Mooney parts rate hike

[MIm20c 905]

Someone mentioned that Mooney increased the cost of replacement parts 25% this year. Has anyone noticed the change or can confirm the huge jump?

[philiplane 216]

Mooney has been increasing prices over the past two years, so the prices are representative of the $800k that a new Acclaim costs. Plus, the oldest, low volume parts are seeing larger increases. Which is the same pattern that Beech and Cirrus have been following. There is no uniform price increase, just random whoppers.

[N201MKTurbo 3,869]

The current administration has been pushing hard to get federal regulators to reduce regulations that are burdensome to manufacturers and other businesses. We can only hope that these efforts are successful and that some day we can see these costs come down to a realistic level.

[Yetti 3,127]

Silicone induction boots are gonna make me rich

[mike_elliott 3,989]

There are not a lot of people interested in getting into the 3rd party mfrg of Mooney parts probably for the same reason Mooney has to raise prices from time to time. Making parts for 50 year old airframes wont make anyone a decent living anymore unless your REALLY charge a lot, more than currently is being charged I am sure. I am not for the high prices, but I also dont se anyone stepping up to make them cheaper for obvious reasons. We are a tough ableit cheap crowd.

 

[MIm20c 905]

It has been nice ordering panels, induction parts, etc from a working factory. I felt the prices were fair which means they were probably priced too low. I hope the factory and workers can remain profitable for as long as possible. My guess is Mooney hasn’t had much of a (parts) price increase before this hike. 

[M20Doc 6,451]

Don’t forget that shops and MSC’s shouldn’t be allowed a markup on parts either!

Clarence

[jetdriven 3,960]

On 11/3/2019 at 8:58 AM, philiplane said:

Mooney has been increasing prices over the past two years, so the prices are representative of the $800k that a new Acclaim costs. Plus, the oldest, low volume parts are seeing larger increases. Which is the same pattern that Beech and Cirrus have been following. There is no uniform price increase, just random whoppers.

I know an Acclaim is 800,000 but my plane  is not worth it. We can’t justify parts prices based on the price of a new airplane. How about the cost to produce Plus fair margin, not 10 times the cost to produce. 
At the Mooney homecoming a few years ago we talked to the lady who builds ailerons on a flat table. It takes her and part time help about a day or so to build almost 2 ailerons. These  things cost like $4000 apiece and that was the price a few years ago. No wonder so many Mooneys at Oshkosh have hail damaged ailerons, the cost to replace them is just unreasonable.  
No for the most part, I think the Mooney  Parts prices have been fairly reasonable. We paid them plenty of times. But they should take a look at their cost per unit plus number of units shipped they’ll realize that they can get gouge insurance  companies for gear doors for example but other people are going to find different ways

Edited November 4 by jetdriven

[M20Doc 6,451]

3 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

I know an Acclaim is 800,000 but my plane  is not worth it. We can’t justify parts prices based on the price of a new airplane. How about the cost to produce Plus fair margin, not 10 times the cost to produce. 
At the Mooney homecoming a few years ago we talked to the lady who builds ailerons on a flat table. It takes her and part time help about a day or so to build almost 2 ailerons. These  things cost like $4000 apiece and that was the price a few years ago. No wonder so many Mooneys at Oshkosh have hail damaged ailerons, the cost to replace them is just unreasonable.  
No for the most part, I think the money Parks prices have been fairly reasonable. We paid them plenty of times. But they should take a look at their cost per unit plus number of units shipped they’ll realize that they can get gouge insurance  companies for gear doors for example but other people are going to find different ways

Just for reference, a pre-punched aileron for a Vans airplane is about $300.00 and takes a day to build.

Clarence

[PT20J 658]

Richard Collins often observed that the cost of maintaining an airplane is more related to the cost of a new airplane than the airplane's value. Cost to maintain is the killer of "cheap" complex aircraft. Ever notice how cheap light twins are to buy? It could be worse, you could have a V-tail Bonanza with a damaged magnesium ruddervator.

Skip

[RobertGary1 803]

3 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

There are not a lot of people interested in getting into the 3rd party mfrg of Mooney parts probably for the same reason Mooney has to raise prices from time to time. Making parts for 50 year old airframes wont make anyone a decent living anymore unless your REALLY charge a lot, more than currently is being charged I am sure. I am not for the high prices, but I also dont se anyone stepping up to make them cheaper for obvious reasons. We are a tough ableit cheap crowd.

 

But they don’t really make too many parts. They just use their type certificate to FAA bless other people’s parts and mark them up. I think parts is what keeps the doors open at Mooney 

 

-Robert 

[philiplane 216]

The cost of parts is far more than the time and materials. It's the cost of the entire factory, divided by the volume of parts out the door.

If Mooney spends $1 million annually to keep the lights on, and sells one part, that part would cost $1 million. Unfortunate, but true. That's why many companies contract their parts out to vendors, who can't charge their whole overhead to one part. 

Low volume, highly specialized parts for 30 to 50 year old planes will always be expensive. And without them, the planes will be grounded. I'm amazed that they can continue building parts and grateful that they do.

Edited November 3 by philiplane

[bill98 133]

In my line of work in the airlines ... a bolt at Boeing is $9.00

the new one way forward bolt from Boeing is $85.00 for essentially the same thing

 

Airbus sells planes for a lesser cost so they can make money on the parts supply after the sale 

[PT20J 658]

When Jacques Esculier was CEO, he got the factory ISO 9000 certified and then aggressively sought contracts with Boeing and others aerospace companies to manufacture components at competitive prices (due largely to low West Texas labor rates), and that got the company through one dry spell in airplane sales. I don't know if Mooney still does that or not, but I thought it was a pretty good idea back when.

[EricJ 1,142]

It's the usual thing with most OEM part support for manufactured products.   As the products age the part prices go up.   In the automotive market there are fed laws that facilitate aftermarket support after the manufacturer stops supporting something, which is why we can go to Vatozone or similar places to get non-OEM parts that work just fine on cars, trucks, etc.

It's not quite the same in aviation, so the exact same parts price increases by the OEM cause support issues since the aftermarket isn't enabled quite the same way it is in other market areas.

We're told that this is one of the main purposes of the FAR Owner Produced Parts exceptions, so that we aren't excessively burdened by this exact process.

My understanding is that an owner-produced part doesn't have to be an exact duplicate, it can be an alteration or part of an alteration, it just needs to be airworthy and conform to the type certificate.  The A&P that signs off the installation makes that determination. 

[Skates97 2,585]

28 minutes ago, bill98 said:

In my line of work in the airlines ... a bolt at Boeing is $9.00

the new one way forward bolt from Boeing is $85.00 for essentially the same thing

 

Airbus sells planes for a lesser cost so they can make money on the parts supply after the sale 

I know none of our three dealerships would remain in business if we did not have a robust Parts/Service department at each store. Of course it is more than just the profitability of the Parts/Service departments, it is also about customer retention. They say that Sales sells the first vehicle and Parts/Service sells all the following ones.

[Skates97 2,585]

1 minute ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Selling parts pro-rata like their sum is equal to the whole of a $800,000 new Acclaim Ultra does not exhibit an understanding of that concept, unfortunately.  
 

Jim

True, that is where the aftermarket parts industry plays a big role in keeping down the pricing on the OEM parts. It is apparent when you look at the OEM price of a part that is also available aftermarket as opposed to those that are only available from the manufacturer. We just don't have the same competition in the airplane world.

[RobertGary1 803]

13 minutes ago, EricJ said:

It's the usual thing with most OEM part support for manufactured products.   As the products age the part prices go up.   In the automotive market there are fed laws that facilitate aftermarket support after the manufacturer stops supporting something, which is why we can go to Vatozone or similar places to get non-OEM parts that work just fine on cars, trucks, etc.
. 

Another difference is that after 10 years OEM quality parts often don’t exist for your car/truck  The dealerships sell a rebranded cheaper part  At least with aviation the OEM quality part exists  

 

-Robert 

 

 

 

[Skates97 2,585]

12 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Amen, brother.  As a guy who maintains a fleet of four cars himself “for fun” I have seen this myself.   There is a lot of junk out there in the aftermarket, though, although some of it is every bit as good as OEM.  I get why the FAA can’t allow the aftermarket free reign to the degree that the automotive aftermarket is allowed, but Mooney is almost certainly losing money on new plane production.  It sticks in my craw a bit if they they are using new production retail pricing as their baseline for parts pricing. 

Yes, there are some parts that I will put aftermarket on my car all day long, and others that I won't even consider going aftermarket on. 

I guess the part of the equation that annoys me the most is the parts that are apparently good enough for the experimental fleet but not good enough for the certified fleet. If those were legal for the vintage fleet I think you would see downward pressure on the pricing similar to what the aftermarket auto-parts do for the pricing of OEM parts.

[RLCarter 1,383]

12 minutes ago, Skates97 said:

I guess the part of the equation that annoys me the most is the parts that are apparently good enough for the experimental fleet but not good enough for the certified fleet. If those were legal for the vintage fleet I think you would see downward pressure on the pricing similar to what the aftermarket auto-parts do for the pricing of OEM parts.

Yep...... Makes no sence to me

[corn_flake 28]

On 11/3/2019 at 9:11 AM, N201MKTurbo said:

The current administration has been pushing hard to get federal regulators to reduce regulations that are burdensome to manufacturers and other businesses. We can only hope that these efforts are successful and that some day we can see these costs come down to a realistic level.

I doubt it would make a difference.   Mfg will simply absort the profit.  Look what happen in the 90s when congress passed the bill to limit aircraft mfg liability.  The price of the aircraft did not go down.  Instead, it grow at even faster pace.  

[N201MKTurbo 3,869]

6 hours ago, corn_flake said:

I doubt it would make a difference.   Mfg will simply absort the profit.  Look what happen in the 90s when congress passed the bill to limit aircraft mfg liability.  The price of the aircraft did not go down.  Instead, it grow at even faster pace.  

So, in another thread people are lamenting that they can’t get rubber boots for their planes. There are at least two companies that can make them for a reasonable price. The only thing stopping them is government regulation, but you say that isn’t it. Hummm.....

[1980Mooney 27]

5 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So, in another thread people are lamenting that they can’t get rubber boots for their planes. There are at least two companies that can make them for a reasonable price. The only thing stopping them is government regulation, but you say that isn’t it. Hummm.....

Would that be the same "helpful administration" whose government regulation has slapped arbitrary taxes of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum?  So unless Mooney is going to go completely composite, that impacts and raises the cost of about 80-85% of the raw material by weight in a Mooney...….Hmmmm

Edited November 5 by 1980Mooney
embellishment

[N201MKTurbo 3,869]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

Would that be the same "helpful administration" whose government regulation has slapped arbitrary taxes of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum?  So unless Mooney is going to go completely composite, that impacts and raises the cost of about 80-85% of the raw material by weight in a Mooney...….Hmmmm

No taxes on American steel or aluminum. 

It will be much better In the long run. We have been getting screwed by the Chinese for way too long.

[1980Mooney 27]

2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

No taxes on American steel or aluminum. 

It will be much better In the long run. We have been getting screwed by the Chinese for way too long.

True...the American steel and aluminum suppliers simply increased their prices by the same amount as the market will bear.  Either way the costs are artificially inflated and we ultimately pay for it.  I don't know that everyone agrees that we are better in the long run having to pay $800,000+ for a new Mooney. 

When you say we have been getting screwed by the Chinese are you referring to the Chinese real estate Meijing Group and other Chinese investors that own and control "Soaring America" holding company which owns Mooney International?  Or are you referring to the Chinese Government owned AVIC International which owns and controls "Technify" holding company which owns Continental Motors, sole engine supplier to Mooney?  Cirrus Aircraft is owned by Chinese Government owned China Aviation Industry General Aircraft (CAIGA) and Diamond Aircraft is owned by the Chinese Wanfeng Auto Holding Group Co., Ltd.  If there is unease with the Chinese in GA then the only option is to fly a Cessna until such time that Textron eventually dumps the General Aviation business or build your own.