PC Aviator ?

[MattCollins 0]

Can anyone tell me if the owner of the PC Aviator website was also the owner of Computer Pilot magazine when it went belly up, last year?

 

Matt Collins

[Cai Zicheng 171]

Was-----Yes

Is---------No

[MattCollins 0]

As in, he used to to own the magazine, but still owns the website?

Matt Collins

[PCAviator 37]

Hi,

 

Just to get a few things straight before any false information starts circulating...

 

1. Yes, PC Aviator was the owner of Computer Pilot Magazine since its inception in the early 90s.

2. The magazine did not go "belly up"

3. PC Aviator sold the magazine and its rights, including any financial libaility for existing subscriptions to new owners, Maui Graphics in January of this year.

Maui Graphics had agreed to honour existing subscriptions and their financial liability as part of the sale.

4. We did not sell the magazine because it was going "belly up", We sold it due to the fact that we had less and less time to devote to producing it, and as such, felt it might be better off in the hands of a new owner who could devote the time to see the magazine continue to grow and prosper.

 

Did you have a specific question about the PC Aviator website you needed clarification on?

[Wizard-Bob 9]

Hello. It may as well have gone "belly up.". In December 2011, PC Aviator accepted my payment for 2 years of your (then) fine magazine. I was not told that it was soon to transition, and ended up waiting 8 months before receiving an issue (from the new owners). That issue, and the second one I received are, to put it mildly, horrible in my own opinion. I would never of subscribed had I known what I was going to receive.

 

This was an example of how to NOT run a business and retain a loyal customer base. Sadly, I consider this a blemish on PC Aviator's reputaton, as PC Aviator is the enterprise that accepted my money but failed to deliver the goods.

-Bob

[Psybear 23]

Not only was PC Aviator less than transparent with the sale to their subscribers they were also doling out free future issues as recompense to customers with out explaining that they had no way to honor them. Probably why the new owners are balking at honoring the legal subscriptions and trying to trick the base into re-subscribing.

 

I've stopped doing any business with either of these companies as they have taken the community for granted and whether through incompetence or arrogance, display sleaze at it's best.

 

And it's a pity.

[MattCollins 0]

No question about PC Aviator, specifically. Just makin some decisions about future flight sim purchases.

 

Also, I haven't received a single issue since last year.

Matt Collins

[PCAviator 37]

Please be aware that as part of the sale of the magazine to the new publisher, the new publisher agreed to take on the full financial obligations of all current/existing subscribers. PC Aviator was not preprared to leave existing subscribers in the lurch financially and not deliver or return monies paid for subsciption in some form or another while we had ownership and control of the magazine. After the magazine sale was legally completed, ALL financial obligations to subscribers became the full responsibility of the new publisher. They knew this was their obligation and was a clause of the sale. As mentioned, we are not in the business of trying to rip any of our customers off. Honouring subscriptions and financial obligations at the time of the sale moved to the new owner in FULL. Production and responsibility for producing and delivering the magazine also is now the responsibility of the new owner in FULL and PC Aviator plays no part in any aspect of the magazine post the change of ownership agreement. Up until the sale date of the magazine to the new owner, PC Aviator had delivered all magazines on the regular schedule up to and including Volume 16 Issue 1 (which was given as a FREE issue to all subscribers in PDF format) as this issue was not able to be printed. Beyond that, full control of the magazine lies in the hands of the new owner.

 

Some of the comments above are concerning to us, as we do not feel they are accurate and not based on the best information about the transfer of ownership of the magazine. A shame.

[mgh 89]

, ALL financial obligations to subscribers became the full responsibility of the new publisher....

Some of the comments above are concerning to us, as we do not feel they are accurate...

 

But iI's accurate to write that PCAviator took subscriptions from the public and then sold its obligations and so can now walk away from them, leaving some subscribers out of pocket.

[PCAviator 37]

But iI's accurate to write that PCAviator took subscriptions from the public and then sold its obligations and so can now walk away from them, leaving some subscribers out of pocket.

 

Yes and no. yes we took subscriptions from the public when we owned and published the magazine. Of course we did, that is what magazines do. But please note that at that same time we were taking subscriptions, we were producing magazine and filling those subscriptions as part of that obligation. "Sold its obligations" - Yes in a sense that is correct, but its probably better described as saying that the new owner of the magazine agreed to take on those financial obligations as part of the sale. I can assure you that PC Aviator did not receive money for "selling its obligations" in any form. I can assure you that up until the time of the sale, PC Aviator filled all its obligations to subscribers up until that time. I think you are making it sound like we sold the magazine for a massive profit at the expense of subscribers (who are "out of pocket"). Sorry, this is simply not the case. If you believe it to be, then you are obligated to provide real evidence to support your claims.

 

If any subscribers feel they are out of pocket, they now legally need to contact the new owners of the magazine to sort out where they stand with their subscription. As part of the agreement of sale, PC Aviator can not take any further part in those actions or provide resolutions to those cases I am afraid.

 

It is not helpful to anyone to be throwing claims and statements around like this without knowing the exact facts of the issue.

[ZKOKQ 986]

They knew this was their obligation and was a clause of the sale

Then have they not breached the sale agreement with PC Aviator ? Does PCA not have legal redress if that clause was breached ?

 

It seems it has breached the sale agreement, and has tainted the excellent reputation that PCA has held in the FS Community.

 

I am not one who would employ a legal professional easily, but in this case I would at least explore legal redress to see if the sale agreement has been breached. However, time has passed, and the Ambulance has long departed the bottom of the hill.

In PCA's defense, the new owners handled the change over very badly.

[PCAviator 37]

Then have they not breached the sale agreement with PC Aviator ? Does PCA not have legal redress if that clause was breached ?

 

It seems it has breached the sale agreement, and has tainted the excellent reputation that PCA has held in the FS Community.

 

I am not one who would employ a legal professional easily, but in this case I would at least explore legal redress to see if the sale agreement has been breached. However, time has passed, and the Ambulance has long departed the bottom of the hill.

In PCA's defense, the new owners handled the change over very badly.

 

Possibly yes but this is not a matter for discussion in this forum of course. We are still confident that the new owners/publishers can address the teething issues they are having with the magazine in time. We certainly hope that the outcome for all involved (including our past subscribers) is positive and moves forward to a resolution. It might just take a little time by the looks of it.

 

Thanks very much for your concern Julian!

[mgh 89]

I think you are making it sound like we sold the magazine for a massive profit at the expense of subscribers (who are "out of pocket"). Sorry, this is simply not the case. If you believe it to be, then you are obligated to provide real evidence to support your claims.

 

Please do not distort what I wrote. Resorting to such behaviour doesn't help your case.

 

Surely the facts are simple:

 

1 PC Aviator took subscriptions from the public

2 PC Aviator sold the magazine and its obligations

3 Some subscribers didn't get what they had paid for.

 

Which of those statements is incorrect?

 

Then have they not breached the sale agreement with PC Aviator ? Does PCA not have legal redress if that clause was breached ?

 

Has not PC Aviator breached its agreement with those of its subscribers who didn'r get what they paid PC Aviator for, so don't those subscribers have legal redress against PC Aviator?

[dogtrack 18]

Perhaps the correct thing would have been to reinburse remaining prepaid subscriptions prior to the contractual sale. Their was a two month window between editions. Folk could then have renewed with the new publisher.

 

Had that line been taken then all this fiasco could have been avoided, I am sure. But hey, perhaps that is just too easy.

[brant 12]

Perhaps the correct thing would have been to reinburse remaining prepaid subscriptions prior to the contractual sale. Their was a two month window between editions. Folk could then have renewed with the new publisher.

 

Had that line been taken then all this fiasco could have been avoided, I am sure. But hey, perhaps that is just too easy.

 

 

That's not a realistic option when selling a business. I don't think anyone in their right mind would've bought the magazine with zero paid subscriptions.

 

That said, I seriously doubt the new owner purchased the magazine with the intentions of not publishing it. But I do sympathize with those of you that paid and received nothing; that's not acceptable, but in no way is it PC Aviators fault.

 

 

Over the past year I've purchased most of my add-on's from PCAviator. I believe they are a good company to deal with, and I've been perfectly happy with them. And I love the deal-of-the-day promotion!