GM Corp. Planes Down To Three From Seven
11-23-2008, 07:15 PM
#12
Guppy Half-Wing FO
Joined APC: Oct 2007
Position: 737 Right Seat
Posts: 142
Here is a novel idea. Lets ask Congressman when was the last time they paid for an airline ticket or rode coach. My bud flies a decked out Air Force BBJ with Washington's finest in the back living the high life. "Let he who has no sinned cast the first stone." Politicians gotta love them.
11-27-2008, 05:41 AM
#14
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 33
Congressional ethics rules already require Congressmen to disclose any free or reduced-cost air travel they accept. However, there's a difference between flying a private jet to a junket and flying one to ask the American taxpayer for billions of dollars because you're supposedly broke. Neither is praiseworthy but the latter is insufferable.
This nonsense about company policy doesn't wash, either. If the company made the rules, they can change them. There is no immutable law of nature requiring auto company executives to fly on private jets. My employer banned all charter plane travel (they don't own any planes themselves) and required everyone, from the CEO on down, to fly coach if they can get travel approval at all. This includes international flights. If my employer can do it, so can theirs.
If these auto executives were really smart, they would have "eaten their own dog food" and driven. It would have been some great free advertising for Alan Mulally to say "I didn't fly here on a corporate jet though it sure felt like it! I drove here in the all-new 2009 Lincoln MKS. With its heated and cooled Bridge of Weir Leather-trimmed seats, sat radio, sat nav, MP3 jukebox, THX sound system, and smooth ride those 9 hours just flew by! You really should rush down to your local Lincoln/Mercury dealer and pick one of these up for yourself!"
This nonsense about company policy doesn't wash, either. If the company made the rules, they can change them. There is no immutable law of nature requiring auto company executives to fly on private jets. My employer banned all charter plane travel (they don't own any planes themselves) and required everyone, from the CEO on down, to fly coach if they can get travel approval at all. This includes international flights. If my employer can do it, so can theirs.
If these auto executives were really smart, they would have "eaten their own dog food" and driven. It would have been some great free advertising for Alan Mulally to say "I didn't fly here on a corporate jet though it sure felt like it! I drove here in the all-new 2009 Lincoln MKS. With its heated and cooled Bridge of Weir Leather-trimmed seats, sat radio, sat nav, MP3 jukebox, THX sound system, and smooth ride those 9 hours just flew by! You really should rush down to your local Lincoln/Mercury dealer and pick one of these up for yourself!"
11-27-2008, 06:34 AM
#15
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
Congressional ethics rules already require Congressmen to disclose any free or reduced-cost air travel they accept. However, there's a difference between flying a private jet to a junket and flying one to ask the American taxpayer for billions of dollars because you're supposedly broke. Neither is praiseworthy but the latter is insufferable.
This nonsense about company policy doesn't wash, either. If the company made the rules, they can change them. There is no immutable law of nature requiring auto company executives to fly on private jets. My employer banned all charter plane travel (they don't own any planes themselves) and required everyone, from the CEO on down, to fly coach if they can get travel approval at all. This includes international flights. If my employer can do it, so can theirs.
If these auto executives were really smart, they would have "eaten their own dog food" and driven. It would have been some great free advertising for Alan Mulally to say "I didn't fly here on a corporate jet though it sure felt like it! I drove here in the all-new 2009 Lincoln MKS. With its heated and cooled Bridge of Weir Leather-trimmed seats, sat radio, sat nav, MP3 jukebox, THX sound system, and smooth ride those 9 hours just flew by! You really should rush down to your local Lincoln/Mercury dealer and pick one of these up for yourself!"
This nonsense about company policy doesn't wash, either. If the company made the rules, they can change them. There is no immutable law of nature requiring auto company executives to fly on private jets. My employer banned all charter plane travel (they don't own any planes themselves) and required everyone, from the CEO on down, to fly coach if they can get travel approval at all. This includes international flights. If my employer can do it, so can theirs.
If these auto executives were really smart, they would have "eaten their own dog food" and driven. It would have been some great free advertising for Alan Mulally to say "I didn't fly here on a corporate jet though it sure felt like it! I drove here in the all-new 2009 Lincoln MKS. With its heated and cooled Bridge of Weir Leather-trimmed seats, sat radio, sat nav, MP3 jukebox, THX sound system, and smooth ride those 9 hours just flew by! You really should rush down to your local Lincoln/Mercury dealer and pick one of these up for yourself!"
As always I am more than happy to hear the correct understanding of why a CEO making the wages of 15 or 20 Harvard MBAs is necessary in order for the typical large corporation to succeed. Such a person could not possibly perform with the brilliance of 15 Harvard MBAs combined. If he could it would be simply miraculous. Most of what the average CEO does all day is attend luncheons, deliver motivational speeches, play golf with the suppliers, jet to D.C for the afternoon and ponder the numbers on the company generated by the staff analysts. If they are so brilliant you wouldn't know it from their daily routine.
If the main function of the multi-million dollar CEO is simply to inspire investor confidence, as I always hear, then what is it that is so good about these guys that inspires so much confidence? Couldn't the phenomenon be figured out and a little less be paid for it? Or maybe it's the poker trick that if one lonely fool can make so much money for doing so little then there must be something about him we don't know.
The stock market swings wildly even with all this skill, so I doubt there is any such skill. The average worker swinging a hammer on the line watching his 401k turn into a 101k only sees an embarrassing fool of an executive voted for by a bunch of star-struck board members taking his 401k away, money he worked very hard for. He intuitively suspects this guy has no more of a clue about the world than some business school grad who is available all day for less than a hundred k per year. The nail in the coffin now is that now three of the largest firms are being driven into the ground before our eyes with these shameless fools drawing away blood from the top while the bizjets are being quietly repossessed and the suppliers begin to ponder their losses.
Again, what am I missing?
11-27-2008, 04:24 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 423
This nonsense about company policy doesn't wash, either. If the company made the rules, they can change them. There is no immutable law of nature requiring auto company executives to fly on private jets. My employer banned all charter plane travel (they don't own any planes themselves) and required everyone, from the CEO on down, to fly coach if they can get travel approval at all. This includes international flights. If my employer can do it, so can theirs.
Run a successful business, enjoy the perks! Its called capitalism. It inspires - it drives people to work harder. I guess in some circles this is not fashionable right now. It will be again soon enough.
The car makers screwed this one up, but they have been screwing up for 20+yrs. SO now they slash their aviation departments to look better when they go back for a handout. Great planning.
Lets not all jump on the "we should all take coach" sword. Its downright pathetic.
11-27-2008, 05:54 PM
#17
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,618
Originally Posted by NowCorporate
Lets not all jump on the "we should all take coach" sword. Its downright pathetic.
11-27-2008, 09:47 PM
#18
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: B777
Posts: 10
CEO Mulally compensation package of $28 million includes use if its jet commuting from Seattle on week ends from Detroit....about that !! and his wife is able to use it as well. Lets pump more cash into these poor chaps...that will help the economy !! The big three have become experts in squeezing funds, grants, training initiatives, tax break, subsities and any other cash source possible from federal government in the US and Canada, always using the threat of closing plants in communities as the ultimate leverage.
11-27-2008, 09:59 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Sim dude
Posts: 113
While some of the perks offered to CEOs (100 hours/year in company aircraft after retirement, wife taking the GV shopping, etc) are ridiculous at any time and insulting at a time when so many average folks are facing so much incertainty, I also think that NBAA have done a ****-poor job of responding to last weeks congressional comments.
The comments last week have done nothing but reinforce the general public's impression that corporate aircraft are nothing but 'fat cat perks'. Where is the NBAA rebuttal pointing out the invaluable business value of corporate aircraft??
No doubt the perk is abused at companies both large and small, but to allow the 'fat cat' stereotype to continue unchallenged just feeds the misconception.
The comments last week have done nothing but reinforce the general public's impression that corporate aircraft are nothing but 'fat cat perks'. Where is the NBAA rebuttal pointing out the invaluable business value of corporate aircraft??
No doubt the perk is abused at companies both large and small, but to allow the 'fat cat' stereotype to continue unchallenged just feeds the misconception.
11-28-2008, 05:10 AM
#20
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
While some of the perks offered to CEOs (100 hours/year in company aircraft after retirement, wife taking the GV shopping, etc) are ridiculous at any time and insulting at a time when so many average folks are facing so much incertainty, I also think that NBAA have done a ****-poor job of responding to last weeks congressional comments.
The comments last week have done nothing but reinforce the general public's impression that corporate aircraft are nothing but 'fat cat perks'. Where is the NBAA rebuttal pointing out the invaluable business value of corporate aircraft??
No doubt the perk is abused at companies both large and small, but to allow the 'fat cat' stereotype to continue unchallenged just feeds the misconception.
The comments last week have done nothing but reinforce the general public's impression that corporate aircraft are nothing but 'fat cat perks'. Where is the NBAA rebuttal pointing out the invaluable business value of corporate aircraft??
No doubt the perk is abused at companies both large and small, but to allow the 'fat cat' stereotype to continue unchallenged just feeds the misconception.
Left Seat
By J. Mac McClellan
Business Airplanes Are Not Luxuries
By J. Mac McClellan
Business Airplanes Are Not Luxuries
Business aviation suffered another public relations fiasco last week when the top brass of Detroit's Big Three automakers each flew in corporate jets to Washington to ask Congress for a multibillion dollar taxpayer bailout. The most ardent supporter of business aviation can attempt to defend the multiple benefits of flying your own airplane, but nobody in aviation can rationalize the enormity of the issue these three handed to opponents of the Detroit bailout.
Luxury goods and service providers of all types are feeling the heat of the economic crisis, and the news media lumps private airplanes in with $3,000 women's purses and $500 per head cocktail parties. But airplanes are not in what I think of as the "luxury category" and they can emerge on the other side, while many lux goods probably won't.
While nobody can argue that flying in your own airplane on your own schedule to the airport most convenient to your destination isn't a form of luxury, it is most importantly a business tool that no other means of transportation can provide. Other "luxuries" are, in contrast, more expensive and fashionable items that perform the same task as lower cost counterparts. For example, a $200 watch keeps time as accurately as a $5,000 watch thanks to miniature electronics. So the difference here, or the luxury quotient of the watch, is $4,800 worth of something that can't be measured. A $20,000 car can carry you safely down the road at the speed limit and beyond, just as the $100,000 model does, so that $80,000 difference in cost has to be explained in terms of luxury. And a $2,000 diamond will keep you wed to your bride just as securely as the $50,000 rock, with the difference being settled at the divorce.
But business airplanes carry people with speed and safety to places that cannot be reached with the same efficiency by any other means. The airlines serve a few hundred airports in the United States, but business airplanes can use several thousand. Business airplanes cut travel times on many trips by hundreds of percent, and often save overnight stays, which can make any worker more productive.
The fact that these and other business airplane capabilities simply can't be replaced at a lower cost means they are not luxuries in the same way as the term is generally used. A many-decades-long survey of companies that use airplanes versus those that don't shows the ones flying for business have overall better returns.
Having said all of that, there are still times when public perception of business aviation is more important than the realities of business travel. On that list of unusual trips is when you are going to ask elected officials to hand you billions of taxpayer dollars.
In that case walking barefoot from Detroit to Washington would have been appropriate, or at least they could have driven one of the American-made cars they were going to tout to Congress.
Luxury goods and service providers of all types are feeling the heat of the economic crisis, and the news media lumps private airplanes in with $3,000 women's purses and $500 per head cocktail parties. But airplanes are not in what I think of as the "luxury category" and they can emerge on the other side, while many lux goods probably won't.
While nobody can argue that flying in your own airplane on your own schedule to the airport most convenient to your destination isn't a form of luxury, it is most importantly a business tool that no other means of transportation can provide. Other "luxuries" are, in contrast, more expensive and fashionable items that perform the same task as lower cost counterparts. For example, a $200 watch keeps time as accurately as a $5,000 watch thanks to miniature electronics. So the difference here, or the luxury quotient of the watch, is $4,800 worth of something that can't be measured. A $20,000 car can carry you safely down the road at the speed limit and beyond, just as the $100,000 model does, so that $80,000 difference in cost has to be explained in terms of luxury. And a $2,000 diamond will keep you wed to your bride just as securely as the $50,000 rock, with the difference being settled at the divorce.
But business airplanes carry people with speed and safety to places that cannot be reached with the same efficiency by any other means. The airlines serve a few hundred airports in the United States, but business airplanes can use several thousand. Business airplanes cut travel times on many trips by hundreds of percent, and often save overnight stays, which can make any worker more productive.
The fact that these and other business airplane capabilities simply can't be replaced at a lower cost means they are not luxuries in the same way as the term is generally used. A many-decades-long survey of companies that use airplanes versus those that don't shows the ones flying for business have overall better returns.
Having said all of that, there are still times when public perception of business aviation is more important than the realities of business travel. On that list of unusual trips is when you are going to ask elected officials to hand you billions of taxpayer dollars.
In that case walking barefoot from Detroit to Washington would have been appropriate, or at least they could have driven one of the American-made cars they were going to tout to Congress.
Last edited by Cubdriver; 11-28-2008 at 05:17 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
