Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 11
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1791444
Aeronca Alan wrote:My money, my decision. Doesn't impact upon anyone else. (Potential advertisers can listen or ignore - that's their decision.)

Absolutely and I'd join you in defending the right to make that decision. However, that's not the question. You're off at a tangent. :D Whatever you decide is not evidence that it is a good, sensible, or logical decision. It's just your decision. :D

Morten wrote:
Miscellaneous wrote: Whether they are a d*ckhead or not is no indication to whether the aeroplane is exactly what you want. or not. :thumright:

I disagree. If the current owner is a d*ckhead the likelihood that the aircraft has been poorly looked after and is misrepresented is higher. And, even with the best pre-purchase inspection and flights, the best eagle-eyes in the world etc., they will know things about the aircraft you and your engineer don't. So a d*ckhead is a negative on the aircraft you are buying.

Well, d*ckhead is a subjective term and, I say again, choosing to re-advertise stating a timewaster as reason sale fell through is not conclusive evidence an individual is a d*ckhead. Now if we assume that everyone meeting anyone's definition of d*ckhead doesn't maintain their aeroplane there ain't going to be many worthy of buying.

Morten wrote:Also, I am not buying an aircraft as a business. I fly for fun. If the purchase process is a pain, I go elsewhere. Life is too short and there are other things I can get on with and enjoy more. And yes, I am willing to pay more to save my fun and avoid the pain. Like I said, I do this for fun, not for profit. I expect to pay (reasonably!) for my fun.

See above reply to @Aeronca Alan, it's entirely up to you how you conduct yourself. :thumright: How you do is not evidence of the assertions. :D
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1791449
I think you're missing the point Misc. Most of us fly for fun. We spend money and time in order to get the benefit of fun. What we choose to do is based on a personal assessment that the fun we get is worth more than what we pay for it (and worth more than other types of fun that we could spend the money and time on).
Therefore anything that is a dis-benefit (like dealing with a d*ck head) can be part of the equation.
Deciding in any particular set of circumstances that dealing with someone difficult just tips the scales from positive to negative is entirely logical. Yes it's based on subjective opinion, but it is entirely logical.
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1791526
Miscellaneous wrote:@lobstaboy let's agree to disagree that a subjective opinion someone is a d*ickehad is evidence he doesn't maintain his aeroplane. :thumright: :D


I didn't say that! I just don't like dealing with d*ck heads, that's all. Appearing like one in your advert is not going to help you sell your aeroplane.
I think we've gone full circle on this one now :)
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1791551
I'm a bit puzzled about this "readvertised due to timewasters" lark. It kind of implies that at some point the previous advert was marked as "Sold" or the advert deleted.

My definition of Sold, is I have a significant deposit, all the cash or a signed contract of sale in place. In the time between shaking on a deal with time limits, and one of the above arriving, it remains advertised. Any new enquiry would be entertained on the basis that they would need to wait as buyer 1 has first call, but explain his time limit. If buyer 2 is genuinely interested, he'll wait a day or two.

I've seen adverts with comments like "Sold subject to payment" and all I think is how stupid. It's either Sold or it isn't!
Lockhaven, JAFO liked this
By Aeronca Alan
#1791570
Miscellaneous wrote:
Aeronca Alan wrote:I don't care how much I may otherwise have been interested in the aircraft for sale, if the advertisement said "re-advertised due to time waster" I simply wouldn't even consider responding. I wouldn't deal with such a person. I think this is the OP's point.

Wow, big assumptions to be making based solely on someone saying they had to deal with a timewaster. And to conclude the seller is 'such a person'. :lol:

Quite enlightening this thread. Maybe there is value in viewing aircraft advertised such as there are guaranteed to be nice aircraft for sale, irrespective of the such of the owner. And well, think of how many won't be going to view because there's always something else to buy. :wink: Bargains galore. :D


I am not understanding your comment. I am simply saying I wouldn't deal with such a person who would describe in an advertisement a previously interested party as a "timewaster". The OP said:
"Whatever, to my eyes it makes them seem a difficult person to do business with (aka kn*b) and I'm much less likely to make an enquiry. In short, it's off putting."
I am in agreement with the OP. If you think otherwise, then that is fine by me.
User avatar
By TheFarmer
#1791572
Or are they admitting that they were silly enough not to have done any probing (aka due diligence) of the circumstances of enquirers?
Whatever, to my eyes it makes them seem a difficult person to do business with (aka kn*b)


So, what due diligence would you suggest a seller does when someone calls to buy an aircraft?

And how would you suggest they go about that?

The car/boat/caravan/[insert noun of saleable item here] fraternity seem to manage without the seller needing to do due diligence. :wink:

I’m sorry, but aviation certainly does have serious time-wasters, and I sympathise with people who are exasperated by them. I’ve experienced them, and they’re ruthlessly determined to either:

A) waste your time on the phone (as someone here does a lot).
B) waste your time at your airfield, expressing huge (and rather disproportionate) disappointment at the fact that your aircraft’s Mode S doesn’t have Version 1.22b, because that’s better than 1.21c....etc, and therefore it’s worth £775 less... :roll:
C) waste your time going flying, and then after landing, proclaiming, “I don't think this type is for me, I’m going to have a look at an “Xxxxx” next week“. Zero offer of a fuel contribution. Not even a thank you. Nothing. Just an arrogant belief that because they believe they are a buyer, that they can go around wasting the time of sellers.

They’re out there and they’re breeding; mark my words.
Kittyhawk, MikeB liked this
#1791573
I've bought or sold a few , with generally good levels of honesty and no great problems. One potential buyer who was clearly an out-and-out crook, who I strung along just to see what happened, then told to sod off when he offered me a £7.5k for an aeroplane I eventually sold for £19k.

The most bizarre was a complete money pit of an aeroplane, that was giving us a lot of trouble. So it got advertised on AFORS for a bargain price as the CofA expired, and anybody who contacted us got a full list of our woes and guesstimate of the very considerable effort needed to get her flying again.

Couple of chaps turned up, went over it, pronounced that we simply didn't know how to manage an aeroplane, and if we were stupid enough to ask that money, they'd have it now and be flying it in 3 months. Paid up, drove it away on a trailer.

7 years later, it's still not shown on G-INFO as having a new CofA. Honestly can't feel guilty, we'd told them all the problems they'd have, they just refused to believe us.

G
velostar liked this
User avatar
By romille
#1791598
Sooty25 wrote:By coincidence, this has just appeared on one of the facebook pages I follow.

Image


Be fast or be last.

Three weeks is an inordinate amount of time to be p1ssing about buying something, other than property, not surprised the seller snapped the hand off the eventual purchaser.
Miscellaneous liked this
User avatar
By TheFarmer
#1791606
Exactly.

Too much faffing about these days by too many people.

The seller’s side to that story is probably very different.
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1791608
TheFarmer wrote:The seller’s side to that story is probably very different.

I agree. :thumright:

I would also bet the buyer's story should read; 3 days sorting out POH, inspection insurance…and 18 days faffing with the syndicate to get agreement and authority for me to sign on their behalf. :wink:
Duo802 liked this
User avatar
By TheFarmer
#1791609
I hate to admit it, but when I once had some interest from a five man syndicate in an aircraft I was selling, I politely declined their request to come and view it. I suppose at least I was honest and didn’t waste their time.

It’s five times the test flights, five times the hassle, and five times the nit picking.

It sold two days later to a chap who flew in, knew what he was talking about, and he paid the asking price. He picked it up the following day.

Syndicates would certainly be a more attractive buyer if there was one person tasked and trusted with sourcing the aircraft.
Flyin'Dutch', velostar liked this
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 11