Agree with you John if all facts are known going in. I'm just a free markets guy and don't believe a company should have this much market control (it's just how I am). For a user that would rather pay and not worry about things, fine. It does limit after market repair that might be done by other folks and make one go back there. Fine for Williams, not so great for folks that would like other options.
We've had folks quote outlandish prices for some parts, but have always found a way to get it done more economically when we had choices.
Some folks like Whole Life insurance for it's guarantees and pay big bucks to sleep at night. I'm a buy term insurance, invest the difference and can accept I have some risk

Well, in that case they are telling you one thing and me another.

Sure, hope that isn't the case. That would be disappointing.

The other option is to buy a legacy citation with a used engine & parts market, aftermarket overhaul solutions and the ability to fly it past the TBO (or whatever you call it). The downside is these airplanes burn more fuel but you can save money if you are willing to dig-in (Tarver style) and find used parts when stuff breaks. There is a lot of value in these end-stage jets if you are willing to do your homework and fly older technology that (because of its age) is more likely to break.

If I spent less time on BT, I could have used that time to source cheap parts and fly a cheaper legacy citation. I hope you guys are happy, it cost me a lot of money to be here........

Agree about free markets, but there are just some times when the consumer is over the proverbial barrel. Think about companies that have ERP systems for their businesses. Once locked in, have fun getting any sort of competitive quotes for modifications, upgrades, etc. Power plants similar. Not the best situation, but am struggling to think of an alternative other than to just go complete third party, but then there are warranty issues in the early years. Or can go at risk and pay as you go.

I don't know about jet engines on GA planes, but frequently in other power plant situations, the OEM beats the engine guys down so hard in price to get the engines on the airframe, that the engine manufacturers count on the repair & maintenance revenue stream to recover their costs.

Instead of selling OEM engines, maybe Williams should just lease them (almost the same thing as is already happening).
You buy a new plane, but lease the power by the hour. No way to be "off program", and guaranteed residual income for Williams for as long as the plane stays airworthy.

"almost the same thing as is already happening" is not really already happening.
Williams and the plane manufacturer get a lump sum up front when the plane is purchased.
Then the owner can decide to participate or not participate in the programs. If he or she does, then they make variable payments based on hours. If not, no variable payments.

In the case where Williams just "leases" the engine there is no lump sum up front. What if the owner only flies the plane sporadically? How does Williams recover its costs?

So how does this model work if one owner flies 50 hours a year, the another owner flies 150 hours a year and number three flies 300 hours per year?

You have three owners with an identical asset, who are paying differential expenses to the manufacturer based solely on their usage. This makes no sense. Usage based fees make sense when the provider of the good or service incurs expense based on usage. Williams incurs no incremental expense based upon the owners' usage of the engine. Williams has no control over whether the owner flies the thing every day or lets it sit in the hangar.

Just can't put a price on happiness, John

Same as now, with a minimum annual number of hours you get billed for whether you fly that many hours or not. Williams gets a guaranteed income stream. It's the widespread subscription model of pricing.I believe in the current plan the minimum is 150 hours/year whether you fly them or not, so in your example, the first two guys pay the same annual amount, the last guy pays twice that.

^^ anyone know?

Same as now, with a minimum annual number of hours you get billed for whether you fly that many hours or not. Williams gets a guaranteed income stream. It's the widespread subscription model of pricing.I believe in the current plan the minimum is 150 hours/year whether you fly them or not, so in your example, the first two guys pay the same annual amount, the last guy pays twice that.

Ref Adam S:
Could they perhaps have done an overhaul (or what Williams is trying to call a major inspection, with an unknown-to-me amount of success) and then dropped the program?

^^ anyone know?

Is the comparison car or an Uber? An airplane you own or NetJets? I pay more for Uber the more I use it.

For software, software costs real money to maintain. If a vendor can find a way to transition people to recurring revenue, that’s a good match for the expenses. The prior alternative was to charge so much for the license that you could (hopefully) fund the ongoing maintenance. Of course, now that they have your money, they have incentive to skimp or to decide that your license for v1 is perpetual, but now they have a v2 coming out that you’ll need to buy if you want the latest. Leasing or recurring calendar based licensing avoids those issues and aligns consumer and producer in some ways. (And not in others)

Maybe the model is partial up-front and power by the hour with an annual minimum. Engines do degrade from disuse.

Original statement was concerning engine programs on purchased planes. Uber not a good comparison. The driver bought his car and is charging you directly for use of his resources. So driver/owner has already paid OEM.

I dunno, to each his own, but from my perspective once you buy something, it is on you to use, maintain, abuse as you see fit. The usage model with regard to fixed assets is problematic. In fact, it has all sorts of other issues. What if there is a dispute about fees? Can the engine company shut you out of your own plane? What if they decide to charge more per hour than originally bargained for?

Understand that they have you over a barrel whilst under warranty. But you can still opt out of the programs or go to third party... cost of doing so for sure...

I’m with you and very unlikely to own a power-by-hour type of airplane (or at least think of that as a serious negative that needs to be overcome by other advantages).

I do, however, think that someone flying 300 hours per year should logically pay more on an engine program than someone flying 150.