When pressed, they do give informal estimates of the number of hours required which so far have turned out to be fairly accurate.
That is what I get, I never get a quote only an estimate and breakdown, the bill is usually higher but within standard deviations (I had rare cases where it was lower as well that I was even surprised), at the end of the day it’s matter of expectations 
I was damn sure this was 2.8h not 28h inspection (the guy doing the work was not the guy making the bills, happens, all over the place in big shops)
I wouldn’t be so sure. Most shops I have seen don’t bill by one tenth of an hour. By one quarter of an hour (or more) seems more usual.
I had that in mind as it seems not rounded but 2h-3h would be about right to open and inspect (most of the time one get standalone stuff as new or overhauled already unless their shop is specialised and does this for a living. My shop will not open vaccum pump, injector or mag…to inspect and fix, they will post/order them to/from somewhere else)
Ibra wrote:
I had that in mind as it seems not rounded but 2h-3h would be about right to open and inspect (most of the time one get standalone stuff as new or overhauled already unless their shop is specialised and does this for a living. My shop will not open vaccum pump, injector or mag…to inspect and fix, they will post/order them to/from somewhere else)
Yes this exactly. And by their own admission they don’t work on these, so remove → ship → reinstall → ground run is all I would expect.
One question would also be, you mention that you had a “rough” magneto? So has that been rectified?
Also you said that there was one magneto rough but they sent both in? And what have they done to them? Full overhauls?
I’ve had this before, when my mags were sent in as we were trying to figure a problem with them. They both came back overhauled, partly because the company claimed that the work they had to do to repair them was pretty much the same an overhaul cost, so I got better value for what they had to do, partly because the mags were close or over their TBO anyhow.
As the problem had been rectified (both mags had shown significant wear and were out of spec) I let that one go. Can’t recall the bill, but it was the kind of pricing quoted earlier for a magneto overhaul.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
One question would also be, you mention that you had a “rough” magneto? So has that been rectified?
Yes it has thankfully.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Also you said that there was one magneto rough but they sent both in? And what have they done to them? Full overhauls?
It’s the infamous Bendix dual mag, so both mags are in a single housing. They were fully overhauled.
I keep a spare mag on the shelf and always use QAA in the US for the overhauls. After a load of dodgy experiences here I would not use any shop in Europe for this critical component.
If it’s the dual mag, that pushes up the legitimate cost of overhaul but the labor cost charged is still absurd.
Stickandrudderman wrote:
Certainly here in the UK; where you dispute a bill for work done your best course of action is to officially pay under protest in writing. This way you get to remove your goods/property and continue to enjoy the use of it. You can then take legal action if you think you have a genuine case and try to recover the money.
No, why should you. This is the bloody issue in the UK. Why, because it will cost you to go to court, time money and stress.
And guess what you will more than likely lose.
My best ’’quote’’ went from 3600.00, in writing, to 11,800.00. This despite a nice letter at the start that I was to be informed and sign off additional works. I got nothing other than a large bill. The work was also crap.
I have been in business a long time and I tend to get my ’’quotes’’ accurate. Otherwise folks would not pay me
Silvaire wrote:
If it’s the dual mag, that pushes up the legitimate cost of overhaul
That’s entirely possible, but the quote was for 1k, an overhaul exchange from TCM can be had for 2.5k, and there was zero communication about a difference in cost. It was a surprise.
