If [BLANK] is what you find too expensive about flying...

[Bell206]

The one thing people continuously seem to forget is that the whole “certified” side does not revolve around only the private, recreational aircraft owner. Rather its whole function is based on international standards and agreements.

And since Cessna and Piper sell parts globally and not only to that small subset of private owners, these certified rules allow that to happen seamlessly with zero additional certifications from other countries. Same with any aircraft, engine, or prop made in the US.

A quick look at the TCCA Owner Maintained category aircraft is a prime example when those international agreements and rules are not followed.

However, there are a number of work arounds when it comes to keeping costs down. One is go E/AB. Two is look into repairing what you have just as shown with the $1 switch vs $900 switch example above. Then there’s AC 23-27. And so on. The main problem most owners won’t pay a mechanic to see if it can be fixed or look for replacement options.

But then again its probably cheaper and easier for owners to simply beech and whine on a public forum than try to save themselves money and blame someone else.

 

[Half Fast]

But then again its probably cheaper and easier for owners to simply beech and whine on a public forum than try to save themselves money and blame someone else.

AFAIK, there's no reason we can't do both.

 

[DeadStick]

Except when the part number is literally a $1 part and they sell it/repair it for $900.

Dad had a contact switch that was bad in the stall warning in the Cherokee 180. They wanted $900 to replace it. He took it apart and found that it was only the electronic switch that was bad. He tracked down the company that made the switch. They had it on their website for a buck and some change. He went to order it, verified the price, and when they went to complete the order they said that part is only available for sale to Piper. It's literally a $1 and some change switch that they are marking up to over $900. Piper doesn't even make the part. They didn't design the part. So the whole manufacturer subsidy thing doesn't hold water.

And this example really is great b/c it shows the price gouging has nothing to do with regulations, government or lawyers. It has everything to do with vertical monopolies. Textron not only owns most of the airframe manufacturers, they also own most of the available supply of engines and many, many other parts. The ones they don't own directly, they issue ultimatums to: either produce parts solely for us, at the price point we dictate, or we'll never buy any parts from you and your business dies as the majority of planes on the market become off-limits to you. Piper and Cirrus do this also, and it's one of the big reasons that newer players like Tecnam and Diamond struggle to keep up production because they are getting choked off from suppliers.

This is not some new discovery, this has happened repeatedly with every single industry that undergoes vertical integration. We are still repeating the same damn mistakes from the age of Robber Barons and Railroad Tycoons.

 

[WDD]

Need “Right to Repair” for GA.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Need “Right to Repair” for GA.

You already have it.

 

[WDD]

You already have it.

Does that apply to using after market parts for repair? And fixing Garmin instrument?

 

[Bell206]

Does that apply to using after market parts for repair? And fixing Garmin instrument?

Yes.
And just to add, post 43 is a classic example on the lack of knowledge of the aviation system that exists among private aircraft owners.

 

[WDD]

So how can the company not then sell that $1 switch to anyone except Piper?

 

[MauleSkinner]

The ones they don't own directly, they issue ultimatums to: either produce parts solely for us, at the price point we dictate, or we'll never buy any parts from you and your business dies as the majority of planes on the market become off-limits to you.

Or there is some form of intellectual property in the part that is owned by the aircraft manufacturer, and it would be illegal for the part producer to sell it to anyone else.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Or there is some form of intellectual property in the part that is owned by the aircraft manufacturer, and it would be illegal for the part producer to sell it to anyone else.

So maybe the Certified regs need to have a sunset period, including patent/drawings. No reason a 1968 C172 should have any parts that aren't able to be procured from numerous suppliers or a local machine shop without having to jump through "owner produced parts" bs. Maybe the regs should say all Certified aircraft should be required to use "certified" parts for 25yrs, after such time the aircraft reverts to an owner-maintained status and LKQ parts can be used/sourced. All parts drawings/specs made available. It's essentially treating it like a classic car at that point. Just tossing stuff out there.

 

[MauleSkinner]

So maybe the Certified regs need to have a sunset period, including patent/drawings. No reason a 1968 C172 should have any parts that aren't able to be procured from numerous suppliers or a local machine shop without having to jump through "owner produced parts" bs. Maybe the regs should say all Certified aircraft should be required to use "certified" parts for 25yrs, after such time the aircraft reverts to an owner-maintained status and LKQ parts can be used/sourced. All parts drawings/specs made available. It's essentially treating it like a classic car at that point. Just tossing stuff out there.

I don’t believe there’s anything stopping Auto Zone from developing/selling a compatible part, other than the same lack of return on investment that the manufacturer is dealing with.

 

[WDD]

Or me from making and using a duplicate part in my basement?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Or me from making and using a duplicate part in my basement?

Correct. You’d just have to get a PMA for it if you want to sell it.

 

[StraightnLevel]

So how can the company not then sell that $1 switch to anyone except Piper?

Exclusivity contract. If Piper either paid for the tooling or has some IP ownership related to the part, they can restrict access by other customers.

 

[StraightnLevel]

And this example really is great b/c it shows the price gouging has nothing to do with regulations, government or lawyers. It has everything to do with vertical monopolies. Textron not only owns most of the airframe manufacturers, they also own most of the available supply of engines and many, many other parts. The ones they don't own directly, they issue ultimatums to: either produce parts solely for us, at the price point we dictate, or we'll never buy any parts from you and your business dies as the majority of planes on the market become off-limits to you. Piper and Cirrus do this also, and it's one of the big reasons that newer players like Tecnam and Diamond struggle to keep up production because they are getting choked off from suppliers.

This is not some new discovery, this has happened repeatedly with every single industry that undergoes vertical integration. We are still repeating the same damn mistakes from the age of Robber Barons and Railroad Tycoons.

I suggest that you spend $1M of your own money to develop something. Once you have spent that money, you should be forced to publish the drawings and specs and allow anyone anywhere to produce it and sell to any and all customers at marginal cost plus 10%.

How many products would you develop under that business model?

 

[Half Fast]

My company frequently bought off-the-shelf parts from a supplier using a spec control drawing with our own part number. This meant that we always knew exactly what we were getting and that the supplier couldn’t change the part’s specifications without notice and concurrence. Our drawings also sometimes required special testing or screening.

You could buy the same part under the vendor’s own part number, but not under our number, pay less, and take some risk on what you were actually getting.

I can certainly believe an airplane manufacturer might do the same thing, and the part called out in the IPC will be their proprietary number and therefore you’ll be required to use it. If you can learn the standard part number, though, and if the part is made under some industry spec (SAE, for example), you could switch to it as a standard part.

Alternatively, you could produce a drawing for the part, procure it to that drawing, perform your own quality inspection, and call it an OPP.

 

[StraightnLevel]

So maybe the Certified regs need to have a sunset period, including patent/drawings. No reason a 1968 C172 should have any parts that aren't able to be procured from numerous suppliers or a local machine shop without having to jump through "owner produced parts" bs. Maybe the regs should say all Certified aircraft should be required to use "certified" parts for 25yrs, after such time the aircraft reverts to an owner-maintained status and LKQ parts can be used/sourced. All parts drawings/specs made available. It's essentially treating it like a classic car at that point. Just tossing stuff out there.

Well, patents already expire, so that's not the limiting factor.

Imagine a casting or molding tool that costs $50,000 to build, and has a minimum run quantity of 1,000 pieces. Who is going to fund that tool and pay for the inventory to be able to sell parts for the existing planes?

Opening it up sounds really good, but our volumes are a couple of orders of magnitude too low to support a business in the same vein as classic Ford/Chevy replacement parts.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Well, patents already expire, so that's not the limiting factor.

Imagine a casting or molding tool that costs $50,000 to build, and has a minimum run quantity of 1,000 pieces. Who is going to fund that tool and pay for the inventory to be able to sell parts for the existing planes?

Opening it up sounds really good, but our volumes are a couple of orders of magnitude too low to support a business in the same vein as classic Ford/Chevy replacement parts.

I realize that we're not likely going to be producing $30K molds to produce 10 parts. However, if a part can be machined from bar stock/forgings and be just as good, you will pay a premium but potentially not be locked into one supplier who refuses to make more parts without a 10-100pc demand.

 

[DeadStick]

Another thread killed by people stuck in their opinions. You have zero evidence the $1 switch is under any kind of IP protection. You are pretending that companies don't hold suppliers to exclusivity contracts as part of standard practice. Doesn't require any IP or any of that BS, all it requires is having a big customer base and threatening to deny access to it. Go ask a KFC franchisee why they can't serve Coca-Cola and maybe you'll figure out how the world really works.

Or just keep ****ting on everyone trying to make aviation more accessible if they dare to challenge any of the many sacred cows you blindly worship, that seems to be working out real well.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Another thread killed by people stuck in their opinions. You have zero evidence the $1 switch is under any kind of IP protection. You are pretending that companies don't hold suppliers to exclusivity contracts as part of standard practice. Doesn't require any IP or any of that BS, all it requires is having a big customer base and threatening to deny access to it. Go ask a KFC franchisee why they can't serve Coca-Cola and maybe you'll figure out how the world really works.

Or just keep ****ting on everyone trying to make aviation more accessible if they dare to challenge any of the many sacred cows you blindly worship, that seems to be working out real well.

Actually, several people have encouraged those who think the prices are unreasonable to create an alternate supply chain, and have noted a couple of ways that it can be done.

 

[Half Fast]

Another thread killed by people stuck in their opinions. You have zero evidence the $1 switch is under any kind of IP protection. You are pretending that companies don't hold suppliers to exclusivity contracts as part of standard practice. Doesn't require any IP or any of that BS, all it requires is having a big customer base and threatening to deny access to it. Go ask a KFC franchisee why they can't serve Coca-Cola and maybe you'll figure out how the world really works.

Or just keep ****ting on everyone trying to make aviation more accessible if they dare to challenge any of the many sacred cows you blindly worship, that seems to be working out real well.

Oh brother. There's so much confusion in this it's hard to know where to begin, and I'm not in the mood to write a treatise for you.

Look, if KFC sells only Pepsi, it's because they agreed with Pepsi not to serve anything else in order to get favorable pricing. It does not prevent Pepsi from selling their products to other restaurants, nor from selling to the general public.

In a 36 year career in aerospace I never once saw anything close to what you're describing. What really happens (and I suspect what might be the case with the $1 switch) is something like this:

We select a part, say a Vernitron potentiometer, for an application but we need a better accuracy. The standard catalog part has a +5% accuracy spec, but we need +1%. Some subset of Vernitron's pots will meet that, so we prepare a specification control drawing (SCD) that calls out the Vernitron part number but imposes a tighter accuracy spec and calls out a screening process. We then buy our parts by ordering our own SCD number part and we thereby get the higher accuracy pots. And they cost a lot more due to the special processing and quality control.

Now, Vernitron can still sell their standard parts as they please, but they can't sell parts under our SCD part number. We paid to create that SCD and we own it. Vernitron can, if they choose, even begin offering +1% accuracy parts as an option under their own catalog part number. But the part number called out in the parts list for our product is the SCD part number, and if you choose to repair our product by replacing that pot you will have to buy our part number to be legal. It's the only way my company has to be assured that you're getting the correct high-quality part needed.

Now, for our airplanes, the FAA allows us to buy "standard" parts instead of the part number called out in the airplance IPC, if the standard part is equivalent and if it is produced in accordance with a known and accepted specification, like an IEEE spec or an SAE spec or similar. If the $1 switch is made to such a spec and can be procured that way rather than using the Piper part number, fine, you're good to go. Otherwise you're stuck.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Another thread killed by people stuck in their opinions. You have zero evidence the $1 switch is under any kind of IP protection. You are pretending that companies don't hold suppliers to exclusivity contracts as part of standard practice. Doesn't require any IP or any of that BS, all it requires is having a big customer base and threatening to deny access to it. Go ask a KFC franchisee why they can't serve Coca-Cola and maybe you'll figure out how the world really works.

Or just keep ****ting on everyone trying to make aviation more accessible if they dare to challenge any of the many sacred cows you blindly worship, that seems to be working out real well.

You need to think about how a CFI would respond if you gave this sort of response when being told why a "novel" approach to flying a plane will not work.

Keep in mind that "experience" should be defined as "something that you needed to have shortly before you before you got it".

 

[hindsight2020]

Remember, some of these guys made a living being remoras to that status quo (ditto for the Aeromed lackeys). They're going to reflexively simp for it. So that's par for the course.

On a personal level, I'm just surprised EAB allowances remain untouched in this regulatory environment. I fear for the day they come for it. MOSAIC isn't gonna fix the exclusionary economics that keeps this hobby on life-support, anymore than the original intent of LSA ever did.

All that said, the amount of scoff and pencil whipping in fac built land would shock you. People pearl-clutch about it, but just like tax evasion in high tax jurisdictions with a high level of poverty (ask me how I know), on the record I don't condone it.... but I understand it

 

[Half Fast]

On a personal level, I'm just surprised EAB allowances remain untouched in this regulatory environment. I fear for the day they come for it. MOSAIC isn't gonna fix the exclusionary economics that keeps this hobby on life-support, anymore than the original intent of LSA ever did.

Actually, from a regulatory standpoint, most of what I've seen the FAA doing is aimed at keeping the old birds flying. Things like OPP and allowing substitute parts and the new VARMA are steps in the right direction, but the FAA's pace is unfortunately glacial.

If MOSAIC allows certificated aircraft to be maintained like SLSAs (and I'm skeptical it will), that will be a big step forward.

 

[EdFred]

Or there is some form of intellectual property in the part that is owned by the aircraft manufacturer, and it would be illegal for the part producer to sell it to anyone else.

Not this switch. I looked at it myself. Of course between my dad and I we've only been in the electronics industry for a combined 80 years. So what would we know about switches and electronics.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Oh brother. There's so much confusion in this it's hard to know where to begin, and I'm not in the mood to write a treatise for you.

Look, if KFC sells only Pepsi, it's because they agreed with Pepsi not to serve anything else in order to get favorable pricing. It does not prevent Pepsi from selling their products to other restaurants, nor from selling to the general public.

In a 36 year career in aerospace I never once saw anything close to what you're describing. What really happens (and I suspect what might be the case with the $1 switch) is something like this:

We select a part, say a Vernitron potentiometer, for an application but we need a better accuracy. The standard catalog part has a +5% accuracy spec, but we need +1%. Some subset of Vernitron's pots will meet that, so we prepare a specification control drawing (SCD) that calls out the Vernitron part number but imposes a tighter accuracy spec and calls out a screening process. We then buy our parts by ordering our own SCD number part and we thereby get the higher accuracy pots. And they cost a lot more due to the special processing and quality control.

Now, Vernitron can still sell their standard parts as they please, but they can't sell parts under our SCD part number. We paid to create that SCD and we own it. Vernitron can, if they choose, even begin offering +1% accuracy parts as an option under their own catalog part number. But the part number called out in the parts list for our product is the SCD part number, and if you choose to repair our product by replacing that pot you will have to buy our part number to be legal. It's the only way my company has to be assured that you're getting the correct high-quality part needed.

Now, for our airplanes, the FAA allows us to buy "standard" parts instead of the part number called out in the airplance IPC, if the standard part is equivalent and if it is produced in accordance with a known and accepted specification, like an IEEE spec or an SAE spec or similar. If the $1 switch is made to such a spec and can be procured that way rather than using the Piper part number, fine, you're good to go. Otherwise you're stuck.

This, precisely.

In electronics it's "bin sorting". A component may have a manufacturing variance of, say, 10%, and gets sorted into performance "bins" of 1% each. You need and spec the 3% bin ("Suffix "C"), because it has been selected to match other components on the board.

Now, 5 years later, you find that you are the only manufacturer still buying that part. You've been paying $5 each. Then, the supplier runs out. Turns out, though, that since you are the only purchaser buying the part, they have thousands of each of every other bin code, which they have priced at $0.05 just to get rid of them. In effect, you've been paying $5 for a $0.50 part because you're only taking 10% of the production run. What's worse is that now that there are no more "C" suffix parts left, you have no choice but to either (1) pay the foundry for a full run of the entire line - 5 years' worth of all 10 suffixes - or (2) re-design your board to accept a different bin, which means re-certifying and probably forces dealing with other obsolete components. Option 1 means buying a full run of an otherwise obsolete part, which forces you to charge a huge price to account for the inventory carrying cost and paying for a whole bunch of parts that nobody else will ever consume. Option 2 means obsoleting your existing products that are in the field, and never having the ability to repair any of them, forcing a replacement with an expensive "new design" that has backed you into the corner of a limited availability, expensive component.

Ask me how I know about this situation...

 

[MauleSkinner]

Not this switch. I looked at it myself. Of course between my dad and I we've only been in the electronics industry for a combined 80 years. So what would we know about switches and electronics.

I’ve known lots of people with decades of experience in a certain field who are completely ignorant of it, so how would I know what you would know?

 

[Zeldman]

The socks. I can't afford the socks.

Taxiway, Runway, and Twin Jets Socks

Not only the coolest-looking socks in the aviation world, they're also the most comfortable!

www.mypilotstore.com

 

[Half Fast]

This, precisely.

In electronics it's "bin sorting". A component may have a manufacturing variance of, say, 10%, and gets sorted into performance "bins" of 1% each. You need and spec the 3% bin ("Suffix "C"), because it has been selected to match other components on the board.

Now, 5 years later, you find that you are the only manufacturer still buying that part. You've been paying $5 each. Then, the supplier runs out. Turns out, though, that since you are the only purchaser buying the part, they have thousands of each of every other bin code, which they have priced at $0.05 just to get rid of them. In effect, you've been paying $5 for a $0.50 part because you're only taking 10% of the production run. What's worse is that now that there are no more "C" suffix parts left, you have no choice but to either (1) pay the foundry for a full run of the entire line - 5 years' worth of all 10 suffixes - or (2) re-design your board to accept a different bin, which means re-certifying and probably forces dealing with other obsolete components. Option 1 means buying a full run of an otherwise obsolete part, which forces you to charge a huge price to account for the inventory carrying cost and paying for a whole bunch of parts that nobody else will ever consume. Option 2 means obsoleting your existing products that are in the field, and never having the ability to repair any of them, forcing a replacement with an expensive "new design" that has backed you into the corner of a limited availability, expensive component.

Ask me how I know about this situation...

BTDT. This situation is why we do lifetime buys on certain critical components. And that costs.

And if you were counting on, for example, a Gaussian distribution with 3-sigma = 3% in your monte carlo circuit analysis, forget it. What you really have looks more like a slice from a volcano, as they sift out the 3% parts to sell to you and you get NONE of the 1% parts. All your parts are between 2% and 3%.

 

[Salty]

Go ask a KFC franchisee why they can't serve Coca-Cola and maybe you'll figure out how the world really works.

KFC only sells Pepsi because they are both owned by the same parent company.

 

[Half Fast]

Not this switch. I looked at it myself. Of course between my dad and I we've only been in the electronics industry for a combined 80 years. So what would we know about switches and electronics.

Is the part number a Piper part number, or a switch manufacturer part number?

You might not be able to tell if there's something special just from looking at the switch. It could be screening for contact resistance, for no ignition of a flammable atmosphere, lot sample screening for number of cycles, etc., etc. All sorts of possibilities.

 

[DJTorrente]

Is the part number a Piper part number, or a switch manufacturer part number?

You might not be able to tell if there's something special just from looking at the switch. It could be screening for contact resistance, for no ignition of a flammable atmosphere, lost sample screening for number of cycles, etc., etc. All sorts of possibilities.

Or it could just be naked rent-seeking enabled by restrictive government regulation.

Who's this guy Occam, and why does he need a TSO'd, PMA, STC'd razor to shave?

 

[Half Fast]

Or it could just be naked rent-seeking enabled by restrictive government regulation.

What regulation requires a 400x markup on switch prices?

Who's this guy Occam, and why does he need a TSO'd, PMA, STC'd razor to shave?

Beats me; I use a Norelco.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Who's this guy Occam, and why does he need a TSO'd, PMA, STC'd razor to shave?

Interesting that the simplest explanation involves a conspiracy theory.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Or it could just be naked rent-seeking enabled by restrictive government regulation.

Question:

Do you believe that Textron's profitability is excessive, based on this sort of situation? Why or why not?

 

[Bell206]

o how can the company not then sell that $1 switch to anyone except Piper?

They can and do as well do other companies in similar situations. The issue is you need to follow one of the prescribed regulatory routes to use that $1 switch that preserves or alters the certified status of the aircraft as indicated in Block 6 of the AWC. Everything is interconnected in aviation as it is considered a closed system even on an international level.

Or there is some form of intellectual property in the part

FYI: never ran across any IP issues with aviation items at this level. As I recall there is a disconnect between aviation and standard IP laws. I believe it was a result of the infamous patent wars initiated by the Wright Brothers. For example, the lack of IP protection is what spurred the FAR requiring a permission letter to use an STC to protect the STC holder. But someone could still copy it provided they obtained their own approvals.

So maybe the Certified regs need to have a sunset period,

Then you would have to either rewrite every international aviation rule/standard/agreement to allow that or remove those aircraft from those rules/agreements like TCCA did with the owner-maintained aircraft: the aircraft and their products can never be exported from Canada as a certified aircraft or part. Those aircraft are not even allowed to fly in US airspace but C-reg E/AB are.

I don’t believe there’s anything stopping Auto Zone from developing/selling a compatible part

And there’s nothing that will stop an owner from installing that Auto Zone part. You can do it now provided you follow the proper route. Been that way for eons.

f MOSAIC allows certificated aircraft to be maintained like SLSAs (and I'm skeptical it will), that will be a big step forward.

I think the most interesting part of the current MOSAIC NPRM was where they shifted the LSR-M curriculum to the ACS standard. This is the same standard used for an A&P. You want an A&P-Lite certificate that means something this is the route it needs to take.

 

[Bell206]

Or just keep ****ting on everyone trying to make aviation more accessible

But it is accessible. At least to those who take the time to learn how the aviation system works. Since its obvious you have limited knowledge perhaps change your aviation learning path to one less regimented?

Experimental/Amateur-Built frees you from most rules except when flying only. Basically the sky’s the limit. Want more freedom follow Part 103 and you don’t even need a certificate. Want more structure then S-LSA aircraft can work and you can even work on them after 120hr school.

Or you can go somewhere in between and take a C172, slap a GM V-8 on it and fly it under Experimental-Exhibition. No problem.

So yes aviation is very accessible even to those who think its not.

 

[ateamer]

Textron not only owns most of the airframe manufacturers, they also own most of the available supply of engines and many, many other parts.

When did Textron buy Piper, Cirrus, Diamond,mTecnam, American Champion, and about 69 LSA manufacturers? What about Continental and Rotax?

 

[StraightnLevel]

When did Textron buy Piper, Cirrus, Diamond,mTecnam, American Champion, and about 69 LSA manufacturers? What about Continental and Rotax?

Indeed. Out of the top ten selling new planes in 2023, only one was from Textron. It was not the highest seller.

10 best-selling piston airplanes in 2023 — General Aviation News

2023 was a “banner year” for general aviation, with piston airplanes deliveries increasing 11.8% to 1,682. But what were the top 10 best-selling piston airplanes of the year?

generalaviationnews.com

 

[DJTorrente]

Question:

Do you believe that Textron's profitability is excessive, based on this sort of situation? Why or why not?

I think that neither I, nor anyone, should get to decide what is "excessive" profit. After 275 years, Adam Smith (of "Wealth of Nations" fame) is STILL right. Command economies have collapsed everywhere they've been tried -- to say nothing of 100 million people slaughtered because they were inconvenient to Marx's greater vision.

I shouldn't have to look under the hood of Textron's cost structure. There's too much incentive and ample opportunity for them to hide the ball. If the market clearing price of a given part includes profit above marginal cost, there is incentive for competitors to undercut the incumbents -- until regulatory restrictions stop them. Regulation is a subsidy to the incumbent, who is invested in the status quo, and is better able to absorb the cost of regulatory compliance than a challenger.