It’ll end in tears . . .

of laughter?

Would you buy even a car off ebay with a description as brief as that? ‘Won’t fly’…..understatement of the year.

Lets see which shrewd investor buys it this time.

If AAM stands for the American Air Museum at Duxford, then I am afraid it is – no.

Mark

darn, but it is an airshow location ?

Exhibitions will be organized by current staff, so you are only looking at audio visual equipment and toilets which I class as the hangar, some of which were already there, so we are looking at 23 mil for the hangar.

well, no actually I can’t agree with you on that. Think how much the expertise to hang those aircraft must cost. All those steel cables etc and joists must cost a fortune. That would be many thousand by itself.

I agree about the cost of labour, yes it is there already but the cost of repainting and materials for these aircraft must be enormous.

Exhibitions, yes organised by current staff but display boards etc have to be paid for by someone.

It may be a lot, few would argue that 23 million is a small amount, but it isn’t just for a hangar. The alternative of finding other, authentic, cover for some of these aircraft is just out of the question.

Best Regards, Steve

is that the AAM in the reflection?

Not entirely fair, although all businesses exist to make money.
IIRC, Spitfire was brewed to celebrate an anniversary of the BofB and was so popular that Shepherd Neame added it to their standard range.

During the 60’s, BSA produced a Spitfire motorbike and the Triumph Spitfire was in production for, I guess, 15 years or so.

It would be interesting to know exactly what they’ve bought, and who from.

I’m not against SN’s use of the name Spitfire at all but Im merely pointing out that there is little difference between what this Swiss chap is doing and what SN did.

Very admirable that SN started the production of this particular ale to commemorate the anniversary of the Battle fo Britain but I doubt they would have produced it if they thought it wouldnt make money. It has no doubt survived because of there shrewd advertising of the brand, the prestige of the name and the fact that it tastes rather good (the most important bit).

best regards, Steve

Where will it stop?

Lancaster Bath Soap?
B-17 Room Fragrance?
Wellington Boots? (sorry)

I find this rather distastefull and not a proper tribute to those who died in these machines.

DS

No different than Spitfire Ale, which uses the name for exactly the same purpose….to make money.

I imagine the only party that actually profits will be the airport – the principal loser being the population of complete Vulcans 🙁

and maybe Ebay perhaps?

best regards

steve

Well it depends I guess, a) who would scrap it and at what cost (I imagine a lot of hazardous materials in the aircraft which may make it more expensive, disposal costs etc) and b) how LONG it would take to scrap – bear in mind that the aircraft would still be accruing fees whilst the process was being completed.

As long as the Seller was put in the position he would have been if the contract had been fulfilled correctly he cannot force the Buyer to remove the goods – he has been compensated –

Dont know the ins and outs of the case but i imagine this was the best ‘exit strategy’ for the Buyer…

TT

see your point, well, he has no one to blame but himself really. A sad affair of which two parties have profitted and one has lost out.