GM gives up two corporate jets

[DavidS]

Just flashed on abcnews.com

ABC News: Online news, breaking news, feature stories and more

General Motors to Give Up Two Corporate Jets After Execs Were Blasted on Capitol Hill

 

[NOBama]

General Motors said today that it is putting two of its five corporate jets out of service because the planes are not being used enough. The top three executives at GM, however, will continue to use the private luxurious jets for all of their business and personal travel, despite a flurry of criticism over the perk following an ABC news report this week.

An ABC News investigation revealed that the top three automakers have together spent several hundred million dollars to buy, maintain, and operate a fleet of top-of-the-line private jets for their top executives.

GM leased a fleet of seven planes at the beginning of this year, according to a company spokesperson. Two of the planes were dropped from the fleet in September and two more will be dropped by the end of the year.

More

Wow, what a concession! Giving up 2 of the 5 corporate jets. Times are hard all 'round. I wonder if they'll put them on eBay?

 

[Angel Heart]

It's a step in the right direction. Now they need to get rid of the rest. Time for them to clean house and tighten the belt.

 

[Zoom-boing]

A day late and a dollar short if you ask me. The only reason they did this is because they got called on it. No integrity whatsoever.

 

[Gem]

Does getting rid of the jets...even all of the jets...address why these companies are failing in the first place?

I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't understand the hoopla over the corporate jets. So many in the media and the corporate world seem far too willing to get the masses all in a tizzy over the jets so that we can ignore the real problems these companies face.

If we got rid of the jets...if we started paying the CEOs $40,000 a year...would these companies miraculously recover? No, of course not. Getting rid of the jets, lowering the salaries of the company execs would be tokens, symbols only. I'm tired of trite politically staged apologies...big gestures that look good on tv and mean nothing. As far as I'm concerned they can keep their jets and their salaries...as long as they are willing to do what needs to be done to fix their friggin' companies.

Unfortunately, I don't see the CEOs being interested in doing that...and I don't see the Congress or the media being interested in making them do that...

 

[Luissa]

More

Wow, what a concession! Giving up 2 of the 5 corporate jets. Times are hard all 'round. I wonder if they'll put them on eBay?

I am not a business man but when my company started to not look so well like about fifteen years ago I would have not leased the planes in the first place but if I had they would have been the first thing I would have given up along with my large bonus and I my bloated income. All this also before I laid off my workers.
I worked for Kmart when they filed for chapt 11 or 13 can't remember which one now, that year the new CEO made $4million along with recieving a bonus which is a bunch of crap when people were loosing their jobs, hours, and benefits!

 

[editec]

Today's megocorporate managment has no integrity.

They screw the workers, they screw the stockholders, and then they screw with the money.

Gem I don't think you really realize how well paid these guys are in comparison to their workers.

Nobody is worth that much money.

 

[Andrew2382]

how do they hand it in mid lease?

 

[Gem]

editec wrote:

Today's megocorporate managment has no integrity.

They screw the workers, they screw the stockholders, and then they screw with the money.

Gem I don't think you really realize how well paid these guys are in comparison to their workers.

Nobody is worth that much money.

Then why do they all get paid that much money? Don't misunderstand me...I think that their salaries and compensation and retirement packages are downright obscene...but its a corporations perogative to set the salaries of its employees.

Look at all the successful corporations in the world...tell me what their CEO's make and what their benefits packages look like. I think we can both agree that most large corporations have ridiculously well-paid execs.

We can rage about that all we want...but the bottom line is that rarely is that the reason for a corporations failings.

I just feel like we are harping on this issue of the salaries because its easy to point to one fat-cat and say "Look! HE'S the problem!"

Well, why isn't the salaries of these people the problem when a corporation is doing well...but suddenly its the problem when the company isn't doing well?

As far as their salaries in comparison to their workers...well come on now...a lead actress makes more than an extra....a doctor makes more than a nurse assistant...a teacher makes more than a paraprofessional...

As I said...I get as angry as the next man at the sight of men riding in corporate jets in expensive suits to ask me to give them money. But if they all said they wouldn't accept a dime in salary or benefits....the problem would be nowhere close to solved.

I just feel that this is swiftly becoming media manufactured "faux-outrage" to stop us from really examining why these businesses are REALLY failing.

 

[Hum Dinger]

editec wrote:


Then why do they all get paid that much money? Don't misunderstand me...I think that their salaries and compensation and retirement packages are downright obscene...but its a corporations perogative to set the salaries of its employees.

Look at all the successful corporations in the world...tell me what their CEO's make and what their benefits packages look like. I think we can both agree that most large corporations have ridiculously well-paid execs.

We can rage about that all we want...but the bottom line is that rarely is that the reason for a corporations failings.

I just feel like we are harping on this issue of the salaries because its easy to point to one fat-cat and say "Look! HE'S the problem!"

Well, why isn't the salaries of these people the problem when a corporation is doing well...but suddenly its the problem when the company isn't doing well?

As far as their salaries in comparison to their workers...well come on now...a lead actress makes more than an extra....a doctor makes more than a nurse assistant...a teacher makes more than a paraprofessional...

As I said...I get as angry as the next man at the sight of men riding in corporate jets in expensive suits to ask me to give them money. But if they all said they wouldn't accept a dime in salary or benefits....the problem would be nowhere close to solved.

I just feel that this is swiftly becoming media manufactured "faux-outrage" to stop us from really examining why these businesses are REALLY failing.

The reason these companies are failing is because of management. Modern day execs do not run their companies for profit, they run them for pilfering.

These people get their jobs because they join a consortium of people who control the largest block of major stock holdings. They elect each other and then mutually decide one another's salaries. They run a real you scratch my back and I'll scratch your's relationship. Though they have some impetous for protecting the stock price (because they wouldn't be Exec's unless they owned some), in fact they make more money, with less risk, through incredible compensation.

They do have to maintain some resemblence of credibility.

These people by no means have any skills at managing these companies. Most of their 'work' is done by assistants.

Restructuring companies is one trick they do - effectively gutting the company, thereby liquidating it's assets. It makes the immediate profits look good, but ruins the company for the long term. (There a bit of a lag between when a company's productivity drops and when the sales drop).

Another thing they have done is to put a dead stop to raises and have generally reduced all forms of employee benefits. This is a very large source of the executives compensation.

These people have no integrity. There are many people who would gladly do these jobs better for a whole lot less money.

The government would be protecting the stock holders if they would regulate executive compensation.

 

[Gem]

So the employees of the big three are getting reduced salaries and benefits?

 

[Hum Dinger]

So the employees of the big three are getting reduced salaries and benefits?

When you consider that if an employee make $50k/yr, it takes 20 years for that employee to make $1mil.

Executives get often get many millions just in Christams bonuses. When you consider executive compensation. One single executive will often get in just one year the equivalent compensation of dozens and even hundreds of productive employees over their entire lifetime.

An executive may recieve the equivalent compensation over their entire career of thousands of productive employees.

When you look at the real value of the service of executives vs. employees and then compare their respective compensation, the idea that low level employees are making too much is laughable.

 

[Paulie]

Does getting rid of the jets...even all of the jets...address why these companies are failing in the first place?

I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't understand the hoopla over the corporate jets. So many in the media and the corporate world seem far too willing to get the masses all in a tizzy over the jets so that we can ignore the real problems these companies face.

If we got rid of the jets...if we started paying the CEOs $40,000 a year...would these companies miraculously recover? No, of course not. Getting rid of the jets, lowering the salaries of the company execs would be tokens, symbols only. I'm tired of trite politically staged apologies...big gestures that look good on tv and mean nothing. As far as I'm concerned they can keep their jets and their salaries...as long as they are willing to do what needs to be done to fix their friggin' companies.

Unfortunately, I don't see the CEOs being interested in doing that...and I don't see the Congress or the media being interested in making them do that...

I agree.

However, it is not congress' responsibility to MAKE them do it, nor the media. Either they want to, or they don't. It is their choice.

 

[Gem]

Paulitics Wrote:

I agree.

However, it is not congress' responsibility to MAKE them do it, nor the media. Either they want to, or they don't. It is their choice.

On this, you and I are in total agreement. But that is sort of why I began thinking about this in the first place...why in the hell is a senator (not the most modest and "just scraping by" of professions) lecturing a CEO about his corporate jet? This is stupid...they shouldn't even be talking to them in the first place?!?!

I think that these companies should do what thousands upon thousands of businesses do every year...merge, restructure, or fail. There are a myriad of other companies that employ more than these companies do...are we going to bail them all out? God, I hope not!

Richard-H wrote:

When you look at the real value of the service of executives vs. employees and then compare their respective compensation, the idea that low level employees are making too much is laughable.

If you are going to compare the contribution of the CEO to the contribution of the assembly line worker - then we are going to have to agree to disagree. I'm not saying that the assembly line worker isn't an essential member of the company...just that I think that comparing the salaries of the two is non-helpful.

If every CEO working for one of these companies agreed to work for free...these companies would not succeed. And there are plenty of companies that compensate their executives ridiculously well...that are ridiculously successful.

I suppose my bottom line is simply that in this case, the problem isn't the compensation package of the CEO. Its the incompetence of the CEO getting the compensation package. Rather than screaming about why the incompetent CEO is flying around in a private jet - why not talk about why that CEO is still in charge of a company he seems to be failing?

 

[editec]

editec wrote:


Then why do they all get paid that much money? Don't misunderstand me...I think that their salaries and compensation and retirement packages are downright obscene...but its a corporations perogative to set the salaries of its employees.

Look at all the successful corporations in the world...tell me what their CEO's make and what their benefits packages look like. I think we can both agree that most large corporations have ridiculously well-paid execs.

We can rage about that all we want...but the bottom line is that rarely is that the reason for a corporations failings.

I just feel like we are harping on this issue of the salaries because its easy to point to one fat-cat and say "Look! HE'S the problem!"

Well, why isn't the salaries of these people the problem when a corporation is doing well...but suddenly its the problem when the company isn't doing well?

As far as their salaries in comparison to their workers...well come on now...a lead actress makes more than an extra....a doctor makes more than a nurse assistant...a teacher makes more than a paraprofessional...

As I said...I get as angry as the next man at the sight of men riding in corporate jets in expensive suits to ask me to give them money. But if they all said they wouldn't accept a dime in salary or benefits....the problem would be nowhere close to solved.

I just feel that this is swiftly becoming media manufactured "faux-outrage" to stop us from really examining why these businesses are REALLY failing.

I don't really feel any rage about this, but the problem of executive overcompensation is one which even the most ardent supporters of the free market and capitalism are talking about.

The stockholders are the people who are mostly getting screwed, you know.

 

[Gem]

Is it the governments job to regulate that?

 

[Care4all]

Gem,
What made the highest paid CEO go from getting paid 25 times the average employee to the average CEO now getting paid 450 TIMES the average worker within their company?


NO SINGLE PERSON is worth more than 450 workers for any company imo, and because of this change from 25 times more to now 450 times more is what stands out and upsets a great deal of people because they see this as UNJUST and they see the means in which they get these salaries with their buddies that they chose as the board of directors giving it to them as UNJUST....

 

[Care4all]

Is it the governments job to regulate that?

no, it's not.

 

[dilloduck]

Gem,
What made the highest paid CEO go from getting paid 25 times the average employee to the average CEO now getting paid 450 TIMES the average worker within their company?


NO SINGLE PERSON is worth more than 450 workers for any company imo, and because of this change from 25 times more to now 450 times more is what stands out and upsets a great deal of people because they see this as UNJUST and they see the means in which they get these salaries with their buddies that they chose as the board of directors giving it to them as UNJUST....

Not fair ? Well how much better off will you be if they don't make that much ?

 

[Care4all]

Not fair ? Well how much better off will you be if they don't make that much ?

moi? unless i own stock in the company, not much!!! )

There are many things that could be done with the extra money that would benefit the stock holders..

-they could give the stockholders this profit via dividends.

-they could reinvest this money in to GOOD, PRODUCTIVE, employees that are working for them.

-They could reinvest the money in to expanding the company

-They could pass on their savings to the consumer by lowering their prices, which could capture more market share from their competitor.