Washington & Private Jets

[Hawker800]

Lets see now. Senators and Congressmen have a problem with comapnines receiving public money operating aircraft. Obama sends a government aircraft, paid for with public money, to transport Mr. Sherrod Brown back to Washington to vote for the stimulus crap. Delayed the vote for five hours in order to do this. Personal transportation. Pot calling the kettle black that is.

 

[Tgaug6300]

Everyone needs to go to Rush Limbaughs' home page and read what he has to say about Cessna's campaign in the Wall Street Journal. I love Rush!

 

[LRvsH25B]

Next time you want to post 10% of the story, you would have a little credibility if you went ahead and told the WHOLE STORY. SO Obama just thought he would send Brown an airplane so he would not have to interrupt a vacation or something like that? My A$$,

So, here is the whole story from Foxnews about why he had a plane sent for him. Brown has an obligation to the people who elected him to vote in the Senate. Should he have just skipped his mother's funeral? Is that what he should have done????????

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/13/senator-returns-mothers-memorial-cast-stimulus-vote/
Sen. Sherrod Brown is returning from his mother's memorial services for what could be the decisive 60th vote needed to send the $787 billion economic stimulus plan to President Barack Obama.
The White House has arranged a plane to fly the Ohio Democrat to Washington Friday night and then back to Ohio immediately after the scheduled vote so he can attend church services and the funeral for his mother in Mansfield Saturday morning, his office said.
Brown's mother, Emily Campbell Brown, died on Feb. 2 at age 88. Funeral arrangements were announced later that week.
Brown was to leave for Washington after visiting hours ended at 8 p.m., landing at Andrews Air Force Base in the D.C. suburbs. The vote will be held open until Brown arrives.
A White House official said government transportation was provided because there were no commercial flights available that would allow Brown to make the vote and attend services memorializing his mother.

 

[LRvsH25B]

Everyone needs to go to Rush Limbaughs' home page and read what he has to say about Cessna's campaign in the Wall Street Journal. I love Rush!

Agreed. There's nothing like a fat junkie so out of touch with the majority of Americans, is there?

Is it his drug addiction that makes him so likable, or the crimes he committed in order to support that habit (Buying illegal drugs from housekeeper, Doctor shopping)?

I know where you are coming from. Junkies make for great people, don't they?

 

[Hawker800]

Regardless it is still personal use of a government airplane. Does this now mean that if there are no commercial flights that it is fine to use corporate jets?

 

[landlover]

Agreed. There's nothing like a fat junkie so out of touch with the majority of Americans, is there?

Is it his drug addiction that makes him so likable, or the crimes he committed in order to support that habit (Buying illegal drugs from housekeeper, Doctor shopping)?

I know where you are coming from. Junkies make for great people, don't they?

LRvsH25B you are my new hero.

 

[LRvsH25B]

Regardless it is still personal use of a government airplane. Does this now mean that if there are no commercial flights that it is fine to use corporate jets?

Hawker800, he is a member of Congress needing to vote on a nearly 1Trillion dollar piece of legislation. Do you not think that warrented special circumstances. Like I said, it's not like he was on vacation. His mother died and he need to pay his respects, as any of us would. Additionally, he has an obligation to the people of his state to vote on where their money is being spent; the people deserve representation.
Hawker800, my issue was not with what you wrote, I actually agree with you, it's not right. With that said, the circumstances were very unique, and I honestly think the White House would have extended that courtesy to anyone in Congress who needed to vote on something of this size, but were in danger of missing it due to one of their parent's funeral. The way you put it out there, it just sounded like the White House was giving out rides on G-IVs as a "thank you" or jsut for sh!ts and grins, and you and i know that was clearly not the case. I think you might get a little more milage in the future in you are honest and upfront about what goes on, instead of posting 1/2 the story. Let people make up their own minds instead of trying to make it up for them by slanting a story by omitting the most important part of it. Thanks.

 

[BoilerUP]

You gotta admit, the White House sending a government bizjet to pick up a Democratic Senator that proved to be the decisive vote on a controversial spending/stimulus bill, the biggest in the country's history, after dozens of grandstanding hypocrites in Congress and the President himself recently blasted bizjets as a sign of "executive excess", looks mighty bad and extremely elitist.

I agree that the Senator had a responsibility to his constituents and the country and have no problem whatsoever with him using an 89th aircraft to tend to his family affairs...but we're talking about a larger issue with our "lawmakers". For it to be acceptable for Sen. Brown to fly back and forth on a C21 or C37 when there are flights DCA-CLE all day long because of the value of his time and yet for it be irresponsible for CEOs of multi-billion dollar international corporations to use bizjets because of the same concerns....well that's just asinine.

I do hope that Sen. Brown will publically acknowledge the value a "small business jet" provided him both personally and professionally...but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[cheyflyer]

Hawker800, he is a member of Congress needing to vote on a nearly 1Trillion dollar piece of legislation. Do you not think that warrented special circumstances. Like I said, it's not like he was on vacation. His mother died and he need to pay his respects, as any of us would. Additionally, he has an obligation to the people of his state to vote on where their money is being spent; the people deserve representation.

Then maybe his State should provide the transportation and the People of that state can foot the bill for said transportation.

Would they have "held" the vote open and provided transportation for the "key" vote/voter if Mr. Brown had an R before -Ohio instead of a d?

 

[wacoflyr]

I agree with Boilerup. I don't mind that Sen. Brown was flown back and forth for what are obviously unusual circumstances. What upsets me is that our president, whom I admire and respect, makes sweeping statements regarding my profession without taking into account the effect it will have on thousands of employees who are fearful for their jobs. Congress is guilty as well. Unfortunately, their words have enourmous influence on the perception of the public at large. Anybody see the mayor of Las Vegas' reaction to Obama's comments on corporate conventions at that city? Once again, I admire and respect Obama, but the mayor was right. Congress and Obama need to watch what they say.

Regards, Wacoflyr

 

[Hawker800]

LrvsH25B:
Good afternoon. Since you cared to dress me down for as you say "half the story" now my turn. First of all Mr. Brown is a Senator and not a member of Congress. Not that it makes much of a difference. I also felt that most people of average intelligence on here, as are most of the folks in our profession, did not need me to spell it out for them. As to the passing of his parent I know that feeling all too well. The man does have my condolences. His profession needs to lay off of ours. Fair for the goose is fair for the gander. Thank you for your time.

 

[mwwest2004]

First...Congress is composed of The Senate and The House of Representatives...So he is a Congressman...

Second...This is a clear showing of government hypocracy...I understand the security reasons for Obama to fly the way he does...This flight for Brown, however, was pure convenience...I am not saying that is wrong either, but when Congress and Obama continue to rip on bankers for flying corporate jets while their companies lose money, then do something like this while government loses trillions sends a bad message...Also, they held the vote open for him until 10:30 on a friday night...not exactly normal business hours for Congress, and the bill has yet to be signed by Obama...So why couldn't they hold the vote until Saturday, so every one could get there, and maybe have more time to actually read the trillion dollar spendfest...Oh...but that would have delayed the departure of Pelosi's government 757 for her European vacation...So hypocritcal...

 

[LRvsH25B]

LrvsH25B:
Good afternoon. Since you cared to dress me down for as you say "half the story" now my turn. First of all Mr. Brown is a Senator and not a member of Congress. Not that it makes much of a difference. I also felt that most people of average intelligence on here, as are most of the folks in our profession, did not need me to spell it out for them. As to the passing of his parent I know that feeling all too well. The man does have my condolences. His profession needs to lay off of ours. Fair for the goose is fair for the gander. Thank you for your time.

Nobody dressed you down. Come on Man. Mwwest is correct and you shouldl know that congress is made up of 2 bodies, the Senate and the House of Represenatives. Brown is in fact a Congressman.

You did in fact need to spell it out, and your failure to see that lets me know what you intenetions are here. Not everyone knows the story. You got on here and posted your swallow of a story and made it out to be Obama sent a jet to pick him up just to do it. You failure to explain WHY he sent it, which is the root of the whole story, has nothing to do with intelligence. Those that didnt catch the news Friday probably did not know the story, and your post was simply self serving. This is what you wrote:

Lets see now. Senators and Congressmen have a problem with comapnines receiving public money operating aircraft. Obama sends a government aircraft, paid for with public money, to transport Mr. Sherrod Brown back to Washington to vote for the stimulus crap. Delayed the vote for five hours in order to do this. Personal transportation. Pot calling the kettle black that is.


If I didn't see the news Friday, how could I reasonably be expected to know this guys mother had died and the jet was so he could attend the funeral and then fulfill his obligation to the people of Ohio; they should not be punished for Brown's mother dying, and I assure you he was going to go the funeral instead of go to vote if he were made to choose.

Lawmakers are not going after corporate jet operators as a whole. It's funny how corporate pilots are the only ones who think that/see that, while the rest America sees them frowning upon TARP funded companies operating corporate jets.

If you have run your company into the ground becasue you were greedy and tried to make a quick buck, (and that is what happened,) and the FEDs had to step in becasue your company in now insolvent and without FED money your company would fold, then no, corporate jets are clearly not for you. You don't need them; what you need to do is get your house in order. Buy the FEDs out, as they are now your company's largest stock holder, then you can have your jets back, but until then, you are not a private company, and the lagrest stock holder will have his say, as it happens in pubicly traded companies; that's how it works.

Walmart, Coke, Exxon Mobil, Valero, are all publicly traded companies with large corporate jets fleets and you don't hear anybody saring anything to them, now do you? No, and why is that? Because they can AFFORD THEM! They are not taking TARP funds, so they can do as they please in terms of a corporate jets presense in their house. See how that works?

 

[LRvsH25B]

First...Congress is composed of The Senate and The House of Representatives...So he is a Congressman...

Also, they held the vote open for him until 10:30 on a friday night...not exactly normal business hours for Congress, and the bill has yet to be signed by Obama...So why couldn't they hold the vote until Saturday, so every one could get there, and maybe have more time to actually read the trillion dollar spendfest...Oh...but that would have delayed the departure of Pelosi's government 757 for her European vacation...So hypocritcal...

The vote was held in the Senate. It had already been sent back to the House and the amended version was voted on and sent back to the Senate for a final vote, so they were already gone.

Where can I find the story of Pelosi taking a personal vacation in a USAF 757 to Europe? That didn't seem to make the news.

 

[mwwest2004]

The pelosi thing was mostly sarcasm, but her trip to Italy is well known...I'm not sure how she got there...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,492744,00.html

Also, I know the vote in the house was already done, and that the taking place was only in the Senate at the time, but dont you think it would look bad for Pelosi to leave before her masterpiece of a bill was officially passed? All I am saying is, why couldn't this bill have waited until saturday, or monday to have this vote? It still, at the time of this writing, has not been signed. If they had just waited a few hours until Saturday, he could have flown ccommercially. Also he went home to his home state for a personal reason...why is the federal gov't paying for his personal travel? Why not his home state? Or him?

 

[LRvsH25B]

The pelosi thing was mostly sarcasm, but her trip to Italy is well known...I'm not sure how she got there...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,492744,00.html

Also, I know the vote in the house was already done, and that the taking place was only in the Senate at the time, but dont you think it would look bad for Pelosi to leave before her masterpiece of a bill was officially passed? All I am saying is, why couldn't this bill have waited until saturday, or monday to have this vote? It still, at the time of this writing, has not been signed. If they had just waited a few hours until Saturday, he could have flown ccommercially. Also he went home to his home state for a personal reason...why is the federal gov't paying for his personal travel? Why not his home state? Or him?

He is an employee of the Federal Government and becasue of his position, he requires a high level of security, which is the responsibility of the USA to provide. Presidents have been doing this for years so why is Obama's travel being questioned? 6 weeks ago, Bush was at his Ranch and nobidy on here said anything about it. Why is that?

 

[LJ45]

He is an employee of the Federal Government and becasue of his position, he requires a high level of security, which is the responsibility of the USA to provide. Presidents have been doing this for years so why is Obama's travel being questioned? 6 weeks ago, Bush was at his Ranch and nobidy on here said anything about it. Why is that?

Because OUR government is questioning OUR travel. Maybe, when your love affair with the new pres. is over you will get your head out your A$$.

 

[mwwest2004]

He is an employee of the Federal Government and becasue of his position, he requires a high level of security, which is the responsibility of the USA to provide. Presidents have been doing this for years so why is Obama's travel being questioned? 6 weeks ago, Bush was at his Ranch and nobidy on here said anything about it. Why is that?

I haven't said anything about Obama's travel, except to say that I find it necessary. I never complained about it. Also, I never said it was inherently wrong for the Senator to travel privately (although, I'm not sure a jet was necessary...Ohio to Washington is very possible with something more cost effective), I simply feel that it is somewhat hypocritical and sends a bad message for the government, which is as bad or worse financially than the bailed out banks, to be using this sort of expensive travel while claiming that it is terrible and greedy for the banks to use the same type of travel. Do all Senators and Representatives, including Sherrod Brown carry out all of their travel in private aircraft paid for by the government?

 

[mxpilot2]

No, quite a few of them have been known to hitch a ride on corp. a/c from within their constituency. Which I hope stops, after the barrage of crap they've laid on the public.

It is REALLY a case of "Do as I say, not as I do". There is NOTHING these guys do that makes them so high and mighty, and in light of some of their antics, I really lost some more of my lagging respect for them. If all of this action is truly about saving jobs, it should be about saving jobs in every industry, not just those that pass muster with his holiness Obama and his minions in the House and Senate.

I don't know who else is in my place, but I don't have skills in anything else to make a good living. I'm taking the attack on our profession a bit personally. I doubt that I'm going to find a job that's anywhere close to what I do now, and don't have time to build back up, let alone take care of retirement from here on out if I have to start over.

As far as Brown goes, I can see the gesture, in light of the importance of the bill, BUT it does send a mixed message, but only to us. That message is lost on the public that is hammering our jobs, not realizing it affects just as many people as any other industry.

LRvsH25B, I know most this won't meet with your approval, but I've donned the asbestos boxers. I've hesitated to weigh in on this one, partly because you do seem to slam those who don't think like you. But it is a forum, and is open to opposing viewpoints.

Regards,
Chris

 

[LRvsH25B]

Because OUR government is questioning OUR travel. Maybe, when your love affair with the new pres. is over you will get your head out your A$$.

Unless you work for a Tarp funded company operating biz jets, the Gov't isn't questioning sh!t, so don't come on here with that lie.
The GOV'T is the largest shareholder in these companies. Are you suggesting a company's largest investor (the one who kept the company from folding) does not have the right to do so? You're out of your fukcing mind.
Walmart has the largest fleet of corporate jets out of any 81 operator. They're publically traded. The GOV't saying anything to them? What about Exxon Mobil? What did the Gov't say to them? I could go on for days with non TARP companies with jets who are unaffected. The facts are that if you are not TARP funded, then nobody is saying sh!t to you. That's a fact and you can't dispute it. Name me 1 non TARP funded company who the GOVT has said anything to about their private jets? If you can't, then STFU about being attacked by the GOVT becasue you know its bullsh!t. Even better, name me 1 company the GOVT said something to about the jets that is not TARP funded. Once again, if you can;t, STFU.

As for our industry getting questioned, I'd much rather be questioned than attacked, as the Republicans have done specifically to part 91. LASP ring a bell? The Republicans (TSA under Bush) put the LASP out there a month before the election. That will bring all Part 91 ops to a halt, and if you think it won't you're a damn fool. So, where is your outrage with LASP?

 

[LRvsH25B]

No, quite a few of them have been known to hitch a ride on corp. a/c from within their constituency. Which I hope stops, after the barrage of crap they've laid on the public.

It is REALLY a case of "Do as I say, not as I do". There is NOTHING these guys do that makes them so high and mighty, and in light of some of their antics, I really lost some more of my lagging respect for them. If all of this action is truly about saving jobs, it should be about saving jobs in every industry, not just those that pass muster with his holiness Obama and his minions in the House and Senate.

I don't know who else is in my place, but I don't have skills in anything else to make a good living. I'm taking the attack on our profession a bit personally. I doubt that I'm going to find a job that's anywhere close to what I do now, and don't have time to build back up, let alone take care of retirement from here on out if I have to start over.

As far as Brown goes, I can see the gesture, in light of the importance of the bill, BUT it does send a mixed message, but only to us. That message is lost on the public that is hammering our jobs, not realizing it affects just as many people as any other industry.

LRvsH25B, I know most this won't meet with your approval, but I've donned the asbestos boxers. I've hesitated to weigh in on this one, partly because you do seem to slam those who don't think like you. But it is a forum, and is open to opposing viewpoints.

Regards,
Chris

Chris, I take issue with those that get on here lying and telling a small percentage of the story. It's BS. Congress has not attacked PT91 ops, just 91 Ops whose companies are TARP funded, and if you or anyone else does not understand that, then common sense is not in play here. Companies driven into the ground to the point of insolvency (meaning they're worth nothing) and the FEDs step in to stop their imminent failure and along with that $, they say you can't give out big bonuses and fly private jets, then that's what's got to happen. It's simple, and why people tihnk all part 91 has been attacked when it's only TARP companies is beyond me.
If the companies don't like it, pay the money back and you're on your own. Go to Bankruptcy court and get a judge to approve the flight department's continuing operation. Good luck with that. I am at a loss as to why this is so easy for 99.99% of America to understand, but uneffected pilots come in here saying they taking it on the chin.
There's a Citi pilot whose a member here, and we've not heard a word out of him. I don't knwo why, but he's a fairly verbal person, and I think if he felt like he was getting sh!t on, he'd be on here saying it. With that in mind, he's also fairly smart, so maybe we have not heard how he (Pt 91 operators) are getting screwed over becasue he is smart enough to know just how stupid that would sound.

 

[siucavflight]

He is an employee of the Federal Government and becasue of his position, he requires a high level of security, which is the responsibility of the USA to provide. Presidents have been doing this for years so why is Obama's travel being questioned? 6 weeks ago, Bush was at his Ranch and nobidy on here said anything about it. Why is that?

The number of trips that we paid for for Bush to go to his ranch is ridiculous. But however I never heard Bush forcing corporations to sell their personal aircraft, I think that it is the double standard that upsets most people here.

 

[mwwest2004]

Companies driven into the ground to the point of insolvency (meaning they're worth nothing) and the FEDs step in to stop their imminent failure and along with that $, they say you can't give out big bonuses and fly private jets, then that's what's got to happen.

Even if it hurts business? There is a reason why corporate aircraft exist and have been/are widely used. They are good for business. If that weren't the case, nobody would have any, and this forum section would not exist. These companies failed because they made a bad bet on the housing market. They did not fail because they fly corporate jets. The cost of their jets is tiny compared to the cost of the housing market going bad. The same goes for bonuses. Is it bad that such poorly performing companies gave out huge bonuses? Yes. But taking bonuses away will lead to a lack of motivation and a large drain of resources as people go elsewhere in search of well paying jobs.

I agree that the government has the right to make these requests, but to turn around and act the way they tell others not to is wrong. That said, I hope this leads to companies giving the money back. I wouldn't be surprised if Goldman Sachs did very soon.

 

[Hawker800]

LRvsH25B
No reason to get so stressed out there brother. Who is telling lies? Just a debate with folks expressing their thoughts and opinions. Ease up on the cursing and screaming at a fellow brother. That along with your typing and spelling subtracts from your credibility. Ease up and lets have fun. As a person that pays thousands a year into the federal coffers, I absolutely have an issue with my money used for private travel regardless of the reason. The Govt. fired the first shots. The Govt. needs to get its house in order before it questions the travel means of any private business.

 

[LRvsH25B]

LRvsH25B
No reason to get so stressed out there brother. Who is telling lies? Just a debate with folks expressing their thoughts and opinions. Ease up on the cursing and screaming at a fellow brother. That along with your typing and spelling subtracts from your credibility. Ease up and lets have fun. As a person that pays thousands a year into the federal coffers, I absolutely have an issue with my money used for private travel regardless of the reason. The Govt. fired the first shots. The Govt. needs to get its house in order before it questions the travel means of any private business.

My bad. It's hard to type something and get the inflection with it as well. If you knew me you'd know that's just the way I talk when I am among friends. I could tell from some of the responses mwwest gave that he thought I was rolling on him, and that was not the case at all. I just get to typing so fast and my fingers move faster than my mind at times, but if you see something I wrote on here and think I am getting sh!tty, I'm usually not, just coming hard and ready to get into with these political gurus. It's just hard to tell the way someone says something when you type it and can't actually hear them say it.

 

[LRvsH25B]

Even if it hurts business? There is a reason why corporate aircraft exist and have been/are widely used. They are good for business. If that weren't the case, nobody would have any, and this forum section would not exist. These companies failed because they made a bad bet on the housing market. They did not fail because they fly corporate jets. The cost of their jets is tiny compared to the cost of the housing market going bad. The same goes for bonuses. Is it bad that such poorly performing companies gave out huge bonuses? Yes. But taking bonuses away will lead to a lack of motivation and a large drain of resources as people go elsewhere in search of well paying jobs.

I agree that the government has the right to make these requests, but to turn around and act the way they tell others not to is wrong. That said, I hope this leads to companies giving the money back. I wouldn't be surprised if Goldman Sachs did very soon.

See, i don't think that is the case. These guys have no place to go. Others in their same industry are not hiring, and when they do, they'll see these guys are coming from the companies responsible for the mess we're in, and that would be a red flag as they probably had a part in all this mess. I think they're going to stay put. If they think that they can do better elsewhere, fine, let them quit and go find other work.

Also, you're right. Not 1 single failure was the result of a corporate jet. But they were operating these jets when they got into this mess, so clearly, the jets were just an additional large expense that was doing nothing to help them generate revenue, as most were just hours from having to close were it not for Bush stepping in and funding these companies. They literally didn't have money of their own in their own bank. They were flat out broke. I think the jets need to go if you take TARP funds.

 

[Hawker800]

LRvsH25B
Know what you mean. I am usually a man of few words which sometimes gets me into trouble. (My original post). Anyway have an early one in the morning and have to get ready. Fly safe my friend.

 

[mxpilot2]

Two thoughts.

1) Obama (and the media) are not differentiating between anything when they're using terms like "corporate bigwigs and their jets". Those are the sound bites that stick in the public's brain, and come back out when talking among themselves. There have been reports of companies, public and private, who've elected to close their departments rather than sack up under scrutiny. Reports from the crews put out of work.

2) Not all companies receiving TARP funding are "driven into the ground". Some are getting it because the economy has taken its toll in spite of best efforts to get out of risky lines of business before it hit the fan. The market has taken a "broad brush" approach to all financial industries, so some companies take the funds to prop things up til things get better. Should those be forced to get rid of the tools to help get things back, and prolong recovery?

Just a different view.

 

[mwwest2004]

See, i don't think that is the case. These guys have no place to go. Others in their same industry are not hiring, and when they do, they'll see these guys are coming from the companies responsible for the mess we're in, and that would be a red flag as they probably had a part in all this mess. I think they're going to stay put. If they think that they can do better elsewhere, fine, let them quit and go find other work.

Also, you're right. Not 1 single failure was the result of a corporate jet. But they were operating these jets when they got into this mess, so clearly, the jets were just an additional large expense that was doing nothing to help them generate revenue, as most were just hours from having to close were it not for Bush stepping in and funding these companies. They literally didn't have money of their own in their own bank. They were flat out broke. I think the jets need to go if you take TARP funds.

These guys will find other ways to make money if they don't like what the government offers them. They'll likely be able to earn more on their own or together if some of the numbers coming out of Washington are true with regard to bonus caps, and will if the government is not careful. Remember, their business practices are not completely flawed, it was one narrow category of investments that caused all of this. Good investors will continue to do well after one bad call (or set of similar bad calls).

 

[LRvsH25B]

These guys will find other ways to make money if they don't like what the government offers them. They'll likely be able to earn more on their own or together if some of the numbers coming out of Washington are true with regard to bonus caps, and will if the government is not careful. Remember, their business practices are not completely flawed, it was one narrow category of investments that caused all of this. Good investors will continue to do well after one bad call (or set of similar bad calls).

I still ask, who is going to hire them? Look at the mess one narrow category of CEOs caused for the Pt91 operators. See how it takes the rest with it? Good flight departments are history. Even if that sector was hiring, who is going to take a chance on a guy from AIG or Lehman Brothers?