Maintenance Economics

I’d like to comment on David Schober’s article, "The Economics of Aviation MX for GA" ( Aviation Maintenance, May 2008). There are many customers willing to pay first-rate labor charges for first-rate maintenance; there are far more not willing to pay even close to what a shop like ours would bill for the same type of work. Of this huge margin of customers, let’s arbitrarily say that the bottom third are customers that we just plain don’t want, these are the shoppers and non-payers that Mr. Schober talks about.

This leaves the other two-thirds in that "could go either way" group. So why do they choose to have their maintenance done by these less-than-stellar providers? Let’s start at the most obvious, a $2,500 annual inspection or a $1,000 one? On the surface, the choice doesn’t seem to be too difficult. From the customer’s point of view, why pay $2,500 for a signature when he can get the same signature for $1,000? I might add that the $2,500 annual is generated by a shop whose hourly rate is far below the Mid-Altlantic rate of $120 per hour at the local Honda and Toyota dealers that Mr. Schober mentions. So you ask, why the $1,500 difference in the same annual? That might not be so easy to explain to a customer, but those of us in the business will grasp these concepts in a heartbeat. The big shop is well laid out and well lit. It is kept clean. It is kept comfortable in the winter and as comfortable as possible in the summer. Specialty tools are bought and kept calibrated. Technical publications are always on hand. The in-house parts department maintains a huge inventory and they have working relationships with multitudes of suppliers, so the customer won’t have to float his own money when ordering parts. Experienced technicians are hired and provided with recurring training and placed on the company drug program. Paid holidays and vacation are provided for the technicians. Insurance is bought and kept current. These expenses are absolutely necessary to doing business in a safe, sane and legal manner and if we are to make even a meager profit, they must be passed on directly to the customer. Do I even need to speculate how these less-than-stellar shops hold their costs down? Contrary to Mr. Schober’s statement that he shouldn’t have to worry about making it affordable for the poor owners, I believe that the thought of making it affordable should only be second behind making the work of the utmost quality.

In these days of skyrocketing fuel prices, the devalued dollar and rampant inflation, if we don’t make it affordable for the customers, we’ll all be out of work. For the average 200 hours or less a year owner, the final cost of airplane ownership is of paramount importance. One way of doing this is making our technicians more efficent. Our technicians also need to be cognizant of the economics of what they do and make sensible decisions as to what is an airworthiness concern and what is not and offer choices to the customer. Would they prefer an in-house repair or a new or overhauled component? All of which will impact the bottom line. Another way of easing the problem is leaning on the authorities and trying to put a stop to the almost unregulated mechanics and shops undercutting us "more expensive" shops. It’s a travesty that the FAA is almost powerless against these renegades until someone is killed or injured.

If all of us played ball on the same playing field, there probably wouldn’t be such a large spread in the prices these customers see for their annual inspections or other maintenance. At that point, we could sell our services for what they are really worth. Our shops would show a profit and our technicians would make yearly salaries equivalent to the Honda and Toyota mechanics.

C. John Colaluca A&P, IA