Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

TARP legislation!!!!

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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".
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 

Latest resources

Back
Top