GM shutters Corporate Jets, will drive to DC: Ford will drive Escape Hybrid

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
PRESS RELEASE:

GM Ceasing Corporate Aviation Operations

DETROIT -- GM today announced that it is ceasing operations at General Motors Air Transportation Services (GMATS) at Detroit Metro Airport.

Due to significant cutbacks over the past months, GM travel volume no longer justifies a dedicated corporate aircraft operation.

GM is currently exploring options for transferring its aircraft to another operator. The company is pursuing sale of four of the aircraft so it can terminate the leases.

GM will shutter the facility at Metro Airport effective January 1, 2009. GM will work with the airport to seek a tenant for the balance of the lease, which expires in 2009.

What a knee jerk reaction.

and in other news. Ford will drive the Escape Hybrid to D.C. according to Automotive News. GM is said to be taking a Malibu Hybrid, and Chrysler is unknown...
http://www.autonews.com/articl...1/ANA02/812010142/1200

Ford also announced today that it sees 2011 as return to black year.
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Publicity stunts.

Here is the sad part. The ONLY reason they are doing this is because the gov't is telling them to do it. This would have never happend EVER of their own free will.

Sad thing is, this is the only concession they are making. Ford CEO took a pay cut and they are selling the jets. They have NOTHING else in place to show how they are going to reduce costs etc.

Why not cut advertising by 50%? Thats huge money right there.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
31,068
29,224
146
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

What a knee jerk reaction.
I'd characterize it as intelligent damage control, though doubtless, will be minimally effective. They boned it but good, what the hell were they thinking? Are they really that oblivious to the common man, that they thought nothing of arriving in private jets? Dirt bags.



Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Why not cut advertising by 50%? Thats huge money right there.
Mind share. If they let their competition completely dominate the ad spaces, the loss of sales would probably far exceed the expenditures on it. A good ad campaign can be very effective at improving a company's sales and revenue.

I suppose you could debate the point that no publicity is bad, and with all the free publicity they are getting, they could make the cuts. :D
 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Publicity stunts.

Here is the sad part. The ONLY reason they are doing this is because the gov't is telling them to do it. This would have never happend EVER of their own free will.

Sad thing is, this is the only concession they are making. Ford CEO took a pay cut and they are selling the jets. They have NOTHING else in place to show how they are going to reduce costs etc.

Why not cut advertising by 50%? Thats huge money right there.

because the media has covered them cutting ad costs, its idiots who like you who think they have knowledge, yet really dont, who are blaming stupid shit that they have already done...

http://www.lansingstatejournal.../NEWS03/811250314/1004 (dropped tiger)
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/0...s-ad-spending-by-600m/ (cut ad spending $600M last year)
 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

What a knee jerk reaction.
I'd characterize it as intelligent damage control, though doubtless, will be minimally effective. They boned it but good, what the hell were they thinking? Are they really that oblivious to the common man, that they thought nothing of arriving in private jets? Dirt bags.

but the ease of use, the privacy, the cost all is most likely less on their private jets..

Dont believe anyone that it was ONLY Mullaly, or ONLY Wagoner on the plane.. it was probably him, about 8 assistants, who on a public jet, would have had to talk about stuff that was not private, would have had to pay for internet access, would not have been allowed to talk on their phones... it completely cuts off their connections for 2 hours, and dont think that isnt a HUGE time period for any major corporations CEO.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
A nice symbolic gesture. Private jets and executive compensation are probably a drop in the bucket compared to the legacy costs GM has been shouldering, but people knee-jerk when they read about a CEO flying their private jet to DC to ask for government assistance. Kind of like ODB driving to the welfare office in a limousine to pick up his welfare check.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Pretty silly and puerile, really. From corporate jet to car, what they cannot even fly a commercial jet? Just silly.

Anyway, I love that Ford is manning up and saying they may be able to go it alone. It's asking for $9B line of credit but says it doesn't envision tapping it. Of course, we all know it will tap it, but at least pretending not to is better than GM, which is completely admitting that it is a crack addict and needs money for an addiction it has no hope of stopping.
 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Pretty silly and puerile, really. From corporate jet to car, what they cannot even fly a commercial jet? Just silly.

Anyway, I love that Ford is manning up and saying they may be able to go it alone. It's asking for $9B line of credit but says it doesn't envision tapping it. Of course, we all know it will tap it, but at least pretending not to is better than GM, which is completely admitting that it is a crack addict and needs money for an addiction it has no hope of stopping.

GM did announce over the weekend that they have a semi viable alternative if they do get shooed away from the government. But Ford is in the best standing position currently. I told my dad on Sunday to buy 1000 shares of Ford, I do not know if he did or not, but Ford is the only company I feel could make it without government intervention, and i have stated that before.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
31,068
29,224
146
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE


but the ease of use, the privacy, the cost all is most likely less on their private jets..

Dont believe anyone that it was ONLY Mullaly, or ONLY Wagoner on the plane.. it was probably him, about 8 assistants, who on a public jet, would have had to talk about stuff that was not private, would have had to pay for internet access, would not have been allowed to talk on their phones... it completely cuts off their connections for 2 hours, and dont think that isnt a HUGE time period for any major corporations CEO.
Flying commercial was never the answer. Arriving in their own companies vehicles was, and is.

The technology to conduct much of their daily business, from a vehicle, is in place. It would have been more cost effective than the private jets, too.

 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE


but the ease of use, the privacy, the cost all is most likely less on their private jets..

Dont believe anyone that it was ONLY Mullaly, or ONLY Wagoner on the plane.. it was probably him, about 8 assistants, who on a public jet, would have had to talk about stuff that was not private, would have had to pay for internet access, would not have been allowed to talk on their phones... it completely cuts off their connections for 2 hours, and dont think that isnt a HUGE time period for any major corporations CEO.
Flying commercial was never the answer. Arriving in their own companies vehicles was, and is.

The technology to conduct much of their daily business, from a vehicle, is in place. It would have been more cost effective than the private jets, too.

but what once was a 2 hour one way journey, is now a 8 hour one way journey... increasing their overall time spent traveling 4x that also is not good...
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
31,068
29,224
146

but what once was a 2 hour one way journey, is now a 8 hour one way journey... increasing their overall time spent traveling 4x that also is not good...
Are you shitin' me, Mike? 12 hrs of extra travel is too much of an interuption to their schedules, when asking for billions in bailout money? I'd say they just answered that question themselves, with a big "hell no it is not!" At least, not now that they have seen the reaction from their "necessary cost of doing business" form of travel. ;)

Propaganda/public relations should have been THE primary factor in their strategery. :p

 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Why not cut advertising by 50%? Thats huge money right there.

How do you plan to sell your cars without advertising?

Did I say eliminate? I said CUT. If sales are off by 30-40% anyway I don't see how more advertising helps. There is a point of deminishing returns when it comes to advertising.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Why not cut advertising by 50%? Thats huge money right there.

How do you plan to sell your cars without advertising?

Did I say eliminate? I said CUT. If sales are off by 30-40% anyway I don't see how more advertising helps. There is a point of deminishing returns when it comes to advertising.

What makes you think they are at that point?

Better to kill the labor union and move to automation.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
If they had actually done this the first go-around, I'd have thought it a spectacular idea and a good way to convey that they weren't f'ing around. However, considering their attitude before (Mulali's "I think I am OK where I am at") and the private jets, this is nothing more than a little kid capitulating after being scolded.

I'd be interested to see if they actually understood the difference and were willing to actually make this a real gesture rather than a hollow one.
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
If they had actually done this the first go-around, I'd have thought it a spectacular idea and a good way to convey that they weren't f'ing around. However, considering their attitude before (Mulali's "I think I am OK where I am at") and the private jets, this is nothing more than a little kid capitulating after being scolded.

I'd be interested to see if they actually understood the difference and were willing to actually make this a real gesture rather than a hollow one.

+1 Yea 3 months ago infront of the finance committee Mulaly was saying ' I won't be reducing my pay ' when asked if he would.
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Why not cut advertising by 50%? Thats huge money right there.

How do you plan to sell your cars without advertising?

Did I say eliminate? I said CUT. If sales are off by 30-40% anyway I don't see how more advertising helps. There is a point of deminishing returns when it comes to advertising.

What makes you think they are at that point?

Better to kill the labor union and move to automation.

Ok, August sales are down 20.7% for GM. Did they reduce all their other spending by 20.7%? I seriously doubt it.

Its time to get lean, meaning shut down plants for things like SUVs Hummers etc, cut all the management of those plants, reduce advertising. Yea it will hurt overall sales etc. but the strategy right now should be to survive and avoid bankruptcy.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Publicity stunts.

Here is the sad part. The ONLY reason they are doing this is because the gov't is telling them to do it. This would have never happend EVER of their own free will.

Sad thing is, this is the only concession they are making. Ford CEO took a pay cut and they are selling the jets. They have NOTHING else in place to show how they are going to reduce costs etc.

Why not cut advertising by 50%? Thats huge money right there.
This anger you have inside must be just eating you right up. You have not seen their plans, you do not know what is in their plans and yet you spew this out? Absolutely amazing. These guys could have a plan to give every man, woman and child in the US a $10,000 check every quarter and you'd still be pissed off.


 

AstroManLuca

Lifer
Jun 24, 2004
15,628
5
81
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
If they had actually done this the first go-around, I'd have thought it a spectacular idea and a good way to convey that they weren't f'ing around. However, considering their attitude before (Mulali's "I think I am OK where I am at") and the private jets, this is nothing more than a little kid capitulating after being scolded.

I'd be interested to see if they actually understood the difference and were willing to actually make this a real gesture rather than a hollow one.

+1 Yea 3 months ago infront of the finance committee Mulaly was saying ' I won't be reducing my pay ' when asked if he would.

No kidding. It would have never even occurred to these guys to take a pay cut if people didn't chastise them for continuing to live like rock stars despite their companies' problems.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
PRESS RELEASE:

GM Ceasing Corporate Aviation Operations

DETROIT -- GM today announced that it is ceasing operations at General Motors Air Transportation Services (GMATS) at Detroit Metro Airport.

Due to significant cutbacks over the past months, GM travel volume no longer justifies a dedicated corporate aircraft operation.

GM is currently exploring options for transferring its aircraft to another operator. The company is pursuing sale of four of the aircraft so it can terminate the leases.

GM will shutter the facility at Metro Airport effective January 1, 2009. GM will work with the airport to seek a tenant for the balance of the lease, which expires in 2009.

What a knee jerk reaction.

and in other news. Ford will drive the Escape Hybrid to D.C. according to Automotive News. GM is said to be taking a Malibu Hybrid, and Chrysler is unknown...
http://www.autonews.com/articl...1/ANA02/812010142/1200

Ford also announced today that it sees 2011 as return to black year.

lol stupid ass politicians. Detroit now has lost even more jobs and more tax revenues. :thumbsup: to GM management for sticking it to the mob.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Publicity stunts.

Here is the sad part. The ONLY reason they are doing this is because the gov't is telling them to do it. This would have never happend EVER of their own free will.

Sad thing is, this is the only concession they are making. Ford CEO took a pay cut and they are selling the jets. They have NOTHING else in place to show how they are going to reduce costs etc.

ditto..though don't agree on reducing advertising...they need to kill alot of upper management and restructure their union deals.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Why not cut advertising by 50%? Thats huge money right there.

How do you plan to sell your cars without advertising?

Did I say eliminate? I said CUT. If sales are off by 30-40% anyway I don't see how more advertising helps. There is a point of deminishing returns when it comes to advertising.

What makes you think they are at that point?

Better to kill the labor union and move to automation.

Ok, August sales are down 20.7% for GM. Did they reduce all their other spending by 20.7%? I seriously doubt it.

Its time to get lean, meaning shut down plants for things like SUVs Hummers etc, cut all the management of those plants, reduce advertising. Yea it will hurt overall sales etc. but the strategy right now should be to survive and avoid bankruptcy.

People buy SUVs and hummers. I myself plan to buy a new midsize to replace my Honda Pilot soon, and now that the ridiculous gas price phobia is gone, I'm guessing more people will too. I don't know why they should cut out a profitable product.

GM has been dumping money into idle workers for years. This was from 3 years ago:

http://www.detnews.com/2005/au...0510/17/A01-351179.htm

WAYNE -- Ken Pool is making good money. On weekdays, he shows up at 7 a.m. at Ford Motor Co.'s Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, signs in, and then starts working -- on a crossword puzzle. Pool hates the monotony, but the pay is good: more than $31 an hour, plus benefits.

"We just go in and play crossword puzzles, watch videos that someone brings in or read the newspaper," he says. "Otherwise, I've just sat."

Pool is one of more than 12,000 American autoworkers who, instead of installing windshields or bending sheet metal, spend their days counting the hours in a jobs bank set up by Detroit automakers and Delphi Corp. as part of an extraordinary job security agreement with the United Auto Workers union.

The jobs bank programs were the price the industry paid in the 1980s to win UAW support for controversial efforts to boost productivity through increased automation and more flexible manufacturing.

As part of its restructuring under bankruptcy, Delphi is actively pressing the union to give up the program.

With Wall Street wondering how automakers can afford to pay thousands of workers to do nothing as their market share withers, the union is likely to hear a similar message from the Big Three when their contracts with the UAW expire in 2007 -- if not sooner.

"It's an albatross around their necks," said Steven Szakaly, an economist with the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor. "It's a huge number of workers doing nothing. That has a very large effect on their future earnings outlook."

The jobs bank was established during 1984 labor contract talks between the UAW and the Big Three. The union, still reeling from the loss of 500,000 jobs during the recession of the late 1970s and early 1980s, was determined to protect those who were left. Detroit automakers were eager to win union support to boost productivity through increased automation and more production flexibility.