Washington & Private Jets

[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?