var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Ash78 ain't got time to bleed
December 19, 2008 6:44 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

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.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
Sidecutter
December 19, 2008 7:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thrid001
December 19, 2008 11:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Sidecutter: Actually depending on how many people are flying it can be cheaper AND cost less time to fly a corporate jet. Many sports teams use privare planes to get there at he time they need to get there. When you are flying from Detroit to Chicago you could end up taking longer than it would to take a private jet and get them to MORE meetings. I think its generally good for high priced employees to get to meetings as fast as spossible so they can be at more fo them.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ash78 ain't got time to bleed
December 19, 2008 7:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Snarkysnake
December 19, 2008 7:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The Name's Ash78, Housewares:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nighttrain2007
December 19, 2008 7:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Snarkysnake:

>>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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ash78 ain't got time to bleed
December 19, 2008 7:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
humphrmi
December 20, 2008 5:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The Name's Ash78, Housewares:
Auto execs aren't flying out of Teterboro in NJ. They're flying out of Detroit. There's plenty of non-stops from Detroit to Washington, DC.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Motor_Head
December 22, 2008 3:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@humphrmi:
Chrysler and Ford execs fly out of Oakland County Municipal airport. Ford's father bought PentaStar aviation from the Germans when they owned Chrysler. There is a plane called \"The TransAtlantic Star\" that ferries Chrysler, Daimler, VW & Audi, GM, Ford and other execs to Europe.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Valhawk
December 20, 2008 11:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@humphrmi: Your right, they never have to go anywhere but DC.

/sarcasm

Reply
\"user-pic\"
humphrmi
December 21, 2008 5:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Valhawk: It's still a specious argument that \"auto execs shouldn't have to fly commercial because here's a city that is totally unrelated to the auto industry where everyone has to fly through another hub city to get anywhere\".

Detroit is a hub. They can deal with it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Valhawk
January 1, 2009 12:45 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@humphrmi: The better argument it that in the long term it is less expensive when you have to fly a large number of people to a variety of destinations including places that major airlines don't cover. Exec's aren't the only people who use these jets.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Winstonian
December 19, 2008 6:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The Name's Ash78, Housewares: Let's face it - the airlines have won this round. \"Oh, only evil, selfish people would utilize the fact that the airlines don't fly to 95% of airports in America to improve their businesses...\"

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!!!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
24/6_GitEmSteveDave loves->★
December 19, 2008 6:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

OK, what about the pilots, ground crew, maintenance personnel, etc. who are now out of jobs? B/c I doubt the average pilot knows how to install a car seat.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
reviled
December 19, 2008 7:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
24/6_GitEmSteveDave loves->★
December 19, 2008 7:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@reviled: So you're saying a pilots personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs? :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Necoras
December 19, 2008 7:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@24/6_GitEmSteveDave loves->★: Most \"private jets\" are actually rented out. This may not be the case here, but if it is then no one's actually losing their job over it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
24/6_GitEmSteveDave loves->★
December 19, 2008 6:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ben_Q2: I don't know. Could be. But that pilot will have to take a hell of a pay cut and be one of the first to be laid off, as I'm sure the union won't honor his seniority from the pilots union.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Norcross
December 19, 2008 6:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Russ Davis
December 23, 2008 6:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Norcross: You know what? I've been to China and South America both. I got there in record time by using common carriers while on Business.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
humphrmi
December 20, 2008 5:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Norcross: I work for a bank. Yeah, probably one of those banks that led to the securitized bond meltdown and ensuing credit crunch. We do business in the countries you named, and many more.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
What The Geek
December 19, 2008 9:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Norcross: Really? You REALLY don't see why it's a problem that they're flying around in private jets, asking for tax payer money?

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
December 19, 2008 7:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Norcross: The agreement is that they can't own private jets...they can still charter them, I believe. And it might encourage them to stay in the office and do more video conferencing.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
shorty63136
December 19, 2008 6:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Doesn't bother me one bit. Find alternate transportation.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
24/6_GitEmSteveDave loves->★
December 19, 2008 7:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shorty63136: And what about everyone who will now be let go? Does it serve them right for being employed? Do they deserve to be fired b/c some news agency sensationalized their job?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shorty63136
December 19, 2008 7:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@24/6_GitEmSteveDave loves->★: Nobody deserves to be fired unless they're not doing their job. It sucks, but having a private jet is not a necessity. It's a convenience.

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.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
TheGuinnessTooth
December 19, 2008 7:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Does it specify jet, or is it all aircraft? I've got a dirigibles business I've been looking to get off its feet. This would be a great opportunity for me. Or they could just buy some turbo-prop planes.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 19, 2008 7:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is crap....I'm employed by one of the major General Aviation manufacturers, and it is really sad to see a tool maligned so badly. For wanting to help the automakers succeed, I'm amazed that they deny a tool of efficiency.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
moore850
December 19, 2008 7:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

and what were the conditions on the bank bailout again?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Xkeeper
December 19, 2008 7:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
KMan13 still wants a Pontiac G8
December 20, 2008 5:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Xkeeper:

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
meehawl
December 19, 2008 8:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Xkeeper: Agreed. It's amazing that we have spent so much, and will continue to spend so much, to fund banks and insurance companies that had basically, literally, become bankrupt because of bad management decisions and poor risk controls. And the people responsible for managing their companies into the ground,m having profitted so tremendously over the past decade or so, now face only a slight reduction in their impressive bonuses. And having taken public money, the banks as a whole continue their \"bank strike\" in refusing to release capital into the lending market. How is this different from a union imploring its members to refuse to release their labor into the market?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
terryindtw
December 19, 2008 7:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Anyone know what Madame Pelosi flys around in?

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
December 20, 2008 8:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@terryindtw: As 3rd in line of succession, her flying needs are a tad different, don't you think?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hector Z
December 19, 2008 9:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
rbb
December 19, 2008 11:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hector Z:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
24/6_GitEmSteveDave loves->★
December 19, 2008 8:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dry-roasted-peanuts: But she's eco-conscious and always catches a ride on Hilary's

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dry-roasted-peanuts
December 19, 2008 9:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@m4ximusprim3: Hey, somebody was bound to go there, so I figured it might as well be me.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
strathmeyer
December 19, 2008 7:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm not exactly sure this is how the government is supposed to be teaching capitalism to these corporations.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Dansc29625
December 23, 2008 6:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@strathmeyer: Teaching Capitalism? Resisting capitalism is like a child trying to bridge a large river with a bunch of rocks. Eventually the river always wins.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Scoobatz
December 19, 2008 7:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
December 19, 2008 7:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Scoobatz: Well, even though they own the planes, they're losing money by needing to pay for fuel, paying the ground crews, and the hangar space to store the aircraft. It's sort of a save if they can charter planes owned by other companies.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
joel.
December 19, 2008 7:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ChildrenAreSticky: OR they could start their own charter business and make some money off of those planes they own. AND pay back the government/taxpayers. Problem solved!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Scoobatz
December 19, 2008 7:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
AcceleratedDragon
December 19, 2008 7:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So there's nothing in conditions that state they can't charter/lease a PRIVATE jet?

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.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
ravensfire
December 19, 2008 8:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
APFPilot
December 19, 2008 7:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
APFPilot
December 20, 2008 5:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DoktorGoku: Other than the numerous friends I have that fly for them and having studied their flight department for my Aviation management course, this article refers to it:

[www.swtimes.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Underpants Gnome
December 19, 2008 7:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AcceleratedDragon: And yet the story about the pork in the governors' transportation proposals included a story about asking for public transportation funds to build hangars for more private jets at the Bentonville airport.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 19, 2008 7:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ms. Pelosi initially demanded a Boeing 757 (no kidding!), or more technically an Air Force C-32. H-u-b-r-i-s? or C-h-u-t-z-p-a-h? I can't tell which (or both).

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
rpm773
December 19, 2008 7:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So let's recap.

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Kounji
December 20, 2008 7:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rpm773: That's exactly what I've been thinking. They must think we're stupid.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
vladthepaler
December 19, 2008 7:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sensible provision. The world's major cities are well served by commercial airlines. There should also be a requirement that they fly coach, though.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
th1nwhiteduke
December 20, 2008 5:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@vladthepaler: As pointed out in the Jalopnik post, hardly are manufacturing facilities in easy to get to locations for commercial air travel.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
APFPilot
December 19, 2008 7:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
redskull
December 19, 2008 7:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Jesus, again with the corporate jets. Out of everything discussed in the Big 3's first begging session, of course that was the one thing that was pounced on and blown all out of proportion, to the detriment of everything else.

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
joel.
December 19, 2008 7:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@redskull: Maybe the president should get rid of Air Force One and fly commercial to help cut government spending too.

It's pretty ridiculous.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Orv
December 19, 2008 7:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Is AIG going to have to give theirs up, too?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Burgandy
December 19, 2008 7:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
dry-roasted-peanuts
December 19, 2008 8:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Today, I'm very happy I drive a Taurus.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
narq
December 19, 2008 8:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hey why not bail out the homeless by giving them each a dollar and telling them the condition is they can't use carts to move their stuff around? I bet that will fix that situation too! We're just a few steps closer to the worst economic crisis in the history of the world. How long until our money is worthless? Maybe I should buy a lot of iPods, they might be the most valuable object on the planet.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Oregon
December 19, 2008 8:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
notdss902
December 19, 2008 8:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It is going to be real fun when China, Japan et al goto the WTO and complain about the bail out.

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
humphrmi
December 24, 2008 3:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@notdss902: All those other governments are bailing out their industry too.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kounji
December 20, 2008 7:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@notdss902: It will be fantastic theater. I'd love to see what our response to their accusations would be. USA: \" Soo?\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
HarleyBabb
December 19, 2008 8:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Not to move the focus onto something actually meaningful but it's both sad and amusing at the same time that there's a huge outcry over the corporate perks and very little about the absurd union perks. Everyone wants to see the suits as the bad guys, and don't get me wrong they're a bunch of douches; however, the union guys are just as bad. In large part it's their absurd benefits package that is killing the industry and will prevent any kind of bailout from succeeding. As of right now, if they get laid off they get 95% percent of their salary, or something to that effect? What world do we live in where that's acceptable. The companies are getting bailed out by the government and in turn the taxpayers and laid off UAW workers are getting a better deal than any other laid off American?

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.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Hector Z
December 19, 2008 10:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
orlo
December 19, 2008 11:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hector Z: auto execs' time is not valuable. jets just allow them to lose money faster

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
310Drew
December 19, 2008 10:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If the automakers have to give up the private jets, I think any bank that takes TARP funds and then purchases another bank, should be required to get rid of the private jets as well.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
rbb
December 19, 2008 11:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If the Auto companies have to get rid of their pirvate jets, the least the UAW can do is to get rid of its money losing luxury golf resort... [theunionnews.blogspot.com]

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
December 19, 2008 11:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The CEOS' of most companies make outrageous money. Corning Inc.( of Corning, NY ) publishes the income of all of their high ranking bosses, and it is obscene! Stock keeps taking a dive, yet they still get their exhorbitant incomes. How the hell much money do these people (in this small town) need to live on? They can't possibly live long enough to spend it all !!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
AtomicPlayboy
December 20, 2008 2:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Perhaps this will encourage the Big Three to step up their research into alternative-fuel-powered aircraft, which I'm sure would be exempt from this provision.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
December 20, 2008 8:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The only way that the airport security kabuki will end is when the people that bend politicians' ears gripe about how crappy commercial air travel is these days.
For that reason alone, I applaud the CEOs having their jets taken away.

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

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
hustler
December 20, 2008 3:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

book a god damn flight, like the rest of the nation. If I'm paying for it, you can sit with me, in coach.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Dan Fishkin
December 20, 2008 5:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Idea! since quality of product is a big issue for these companies: how about we let them build their own private jets in their own factories and let them fly that around.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
th1nwhiteduke
December 20, 2008 5:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dan Fishkin: Quality of product is a big issues for the big three these days? Check your facts. Virtually identical to the rising sun land cars.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
th1nwhiteduke
December 20, 2008 5:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thrid001: Ha, yeah the 'just use a conference call' is a Consumerist comeback staple, which if anyone ever did real business would know is not a replacement for much.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
kwsventures
December 20, 2008 7:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I guess they will need to do much more work via video conference. Oh, well. It doesn't matter because Chapter 11 bankruptcy is a lock for them in 2009.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon.
December 21, 2008 3:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Oh, dear God, no! What will be next? Oil company CEO's forced to give up their private yachts????

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kreatre2009
December 21, 2008 4:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Then all of these congressmen and senators need to give up theirs as well. This whole bailout is bad. If a company is poorly run, it should fail. This was all just a plot to allow government to take over the auto industry. How else would they have the power to tell a private corporation what to do? This far exceeds Congress' authority. The root cause of this whole problem is excessive government regulation. Now, they are trying to solve it with more regulation. I give this maybe 2 years. There will be no more American auto companies because no one will want to buy a car built by a company controlled by government bureaucrats who know nothing about how to run a corporation. A great president once said \"Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.\"

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
XianZhuXuande
December 21, 2008 5:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ugh... I can't say I agree with this. Private jets are excessive at times, but how are these executives supposed to handle all of their appointments, local and international? Depend on our horrible airline system? I think they should have been allowed to keep that privilege for business purposes.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
raleel
December 21, 2008 3:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm waiting for one of the CEOs to buy his own jet, then get reimbursed for mileage because he's flying his own vehicle :)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Meathamper
December 22, 2008 9:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah, that's how it's supposed to be! Auto executives, time to get tickets for the Greyhound Bus.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
BonnibelDowell
December 22, 2008 2:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What I haven't heard in all this yet is that Congress set the tax laws, right? And tax laws help make corporate jets make sense, right? I mean, outside the clear efficiency issue ...They must be efficient — Congress seems to love to ride on them when they get the chance.

Reply
","","","","","","");