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.

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

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.

No Travel for Execs Period.

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.

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.

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.

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

Is that what they’re calling it these days? Confidential business?

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?

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?

[Angry Dumbo on November 21, 2008 at 5:54 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.

Maybe if Michigan didn’t get screwed so badly by Washington, we’d still have that capital available to our businesses here.

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

Who do the GM executives think they are?……..congressional politicians?

[grapeknutz on November 21, 2008 at 3:52 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.

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.

The rules for congressional travel on military aircraft are contained in Defense Department Directive 4515.12. Congressional access to military passenger jets is generally restricted to official trips abroad, or for domestic flights to military bases or events to which the Pentagon invited the lawmaker. Al Qaeda attacks on the U.S. changed the procedure in the case of the speaker.

U.S. Air Force travel for VIPs such as members of Congress is first-rate. The planes are staffed with stewards who serve meals and tend an open bar. Communications suites allow members to conduct business while traveling.

Such flights are one of Congress’ cherished perquisites, providing lawmakers a chance to visit foreign lands at government expense. Official duties are often mixed with sightseeing and fine dining.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

that is an explanation i have heard, not saying i agree with it or not.

psv on November 21, 2008 at 4:29 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

Does Nancy Pelosi’s very wealthy husband use a private jet?

JammieWearingFool on November 21, 2008 at 3:50 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.

This would have millions of dollars per year I’m sure.