U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Thread summary:

Jet makers hit hard due to unfair media coverage, aviation business feeling economic downturn, cost of flying private business jet versus commercial first class

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-03-2009, 05:47 PM
 
957 posts, read 860,768 times
Reputation: 195

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by drjones96 View Post
Our commander and chief flys on a plane the dworfs our planes. He's one man flying on a 747 with an entire support staff.
I never saw a Republican fault Bush for flying on a personal 747. Are you saying you did?

Quote:
Or how about Nancy Pelosi flying back and forth to CA on a government issue 757 at about $32k per flight. Yeah...that's how she gets around if you wondered.
That does seem excessive. However, I'm not sure what the savings would be if she flew commercial and she had to have security staff in seats surrounding her and the airports are disrupted as she passes through. That could easily exceed $32K, if only to other passengers. She is third in line for the presidency, and that deserves upgraded protection.

Quote:
How about some more irony? After Sept 11th the federal government issued letters to CEO's of major companies telling them it may be in thier best interests for security reasons to fly on private planes! Here these guys are being dogged for using an asset their company owns to do exactly what they were told to do!!!
Uh, different administration now. No more fearmongering for profit. It's that simple.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-03-2009, 05:54 PM
 
957 posts, read 860,768 times
Reputation: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
Then you are infavor of all citizens paying at least some income tax if they have income? That would stop the freeloader mentality of many people. They want more they pay more. That IMo is the onyl way to be far when increasing taxes.Bring the rich to teh 39% but also raise very other class .
The rich are the freeloaders and the welfare lovers. They are the ones who requested the lion's share of the national debt, and they are the ones who are most angry when there is talk to pay down the debt. The poorest workers provide a service to the rich--cheap labor. They do enough for this country & the rich. It doesn't anyone any good when the cheapest laborers starve to death to pay taxes. If the rich want them to pay taxes, they can pay them more first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 10:12 PM
 
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
6,203 posts, read 15,010,458 times
Reputation: 7951
To the OP, I understand what you're saying. I know a pilot who works for a charter organization, and for the type of aircraft he flies, a lot of very expensive training is required to him to stay licensed. If the company's revenue doesn't even cover that training, then what?

However, I think some companies' fleets are excessive. I laughed when I read that Bank of America is downsizing by selling three jets out of nine. So they'll have six left? Wow, times are tight...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 10:38 PM
 
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,473 posts, read 13,409,088 times
Reputation: 6344
Quote:
Originally Posted by M3 Mitch View Post
I know what you mean, OP. The time of any CEO worth the title is expensive, because it's valuable, it's valuable because he directs the company down the most profitable path. It does not make sense to have this guy standing in line to be shaken down by TSA. This of course begs the question as to who exactly *should* have to stand in line to be shaken down by TSA, but that's a different topic.

Reminds me of the stupid "Yacht Tax" soak the rich scheme from a few years back. Did this hurt rich people? No, they already had their yachts, thanks. What it did do, is hurt yacht *makers*.

If you spend a lot of time making your company FAIL, then how much is your time worth?

AIG has CEO's. They lost 60 billion in 3 months. If they had flown commercial, would they have lost even more? The mind boggles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2009, 07:33 AM
 
Location: Kansas
3,855 posts, read 11,459,937 times
Reputation: 1706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heiwos View Post
I never saw a Republican fault Bush for flying on a personal 747. Are you saying you did?
No one is at fault. What I'm saying is it is extremely hipocritical for The President (Either Bush OR Obama) to tell some of these companies that they should fly commercial when they themselves do not. This is just a prime example of polititians supporting their own agenda. They put on this civil servant facade like they aren't paid well and live a substandard lifestyle to please their constituency. Meanwhile they get perks that only the elite do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heiwos View Post
That does seem excessive. However, I'm not sure what the savings would be if she flew commercial and she had to have security staff in seats surrounding her and the airports are disrupted as she passes through. That could easily exceed $32K, if only to other passengers. She is third in line for the presidency, and that deserves upgraded protection..
Moderator cut: .

We would gladly sell them an 8 passenger business jet that would be much more efficient than the 757 and pretty much do the same job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heiwos View Post
Uh, different administration now. No more fearmongering for profit. It's that simple.
Do you mean to tell me that after 9/11 you thought it would be a grand idea to have our country's leaders -public and private sector- flying around commercial?

Last edited by toosie; 06-24-2017 at 05:19 AM.. Reason: Defamation and off topic
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2009, 08:05 AM
 
Location: Kansas
3,855 posts, read 11,459,937 times
Reputation: 1706
Quote:
Originally Posted by SandyCo View Post
To the OP, I understand what you're saying. I know a pilot who works for a charter organization, and for the type of aircraft he flies, a lot of very expensive training is required to him to stay licensed. If the company's revenue doesn't even cover that training, then what?

However, I think some companies' fleets are excessive. I laughed when I read that Bank of America is downsizing by selling three jets out of nine. So they'll have six left? Wow, times are tight...
To me that many planes for a company that large comes as no surprise. I'm sure they have a CEO who flies on one of them. Then they probably use 2 or 3 for the next teir of their executive leadership. They have (or had) 4 Gulfstream business jets which are likely the ones used by their top execs. The rest (I haven't found a record of what other planes they have) are likely smaller, less expensive planes for the next teir of management.

Edit: From an artical I found that they had 9 aircraft. They said they are selling 3. They are keeping 4 Gulfstreams (don't know the models) and 1 Dassault Falcon (don't know the model but it's likely NOT a Falcon 7X like Citi had on order). That leaves one other plane they are keeping. And I don't know what airplanes they sold.

Last edited by drjones96; 03-04-2009 at 08:29 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2009, 10:03 AM
 
957 posts, read 860,768 times
Reputation: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by drjones96 View Post
No one is at fault. What I'm saying is it is extremely hipocritical for The President (Either Bush OR Obama) to tell some of these companies that they should fly commercial when they themselves do not. This is just a prime example of polititians supporting their own agenda. They put on this civil servant facade like they aren't paid well and live a substandard lifestyle to please their constituency. Meanwhile they get perks that only the elite do.
Safe to say the vast majority of the public disagrees with this. It's cheaper for Obama to fly on Air Force One. He needs protection and a flexible schedule. It would cost the country more for him to fly commercial, esp. including the cost of disruption to others. Remember, we live in a democracy (so far), so the public indirectly ordered those planes.

Quote:
We would gladly sell them an 8 passenger business jet that would be much more efficient than the 757 and pretty much do the same job.
I'll look more into this. I agree that a 757 for her seems excessive.

Quote:
Do you mean to tell me that after 9/11 you thought it would be a grand idea to have our country's leaders -public and private sector- flying around commercial?
Other than the top-most public leaders, sure. It was a little band of terrorists. Even if Al Qaeda had more cells ready to go they wouldn't have wasted them when airport security was so tight after 9/11. I flew right after the airlines started flying again, to get cheap deals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2009, 10:23 AM
 
11,564 posts, read 17,491,775 times
Reputation: 17201
Air Force One and the 747 debate - Dude, HE'S THE PREZ. Give the guy a break. If anyone needs a 747 with a tons of electronic gear and safety gear and space for his staff and a place to sleep so he doesn't screw up and push the nuke button instead of the room service button, it's him. You want the leader of the free world to arrive on Jetblue?

Congressmen and all that - screw them, take commercial. I do agree they had these plans for this crazy expensive helicopter fleet for the executive office that is running billions. Scrap that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2009, 11:04 AM
 
Location: Kansas
3,855 posts, read 11,459,937 times
Reputation: 1706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heiwos View Post
Safe to say the vast majority of the public disagrees with this. It's cheaper for Obama to fly on Air Force One. He needs protection and a flexible schedule. It would cost the country more for him to fly commercial, esp. including the cost of disruption to others. Remember, we live in a democracy (so far), so the public indirectly ordered those planes.
I do not disagree with the president's use of Air Force One. I do think it is warranted. Full Stop.

I also do not disagree with other high ranking public officials using private aircraft to get around. Full Stop.

What I disagree with is these same public officials - who use these planes - publicly flogging top executives at some of the worlds largest corporations for using their own planes that their company paid for for the sole purpose of transporting their leadership.

What I disagree with is these officials pressuring these companies to cancel orders for new planes that were probably on order years ago...before they took a dime from TARP.

When they are losing billions (10's...100's of billions) and they are only paying $2mil (if that) a year per plane between the maintenance, fuel, pilot salaries, etc....it's a drop in the bucket, man. Selling off their planes is a PR move and everybody knows it. It's not going to save their company. You're talking about maybe shaving 0.01% off their operating expenses!

Why the scrutiny then? Because flying around on a business jet sends a bad message to the American tax payer? Ever stop and think what the sale of aircraft does for generating taxes? Or how about what it does for generating high wage incomes for as many as a million citizens in the US......who pay federal income taxes, buy cars (taxes), groceries (taxes), as well as other goods (taxes taxes taxes)?

You want to talk about how taxation is the way out? Then instead of downplaying corporate America's need for business jets you should support it as a legitimate business expense that will earn 10's if not 100's of billions in revenue yearly (directly and indirectly).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2009, 11:10 AM
 
Location: Kansas
3,855 posts, read 11,459,937 times
Reputation: 1706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Air Force One and the 747 debate - Dude, HE'S THE PREZ. Give the guy a break. If anyone needs a 747 with a tons of electronic gear and safety gear and space for his staff and a place to sleep so he doesn't screw up and push the nuke button instead of the room service button, it's him. You want the leader of the free world to arrive on Jetblue?

Congressmen and all that - screw them, take commercial. I do agree they had these plans for this crazy expensive helicopter fleet for the executive office that is running billions. Scrap that.
You're saying AF1 is not a waste of money but a modernized Marine 1 is a complete waste? The cost overrun was likely a direct result of the requirements being a moving target. I think it's a mistake. They're going to have to replace their current fleet of helicopters eventually....and when they do it'll cost them even more than this time around would have. They've already spent billions on the developement....and to cancel it now is as good as taking all those billions and throwing it all into a bonfire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top