News: Big 3 execs fly private JETS to DC to bag for cash

[GRtak]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081121/ts_nm/us_gm_jets_1

GM sends back 2 of it's leased aircraft.

"There is a perception issue," Wilkinson said of Wagoner's travel to Washington on a private jet. "We need to be very sensitive to that going forward."

///

About two years ago, the head of Ford's North American operations, Mark Fields, gave up use of a corporate jet for personal travel to his home in Florida after the arrangement came under criticism at a time when the automaker was losing billions and slashing jobs.

He now flies first class on commercial planes.

 

[Spectre]

The problem with CEO remuneration isn't the amount of money they make, but the fact that so many CEOs who fail get hired on somewhere else, when it was clearly their fault that they failed. Carly Fiorina (who ruined Lucent, HP, and was a minus on the McCain campaign...) is a great example. Anyone who thinks she's worth more than $1 as CEO needs to be shot.

How it's supposed to work is this: As a CEO, you get paid to take the big risks and to compensate you for the possible loss of career if the place should fold through no fault of your own. If the company fails and it's your fault, you SHOULD lose your career. You shouldn't get hired on somewhere else because of your "experience" or as a diversity hire (Fiorina). You screwed up, your career should be over. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

This is not the case with Ford. If Mulally fails to resurrect Ford, that's the end of his career. Whatever money he has left from Ford is *it* for the rest of his life. Period.

GRTak: When Soichiro Honda retired from the company he started, I think he was making about $55M per year. Do you think that is excessive? Why? After all, he only started the company, how could he be worth anything? He couldn't possibly have been important, could he?

I have been in the room when a $20M/year CEO was fired. Nothing he did or was responsible for, it was just that the company had been bought out and the new owners had no interest in the old board or leadership. He never worked again. Not his fault, but he got blamed for it. Yes, it was a dot com. No, I'm not going to tell you which one.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081121/ts_nm/us_gm_jets_1

GM sends back 2 of it's leased aircraft.

Yeah, it's a perception issue. It's got little base in reality. I (and others) don't see a problem with it, but Joe Q. Public does. And yeah, they probably *should* have flown commercial just this once to give the proper image.

On the other hand, I can understand why you wouldn't want to put your life in danger by going to the Detroit airport. Detroit is a shithole, Somalia or Chechnya is safer than parts of Detroit.

Also, Mark Fields is responsible for some of the mess Ford is in and a LOT of the mess that Jaguar is still in. He NEEDS to be fired.

 

[MacGuffin]

Reading this topic, I can understand both points of perspective. I see the necessity for the use of private jets.

However, in this special case I would have expected more sensibility and would have wished that they'd done it without the use of private jets - just as a sign or symbol of humility and that they understand.

But the message they sent instead, is that they are still hovering in the clouds way above the real world. And especially Wagoner seems to have lost all connections with reality.

Signs sometimes are everything and it doesn't matter, that from a strictly rational point of view something is justifiable. It's the gesture that counts.

And they just sent the wrong sign.

 

[Dogbert]

Carly Fiorina (who ruined Lucent, HP, and was a minus on the McCain campaign...) is a great example. Anyone who thinks she's worth more than $1 as CEO needs to be shot.

I almost -repped you as a knee-jerk reaction to hearing her name.

 

[thedguy]

What did you expect them to do, carpool their way to Washington?

i guess this just shows how much faith they have in their own prodicts

 

[Spectre]

I bet the guys over at Honda are laughing their asses off at the Lame Duck Three right about now, though. Why?

Yes, that's right. Honda makes airplanes now, complete with Honda-designed-and-built jet turbines.*** So should a Honda exec get called to Washington to testify (they're not going to be asking for a bailout, that's for sure), flying commercial would be a BAD thing for them because it would show no confidence in the Honda product. :lol:

***:

Spoiler

What did you expect? It's the Honda MOTOR Company, after all. At this rate, Honda's going to be making spacecraft soon....

 

[MacGuffin]

Well, it certainly looks Japanese - meaning it looks as exciting as a wet bagel

 

[vikiradTG2007]

That aircraft is made of distilled 10000000000001% pure win, when compared to what the "big" three do. But anyway, stick one of those turbines on the RA108 and it still won't be as fast as any other car in the F1 field.

 

[Dogbert]

Why not completely federalize General Motors?

 

[Spectre]

Well, it certainly looks Japanese - meaning it looks as exciting as a wet bagel

Right now it's the most fuel efficient thing (by 30-35%) in its class. No surprise. It's also about half the price of the competition, is better equipped, and is also the fastest in the class. Big surprise, especially for the competition.

Besides, here's the competition - far more boring. At least the Honda looks different.

And, from what I'm told, the Honda is a lot more fun to fly.

Why not completely federalize General Motors?

We already know where that ends up.

 

[AiR]

BL had such a nice swastika.

 

[MacGuffin]

Right now it's the most fuel efficient thing (by 30-35%) in its class. No surprise. It's also about half the price of the competition, is better equipped, and is also the fastest in the class. Big surprise, especially for the competition.

Besides, here's the competition - far more boring. At least the Honda looks different.

Let me give you good advice: Next time you come across a tongue-in-cheek remark: Simply let it be

Taking everything serious and shooting back with even more seriousness all the time will only give you an upset stomach

 

[Hercules286]

Well, it certainly looks Japanese - meaning it looks as exciting as a wet bagel

I think it's a beautiful machine so STFU.

 

[Labcoatguy]

Let me give you good advice: Next time you come across a tongue-in-cheek remark: Simply let it be

Taking everything serious and shooting back with even more seriousness all the time will only give you an upset stomach

It's just that out of your usual haystack of smug posts, it's very hard to find the occasional needle of tongue-in-cheek, y'know?

But wow, if the Honda folks do end up being called to the hearings and show up in the HondaJet, that would be a massive stake into an already nailed-down coffin. "Yes, we are doing so well that we can expand into a new industry and still make money there, unlike those beggars who can't even stop their core business from collapsing." They would simply become exhibit Y in the case against the Big 3: how to ploperly run a car company.

 

[MacGuffin]

It's just that out of your usual haystack of smug posts, it's very hard to find the occasional needle of tongue-in-cheek, y'know?

Actually it's quite easy: Whenever I use a smilie like or or or :lol: or , it is meant as a funny remark, a joke, tongue-in-cheek, ironical, smug or silly.

Whenever I don't use them I'm serious. I don't see how anyone can have a problem with that...

And I'm German, so you can rely on me sticking to this rule

 

[Labcoatguy]

Actually it's quite easy: Whenever I use a smilie like or or or :lol: or , it is meant as a funny remark, a joke, tongue-in-cheek, ironical or silly.

Whenever I don't use them I'm serious. I don't see how anyone can have a problem with that...

Plus I'm German, you can rely on me sticking to the rules

Of course, how could I forget. There must be rules and regulations, you like that sort of thing.

 

[MacGuffin]

Exactly!

Besides, life itself is much too short for taking serious most of the things that happens to us. So I consider not taking everything so serious a virtue - in the good old tradition of British humor.

If I may quote from my favourite TV series: "You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."

 

[jack_christie]

Maybe if the Big Three asked for $700 billion they wouldn't have been asked for a business plan too...

 

[MrChips]

I think I saw that ad... problem is, getting the FAA cert for that one would be something like $5M, and maintenance + operational costs on a 727 would be something like *$40M* per year, since most of the parts would now have to be fabbed up and the thing was a thirsty SOB. And, IIRC, that 727-200 was close to overhaul time for all three engines, so that's a mil per.... And since it's a Stage 2 jet (it's actually one of the loudest commercial jets ever flown), you can't fly it into or out of many urban airports in the US without applying the several million dollar Super 27 kits that replace the side engines and put a hush kit (aka muffler) on the center engine.

Cheaper to just get a newer jet...

Also, FYI, a Gulfstream V G500 corporate jet starts at $38 million and no, they don't take installment payments. A G550? That's $46 million. A Boeing BizJet? That's $48 million. Boeing doesn't take installment payments either. Two pilots cost about $500,000 to $1M per year, insurance and FAA mandated annual training add another $1-1.5M per year. Yearly operational costs are about $4M.

Many of the DOCs you claim are greatly overstated, and your purchase prices are grossly understated. According to industry averages, A G550 crew would cost approximately $450,000 per year to maintain, including pay + benefits, all mandated training any allowances afforded the crew, such as Jepp chart subscriptions. As for purchase cost, Gulfstreams are rather more expensive than your quote - the 500 series aircraft start at $60 million and go from there, depending on how the cabin is outfitted and what other options you select. BBJs start at around $65 million and go from there as well.

As for maintenance cost, there's simply too many variables to be throwing around numbers. Maintenance costs on a 737-700 flown by Southwest Airlines will be very different to a 737-700 flown by easyJet, or a BBJ-1 flown by NetJets, even though they are essentially the same basic aircraft. As for the 727, maintenance costs aren't really that bad for them, as they share a very large number of parts with 737s (about 60% or so), and there are a huge number of PMAs (Parts Manufacturing Authority) for them. If they were that expensive to fly, why would they be so coveted by air freight operators these days?

Right now it's the most fuel efficient thing (by 30-35%) in its class. No surprise. It's also about half the price of the competition, is better equipped, and is also the fastest in the class. Big surprise, especially for the competition.

Besides, here's the competition - far more boring. At least the Honda looks different.

And, from what I'm told, the Honda is a lot more fun to fly.

Erm, not really. None of those aircraft are in the same category as the HondaJet - they're all far too big to be in the same category.

These are direct competitors to the HondaJet:

Cessna Citation Mustang

Raytheon-Beech 390 Premier

Embraer Phenom 100

Cessna CitationJet CJ1

And this piece of crap

As for their claim of 30-35% better efficiency, the HondaJet is much smaller than most of these aircraft, with the exception of the Eclipse 500 and the Citation Mustang. And we'll see whether or not these claims prove to be true when they actually build the real aircraft, not a proof-of-concept demonstrator.

 

[AiR]

I like the list, Raytheon, Embraer, Cessna, piece of crap...
Who makes the crap?