5 ms·

This whole taking a private jet thing borders on completely stupid and shows how inept some folks are in understanding how companies work. CEOs are any compani

by bprater 18y ago

This whole taking a private jet thing borders on completely stupid and shows how inept some folks are in understanding how companies work. CEOs are any companies most important human asset. That asset has a finite amount of time he can work in any given day. Standing in line at an airport, waiting on layovers, not having access to communications -- are all wastes of time if you are a CEO. Especially NOW, when the big 3s are about to enter bankruptcy, you can't afford to waste a minute of the big 3's CEOs time. (Nobody is bitching that the US President rides around in the air's biggest fuel pig -- a 747.) EDIT: I just noticed a news clip where a senator was making the point, too. I'm embarassed. It's harder to build a broom closet than a nuke plant. Wasting anyone's time to talk about a $20,000 plane trip versus dealing with the $50B bailout is sad.

slackerIII 18y ago
Did they have to take 3 separate planes from Detroit?
trickjarrett 18y ago
Their time is precious, I won't disagree with that. But if your company is going bankrupt and about to ask to get a bail-out, then you had at least look like you're trying to cut back on expenses. Jets don't help that image. I'm not angry about this use, but it infuriates me that we're not seeing these companies make any sizable cuts. If I've missed these headlines, please direct me to them!
jimbokun 18y ago
"CEOs are any companies most important human asset." Please explain to me how these CEOs who have managed to bankrupt an entire U.S. industry constitute an "important human asset." The empirical evidence seems to suggest they are a net negative asset, and maybe filling up their schedules with unproductive activities will mitigate the further damage they could do by actually trying to make decisions and taking actions.
- bprater 18y ago
  It was a general point, not restricted to these CEOs. Though I have a feeling they have been rather highly motivated lately.
- netcan 18y ago
  They are still CEOs. Giving them less time is still costly.
- netcan 18y ago
  That is really missing the point. If they want to make calculated decisions that are unpopular but rational, taking into account the importance of the executive team, go do that. Go make your businesses profitable. Go arm wrestle with unions. But ask for no quarter. They are asking for bailouts. Asking for unions & employees to cut them a break. Asking for help & understanding. If you go to a bank to ask for a loan, you better not show up wherein banana leafs & a feathered top hat. Where a suit. Shut up about air flow, weather & being more productive in a banana. If you don't need the bank, you can wear what you want. They want unions to cut them a break (or someone else to cut the unions). They want tax money. They need to meet the expected terms. The public doesn't like executive jet CEOs. Neither do unions or ground floor employees. A CEO that meets with a banks in a banana is not showing good judgement. Neither are these CEOs. It's not a good sign.
  - netcan 18y ago
    You the bank manager, employee, union or tax payer are above the rest. You understand about the importance of airflow & comfort that just can't be achieved in a suit. You can relate to a CEO hr being worth far more then that measly $23.6k. But take it a level further. You know that they made the bad choice of asking for a loan wearing a banana. You know that 9/10 (you're the 1/10) would've rejected them. You know they made a really dumb choice, considering all these effects. Still giving them the loan?
  - mxh 18y ago
    "They want unions to cut them a break" Sort of. It would be at least as accurate to say that the UAW wants the US gov't to hand over $25B (or $50B, or $75B) to the big 3 s.t. all 4 entities (Ford, GM, Chrysler, UAW) can carry on with business more-or-less as usual, and stay out of bankruptcy court. Chapter 11 would likely mean bad things for the UAW. It seems (and, of course, w/o seeing the books, it's awful hard to tell) that the big 3 just can't make money - despite making some pretty nice cars - due to labor costs that are perhaps 150% of market, and a bloated dealer infrastructure that can't be trimmed due to franchising laws. Plus, a lot of b------t mandates (CAFE, etc.) to make products people don't really want. The Detroit bailout isn't about saving the jobs of the executive teams (who can always get other jobs, and hell, who tend to be highly incentivised to stick around through Chapter 11) or saving the US manufacturing base (it's not like all those factories will go poof overnight, or all those cars will stop being built and sold) or avoiding shocks to the economy, or preserving shareholder value (which has already been largely wiped out). It's about propping up an uncompetitive cost structure in order to serve special interests, with a side-order of do-gooder power-tripping meddling. And none of it has a g-----n thing to do with how the big 3 CEOs travel around the country. Sorry about the rant. But the idea that the unions are gonna get all huffy about the private jet angle, or indeed that this is some sort of "suits-vs.-line-employees" drama strikes me as wrong-headed; if the bailout doesn't happen, no one is going to be more unhappy than the UAW.
Jasber 18y ago
Its a gesture. Just like taking a $1 salary is a gesture, which only the Chrysler CEO was willing to do: http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200811191506DOWJONESDJONLINE000837_FORTUNE5.htm http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/20081119...
helveticaman 18y ago
I would have just flown first. There are shorter lines and not much time is spent incommunicado. It avoids the scandal of flying in a private jet, but doesn't give the pretence the CEOs suddenly want to act like regular Joes, which may come off as phony.
ajkirwin 18y ago
I'm sorry. Since when is the CEO the most important thing? That's bullshit. The WORKERS are the most important thing.
- comatose_kid 18y ago
  And that is why Apple was doing so well before Jobs. You can argue it either way, and that's because both are important.
  - netcan 18y ago
    What's more important for typing? fingers or arms?
    - eggnet 18y ago
      One arm is more important than one finger.
      - ajkirwin 18y ago
        What good is an arm, if you have no fingers? Infact, what good is a CEO -without- the workers? Then he's just a guy.
        eru 18y ago
        A guy can start a company. A CEO is a worker, too, in a sense.
comatose_kid 18y ago
Your observation is correct, and you are missing the point. This is political, not rational - they need to appear to be responsive and understanding of the financial plight they are in. The average person sees a rich, cigar smoking CEO taking a $20000 flight to ask poor taxpayers for 25B.
- netcan 18y ago
  That's more or less what's going on.

by bprater 18y ago

slackerIII 18y ago

Did they have to take 3 separate planes from Detroit?

trickjarrett 18y ago

Their time is precious, I won't disagree with that. But if your company is going bankrupt and about to ask to get a bail-out, then you had at least look like you're trying to cut back on expenses. Jets don't help that image. I'm not angry about this use, but it infuriates me that we're not seeing these companies make any sizable cuts. If I've missed these headlines, please direct me to them!

jimbokun 18y ago

"CEOs are any companies most important human asset." Please explain to me how these CEOs who have managed to bankrupt an entire U.S. industry constitute an "important human asset." The empirical evidence seems to suggest they are a net negative asset, and maybe filling up their schedules with unproductive activities will mitigate the further damage they could do by actually trying to make decisions and taking actions.

bprater 18y ago
It was a general point, not restricted to these CEOs. Though I have a feeling they have been rather highly motivated lately.
netcan 18y ago
They are still CEOs. Giving them less time is still costly.
netcan 18y ago
That is really missing the point. If they want to make calculated decisions that are unpopular but rational, taking into account the importance of the executive team, go do that. Go make your businesses profitable. Go arm wrestle with unions. But ask for no quarter. They are asking for bailouts. Asking for unions & employees to cut them a break. Asking for help & understanding. If you go to a bank to ask for a loan, you better not show up wherein banana leafs & a feathered top hat. Where a suit. Shut up about air flow, weather & being more productive in a banana. If you don't need the bank, you can wear what you want. They want unions to cut them a break (or someone else to cut the unions). They want tax money. They need to meet the expected terms. The public doesn't like executive jet CEOs. Neither do unions or ground floor employees. A CEO that meets with a banks in a banana is not showing good judgement. Neither are these CEOs. It's not a good sign.
- netcan 18y ago
  You the bank manager, employee, union or tax payer are above the rest. You understand about the importance of airflow & comfort that just can't be achieved in a suit. You can relate to a CEO hr being worth far more then that measly $23.6k. But take it a level further. You know that they made the bad choice of asking for a loan wearing a banana. You know that 9/10 (you're the 1/10) would've rejected them. You know they made a really dumb choice, considering all these effects. Still giving them the loan?
- mxh 18y ago
  "They want unions to cut them a break" Sort of. It would be at least as accurate to say that the UAW wants the US gov't to hand over $25B (or $50B, or $75B) to the big 3 s.t. all 4 entities (Ford, GM, Chrysler, UAW) can carry on with business more-or-less as usual, and stay out of bankruptcy court. Chapter 11 would likely mean bad things for the UAW. It seems (and, of course, w/o seeing the books, it's awful hard to tell) that the big 3 just can't make money - despite making some pretty nice cars - due to labor costs that are perhaps 150% of market, and a bloated dealer infrastructure that can't be trimmed due to franchising laws. Plus, a lot of b------t mandates (CAFE, etc.) to make products people don't really want. The Detroit bailout isn't about saving the jobs of the executive teams (who can always get other jobs, and hell, who tend to be highly incentivised to stick around through Chapter 11) or saving the US manufacturing base (it's not like all those factories will go poof overnight, or all those cars will stop being built and sold) or avoiding shocks to the economy, or preserving shareholder value (which has already been largely wiped out). It's about propping up an uncompetitive cost structure in order to serve special interests, with a side-order of do-gooder power-tripping meddling. And none of it has a g-----n thing to do with how the big 3 CEOs travel around the country. Sorry about the rant. But the idea that the unions are gonna get all huffy about the private jet angle, or indeed that this is some sort of "suits-vs.-line-employees" drama strikes me as wrong-headed; if the bailout doesn't happen, no one is going to be more unhappy than the UAW.

Jasber 18y ago

Its a gesture. Just like taking a $1 salary is a gesture, which only the Chrysler CEO was willing to do: http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200811191506DOWJONESDJONLINE000837_FORTUNE5.htm http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/20081119...

helveticaman 18y ago

I would have just flown first. There are shorter lines and not much time is spent incommunicado. It avoids the scandal of flying in a private jet, but doesn't give the pretence the CEOs suddenly want to act like regular Joes, which may come off as phony.

ajkirwin 18y ago

I'm sorry. Since when is the CEO the most important thing? That's bullshit. The WORKERS are the most important thing.

comatose_kid 18y ago
And that is why Apple was doing so well before Jobs. You can argue it either way, and that's because both are important.
- netcan 18y ago
  What's more important for typing? fingers or arms?
  - eggnet 18y ago
    One arm is more important than one finger.
    - ajkirwin 18y ago
      What good is an arm, if you have no fingers? Infact, what good is a CEO -without- the workers? Then he's just a guy.
      - eru 18y ago
        A guy can start a company. A CEO is a worker, too, in a sense.

comatose_kid 18y ago

Your observation is correct, and you are missing the point. This is political, not rational - they need to appear to be responsive and understanding of the financial plight they are in. The average person sees a rich, cigar smoking CEO taking a $20000 flight to ask poor taxpayers for 25B.

netcan 18y ago
That's more or less what's going on.