Good news: Citigroup takes bailout money, buys new $50M corporate jet
posted at 1:20 pm on January 26, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Sounds like a sweet ride. To think, you and I will own it soon.
Citigroup decided to get its new wings two years ago, when the financial-services giant was flush with cash, but it still intends to take possession of the jet this year despite its current woes, the source said.
“Why should I help you when what you write will be used to the detriment of our company?” replied Bill McNamee, head of CitiFlight Inc., the subsidiary that manages Citigroup’s corporate fleet, when asked to comment about the new 7X.
“What relevance does it have but to hurt my company?”
It’s not uncommon for large companies to pay a deposit on a new plane then cancel the order before delivery, according to a source in the corporate aviation business.
Citigroup execs are also quietly trying to unload two of their older Dassault 900EXs.
No wonder they have no cash to lend; their capital’s all wrapped up in important expenses like this. Serious question: Do these turds want to survive, at least as private entities? Public support for the Big Three cratered when they were caught taking private jets down to D.C. for their first congressional hearing. They got their money anyway, of course, but letting companies like GM and Citi fail isn’t the only “punitive” option for an angry electorate anymore. After reading the Post piece on the jet, this passage from the Times story on nationalization tempted even my withered libertarian heart:
“The case for full nationalization is far stronger now than it was a few months ago,” said Adam S. Posen, the deputy director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “If you don’t own the majority, you don’t get to fire the management, to wipe out the shareholders, to declare that you are just going to take the losses and start over. It’s the mistake the Japanese made in the ’90s.”
“I would guess that sometime in the next few weeks, President Obama and Tim Geithner,” he said, referring to the nominee for Treasury secretary, “will have to come out and say, ‘It’s much worse than we thought,’ and just bite the bullet.”
Mind you, this is a company that’s already planning to cut 50,000 jobs. Exit question: How long before they have a change of heart on the jet? Over/under is a week.
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: 1 2 Next »
Shotgun!
Vashta.Nerada on January 26, 2009 at 1:25 PM
The inauguration cost more. How many poor could it have fed? How many unwanted children could we have aborted? Shameful waste of money.
hawkdriver on January 26, 2009 at 1:25 PM
I’m going to say the Over/Under should be by Thursday afternoon!!!!
I’m betting on Wednesday afternoon :-) My kids are really happy that they’ll soon own part of a corporate Jet with the bailout.
Funny thing, my son (13) wrote Senator Schumer back in October about the bailout, what is it going to do, etc. He enclosed a self addressed stamp envelope….Still hasn’t heard anything back!!!
HarryStar on January 26, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Don’t fall for the trap. Rush is talking about the fact that the government is trying to get people to hate and despise the private sector. Like the whole Merrill Lynch redecorating story. That money came from money that was money that was set aside in January of 2008, not from the bailout money.
While it’s not a good idea to do stuff like this, don’t forget the real problem. Government got us into this debacle.
MobileVideoEngineer on January 26, 2009 at 1:26 PM
If they don’t; let them fail. Someone else will take their place.
But sudsidizing bad behavior is too tempting.
lorien1973 on January 26, 2009 at 1:26 PM
So, can I book it like a Space A flight, or what? I do have a vacation coming up and the plane tickets cost over $700. This would be way better.
BadgerHawk on January 26, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Fly me to the moon
Let me sing among those stars
Let me see what spring is like
On jupiter and mars
New buzzword at Citi: “If we ignore the reality of the situation, it won’t be true.” – Ima Ostrich, CITI Boardmember
BobMbx on January 26, 2009 at 1:27 PM
The jet was ordered two years ago. This is a non-story.
toliver on January 26, 2009 at 1:27 PM
How is that any different from the “stimulus” Obama insanity? Workers were paid to make the plane, right? People will be pais to fuel and fly it. That’s like 30-40 jobs right there, more than can be promised for the $1t Obamapalooza.
VolMagic on January 26, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Symbolic.
The tax-payer just got taken for a ride.
artist on January 26, 2009 at 1:28 PM
How long will it be once they nationalize financial institutions before Obama, Geithner and the rest start firing management, not just because of poor financial performance or arrogance such as buying a private jet, but because of political reasons…such as not loaning money to the “right” organizations or not making investments in the “right” type of areas.
AmericanUnderground on January 26, 2009 at 1:29 PM
And now you get to help pay for it.
That’s the point.
BobMbx on January 26, 2009 at 1:29 PM
They’ll need that jet to get the board of directors out of the Country as fast as possible.
ChrisM on January 26, 2009 at 1:31 PM
It’s a publicly owned company, and so the people behind the counter have no real concern if it’s successful, long term, as long as they can get rich and get out before it all collapses.
DFCtomm on January 26, 2009 at 1:32 PM
You gotta assume they know what many of us only had suspected. They didn’t survive. They already failed. They’re insolvent. The parties and jets are gallows humor.
After all these months, can you tell me why we still don’t know SPECIFICALLY what is on the books of these financial institutions, especially the ones that have received TARP money?
The answer is that if it would be made public, there’d be a run on the banks. Does anyone seriously think the US gov’t can both guarantee and pay for all bank deposits. It’s another ponzi scheme in action.
JiangxiDad on January 26, 2009 at 1:32 PM
I’m not nearly as upset with these boobs who bought the jet, as I am with the boobs who took it from me in the first place, while lying about oversight, and being told by “experts” that this is how we stave off a “Great Depression.” I blame congress, the thieves, rather than the private sector. These Bank guys didn’t take it from me, Congress did. Screw congress!
Weight of Glory on January 26, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Once again proving that having the government funnel taking our money to give to these entities to ‘bail them out’ was a losing proposition from the beginning.
Queasy on January 26, 2009 at 1:34 PM
At least it stimulated the plane building business.
A lot af mortgage payments can be made by the workers who built it.
I’d rather see this than the scum in congress just giving out money not knowing where it went and for what.
I don’t care about the CEO flying in this sweet ride, I care about the jobs that Citi helped by buying it.
roninacreage on January 26, 2009 at 1:34 PM
The WORST part of this story is that the new airplane is manufactured in…(yes, that’s right)…France.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on January 26, 2009 at 1:35 PM
What’s the difference? Without the bailout money, this would arguably not have been possible. Look, many people don’t buy that answer when talking about giving money to companies that perform abortions. Why should those same people buy it now?
I disagree with Rush here, but that’s mostly because I didn’t want them to have the money in the first place.
Yes, that’s also true. How does that make this any better?
Esthier on January 26, 2009 at 1:36 PM
I’m first in line for use of the jet when I fly to the Cook Islands; I’m charging the fuel cost to you guys.
Bishop on January 26, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Unfortunately 100% true. Excuse me while I go cry.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 26, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Let the Gitmo prisoners loose and let have target practice on the CitiCorp Jet.
I am sure they are pretty rusty with their RPG’s.
izoneguy on January 26, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Um, they were French jobs.
ChrisM on January 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM
While these expenses may have been committed several months ago, it seems stupid of these execs not to consider the new paradigms and consider what it will look like to the liberal media and how they will capitalize on it.
Christian Conservative on January 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM
I didn’t understand Rush when he said that. Thain didn’t sell Merrill to BofA until September. How could the money for Thain’s office re-do (done according to Thain’s wishes) have been “set aside” nine months before he joined the co?
JiangxiDad on January 26, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Don’t most corporate jets earn their keep by being leased out to others for flights when the corporation is not using it?
I am not making excuses or agreeing with this boondoggle at all, but isn’t that one way corporations make back some of the costs on their jets? Renting them out for use by others?
ihasurnominashun on January 26, 2009 at 1:39 PM
I would just like to thank every goddamned “Republican” that helped this through, including our former candidate for the White House, as well as big-talk, no-action Thaddeus McCotter.
MadisonConservative on January 26, 2009 at 1:40 PM
We already gave them the cash, and without asking for any accountability or fundamental change in behavior. I’m taking the over.
RightOFLeft on January 26, 2009 at 1:40 PM
The Falcon is built in France, at best the interior will be installed in the United States if anything.
They’re selling 2 jets and buying 1 new one so that means they will probably be laying off pilots and crewmembers. Why not keep the 2 older jets, that are fully capable of supporting their business. They can either sell the option on the new jet to another company or cancel the order. It may cost them a couple million, but that’s still better than $50 million.
That money was supposed to be used to lend to customers so they could stimulate the economy.
AZ_Mike on January 26, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Seems ridiculous until you know the plane was ordered long before TARPalooza.
I have no idea how much cash on hand Citibank has, but by and large cash isn’t the problem with our banks, deflation is. And banks are hoarding cash due to said deflation. Many conservatives and fellow supply-siders I usually agree with are still talking about inflation, even hyper-inflation, when everything the FED is doing, and all the signals we are getting from the banks, is that they are in fear for their existence by deflation. The FED is doing everything it can to inflate (reported 70% increase in money supply) and they can’t do it. And they won’t be able to until this delevering is over.
flyfisher on January 26, 2009 at 1:41 PM
So, does that mean that the aircraft will try to surrender in midflight?
My domestic shorthair cat says: Surrender collie, it is your only option.
HornetSting on January 26, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Don’t care. Although I have to admit I wish it was an American company.
Cindy Munford on January 26, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Not just the liberal media. This is our money they’re spending, money they aren’t proving they really needed in the first place.
Esthier on January 26, 2009 at 1:42 PM
The whole point of a private jet is that it is available for flight at a moment’s notice. Otherwise, they would just fly the airlines.
keep the change on January 26, 2009 at 1:42 PM
It’s a con job…and people are falling for it. The next step is for Government to take over these companies and tell them how to spend all of their money…not just the taxes they were given.
Get angry, but understand that this is another step towards socialism.
Asher on January 26, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Tongue in cheek E.
hawkdriver on January 26, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Two years ago it would have been a non-story. Now that they are taking taxpayer money, it is a story and they should cancel the purchase.
pedestrian on January 26, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Well, it could be simply for the CEO’s office and then BOA bought Merrill and BOA’s CEO thought “Hey it’s there, why not use it?”
I’m not defending these people, just saying don’t fall for the trap. Obama is going to be spending just as much of our money redecorating the White House.
The point being is that the government got us into this mess. I think people are starting to miss the forest because of the trees. Forget what the bailout money is being used for, why is it that we are having to bail these companies out anyway?
MobileVideoEngineer on January 26, 2009 at 1:46 PM
No, that only makes it more ridiculous. If they had enough money to buy a new jet before TARP, then they didn’t need our money in the first place.
Government needs to be the last place these people go, not the first in a vain effort to keep up the lifestyles that got them into this mess.
Yes, much of this is the fault of the government, but not all of it. Many of these companies are simply poorly run. A blank check won’t fix that, and neither will government intervention.
Esthier on January 26, 2009 at 1:46 PM
You are exactly right. They are bankrupt; they just haven’t filed.
I’ll tell you the set of books I want to see. I want to see what Bernanke and the FED have hiding on their books. But even Congress can’t get at those books. Were I in Congress I would make it my personal mission for the FED’s books to become public. But again, they can’t be made public because we would have verifiable proof they have lost all semblance of control. What a scam.
We’re screwed
flyfisher on January 26, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Hard to tell these days. I apologize.
Esthier on January 26, 2009 at 1:47 PM
FAA Registry
N-Number Inquiry Results
——————————————————————————–
N488GS is Reserved
Reserved N-Number Type Reservation Fee Paid
Mode S Code 51403370
Reserved Date 12/15/2004
Renewal Date 11/10/2008
Purge Date 01/15/2010
Pending Number Change None
Date Change Authorized None
Reserving Party Name CITIFLIGHT INC/CITIGROUP CORPORATE AVIATION
Street 79 TOWER RD HNGR E2
City WHITE PLAINS
State NEW YORK
Zip Code 10604-1704
County WESTCHESTER
Country UNITED STATES
Mr Gus on January 26, 2009 at 1:47 PM
It’s not surprising that the same folks who claim that Obama has “empowered” Rush Limbaugh to lead the movement are also so tone deaf that they don’t get how this plays among everyday Americans who are against this bailout. Not because it’s socialist, but because its socialist in the direction of the elite. Tax breaks are lumped in with these kinds of things in the publics discourse nowadays. But go ahead and oppose the stimulus for more tax cuts.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 26, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Did they get special GMAC financing and employee purchase rebates? They are just doing their part in stimulating things.
Oh wait, GMAC does not make corporate jets. And there is this underused system called commerical airliens that can get you places you need to go for about $300 a person if you book ahead (vs. about $10,000 a person for that corporate jet). Nevermind.
Mr. Joe on January 26, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Oh, it’s completely ridiculous. We agree. In this instance, I just blame CONgress more than I blame Citibank. I’ve long known those who run Citibank were greedy and foolhardy.
flyfisher on January 26, 2009 at 1:48 PM
If Citigroup doesn’t take delivery on this corporate jet, what happens to the jet manufacturer? Would they become eligible for a government bailout?
The government forces banks to loan money to people they wouldn’t normally make loans to. Those people take out loans they can’t repay, then go into default. The management of the banks throws cash away on ridiculous extravagances, then begs for a bailout from the government that just performed the neat trick of turning 140 million dollars into a blanket of garbage covering the Mall in D.C. I see a surplus of stupidity, with the absolute bottom priorities being fiscal restraint, calm decision making, and a willingness to let anyone involved suffer for bad decisions.
Here’s a radical idea for an economic stimulus plan: how about we let people do business with anyone they want, on the condition they deal honestly and suffer the full consequences of their decisions? We could convert all the unused lobbyist skyscrapers in D.C. into low-income housing for the people left homeless by Fannie Mae.
Palin 2012: Bust a deal, face the Wheel.
Doctor Zero on January 26, 2009 at 1:48 PM
I have my doubts this is true … at least the timeline. You have to order jets long before the bailout came.
tarpon on January 26, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Unless the airline company in France buys a couple hundred Cadillacs.
Rovin on January 26, 2009 at 1:48 PM
For that School that Rush got in a brew ha ha with over global warming, Rush offered to give the kids rides on his corporate jet.
Kids find that FUN.
Mr. Joe on January 26, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Here’s a much better deal for the taxpayers:
TARP: Free Ice Cream!
starfleet_dude on January 26, 2009 at 1:49 PM
TARPON,
Supposedly two years ago.
Cindy Munford on January 26, 2009 at 1:50 PM
I looked at a map of where the ‘Stimulus’ was going by state ( I think on a link here) and it looked like a friggen’ Red State-Blue State Map where NE, WY, MT, ND, AZ and NM received ZERO, and CA and NY received the most.
Paybacks
cntrlfrk on January 26, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Maybe the symbolism/PR is bad, but it isn’t the cost of private jets that is killing the banks – it’s bad loans. Loans forced on them by Frank-n-Dodd.
Don’t get distracted.
pugwriter on January 26, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Serious answer: They don’t care.
One reason we find ourselves in this economic position is because of the types of people rising to the top of these companies. Years back a CEO was there to stay with the company for a long time. The goal was to grow the business and make it competitive for the long term. But over the last decade or two, the people running these companies are there for much different reasons. They have no interest in the long term success of the company. All they care about is a quick, short term gain, a giant retirement package with massive bonus packages and then to get out. Screw the long term success of the company. They got theirs. Thats all that matters.
Zetterson on January 26, 2009 at 1:52 PM
ditto. As for the question, I’d give it until Thursday. I don’t think people care WHICH money paid for this, …it’s the principal. Er, principle.
scalleywag on January 26, 2009 at 1:52 PM
They are very happy with this windfall of your money and your distractions of rush and Gitmo.
This is an issue which most Americans are against.
Your kids should have buttons saying, “Stop Stealing From Me” to remind you everyday of this travesty.
getalife on January 26, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Yes, but you don’t have to take delivery. Sacrifice the deposit. The balance of the price is being paid with bailout money. Without the bailout money, no shiny new jet. The salient point of course is that flying around in corporate jets like this is unnecessary in any case. If airlines are good enough for all other business executives, they are good enough for these business executives.
keep the change on January 26, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Screw the Million Man March.
How about a Million Conservative Kid March–with parental supervision of course. I’m truly beginning to believe that these shitheads in Congress aren’t going to stop the Mickey Mousing around until they literally have a gun in their faces to do the right thing and exercise some common sense.
Somehow we need to wrest this countries back from these people and the losers and sheep that keep sending the likes of Schumer, Frank, Dodd, Reid, and Pelosi to Congress. What is wrong with the states and districts that elect these people.
BuckeyeSam on January 26, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Yes, Rush made that exact point; however, Obama isn’t asking for a bailout.
These people acted as though the money was desperately needed just to keep business afloat. Well, if they can afford to redecorate or buy planes, then clearly that is BS.
I’m not even most angry at the corporations. I’m most angry at Congress who didn’t even bother to make sure these people were serious before signing our money away to them.
They should have told them to sell off what they didn’t need first before a bailout could even be considered. Why we didn’t, is beyond me.
Esthier on January 26, 2009 at 1:54 PM
These corporations are not clean. Lobbyists get Congress to do things. Reps of corporations get these politicians to give them things.
They are both dirty sons of bitches.
blatantblue on January 26, 2009 at 1:55 PM
I just wish my money wasn’t spent to bail these idiots out.
If it’s private money, they can spend it or waste it anyway they want. If it’s my money, that’s a different story.
Clark1 on January 26, 2009 at 1:56 PM
(First try didn’t work)
Corporations aren’t clean either. They lobby politicians to do things for them.
blatantblue on January 26, 2009 at 1:56 PM
1. You basically gave them money without any freakin strings attached
2. You took away the bad parts of capitalism (e.g. if they fail) and instead gave them a giant net under them
3. I suppose if i want to look at this in a purely capitalist way they did help the economy with their purchase but man its hard to defend this garbage
Defector01 on January 26, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Is it true that ACORN plans to buy Citigroup’s old jets with some of the “stimulus” that ACORN expect to get?
BuckeyeSam on January 26, 2009 at 1:57 PM
What are you talking about? He’s wanting to take 1 trillion dollars of our money. He’s not asking for money? We are the ones that are going to be paying for the infrastructure that will be built by people that don’t know what they are doing (because we can’t give these jobs to professionals because they are white and already have jobs).
MobileVideoEngineer on January 26, 2009 at 1:57 PM
This is the reason that most americans do NOT TRUST
wall street or company ceos now..
Because these morons actually are so stupid they dont care about running their companies for the benefit of the usa
no they want to use it like their own piggy bank..
Morons..
jcila on January 26, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Gulfstream deserves to make money, too!
I R A Darth Aggie on January 26, 2009 at 1:59 PM
It would be so much easier to pin this on the Dems if that complete moron George W. Bush didn’t get the ball rolling.
WisCon on January 26, 2009 at 2:00 PM
I’m sure Citigroup will be reducing the interest rate on my credit card soon, since they are so flush with cash.
PattyJ on January 26, 2009 at 2:01 PM
He’s not asking for our money to redecorate the White House.
Esthier on January 26, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Absolutely. But you can’t lobby what’s not there. So I still say, screw Congress.
Weight of Glory on January 26, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Then 600 private jets flew in for the inauguration, twice as many as for “Bush’s rich fat cats” in 2004. Not to mention that taxpayer funded Gulfstream Princess Pelosi flies in.
Socialism makes the private citizens poor and only the proletariat rich. That’s the motivation for politicians that push it – absolute power and all that.
PastorJon on January 26, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Whether they buy a jet or not is their business… we gave them an unnecessary bailout with no strings attached–we should be mad at Congress and the Bush administration who administered it.
On the other hand, I agree with AP… these people have one hell of a tin ear. They genuinely don’t seem to care how they come across.
DaveS on January 26, 2009 at 2:14 PM
The only bad thing about it is they went to the French to get their jets. I mean, Cessna and Gulfstream both make fine jets that can fly the pants off of the Frogs.
steveegg on January 26, 2009 at 2:14 PM
This episode just highlights the folly of financial intervention by the government into private business.
In the private sector, executives may make millions in annual compensation. Some are actually worth it in the results they achieve for the company. As a shareholder, you would not want to see the very costly time of these people wasted in airport departure lounges. A private jet can actually pay for itself by permitting highly-paid employees to spend more of their time doing things that benefit the company.
However, when the government pours tax money into a company bailout, the taxpayer naturally feels that he has a stake in the way the company is run. Seeming indulgences like corporate jets offend the egalitarian impulse of the general population who aren’t really interested in hearing why such an extravagance might make sense. The politicians then become offended also, and the company is forced to change its practices so they appear less offensive to the man in the street.
The need to promote an acceptable appearance of parsimony thus trumps real economic effiency. In the case of the jet, the company’s executives now spend their time less productively, and the company suffers.
And then everybody is surprised when the company fails to perform to expectations, and more government money is needed.
Cicero43 on January 26, 2009 at 2:14 PM
I cannot comment on how citigroup uses thier corporate jets, but as a corporate pilot for other companies in the midwest, I am getting a little sick and tired of the bad press corporate jets are getting!!!
Contrary to popular belief, a corporate jet is not just used for trips for the CEO and CFO of companies for personal use. A jet can be a very useful and cost effective tool for a business. I have flown everyone from the CEO’s of companies to the person that check’s you out at your local hardware store.
I can go on and on trying to educate people how business jets are used and why they are good for some companies and not good for others. Bottom line is, it should be up to the company to decide what is best for them, not the gov’t telling them what to do.
Storm Chaser on January 26, 2009 at 2:17 PM
He’s going to use his own??
BigWyo on January 26, 2009 at 2:18 PM
lol young lady, your comment did not warrant an apology. You’re one of the nicest posters here.
hawkdriver on January 26, 2009 at 2:25 PM
The bottom line is that the aerospace industry doesn’t just pull a plane off the lot and sell it to you. It’s ordered. Then most of the time has to be built. Why should the company that made that jet eat the loss?
hawkdriver on January 26, 2009 at 2:28 PM
PattyJ on January 26, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Um, bad news. They jacked up my rate from 8% to 25% before I called and raised holy hell. The reason they gave? “Market Conditions.” It’s back down, but they are screwing people twice. Once with the bailout and once with the rates.
theotherKate on January 26, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Good point, but you’re talking about executives who asked for our help to the tune of billions of dollars. I’d rather see them going through airport security and sitting in a terminal wasting time and being a little humble. You can flaunt success by buying a jet if you’re successful. This company is not.
scalleywag on January 26, 2009 at 2:29 PM
HA HA HA!
The outrage should be reserved for congress and the President.
When you give a six year old a loaded gun, don’t be mad at him when someone gets hurt.
edgehead on January 26, 2009 at 2:40 PM
I thought I was the owner of this company. My tax $ are paying for it.
sdd on January 26, 2009 at 2:56 PM
I wants some bailout money before it’s all gone. I’ll spend it to ’stimulate the economy’. New house, new car, new computer, new HD TV. See, I’m being selfless AND patriotic.
You’re welcome. $100K in small bills would be nice.
GarandFan on January 26, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Obama just got new pimped out rides at $500K+ and we are not mad at a government that should be taken over by the bankruptcy court but for the fact they print money.
jukin on January 26, 2009 at 3:05 PM
I hear the HotAir Corporate jet is made of balsa and rubber bands.
Blake on January 26, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Thanks.
We completely agree here.
No more than any other president before him. And considering he’s paid by the us, there really is no such thing.
This is a benefit of his job. Obama’s not special or less deserving in this sense.
Citigroup, on the other hand, made a claim of poverty that clearly is not true.
Esthier on January 26, 2009 at 3:38 PM
I don’t mind CEOs flying around in corporate jets–for safety, for convenience and for the better use of their time than the way the rest of us have to travel. But this is nothing short of an insult to taxpayers. Makes John Thain’s $1.2M office reno look like chump change.
redfoxbluestate on January 26, 2009 at 3:41 PM
…Wednesday AM. I don’t believe the Obama Press junket will be able to come up with anything to stray from this item in the coming 36 hours.
So, Wednesday AM email blast, claiming they’re ready to “walk back into our heart as well as our wallets…” Or something as silly.
ChipDWood on January 26, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Thain probably deserved 10x what he was paid by the Merrill shareholders. If Merrill had stuck with Stan O’Neal their shares would have been worth $0, rather than the $11 that Thain sold the company for.
The Citi guys? Maybe they can use their jet to scare up some more sovereign wealth fund money, though I doubt they’ll get any more from Prince Alaweed.
dedalus on January 26, 2009 at 3:58 PM
This is going to be the Jet To Nowhere…
redfoxbluestate on January 26, 2009 at 4:02 PM
I can understand the need for a CJ… but really in this climate, perhaps they should be moving to the NetJet model or back to charter only.
James on January 26, 2009 at 4:04 PM
When did you all become such communists? Is it suddenly OK with all of you to selectively abolish contract law?
In Arlington Virginia, there are eco-nuts that would have a law against cars if they could. There’s plenty of public transportation for me as an alternative, and yes, there are times during which I regret the three year old decision to purchase a Corvette. Driving a gas guzzler does not make me a popular person among my environmentalist neighbors, but just because it’s bad “P.R.” with them, doesn’t mean I can just stop making payments on the car.
I continue makiing payments on the vehicle, and if I don’t want it, I’ll find a way to divest the asset at a fair market value before it depreciates.
The deposit on a jet is not small potatoes. It’s undoubtedly far more than the jet could possibly depreciate with a year of ownership. By all means, the tax payer benefits if Citi goes ahead with the order, puts no hours on the plane, then later divests it, rather than throwing away millions and cancelling, perhaps even sending the manufacturer of that plane into bankruptcy. It’s not their fault citi is run by a bunch of nitwits,. why should they not be entitles to the same guarantee on citi’s liabilities as anyone else?
If anyone wants to whine, tell it to the folks that stood in the way of bankruptcy.
Medicated on January 26, 2009 at 4:05 PM
And how many Congressman took private jets and limos to the inauguration of BHO? And we all know how competent they are.
We’re screwed every day. Each day it’s just a different boyfriend.
Mr_Magoo on January 26, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Yeah, they should have killed the order or delayed delivery. They must be tone-deaf from a PR standpoint. Or maybe Pandit figures he needs a high-speed escape available when he’s eventually chased through the streets by a mob of angry shareholders.
Bernie Madoff’s investors may wind up with more value than Citi’s investors.
dedalus on January 26, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »