TARP legislation!!!!

[J32driver]

Our airport's future and the nation's general aviation industry are in immediate danger!
On January 9, 2009, Rep. Barney Frank (D-4-MA), Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, introduced a bill that if passed as proposed, will severely impact our airport and the entire general aviation industry. Specifically, the proposed bill to reform the "Troubled Assets Relief Program" (TARP) passed by Congress last year will require that businesses trying to recover in the current economic climate must divest all private aircraft and aircraft leases.
Nationally, enactment of this provision will put tens of thousands of aviation-related jobs at risk by devastating the small businesses that fuel and service general aviation aircraft and further harm the manufacturers who are already laying off workers and slowing assembly lines. It will also take a valuable tool away from companies that need general aviation aircraft to operate to and from the thousands of U.S. communities that have little or no scheduled airline service.
Locally, the effect will be devastating on our airport and to the other airports in the region. Many of our aviation businesses will be forced out of business and will vacate their facilities due to disappearing demand for their services. Airport revenues will be drastically reduced forcing us to reduce our workforce and cut services. Even after service and workforce cuts, airports will operate at a deficit and will be forced to increase rates and fees creating a death spiral of increased costs and decreased demand.
The aviation industry understands the importance of providing strong assurances that federal funds are being used wisely to protect jobs and rescue troubled assets. But Congress must craft the legislation so that it doesn’t harm the entire aviation industry and remove valuable aviation assets that serve as vital business tools. Because general aviation is widely recognized as an important economic development tool, Congress should be acting to support this economic sector. We can easily achieve accountability in the disbursement of TARP funds without needlessly penalizing this vital lifeline to rural America.
Please take immediate action to urge Congress in the strongest possible terms to eliminate the general aviation requirement from the TARP language.

 

[400A]

I sent mine! This is VERY SCARY!

 

[fu69atacafyeah]

i think this part,

"businesses trying to recover in the current economic climate must divest all private aircraft and aircraft leases"

only applies if the struggling company is looking for help such as the abused bailout, ch11, ch13, etc.

 

[400A]

Not so. A local very large back that is very financially stable had TARPS funds more or less forced on them is not in the fight for their life thanks to Mr. Frank.

 

[Storm Chaser]

I have contacted my congressmen and representative. I hope they understand that this is effecting true middle class families. It will hurt everyone in the industry from the guys that fuel the planes to the ones that fly them.

Since there is such a huge gov't deficit, I think that they (Pelosi, Reed, Frank,) give up their pvt aircraft and fly with the rest of the common folk!!

 

[BoilerUP]

[FONT=&quot]Dear NBAA Member Representatives, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As you know, the business aviation community has been challenged from a number of corners in recent weeks. Last Friday, NBAA notified Member companies of an alarming provision included in a House proposal to amend the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) that would require all businesses receiving TARP funds to immediately divest of business aircraft. The proposal had the potential to severely harm businesses trying to navigate the unforgiving economic climate, and fuel job losses for countless people in the general aviation community. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]NBAA is pleased to report that earlier this afternoon, this harmful provision was removed from the House proposal. The House may approve the final version of the bill as early as tomorrow. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clearly, this is an issue where the business aviation community effectively made its voice heard and its concerns known to elected officials. NBAA has long said that efforts by the Association in Washington are most effective if its Members also reach out to Congress. Using NBAA's Contact Congress resource, Association Members explained to their elected officials the value of business aviation as a mode of transportation, the numerous jobs associated with it and the critical role it plays in communities across the U.S.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]My thanks to all those in NBAA's Membership who used Contact Congress to send Congress an unequivocal message of opposition to the TARP proposal. The messages to Congress, which were sent from all across the country, provided a single, unified voice on an issue we knew was of critical importance to our industry, especially in these challenging economic times. Today's outcome demonstrates that when we make our concerns known to our elected representatives, we can help shape a positive agenda for the business aviation community. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Sincerely,


Ed Bolen
President and CEO
National Business Aviation Association[/FONT]

 

[LRvsH25B]

Bush, DeLay, Frist/Lott, McConnell (the most ugly man I've ever seen) spent years blank checking us into this situation, and it's going to continue (Corp Av jet sales) even when Obama starts to clean up this mess. These companies have smart people work for them, and they saw this coming in the event of an economic downturn; they just assumed the economy could never get to where it is today. These companies did not prepare, so now, the flight departments with their high value assets that can be liquid quickly, are paying for it. It sux, but it is what it is.

 

[ttflyer]

Bush, DeLay, Frist/Lott, McConnell (the most ugly man I've ever seen) spent years blank checking us into this situation...

I'm not sure letting the Federal Government dictate how a company should run its business is a good idea no matter who started it... And there is plenty of blame to go around among BOTH parties...

 

[LJ45]

Obama will fix it...right? I'll believe that when I see it.

 

[blzr]

Bush, DeLay, Frist/Lott, McConnell (the most ugly man I've ever seen) spent years blank checking us into this situation, and it's going to continue (Corp Av jet sales) even when Obama starts to clean up this mess. These companies have smart people work for them, and they saw this coming in the event of an economic downturn; they just assumed the economy could never get to where it is today. These companies did not prepare, so now, the flight departments with their high value assets that can be liquid quickly, are paying for it. It sux, but it is what it is.

I think the post right after this one said exactly what I was going to say. The government should not be in the buisness of "Bailing" ANYONE out. The markets should dictate winners and losers. As for Bush Blank checking anything, I believe it was the Bush administration that warned, Barney Frank and the banking committee, of the dangers of extending credit to people just because it seemed the fair thing to do. Now look where we are.. I don't think the White House did enough to prevent all the bad loans. If Bush HAD prevented Fannie and Freddie, he would have been demonized further, if that is possable.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

I'm not sure letting the Federal Government dictate how a company should run its business is a good idea no matter who started it... And there is plenty of blame to go around among BOTH parties...

If those companies come with hat in hand for a handout of my tax money then they have just left the capitalist system (not that we are very close anyway). They want the profits during good years and the government to subsidize the bad time? BS. I feel really bad for guy who lose their job because of this, I also was out of work for a while and just got back, but I do not want federal money going to a company who in turn gives the idiots who ran it into the ground huge bonuses and the ability to take their family to Hawaii on the company jet. There has to be some sort of accountability for that money.

 

[400A]

If those companies come with hat in hand for a handout of my tax money then they have just left the capitalist system (not that we are very close anyway). They want the profits during good years and the government to subsidize the bad time? BS. I feel really bad for guy who lose their job because of this, I also was out of work for a while and just got back, but I do not want federal money going to a company who in turn gives the idiots who ran it into the ground huge bonuses and the ability to take their family to Hawaii on the company jet. There has to be some sort of accountability for that money.

Let me ask how you feel about the companies that were forced to take TARP funds that did not want or need them? They have to give the jets up too?

Second, your comment about Hawaii tells me you have no clue what goes on in Corporate Aviation.
If they want to eliminate executive personal use of the aircraft, so be it. Percentage wise, that kind of operation would not even show up on the radar.

 

[Andy Neill]

Let me ask how you feel about the companies that were forced to take TARP funds that did not want or need them? They have to give the jets up too?

Could you provide a list of said companies forced to take TARP funds? What force was used?

 

[400A]

Could you provide a list of said companies forced to take TARP funds? What force was used?

Multiple banks that did not need nor want help, but were told they would be blacklisted if they did not. I have done my homework. Do yours. NBAA has a ton of info if you are a member.

 

[Andy Neill]

OK, here is what I found in the Wall Street journal:

During the discussion, the most animated response came from Wells Fargo (WFC) Chairman Richard Kovacevich, say people present. Why was this necessary? he asked. Why did the government need to buy stakes in these banks?

Morgan Stanley (MS) Chief Executive John Mack, whose company was among the most vulnerable in the group to the swirling financial crisis, quickly signed.

Bank of America's (BAC) Kenneth Lewis acknowledged the obvious, that everyone at the table would participate. "Any one of us who doesn't have a healthy fear of the unknown isn't paying attention," he said......

Mr. Paulson said the public had lost confidence in the banking system. "The system needs more money, and all of you will be better off if there's more capital in the system," Mr. Paulson told the bankers.

After Mr. Kovacevich voiced his concerns, Mr. Paulson described the deal starkly. He told the Wells Fargo chairman he could accept the government's money or risk going without the infusion. If the company found it needed capital later and Mr. Kovacevich couldn't raise money privately, Mr. Paulson promised the government wouldn't be so generous the second time around.

Is this what you are calling forced? It reminds me of a scene from the Warren Beatty version of Heaven Can Wait. Two football executives are bemoning the recent hostile acquisition of the Los Angeles Rams by a wealthy businessman.

"I tell you, he stole forced me to sell it to him".
"How did he do that, Ed?"
"The bastard offered me twice what the team was worth!"

There is wisdom in the BS&T song:
Rich relations may offer you
a crust of bread and such.
You can help youself,
But don't take too much,
Momma may have,
and pappa may have,
But God bless the child who can stand up and say,
"I've got my own".

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Multiple banks that did not need nor want help, but were told they would be blacklisted if they did not. I have done my homework. Do yours. NBAA has a ton of info if you are a member.

Are you serious? I look forward to your documentation. But If by forced you mean they unethically drove the company so close to destruction, as well as the whole banking/investment bank system, with their bad decisions while still paying themselves hundreds of millions of dollars while their companies were bleeding out.

I was FORCED to discipline my kid the other day because he broke the rules, was it my decision or his that resulted in the punishment.

I will disagree. Corporate aviation can be a very important tool to a company, but I will say it is a corporate benefit more than it is a requirement for most companies.

 

[400A]

It went way deeper than that! Keep digging. They failed to mention the part where they were also told that they would not be approved for buying failing banks.

BTW, If either of you want my information, dig it up yourself. I did. I am a NBAA member and also fly contract occasionally for one of these banks and am very aware of what happened. Good luck in your search.

Plain and simple, It was crooked, and has been defeated.

Barney Frank is a corrupt!

Killing corporate is not going to save the Airlines.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

It went way deeper than that! Keep digging. They failed to mention the part where they were also told that they would not be approved for buying failing banks.

BTW, If either of you want my information, dig it up yourself. I did. I am a NBAA member and also fly contract occasionally for one of these banks and am very aware of what happened. Good luck in your search.

Plain and simple, It was crooked, and has been defeated.

Barney Frank is a corrupt!

Killing corporate is not going to save the Airlines.

TARP was not defeated, just Franks act to track the money and have accountability to the program. A lot of which I think there needs to be. I don't think they should get rid of a corporate department unilaterally. But part of the original legislation has limits to management compensation. So companies will eventually have to show that their flight department is a requirement to do business, and not a benefit to the corporate officers. That is why for a lot of corporate aviation it is not a very stable job. The airplane is usually the first thing to get cut when there is money trouble. I hope nobody loses their job. But the reason the flight departments are going away is because of corporate mismanagement, not the big bad government.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Well I will have to admit that the big bad government is not innocent in this whole $hitstorm.

 

[400A]

TARP was not defeated, just Franks act to track the money and have accountability to the program. A lot of which I think there needs to be. I don't think they should get rid of a corporate department unilaterally. But part of the original legislation has limits to management compensation. So companies will eventually have to show that their flight department is a requirement to do business, and not a benefit to the corporate officers. That is why for a lot of corporate aviation it is not a very stable job. The airplane is usually the first thing to get cut when there is money trouble. I hope nobody loses their job. But the reason the flight departments are going away is because of corporate mismanagement, not the big bad government.

I meant just the A/C part. I know TARP as a whole was not defeated.

I have no problem with Executive compensation limits or requirements for responsible use of the aircraft. I also feel that Airline executive compensation in these times is down right criminal. I don't even have a problem with the provision if the company can't prove their viability. It was just to broad.

As far as the plane being the 1st to go. That is exactly why I fly for an Individual who uses it solely for personal travel. We only charge a few trips per year to the business.

I do not know ANY job in aviation that I would call stable at this point.:beer: