plaintiff’s lawyer discounting the value of the case by 90%, Avidyne may be happy to confidentially settle the demand letter with a check and a release after some back and forth. No publicity, and Avidyne saves a bundle. So that has value to Avidyne as well.
But another lawyer may feel the AeroPlan is worth no discount at all. Avidyne may refuse to settle, and take its chances in court. Thus rebuffed, the lawyer files suit. Avidyne probably files a motion for summary judgment based upon the AeroPlan, and the battle is joined. Again, maybe at this point plaintiff’s and/or pilot’s counsel is alarmed enough to settle for 10% of the claim - and Avidyne wins again. Then again - maybe plaintiff’s and/or pilot’s lawyer isn’t concerned at all. I’d love to read the briefs and witness the arguments of competent counsel in such a summary judgment hearing.
At this point in the scenario, it can become rather complex, with the outcome very dependent upon the facts, and perhaps not so much the wording of the AeroPlan. There are fact patterns where the AeroPlan is irrelevant, others where it might matter. In any case, the lawyers for all parties try to settle on a basis favorable to their clients, which they can successfully do most of the time.
So far as I know, no such court case has happened. So far as I know, no demand letters have even been sent to Avidyne where the AeroPlan has come into play. Would be interesting to know if there have been any - they would be instructive.
Avidyne’s leadership may rigidly refuse to settle any case, relying totally on the AeroPlan to deflect all responsibility. If they read it like some COPA guys do, why wouldn’t they? If that happens, we’ll see it in a court case. If a plaintiff and/or pilot is represented by some of the country’s better aviation attorneys, I would not be surprised to see a rigid Avidyne corporate leadership disappointed at the outcome. But, that’s not legal advice to anyone reading this, it’s just my guess as to the results of a myriad of potential hypotheticals.
So I do think the AeroPlan language can have benefits to Avidyne’s bottom line. I’m just not sure the benefits are as great as Avidyne’s leadership may imagine. And I believe the lost revenue from customers driven away by the AeroPlan language exceeds such benefits anyway. But I don’t own the company, and whoever does is entitled to a different opinion. In any case, since Avidyne is not a 501(c)(3) corp, I assume the AeroPlan income enables Avidyne to make a profit on its repair services - something I presume it would continue to do with or without the offensive language.
As for the value of AeroPlan as a strong legal defense for Avidyne, and as a value-added proposition to its stockholders, I think it’s telling that no other company COPA owner/pilots deal with has not copied it. Surely, every other competitor’s leadership and legal team have heard of the AeroPlan and reviewed it. I take the fact it has not been widely adopted as an indication that those other companies have rejected the idea of the AeroPlan as a strong defense or a way to improve profits. But I don’t own or run any of those other companies either, so what do I know.
I am no lawyer, but I am someone who is willing to take a risk, if that risk is small and outweighed by the reward. I am not risk averse, but I am risk sensitive. Since there have been, as of yet, no instances of Avidyne having to use their “indemnity clause” in court, then it would seem that warranty holders have benefited the most from the clause, benefiting from lower fees. Avidyne has also benefited from the clause, by selling more warranties and the ‘good press’ that they get from offering lower cost warranties. By being able to offer a lower priced warranty, Avidyne sells more equipment.
So far the score for the warranty holders is: Risk - 0% Reward - 100%
So far, so good. But its the deadly black swan event that destroys one’s financial security, a remote but non-theoretical risk, that worries those who read that indemnity clause.
That said - what happens if someone DOES NOT buy the warranty plan, AND THEN has an accident. Now, Avidyne has no indemnity protection from the pilot, and perhaps this encourages folks NOT to buy a warranty plan?
Also, will the pilots insurer (providing the defense) take on the role of defending Avidyne in conjunction with defending the pilot’s estate?
We all perceive the significance of risks differently, and deal with them individually. Some folks accept risks others would not. We are all pilots after all - accepting risks most of public would not. So none of us is a shrinking violet. Even so, we’re not zombie clones.
I fault nobody for avoiding risks that I personally choose to accept, and hope I get the same deference in return.
Life is a box of chocolates!
This is a decision to be made like any other presented to an insurer’s claims agent after an accident. So we’re talking hypotheticals here, knowing that in every case each claims agent will make up his/her own mind with assistance of the insurer’s coverage counsel.
With that said, if a lawsuit arises from an accident involving a covered aircraft with the named insured at the controls, where the named insured is a defendant to claims raised in the pleadings by the plaintiff pax or co-defendants, I would expect the insurer to defend the insured pilot against any and all claims arising from the occurrence, unless there were independent grounds for denying coverage altogether (flying with no annual inspection for years, with the accident clearly caused by mis-timed mags or worn out plugs, for example). I would expect Avidyne’s claims for a defense - if actually made in the pleadings (they may choose not to) - to be judicially decided in the same manner as any of the other claims in the lawsuit: vigorously disputed, until amicably settled or final judgment is rendered.
I saw the plan as a way to “opt out” of the significant costs to the end user that some of the very large “deep pockets” judgments against avionics (and other) manufacturers have imposed. If you’re willing to forego a potential huge settlement against Avidyne that some ambitious lawyer “creatively” figures out how to pin on them, you will pay a lot less for your warranty. IMO it was a brilliant exposé of the costs to us that some of these judgments and the resulting increased insurance costs for the manufacturer really have.
They asked me what I thought the response to the plan would be, just as they were launching it. I opined that I thought it would be welcomed. Boy, was I ever wrong.
That same exact logic right there is a good explanation for why most folks won’t set foot in a GA airplane. Or ski. Or ride a motorcycle. So it’s sort of a generic reason “why not?” that covers any risk-averse decision from eating haggis to refusing to live on the 13th floor. And it’s a perfectly reasonable explanation. Yet, we GA pilots have no problem taking off in our airplanes and enjoying the ride, dismissing the concerns of those unfortunates whose fears keep them on the ground.
Everyone deals with their personal fears of risks taken. We’re all entitled to choose to avoid those risks we personally find unacceptable.
I respect anyone’s decision not to sign the AeroPlan contract language, owing to his/her perception of unacceptable risk.
The puzzle is, why Avidyne truncates is potential customer list that way. Perhaps a mole on the Garmin payroll works for Avidyne’s legal department, and has scared Avidyne’s management into the AeroPlan, causing some of Avidyne’s customers to switch to Garmin. If so, that double-agent is well worth whatever he’s getting paid. Or, perhaps Avidyne’s corporate leadership has decided to save the cost of liability insurance premiums and go bare, and has used the AeroPlan language in the (mistaken IMHO) belief it provides equivalent protection. I think Avidyne could stay bare, strip the offensive AeroPlan language, and be even more profitable.
I’m sure this has all been discussed in Avidyne’s boardroom ad nauseum, and the company has stayed the course. And no other company has copied them, which makes a lot of sense to me.
Great perspective, no pun intended. I was initially very critical of this program of Avidyne’s. Time has let me become more circumspect.
Avidyne offers it as a cost reduction for those that want the cost benefit. That cost reduction is not free, you give up something to get it. They offer higher costs for those that are unwilling to take that risk. They clearly make it overwhelmingly financially attractive, and that is a bit maddening. I am not sure they should have such a dramatic difference, but maybe the cost of insurance is indeed that high. I have never seen those numbers.
So far it has been in place for quite a while and never been exercised. Frankly, if the PFD fails it doesn’t cause an accident. We have backup instrumentation that should allow the pilot to fly the plane. A competent pilot may have to work harder but should be fully capable of completing their flight. So what do we really worry about?
Avidyne has been more up front about it than other companies. Go find the repair language anyone in aviation uses and you will find a general indemnity clause in most too. Except we don’t sign it, it is in general terms and conditions.
So, while I have come to understand the program why they cling to it is a bit of a mystery. There is clear evidence it costs them sales of new stuff. But they have and it is a choice they made and it leaves us with choices we can make. No need to get angry, make your decisions based on the information we have.
So far my Avidyne products have been very reliable and the UI is amazingly intuitive. The cost of a warranty program over time has higher than a non warranty repair. But man it is more comfortable to have the program than not because the costs out of warranty can be sort of frightening.
I am very familiar with that suit, was flying a Sandel back then and watched it through Rick Beach’s eyes. Those lawsuits are very expensive even if you win. We (or our surviving family) are causing this. Well, and aggressive attorneys that specialize in aviation suits.
Most COPA members agree with this statement (including me). Interestingly, how many of us have told our families not to bring suit against the manufacturer(s) if we die in a crash?
Ironically enough, Ray and I were just talking about this last night, spurred on by the Avidyne post.
We both agreed that we wouldn’t want them to sue Avidyne as the cause of our deaths. We accept that the boxes might fail at some point during flight, and that failure is part of the risk that you accept when piloting a plane. Nothing can be built perfect and we accept the risks. We would hate it if the last contribution that we made to flying was to make it more expensive for everyone or to stymie advancements in avionics or airframes.
One way to limit the potential for your family suing for these types of things is to carry life insurance that pays even when piloting (or being a passenger) in a GA aircraft. That’s what we do. I think a lot of times families are seeking some closure and reimbursement for the time that they lose with a family member that has been involved in a plane crash. Life insurance would help to ease that loss.