Bid to buy the Beechcraft was rigged?

Robert M. Gary wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:
Dan Luke wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote:


They must be an incredibly bloated company to need that much money. In
fact they are. I have relatives that work at the plant on Webb Rd. Of
couirse the production people are not munificently paid, in fact a
career there on the rivet driving side will be punctuated with layoffs
like anywhere else. The executives live like maharajahs of course.

Nothing wrong with that, the company has ever right to charge ANYTHING
they want for their product, this isn't Russia. What is costs me to
produce my product is NONE of your business. The question is, did they
charge the state more than they normally charge for their product. That
would be unethical if they took advantage of a nobid situation.

They do. The buyers have a right to be as gullible as they want to be.

You have every right to keep the profit margin of your product secret,
I have every right to make an educated guess as to what it is. This is
called "business analysis" and is a key to success in business. I have
every right to choose if I think excessive profit margin is reason for
me to buy elsewhere. In fact I have every right to choose any reason or
none at all to buy elsewhere.

The company is not being accused of plumping the price as far as I
know, the "beef" is against the state buying officials who decided they
wanted the $750K Bonanza vs. the $350K Cirrus despite the latter
properly fulfilling the stated bid requirements.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

They do. The buyers have a right to be as gullible as they want to be.

You have every right to keep the profit margin of your product secret,
I have every right to make an educated guess as to what it is. This is
called "business analysis" and is a key to success in business.

Oh? What school of business is that?

I have
every right to choose if I think excessive profit margin is reason for
me to buy elsewhere.

Indeed, you have that right, but that's a pretty lame business strategy.

In fact I have every right to choose any reason or
none at all to buy elsewhere.

Quite!


The company is not being accused of plumping the price as far as I
know, the "beef" is against the state buying officials who decided they
wanted the $750K Bonanza vs. the $350K Cirrus despite the latter
properly fulfilling the stated bid requirements.

Sounds like a typical example of someone spending other peoples money.


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Bret Ludwig wrote:

The company is not being accused of plumping the price as far as I
know, the "beef" is against the state buying officials who decided they
wanted the $750K Bonanza vs. the $350K Cirrus despite the latter
properly fulfilling the stated bid requirements.

How long would the state have had to wait for delivery of a Cirrus vs a
Beechcraft?

The cited article said:

"MnDOT officials said they simply decided to trade in the old plane
rather than add to their fleet."

Which raises the question, did they really pay $700k for the Beechcraft,
or did they pay significantly less after trading in their old Beechcraft
(which Cirrus may or may not have been willing to take in trade)?

The purchase deserves scrutiny, but one should not just assume that a
plastic Cirrus (what's that airframe life limit now?) would be equally
suited for all missions as a six-seater Beechcraft.


--
"You can support the troops but not the president"
--Representative Tom Delay (R-TX), during the Kosovo war.

xyzzy wrote:

The purchase deserves scrutiny, but one should not just assume that a
plastic Cirrus (what's that airframe life limit now?)

12,500 hours last I read...