Would you believe it? Wall St. fat cats have escaped the scorn heaped on the CEOs of the three auto companies who dared to fly to DC in corporate jets. AIG was bailed out to the tune of150 billion taxpayer dollarsandflys a fleet of 7 corporate jets.
Quote:
Insurance giant American International Group Inc., which has received about $150 billion in bailout money, has one of the largest fleets among bailout recipients, with seven planes, according to a review of Federal Aviation Administration records.
If I had anything to sat about it, that money would be withdrawn until those jet were sold...I did not agree with their bailout anyway it all BS, Wall St needed to fall flat; so I am just a little PO'd about that...
They were certainly not under the same scrunity for about 10 times the money...
Wall St fat cats = Political friends
__________________
Bowtech Destroyer 350,Elite XLR, Crimson Talon 125's and NAP Bloodrunners also 125 Grim Reapers
I suspect that those seven jets were all paid for long before the bailout. In many cases, I suspect that it is more cost/time effective for executives to fly in company jets. i.e. The Detroit Execs... You KNOW that they flew down to DC with a contingent of lawyers and financial guys in tow. It wasn't just the CEO flying down with a stripper or two... Flying down together on the corporate jet, they can do business/prep work for the Congressional testimony. If they had flown commercial, they couldn't have done any of that. So, all those lawyers bill their travel to the airport time, waiting in line at the airport time, flight time, waiting for your bags to arrive time, etc., etc., etc., and THEN they bill their testimony preparation time after everyone has arrived at the hotel. It is, simply, idiotic to presume, at least in the auto executives case, that it would have been more cost effective and a better use of time for everyone to fly commercial.
Yes, but, he's a politician. Do you really expect him to worry about time and cost effectiveness? And, he's only going a few of miles, from Delaware to DC...
I suspect that those seven jets were all paid for long before the bailout. In many cases, I suspect that it is more cost/time effective for executives to fly in company jets. i.e. The Detroit Execs... You KNOW that they flew down to DC with a contingent of lawyers and financial guys in tow. It wasn't just the CEO flying down with a stripper or two... Flying down together on the corporate jet, they can do business/prep work for the Congressional testimony. If they had flown commercial, they couldn't have done any of that. So, all those lawyers bill their travel to the airport time, waiting in line at the airport time, flight time, waiting for your bags to arrive time, etc., etc., etc., and THEN they bill their testimony preparation time after everyone has arrived at the hotel. It is, simply, idiotic to presume, at least in the auto executives case, that it would have been more cost effective and a better use of time for everyone to fly commercial.
True. If you follow the "no jets" stuff to its logical end, they'd not use cell phones either. These are key people addressing million dollar questions with regularity. Any stockholder with half a brain would chastise them if they wound up sitting on the runway waiting for four hours to take off on a commercial airliner (which I did recently) as they sit next to some 3 year old puking his Cheerios on their laptops.
On the surface, it might feel lke to fun to beat them over the head for what seems like arrogance, but you need to at least try to understand business at those levels (and as I type that I KNOW many on this board won't because they can't).
I suspect that those seven jets were all paid for long before the bailout. In many cases, I suspect that it is more cost/time effective for executives to fly in company jets. i.e. The Detroit Execs... You KNOW that they flew down to DC with a contingent of lawyers and financial guys in tow. It wasn't just the CEO flying down with a stripper or two... Flying down together on the corporate jet, they can do business/prep work for the Congressional testimony. If they had flown commercial, they couldn't have done any of that. So, all those lawyers bill their travel to the airport time, waiting in line at the airport time, flight time, waiting for your bags to arrive time, etc., etc., etc., and THEN they bill their testimony preparation time after everyone has arrived at the hotel. It is, simply, idiotic to presume, at least in the auto executives case, that it would have been more cost effective and a better use of time for everyone to fly commercial.
True. If you follow the "no jets" stuff to its logical end, they'd not use cell phones either. These are key people addressing million dollar questions with regularity. Any stockholder with half a brain would chastise them if they wound up sitting on the runway waiting for four hours to take off on a commercial airliner (which I did recently) as they sit next to some 3 year old puking his Cheerios on their laptops.
On the surface, it might feel lke to fun to beat them over the head for what seems like arrogance, but you need to at least try to understand business at those levels (and as I type that I KNOW many on this board won't because they can't).
Why use an expensive laptop? The ancient Chinese could add stuff up pretty efficiently on an abacus... and I bet you could find one that wouldn't be seriously damaged by soggy cheerios...
I suspect that those seven jets were all paid for long before the bailout. In many cases, I suspect that it is more cost/time effective for executives to fly in company jets. i.e. The Detroit Execs... You KNOW that they flew down to DC with a contingent of lawyers and financial guys in tow. It wasn't just the CEO flying down with a stripper or two... Flying down together on the corporate jet, they can do business/prep work for the Congressional testimony. If they had flown commercial, they couldn't have done any of that. So, all those lawyers bill their travel to the airport time, waiting in line at the airport time, flight time, waiting for your bags to arrive time, etc., etc., etc., and THEN they bill their testimony preparation time after everyone has arrived at the hotel. It is, simply, idiotic to presume, at least in the auto executives case, that it would have been more cost effective and a better use of time for everyone to fly commercial.
+1
Though it makes little common sense to the casual observer, it IS more efficient time-wise to utilize chartered/owned aircraft rather than flying like Joe Average must when he's on vacation.
While in the military, we often used Operational Support Airlift transports, anything from a lumbering King-Air prop job to a Lear. Not only was even the pokey propeller airplane often quicker getting from one end of the country to the other, even with at least one refueling stop (take out the time spent in security, waiting at the gate, layovers and connections, waiting at the bag claim, ...), but you COULD also conduct business enroute. Ever wonder why you never heard the two military guys next to you talking about classified stuff on your last United Airlines flight? Maybe those corporations have "secrets" too that they don't want to risk a bystander overhearing? (after all, they have to have an edge over their competition, don't they?). Unfortunately, there were never enough of those planes to avoid spending a good portion of my working life (and probably your tax dollars) parked on a bench in commercial airport terminals across the land.
And, to top that off, thesecorporations'jets likely don'tjust sit at the FBO collecting dust while an executive's not using them. They're often "pooled" with other executive aircraft and rechartered, either by other businesses, by celebrities (why do they get a pass here?),or by people who do things liketaking organs from one end of the country to the other for transplant . Imagine the cost of an organ transplant if the hospital had to maintain its own Gulfstream IV?
Surely, they ARE an expensive proposition, but corporate aircraft aren't just the "toys" you see in the movies about rich guys.
Location: On an Island in the west coast of New England
Posts: 13,132
RE: Wall St. Fat Cats Still Flying in Jets
Iagree. When you have someone who makes tens of thousands of dollars an hour or more"¦.. it is cost affective to get them there ASAP. I don"™t have a problem with the corporate jets.
__________________
Too busy with fishing to spend much time here.
I agree with the points made about corporate jets but I think it's plain irresponsible for the same financial honchos who lost so much money to get hefty bonuses from the bailout money. In normal corporate circles, failure like that means you get fired, not retained and given a bonus.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
Wall St. Fat Cats Still Flying in Jets
