Comments on: Parts Availability

By: Andre Fleury

Andre Fleury — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 22:35:54 +0000

AWCI actual president and the board approved and support Mr. Warner/Cleves action in the fight for parts availability and officially stated so. But AWCI, Mr. Warner and Mr. Cleves actions are against the members and watchmakers interest.
Judge Chen accepted to hear my Motion to annul and /or revise the Final Settlement that made parts availability even harder to get and brought no benefit to the watchmakers but increased the restricting companies to 41.
I will be in Court June 30th 2010.
Mr. Warner and Mr. Cleves both past president of AWCI and supported by AWCI, are now attempting to have that Motion Strike out to protect Cartier/Richemont parts restriction.
That is a total betray of the watchmakers. They supposed to represent their interest and wellbeing. They again chose to defend Cartier/Richemont.
You mentioned CW21 and CMW21, CMW21 does not have any exam so it is not a valid title. CW21 is not a guarantee to receive any parts from any company and is a costly process for a lot of watchmakers.
AWCI went from 4,539 members in 2001, 3,203 in June 2007 and less than 2,000 today.
Their shameful conduct vis-à-vis the members and watchmakers will certainly drop that membership even more and they deserve it. A personal opinion: they surely and certainly should not be recommended in any way, watchmaker should take a good look at their action and then decide if that organization is worth to be part of and receive your money! The actual president Butterworth is claiming that parts is important in their magazine and web site, but his action are just contrary, he support the attempt to have the motion to annul/revise strike-out.
Andre Fleury

By: Tick Talk » Positive Change with Pen & Paper

Tick Talk » Positive Change with Pen & Paper — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 21:40:15 +0000

[...] you happen to have been keeping an eye on the conversation that sprouted from this earlier post regarding the spare parts policies of several brands that sell their products in the United States, you may already be aware that the case for making [...]

By: Andre Fleury

Andre Fleury — Thu, 13 May 2010 02:36:00 +0000

AWCI today support and approved Mr. Warner past president, actions in Court.
They published a letter written by Mr. Warner giving 52 lines of Court documents and explanations of why and how I was removed from my case by Judge Chen!
They refused to publish a rebuttal letter.

That never happened; I was never removed from my case and will be back before Judge Chen June 23rd 2010.

AWCI and Mr. Warner case results: an absolute zero recovery for the watchmakers either in kind or monetary, but the approval of their attorneys fees for above $1.6 million.

By: Prem C

Prem C — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 01:18:56 +0000

Bonjour Andre!
I didn’t see these comments before, better late than never. A tres bientot, j’espere..
Salutations meilleures de la Colombie Britannique,
Prem C
Thanks so much Jp, Jon, facilatating this spare parts comments. Andre and me share the same watchmaking professor from La-Chaux-de-Fonds, ie: Professor Pierre Girardet.

By: jakob leitmann

jakob leitmann — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:49:33 +0000

For havinng my quartz movement changed of an Audemars Piguet Royal, AP wants more than 2000$.

I just think this is obscene and it shows what they really think about customers.

Any comment would be appreciated.

By: Andre Fleury

Andre Fleury — Sun, 17 May 2009 20:11:22 +0000

The Cartier case result at this time:

Mr. Simon and Mr. Spellberg fees were awarded, approximately $1.7 million for as April a recovery of approximately $222,100 in coupons.

Here are some part of Judge Chen document 361:

Judge Chen document 361 states as follows:
“Defendant has agreed to pay up to$2 million in fees, expenses, and incentive award as part of the negotiated settlement. On the other hand it is significant that Defendant has not objected to Counsel’s claim for additional fees up to the contracted-for cap of $2 million.”

“The preliminary results on redemption response rate of both the consumer and watchmaker subclass are relatively meager.”
“The Court must consider other factor, most notably in this case, the results obtained, which appear relatively meager.”
“For the watchmaker subclass, only 91 watchmakers have asked for an application to become a qualified watchmaker and, as of March 4, 2009, only eight applications were actually been sent in. See Mot. 4 (noting that applications may be submitted until June 12, 2009-i.e., for another four months). At the hearing, Settlement Class Counsel provided updated information-i.e., that as of April 1. 2009, the total number of applications sent in was nine. Apparently seven of the applications were preliminarily rejected, leaving only two still under consideration. Defense counsel stated that one of the applications was rejected because the applicant was not a member of the class.”

“At the hearing, Settlement Class Counsels provided updated information-i.e., that, as of April 1, 2009 the total number of credits redeemed was 2,221.”

Note: The consumers received a $100 credit coupon toward a new purchase in any Cartier Boutique.
The total recovery in coupon is therefore as of April 1, 2009: $222,100

By: Marly

Marly — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 05:02:02 +0000

You guys do a wonderful job! Keep up the good work!!!t

By: Andre Fleury

Andre Fleury — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:21:25 +0000

Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet do sell parts to watchmakers.
I am one example and I never attended any training from them.
Rolex requirement for their parts is more than acceptable, one page.

The Cartier/Richemont so called Evaluation Form is 14 pages long and absolutely asbsurd, but approved by the AWCI then president Mr. Warner.

I have to add that the AWCI have not help the watchmakers in the suit for parts availability and damages caused by Cartier’s action. On the contrary as seen in the case Fleury V. Richemont.

Andre Fleury
sy

By: Tick Talk » Spare Parts Restrictions

Tick Talk » Spare Parts Restrictions — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 03:25:19 +0000

[...] Parts Availability [...]

By: The Other Me » The right to choose your customers.

The Other Me » The right to choose your customers. — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:05:38 +0000

[...] the other side of the equation, as a watchmaker many watch companies refuse to do business with me (sell me parts) because I don’t sell their watches, or because [...]