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

In article ,
"Montblack" wrote:
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 my opinion, the Bonanza is a better plane than the SR22, though it
would seem to make sense that the State of MN should purchase a plane
manufactured by a MN company.

Nevertheless, I can guarantee that the state legislature has MILLIONS of
pork in other areas, so someone must have an axe to grind to pick up on
a possible $400k unnecessary expenditure.



JKG

Montblack wrote:

The 2005 Beechcraft Bonanza cost $727,000, but a Minnesota company said
the state could have bought a better plane for half the price.

In that case, the State should sell the Beechcraft. They ought to be able to get
nearly waht they paid for it, since that *is* market value of the plane.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

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