More anti GA grandstanding

[astanley]

Read this:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/03/10/hanscom_runway_repairs_opposed/

The state's list of "shovel-ready" projects in need of federal stimulus funds includes $9.7 million to maintain taxiways for corporate jets at Hanscom Field, outraging local state legislators.

Massport, which operates Hanscom and submitted the request, says the funds are needed. "This is all rehab and maintenance of existing pavement," said Richard Walsh, Massport's chief spokesman for Hanscom. "There's no new construction."

But Representative Jay R. Kaufman, a Democrat from Lexington, one of the towns bordering Hanscom, said using federal stimulus money for this project "reinforces bad corporate behavior, not good corporate behavior."

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[KennyFlys]

I wonder what he would say about "stimulus funds" being used for expanding the terminal parking area at Austin. I'm still confused why the City of Austin isn't paying for it. What are they doing with the money made from terminal parking?

 

[Anthony]

Part of this is because the current Administration has demonized corporate business jets, while its OK for politicians of both parties to jet around on our dime doing whatever they want.

Thanks the current anti-corporate hysteria. Wonder who employs people? Wonder who is best equipped to create jobs. The private sector or government?

 

[steingar]

Bit much says me. I only referred to denying jets to companies on the public dole. The rest have just as much right to do as they please as anyone. If the stockholders think its OK it's none of the government's business.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

hysteria

 

[Matthew]

This article was in our morning paper:

http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/1076329.html

so not all GA news is negative - it's too bad that so much depends on the bias of the paper or reporters.

 

[mikea]

Part of this is because the current Administration has demonized corporate business jets, while its OK for politicians of both parties to jet around on our dime doing whatever they want.

Thanks the current anti-corporate hysteria. Wonder who employs people? Wonder who is best equipped to create jobs. The private sector or government?

Yeah, it was the "current administration" that inappropriately gave out the hunk of TARP money after the second time the Detroit executives appeared before congress, having driven in.

This just in: Why did Obama decide to attack Iraq?

 

[tonycondon]

Bit much says me. I only referred to denying jets to companies on the public dole. The rest have just as much right to do as they please as anyone. If the stockholders think its OK it's none of the government's business.

and it makes me mad that a company that i am now an investor in is not allowed to use a business tool to be successful.

 

[steingar]

They'll manage. This too shall pass, it is a very temporary fad with our politicians and will disappear once the public gets tired of hearing about it.

 

[silver-eagle]

HANSCOM has always been under fire from the NIMBYs. What I don't understand is why did these dopes buy a house near an airport if they hate them so much.
That guy needs a clue. On Hanscom, along with GA, is a fairly large Air Force base, numerous maintenance facilities, flight schools and many other non aviation related businesses. It's the home of one of the premeire research facilities (Lincoln Labs). Hanscom serves the region, not just itself. Saturday, an Air Canada 737 was among the many aircraft that landed there.
The only downside to Hanscom that I know of is MASSPORT, which charges outrageous fees for takeoff, landing, and parking.
How does improving the facility "encourage" bad corporate behavior? Please explain, you dope!

 

[jmaynard]

They'll manage. This too shall pass, it is a very temporary fad with our politicians and will disappear once the public gets tired of hearing about it.

I doubt it strongly. They live, operate, and thrive on the politics of envy, and corporate jets are objects of envy for lots of people.

 

[Everskyward]

corporate jets are objects of envy for lots of people.

But that isn't anything new. The fact that it is more publicized is what is different right now and it is not helping. Still I think that most of the loss in business is due to the economy in general, not to public perception. Any company that would change its business plan because of what the media or politicians say about it doesn't have too many balls, IMHO. Either that or some are using it as an excuse. One of the first things to go in down times is the company jet. The only reason this didn't happen as much in the last downturn after 9/11 was the whole TSA/security angle, and this slump in the ecomony is much worse.

 

[AdamB]

Saturday, an Air Canada 737 was among the many aircraft that landed there.

I happened to be on the Terminal ramp on Sat. and saw that 737 taxi right by.

 

[Bob Noel]

The NIMBY goons around KBED are completely independent of either party.
By that I mean, it doesn't matter to them who is the President of the USA.

 

[wsuffa]

Part of this is because the current Administration has demonized corporate business jets, while its OK for politicians of both parties to jet around on our dime doing whatever they want.

Thanks the current anti-corporate hysteria. Wonder who employs people? Wonder who is best equipped to create jobs. The private sector or government?

And a big part of this is the result of the morons at the Big 3 car makers who flew individual Gulfstreams to DC.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

And a big part of this is the result of the morons at the Big 3 car makers who flew individual Gulfstreams to DC.

Public perception aside, what SHOULD they have done, from a sound business practices standpoint?

 

[SkyHog]

Public perception aside, what SHOULD they have done, from a sound business practices standpoint?

I think we all know that it was the smartest and most efficient way to get there, but it wasn't a smart move, going to beg for money on your private jet. They had to know it was gonna look bad.

Edit: The intelligent move would have been to drive one of their own model cars to beg for money.

 

[mikea]

I think we all know that it was the smartest and most efficient way to get there, but it wasn't a smart move, going to beg for money on your private jet. They had to know it was gonna look bad.

Edit: The intelligent move would have been to drive one of their own model cars to beg for money.

Which is what they did with great fanfare for the second begging session before congress. They did a car convoy from Dee troit. Probably the only time some of them had actually been in the car.

 

[wsuffa]

Public perception aside, what SHOULD they have done, from a sound business practices standpoint?

Ride together in a charter. Fly commercially (like corporate policy requires the other employees to do). Drive.

If you're going to beg for a government bailout you must at least CONSIDER the public perception.

Greg, I'm sympathetic to the business needs. But these guys should have known how this would look. They're asking for public money - it's ALL about public image and perception. I would go so far as to say it might even have been different had the US car makers not been perceived as haughty by the public. Or had they been making cars that the public wanted.

It's like a $25,000 coffee maker. Never mind that the government set the specs, that the unit had to be custom made, certified, and tested, and that there was huge BD and R&D behind it.... the companies were abused for "charging so much". Legit business transaction, public perception.

As I like to say: "perception is reality".

 

[astanley]

As I like to say: "perception is reality".

This is the thrust of it. These guys got where they are by understanding this very phrase. Yet, they were unable to understand that there may be a negative perception to their traveling practices when they went, with hat in hand, to ask for bailout funds. It shows such a blinding disconnect from reality that a reasonable person can easily say "Those *******s are out of touch"

Which cuts to the core of the executive issues today. Most had to be freakishly in touch with the very concepts that they now ignore in their business life, to get where they are. It's an entitlement mentality that is beyond all sense.

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[Everskyward]

Public perception aside

In this case, I don't think you can put public perception aside. They were in DC asking for money from... the public.

what SHOULD they have done, from a sound business practices standpoint?

There are some factors that they would have needed to consider. For one thing, do we know how many people were on each airplane? Did these guys travel alone or did they need to bring any support staff? Do they have other, smaller airplanes which are available to them at a lower cost? If you have already made the business decision to buy an airplane it is many times less costly to fly it than to charter a smaller one, even though it's not really the best airplane for the mission, since you are only paying the additional operating expenses not the whole charter price.