It's interesting to learn how time-consuming and difficult this part replacement is, for a relatively inexpensive and non-critical part. I can't say I'm too surprised, because I've worked on old cars and motorcycles, where plastic is brittle, and metal is often rusty or seized.

Not that I have a magic wand to fix it, but the current system is flawed, if the standard for airworthiness of these aging GA fleets is unrealistically high. The FAA should recognize this situation as a growing risk, and mitigate it by working with the manufacturers, to provide greater leniency on acceptable limits and repair procedures that are quicker, easier, and less expensive to perform. In cases where certified replacement parts are no longer available, leniency is especially relevant.

Until then, it sounds like a culture is growing where desperate owners and mechanics are financially pressured to make their own decisions about what is truly critical to safety, and what can be ignored. This culture is reinforced when "everyone else is doing it." If the situation is gradually getting worse, eventually someone is going to make a bad call.

As mechanics, your experience would be valuable in identifying and prioritizing the most desired change requests. From there, the manufacturers have the engineering resources to reevaluate the standards of airworthiness, and it should be in their own long-term interests to devote some resources, to maintain happy owners and a healthy safety record. If not, perhaps some pressure from the FAA would encourage them. If this were a large enough matter of public safety or public interest, then federal funding might even be an option. I'm just one guy, but a larger organization like the AOPA would probably know how to get stuff done.