Maintenance Fac. not working on A/C Older than 18 Years???

doug8082a · Post by **doug8082a** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:33 pm

Anyone see this report on AVWeb? I hope this idea doesn't spread to other shops...

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/a ... tml#194113

thammer · Post by **thammer** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:45 pm

Everyone who uses those guys or anyone else with similar ideas should immediately take their business elsewhere. Airplanes get older every year, won't be long before the guy with the new airplane will be in the same boat as the guy with the 18 year old today. Wonder how many customers of newer than 18 yr old aircraft these guys have? Must be quite a few if they think their business can survive with such a policy.

Flip side if it spreads is it provides business opportunities for those willing to work on older airplanes.

tye

Post by **GAHorn** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:49 am

Boycott them. (Cutter is one FBO that Phil Boyer talked with over this.)
Next thing you know they'll refuse to re-fuel older aircraft because they might crash!

doug8082a · Post by **doug8082a** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:30 pm

Here's more on that topic...

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/a ... tml#194147

Bill Hart · Post by **Bill Hart** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 3:06 pm

I wonder what a good layer could do to a maintenance shop if they refused to work on an airplane that was away from home and need maintenance and the pilot took off and crashed.

If a doctor is in a restaurant and someone has a heart attack can he be sued if he refuses to help because the person is extremely over weight and the doctor feels he has a low chance of survival?

Just food for thought.

Post by **GAHorn** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:44 pm

Bill Hart wrote:I wonder what a good layer could do to a maintenance shop if they refused to work on an airplane that was away from home and need maintenance and the pilot took off and crashed.

If a doctor is in a restaurant and someone has a heart attack can he be sued if he refuses to help because the person is extremely over weight and the doctor feels he has a low chance of survival?

Just food for thought.

Oooooh. Bill! YOU missed your calling?

iowa · Post by **iowa** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 5:46 pm

what if doctors wouldn't see anyone over 50
because of increased risks????
iowa

lowNslow · Post by **lowNslow** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 5:57 pm

Would you want anyone with this attitude working on your airplane anyway? My guess is these outfits can afford to turn away business (at least right now) because they are lucky enough to have a largely affluent group of A/C owners who can afford a Cirrus or a Malibu or ???. As tye says, can these guys really continue a policy of turning away business because an airplane turns 19 years?

N1478D · Post by **N1478D** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:54 pm

To play the Devils Advocate:

The cost for a mechanic to keep up with current manuals, service bulletins, equipment, etc., etc., seems very substantial. To do it for older style technology and new composite, glass panels, etc may be an unreasonable business plan.

It might trend towards those that work on newer equipment and technology, and those that stay current and updated on the conventional methods. It might not be a bad thing for us. Some one who is just out of school up to his eyeballs tring to understand glass panel fixes might not be the person we want looking at what we have.

When technology advances hit the engine compartment as it has the panels, we should expect to see much more of this dividing line. It's just the way it is. Older mechanics will still remember our technology, but will the new mechanics coming out of school care about a diminishing percentage of future business?

lowNslow · Post by **lowNslow** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:10 pm

N1478D wrote:To play the Devils Advocate:

The cost for a mechanic to keep up with current manuals, service bulletins, equipment, etc., etc., seems very substantial. To do it for older style technology and new composite, glass panels, etc maybe an unreasonable business plan.

Good point Joe. There are going to be those mechanics that prefer and are able to work on older airplanes and those that don't. But what are these mechanics that prefer the the newer tech stuff really going to do when these glass panel, glass skin, FADEC aircraft turn 19 - are they REALLY going to turn them away?

N1478D · Post by **N1478D** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:16 pm

It might be more throw away at that point!

As soon as you get your new computer home, the dam thing is old technology and the new neat products are already on the shelf.

19 years from now, these new glass panels will seem older than our steam gauges do now.

People will probably have all the info they need displayed on their sunglasses and wrist watches, etc. There will be very few people who would be able to repair a 19 year old glass panel IMHO.

sphillips · Post by **sphillips** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:31 pm

Thats funny. My shop doesn't work on anything NEWER than 18yrs old! Must have an old insurance agent.

Post by **GAHorn** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:53 am

N1478D wrote:To play the Devils Advocate:

The cost for a mechanic to keep up with current manuals, service bulletins, equipment, etc., etc., seems very substantial. To do it for older style technology and new composite, glass panels, etc may be an unreasonable business plan...

That seems to argue in the opposite direction.... Once a mechanic is trained to work on stuff,... it'd be easier to keep him on it and avoid the new-fangled, expensive stuff.

But the argument the shops are using is: That the insurance companies are charging them more in premiums if they work on old planes than on new ones, presumeably because the ins. co's believe that old planes are a greater risk.

Of course, this is B.S. It's the overall condition and the mx history of an airplane, and it's the experience level and recency of experience and currency of training of the pilot that is more influential ...than the mere age of the airplane. (Do they charge more for insuring airliners that were built before 1988 than they do new 500-seat Airbus 380's? Of course not.)

The point I was trying to make is... I wrote Phil Boyer and got a milquetoast response regarding this matter. I suggested to AOPA that after they refuse to service the airplanes in their mx shops...the next step is to refuse to re-FUEL them... for the same reasons.... they might crash.

Have you ever seen a cafe with a sign behind the counter that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" ???
Well, while it's their right to post any sign they wish in their cafe... it's NOT their right to refuse service to any person who comes into their place of business. That is "discrimination" and is not allowed under the law.
I'd hoped that AOPA would see the correlationship, but apparently Phil Boyer and AOPA is not yet ready to see the money advantage of taking up the case just yet.

N1478D · Post by **N1478D** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:07 am

Well, another way to look at it:

A Kenworth big rig breaks down in front of an auto shop that works on small imports. The truck driver tells the shop that he's broke down and they need to fix his truck! The shop says they just work on small imports, they don't work on big rigs. The truck driver informs them that his wife has to have it every night and he better be there or all hell will break loose including his lawyer calling on them for not getting him home before someone else gets there.

Current regulations don't require a FBO to have all equipment, tools, training, documentation for every airplane ever built, they require them to have all of that on all airplanes they work on!

Post by **GAHorn** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:31 am

N1478D wrote:Well, another way to look at it:

A Kenworth big rig breaks down in front of an auto shop that works on small imports. The truck driver tells the shop that he's broke down and they need to fix his truck! The shop says they just work on small imports, they don't work on big rigs. The truck driver informs them that his wife has to have it every night and he better be there or all hell will break loose including his lawyer calling on them for not getting him home before someone else gets there.

Current regulations don't require a FBO to have all equipment, tools, training, documentation for every airplane ever built, they require them to have all of that on all airplanes they work on!

Yeah, but that's the problem. Small airplanes require very little in the form of support. New planes with EFIS gizmo's require lots of it. But if you taxi into Cutter in your 170, such as I did on the way back from the Las Vegas convention, and they refuse to sell you a repair-order on a tach-drive oil seal.... versus if the Bank of America taxi's in with their Citation CJ with a EFIS-tube failure... where's the fairness? Cutter holds themselves out as a FBO with ground-service support for General Aviation aircraft. They have an obligation to the GA community.
As a corporate jet driver, AND an older airplane owner...Cutter has just lost my business, and they've just lost my good will. I'll be trying to influence others in the industry as well.

Imagine that your girlfriend has a wheel bearing failure in your 1957 Chevy Impala, but HiWay Chevron refuses to take care of it, yet they're quite happy to do take care of 2006 Lexus that has the same problem?

I recommend that we spread the word. What other FBO's are adopting this policy? Avoid them.
What insurance companies are singling out older aircraft? Refuse to do business with them.... Not until they change their minds... REFUSE to do business with them FOREVER! Make a point!