Sole agencies are illegal in the EU – have been for over 20 years.
For example if I appoint an “exclusive” distributor in Germany, and a German customer wants to buy from us directly, he can.
Obviously this is widely ignored e.g. it was illegal for Socata to force people to buy via Air Touring. But in most cases it’s a battle nobody wants to fight. And for “cultural reasons” one has to appoint distributors. There are some countries in N Europe where you make almost zero headway unless you have one – Germany and France for example. In aviation, people also gravitate towards a “dealer” – probably because that’s what they do with their Porsche 
Yes but that is the opposite situation of what we have here. The hose manufacturer does not prevent Socata from selling other companies’ hoses but just does not offer them to you. You can’t force a company to sell anything to you.
It was certainly not illegal for Socata to not sell airplanes to end customers but require them to go via dealers. It would have been illegal for Socata to prevent Air Touring from selling Cessnas etc. It would also have been illegal for Socata to prevent an unofficial dealer from reselling Socatas.
The situation is different when monopoly control is involved but that is not the case here.
If you have about $1M to spend why mess about with basket cases like the Eclipse, why wouldn’t you just buy a small jet made by a proper company with working systems, FIKI, etc, etc,which you will always be able to sell, like this:
http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/detail.aspx?OHID=1291031
Or this
I agree – that report on the Eclipse would turn me off ever wanting one. Hand flying a jet with no icing capability and a messy history is not for me.
If you have about $1M to spend why mess about with basket cases like the Eclipse, why wouldn’t you just buy a small jet made by a proper company with working systems, FIKI, etc, etc,which you will always be able to sell,
I know little about this, but isn’t the pro-Eclipse argument basically that you get a plane with substantially more performance for the fuel burn, than the old jets?
The “fact” that for the extra money you could buy enough avtur to fly a $1M CJ1 (or whatever) for the rest of your life is something that applies at every level in aviation. It almost never makes sense (for a private owner especially) to buy a more efficient aircraft. Yet they continue to buy them – look at Cirrus for example. Eclipse went for the “sex appeal” market.
However, as an aircraft owner of 12 years, I would run a mile from an aircraft whose manufacturer operates these policies and is able to enforce them – IF the parts in question actually need to be replaced with any significant frequency. You can’t avoid buying say a wing from the manufacturer, but it’s not often that you need to buy a wing It is the routine stuff that makes or breaks the running costs situation.
According to the Eclipse website, it takes 29 minutes to reach FL410. These are sales figures, in the real world and with the unavoidable ATC climb restrictions it will be rather like 45. All the time with the engines going at full blast. In „my“ Citation, the difference in fuel flow between climb thrust and cruise thrust above FL300 is 1300lb/hr/engine versus 650. I assume that it is not really different in an Eclipse (I also has P&W engines just like ours). So once established at 410, the Eclipse will only have a few minutes there before having to descend again… Useless, really.
In our Williams engined aircraft the fuel flow difference between “cruise” and “climb” thrust settings is almost nothing at any given altitude, we mostly climb at the cruise setting as the cruise setting is the same as MCT at higher levels. Fuel flow varies greatly with altitude, about 700 lb/hr per engine at low level, but we use less than 375lbs/hr per eng at FL430 and make 400kts, hence we go there quite often. For us it is worth going above FL400 for example at FL330 we still use about 600lbs/hr a side
Who would fly by hand above FL300 anyway, sounds like hard work.
The Eclipse would not be for me under any circumstances
I know little about this, but isn’t the pro-Eclipse argument basically that you get a plane with substantially more performance for the fuel burn, than the old jets?
The “fact” that for the extra money you could buy enough avtur to fly a $1M CJ1 (or whatever) for the rest of your life is something that applies at every level in aviation. It almost never makes sense (for a private owner especially) to buy a more efficient aircraft. Yet they continue to buy them – look at Cirrus for example. Eclipse went for the “sex appeal” market
If you look at the quote below, taken from an Eclipse dealer’s site, the Eclipse is slower than a CJ1, is absolutely tiny, and would use 280 litres less fuel for a 600nm trip; that’s about £300. Compared to the landing and handling fees that’s trivial. It was over €1000 for landing handling and 2 days parking at Annecy last month
The Eclipse 500 is quite fast for a jet of its size: its high speed cruise is 370 ktas and its long range cruise is 330 ktas. The light, small body of the Eclipse 500 allows it to almost catch up to some of the larger light jets. For example, on a 600 nm trip with four passengers, crew, and required reserves, the Eclipse 500 would reach its destination in 1 hour an 48 minutes, about 8 minutes later than other light jets (such as the CJ1+) would arrive. The similarities end when fuel burn is compared: on the 600 nm trip, the Eclipse 500 would burn just 885 pounds of fuel, whereas the CJ1+ would burn 1,375 pounds
Who would fly by hand above FL300 anyway, sounds like hard work.
There is RVSM airspace over large parts of Europe (FL295-FL410) and an autopilot capable of accurate altitude hold is one of the prerequisites for RVSM approval. So an owner of this kind of Eclipse won’t hand fly above FL300 very often, at least not in Europe.
Peter, the way I’ve traditionally seen supply of a generic part being limited to one company is that they pay non-recurring engineering or tooling costs for a part and own the design, regardless of its manufacture by a supplier.
You see a lot of the same thing in cars and motorcycles nowadays, with some manufacturers surreptitiously building dependence (enslavement? ) into every aspect of the design and business. An up-market brand from Bavaria comes to mind. Even easier for planes where you can list the part in the MM by a unique part number.
I’ve heard that description of a company not really understanding the concept of private property somewhere before.
Yes – of course, and that could indeed be the explanation for that Spiragaine hose, which is made up to a specific length. I dare say that had I asked them for the same hose by the length they would have replied OK, but now it’s too late 
However that chap who wrote about the parts having to be bought via Eclipse was saying they are standard parts. I don’t think that exclusivity is possible under an FAA type certificate – or is it?
Obviously the aircraft manufacturer can achieve this de facto e.g. Socata for the most part suppress the original part numbers and allocate the TB…. or Z00…. part numbers to everything right down to the last bolt nut and washer, but
Socata achieve it to a high degree by using obscure French-made parts, but most of the regular Annual service parts don’t cost enough (maybe €200) to make that fish worth frying. American companies can’t really achieve it on the little bits because most will be AN or MS fittings, etc.
