Bad Stories about Plane Purchases

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
Unscrupulous means people without scruples (look it up).
Someone who attempts to reduce the price based on a
30-year-old damage history has none.

Only the seller can control the price. A buyer who tries to
"unscrupulously" control the price will get outbid by someone else.

I can think of ways a buyer can be unscrupulous, but trying to negotiate a
lower price based on information the *seller* provided or which is
documented as true hardly seems unscrupulous to me. The seller is free to
accept or reject the buyer's logic, as they see fit.

Pete

In article , "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

Unscrupulous means people without scruples (look it up).
Someone who attempts to reduce the price based on a
30-year-old damage history has none.

Only the seller can control the price. A buyer who tries to
"unscrupulously" control the price will get outbid by someone else.

I can think of ways a buyer can be unscrupulous, but trying to negotiate a
lower price based on information the *seller* provided or which is
documented as true hardly seems unscrupulous to me. The seller is free to
accept or reject the buyer's logic, as they see fit.

well, it's hardly ethical to base a negotiating point on a
bogus premise.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

Bob Noel writes:
well, it's hardly ethical to base a negotiating point on a
bogus premise.

Really? In which case buyers should just hand over all their money to
sellers?

If a buyer is going to negotiate, they need a reason to ask for a
lower price. It could be a real reason, such as "I don't have that
much money", or it could be a mostly made up reason such as "perhaps I
can get a better deal up the street". But what it really comes down
to is "I don't want to pay you that much, and I don't think anyone
else will either." If the seller disagrees, they can take a risk and
try to sell to someone else.

Chris
--
Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751

In article , Christopher
Brian Colohan wrote:

well, it's hardly ethical to base a negotiating point on a
bogus premise.

Really?

yes. Really.

In which case buyers should just hand over all their money to
sellers?

wow! how the heck did you go way over there? talk about
non sequiters (or however it's spelled).


If a buyer is going to negotiate, they need a reason to ask for a
lower price. It could be a real reason, such as "I don't have that
much money", or it could be a mostly made up reason such as "perhaps I
can get a better deal up the street". But what it really comes down
to is "I don't want to pay you that much, and I don't think anyone
else will either." If the seller disagrees, they can take a risk and
try to sell to someone else.

if a buyer has a real reason to lower the price, then fine.

If the buyer has a bogus reason, then that cannot be considered
ethical.

And it cuts both ways. If a seller has a real reason for setting
the price, then fine. If the seller has a bogus reason, then that
also cannot be considered ethical.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

Bob Noel writes:
If a buyer is going to negotiate, they need a reason to ask for a
lower price. It could be a real reason, such as "I don't have that
much money", or it could be a mostly made up reason such as "perhaps I
can get a better deal up the street". But what it really comes down
to is "I don't want to pay you that much, and I don't think anyone
else will either." If the seller disagrees, they can take a risk and
try to sell to someone else.

if a buyer has a real reason to lower the price, then fine.

If the buyer has a bogus reason, then that cannot be considered
ethical.

And it cuts both ways. If a seller has a real reason for setting
the price, then fine. If the seller has a bogus reason, then that
also cannot be considered ethical.

If I am going to negotiate for any big ticket item, I am going to do
the following:

a) Decide the maximum I want to pay. This is a hard limit, and I will
not exceed this during negotiations.

b) Decide how much I would _like_ to pay. This is my goal.

c) Arm myself with a big list of reasons not to buy the item in
question. This is my only defense and means of influencing the price.
Items on this list could include "I can get a better price elsewhere",
"another plane is almost as good and has lower risk of problems", "I
don't like the colour so much", or "I could get a really nice car for
this money instead". Some of these reasons may not be reasons for
avoiding purchasing the plane, but they certainly are reasons which
may make me more reluctant to buy at a particular price.

This is basic business negotiation. If you can't walk away from a
deal, you shouldn't be negotiating, because you will be fleeced.

Now you are saying there is a clear distinction between "real reasons"
and "bogus reasons" for wanting a lower price. I disagree, it is not
that clear.

For example, you claim that it is unethical to negotiate a lower price
based properly repaired damage in the distant past. But you agree
that recent damage is a cause for concern, and should result in a
lower price. What is the dividing line between these two cases? How
many years after the repair does using this as negotiating point
transition from being an intelligent buyer to being nitpicky? How
many years does it take to become downright unethical? Drawing a
clear line is hard. Also, different people will draw this line in
different places.

As long as this is ambiguous, it is fair game for price negotiation.
I may want a lower price because I know that when I sell the plane
someone _else_ will want a lower price. If you think the damage
history is no longer relevant, then don't budge in your price. If you
find a buyer who agrees, then you will get a higher price.

Because of this, as an astute buyer, I will be sure to explore any
potential problems during negotiation, if only to allow me to properly
negotiate a fair price. If I bring something up (such as long past
damage history) and the price changes, then perhaps the seller thinks
it is important. If not, then I have to decide how important it is to
me. Not only am I a buyer, but I have to put myself in the shoes of
any buyer who later might buy the plane from me, if only to avoid
getting hosed if I ever have to sell the plane.

If you believe it is unethical to talk about your needs, desires, or
fears (even if they are small or remote) during a business
negotiation, then I suspect you are naive. You certainly won't get
the best price when negotiating as a buyer or a seller...

Chris
--
Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751

In article , Christopher
Brian Colohan wrote:

[snip]
Because of this, as an astute buyer, I will be sure to explore any
potential problems during negotiation, if only to allow me to properly
negotiate a fair price.

Do you agree that "fair price" is not the same as "best price"?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

Bob Noel writes:
In article , Christopher
Brian Colohan wrote:

[snip]
Because of this, as an astute buyer, I will be sure to explore any
potential problems during negotiation, if only to allow me to properly
negotiate a fair price.

Do you agree that "fair price" is not the same as "best price"?

If both parties have equal skills as negotiators then they will be the
same. If not, then the better negotiator will have an advantage -- is
this fair? Not if the better negotiator recognizes the situation and
takes undue advantage of it.

Chris
--
Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
well, it's hardly ethical to base a negotiating point on a
bogus premise.

It may or may not be a bogus premise. The buyer will tell the seller what
they feel the airplane is worth. For some buyers, damage that occurred 30
years ago may well be a factor in their opinion of what the airplane is
worth. That usually would mean that that buyer would not get to buy that
particular plane, but it doesn't make the buyer unscrupulous.

In any case, the buyer does not have the ability to force a price on the
seller. A seller who accepts a price from a buyer on the basis of
information provided to that seller by the buyer has no reason for
complaint. They could just as easily have verified the information
themselves, rather than relying on the buyer.

Negotiation is an art poorly understood by most. It seems that there are
some people who believe that unless both the buyer and the seller come
completely clean with their ability to pay, desire to sell or buy, and every
tidbit of information that might affect the bid and buy price, some sort of
bad behavior is at work. When in fact, not having those things happen is
just what happens when a couple of strangers haggle.

Nothing unscrupulous about it.

Like I said, there are plenty of ways for a buyer to be unscrupulous, but
trying to talk the price down on the basis of damage history, no matter how
old, just isn't one of them.

Pete