Auto maker CEOs flew to washington in private jet

[droski]

really sends the right message guys. and there certainly aren't any commercial flights from LA to DC. No none.

ABC News: Big Three CEOs Flew Private Jets to Plead for Public Funds

All three CEOs - Rick Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford, and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler - exercised their perks Tuesday by flying in corporate jets to DC. Wagoner flew in GM's $36 million luxury aircraft to tell members of Congress that the company is burning through cash, asking for $10-12 billion for GM alone.

[TennTradition]

Man....you would think their PR people would make sure this didn't happen...it look's so bad and doesn't help their cause at all....

[lawgator1]

I have to tell you droski, I watched some of the hearing yesterday in the early evening on CNBC and I was not much impressed at all with what I saw. They came across as arrogant and unwilling to commit to whatever they had to do to secure the government's help. Saw some later commentary on that channel that really made me wonder if this is a good idea.

Its a complicated issue and I don't know near enough. But reality is that I'd say its not looking good for them and maybe it is indeed inevitable that they go under.

[droski]

Originally Posted by TennTradition

Man....you would think their PR people would make sure this didn't happen...it look's so bad and doesn't help their cause at all....

exactly what i was thinking. they all came from the LA auto show. how much time is a private jet really saving? it's just stupid.

Originally Posted by lawgator1

I have to tell you droski, I watched some of the hearing yesterday in the early evening on CNBC and I was not much impressed at all with what I saw. They came across as arrogant and unwilling to commit to whatever they had to do to secure the government's help. Saw some later commentary on that channel that really made me wonder if this is a good idea.

Its a complicated issue and I don't know near enough. But reality is that I'd say its not looking good for them and maybe it is indeed inevitable that they go under.

the people who didn't impress me were the congressmen. some of the most stupid questions i've ever heard in my life. the CEOs have to try to scare the crap out of people to get money, but still argue that their business is viable. very difficult to do. i still don't understand how wagner (gm ceo) has kept his job though.

[dan4vols]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

I have to tell you droski, I watched some of the hearing yesterday in the early evening on CNBC and I was not much impressed at all with what I saw. They came across as arrogant and unwilling to commit to whatever they had to do to secure the government's help. Saw some later commentary on that channel that really made me wonder if this is a good idea.

Its a complicated issue and I don't know near enough. But reality is that I'd say its not looking good for them and maybe it is indeed inevitable that they go under.

Whats incredible is that thes arrogant goofs represent thousands and they won't suffer the worst, the thousands will.

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by droski

exactly what i was thinking. they all came from the LA auto show. how much time is a private jet really saving? it's just stupid.



the people who didn't impress me were the congressmen. some of the most stupid questions i've ever heard in my life. the CEOs have to try to scare the crap out of people to get money, but still argue that their business is viable. very difficult to do. i still don't understand how wagner (gm ceo) has kept his job though.

I understand what you are saying about the questions. To be blunt, I wasn't listening for input so much as I was listening to see if they were giving up softballs or asking questions that would give them political cover for when they vote "no."

And I heard a LOT of questions that suggested to me that they were just covering their bases.

[rjd970]

I heard they said at the hearings they were all willing to work for $1 next year. Anybody else hear that?

These companies should just be let to fail and let competition run its course. The UAW will get exactly what they deserve.

[utvolpj]

Originally Posted by rjd970

I heard they said at the hearings they were all willing to work for $1 next year. Anybody else hear that?

1) They would still be overpaid

2) With Obama in office it's clearly a tax move

[truefan]

Originally Posted by rjd970

I heard they said at the hearings they were all willing to work for $1 next year. Anybody else hear that?

These companies should just be let to fail and let competition run its course. The UAW will get exactly what they deserve.

And in the meantime, over 3 million jobs are lost throughout the US. Talk about an economic collapse. What many people fail to realize is the fact the cars are actually made at the tier 1 plants and not at the assembly plants. These companies are spread out all over the US and most of them aren't unionized, but will have to lay off most of their employees dedicated to the GM, Ford and Chysler lines.

[dan4vols]

Originally Posted by utvolpj

1) They would still be overpaid

2) With Obama in office it's clearly a tax move

You gotta admit #2 is an improvement in the intelligence in decision making!

[droski]

well truefan there is no reason to believe that if GM et all declare bancruptcy that these companies will cease to exist or stop producing cars. actually that seems virtually impossible. the companies will merle go into reorganization. just like united airlines which as far as I can tell is still flying planes. as for this 3 mil jobs number. what complete bs. they are including things like insurance companies and auto parts makers, not just those employed by GM or F. you don't think someone will fill the gap and produce more cars and therefore buy auto parts?

[VolunteerHillbilly]

The whole thing seems to be about saving dues paying jobs, not saving businesses. This is supposed to be part of the payoff for delivering the midwest in the presidential election.

[jwells]

Originally Posted by VolunteerHillbilly

The whole thing seems to be about saving dues paying jobs, not saving businesses. This is supposed to be part of the payoff for delivering the midwest in the presidential election.

Can't create a political machine without paying out the money. Next election they'll vote (D) because "they saved our jobs" and "helped us out" a la Boss Crump down in Memphis. Give the people what they want right now, and they'll keep voting you in just to have a chance at another slice of the pie.

[truefan]

Originally Posted by droski

well truefan there is no reason to believe that if GM et all declare bancruptcy that these companies will cease to exist or stop producing cars. actually that seems virtually impossible. the companies will merle go into reorganization. just like united airlines which as far as I can tell is still flying planes. as for this 3 mil jobs number. what complete bs. they are including things like insurance companies and auto parts makers, not just those employed by GM or F. you don't think someone will fill the gap and produce more cars and therefore buy auto parts?

Droski, I worked in the automotive industry for 12 years. I have been to numerous meetings at both the American big 3 and the Japanese big three. 3 million might be a little exaggerated, but not by much. You have NO idea how many tier one companies there are and the number of people employed at those companies. Do you even know what "tier one" means? I am not necessarily for a government sponsored bailout, but I am for "loaning" the money to them....as long as unprofitable units are eliminated. I am also in favor of dissolving the UAW.

[droski]

so they have a lot of employees but why are these jobs immediately going away if there is a bancruptcy? all that is is hyperbole.

i'm not actually against a "bailout" to the auto makers at this point because I think the market can't take those companies going under, but we need some sort of labor concessions.