Mrfacts – Is that quote from the well known German shop, named after the airport where it is?
It is a very impressive redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. K. Marx would have been proud of it. The biggest problem I would have with submitting such a quote would be to keep a straight face until the customer has handed over the money 
It reminds me of Albania (LATI) where they charged me for the runway lights, in daytime, and they weren’t switched on.
Peter,
It’s a quote from a local shop which is only one sample of what I received from all shops in a 50NM radius. When I received the quote it drove me straight to the UK competition.
The shop where name and airfield match was not even considered. It would take me two hours of flight time one way only to find myself in the middle of nowhere whereas I have reason to go to London at least once a month.
It is a very impressive redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. K. Marx would have been proud of it
More like some mafia inspired corporatism in my opinion, supported by EASA. But, I mean, women gladly pay that amount (and more) for a purse if it has the right name on it. When people are willing to pay, why lower the prices?
I think this is a part of a larger problem. Within 5-10 years, there will be no mechanics left who can do a real job on a piston engine. As a young boy, straight from school, you have the choice of going into piston engines and maybe make a living if you are lucky, or you can go into turbines and earn 2-3 times as much and never be out of work. The choice isn’t that hard.
There just isn’t enough light GA aircraft around to support the corporate organisation model for maintenance that EASA has going, not unless people are willing to pay “German prices” (looks very much like Norwegian prices). Fewer and fewer are willing to do that, because you pay for something you have no use for (a certified “organisation”). You only need one guy to do a simple job.
if you had to pay so much for the avionics alone so how much they charged you for the rest ?(annual)
Hi Peter Paul,
I only used that shop for “AOG” work besides the avionics. The guy who does my CAMO is retiring and I am looking for the “full package” but may possibly keep dividing airframe and avionics.
best regards
Martin
More like some mafia inspired corporatism in my opinion, supported by EASA. But, I mean, women gladly pay that amount (and more) for a purse if it has the right name on it. When people are willing to pay, why lower the prices?
To paraphrase a 1980’s US First Lady: JUST SAY NO !
There is an FAA Certified Avionics RS just 100NM South of Paris that charges 500€, +VAT for a “simple” 91.411/91.413 bi-annual check, but I would rather pay the shop that charges a fair price, 250€ to come out rather than support the “racket”.
think this is a part of a larger problem. Within 5-10 years, there will be no mechanics left who can do a real job on a piston engine. As a young boy, straight from school, you have the choice of going into piston engines and maybe make a living if you are lucky, or you can go into turbines and earn 2-3 times as much and never be out of work. The choice isn’t that hard. There just isn’t enough light GA aircraft around to support the corporate organisation model for maintenance that EASA has going, not unless people are willing to pay “German prices” (looks very much like Norwegian prices). Fewer and fewer are willing to do that, because you pay for something you have no use for (a certified “organisation”). You only need one guy to do a simple job.
Very well put.
Indeed, the EASA model is inadapted to the reality of the GA market in general.
I think there is a business model for a “EuroGA Maintenance Shop”, which is centrally located in Europe, is transparent in their way of working, charges fair prices, etc.
We just need a dedicated guy that run the shop. He needs to make sure that grease is applied correctly, etc. I think I know a guy that would fit the job ;-)
He needs to make sure that grease is applied correctly
No idea who you are talking about 
You would need to add one very important requirement: proper project management.
If you use a shop where you are based, you don’t really need that (unless they dismantle the aircraft and it cannot fly at all). It’s a bit like if you divorce and buy a place to live 100m down the road, your ex can’t really stop you seeing the kids But if you are going to fly say 400nm, and probably fly back home on an airline (if the job is going to take more than a couple of days) then you need a very well managed firm schedule for it. What happens here in the UK, with even the biggest shops (I know this from employees and ex employees, and from my own experience as a customer) is that the job is postponed because another customer is screaming down the phone and perhaps even threatening legal action (the default operating mode for many clients in GA, sadly) until you start screaming down the phone and then it’s a case of “everybody to the battle stations on N113AC”. The two biggest 145 shops in the UK work that way most of the time and this is one result.
the EASA model is inadapted to the reality of the GA market in general
The key difference is that while Europe vests authority in companies, the USA vests authority in individuals (in general terms, GA).
That’s how Europe works (“individuals cannot be trusted” – you must have organisational approvals). And that’s how USA works (the “pioneer spirit”, etc).
The US model makes it much easier to manage aircraft maintenance, because you have many more options on who works on your plane. You can use an A&P based anywhere and an IA based anywhere to sign it off, etc. This is the biggest advantage of being N-reg. Unless you are a “non involved” type of owner (which many are; more so with certain modern brands) nobody has you over a barrel.
With the passage of time, this system creates a differently shaped market for maintenance and avionics to what we have in Europe, and a “Karl Marx wealth redistribution scheme” like that German shop invoice would not last for more than 5 minutes.
I am sure non-involved owners get shafted in the USA just as much as non-involved owners get shafted in Europe, however.
The key difference is that while Europe vests authority in companies, the USA vests authority in individuals (in general terms, GA).
This is not true. In Europe you have Part 66 engineers v.s. A&P’s in the EU. Part 66 can endorse for ARC renewal (Like A&P can to become IA). In the USA you have FAA Part 145 companies, in Europe you have EASA Part 145 companies.
There are differences, your arguments are not valid IMHO. No one says you MUST use an EASA Part 145 company, or must use an EASA Part 21 Design organisation.
Part 66 can endorse for ARC renewal (Like A&P can to become IA)
The airworthiness certificates for my N-registered aircraft were last renewed in 1956 (when the US phased out EU-style renewals) and 1971 (when aircraft number two was first flown). The advantage of FAA registration for annual inspections is that the mechanic himself, individually, writes a little note in your aircraft’s logbook and that’s your airworthiness renewal. No certificates issued, no overhead cost associated with any organization, no government involvement. That is intrinsically less expensive.
I am sure non-involved owners get shafted in the USA just as much as non-involved owners get shafted in Europe, however.
Yes, they certainly do. A friend of mine owns a Diamond and used to think taking his plane to the dealer for annuals was the right thing to do, basically based on snobbery and lack of confidence. After 6 or 7 years he’s finally learned and now does them with a local IA whom he trusts. Incidentally, he’s also learned that taking your (200K mile) 1993 BMW car to the dealer doesn’t make sense either, after they quoted him $15,000 (no typo) to fix something subsequently repaired by others for under $500. I’m proud of him wink:
