Reaction: GM to drop two of its corporate jets
posted at 3:30 pm on November 21, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Has General Motors learned a lesson from having its CEO come to Washington on a private jet in order to plead poverty? Not quite. ABC News, which broke that news earlier this week, now reports that GM will get rid of two private jets from its fleet — but that it has no intention of changing its travel policies for its executives:
General Motors said today that it is putting two of its five corporate jets out of service because the planes are not being used enough. The top three executives at GM, however, will continue to use the private luxurious jets for all of their business and personal travel, despite a flurry of criticism over the perk following an ABC News report this week.
An ABC News investigation revealed that the top three automakers have together spent several hundred million dollars to buy, maintain, and operate a fleet of top-of-the-line private jets for their top executives.
GM leased a fleet of seven planes at the beginning of this year, according to a company spokesperson. Two of the planes were dropped from the fleet in September and two more will be dropped by the end of the year.
“We’re cutting back very drastically on all travel,” said Tom Wilkinson, a spokesperson for GM. Wilkinson said the downsizing is “strictly in response to the planes not being used” and not a reaction to the harsh treatment CEO Rick Wagoner and others received from Congress this week after it was learned that the CEOs of all three big automakers flew to Washington on private planes to plead for public funding to bailout their ailing companies.
Indeed, despite the downsizing, Wagoner and the two other top executives at GM will still fly private for all business and personal travel, a board stipulation according to Wilkinson, for security reasons. The executives are required to reimburse the company for personal travel on the jets.
I got a lot of e-mail over the last couple of days about the security issues regarding executive travel. That sounds like a big excuse to me. If they’re concerned about commercial air travel, that would be news indeed, as it remains the safest mode of travel, statistically speaking — safer, actually, than the cars these companies produce. It’s just a rationalization to provide top-level execs with a luxurious perk at enormous cost to the shareholders.
Chrysler told ABC that they weren’t going to change their travel policies, and Ford couldn’t be reached for comment. Again, a company in trouble looks for any fat at all they can trim. If these companies can’t be bothered to cut 99% off of their air travel costs by flying commercial, how badly do they really need our money?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Its a hard knock life, but without the bailout I am sure they will drive on.
rob verdi on November 21, 2008 at 3:33 PM
One down. Six to go.
VastRightWingConspirator on November 21, 2008 at 3:38 PM
I’m not against them having corporate jets, but they need to show that those planes are cost effective vs. commercial travel.
rbj on November 21, 2008 at 3:40 PM
What a major sacrifice.
I am underwhelmed.
kingsjester on November 21, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Poor, poor auto executives…let them eat cake.
Wyznowski on November 21, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Those jets run $30 to 50 million a piece.
GM recently invested $300 million to build a factory in Russia.
They show up in said private jets with a wheelbarrow for all the cash and no plan.
Yeah, these are the guys who are gonna turn it all around?
sharrukin on November 21, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Uh, the PM of the UK travels everywhere on British Airways.
Beo on November 21, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Oh, how big of them.
Hey, GM Execs, Sarah Palin sold the only one she had on friggin’ EBAY!
Pansies.
MadisonConservative on November 21, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Amazing,they heard the outcry!
Now lets work on getting Nancy Pelosi
on a regular airline flight,unless she
has to go to Syria for another M.E
vacation!(Sarc.)a hem.
canopfor on November 21, 2008 at 3:45 PM
A fleet? They have a fleet of private jets? This, and the fact that they’ve been the UAW’s bitches since before I was born, and I’m supposed fall prostrate to the floor for them because they’re hemmoraging money?
To hell with them. Make them file bankruptcy and reorganize.
CantCureStupid on November 21, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Right, and those cost calculations need to include the costs of down time for the CEOs when they’re traveling commercially.
Y-not on November 21, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Just 2 jets? They say its for the security of their CEOs — well send a body guard with them on commercial airlines. Many CEOs of fortune 500 companies fly like us regular people .. They have been too fat too long.
Need complete restructuring before any bailout. Need a new scaled down union contract before a bailout. The average person has no clue about the 15,000 strong jobs bank where they get paid to do nothing instead of getting laid off like the rest of us. Of if they don’t qualify for the jobs bank, then they get 95% of their pay on layoff. Or how about the UAW union bosses making 7 figure incomes? I could go on, but I will get so angry, I won’t be able to type …..
gstrickler on November 21, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Oh FFS! Corporations have jets, BFD. Hardly the big picture.
Oh, but let’s waste oxygen engaging in a farcical pantomime where they must sell their worldly goods and prostrate themselves before us in tatters.
No bailouts. Ever.
LimeyGeek on November 21, 2008 at 3:48 PM
A fleet? They have a fleet of private jets? That, and the fact that they’ve been UAW’s beeatches since before I was born, and I’m supposed to fall prostrate to the floor because they’re hemmoraging money and their business model sucks?
To hell with them. Let them file bankruptcy and reorganize.
CantCureStupid on November 21, 2008 at 3:48 PM
I am not buying the security argument, but that is probably because I couldn’t pick these guys out of a line-up or, more appropriately, if they were sitting next to me in coach.
XWing5 on November 21, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Does Nancy Pelosi’s very wealthy husband use a private jet?
JammieWearingFool on November 21, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Rick Wagoner has been in charge at GM as long as I can remember.
Also, as long as I can remember the company has been swirling the bowl.
According to wikipedia he took over as CEO in 2000. Why is this arrogant clown still in charge? Is 8 years of steady failure not enough to convince people that maybe some new leadership is needed? Or do they just blame it all on Bush?
Sugarbuzz on November 21, 2008 at 3:50 PM
These big wigs need to be able to fly wherever, whenever, and not be tied to the same schedules that cattle-class has to endure.
They also do business while flying, confidential business….a tad hard to do while elbow-to-elbow with Joe the plumber.
LimeyGeek on November 21, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Who do the GM executives think they are?……..congressional politicians?
grapeknutz on November 21, 2008 at 3:52 PM
I think one reason big companies go for private jets is because they pay their execs too much to have them wasting time in airports. Still, if the company can’t afford it…
Personally I thought they made too much of this at the hearings. These guys could sell all their jets, the hangars they keep them in, fire all the pilots and travel staff, and still make only a minor dent in their economic problems.
Dee2008 on November 21, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Well maybe the change of scenery (business class) or talking with the average Joe might help since apparently the business decisions they have been making didn’t work out too well for them.
XWing5 on November 21, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Yeah the secrets to the corvair might get stolen!
grapeknutz on November 21, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Cool. My next Escalade will cost $.01 less. It’s this sort of wealth envy that the dems love to trade in.
marklmail on November 21, 2008 at 3:55 PM
And that is the main point, I think. CEOs should not be spending their time sitting in airports hours on end. They really do not conduct their level of business on cell phones, Blackberries and e-mail.
This is not to say that Wagoner, Nardelli and Mullaly could not have figured out a better way to manage their Detroit to Washington excursion.
And finally, it’s too bad taxpayers don’t pay better attention to the travel modes and costs of their own government representatives. At least taxpayers weren’t on the hook for those corporate jets — YET.
BigD on November 21, 2008 at 3:56 PM
The photo shows a large passenger transport outfitted as a luxury craft. What are the actual jets in question? Are they six or ten seat corporate jets, or are they larger?
I don’t mind the senior level execs using jets for business travel (the cost of an exec in transit is the work he doesn’t get done) but there should probably not be more than fifty people eligible in a company, and only seven or so should be using them routinely. Does that justify a fleet of three? I don’t know.
njcommuter on November 21, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Put the planes up for sale on eBay!!
Sinner on November 21, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Good, it’s about time they started cleaning house and should sell everything they own before asking for a bailout. They’ve been fat cats for too damn long. It’s not any different with smaller companies either, as so many throughout history have had to sell off everything, recuperate or shut down for good. They’re long overdue living up to their responsibilities like everyone else. As for the security part, I think it’s a bunch of b.s.
corvettelady on November 21, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Cuda might buy one. Girl is gonna be RICH.
marklmail on November 21, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Oh FFS! Corporations have jets, BFD. Hardly the big picture.
Oh, but let’s waste oxygen engaging in a farcical pantomime where they must sell their worldly goods and prostrate themselves before us in tatters.
No bailouts. Ever.
LimeyGeek on November 21, 2008 at 3:48 PM
I’m with you. This whole jet kerfuffle is a bit of PR intended to get the public behind the idea that the auto manufacturers need to be punished.
Meanwhile, they are being forced to write what amounts to their own suicide note, so when government can point to it when they’re eventually criticized for nationalizing the companies and say, hey look, we didn’t write the bailout proposal, the CEO’s did! They offered their assets to us in return for a paltry sum, how were we supposed to refuse when so many jobs were at stake?
RushBaby on November 21, 2008 at 4:06 PM
sorry for the strike LG
*back to lurk mode*
RushBaby on November 21, 2008 at 4:06 PM
When the notoriously frugal Warren Buffett found that standard commercial airlines weren’t able to provide what he needed for his important face-to-face communications, he chartered a private jet from a jet timeshare.
You don’t HAVE to own them.
On the other hand, he liked the business so much that he bought it after using it for 3 years.
http://www.netjets.com/about_netjets/history.asp
Realistically, without hard numbers it’s hard to know whether it would be cost effective for the execs of the Big 3.
It might provide good PR though.
hatespam on November 21, 2008 at 4:07 PM
I agree.
Buy Danish on November 21, 2008 at 4:09 PM
No worries mate, the emotional scars will heal in time ;)
LimeyGeek on November 21, 2008 at 4:10 PM
And again, irony escapes Congress. They’re lambasting Detroit bigwigs for private jets; when will Pelosi, for example, follow suit and fly on a commercial airline to save us some money?
Paul_in_NJ on November 21, 2008 at 4:10 PM
And what’s with those fancy suits? Mens Wearhouse not good enough for ya?
I hear they still shake their own dinkles when they tinkle, however.
LimeyGeek on November 21, 2008 at 4:12 PM
The DOW ended the Day up over 400 points, that means investors are happy with the no bail out news? That is the way I am reading it.
http://finance.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=INDEXDJX:DJI
Dr Evil on November 21, 2008 at 4:16 PM
eh, it went up supposedly over the Treasury choice. About 500 points actually.
johnnyU on November 21, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Why can’t they drive one of their crappy cars to where ever they need to go?
1sttofight on November 21, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Why should we care? Are we now going to try and out-class those who have made class warfare into their bread and butter?
Let the left vomit blood over this – its not something I’ll lose sleep over.
Ryan Gandy on November 21, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Exactly
gstrickler on November 21, 2008 at 4:26 PM
If you think the jets are a waste of money, you should work in the dealership end for a while and look at the gazillions of dollars wasted on print materials sent overnight mail to 7000 dealerships in the U.S…..and I mean gazillions……all of it tossed in the trash….
Tim Zank on November 21, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Are there any pictures of the 757 that Peloser flies around in?
tarpon on November 21, 2008 at 4:28 PM
The main reason executives use private jets is use of time. So the explanation goes, executives time is very valuable, so them being able to walk up to a plane minutes before it takes off and go where they need to go directly, is the best use of an executives time. flying commercial, with the lines and what not, is an inefficient use of the executives time.
that is an explanation i have heard, not saying i agree with it or not.
psv on November 21, 2008 at 4:29 PM
If I’m ever an exec, there’s no way I’m flying around with you plebs. You can shuffle off into your flying petri dishes – I’m kickin’ back with a scotch and a hot stewardess.
Peasants.
LimeyGeek on November 21, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Can we set the Congress up in front of a panel of citizens and ask them to sacrifice their cushy pensions? Their per diems? Their free health care for life? Their alarming write-offs, insider info and personal fortunes made from their political position? After all, they may not be making millions in salary, per se, but they benefit from selling their influence as a commodity on the open market.
I don’t really think they need our money as bad as they say.
Joan of Argghh on November 21, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Can someone give a very good reason that all company execs can’t use video tele-conferencing? It’s like being in the same room with a group of people. There is no real reason to justify the millions spent by a company to have a fleet of jets. If they ever do have to go somewhere they can book something with a private jet service or fly first class on a public airline.
This would have millions of dollars per year I’m sure.
CMH_Dude on November 21, 2008 at 4:45 PM
I am almost certain that he does…not positive. But I remember when she was pushing for a larger jet for her Senate travels someone reported she just wanted a larger jet then her husband. Don’t know if that was accurate, but it sounded pretty funny at the time.
right2bright on November 21, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Both of my kids work directly for business men who fly in G%’s.
These are private companies, not traded, so I have no problem. But they do say the savings in time is incredible. One flies from L.A. to Chicago, weekly, with business stops of an hour or so on the way. No way you could do that publicly. They also can fly on a moments notice, and arrive refreshed, or fully briefed. These are both billionaires, and they basically work 24/7.
Both are on major non-profit, and they fly to those events, without charging the non-profits.
But neither one uses them much for private family stuff. The family flies first class, but on regular airlines.
These putzes (auto boys), are a public traded company and they use the jets for private use…unacceptable
right2bright on November 21, 2008 at 4:57 PM
That’s quite true, Ed, but please don’t be dishonest here. There are a few reasons why air travel is statistically safer than ground travel by car, and the quality of the car- especially those built within the last 20 years- has little to nothing to do with it.
BillH on November 21, 2008 at 5:09 PM
I had one of those jobs where, occasionally, I got to travel on the corporate jet–only if I happened to be heading to wherever the jet was going, mind you. But I can tell you it made a huge difference.
When you fly commercial, you spend the better part of a day standing in lines, waiting in terminals, eating crappy food, wondering if your luggage will arrive, tracking it down when you get there, or if you’re unlucky, filling out paperwork in an attempt to locate it. Contrast that with getting to the hangar 15 minutes before flight time, spending a couple hours in the air, having your luggage waiting when you deplane. It isn’t just the time saved–it’s the stress reduction that really pays off. On a corporate jet, you arrive ready to work. On a commercial jet, you arrive in need of Alka Seltzer and a good night’s sleep.
Dee2008 on November 21, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Ed it may be a perk, but it makes fiscal sense. Alan Mullaly makes more than $9000/hr (exec compensation is a side issue, the fact is they are paid what they are paid and that’s what they cost the companies right now, regardless of the wisdom of that compensation). Let’s say the flight cost $20,000 in fuel, pilot salaries and landing fees (ABC did not provide a source for that number). Flying commercial adds a minimum of three hours travel time – time mostly standing in line, not working. Add airfare for assistants and other execs who flew on the corporate jet with the CEO, and it works out that flying private saves many thousands of dollars.
Try explaining to the 6800 people who work at Gulfstream and the 13,000 people who work at Cessna and thousands more at LearJet that corporate jets are wasteful and evil.
I just got off the phone with a PR person from GAMA, the General Aviation Mfgs Assoc., the trade group for the makers of private aircraft. They aren’t exactly thrilled with how ABC and blogs like HotAir are spinning this story. The folks at LearJet out in Wichita are also chagrined. A lot of people are employed in general aviation and a good chunk of the money is related to business aviation.
Like someone said, they don’t have a Blackberry because their boss wants them to have a cool phone, it’s a business tool.
When I worked for DuPont, we had regular corporate jet service, two flights daily, twice a week, between Detroit and Wilmington. It wasn’t just the Senior VP who flew that way, low level chemists did as well. Because of the high cost of last minute airfare the company jets saved money. Things changed when the airlines were deregulated and we got rid of the jets because airfare got cheaper, but companies don’t just buy jets because they can, most buy them because it makes sense from a business standpoint.
ABC’s story is sleazy. They mention that while Mullaly was flying to Washington, Ford corporate jets were winging to Los Angeles and Nebraska without any context. I don’t know what was in Nebraska, but the LA Auto Show is this week and those Ford execs and marketing folks were going to LA to give press conferences and otherwise work the show.
Right now, GM has what are called test mules of the Chevy Volt. A “mule” in carspeak is a preproduction prototype. It may have the drivetrain or chassis components for a car under development, but on the outside it looks like a Malibu or whatever. That way they can do testing without having to build a complete prototype of the entire new product, and can also do some real world testing on public roads without prying eyes or premature publicity.
I’m sure, if GM wanted to spend the money, they could take one of those mules capable of a 800 mile trip, mount new body panels to look like the production Volt, and drive it to Washington when the CEOs return on Dec. 2. It wouldn’t be cheap, maybe $250,000 or a half million to get that “Volt” ready in time.
It’s a great opportunity to turn around a PR gaffe, but it wouldn’t work.
If Rick Wagoner drove a Chevy Volt prototype from Detroit to Washington, the MSM would call it a publicity stunt, quote some ridiculous figure how the prototype cost a ton to build, and whine that the car isn’t available yet. Mullaly drove a Fusion Hybrid from Dulles to Capitol Hill but none of the MSM mentioned that.
Ed, you’re displaying what Richard Feynmann described as the Feynmann Amnesiac Effect. You believe what you read in the media after they’ve already proved to you that they don’t know what they’re talking about on other issues.
rokemronnie on November 21, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Pelosi wanted a dedicated 757 for her and her family.
Members of the House and Senate fly at taxpayer expense. We cover trips too and from their districts and when they travel on congressional delegations. They also fly for free on military jets. There are restrictions, they have to be invited by a military installation, but when a senator or congresscritter gets on the phone to the base commander and suggests a visit, how many will say no?
BTW, when members of congress fly military, they aren’t in the back of a C-130 with all the webstrapped cargo. They fly in private jets or small commercial jets like the 737, with flight attendants, a galley, an open bar and First Class accommodations.
rokemronnie on November 21, 2008 at 5:35 PM
It’s not just execs. I worked for DuPont and most of the folks flying on the corporate jets (when we had them) were chemists and engineers. It’s not just bean counters and paper shufflers, and you can’t troubleshoot an expensive production facility with GoToMeeting.com. Sometimes you have to be there this afternoon.
rokemronnie on November 21, 2008 at 5:39 PM
So, if Carl Levin or Debbie Stabenow aren’t happy with the commercial flight schedule at Dulles, they just have to have their local staff pick them up at Selfridge ANG base instead of Detroit Metro.
rokemronnie on November 21, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Okay, why are we talking about airline flights and executive perks when these are just a small percentage of the big 3’s entirely inefficient cost structure? In the airlines, United came out with a “low cost” airline, Ted, which was to compete with Southwest. Ted offered low fares, but United did not change their cost structure and now Ted is dead. The only way United can survive as it has emerged from bankruptcy is by drastically changing is cost structure.
Bigger question, why are we bailing out the airlines when bailing out the banks has worked so poorly? I don’t care if their executives get to work on a Vespa, bailing out the big 3 U.S. automakers is insane.
Specifically, the big 3 have a collective market cap of 7 billion, and their dwindling market cap is a reflection of the fact that they haven’t turned a steady profit in over 30 years. So what lender in their right mind would lend to companies who are hemorrhaging money like the big 3?
This isn’t a bail out, it is a hand out. A hand out to the unions which helped get Obama elected courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. Think about it.
Like the bank bailout, the auto bailout will only prolong the recovery of the big three automakers by pouring billions of dollars into failed companies.
Markets don’t like, the market says the big 3 are worth 7 billion, so why not just buy out the big 3, save the U.S. taxpayer 18 billion and Nancy Pelosi can make the greenest car the world has ever known. No this is a payback to the unions who elected Barak, we are just not supposed to call it what it so obviously is.
As for how to fix the automakers, no new laws need to be written. Its called bankruptcy. A real bankruptcy, with a real bankruptcy judge cutting costs to the bone, cutting production, dealerships, and salary and benefits packages. In the old days it was called union busting, but we use such pejorative terms in the PC era. No going to happen here. And that is why the big 3 are worth less than one third of the value of their own bailout.
Bailout is french for “kick the can down the road” and the markets know this. No Warren Buffett or even a George Soros wants any piece of this bailout mess. Don’t blame the markets and capitalism for the failure of the big 3, that is like the Chicago Cubs blaming baseball for not winning a pennant in over 100 years. Maybe we could bailout the Cubs?
Sorry about the long post. I needed to vent.
Angry Dumbo on November 21, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Certainly not. GM executives know they actually need to have money, even if it is loaned money, before they can spend it like drunken sailors.
Dusty on November 21, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Merits or demerits of a bailout aside, Michigan has gotten screwed by the federal government. Over the past 25 years we’ve had a net drain of $200 billion that went to Washington and the sunbelt. Michigan got back 81 cents in federal spending for every dollar of tax we sent to the IRS. Meanwhile, Alabama got 1.38, Mississippi got 1.68, and Maryland, the wealthiest state in the US, got 1.25.
Washington took our money and used it to facilitate job growth in the sunbelt and to pay highly paid federal employees in Virginia and Maryland (avg salary of the 1.6 million civilian non postal fed employee is over $66K/yr plus a benefit package that Ron Gettlefinger would want replete with “retention fees” of 25% – try that with your boss and see how far you get.). Michigan’s military bases and defense plants were closed while the ones in the south and southwest were expanded. Michigan taxes paid for infrastructure like roads in Alabama leading to Hyundai and Mercedes plants, and paid for water projects so people in Scottsdale can water their lawns.
Maybe if Michigan didn’t get screwed so badly
rokemronnie on November 21, 2008 at 6:06 PM
cont’d
Maybe if Michigan didn’t get screwed so badly by Washington, we’d still have that capital available to our businesses here.
rokemronnie on November 21, 2008 at 6:08 PM
I kind of agree, but the issue is that some activities are symbolic and symbolism is important in defining/identifying intentions. I kind of agree with the need for personnel at that level having a need for the private jets. It wasn’t just Wagoner that travelled on the jet, and his entourage was probably rather large, or large enough to discuss/prepare for the upcoming meeting, something you can’t do during commercial travel.
A G4 seems rather big, though; it seats up to 19, IIRC and GM shouldn’t be doing any business now where it might need to carry 19 passengers. Maybe 30 years ago, but not now and they should have downsized it long ago. Same goes for a fleet of 7 aircraft, which should have been two, 10 years ago.
A single Gulfstream 100 (seats 6 to 8) should be sufficient for all of GM on a first come, first served basis with anything smacking of personal travel prohibited.
I do get a chuckle (a hate filled one) out of those in Congress complaining about it. Heck, they’ve been running deficits for three times as long as GM and they’re still using ‘private’ jets all the time.
Dusty on November 21, 2008 at 6:10 PM
LimeyGeek,
If downtime for travel is too much for them then I suggest that they as a cost vehicle cannot afford to travel at all. They should get on the corporate WebEx conferencing system and use it exclusively.
No Travel for Execs Period.
As to security concerns. Well that points out a very different problem. If a company cannot afford to have an Exec bumped off, then they have not done due diligence on their succession planning. As a consequence they maybe in violation of their underwriters self insurance provisions.
Hmmmm?
Dr. Dog on November 21, 2008 at 6:33 PM
When the CEOs are forced to drive around in stairway vehicles, THEN we’ll know they’re hitting on hard times.
TheUnrepentantGeek on November 21, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Is that what they’re calling it these days? Confidential business?
TheUnrepentantGeek on November 21, 2008 at 6:40 PM
A CEO of a company the size of GM travels with a pretty large entourage of other execs, PR guys and retainers. For something as important as the hearings the other day, I can easily see the entourage exceeding a dozen people, so a G4 might be suitable.
I think their jets saved them money on this trip.
I also think the folks who work for Cessna (13,000), Gulfstream (6,800) and LearJet might have a different point of view concerning the business case for private jets than what most of the folks here are saying.
rokemronnie on November 21, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Where do you draw the line? How about a process engineer traveling to a facility whose production has stopped because something broke?
Yes, one can telecommute and most business meetings are a waste of time, but some things still need to be face to face, flesh and blood.
A lot of business, even at the highest levels, is still dependent on personal interaction. It’s much harder to read body language on a video screen.
rokemronnie on November 21, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Perhaps Congress can lead by example by forgoing the inaugural galas and getting to right to work. Perhaps.
diogenes on November 21, 2008 at 7:46 PM
As if the “military” jets they get to ride on have them sitting in the back of a C-130 with the cargo, nets and web straps.
Those military jets have flight attendants, first class seats, communications suites and open bars. They can be Gulfstreams or converted 737s. Military brass likes to travel in style as much as congresscritters. They can fly military as long as they’re traveling to a base. In the case of Michigan’s senators and congresscritters, that just means their local staff picks them up at the Selfridge ANG base, instead of Detroit Metro.
rokemronnie on November 21, 2008 at 7:50 PM
Looks like now GM is talking about using US bailout money to to expand operations in Brazil.
I will say this one more time … THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A US AUTO MAKER. They are all GLOBAL auto makers. Why should the US taxpayer foot the bill for improving plants in Brazil, China, Russia, Poland and other places? Just because you are giving cash to a company whose CEO lives in the US, there is no guarantee the money will be used in the US.
crosspatch on November 23, 2008 at 12:48 AM
Comment pages: