It seems that many of these comments are saying that one should not publicize their dissatisfactions or perceptions of unfair treatment associated with a particular company ? Am I misunderstanding or is this the intended message ?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla banned me from purchasing another Tesla after vehicle buyback
- Thread starter testhrowaway
- Start date
I also feel this is the case in many comments. I'd go as far as say it's fueled by Tesla's ability to turn fans into cult like followers who no matter what happens, will defend the company over an individual who was clearly mistreated.
There will be no solution here. As much as I hate the saying "agree to disagree", this is a clear case. I just hope the OP gets justice in one way or another.
well as a former director of Quality for a large laser company, I can tell you that the Malcolm Baldridge award is something that is long planned for and with a Quality Assurance program that is implemented and has been established for years and evaluated by the ISO establishment after years of audits and corrective actions.....it requires top level buy in from CEO’s and presidents and takes into account customer satisfaction surveys and action related to those surveys.......Tesla is light years away from having a properly implemented quality system or ISO 9000 quality program....there is no way for Tesla to go out and solicit customer satisfaction much less act on it.....I;ll be willing to bet you they do not even have a quality org chart or audit program.....sorry for the long winded blurb.....but Malcom Baldridge and ISO are cost saving programs that currently Tesla is not willing to implement or sustain
All of this makes me wonder. Does Tesla want to be a better, more customer friendly company ? Are they doing the best they can given what they have to work with ?
Personally, I am very happy with my Tesla and the limited service I have had so far has ben satisfactory. But, I know this is not the case for all owners and as was the case for others, any of us could find ourselves behind that Tesla 8 ball. If I find myself in that situation, I would like to know what expectations are actually possible.
LOL...I'm currently a Quality Assurance director at a medical device company. We not only have to comply with ISO 9000 but also ISO 13485.
I have a completely different take. LOL...the Quality Assurance program you can run in your company is directly proportional to the dollar cost of Quality to your business. The cost of Quality is a management decision that is not mine alone. The trade-off is, assuming I'm QA at Tesla, we can build the best Quality car you have ever seen but we can only build ONE with the investment we put it or we can THOUSANDS of good enough cars by taking concessions where appropriate. Every little concession is a business decision that is not QA alone.
These are decisions that should be made cross-functionally within a business. QA provides the input but by no means should call or dictate the shots.
Once QA start calling shots like you think they should, that is the start of the end of the business.
Tam
Well-Known Member
Post-impeachment retaliation and purge in effect!
It sounds like the OP did get justice. Car purchased back at a fair price, taking into account taxes and fees at time of purchase. Isn't this fair?
What is the OPs plan with the next car? To do the same, basically getting a expensive car in an inexpensive way?
nope....you missed my point..........the cost of quality is something that every company must decide for itself.....but quality should be, as you pointed out, a part of business decision making.....most companies are too small and their margins are to small to fully implement and sustain ISO-9000 or ISO 13485.....these quality issues are when your customers start demanding that your company be ISO certified.....and your suppliers be certified....those costs are always part of the cost of doing business and the cost of quality......for most companies, the issue is the related resources associated with ISO implementation and sustaining the program....resources for the medical industry are vastly different than say commercial business and to some degree the automotive industry....
Just like when the supply chain wants to save money...most go to the cheapest supplier regardless of suppler rating or quality system implemented.....I won’t argue with you about what any companies intent or interest is in ISO implementation, but most companies I know are interested in making money and profits for stock holders......bottom line......their quality system implementation at time gets cloudy......I’ll bet you that most companies do not have a cost of quality program......why........because it is a engineering and production issues and those kind of efforts do not make or produce parts.......thats why most time when you get an RMA return and request for corrective action, everybody looks to quality to find out what happened and research the problem and fix it when in reality it is really the manufacturing and or engineering departments responsibility....they design and produce parts......I believe in a simple phrase that really speaks to the quality level of participation in may company: QA squared.........quality assist and quality audit......quality does not make parts or shippable systems.....
But to increase profits, a company must be willing to avoid and decrease quality costs, customer rejections, and poor customer perception...and to do this, I believe a company must have a willingness for continuous improvement through out every process it has....from order taking to customer delivery and to eliminate problems before they start......and that take resources not necessarily associated with action hands on product production.....
there are times when quality should make a stand...for example when a product fails final ATP or does not meet customer specifications or military specs.....sales says they need the money for the month.....production needs it to reach a goal.....but if sent, there is a good chance that it may return......hurting customer perception and if military parts, they could fail and cause death....thats why quality should not be reporting to manufacturing or production in any way......too much conflict of interest as described above....( I know of this because I had to punch out of a A6E when we had a bad part installed......my co-pilot was killed.....investigation showed it had failed final test and was accepted thru the companies MRB process that excluded the proper DCASPRO participation)
So, to end this, I believe Tesla in a great car.....I own a Model 3 and new Raven S......but over the long run, for Tesla to improve quality, there is a point where cost now must be seriously taken into account.....continuous improvement and reduction of production errors and quality issues can only be reduced if Elan Musk requires it.....just like he has done the Space-X projects......you don't see the issues there that you see in the the cars....its is a growing pain that will, I hope be remedied because this car is not going to go away...nor is Tesla.....we just hope issues and problems get fixed sooner rather than later
Tam
Well-Known Member
1) Companies prefer arbitration over litigation because it is much more beneficial for them.
Thus, evangelizing arbitration is doing companies a favor!
2) Degradation is a common complaint that I've seen almost every day. One way to deal with it is to make consumers dumber so Tesla dropped the kWh number from their battery and substitute it with name such as "standard, plus, long range...). Another way is explained in here that TeslaFi did it! Another way is just to ban the owner.
I think a better way to handle it is to educate the public. Disclose what is the useable part of the battery. What are the factors to include in kWh calculation...
However, education costs money so maybe Tesla thinks it's cheaper to fund the legal department than the education department.
LOL...wtf!
You have some ideology in your head that safety equals to quality or quality equals to safety.
Safety is everyone's job in a medical device company and in an auto maker.
Quality Assurance is making parts to spec. You may have some idea of what each spec means. But so does R&D, so does manufacuring, so does Clinical in my case. Not everyone's idea align.
The fact that you think about taking stands against your colleagues tells me you don't operate in a cross-functional environment. And this shouldn't be how a healthy company works.
Last edited:
Uncle Paul
Well-Known Member
This was not a customer voicing a complaint, but one going far beyond to spew dissent and encouraging others to file suits against any imperfection he my discover. Public shaming was damaging to Tesla and far over the line. He weaponized social media to inflect significant pain on the company. Constantly disclosed things the company did to satisfy him, and even after going way beyond to offer a settlement, OP has once again went on his negativity tyrades.
Feel that the real victim was not the customer, but the company.
Feel that the real victim was not the customer, but the company.
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
Nonsense, the OP was sharing his experience with the arbitration process... Tesla was exposed with their shady tactics.
He helped may members in the TMC community obtain a just settlement with the less than honest corporate attorneys.
Uncle Paul
Well-Known Member
But after he got his "just settlement" he continued his tyrade.
Tam
Well-Known Member
Tesla didn't want to change its behavior:
Tesla Remotely Removes Autopilot Features From Customer's Used Tesla Without Any Notice [Updated]
Until there was news coverage that was not kind: “In fact, it seems like a pretty shitty thing to do, a craven attempt to double-dip and get money for the same features every time the car is re-sold..”
Since the public shaming, Tesla has apologized and made whole to the owner.
Nonsense, the OP was sharing his experience with the arbitration process... Tesla was exposed with their shady tactics.
He helped may members in the TMC community obtain a just settlement with the less than honest corporate attorneys.
So the yellow screen problem sucked. There are two competing forces here. One is that it’s cosmetic and Tesla was working on a low cost fix. The other is that the owners have bought a $80k plus car and want it to be perfect. Tesla would have preferred to wait for the low cost fix, which DID actually happen where owners where rightfully impatient and wanted it now. So throwaways 100% legal method cost Tesla probably hundreds of thousands of dollars but in the end Tesla’s method would have had a similar outcome.
So in all technicality throwaways involvement did hurt Tesla for very little end result gain for him and people who followed his advice. I personally would rather the UV fix vs having my dash taken apart. So in the end , if I was a small business and all of this came out of my pocket, I would also have fired the customer as well.
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
Your logic is flawed... the UV treatment has proven to be temporary in many cases. Goodwill the first time, you pay for the second.
Your logic is flawed... the UV treatment has proven to be temporary in many cases. Goodwill the first time, you pay for the second.
Really? I haven't seen anyone report that yet.
Not all of them, at least according to the OP.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
No, it hasn't. If you can point to one case of someone having a successful UV treatment reporting the problem returning and getting charged for the treatment, I'll eat my hat.Your logic is flawed... the UV treatment has proven to be temporary in many cases. Goodwill the first time, you pay for the second.
Similar threads
- Question
