Biz Aviation takes a beating from congress...

Gulfstream 200

Database Expert
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Posts
4,574
Total Time
18,550
Someone should do some research as to where these congressmen spend their summers off, etc...on taxpayer dollars...









(CNN) -- Some lawmakers lashed out at the CEOs of the Big Three auto companies Wednesday for flying private jets to Washington to request taxpayer bailout money.


Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli, left, and Ford CEO Alan Mulally testify on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.

"There is a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hand, saying that they're going to be trimming down and streamlining their businesses," Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-New York, told the chief executive officers of Ford, Chrysler and General Motors at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee.

"It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo. It kind of makes you a little bit suspicious."

He added, "couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled or something to get here? It would have at least sent a message that you do get it."

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, asked the three CEOs to "raise their hand if they flew here commercial. Let the record show, no hands went up. Second, I'm going to ask you to raise your hand if you are planning to sell your jet in place now and fly back commercial. Let the record show, no hands went up."

The executives -- Alan Mulally of Ford, Robert Nardelli of Chrysler and Richard Wagoner of GM -- did not specifically respond to those remarks. In their testimony, they said they are streamlining business operations in general. Watch Nardelli ask for help »

When contacted by CNN, the three auto companies defended the CEOs' travel as standard procedure.

Like many other major corporations, all three have policies requiring their CEOs to travel in private jets for safety reasons.


"Making a big to-do about this when issues vital to the jobs of millions of Americans are being discussed in Washington is diverting attention away from a critical debate that will determine the future health of the auto industry and the American economy," GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson said in a statement.

Chrysler spokeswoman Lori McTavish said in a statement, "while always being mindful of company costs, all business travel requires the highest standard of safety for all employees."

Ford spokeswoman Kelli Felker pointed to the company's travel policy and did not provide a statement elaborating.

But those statements did little to mollify the critics.

"If it is simply the company's money at stake, then only the shareholders can be upset or feel as it it might be excessive," said Thomas Schatz, president of the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste.



But in this case, he said, "it's outrageous."

"They're coming to Washington to beg the taxpayers to help them. It's unseemly to be running around on a $20,000 flight versus a $500 round trip," Schatz added.

The companies did not disclose how much the flights cost.

Analysts contacted by CNN noted that the prices vary with the size of the plane and the crew, and whether the aircraft is leased or owned by the company.



Analyst Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group said that $20,000 is a legitimate ballpark figure for a round trip corporate jet flight between Detroit, Michigan, and Washington. iReport.com: Share your thoughts on the 'Big Three' bailout

When asked whether they plan to change their travel policies as part of the restructuring needed to shore up their finances, none of the companies answered directly. But they said they have cut back on travel in general as revenues have fallen.
 

AA717driver

A simpler time...
Joined
Mar 27, 2003
Posts
4,911
Total Time
+/-13k
G200--As I said on another thread (or board, or planet...), these w************************* 'don't think twice about jumping on a SAM Gulfstream and studying the mating habits of frogs--in the pond next to the 12th green at Wailea'.

It's an absurdity that ANY individual in Congress is giving anyone $h!t about anything. What a useless collection of flesh.

TC
 

SansPlane

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Posts
183
Total Time
100
[FONT=&quot]G200 – crickets chirping? Why do you want to investigate congresspersons summer vacations? Biz aviation did not take a hit, its business as usual that is taking a hit. John & Jane Q Public don’t care one way or the other that executives of Coke & Pepsi fly around in business jets; unless they want a government loan/bail out or rescue package.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Twain: All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity.


[/FONT]
 

Gulfstream 200

Database Expert
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Posts
4,574
Total Time
18,550
[FONT=&quot]G200 – crickets chirping? Why do you want to investigate congresspersons summer vacations? Biz aviation did not take a hit, its business as usual that is taking a hit. John & Jane Q Public don’t care one way or the other that executives of Coke & Pepsi fly around in business jets; unless they want a government loan/bail out or rescue package.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Twain: All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity.


[/FONT]
Oh the public does care! - shareholders dont care you say?...UNTIL...share prices go down.

checked a 401K lately? the entire public is paying, not just in bailouts!

NOW - how's the unemployment rate in congress? have pensions and health retirement benefits been cut? I think we can easily get by with half the staff we have there. How can we make that happen? - we pay for this. When is the last time they voted for a pay cut?

It would be great to make the money they make and get all summer off. They live pretty good for finger-pointing civil servants just representing the common man.
 

LRvsH25B

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Posts
249
Total Time
9K+
This was a fairly large news story today. The ABC reporter was one sided and like most of the public, they do not understand (or realize) the residual cost of having a CEO of a company like that fly on the airlines. Some Congressman suggested jet-pooling. Oh, that's a good idea. The plane crashed and now 3 CEOs of fortune ## companies just took their companies down with their lives. That's why the POTUS and VPOTUS do not fly together. I hope NBAA releases something to shed some light on this issue to the ill-informed.
I'm still trying to figure out what a Congressman does on his own personal time has to do with all of this. Public schoolteachers have the summers off as well. Shall we "research" where they go? The only member of the house that goes anywhere on their free time on the taxpayer dollar is the "Speaker of the House". The 89th takes care of his/her travel because she is 3rd in line to the Oval office. That started after 9/11 and Dennis Hastert was the 1st to enjoy that perk. Other Congressmen have a budget of 1M for their office, and I believe they are allowed travel to and from their district from those funds, but don't quote me on that particular issue.
 

SansPlane

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Posts
183
Total Time
100
[FONT=&quot]G200 - I don’t argue your points about congresspersons but as of the last election, I am sure there are some who feel unemployed. While the use of corporate jets makes headlines, the underlying issue is always management. And while I can’t speak for every corporate jet employed for use by public companies, it is my humble guess that the expenditure for such as a percentage of revenues is miniscule. In regard to biz aviation & public companies, I don’t think it is the issue. In this case, it is the “necessary” government involvement and the perceived excesses of extremely poor management. I don’t think I have ever seen or heard of even the most vehement shareholder activist or environmentalist picketing corporate jets at FBO’s.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]LRvsH25B – Public does not understand? Got to love that the Ford guy has to fly corporate but gets to drive himself… Count me in as not understanding and I love corporate aviation…[/FONT]
 

LRvsH25B

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Posts
249
Total Time
9K+
[FONT=&quot]G200 - I don’t argue your points about congresspersons but as of the last election, I am sure there are some who feel unemployed. While the use of corporate jets makes headlines, the underlying issue is always management. And while I can’t speak for every corporate jet employed for use by public companies, it is my humble guess that the expenditure for such as a percentage of revenues is miniscule. In regard to biz aviation & public companies, I don’t think it is the issue. In this case, it is the “necessary” government involvement and the perceived excesses of extremely poor management. I don’t think I have ever seen or heard of even the most vehement shareholder activist or environmentalist picketing corporate jets at FBO’s.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]LRvsH25B – Public does not understand? Got to love that the Ford guy has to fly corporate but gets to drive himself… Count me in as not understanding and I love corporate aviation…[/FONT]
Appreciate you commenting on my post. Of course we both love Corporate Aviation. My point was really that the use of the G-Whatever is not going to sink the company (any of these particular companies for that matter), but listening to the reporter, you'd think it has a significant impact, and that is simply not the case. What is going to sink these companies is if the CEO's, like the one at Ford, keep buying/driving Toyota products, such as the Lexus LS400 he is clearly seen getting into. I'm surprised nobody has noticed that yet. See for yourself. They talk about how non-unionized Toyota's sales are down, but they are still making a profit and not asking for a bailout. Even Ford's CEO buys one. If I was a advertising exec with the Camry acct, I'd put that video in the next commercial on why to buy my Camry instead of their Taruas. Thanks again for the comment.
 

SansPlane

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Posts
183
Total Time
100
What is going to sink these companies is if the CEO's, like the one at Ford, keep buying/driving Toyota products, such as the Lexus LS400 he is clearly seen getting into. I'm surprised nobody has noticed that yet. See for yourself.
[FONT=&quot]Nice catch but I watched it twice and can only tell you that it was not a truck or SUV… Probably a rental, no? Oh, and I am pretty sure it is not a YUGO – see thread drift.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Man to car dealer: "I'd like a gas cap for my Yugo." Dealer: "Sounds like a fair trade."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What do you call a Yugo's shock absorbers? Passengers.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]How do you double the value of a Yugo? Fill the gas tank![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What do you call a Yugo at the top of a hill? A miracle.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Serbia[/FONT][FONT=&quot] bids farewell to Yugo[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]By DUSAN STOJANOVIC –[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]BELGRADE[/FONT][FONT=&quot], Serbia[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (AP) — Why does a Yugo have a defroster on the rear window?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To keep your hands warm while you push it.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That's just one of the "Yugo jokes" about the cheap and much-maligned subcompact that won notoriety for being one of the worst cars ever exported to the United States.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Now, the last Yugo, once the pride of communist Yugoslavia's automobile industry, will roll off its Serbian production line Thursday in the central town of Kragujevac.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It will be missed here — but probably not in America.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Soon after it hit the U.S. markets in 1986, selling for the bargain-basement price of just $3,990, the boxy Yugo was derided by American car magazines "as barely qualifying as a car" and "an assembled bag of nuts and bolts."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Although it was a flop in the U.S., Yugo enjoyed iconic status in the former Yugoslav republics — something like the Volkswagen beetle in West Germany or the Trabant in East Germany.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It was also exported to East European states, but not in the same numbers as to the U.S. mostly because Zastava could not meet huge domestic demand.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In America, owners complained of frequent engine failures and transmission problems — with the manual gear sticks sometimes detaching and ending up in their drivers' hands — in addition to passenger doors and trim parts going awol.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When the U.S. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety conducted crash tests of 23 compacts in 1986, the car with the worst results was the Yugo, with $2,197 worth of damage in slow speed crashes against a flat barrier.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Still, over 100,000 Yugo GVs — standing for Great Value — were sold in the U.S. before Yugo America — the company that imported it — went bankrupt and Washington imposed economic sanctions on Belgrade for fomenting ethnic wars in the Balkans in 1992.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In the U.S., Yugo has made several joke appearances in Hollywood blockbusters such as Die Hard 3. Artists in America also found inspiration in the flimsy tin-can structure, turning it into something more useful — like a queen size bed or a kitchen stove.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When sales started plummeting in the late 1980s, some U.S. dealers tried to clear their stocks by throwing in a free Yugo with an Oldsmobile or a Cadillac.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Of course, Yugo was never a BMW or a Cadillac, but I think most Americans did not know how to appreciate it," said Momcilo Spajic, a proud Serbian owner of a Yugo — one of the nearly 800,000 produced by the Zasava, or Flag, factory since 1980.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"This is driving in its most natural form. You feel every bump, squeak and jolt, and one can enjoy the sweet smell of gasoline and exhaust fumes," he said. "No car can replace it."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Zastava is finally stopping the production of Yugo because its new owners, Italy's Fiat, plans to start the assembly of its own compact, the Punto.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As Zastava's workers prepared to bid farewell to their greatest commercial success so far, they have attached a handwritten sign on the tailgate of the last Yugo on the production line.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It reads: "Cao, nema vise" — "Goodbye, no more."


[/FONT]
 

JohnDoe

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2002
Posts
840
Total Time
4500
. Some Congressman suggested jet-pooling. Oh, that's a good idea. The plane crashed and now 3 CEOs of fortune ## companies just took their companies down with their lives.

Oh please......

These three ceo's and their respective management's have been taking down their companies just fine on their own while they are alive.


I would bet a month's salary that the ceo of almost any fortune xx company would not "take their company down" in the event of their demise. Talk about a "god complex."
 

LRvsH25B

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Posts
249
Total Time
9K+
Oh please......

These three ceo's and their respective management's have been taking down their companies just fine on their own while they are alive.


I would bet a month's salary that the ceo of almost any fortune xx company would not "take their company down" in the event of their demise. Talk about a "god complex."
Your view is much too simple for a market economy. That's not said to be disrespectful. Look at it like this: common sense would dictate something Wall Street is unwilling to listen to. The CEO's don't have a God complex per se, it's Wall Street's reaction what would put the company out of business. next to M.D.s, brokers at big brokerage house can be extremely arrogant. In the event of a demise by any Fortune XX CEO, the stock would take a huge hit, that's just how Wall Street works. It leaves too much encertainity within the company, and especially in this economy, stock would get sold. The hit may or may not rebound right away, but with these companies in so much trouble as it is, a rebound would be unlikely. The stock prices of the big the auto makes is so low right now, how much of a hit do you think they could take before they zeroed out? Once a stock gets below a certain price, the major stock exchanges would DELIST that stock, and that would be it. Company forced in to Chapter 7/11, and nobody is going to buy a car from a company in a position to not have to honor a warranty or worse, buy a car from a company that may or may not be around longer than said warranty. Wall Street is more about stats and less about common sense.
 

Shag McNasty

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 14, 2002
Posts
119
Total Time
1+
Your view is much too simple for a market economy. That's not said to be disrespectful. Look at it like this: common sense would dictate something Wall Street is unwilling to listen to. The CEO's don't have a God complex per se, it's Wall Street's reaction what would put the company out of business. next to M.D.s, brokers at big brokerage house can be extremely arrogant. In the event of a demise by any Fortune XX CEO, the stock would take a huge hit, that's just how Wall Street works. It leaves too much encertainity within the company, and especially in this economy, stock would get sold. The hit may or may not rebound right away, but with these companies in so much trouble as it is, a rebound would be unlikely. The stock prices of the big the auto makes is so low right now, how much of a hit do you think they could take before they zeroed out? Once a stock gets below a certain price, the major stock exchanges would DELIST that stock, and that would be it. Company forced in to Chapter 7/11, and nobody is going to buy a car from a company in a position to not have to honor a warranty or worse, buy a car from a company that may or may not be around longer than said warranty. Wall Street is more about stats and less about common sense.
You're being a little dramatic here LR. All these companies have a succession plan in place in case the CEO drops dead of a heart attack tomorrow.
 

LRvsH25B

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Posts
249
Total Time
9K+
You're being a little dramatic here LR. All these companies have a succession plan in place in case the CEO drops dead of a heart attack tomorrow.
You are correct. 100% of them do. Wall Street knows that, and they'll still bury the stock in the event something like this happens. It's not my doing, but let's be realistic, it's not something sharholders view as a positive, and like it or not, the initial reaction will be Sell, Sell, Sell.
 

NJAowner

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2003
Posts
748
Total Time
2000+
LR -- that just in not the case for a Fortune 100 company. It may be the case with smaller companies that are highly dependent upoon the CEO/founder for innovation and ideas and the CEO/founder also owns a large percentage of company stock which will be liquidated by his/her estate to pay estate taxes. There are many empirical studies (I do not have them handy) that show that other than a daily or 2 day drop for the stock on the sad news, there is not a negative medium ore long term effect ont he stock price when general market conditions are eliminated from the analyses.

Many times it is the impression which counts and is demonstrated by great leadership.

Fly safe.
 

siucavflight

Back from the forsaken
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Posts
3,512
Total Time
5000
owner, how is the BMW M5 an aircraft?

I have driven one it is fast, but I have yet to see one that can fly.
 
Top