Why don't most brands sell service parts?

[tridacna]

I thought you knew how GA industry was almost killed in the USA by litigation and introduction of GARA?
Yes, it is different now, but model was established long ago and now it will take considerable effort to dismantle.

Why would I KNOW (or care to know) anything about airplane safety? I'm a retired mathematician who likes to dive. Who gives a fig about dismantling the system? Solution is easy. If it bothers you that much, buy regulators from manufacturers who provide spare parts. Companies like Hog and Deep 6 are already doing this with excellent products and service too. If enough people use their buying power to sway the manufacturers, that's great. This kind of monopolistic behavior seldom wins out in the long term.

 

[kelemvor]

There are a few things with regulators that could become a liability if the shop/manufacturer allowed parts out. If they let parts out then that almost means “sure go ahead and tinker with your own reg

Current law says they can't restrict parts sales for repairs in the US, since about 1975. The FTC is currently asking for reports of violations, should anyone currently looking for a part have trouble obtaining it because "you aren't an authorized xxx". Also, many states currently have right to repair legislation at some stage of lawmaking (already a law in NY as of this year) which gets a lot more specific when it comes to providing parts lists, service manuals, and restricting who can repair what with an eye toward DIY.

 

[Etmutt]

Current law says they can't restrict parts sales for repairs in the US, since about 1975. The FTC is currently asking for reports of violations, should anyone currently looking for a part have trouble obtaining it because "you aren't an authorized xxx". Also, many states currently have right to repair legislation at some stage of lawmaking (already a law in NY as of this year) which gets a lot more specific when it comes to providing parts lists, service manuals, and restricting who can repair what with an eye toward DIY.

That's very interesting ! I looked at the European right to repair law, but it seems focused on specific product range (smartphone and home appliances mostly)

How do we report to the FTC?

 

[kelemvor]

That's very interesting ! I looked at the European right to repair law, but it seems focused on specific product range (smartphone and home appliances mostly)

How do we report to the FTC?

Here's the FTC's statement on the matter. Since the existing enforcement is based on magnisun-moss the restrictions don't apply to "out of warranty" stuff. That doesn't mean that a manufacturer can void your warranty for diy repair with or without aftermarket parts, though. Nor can they void your warranty for going to a third party repair provider and using genuine or aftermarket parts.

The guidance on www.ftc.gov says "Have you been targeted by an illegal business practice or scam?" and directs you to file a report here: ReportFraud.ftc.gov

There are also attorneys in the world that specialize in this sort of law if you're so inclined. I'm not an attorney or anything, just an interested consumer.

The NY law I mentioned is here: NY State Senate Bill S4104A It's passed both the senate and assembly but the governor hasn't yet signed it. Colorado has a simmilar recent law that focuses on wheelchair repair. I wish they'd stop being so specific, but that's how things go I guess.

 

[rhwestfall]

The NY bill is for digital and electronic equipment..... No help.

 

[agilis]

The premise is incorrect. Most manufacturers do sell parts, to scuba shops. There are any number of reasons for doing your own repairs. Doing it right is one, and the sheer pleasure of beholding the inner workings and structure of a finely crafted mechanical object is another. OTOH, anything I don't feel 100% competent to do I take to an expert. I have been diving for many years and had lots of old things upon which I practiced and learned. Using a shop makes good sense, but not for everyone in all instances.

 

[tridacna]

@agilis is correct. The law is intended for companies like Apple who forced you to go to an Apple store for repairs. No one else could get parts. Companies like SP and others provide parts to hundreds of dealers who will service and repair your gear. Is it kinda monopolistic? I guess so. Does anyone else complain besides a handful of people on SB? Nah.

I worked at a store. If we knew and trusted you, parts kits were sold to you. Never an issue. You might even get some work on the side too.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

@agilis is correct. The law is intended for companies like Apple who forced you to go to an Apple store for repairs. No one else could get parts. Companies like SP and others provide parts to hundreds of dealers who will service and repair your gear. Is it kinda monopolistic? I guess so. Does anyone else complain besides a handful of people on SB? Nah.

And that's why it makes the most sense to get training, parts, and regulators all from the same source. While the training may not be 100% necessary, it would be in the category of highly recommended.

 

[lexvil]

@agilis is correct. The law is intended for companies like Apple who forced you to go to an Apple store for repairs. No one else could get parts. Companies like SP and others provide parts to hundreds of dealers who will service and repair your gear. Is it kinda monopolistic? I guess so. Does anyone else complain besides a handful of people on SB? Nah.

I worked at a store. If we knew and trusted you, parts kits were sold to you. Never an issue. You might even get some work on the side too.

Once you take into account, the threat hammer they hold over the head of those various shops is it really much different than the Apple thing?

 

[Etmutt]

Extract from FTC documents below. In my understanding, It is mainly linked to the warranty application aspect of spare parts availability.

"The Federal Trade Commission enforces the MMWA, a consumer protection law passed in 1975 to clarify how written warranties may be used when marketing products to consumers.19 The MMWA requires warrantors of consumer products to provide consumers with detailed information about warranty coverage.20 Section 102(c) of the MMWA prohibits warrantors from conditioning warranty coverage on the consumer’s use of an article or service identified by brand, trade, or corporate name, unless the warrantor provides that article or service without charge or the warrantor has received a waiver from the Commission.21 Companies may seek a waiver of this prohibition if: (1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the manufacturers’ parts or services are necessary for the product to function, and (2) the waiver is in the public interest.22 Since 1975, only three waiver requests have been made to the Commission, all of which were denied.23"