More productive to think of better ways to make even more money for themselves.

Your point is?

They have demonized a whole industry, nice work.

More productive.

Whatever you want to believe.

In a related story, sales of 50 foot and up yachts has fallen off.

there is no way to justify a corporate jet. none. period. never has been. in the past they never needed to justify anything

George, maybe one of Obama's trusted economic advisers Warren Buffet may know a little more about this than you:

"When Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett bought a Bombardier Challenger 600 twenty years ago, he named the large-cabin business jet The Indefensible because of his past criticisms of such purchases by other CEOs. However, after the investment guru used the jet, he realized its value as a business tool and later renamed it The Indispensable."

there is no way to justify a corporate jet. none. period. never has been. in the past they never needed to justify anything

#6 | POSTED BY GEORGEISADRUNK AT 2009-04-16 08:11 PM | REPLY | FLAG: Dumbshit

George, you really are a drunk. Of course there is, and I know plenty who have them and use them well. When you crunch the numbers on time savings by company execs/attys/etc who use them, they make a lot of sense.

Get a life.

Sorry, there is no justification for corporate jets.

The majority of the executives who are accessed to use the corporate jets use them for personal gain. Commuting to and from home to work and such things.

If business is so pressing the phone and computer are far far more efficient, faster and cheaper.

Trying to make excuses for wasting corporate money for personal gain and not having to claim that gain on taxes is corporate pandering to say the least.

I'm hoping for some televangelists to sell their jets and give the money to programs that help the orphans and desperate widows.

When you crunch the numbers on time savings by company execs/attys/etc who use them, they make a lot of sense.

Bull shit, the maintenance alone is more than the saving could ever be and the fact you are not savy about this is quite telling.

Private jets are "now" a symbol of excess?

Weren't they always a symbol of excess?

I mean, it's a private jet.

I don't know, Moneywar. Check out this article.

MoneyWar, it must suck being wrong all the time.

You don't think Warren "NetJet" Buffet knows what hes talking about?

Nothing exceeds like excess.

Be Well.

Paid for by Rick Wagoneer. Former CEO of Government Motors.

The majority of the executives who are accessed to use the corporate jets use them for personal gain. Commuting to and from home to work and such things.

#9 | Posted by moneywar at 2009-04-16 09:13 PM | Reply

Golly, you're even more stupid than GeorgeDrunk!

I'm familiar with several large companies that have corporate jets. They are useful in many ways. Just a few examples:

1. Corporate jets are berthed at private flight centers. Without the delays and security checks of airports a plane can be launched in a few minutes.

2. Flying commercial means you rely on an airline's schedule. A corporate jet is on 24/7 standby, and a dozen key people can take off when they need to.

Deere & Co. is headquartered in Moline, Illinois, but they have manufacturing from Oregon to Florida. If a complicated problem emerges in Fargo, North Dakota, of course they'll try to resolve it by phone first. But there are many times when the expert they need is in Illinois.

The cost of flying him to Fargo on the company jet is nothing, compared to the cost of shutting down a factory for several days.

The idea that these plane are just luxury suites for the CEO is idiotic. Most corporate jet travel is for senior managers and company experts.

Vernon makes some good points.

There was never financial justification for corporate jets but several reasons exist for their need.

Many years ago Boeing lost a deal to Airbus apparently due to bugs planted in first class seats on Air France flights to New York. The same type of scenario has occurred on privately rented jets as well.

When there is a threat of economic warfare, company owned jets provide a far more secure environment for high level confidential negotiations.

Crisis

vernon is a fool and one dimensional. there is a significant difference between owning a corporate jet and using a business jet. No way a corporate owned jet can be cost justified, ever. period. Using a private jet is a totally different story. Dig just a little deeper into the Buffet story and just maybe you might get educated. scary thought

Sorry, there is no justification for corporate jets.

If that be so, then I hope that would include the president and Congress. No more Air Force One. No more free rides on military planes. Obama, Pelosi and all the other rich in Congress must take commercial from now on.

Huge difference between corporate flights and the President flights. One doesn't need that secure of aircraft if one is a Corporate Executive unlike The POTUS. Oh and since Pelosi is Second in Line to the Presidency Her Safety and Security must be protected unlike a corporate big wig. To equate the two is Intellectually Dishonest on it's very face/

Larry

So . . . it's okay for Nancy Pelosi to be treated like royalty when she wants to zip home to San Francisco for the weekend on our dime. But if a guy wants to spend his own money on his own plane, that's a problem.

You libtards are funny. This is going to be a hysterical four years. It is amusing, though, that so many of the private plane manufacturers and servicers are in the blue states. Yachts too. Serves 'em right to have voted for Obama. Unemployment for everybody!

I have a friend who's a broker of ball bearings. Whenever a factory goes under, he flies out and buys up their ball bearings, stuff that is going to be thrown away.

A couple of years ago a factory in New York had run out of a specific kind which isn't made anymore, and asked him if he had any. Yes, he had a few hundred. I can have them fed-exed to you, he said. No, not good enough, they said. We'll send our jet down and pick up a few dozen, then you can send the rest FedEx. The alternative was shutting down a factory waiting for the FedEx truck, then to have the technicians install the equipment.

New York, last I checked, is a big Blue State. That fact is paying dividends lately, given the $3 trillion kited over to Wall Street banks by Obama's boys.

"But if a guy wants to spend his own money on his own plane, that's a problem."

I don't think corporate jets are paid for by an individual.

"This is going to be a hysterical four years."

Agreed. You guys have been in hysterics since November and show no sign of letting up. Hopefully you'll mellow out by the second four years.

To equate the two is Intellectually Dishonest on it's very face/

I argue it is hypocritical to except the political class.

This as an issue over private property rights, a concept that is lost in socialist America.

"Corporate jets now symbol of excess"

Than congress should stop flying on corporate jets.

That would be one big herkin' corporate jet, Oozie.

You're right, San Antonio, of course. As usual. I've been in hysterics ever since Obama's been elected. I should just learn to embrace the change, and learn to see my kids the same way he does--just another bunch of kids who can be milked to bail out this generation of retards.

"No way a corporate owned jet can be cost justified, ever."

And then you claim the Buffet story backs you up? Care to elaborate? Or are you just going to keep saying "never. nuh uh. no way. never will be justified. not gonna happen. wouldnt be prudent"?

When you crunch the numbers on time savings by company execs/attys/etc who use them, they make a lot of sense.
Bull shit, the maintenance alone is more than the saving could ever be and the fact you are not savy about this is quite telling.

#11 | POSTED BY MONEYWAR AT 2009-04-16 09:17 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Read Warren Buffet's analysis. Just because you can't envision product use of your own time past minimum wage doesn't make you right.

I repeat, get a life, and move on from this. If a Company wants to get a jet, it's a Company choice. To weigh in and say it's never justified reveals your ignorance.

buffet bought and owns and uses a company called net jet. read up about it you fool and find out what is really happening in the world. Ownership is NEVER cost justifiable, period

Quick--Somebody grab the keys to Air Force 1 because we now know BO doesn't need it....

"Sorry, there is no justification for corporate jets."
#9 | Posted by moneywar

I have a friend who's a broker of ball bearings

#23 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-04-17 07:54 AM

So...how exactly would one "broker ball bearings"?

Buffet LOL. Buffet was the king of Solomon Brothers. Sollomon Brothers were the kings of Mortgage backed securities in the 80's

These Jets are a symbol of excess only if the Company has purchased them using bailout funds.

Other than that, they seem like a valuable tool.

"they seem like a valuable tool."

#35 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2009-04-17 06:56 PM | Reply | Flag: BINGO

People whose TIME is MONEY call them "time machines."

Back in the 90's I flew my Piper Seminole, a four-place light twin primarily used as a trainer, from Austin, Texas to Burlington, Vermont to give an invited talk at a secondary ion mass spectrometry workshop. That aircraft cruised at about 165 knots. I stopped for gas in Jackson, Mississippi and Huntington, West Virginia after diverting East of a straight course to avoid weather. The two guys from my work who went commercial got there long after I did. There are a lot of owner-operated high performance aircraft that more than pay for themselves in TIME.

Hmmm, people used to think the same thing about the personal automobile.

Problem is many of these things were bought with Other People's Money, which was then squandered.

Nothing is an excess if it is easily afforded with your own fairly earned cash. If you have to cook the books to have it you can't afford it.

I repeat, get a life, and move on from this. If a Company wants to get a jet, it's a Company choice. To weigh in and say it's never justified reveals your ignorance.

LOL!

It is not about if's and but's getting a jet, it is about waste of company money.

W. Buffet ego is so big that he values his work on jet over the actual total operational cost of having said jet.

Could he not conduct his business by phone, computer and such on commercial......yes.

You don't know about the cost of maintenance, AD's, Y-checks, service checks, annuals, and the cost of fasteners by themselves.

One can take a whole lot of commercial flights just on the millions it cost to buy the damn thing in the first place.

And guess what......Boeing builds the damn things and they don't own a corporate jet because of COST.

Quick--Somebody grab the keys to Air Force 1 because we now know BO doesn't need it....

"Sorry, there is no justification for corporate jets."
#9 | Posted by moneywar

#32 | Posted by homerj at 2009-04-17 05:43 PM | Reply | Flag

A real intellectual hero here, everyone is out to kill those CEO's from countries around the world because they run the leadership of the free world.

So . . . it's okay for Nancy Pelosi to be treated like royalty when she wants to zip home to San Francisco for the weekend on our dime. But if a guy wants to spend his own money on his own plane, that's a problem.

RIR,

I have said many time that none of our congress should be afforded royalty flights. They should be paying for their own commute on commercial flights.

The idea we are paying for commuting to home from these yahoos is sickening. If they don't like the commute don't take the job.

Huge difference between corporate flights and the President flights. One doesn't need that secure of aircraft if one is a Corporate Executive unlike The POTUS. Oh and since Pelosi is Second in Line to the Presidency Her Safety and Security must be protected unlike a corporate big wig. To equate the two is Intellectually Dishonest on it's very face/

Larry

#21 | POSTED BY LARRYMOHR AT 2009-04-17 07:43 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Because our government officials are sooo much more important and productive to our economic health than our corporate executives. It's no wonder our country is going broke...

buffet bought and owns and uses a company called net jet. read up about it you fool and find out what is really happening in the world. Ownership is NEVER cost justifiable, period

#31 | Posted by Georgeisadrunk
* * * *

He does own NetJets, but Berkshire Hathaway also bought a private jet, and it's called "Indefensible".

No kidding.