Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffba
Well what does bug me on this AUH debate is the Hokey Pokey approach Montana has been dealing with AUH. In one rally AUH is on the approved product list and now the next rally it is announced that it is not.
I do not own an AUH but if I did I would be upset.
|
I think what's missing in this is that it was not Montana who instigated this change. Rather I think your comments need to be directed to Lippert, as per the info I shared in the original post.
I do own an AUH and I am upset, but at Lippert not at Montana. I would have preferred their position was made clear all along and not wait until they were asked the specific question about the AUH. It seems they quietly made an internal change without notifying their partners and that is what upsets me.
Sam explained this on Day 3 of the virtual rally - Lippert is the one who builds frames for most RV manufacturers, and provides the frame warranty. Due to their volume, Lippert has gathered a much larger data set than Montana. So, based on claims they have dealt with, Lippert seems to be saying they have seen failures specific to "adapters" (including the small one of the AUH), and they no longer want to pay to have those failures repaired. (I'm sure the Lippert basis for their decision is debatable, but I hope I am accurately passing along what was shared by Sam).
Things change and I get that. But again, I wish that as Lippert gathered data and made the change they did, that they would have proactively shared that with Montana... but that does not seem to be how this happened.
IMHO, nothing hokey pokey about Montana's reactions in all of this.
Brad