Bid to buy the Beechcraft was rigged?

http://wcco.com/local/local_story_287083948.html

(WCCO) St. Paul
"At least four state senators want to know if Minnesota taxpayers paid way
too much for an airplane purchased by the state and if the plane was even
needed.

The 2005 Beechcraft Bonanza cost $727,000, but a Minnesota company said the
state could have bought a better plane for half the price. Now, lawmakers
wonder if the bid to buy the Beechcraft was rigged.

In the depths of a serious budget crisis, the state of Minnesota went
airplane shopping this summer to replace a 1978 Beechcraft.

The Transportation Department said it needs a new plane to better monitor
safety at Minnesota's small airports.

"These are their versions of our MnDOT trucks," said Robert McFarlin,
assistant to Transportation Commissioner Carol Molnau. "These are their
working vehicles to get to airports across the state."

For nearly $300,000 less, it could have bought a Minnesota-made Cirrus
SR-22."


The scandal angle was played up by local TV, without a good look at the
state's requirements - for the bids. Anyway, this one might have legs,
.....er, wings.


Montblack

$727,000 is insane for a 60 year old design airplane!

And don't blow any liability horse**** up my ass. It's bull**** and
you know it. It's greed and gullibility.

$727,000 is insane for a 60 year old design airplane!

And don't blow any liability horse**** up my ass. It's bull**** and
you know it. It's greed and gullibility.

Not much to add to that!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Especially for a state that's budget is running a huge deficit. It's
also nice that the state of MN doesn't even support one of their own
successful businesses.

I'm assuming the Beechcraft was an A36, and that MnDot wanted a 6 place
A/C, but I can't confirm that. It appears to me that whoever made the
decision was afraid of composite aircraft.

BJ


Bret Ludwig wrote:
$727,000 is insane for a 60 year old design airplane!

And don't blow any liability horse**** up my ass. It's bull**** and
you know it. It's greed and gullibility.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote:

$727,000 is insane for a 60 year old design airplane!

And don't blow any liability horse**** up my ass. It's bull**** and
you know it. It's greed and gullibility.


That's the going price for a new A36. It's what Raytheon needs to
charge to make money on the airplane, and it finds a market at that
price. What's the problem?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote:

$727,000 is insane for a 60 year old design airplane!

And don't blow any liability horse**** up my ass. It's bull**** and
you know it. It's greed and gullibility.


That's the going price for a new A36. It's what Raytheon needs to
charge to make money on the airplane, and it finds a market at that
price. What's the problem?


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.

I think they have imported Hollywood accountants who can make the most
profitable enterprises lose money on paper.

You have no idea how much I'd like to see some company, foreign or
domestic, slam a trocar in their carcass and drain off a few hundred
gallons of that pure profit blood bloating their morbidly obese asses
so they can fit through the front door and out on thweir ass on Kellogg
Ave. Sooner or later, someone will.

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

Dan Luke wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote:

$727,000 is insane for a 60 year old design airplane!

And don't blow any liability horse**** up my ass. It's bull**** and
you know it. It's greed and gullibility.


That's the going price for a new A36. It's what Raytheon needs to
charge to make money on the airplane, and it finds a market at that
price. What's the problem?


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.

I think they have imported Hollywood accountants who can make the most
profitable enterprises lose money on paper.

You have no idea how much I'd like to see some company, foreign or
domestic, slam a trocar in their carcass and drain off a few hundred
gallons of that pure profit blood bloating their morbidly obese asses
so they can fit through the front door and out on thweir ass on Kellogg
Ave. Sooner or later, someone will.

Brett, ol boy, you seem to have a lot of issues. Let's see, we've got the
biting and completely unhelpful responses to a series of reasonable posts
over on rec.aviation.military, a post somewhere urging part 103 to be
expanded to allow the not-so-smart to kill themselves, and now you're
throwing down on Beechcraft?

You probably need to switch to decaff...

KB

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.

-Robert

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.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...

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.

Why?

Sounds like the state needs a kick in the ass for putting out no-bid PO's.