He has to remove your altimeter(s), do a leak check on them on the bench at 18000ft, then reinstall them.
Nothing stood out as excessive based on my experience. And for comparison, we flat rated 411/413 tests at $250 30 years ago but we didn't have to check ADSB either. As mentioned, the overhead on that equipment alone could account for the increase over the past 35 years.
Not so much for the aviation maintenance side unfortunately except at the 121 or CAMP system levels. Outside of a basic accounting program as most small shops already have, trying to tie in the work performed documentation requirements into a system that can handle all admin needs causes its own set of issues and costs. Even at the 135 operator I worked at which went to a medium sized digital system for all its 145 mx to include signatures, any "labor savings" were erased due to the extra time needed to administer the digital work order package to include the need for duplicate paper entries for certain parts of the work performed.
Actual altimeter removal depends on the aircraft or installation location provided the test equipment can be directly connected to the altimeter while installed. If so, no removal required for the test.
That "Oil Test Kit" price is probably the cost of the test and report, not just the bottle to send sample oil to Blackstone.
Its what the local market will bear. Car mechanics have historically charged more than aviation mechanics. It just the way it is. Having asked customers why they accept paying $100 to have their truck oil changed, but cried murder when I raised my charge to $75, none could give me a reasonable answer.
you mean like at my last job where we used a spreadsheet to fill out expense reports, but used a calculator to find the correct amount to fill in each box?
Spending cash on to implement admin tools costs real money. Up to a certain point, the owner's time is "free". You're obviously on the other side of that pain point.
Hah, not for oil that came out of an engine using leaded fuels!
It was some BS. Something along the lines of once we took things apart we found more issues. This was after paying for a pre buy inspection to the same guy.
Did you instruct him to take it apart enough to find those issues on the prebuy?
Ah, so it's OK to commit a hazmat violation because you don't think you're going to get caught.
they must be spot checking it, right? And those companies that pick up used oil from businesses must be segregating their oil as well? 
Injury to passengers and people on the ground, property damage if I screw up the process and it results in a crash.
In all seriousness, you might not be. No idea if it applies, but if you're doing something that requires either a lot of specialized knowledge or equipment, and you've long ago "paid for" those things, then you might not be charging for them. I suppose that's fine if those tools are going to last forever, or long enough, but if you're maybe looking to sell or pass along that business sometime, it might be a good idea to have the pricing enough to cover eventual replacement of all of that. Or another way to look at it, if you have all the business you need, it wouldn't hurt to raise the price for new customers to be more in line with your competitors.
There's no exclusion for that. They didn't tell, so I didn't ask.
True, but I'm mostly talking about larger businesses. For example, I've been using the same HVAC+plumbing company for the last 11 years since I bought this house - There was a sticker on the furnace with the phone number and I can't remember what the crisis was I first called them for, but I didn't have the luxury of doing my normal level of research into a company. And, that first guy they sent out was great - Fixed the problem, showed me what he was doing and why while he was doing it.
That's also when brand-new SR22s went for around $600K. I forget what the price of the SR20 was new at that point, but it was a fair bit less than $600K. And, of course, that's before flight schools went nuts and jacked the price of a 172 up by 3x-4x.
Many years ago my old man bought a 25 year old 28’ Bayliner flybridge for $5k. The boat was not without its problems and every time he would have the mechanic work on it he’d complain to me that a particular repair was 10% the value of the boat. I had to remind him that whether it’s a $500 water pump repair on a $5k boat or a $100k new boat, it’s the same repair job. The percentage of the value of the boat is irrelevant…do you want to go fishing or not?As you should have already predicted, chat is telling you all is well. shocker. They're technically correct in that it is in line with current prices. I'll give you my take as the resident class traitor in here:
I used to own a 150, and generally played in the sub-60K market for the duration of my tenure, in the "good ol days" of the 20 aught and 10s... you know the land of milk and honey where I could have a non-working spouse, rent, and own 3 airplanes on 60% of the net income I do today with two workers, a mortgage and no airplane. But clown Jerome telling me inflation is transitory, as his "board of governors" take out food and energy from the core CPI. clown shoes for the main clowns.
At any rate, this is the problem with that aircraft rung. Certified makes it even less economical because the regulatory "tax" is flat-fee, making it outsized relative to the capex in a way it isn't for something like a twin turbo piston. Basically, those costs would be identical for a much more capable single engine piston, making the more expensive plane cheaper per capita, IF you insist on playing in certified land. Which is why a 150 is meant to be rung out by grifty flight schools, not owned personally, especially if the onus is on "cheap time building". The 172RG would be an even more egregious example, though with TAA it has largely become obsolete even in that context. I'm not exagerating when I say a parallel valve O-540 [field] overhaul would have been cheaper than the angle valve 360 that kicked me out the hobby. Similar principle.
As to the line item themselves, as chat has already highlighted, it's in line with the current reality. That's what monopoly money does when everybody shrugs their shoulders at the Fed stealing your labor value so "institutional investors" (...and certain favored payrolls) could be made whole.
View attachment 147256
Instead of getting mad at the provider, get mad at the purchasers of your labor. How come it's ok for everyone to pass thru their inflation on to you, but the second you try the same it's all of a sudden blasphemy? Don't answer that I'm being rhetorical. See organized labor and regulatory capture/lobbying figured it out a while ago; go get rid of the Jones Act and watch the mice jump off the proverbial ship around here. Digressing.
Start getting mad, or start cheating. I'm never gonna allocute on a public forum, but I sincerely suggest going forward, experimental would be the only remaining way to semi-keep up with the labor theft of present circumstances. It can be done in the certified side, but 1 2 3 4 fif, I pleadeth the fif.
Exactly. But from my perspective, the difference is that 35 years ago when faced with what was considered a high dollar repair or valuation issue the owner would merely buy another aircraft for the best deal. Except now that surplus of used, slightly worn aircraft does not exist anymore. So, unfortunately, this has become a classic example of supply and demand with the supply side slowly disappearing and not a regulatory issue as that side has remained consistant or its affect reduced over a longer time period.
Fair.
Brad for the win - this should be made a sticky.
Don't worry. Another one will probably come along soon enough.
Yep, nothing goes up forever.
It's not unusual for oil changes on vehicles that require Dexos synthetic to cost between $100-$130 at a dealership.
The context of my comment was an owner will accept the higher cost of a vehicle but not accept a higher aircraft cost regardless of specific value. So to use your example, if I were to raise my oil change rate to $130 from $75 for your aircraft you as an aircraft owner would be okay with that?
