And you know what? These guys ARE regular folk -- and now, they have my tax dollars... so yes, I think they should have to use a common carrier.

Really, it is a lot quicker and efficient for employees (CEOs to engineers) to fly a corporate jet from the small municipal airport to another one close to the facility.

The REAL outrage is Mullaly flying to Seattle and Nardelli flying to Atlanta every weekend so they can be home with their kids. It screams of "short time" gig. Jeesh, even the Germans bought houses close to the Chrysler HQ and actually lived here.

Detroit is a hub. They can deal with it.

/sarcasm

Well, apparently the $17.5 billion is part of the $700 billion?

Aw, heck, ANY CEO whose company gets tax benefits. For the same reason.

Two years ago, we were flying around the world, pressing the flesh with our colleagues and eating steak every night.

Now we have conference calls, and when we *have* to fly, we take non-refundable commercial flights. It's worked out OK so far. Detroit should try it sometime.

[www.swtimes.com]

To those who say conference calls, obviously have never done business in the real world. Try conference calling for a court appearence, talking to a prospective client, or to testify before congress

Nope. She gets a C-37A/Gulfstream V and it can zip from Andrews to San Fran non-stop. She does not have a choice in the aircraft she gets. The government insists that she fly on Air Force planes for security reasons. haster also used Air Force transports to fly home to IL every week.

If this doesn't legitimize private jets, I don't know what does: Walmart, notorious for how cheap they are with pretty much all levels of employees and management (they really are, no fancy offices in Bentonville, managers share hotel rooms, etc.), launches their fleet of coporate jets every day to cover the US. There are ~450 airports with airline service in the US, but ~5200 public use airports. Like Walmart, many suppliers and customers of the major automakers are in podunk towns not well served by airlines...why not optimize use of their valuable time?

No. Just No. They need to cut back to stay in business, and chartering a flight, or GASP flying with "the common folk" will get them where they need to go, and at a fraction of the cost of owning and operating a private jet. When money's tight, I eat spaghetti instead of steak - GM and Chrystler can eat a little spaghetti if they want my tax payer dollars to bail them out of their cruddy business decisions.

@terryindtw:

Alex..."What is: a government operated Boeing 757?"

Presumably because it is the only aircraft in the overnment fleet that can fly nonstop to California. Hey, I understand she's SOTH and needs to get back to DC non-stop in the event of a national emergency, but there are aircraft that can fly non stop across the US much cheaper.

That's why there needs to be a bankruptcy. If we leave it up to the UAW to agree to diminished benefits nothing will ever get done. We need a bankruptcy judge to intervene and TELL them how it's going to be.

For years the US of A has accused China and Japan of dumping cheep cars in America. Also, they complained to the WTO again when EDS was being bailout by France.

We will see.

oh no they are going to have to mingle with the people that buy their cars ( or in the big three case NOT buying) maybe just maybe they might talk to the people who are buying the other brands and get a clue.

@AcceleratedDragon: The automakers already don't own their private jets, they lease them. So this means No Private Jets.

It's pretty ridiculous.

@moore850:

Absolutely nothing, considering that the only teeth that law had was stripped out by Bush before it passed.

Funny how that works, isn't it? $700 billion for free, used to just buy more banks and "retention bonuses", but $17.5 billion is super-scrutinized and hated upon, when it'll actually keep jobs around.

Sigh.

>>Face it: The hard truth here is that this corporate royalty doesn't want to rub elbows with the likes of...Us. Their companies are b-r-o-k-e .They don't have us by the nuts anymore

You just described the government of these United States. Talk about a useless waste of expenditure. Can we require THOSE idiots to quit taking what amount to bribes and kickbacks, start listening to their constituents and act responsibly when it comes to budgetary constraints? Instead of gleefully handing out taxpayer dollars to every failed industry and funding pipedreams such as socialized healthcare?

I am amazed at all the travel that they think they need to do. Do I need to see someone face to face in order to ask a question or answer one of theirs? No. We have phones, web conferencing, video conferencing. If they feel they *must* fly, then they *must* deal with TSA, long lines, delayed flights and 3oz liquid restrictions like the rest of us. Don't like it? Pick up the damn phone and call the guy you need to talk to. Still don't like it, figure out how to make your company profitable without begging the American tax payer while thinking you are above them. Jackasses.

@AcceleratedDragon: That is 100% wrong, the jets are used by anyone in the company who can justify them.

So they have corporate jets, big deal. They're CORPORATIONS. You don't want to have to hold up an important meeting in another country because the visiting CEO is stuck on a runway somewhere for 8 hours. Sure there's room for abuse of them, but I would imagine the majority of their use is legit. In fact I remember reading that a couple of the corporations had rules INSISTING that their CEOs fly privately.

Now eliminating the huge salaries and bonuses is something I can get behind, but the jets thing seems like a case of missing the forest for the trees. It's only an issue because it makes for a good sound bite.

@AcceleratedDragon:

Really this is bullshit. It singles out one industry, are they only allowed to serve chicken in the company cafeteria? Jets are a tool when used for company business. They increase productivity and in many cases reduce costs indirectly and directly.

@ChildrenAreSticky: Understood. I'm just not so sure a lot of thought went into this decision from a financial perspective of either supporting it or defending it.

Based on experiences within my own company, executives don't spend a lot of time planning meetings for the distant future. Using commericial airlines will probably not serve them well if many people need to fly often or with little preparation.

@Sidecutter: Rarely is it one person on board (unless you know something I don't).

Most large companies run several jets as a private airline, and these execs don't travel alone--the exception I've heard is that Mulally commutes on a jet to his home in Seattle, which is frivolous and he should probably stop doing.

@Snarkysnake: So all those execs who fly out of Teterboro in NJ should instead brave 1-2 hours of travel to JFK, LGA, or EWR just to get where they're going? That's the most obvious NYC example that comes to mind.

I'm not saying these guys wouldn't be better off in a fractional ownership situation ("jet timeshare"), just that requiring them to fly the airlines is not only a waste of time in 90%+ of situations, it's also a security risk to many of the people flying. They have a lot of enemies.

Now if every single business venture just happens to be less than 30 minutes from a major airport, then the airline concept might make sense. But most areas only have executive or municipal airports that allow people to get in and get out far more quickly. Going from Detroit to the Shreveport plant? Sure, let's fly to New Orleans or Dallas, sit in the airport for a couple hours, then take a commuter plane. Round-trip, that burns a whole day with maybe a couple hours for meetings.

Or they can leave at 7am and be home by lunch. This is all just academic based on the general business case for jets. I'm sure these guys are wasteful in a lot of what they do, but this isn't necessarily a good example.

I'd also love it if politicians were held to the same scrutiny.

FWIW, I'm anti-bailout; simply trying to keep the focus on what really matters in these companies' idiocies.

I would hope that they find them alternative spots within the company or elsewhere, but they may not.

All this layoff stuff is not easy for anybody - 9 people in my office got laid off yesterday...and not because we're doing bad. Our office is making more money than any of the other offices, but the other offices need to retain staff so they cut ours. It sucks all around.

Originally, the executives flew to DC in corporate jets to beg for money. Then someone pointed out that irony. So the executives return to DC by driving, a la some college roadtrip. In doing so, they use it as a "teaching moment", showing us the virtues of cars that won't be in the showroom for years yet. Now, one of the stipulations of the bailout is that the auto corporations can no longer fly corporate jets.

What a goddamned, window-dressing circus. Those executives, the government, and the unions fat cats must all take us for saps. And they probably have good reason to.

@24/6_GitEmSteveDave loves->★: Probably no more than what the average storm trooper knows about how to install a toilet main.

That's still expensive. Waaay more expensive compared to commercial flights.

To all you Wal-Mart bashers out there. All executives (including the CEO) at Wal-Mart fly commercial (not first class either). Stay in budget hotels 2 per room (including the CEO). They been doing this for years. So don't tell "a international fortune 500 company can't fly commercial"

Yes the Walton family has private jets THEY use. But the company itself doesn't use them.

Other than solving an image problem, I fail to see how this saves the company any money. Seems like we're getting a little distracted on which mess is the most important to clean up right now.

@The Name's Ash78, Housewares: This not efficient. The very problem is that they are using these jets when they don;t need to. If you need to go to Spain? Fine. California from New York? Alright, fair enough. Three states over? No, that's silly. Especially when that much fuel gets burned to move one person those shorter distances, nevermind the resources expended in building all these one-user jets.

The fact is, these jets just aren't necessary for most of the use they are put to. They are also a waste of investor money and company profits when they could just as easily do something much, much cheaper, such as use on the the time-sharing services that allocates a jet like this between several people who schedule their need for it.

I must respectfully disagree. Here's why:

Back in the 20th century,we invented this thing called an "Air" "Line". It "flies" to most places that are covenient to assembly operations,suppliers and financial hubs. It's what the CEO 's require their underlings to use,so it's probably safe for the Big Swinging Dicks in the corner office to schlepp around in. (Unless,of course,their seatmate ever owned a Cavalier,Escort or Jeep Compass).

Later in that same century,we discovered that if you hook up two "computers" together,it would be called a "network". Smart guys can hook up lots of these and have "meetings" that don't require the participants to ever leave their office ! The CEO's could thus wreck their companies while sedentary.

Face it: The hard truth here is that this corporate royalty doesn't want to rub elbows with the likes of...Us. Their companies are b-r-o-k-e .They don't have us by the nuts anymore.Just like they refused to adapt to a world of expensive gasoline,they have refused to adapt to a world where a corporate thrill ride is a damn luxury.If its too much of an inconenience,they can stand up at their podiums and man up by resigning.Otherwise,they should STFU and build a decent car and worry about their lifestyle appliances later.

Anyone know what Madame Pelosi flys around in?

Corporate jets aren't about traveling in luxury...they are all about creating time.

Having traveled via GA, it is truly amazing the amount of actually work you can accomplish in a day, even when having to travel all across the country. You no longer have days lost to travel.

Let's see how people would react to the same idea on a personal level: Want to claim your economic stimulus check? You can't have a private auto... Never mind that you can drive it to the grocery store, school, church, community events - we're going to make sure that you don't drive to the beach ever again!!!

4 bolts and a plug right?

Image aside, this is a dumb idea. GM, for example, has extensive operations in China and South America. So management is supposed to (a) charter a flight, or (b) get on a plane with regular folk?

I'm all for limiting their access to frivilous things, but allowing a plane or two for strict business needs seems OK to me.

If your company does business in a couple of contiguous states, you probably don't need a jet. If your company does business all over the world, you almost certainly need a corporate jet.

I love how image and perception has completely eclipsed efficiency here. And ironically, too.