Avionics company jacking up price to work with equipment purchased elsewhere

Yes, most aviation workshops do look quite run down but I strongly suspect that that is because they’re not making enough money to justify the expense of modernising their premises.
Over the last few years of permit aeroplane ownership I have become very good friends with my inspector who runs a very professional and well respected aviation maintenance company. Having got to learn quite a bit about his business, I wouldn’t want to swap it for my Mercedes garage.

Just like restaurants who charge corkage when they allow you to bring your own wine, we also charge a10% handling fee on customer-supplied parts. We do tell customers in advance and it’s clear on all quotes. This covers in part the administrative burden ( As a Part 145 we still have to process the goods correctly, check paperwork etc) and additionally partly addresses our loss of profit. Many companies with significant overheads don’t make sufficient income just in labour to cover their costs, and the parts margin becomes an important line in the revenue stream.

I know is a normal practice in many businesses, but I get really worked up about it. Being in finance myself, we would literally end up in jail by doing anything similar (though granted it was common a few decades ago).

As costumer, I have a very strong interest in the businesses I buy from are making a decent profit. Otherwise they will either go out of business or be forced to cut corners. I am just much more comfortable by someone quoting an hourly charge that gives me comfort that the guy is making money and can hire talented staff. I think it is a gross misconception that being transparent on pricing means that you will be squeezed on the margins.

I registered with a parts supplier a while ago and they very friendly asked if I was a private individual of a maintenance shop, so that they could apply the right pricing. I pointed out that I would expect pricing to depend on volume rather than the color of my underpants, and that was when they stopped replying.

Most UK maintenance outfits I have seen, look like a back alley car garage from the last century, working out of unheated shelters with rotting airplanes dotted around. I make a point of my wife never seeing where we get the plane maintained, as she would probably never trust it to get airborne.

JasonC wrote:

Actually isn’t it more like 250ft at RVSM levels?

80 Ft at 10.000 Ft
100 Ft at 14.000 Ft
120 Ft at 18.000 Ft
130 Ft at 20.000 Ft
180 Ft at 30.000 Ft (non RVSM)

18.000 / 20.000 Ft are typical test levels for unpressurised aircraft.

Jesse wrote:

It depends on the altitude, at low altitude it is only 20 Ft, increasing to over 100Ft when one goes up.

Actually isn’t it more like 250ft at RVSM levels?

JnsV wrote:

Jesse, thanks for the quote. It makes the Hungarian one look a bit better.

Your welcome. If it is inline, I am quite sure they charge a fair price for quality products.

JnsV wrote:

What is the tolerance here?

It depends on the altitude, at low altitude it is only 20 Ft, increasing to over 100Ft when one goes up. On most altimeters the subscale is adjustable, then sometimes an error is adjustable. Sometimes you can not bring it into tolerance over the whole range, then the altimeter needs to be repaired or renewed. Often this will become renewed, as there are many different P/N’s which require a lot of different manuals etc, in general it is not worthwhile to keep al this manuals current.

The calibration of encoders are often overlooked. They must be within 125 Ft or your primary altimeter (including the error on your altimeter), so you need to calibrate the encoder to the primary altimeter, not to the pitot static test set.

As far as freelance engineers, most of them will not have the required calibrated pitot static tester and transponder test set to do these test. Some installation therefore do not meet the requirements without the owner knowing. For example, this was an issue on Filser Transponder, which had side lobe suppression issues and frequency tollerance errors. Some of these errors where discovered while out of tolerance, as they where not propperly tested after installation. At these cases testing would have saved the customer money, as the unit could have been repaired under warranty instead of out or warranty.

JnsV wrote:

Thanks for your kind offer. The component list is very simple:
- Trig TT-21 transponder
- Comant CI 105 antenna

- Trig TT-21 transponder 2087,00 Euro
- Comant CI-105 antenna 175,00 Euro
- CB, pullable 50,00 Euro
- Aviation wiring 25,00 Euro
- RG-400 low loss coax cable 4 m @ 7,00 = 28,00 Euro
- quality TNC connector 7,50 Euro
- quality BNC connector 5,00 Euro

Total materials 2377,50 Euro ex VAT = 2876.78 Euro incl VAT and incl incoming costs

Labour would be somewhere between 550-800 Euro (I don’t know your aircraft, nor didn’t see detaild photos). Would be 665,50 – 968,00 Euro Incl VAT

Labour would be for installation, pitot static testing / encoder calibration, transponder programming, and testing of transponder with test set.

Possible extra labour / risk area would be leaking pitot / static system (if it has static system), which would require repair, before pitot static testing is possible. Another risk would be altimeter out of tolerance, needing adjustment or replacement.