Bad Stories about Plane Purchases

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