Can you beleive these CEO's...including Ford?

[XWGT]

I couldnt believe me eyes when i read this in The Age this morning.

All 3 CEOs of the major car companies, turned up in Washington to beg for money, having ALL FLOWN IN SEPERATE PRIVATE CORPORATE JETS to the hearings.

Sometimes you truly have to wonder if these companies should survive (and this is coming from a life long rev head performance car and local manufacturing supporter)

http://business.theage.com.au/busine...1120-6cst.html

[RG]

And? Of course they have private jets, nearly every company of that size would.

[XWGT]

And?

Your arriving to beg for $25 billion dollars of tax payers money claiming your all about to go broke......and you all flew seperately.......in your own private jets?

Yes businesses have private jets. They tend to be the ones that are returning positive results.

As one Senator noted........they didnt even bother to jet pool......

I certainly would NOT be happy for Ford Australia to demand tax payer relief if they were flying Melb - Syd via private jet to do it.

[GT0132]

Gotta agree with XWGT there...If you're broke and want a taxpayer funded handout then you sell the corporate jet and fly to the meeting in economy class with the plebs, or otherwise travel by boat

[flappist]

Originally Posted by ozmale42

Gotta agree with XWGT there...If you're broke and want a taxpayer funded handout then you sell the corporate jet and fly to the meeting in economy class with the plebs, or otherwise travel by boat

So you believe that all unemployed people or students should not be allowed to own cars and should only use public transport?

[guzzis3]

Originally Posted by flappist

So you believe that all unemployed people or students should not be allowed to own cars and should only use public transport?

If they can't afford to run a car on what the community deems to give them then they should do without. And I speak from personal experience. As I mentioned above I left my parents home to live in poverty. In fact I grew up about as poor as people get in Australia. Before I found my first full time job I got the dole for a few months. I was grateful for what I was given. I lined up outside the smith family to get food when I had none, and I was grateful for what I was given. You don't spend your dole check on booze and pokies and then whinge you've got nothing left for pizza.

The suggestion was not that private jets be outlawed, but that if you can't afford it because your company is about to go broke you need to review that expenditure.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by guzzis3

Someone mentioned engineers as being the important driver in car companies. Well the facts as any engineer knows, is that going to university and getting a piece of paper for learning a little about a lot doesn't really equate to knowing more than the fitter and turner in the business. When they finally do learn the business, any engineering is usually stuff the same fitter and turner could do if he was given the company procedures manuals and engineering rules of thumb and nomographs binder.

That was me. I'm an engineer by profession, a motor mechanic by trade. I worked for csiro for years designing building commissioning and sometimes operating some fairly high teck equipment. I accept there are hopeless engineers, the proposition I actually put is: do you believe the executive are MORE IMPORTANT to an engineering firm like GM than the engineers.

Flappist: My age is none of your business, nor is my taxable income even if it did in any way reflect my net worth, and I don't see how my current employer has anything to do with anything. What your getting at is I am in no way qualified to comment on executive worth, so I'll tell you this: I left my parents home at 18 with literally nothing but a bag of clothes and loose change. I retired at 35, self funded.

How about you ?

I have an extensive stock portfolio. I don't make a habit of buying stocks in companies with overpaid and underperforming executives. Looking at GM's share price I suppose I'm not alone.

You and I have strong opinions and you express yourself well. Sometimes I agree with you, this time I don't.

I retired 20 minutes ago at 30. I win cause I is so awesum!!11

I might return to work on Monday as part of my triumphant return tour.

Contests of bigdickmanship on the internet rarely get anywhere nor solve anything.

Now, uncle bastards reality process begins.

GM/Ford/Dodge are companies of immense size, they dont change direction in days, not even in years. You cant pull up a company that hires 100's of thousands of people, that produce products for 100's of countries, in hundreds of different currencies that undulate, in a global market killed by oil speculation, and a financial sector devoid of all sanity that will not lend to you, in a few hours, and just say "Today we will make hybrids." and now its all good.

GM/Ford/Dodge's current positions are the results of decisions made a decade ago, when circumstances were vastly different globally, and locally in the US market. The good times enabled them to diversify, and buy many euro car companies, but diversification protects against single threats, not threats in all markets at once.

The problem is larger than any executives pay or benefits. If these companies go down, those 100's of thousands of people will cause a massive downturn in spending in the economy when they enter the unemployment queue, which in turn will trigger the next wave of depression in the US, which will then hit everywhere.

Economics. People who dont spend money due to market uncertainty, dont buy. Companies that dont sell product because people dont buy, dont spend. Companies that dont spend, sack people. So spending decreases more. When this happens, to stop the economy going into free fall, our governments step in, and spend money. Its the braking system, without it, your shares will be worthless, your retirement will become unfunded, and you will be sitting in the gutter. Noone evades global economic downturn, no matter how smart they think they are.

Are engineers more important than a CEO? No. All the technical innovation in the world wont sell something that noone wants to buy. Generals decide when and where to fight, the soldiers do the fighting. Regardless, the product isnt the issue, the market is the issue. No CEO can control a market that doesnt want to buy, ask mitsubishi about how easy it is to remodel yourself in less than a year, and bring a product to market that sells during oil speculation.

Sell the corporate jet and take a pay cut? Purely cosmetic tripe, and unlikely to effect any eventual outcome. The market has lost billions, only Billions will bring it back, and the government has to spend this money to stimulate growth, as the market refuses to.

Blame blame blame blame. Dont we just love to allocate blame.

Anyone who can do better running GM/Ford/Dodge/Government, send your resume in to [email protected]

[b0son]

Originally Posted by flappist

So you believe that all unemployed people or students should not be allowed to own cars and should only use public transport?

So you believe that if someone was unemployed, but owned a private jet, this shouldnt be considered when determining when and how much they get?

[GT0132]

Originally Posted by flappist

So you believe that all unemployed people or students should not be allowed to own cars and should only use public transport?

If an individual can't afford to buy food, clothing or shelter then they obviously can't afford to own or run a car.....That's why we have public transport - for those that either don't want to or cannot afford to run a car.

Using the example of XWGT though, it's a bit rich arriving at a meeting begging for cash when you arrive there in a private learjet...CEO's that do that obviously need to examine their expenses more closely. I wonder how many staff will be axed before the jets go in the overall pecking order of cost cutting?

[GT0132]

Originally Posted by ozmale42

If an individual can't afford to buy food, clothing or shelter then they obviously can't afford to own or run a car.....That's why we have public transport - for those that either don't want to or cannot afford to run a car.

Using the example of XWGT though, it's a bit rich arriving at a meeting begging for cash when you arrive there in a private learjet...CEO's that do that obviously need to examine their expenses more closely. I wonder how many staff will be axed before the jets go in the overall pecking order of cost cutting?

Just to add to that....If I lost my job and couldn't get another one then once my savings disappear then sorry, the car's then gotta disappear also....then the house

[blueoval]

I think that since the government has 'given' cash handouts to the banks, the car companies are looking for the same generosity.

I did hear that when the U.S. banks did receive the bail out cash from the government, they all paid themselves all bonuses. Now that makes me sick.

This is all unconfirmed rumors btw. I heard this from FOX news.

[flappist]

These guys cost zillions of dollars an hour and are responsible for more than the leaders of most countries.

Do you think it would be a good idea to have them waiting at a commercial airport and then travelling without computer access, direct pabx access and none of their support staff or infrastructure?

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by flappist

These guys cost zillions of dollars an hour and are responsible for more than the leaders of most countries.

Do you think it would be a good idea to have them waiting at a commercial airport and then travelling without computer access, direct pabx access and none of their support staff or infrastructure?

I agree. Fancy them having to ride in commercial plane with the plebs. I dont know how they could live with themselves to lower their standards. :P

[XWGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

These guys cost zillions of dollars an hour and are responsible for more than the leaders of most countries.

Do you think it would be a good idea to have them waiting at a commercial airport and then travelling without computer access, direct pabx access and none of their support staff or infrastructure?

Business class not good enough for a domestive flight?

The bottom line is........yes.

And while these leaders may will be responsible for large organisations.....their pocketing $15mill PA for it.....so their hardly struggling. And pocketing $15mill at a times where their organisations are clocking up losses that are truly off the scale.

The basic premise is though.............if you want tax payer funded bail outs......ditch the corporate jet......get your bum on a business class service like 97% of other CEO's and Exec Managers and at least APPEAR to be concerned that your companies are racking up losses that are larger than some countries GDP! And it would probably NOT be a wise thing to mention to people that your have "no option" but to sack 1000's of workers while arriving in 3 different private jets from the same departure city to the same destination city.

When times are good.........go for it. But at least a little humilty while asking the tax payer to bail out your massive failures probably woulndt have gone astray.

[RG]

You do realise that these jets will be all owned/leased so even if they didn't use them they would still be paying?

Also waiting for a domestic flight is usually not feasible for major CEO's, they don't just sit in offices on the phone all day.

[dom_105]

Much ado about nothing.

I hope those making the decisions do not take this into account when making them, because one of those three going under will have serious side effects.

So they get million dollar salaies, big deal. They are hardly going to be on 52k a year, and when you have to put up with the headaches of employing 300,000 between them, it puts it into perspective.

[XWGT]

Originally Posted by Russell

You do realise that these jets will be all owned/leased so even if they didn't use them they would still be paying?

Also waiting for a domestic flight is usually not feasible for major CEO's, they don't just sit in offices on the phone all day.

Yes I realsie all of that. I also realise that that CEO of Japan Airlines, one of only a handful of profitable airlines in the world arrives at work everyday, by bus, and is paid an equivalent salary of around $USD 90,000.

I'm by no means saying we all work for nothing. I AM saying however, if your asking the public to bail you out at least ACT humble and grateful. Even if it is for only 12 hours............

[uranium_death]

No surprise.

Comedy Inc (or one of those shows) did a spoof of a CEO.

The old CEO retires and gets his multimillion dollar payout, while the new CEO comes along, accepts the position, then immediately retires, quoting family life a priority. In turn, he gets his multi-million dollar payout.

Look at the ANZ bank. Its CEO gets ~$250,000 a week, and they have done a poor job of running the bank.

This world rewards incompetence...I am still waiting for mine.

[guzzis3]

2 things.

The jet thing was political grandstanding. The US pollies are having a ball brow beating these CEO's.

Warren Buffet, one of the world's richest men, did nicely without a private jet for years. When he finally relented and got one he named it "unjustifiable" or something similar. He pays himself $100k/yr but runs one of the biggest business conglomerates in the world, including ironically a private jet maker or lease company, forget which. All this in a company that makes a huge profit, something like 20% growth since 1980!

The fact is that the big 3 have grossly overpaid executivees who have been visibly and demonstrably failing their companies for decades. Their salaries and perks are totally unjustifiable, but despite their deserving to go broke they are too big for the US gov to allow to go broke. The tug of war will be interesting to watch, we'll see how effective the pollies are in extracting compromises from them.

[ch33z1l]

This is what annoys the hell out of me with K Rudd, with his massive bill at APEC meeting in Bali..i think it was. Expenses like $3000 on room service and useless crap like that.

What frustrates me, is that many of our local MP's do alot for the community, but are unwilling to go federal, as they think they can be more beneficial in their local community.

[Sam_Boss260]

I agree, that in hard times offload or reduce your variable and luxury expenses.

Making a loss? Sell your private jet which is funded by the company. This is what the senators were trying to get to.. what are you prepared to do to to help your company. Plus, why don't they cut back their $15 mill salary to say $5 mill per year, which is still alot of money and then get paid the rest on profitability ie. if the company makes a profit they get a bigger pay check. Betya then the private jets would get sold.

[FTE217]

I'm sorry call me whatever you like as it will hurt many many normal honest hard working employees.
I really hope the US gov don't give any $$ to either of them......
Time has caught up with them and the domestic market especially Nth America is not giving the dividends they for so long have enjoyed riding off its back.
They all have been offering sub standard crap vehicles for so long that the average American has been starting to buy Jap cars who have invested over many years with plants and delivering the goods so to speak. Euros have also been gaining ground.

This is an opportunity for the big 3 to put a broom through their organisations, rationalise and cut the sweet heart deals that has strangled growth.
The wastage and the lack of accountability is a culture in manymany companys especially these 3 dinasaurs.

The US gov are being placed in a very touchy situation as Toyota/Mazda/Honda and whoever else is manufacturing motor cars there will have a right to ask for a hand out as well, they do after all employ Americans as well.

Going to be an interesting outcome. Just my thoughts.

[blackers10]

the crazy part would be.. unless they paid them selves bonuses to make that HUGE salary... they would get nearly half of it taken as tax...(minus what ever a good accountant could save)

i think ceo's should be paid a lower salary then get the big $$ when the company makes the big $$ not when they are struggling

[flappist]

Lets analyse this a bit.....

Sell the jet in a time of economic trouble so you can turn a 20++ million dollar asset into maybe 5 million, provided of course you can find a buyer. Yep clever.

Let your very expensive and very important decission makers waste large amounts of time in an airport and then on a commercial flight where they cannot use their phones or network connections. Yep real productive and clever.

Buy extra tickets for their PAs and infrastructure staff and have them waste large amounts of time as above. Yep that is a good way to save.

Ensure all meetings are at destinations that are served by direct flights so you do not have to change planes several times and make sure all meetings coincide with flight schedules and that the aircraft are not late.

Have any of you actually travelled in a corporate jet? It is not like what you see on TV. Corporate aircraft are normally very basic and are usually floating meeting places. A long time ago I actually used to fly one (PA31 not a jet).

Have any of you actually travelled on a jet in USA or Australia other than on holidays? Ever missed tha last flight in or out of Sydney/Tulla/Brisbane and had to spend the night at ridiculous expense and then wasted half the next day as all the mornig flights are booked out?

If someone said that all city people could not drive their cars to work and must take the bus or train to save carbon credits you would all scream your tits off and quote a zillion reason why it can't work.

The average greeny idiot who lives in a commune in a tree would not agree but he would have no idea what he was talking about would he? Except for the greenie members of parlement who would make a huge song and dance for the media so the dumb people would think they actually care.

[RG]

And that, Flappist, sums things up perfectly.

[9triton]

got to agree with flappist as well- , however their is a precedent - lee Iaccoca ( father of the mustang - obligatory ford content!) when he was saving US chrysler in the late 70's:

'Lee Iacocca set the precedent in 1978, when he was chairman of Chrysler. Realizing the automaker was in dire financial straits, Iacocca fired executives and pushed the United Auto Workers to accept salary and benefit cuts. In an effort to lead by example, Iacocca lowered his own salary to $1 a year. Five years later, with a helping hand from the government, the company was restored to financial health.'


although ,i do believe it came with a caveat of a multi million dollar bonus for him when Chrysler was restored to health

[FalconXR6]

Extreemly valid point flappist.

I don't feel that the bloke who started the thread is objecting to the jet itself.

I feel he is objecting to what the jet symbolises.
He just hasn't quite worded his thoughts well enough to convey where he is coming from.

[guzzis3]

I understand what your saying, but it still remains that giving them $15 mill a year, and a jet and a staff hasn't produced a profit. Going to all those terribly important meetings hasn't produced a profit.

The truth is that GM et al would do just as well with a $100k CEO as the $15 mill CEO's they have now. If the company was growing or returning 20% plus per year you could argue the exectutive are value adding. The fact is these managment teams have failed miserably and are still collecting their winnings while simultaneously asking working class taxpayers to subsidise them. IMO...

[flappist]

Originally Posted by guzzis3

I understand what your saying, but it still remains that giving them $15 mill a year, and a jet and a staff hasn't produced a profit. Going to all those terribly important meetings hasn't produced a profit.

The truth is that GM et al would do just as well with a $100k CEO as the $15 mill CEO's they have now. If the company was growing or returning 20% plus per year you could argue the exectutive are value adding. The fact is these managment teams have failed miserably and are still collecting their winnings while simultaneously asking working class taxpayers to subsidise them. IMO...

You are kidding right? $100k CEO? What planet is that. $100k is what a coal miner or lower to middle manager in a medium company earns.

Most middle to senior managers I personally know earn 200-400k and I know several people who earn over $1,000,000 per year.

And that is just up here in sunny Hervey Bay.

[guzzis3]

Originally Posted by flappist

You are kidding right? $100k CEO? What planet is that. $100k is what a coal miner or lower to middle manager in a medium company earns.

Most middle to senior managers I personally know earn 200-400k and I know several people who earn over $1,000,000 per year.

And that is just up here in sunny Hervey Bay.

Warren Buffet for one.

I'd probably do it for that provided there was an attractive bonus package based on real metrics. I know several CEO's of smaller companies here in Australia who make that sort of money, less bonuses. I'm an engineer and we are one of the best paid professions, but few engineers make over a mill doing engineering work. Your suggesting that exectutives are more valuable than engineers to a company like GM ? The reality is the salaries are simply an artifact. Every level of managment has to be paid X more than those below them. In a large organisation numbers of those levels get out of control and you end up with ridiculous salaries for executives. It has no bearing on reality.

Are you suggesting that Rick Wagoner adds value to GM equivalent to his renumeration every year ? I'd love to see that case. You'd better be a good QC