Big 3 CEOs have private jets, but they can beg too!
11-19-2008 | 07:59 PM
#1
Thread Starter
The Good Twin
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 20,639
From: Wild Wild West, UTAH!
Big 3 CEOs have private jets, but they can beg too!
Remember.. The big three CEO's are bloody rich, but they should be able to beg for money!!! It's really the US government and US taxpayers who should pay for their private jets and $100 steaks.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/19/aut...ets/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/19/aut...ets/index.html
Originally Posted by CNN
"There is a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hand, saying that they're going to be trimming down and streamlining their businesses," Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-New York, told the chief executive officers of Ford, Chrysler and General Motors at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee.
"It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo. It kind of makes you a little bit suspicious."
He added, "couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled or something to get here? It would have at least sent a message that you do get it."
Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, asked the three CEOs to "raise their hand if they flew here commercial. Let the record show, no hands went up. Second, I'm going to ask you to raise your hand if you are planning to sell your jet in place now and fly back commercial. Let the record show, no hands went up."
The executives -- Alan Mulally of Ford, Robert Nardelli of Chrysler and Richard Wagoner of GM -- did not specifically respond to those remarks. In their testimony, they said they are streamlining business operations in general
When contacted by CNN, the three auto companies defended the CEOs' travel as standard procedure.
Like many other major corporations, all three have policies requiring their CEOs to travel in private jets for safety reasons.
"Making a big to-do about this when issues vital to the jobs of millions of Americans are being discussed in Washington is diverting attention away from a critical debate that will determine the future health of the auto industry and the American economy," GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson said in a statement.
Chrysler spokeswoman Lori McTavish said in a statement, "while always being mindful of company costs, all business travel requires the highest standard of safety for all employees."
Ford spokeswoman Kelli Felker pointed to the company's travel policy and did not provide a statement elaborating.
But those statements did little to mollify the critics.
"If it is simply the company's money at stake, then only the shareholders can be upset or feel as it it might be excessive," said Thomas Schatz, president of the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste.
But in this case, he said, "it's outrageous."
"They're coming to Washington to beg the taxpayers to help them. It's unseemly to be running around on a $20,000 flight versus a $500 round trip," Schatz added.
The companies did not disclose how much the flights cost.
Analysts contacted by CNN noted that the prices vary with the size of the plane and the crew, and whether the aircraft is leased or owned by the company.
advertisement
Analyst Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group said that $20,000 is a legitimate ballpark figure for a round trip corporate jet flight between Detroit, Michigan, and Washington. iReport.com: Share your thoughts on the 'Big Three' bailout
When asked whether they plan to change their travel policies as part of the restructuring needed to shore up their finances, none of the companies answered directly. But they said they have cut back on travel in general as revenues have fallen.
"It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo. It kind of makes you a little bit suspicious."
He added, "couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled or something to get here? It would have at least sent a message that you do get it."
Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, asked the three CEOs to "raise their hand if they flew here commercial. Let the record show, no hands went up. Second, I'm going to ask you to raise your hand if you are planning to sell your jet in place now and fly back commercial. Let the record show, no hands went up."
The executives -- Alan Mulally of Ford, Robert Nardelli of Chrysler and Richard Wagoner of GM -- did not specifically respond to those remarks. In their testimony, they said they are streamlining business operations in general
When contacted by CNN, the three auto companies defended the CEOs' travel as standard procedure.
Like many other major corporations, all three have policies requiring their CEOs to travel in private jets for safety reasons.
"Making a big to-do about this when issues vital to the jobs of millions of Americans are being discussed in Washington is diverting attention away from a critical debate that will determine the future health of the auto industry and the American economy," GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson said in a statement.
Chrysler spokeswoman Lori McTavish said in a statement, "while always being mindful of company costs, all business travel requires the highest standard of safety for all employees."
Ford spokeswoman Kelli Felker pointed to the company's travel policy and did not provide a statement elaborating.
But those statements did little to mollify the critics.
"If it is simply the company's money at stake, then only the shareholders can be upset or feel as it it might be excessive," said Thomas Schatz, president of the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste.
But in this case, he said, "it's outrageous."
"They're coming to Washington to beg the taxpayers to help them. It's unseemly to be running around on a $20,000 flight versus a $500 round trip," Schatz added.
The companies did not disclose how much the flights cost.
Analysts contacted by CNN noted that the prices vary with the size of the plane and the crew, and whether the aircraft is leased or owned by the company.
advertisement
Analyst Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group said that $20,000 is a legitimate ballpark figure for a round trip corporate jet flight between Detroit, Michigan, and Washington. iReport.com: Share your thoughts on the 'Big Three' bailout
When asked whether they plan to change their travel policies as part of the restructuring needed to shore up their finances, none of the companies answered directly. But they said they have cut back on travel in general as revenues have fallen.
11-20-2008 | 11:29 AM
#2
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 229
I understand how those poor CEO's feel.
I didn't like being judged when I showed up at the soup kitchen in a Limo... they even gave my chauffeur a funny look when I sent him out to pick up the soup for me.
Don't they understand that I'm saving money on food to keep my chauffeur and house staff employed?
I didn't like being judged when I showed up at the soup kitchen in a Limo... they even gave my chauffeur a funny look when I sent him out to pick up the soup for me.
Don't they understand that I'm saving money on food to keep my chauffeur and house staff employed?
11-20-2008 | 11:52 AM
#3
Über User
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,532
From: lemont, Illinois
lame.... i cant believe i read that. they are going to fail because american car companies blow and the world knows it and shows like top gear express it openly. only cars they like are the ford GT old school muscle cars and the high end corvettes the new ones Z06 or ZR1 so unless you intend on buying those only they are screwed.
11-20-2008 | 12:29 PM
#4
Stupid Hurricanes...
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,481
From: louisiana
i dont think you can necessarily kill Ford,GMC and Chrysler. They prob will go out but most people are hopping they will go back to something simple. they have over production of crappy cars. I dont want to see a company like ford be sent down the drain but then i dont want to pay for their screw ups. Even if they get this money which i kinda hoping not how long will it last them? and how sure are we that they will pay it back?
11-20-2008 | 02:22 PM
#6
Haterade by da gallon!
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,306
From: Valdosta GA
Originally Posted by snwbrderphat540
lame.... i cant believe i read that. they are going to fail because american car companies blow and the world knows it and shows like top gear express it openly. only cars they like are the ford GT old school muscle cars and the high end corvettes the new ones Z06 or ZR1 so unless you intend on buying those only they are screwed.
Last edited by 280zx2by2; 11-20-2008 at 02:25 PM.
11-20-2008 | 02:27 PM
#7
Haterade by da gallon!
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,306
From: Valdosta GA
Originally Posted by Bleach
Obama will make it manditory that we drive government approved cars. Those will be US made cars that the government funded. Get your ration of gas and go to your government assigned job. 
so to keep score...
we bailed out the banks with 7 billion dollars and were told that the goverment was not going to do it again...
ok it happened again with a few other banks that needed some help BUT!!! its not going to happen again...
well they arent banks so its cool to "loan" money to GM and Ford
but i ask what of toyota? they provide millions of jobs for people here in the US... would we bail them out too if they needed it?
Last edited by 280zx2by2; 11-20-2008 at 02:32 PM.
11-20-2008 | 02:46 PM
#8
Thread Starter
The Good Twin
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 20,639
From: Wild Wild West, UTAH!
Originally Posted by 280zx2by2
dont you just love communism... its the wave of the furure!!!! ALL HAIL OBAMA!!!!
so to keep score...
we bailed out the banks with 7 billion dollars and were told that the goverment was not going to do it again...
ok it happened again with a few other banks that needed some help BUT!!! its not going to happen again...
well they arent banks so its cool to "loan" money to GM and Ford
but i ask what of toyota? they provide millions of jobs for people here in the US... would we bail them out too if they needed it?
so to keep score...
we bailed out the banks with 7 billion dollars and were told that the goverment was not going to do it again...
ok it happened again with a few other banks that needed some help BUT!!! its not going to happen again...
well they arent banks so its cool to "loan" money to GM and Ford
but i ask what of toyota? they provide millions of jobs for people here in the US... would we bail them out too if they needed it?
#1... Communism has never worked, because the greedy / rich are in power, not the poor. And, communism brings everyone else down to being poor.
#2... Foreign auto companies (such as Toyota) don't pay their employees a pension (aka retirement fund) and some don't offer health insurance to the normal worker, thus saving millions (if not billions) of dollars per year.
#3... Toyota isn't a US based business.
11-20-2008 | 04:24 PM
#10
Thread Starter
The Good Twin
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 20,639
From: Wild Wild West, UTAH!
du yer homewerk gurlz! This topic has been on the news for years.
http://www.risingsunofnihon.com/2006...s-legacy-cost/ (2006 article... so numbers are likely out of date).
http://www.risingsunofnihon.com/2006...s-legacy-cost/ (2006 article... so numbers are likely out of date).
Not only must GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler charge more for their cars in order to pay on pensions, the big three cannot conduct the R&D they need to keep up with the Toyotas and Hondas….a vicious cycle to say the least.
Toyota does not have the same problem.
Here's why.
1. Toyota has been in the US a much shorter time. Only 258 workers have retired, and they retired early. Toyota won't see its first 25 year veterans retire until 2013.
2. Toyota uses a defined-contribution pension plan instead of defined benefit plan. Employees pay into the fund toward their post-retirement packages.
3. Toyota is able to predict future financial burdens whereas the Big Three cannot.
4. Toyota is operating its own medical center at the new San Antonio plant - the best way to cut health costs is to find the problems early and treat them sooner. Preventative maintenance is cheaper than corrective.
Toyota does not have the same problem.
Here's why.
1. Toyota has been in the US a much shorter time. Only 258 workers have retired, and they retired early. Toyota won't see its first 25 year veterans retire until 2013.
2. Toyota uses a defined-contribution pension plan instead of defined benefit plan. Employees pay into the fund toward their post-retirement packages.
3. Toyota is able to predict future financial burdens whereas the Big Three cannot.
4. Toyota is operating its own medical center at the new San Antonio plant - the best way to cut health costs is to find the problems early and treat them sooner. Preventative maintenance is cheaper than corrective.
11-20-2008 | 04:39 PM
#11
Über User
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,532
From: lemont, Illinois
sounds alot like a typical retirement fund to me similar to 401k where you are assisted in saving. you sir spread propaganda! trying to make it seem like toyota had no plan at all for retirement and once you retired then **** you yah american bastard!
11-20-2008 | 04:43 PM
#12
Thread Starter
The Good Twin
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 20,639
From: Wild Wild West, UTAH!
Originally Posted by snwbrderphat540
sounds alot like a typical retirement fund to me similar to 401k where you are assisted in saving.
Toyota isn't MATCHING anything... they make their employees pay into the system.
11-20-2008 | 06:19 PM
#13
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,271
From: z junk yard
Damn the Z.O.G. government ! To Hell with anti-christ Obama ! and to hell with driving government cars ! Ill drive my 300zx until gas prices hit 10 dollars a gallon then ill walk or snap and take control of the world ! all in favor for Nismo619 for Presdent ! Free gas every day for all " Z " car drivers ! 240z 260z 280z 280zx 300zx -z31 300zx - z-32 and 350 an 370 z !!!
Long live NISMO619 !!!
Long live NISMO619 !!!
11-20-2008 | 09:58 PM
#16
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 38
I'm absolutely appalled by this, but at the same time I'm not entirely convinced that this wasn't an intentional thing. Yes, they are asking for bailouts.. but at the same time they have to know that even $100billion isn't going to help until they change the way that they do business, which, in the case of GM, can't happen because the UAW is more in control of their business than they are. Bob Lutz has done everything in his power to turn GM around (and doing a fantastic job of it), but there's only so much that you can do when you are forced to pay the guy that bolts up the front bumper an average of $65/hr.
It seems to me that the only way that GM can return to being a profitable company at this point is to file for chapter 11, thus allowing them to actually regain control of their company by having the ability to fire those that don't even have to work their full shift because they know that if GM attempts to fire them they will put their (GM's) ***** in a vice.
The UAW owns GM at this point, and if they're ever to be successful again they need to change that.
As far as Ford is concerned, I personally feel that if they would just stop being so goddamn stubborn about pulling their European market and placing them over here (Focus diesel anyone?) they could really turn around relatively quickly. They had a real chance a while back when there were rumors about bringing the Focus RS over here, but they decided that it was too important to protect the ego's of the (failed) American market designers. In my opinion they need to cut back production on the Explorer/Expedition, cut the Excursion altogether (if they haven't yet), bring the edm focus over here and offer a turbo diesel model, offer a diesel model of the f150, and attempt to increase their stake in Mazda.
Chrysler? Chrysler is failed anyways.. They are extremely happy with just producing cars that meet the bare minimum requirements to make a small number of people happy. Let Ford or GM take them over and improve their entire lineup.
Of course I'm biased, every Dodge truck that I've ever been in has been a complete POS. The last Dodge truck I drove was new (700ish miles) and the transmission was already ****ing up.
Hmmm, last time I checked two of their favorite cars were the Holden Monaro and the VXR8 (the Pontiac GTO and the Pontiac G8GT). Richard Hammond has said that he loves the new Challenger, and James May loves the new CTS-V. On top of that the Cobalt SS/TC is the fastest FWD car to ever go around Nurburgring.
Jeremy Clarkson hates America, but has been singing the praises of a lot of GM cars throughout the years.
It seems to me that the only way that GM can return to being a profitable company at this point is to file for chapter 11, thus allowing them to actually regain control of their company by having the ability to fire those that don't even have to work their full shift because they know that if GM attempts to fire them they will put their (GM's) ***** in a vice.
The UAW owns GM at this point, and if they're ever to be successful again they need to change that.
As far as Ford is concerned, I personally feel that if they would just stop being so goddamn stubborn about pulling their European market and placing them over here (Focus diesel anyone?) they could really turn around relatively quickly. They had a real chance a while back when there were rumors about bringing the Focus RS over here, but they decided that it was too important to protect the ego's of the (failed) American market designers. In my opinion they need to cut back production on the Explorer/Expedition, cut the Excursion altogether (if they haven't yet), bring the edm focus over here and offer a turbo diesel model, offer a diesel model of the f150, and attempt to increase their stake in Mazda.
Chrysler? Chrysler is failed anyways.. They are extremely happy with just producing cars that meet the bare minimum requirements to make a small number of people happy. Let Ford or GM take them over and improve their entire lineup.
Of course I'm biased, every Dodge truck that I've ever been in has been a complete POS. The last Dodge truck I drove was new (700ish miles) and the transmission was already ****ing up.
Originally Posted by snwbrderphat540
lame.... i cant believe i read that. they are going to fail because american car companies blow and the world knows it and shows like top gear express it openly. only cars they like are the ford GT old school muscle cars and the high end corvettes the new ones Z06 or ZR1 so unless you intend on buying those only they are screwed.
Jeremy Clarkson hates America, but has been singing the praises of a lot of GM cars throughout the years.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Bookmarks
