I like this news article

invidia

Platinum Member
Oct 8, 2006
2,151
1
0
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/...os.ceo.jets/index.html

(CNN) -- Some lawmakers lashed out at the CEOs of the Big Three auto companies Wednesday for flying private jets to Washington to request taxpayer bailout money.
Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli, left, and Ford CEO Alan Mulally testify on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.

"There is a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hand, saying that they're going to be trimming down and streamlining their businesses," Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-New York, told the chief executive officers of Ford, Chrysler and General Motors at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee.

"It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo. It kind of makes you a little bit suspicious."

He added, "couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled or something to get here? It would have at least sent a message that you do get it."

The executives -- Alan Mulally of Ford, Robert Nardelli of Chrysler and Richard Wagoner of GM -- were seeking support for a $25 billion loan package. Later Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reversed plans to hold a test vote on the measure.

An aide told CNN that Reid decided to cancel the test vote when it became clear the measure would fall well short of the 60 votes needed. Reid did, however, make a procedural move that could allow a vote on a compromise, which several senators from auto-producing states were feverishly trying to craft.

At Wednesday's hearing, Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, pressed the private-jet issue, asking the three CEOs to "raise their hand if they flew here commercial."
Don't Miss

"Let the record show, no hands went up," Sherman said. "Second, I'm going to ask you to raise your hand if you are planning to sell your jet in place now and fly back commercial. Let the record show, no hands went up."

The executives did not specifically respond to those remarks. In their testimony, they said they are streamlining business operations in general. Video Watch Nardelli ask for help »

When contacted by CNN, the three auto companies defended the CEOs' travel as standard procedure.

Like many other major corporations, all three have policies requiring their CEOs to travel in private jets for safety reasons.

"Making a big to-do about this when issues vital to the jobs of millions of Americans are being discussed in Washington is diverting attention away from a critical debate that will determine the future health of the auto industry and the American economy," GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson said in a statement.

Chrysler spokeswoman Lori McTavish said in a statement, "while always being mindful of company costs, all business travel requires the highest standard of safety for all employees."

Ford spokeswoman Kelli Felker pointed to the company's travel policy and did not provide a statement elaborating.
Michael Moore on Bailout
He confronted GM in "Roger and Me," hear how he feels about the possible bailout.

But those statements did little to mollify the critics.

"If it is simply the company's money at stake, then only the shareholders can be upset or feel as it might be excessive," said Thomas Schatz, president of the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste.

But in this case, he said, "it's outrageous."

"They're coming to Washington to beg the taxpayers to help them. It's unseemly to be running around on a $20,000 flight versus a $500 round trip," Schatz added. iReport.com: Should the Big Three be bailed out?

The companies did not disclose how much the flights cost.

Analysts contacted by CNN noted that the prices vary with the size of the plane and the crew, and whether the aircraft is leased or owned by the company.
advertisement

Analyst Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group said that $20,000 is a legitimate ballpark figure for a round trip corporate jet flight between Detroit, Michigan, and Washington.

When asked whether they plan to change their travel policies as part of the restructuring needed to shore up their finances, none of the companies answered directly. But they said they have cut back on travel in general as revenues have fallen.
 

effowe

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2004
6,012
18
81
Yeah, I was watching a clip from the hearings yesterday and one of the guys on the committee asked "By a show of hands, how many of you flew commercial to get here?... Let the record show that none of them raised their hands."
 

sohcrates

Diamond Member
Sep 19, 2000
7,949
0
0
those guys basically walked into a slaughterhouse. makes for good tv though that's for sure.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
Originally posted by: sohcrates
those guys basically walked into a slaughterhouse. makes for good tv though that's for sure.

I watched the clip and it was more of a "Roast the Autoexec" inquisition than anything else. I just don't understand why these guys got their balls busted like they did but the banks basically got a blank check handed to them.

There were some personal vendettas at play there that underscored any legitimate issues.
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
Yeah, I LOLed hard at that.

"We NEEEEEED money! I flew all the way here in my private jet to get it, now GIMMIE!" :D
 

Pandamonium

Golden Member
Aug 19, 2001
1,628
0
76
Banking affects far more industries than auto manufacturers. Besides, the big three have been circling the drain for quite some time now. I say just let them go. If their major selling point is "we're American", something has to change.
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
Originally posted by: Pandamonium
Banking affects far more industries than auto manufacturers. Besides, the big three have been circling the drain for quite some time now. I say just let them go. If their major selling point is "we're American", something has to change.

Well at least Ford has begun to step up in terms of quality. The latest consumer reports has them on par with Japanese manufacturers for the first time in a while. I think if one of the big 3 died off, the other two could step and and fill in the gap so to speak.
 

Lamont Burns

Platinum Member
Dec 13, 2002
2,836
0
0
They had security and pressing time requirements that would have precluded them from commercial air.

While I think they should probably look into selling their jets... or at least get off the jet and ride hybrid to Capitol Hill, the need for quick, reliable safe transportation for the meeting probably superseded the use of say, AA.
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,758
603
126
Originally posted by: vi edit
Originally posted by: sohcrates
those guys basically walked into a slaughterhouse. makes for good tv though that's for sure.

I watched the clip and it was more of a "Roast the Autoexec" inquisition than anything else. I just don't understand why these guys got their balls busted like they did but the banks basically got a blank check handed to them.

There were some personal vendettas at play there that underscored any legitimate issues.

I tend to agree. I don't think all the bailed out bankers showed up in good will pants drinking a cup of bone soup either...in fact, I don't think they showed up at all. Whether you think the automakers deserve to be bailed out or now, they seem a lot more important then companies that specialized in throwing underwriting out the window and churning out crappy sure-too-fail mortgages to every breathing human and warm corpse in the country.

Congress should have made receiving the bank bailout money contigent upon the current CEOs and those of the past 10 years eating a dog turd on camera.
 

meltdown75

Lifer
Nov 17, 2004
37,548
7
81
that jet is bought and paid for, meh.

they need to show stories about the families that won't be putting food on the table if they don't get the bailout. don't show the rich execs flying around in private jets, we already know about all that shit.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,291
12,853
136
Originally posted by: Juddog
Originally posted by: Pandamonium
Banking affects far more industries than auto manufacturers. Besides, the big three have been circling the drain for quite some time now. I say just let them go. If their major selling point is "we're American", something has to change.

Well at least Ford has begun to step up in terms of quality. The latest consumer reports has them on par with Japanese manufacturers for the first time in a while. I think if one of the big 3 died off, the other two could step and and fill in the gap so to speak.

i think GM has made more steps than Ford. I'd let chrysler slip, honestly, because I don't think their product portfolio is very good, with exception to a few cars. that is, if i had to pick one to let go.
 

rh71

No Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
52,844
1,049
126
like driving a Mercedes to shop at goodwill / salvation army stores?
 

meltdown75

Lifer
Nov 17, 2004
37,548
7
81
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: meltdown75
that jet is bought and paid for, meh.

and costs a lot to operate.

Maybe they should sell it?
selling off some assets like that would be a start but it's not the root cause of the problem. i blame inferior products (not all, just some) and overpriced labour at both the management and union-worker levels. if they could correct those two things, they could keep their fancy jets.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
lol. If I ever get rich enough, the only plane I'll ever indulge in is a surplus fighter so I can pull serious Gs whenever I want. Then I'll get some black market ordnance and scare the living shit out of these asshole with a few near misses. :D
 

jemcam

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2001
3,676
0
0
Originally posted by: irishScott
lol. If I ever get rich enough, the only plane I'll ever indulge in is a surplus fighter so I can pull serious Gs whenever I want. Then I'll get some black market ordinance and scare the living shit out of these asshole with a few near misses. :D

Black market local laws? WTF is that and how are you going to scare someone with a near miss of one?
 

Gooberlx2

Lifer
May 4, 2001
15,381
6
91
Originally posted by: dartworth
I still don't see what the big deal is...



/shrug

I guess there's two sides to the coin.

On one side it shouldn't be a big deal, and it does distract from the debate and core issues of why they're there.

On the other side it seems to show an absurd disconnect these execs have from the state of the people, the economy, their predicament and the nature of their request; and shakes confidence that they're really going to make the decisions/changes needed to be able to dig themselves back out with this money when they exhibit such wasteful behavior/"policies".

It's just digusting to see and easily elicits an emotional response.
 

dartworth

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
15,200
10
81
Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
Originally posted by: dartworth
I still don't see what the big deal is...



/shrug

I guess there's two sides to the coin.

On one side it shouldn't be a big deal, and it does distract from the debate and core issues of why they're there.

On the other side it seems to show an absurd disconnect these execs have from the state of the people, the economy, their predicament and the nature of their request; and shakes confidence that they're really going to make the decisions/changes needed to be able to dig themselves back out with this money when they exhibit such wasteful behavior/"policies".

It's just digusting to see and easily elicits an emotional response.


It was a few people trying to look like they really care and trying to embarrass these people...I'm curious as to how many of these lawmakers have been on these jets themselves for "business"...

when ya live in a glass house, don't throw stones...
 

Jeeebus

Diamond Member
Aug 29, 2006
9,181
901
126
it's a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black, though, given the perks that Congress takes advantage of on a daily basis. Understandably, on the individual level, they don't equate to riding around in a private jet, but given the 550+ Congressmen and the luxuries they're afforded (like personal sedan service), I'm sure it adds up.
 

Gooberlx2

Lifer
May 4, 2001
15,381
6
91
Originally posted by: dartworth
Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
Originally posted by: dartworth
I still don't see what the big deal is...



/shrug

I guess there's two sides to the coin.

On one side it shouldn't be a big deal, and it does distract from the debate and core issues of why they're there.

On the other side it seems to show an absurd disconnect these execs have from the state of the people, the economy, their predicament and the nature of their request; and shakes confidence that they're really going to make the decisions/changes needed to be able to dig themselves back out with this money when they exhibit such wasteful behavior/"policies".

It's just digusting to see and easily elicits an emotional response.


It was a few people trying to look like they really care and trying to embarrass these people...I'm curious as to how many of these lawmakers have been on these jets themselves for "business"...

when ya live in a glass house, don't throw stones...

Yeah, that's kinda what I was thinking when watching it last night. Some likely pots calling some kettles black.

As for me: It does kinda piss me off...but I don't get to enjoy any such perks or make any such decisions...so I just grumble from my armchair. :p