"Cessna Fights Back On Private-Jet Trend" WSJ article

[darrenf]

Yes, and presumably you're making money, or at least not demanding that I give you mine because you're "too big to fail", so you can then refuse to lend it (my money) back to me at usurous interest rates. If GM or BOA absolutely, positively has to get their executive-bunglers from one place to another right now, let em throw up a bid on Grand Aire or Active. The proviso is they have to take the lowest priced charter that will get them there on time. Strap em all Jball, Metro, or Convair. No leather, no wet bar, no fun.

I don't have a problem with corporate aviation in the least. I have a problem with corporate aviation funded by theft.

So you want them to work even LESS efficiently.


Good plan!

 

[ZapBrannigan]

We also have yet to mention that fact that commercial air service is only a viable option for a few hundred cities within the US. There are literally thousands of well-equipped general aviation airports in areas that have limited or no air service -- but where business needs to be done.

 

[Xcaliber]

I don't have a problem with corporate aviation in the least. I have a problem with corporate aviation funded by theft.

Fair enough. Although, the same can be said about the airlines and all their "bailouts" from the government over the past few decades. That's a whole other argument though

By the way, darrenf, HILARIOUS picture! :yup:

 

[Boris Badenov]

So you want them to work even LESS efficiently.

I want them to go out of business if they are incapable of making money, yes. Do we all understand that we're talking about a de facto nationalization of the banks and car companies? Except it's worse than that, because there's no oversight. Sure, if a crack team of government bean-counters go over the books and determine that, having made the mistake of bailing out these criminals, we need to give them a clapped out citation with shag carpeting and a mildew stench so they won't steal even more of our money, fine. But I'm not just taking their word for it. I can't conceive of how anyone with an IQ in the triple digits has been convinced that these swine are to be trusted. I wouldn't let these idiots run a lemonade stand without someone keeping a sharp eye on the cashbox.

 

[Douglas]

Im sick of this private jet bashing. untill members of congress stop flying privately, nobody has any valid argument against corporate aviation.

I have seen Princess Pelosi in her G550 twice at SFO. The US government is in more debt than any private company and yet they ride around in biz jets an no one says a word.

If you believe this, then you really don't understand the differences which makes you right, if you don't know the differences.
But there is a big difference.

 

[darrenf]

I want them to go out of business if they are incapable of making money, yes. Do we all understand that we're talking about a de facto nationalization of the banks and car companies? Except it's worse than that, because there's no oversight. Sure, if a crack team of government bean-counters go over the books and determine that, having made the mistake of bailing out these criminals, we need to give them a clapped out citation with shag carpeting and a mildew stench so they won't steal even more of our money, fine. But I'm not just taking their word for it. I can't conceive of how anyone with an IQ in the triple digits has been convinced that these swine are to be trusted. I wouldn't let these idiots run a lemonade stand without someone keeping a sharp eye on the cashbox.

But they are going to be in business, with money we gave them. So why tie their hands and make them less competitive. I don't disagree with your argument that they shouldn't be in business if they need our help, but that is an ENTIRELY different topic.

 

[thehobbit]

cessna is having the same problems that the big three and every other car manufactures are having, when the money is tight why buy a new jet or car when their are plenty of used jets and cars on the market for cheap.

 

[SteveC]

You guys do better at explaining this stuff then I do. Thanks.

 

[Boris Badenov]

But they are going to be in business, with money we gave them. So why tie their hands and make them less competitive. I don't disagree with your argument that they shouldn't be in business if they need our help, but that is an ENTIRELY different topic.

I'm simply pointing out that with no oversight on their expenditures (of which there is essentially none), I'm 100% willing to err on the side of assuming that they're the sort of fools who spend lots of money and wind up deeply in debt. Because they are, they've proven it. Except now it's my money, and the best case scenario is that they will be willing, in their magnamity, to lend my money back to me. Under those circumstances, the "necessity" of their ficking gulfstream needs to be proven, not assumed.

 

[SteveC]

I'm simply pointing out that with no oversight on their expenditures (of which there is essentially none), I'm 100% willing to err on the side of assuming that they're the sort of fools who spend lots of money and wind up deeply in debt. Because they are, they've proven it. Except now it's my money, and the best case scenario is that they will be willing, in their magnamity, to lend my money back to me. Under those circumstances, the "necessity" of their ficking gulfstream needs to be proven, not assumed.

I understand that idea. I don't agree with it, but I understand that the misperception about the use of corporate aircraft engenders that response. It is precisely the reason for Cessna and NBAA and others to perform a counter-perception program, and the reason for this thread.

Here's more from Cessna:

KEEP FLYING

Shame on those who suggest that business aviation is little more than a corporate frivolity. Focusing on facts over hyperbole, it’s glaringly apparent why you fly. Study after study shows companies operating business aircraft outperform competitors that don’t. It’s simply about availing yourself of the tools to do your job.

Let’s remember that it isn’t simply about shuttling executives. (In fact, 86% of those aboard business aircraft aren’t at the executive level.) Among other things, business aircraft transport parts that keep assembly lines running. They efficiently move specialists to solve problems that might put thousands out of work. Not to mention, corporations donate thousands of hours to securely transport government officials—some of whom are the very ones who seem to have business aviation in their crosshairs of late.

Business aviation provides access to almost ten times the number of airports served by the airlines. That translates to multiple daily site visits with confidential business conducted en route, instead of hours of downtime flying commercially. Factor in ever-shrinking commercial airline routes—nearly 100 of which were cut last year alone—and you have an even more compelling case.

In the face of empty rhetoric, business aviation speaks for itself. So pull your aircraft out of its hangar and put it to work. The companies that do, will be the very ones who lead the world back to prosperity.

 

[Boris Badenov]

I understand that idea. I don't agree with it, but I understand that the misperception about the use of corporate aircraft engenders that response. It is precisely the reason for Cessna and NBAA and others to perform a counter-perception program, and the reason for this thread.

Here's more from Cessna:

I don't think you do understand. Once again, no problem with corporate aircraft. Problem with corporate aircraft funded by theft. To every company stampeeding back in to profitability, I give a well-earned "thanks for not robbing me" and two thumbs up to jetting off to wherever they need to go.

Perception of how the aircraft are used isn't even the issue. I just want someone minding the store who isn't already a proven thief. I don't think that's too much to ask.

 

[scramjet]

I want them to go out of business if they are incapable of making money, yes. Do we all understand that we're talking about a de facto nationalization of the banks and car companies? Except it's worse than that, because there's no oversight. Sure, if a crack team of government bean-counters go over the books and determine that, having made the mistake of bailing out these criminals, we need to give them a clapped out citation with shag carpeting and a mildew stench so they won't steal even more of our money, fine. But I'm not just taking their word for it. I can't conceive of how anyone with an IQ in the triple digits has been convinced that these swine are to be trusted. I wouldn't let these idiots run a lemonade stand without someone keeping a sharp eye on the cashbox.

:yeahthat:

 

[Ian_J]

That's because you're a knowledge worker, not a salesman. Closing deals, big and small, is largely about pressing the flesh. Face time. Convincing people to do something they might not do otherwise.

Look how misconstrued peoples' posts here can be, for lack of tone/inflection/body language. When millions are riding on a deal, you don't leave such things to chance and "hope" they get your meaning correctly. And video conferencing only sends the message that a potential customer's business isn't worth the trouble of sending someone in person.

It's why people who work in sales are so grossly overpaid. Their social skills are often what make or break the deal.

Absolutely agree with all except the bolded. Change it to "It's why people who work in sales are appropriately compensated," and I'd say that was a good post!

 

[texas_pilot]

"BAIL EM OUT! ????

Hell, back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed, and it closed. Now we are trusting the economy of our country and the banking system to the same nit-wits who couldn't make money running a ##### house and selling whiskey!

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>

​

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[Ian_J]

"BAIL EM OUT! ????

Hell, back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed, and it closed. Now we are trusting the economy of our country and the banking system to the same nit-wits who couldn't make money running a ##### house and selling whiskey! <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="top"></td></tr></tbody></table>

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/mustang_ranch.htm

Though the intent of this missive is humorous and it makes a worthy point — namely, mixing government and business can create more problems than it solves — it rests on a factual error. In reality, the federal government did not attempt to operate Mustang Ranch after it was seized in a bankruptcy proceeding in September 1990.

 

[darrenf]

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/mustang_ranch.htm

You beat me to it.

 

[Ian_J]

You beat me to it.

Heck, it was such an obvious cut and paste from some blog I figured it would come up word for word in a search.

 

[av8or91]

Why doesn't the president get rid of Air Force One? How much money is that costing us taxpayers to run as compared to the smaller business jets that corporations operate. Obama preaches going green and being efficient when in reality his operations as president exactly opposite. I cant imagine a flight department at company like GM, Ford, or Chrysler has a huge impact on their budget.

 

[surreal1221]

All of these well-crafted "productivity" arguments are predicated on, uh, "production". What, pray tell, have these self-important clowns been producing but debt, bankruptcy, and failure? You can have your jet back when you make some money. Till then, you're grounded. And eat your peas.

Owned.

 

[ricecakecm]

My company has contracts with several hospitals in the midwest. We fly doctors of all specialties to Western Kansas to hold clinics. We do it in private aircraft so that these doctors can get there, do their clinics, and get back in the same day. Ask a patient in western Kansas who has cancer the value of the airplane we flew yesterday to haul an oncologist? Or the parents who's kid has a heart problem about the value of the airplane that flew the pediatic cardiologist?

You guys like sports? Most coaches fly around on private aircraft scouting players due to constantly changing schedules of players.

A company who purchases an airplane and uses it responsibly is hung out to dry, but that same company could buy a piece of software that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, possibly millions, but nothing is said, even though the end result is still the same: increased productivity.

There's a insurance underwriter in the hangar next to mine at the airport. They have some Lear 45's. A couple of years ago there was a huge thunderstorm that dumped tons of hail on several of the car dealers they underwrite. They were able to have adjusters on site within a few hours and got business taken care of. By the time their compeitors who also insured car dealers in the same area got there, the market was already flooded and they lost money. The company with airplanes saved tens of thousands of dollars, well in excess of the cost to fly the planes.

What happens when a salesman or an executive's meeting runs long and he misses his flight on the airlines, which in turn causes him to miss the next meeting? Money is lost. Could be thousands of dollars, could be millions. If he were flying on a business aircraft, he wouldn't miss his flight, because his crew would be waiting for him.

Sure, some companies abuse the jets. But by and large, companies tend to use them in a responsible, productive manner which advances their business.