On 07 Oct 2003 14:42:09 GMT, Gould 0738 wrote:

True enough, but would other companies have treated the owners so badly?

The mishandling of the situation can be laid at the doorstep of the individual
sales agency. The builder was responsible for the original error, the error in
judgment and
in customer relations was the result of dealing with a particular branch of a
particular business. It's like any other product. If you bought a Buick from a
bad
dealer it reflects most directly on the dealer and not at all on the Buick
factory; but it is likely to leave you, individually, somewhat soured on buying
another Buick. Did the guy who bought a Buick from the dealer on the other side
of town get screwed or get a "bad car" because that dealer's competitor is a
schmuck? Of course not.

Yes, but if the story is true (and I have no basis to believe it isn't),
then there is plenty of guilt to go around, both to the dealer and the
company who manufactured it. Luckily for me, in my case at least, I was
treated well by both: Profile Motorsports and Bombardier. In essence, the
fault belonged to neither: Mercury manufactured the motor, but I had no
contact with them. Apparently, the dealer wanted to keep me happy, and the
manufacture wanted to keep the dealer happy.

--

Larry
email is rapp at lmr dot com

Yes, but if the story is true (and I have no basis to believe it isn't),
then there is plenty of guilt to go around, both to the dealer and the
company who manufactured it. Luckily for me, in my case at least, I was
treated well by both: Profile Motorsports and Bombardier. In essence, the
fault belonged to neither: Mercury manufactured the motor, but I had no
contact with them. Apparently, the dealer wanted to keep me happy, and the
manufacture wanted to keep the dealer happy.

--

Larry
email is rapp at lmr dot com


IIRC, this whole incident happened on a weekend, and before Monday morning the
outraged consumer had already waded in to the Internet with a story of woe.
That was the last we heard from the consumer.
Could it be that when managment got its hands on the situation things got
straightened out pretty quickly?

Hey.... What kind of disinfomercial is this? :^)


In article e5pgb.509482$Oz4.363162@rwcrnsc54, "Clams Canino"
wrote:

Bayliner Trophy. That one really added to "the legend"........... LOL

-W

"Wayne.B" wrote in message

That's a terrible story Chuck. What knid of boat was it?

On 07 Oct 2003 14:51:29 GMT, Gould 0738 wrote:

Wow, what a story! Now I know why Bayliner is so poorly regarded. What a
piece of crap - both the boat and the company. Thanks for sharing.
--

And sadly enough, we can see why Bayliner *is* poorly regarded- by some.

Always so easily convinced after hearing just one side of a story?

No, this represents yet one more disaster concerning Bayliner. I have yet
to read any post extolling their virtues. Maybe that says something.

The problem was a combination of 1) a misplumbed boat 2) operator error and
bad judgment 3) dealer error and bad judgment. All of those factors are
evident in the story as told by the consumer, yet people who feel the insecure
need to prove that their particular mass-pro little plastic runabout is vastly
superior to somebody else's little mass-pro runabout seem to concentrate only
on the product portion. Probably 100 major and minor systems on a boat like
that, one is screwed up, and every boat ever built by the same company is a
"piece of crap"?

Hold all products up to that same standard, and you will never be able to buy
anything.

I think you're reading a lot more into my post than I put there.
--

Larry
email is rapp at lmr dot com

No, this represents yet one more disaster concerning Bayliner. I have yet
to read any post extolling their virtues. Maybe that says something.

It says you don't know where to look.

Run a search engine on the Bayliner Owners Group. You'll find hundreds of happy
and satisfied Bayliner owners there.

Ever notice that most of the Bayliner horror stories are second hand, and told
by people who don't own one? (The misplumbed baitwell is an exception, it's not
second hand).

Human nature works like this: I sell you something, and tell you it's going to
give you good service and you will have a satisfactory ownership experience.
Over time, that proves to be true and so you tell *nobody*. Why should you? You
paid good money for a product with the assurance that you would be completely
or generally satisfied, that expectation is realized, and so it's not news. No
big deal. You wound up with what you thought you were going to get.

However, if I sell you something with the assurance that you will find the
ownership experience satisfactory and you are unhappy with the product you are
far more liekly to tell anybody willing to listen just how badly you were
treated, how screwed up the product is, why everything every sold by such and
such a retailer or built by
such and such a factory is a POS, etc.

Bayliner is no different than most products.
If it somes up in casual conversation, it's most likely because somebody feels
compelled to bitch and moan. The satisfied
people are too busy enjoying (any) product to waste time telling everybody how
happy they are.



I think you're reading a lot more into my post than I put there.

Not at all:

Here's exactly how you reacted to the story-


Wow, what a story! Now I know why Bayliner is so poorly regarded. What a
piece of crap - both the boat and the company. Thanks for sharing.

"Now I know"?

Don't hop my case for observing:

And sadly enough, we can see why Bayliner *is* poorly regarded- by some.

Always so easily convinced after hearing just one side of a story?

In article ,
(Gould 0738) wrote:

No, this represents yet one more disaster concerning Bayliner. I have yet
to read any post extolling their virtues. Maybe that says something.

It says you don't know where to look.


Don't waste your breath, Gould. It's more likely that he doesn't want to
hear any positive Bayliner anectdotes. After all, doing so would be to
risk modifying his opinion which would indicate that he is not
infallible. Something that a few people in this group have a problem
accepting.

As I've stated Bayliner may not be the first choice for many boaters, and
I will conceed that it may not even be a viable choice for some
applications (I still don't know this as fact but, will at least consider
it a reasonable possibility), but I have yet to see any evidence to
support this viewpoints such as Bayliners are "a piece of crap - both the
boat and the company"

Besides the human nature attributes you cited, add "People tend to stick
to their initial biases, despite new information" to that list.

Bob Dimond

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
IIRC, this whole incident happened on a weekend, and before Monday morning
the
outraged consumer had already waded in to the Internet with a story of
woe.
That was the last we heard from the consumer.
Could it be that when managment got its hands on the situation things got
straightened out pretty quickly?

No.... there was more time passed than that........ read the story again.
And she *was* heard from again - to say that Bayliner had settled the matter
to her satisfaction - finally. IMHO it was the printing of the story and
the ****storm it ws starting to cause, that got the factory reps off their
asses to resolve the matter. I'm not sure if they got a lawer either - I
seem to think they did.

-W

Factories are making as many mistakes as there are human beings to err. LOL
There will always be mistakes that slip past the QC guys. Such is life.

Buying early in the season helps, what helps more is doing what I told you
to do and bind the dealer to promise to fix any "teething problems" like
lives depended on it.

-W

"David Ditch" wrote in message
...
I guess thats a good reason to buy early in the season
Are factories still making these kinds of mistakes?

David

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
IIRC, this whole incident happened on a weekend, and before Monday morning
the
outraged consumer had already waded in to the Internet with a story of
woe.
That was the last we heard from the consumer.
Could it be that when managment got its hands on the situation things got
straightened out pretty quickly?

No.... there was more time passed than that........ read the story again.
And she *was* heard from again - to say that Bayliner had settled the matter
to her satisfaction - finally. IMHO it was the printing of the story and
the ****storm it ws starting to cause, that got the factory reps off their
asses to resolve the matter. I'm not sure if they got a lawer either - I
seem to think they did.

-W

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:46:42 -0400, Bob D. wrote:

In article ,
(Gould 0738) wrote:

No, this represents yet one more disaster concerning Bayliner. I have yet
to read any post extolling their virtues. Maybe that says something.

It says you don't know where to look.


Don't waste your breath, Gould. It's more likely that he doesn't want to
hear any positive Bayliner anectdotes. After all, doing so would be to
risk modifying his opinion which would indicate that he is not
infallible. Something that a few people in this group have a problem
accepting.

Bob, I have no idea where you came up with that bull****. I have had NO
opinions on Bayliner pro or con. Nor do I care, frankly. All I've read has
been here.

As I've stated Bayliner may not be the first choice for many boaters, and
I will conceed that it may not even be a viable choice for some
applications (I still don't know this as fact but, will at least consider
it a reasonable possibility), but I have yet to see any evidence to
support this viewpoints such as Bayliners are "a piece of crap - both the
boat and the company"

Then apparently you haven't been reading the messages here, including the
one to which I responded.

Besides the human nature attributes you cited, add "People tend to stick
to their initial biases, despite new information" to that list.

You seem to be living proof. For me, if someone can show me otherwise, or,
for that matter, if someone expresses opinions to the contrary, I'll
listen, otherwise, it seems to me that you're the one with an axe to grind.
--

Larry