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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[automaniac]

Originally Posted by smee323

What I can't see is the need for a jet, or travel at all.

Ford's CEO Allan Mulally actually lives in Seattle, not Detroit, so he uses the jet to take him home every weekend.

[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?

[flappist]

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.

So what you are saying is that you earned a whole heap of money in a short time working for someone else (actually tax payers, CSIRO) and then did a runner living off the profits of the money earned......
Sort of a lot like what these CEOs seem to be abused over of really isn't it?

As for me, I am 49 and still work 5-7 days a week and will not retire until I die. I like buying new cars and motorbikes every year, going to stupid places and doing silly things for holidays (how many of you have actually been to the Corvette factory, competed in the world machine gun shooting championships, jump seat landed in a 747, raced against Craig Lowndes, spent 3 weeks just driving at high speed in NT and lots more) so I spend my money almost as fast as I earn it and have done so for many years. That is how I live my life and I have lots of fun doing it.

This is a no win argument.

If the "company" makes an enormous profit there is whinging about profiteering.
If they lose money they are incompetent.
If they sack people and close plants to reduce costs they are uncaring and mercinary.
If they do not and lose money they are incompetent.
If the workers want more money because some union say they deserve it and they strike causing disruptions and the management does not give in they are heartless bastards.
If they do so and lose money they are incompetent.

The thread started about the jets. USA has 50 capital cities not 7. There are more people working in the automotive and associated industries in USA than work in everything in Australia.

While I am sure there are several members of AFF who actually DO understand the situation (Happy Jack and GP were members) I am equally sure that none of them are going to say anything about it on here.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by guzzis3

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.

.

You are one of those rare real engineer types by the sound of it. I know where you are coming from.

I think there is a real need for executives to handle the interfacing between company, clients, suppliers, etc. I think there is a real need for the sales staff, the clerical, the assembly workers, the engineers who do bone fide engineering, the draftsmen, etc.

CEOs are the tribal chiefs and generally need more front and confidence than intrinsic knowledge. They get the big bucks because they do the stuff directors were originally intended to do, but don't feel comfortable doing. They are the face of the company and have a job that most aren't willing to sacrifice their ethics and social lives for. However the cost of a rotten marriage, a brain given over to rat cunning, greed, self importance etc being worth $23m/annum is absurd. These guys are driven by the desire to win at all costs and have adulation heaped on them.. they would do it for wages so long as they weilded power and had someone else handle their domestic affairs.

What salary is the most powerful man in the world on? Did he do it wealth creation or because he wanted power?

[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

[XWGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

Occaisionally when walking around at a v8supercar race I have overheard groups of people wearing lots of HSV or FPV merchandise raving on about how the drivers can't drive, the cars are all set up wrongly, the track is crap and many other whinges.

The all have an opinion, usually from TV or their mates or and internet forum but interestingly none of them have actually driven a race car of any type, worked on anything newer than a e-series or VN or actually touched a race track let alone driven on one.

Those who can, do...... those who can't, just whinge about it.

For those who think they can do a great job as a CEO I offer this challange:

In your next post list your age, what you do for a living, for whom and for how long and what you earned before expenses and tax last year.

Sorry, but your blatant arrogance in the belief that only the ridiculously highly paid can steer a company are starting to grate.

I am a division manager. Global company. 100,000+ employees. Good track record of results over the last 5 fiscal years from my business unit. AND I DONT HAVE A PRIVATE JET. NEITHER DOES THE CEO, BOARD, SMG or GM's. In fact unless you are traveling for 10 hours plus business class is not available to your either. Funnily enough we still manage to get 24/7 internet and VPN access with our laptops and mobiles work surprisingly well at all airports. All of our packages are highly incentivised and based on tangible positive financial and safety results only. Of which nearly all managers have collected on in the past years for damn good results. So i think I'm reasonably qualified to state that you dont need to pay $15 million to get good leadership and strategic managers.

So to see what these clowns did is highly frustrating not to mention damn stupid and showed neither political savvy or common sense to antagonise a target audience that clearly has taken a battering over the last 3 months and is probably tired of hearing the most highly paid individuals on the planet cry that they are poor and the public should replace their coffers with their hard earned cash. And they certainly didnt need the 3 guys to arrive in 3 seperate corporate jets with no plan on how they were going to reinvigorate their organisations or stem the bleeding in any way.

As I have stated before and will stand by, their arrogance just made them a prime target for ridicule, and it seems the Senators didnt hesistate in doing just that. Problem is that it actually hurts the chances of those organisations to gain support and reinforce the theory that the auto industries are run like dinosaurs by dinosaurs.

[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 president@whitehouse.gov

[b2tf]

Originally Posted by flappist

For those who think they can do a great job as a CEO I offer this challange:

In your next post list your age, what you do for a living, for whom and for how long and what you earned before expenses and tax last year.

Now correct me if I am wrong here (and I am sure you will), but if I have read your posts right, you are basically arguing that CEO's or those 'higher up' in a company are deserving of higher salaries and in fact SHOULD have them compared to those who work under them.

Again I hope I'm reading it right, and if thats not what youre saying disregard the rest of my post, but if it is, I'd like you to explain why.

Case in point - Ford Oz. Now I will make it clear here and now that NO i do not know everything there is to know about running a business and no I am not a CEO etc etc, but I tend to look at it this way.

* CEO is top of company and surrounded by dozens/hundreds of advisers/PA's/supplementary staff. The purpose of this portion of the company is to oversee operations and, in a nutshell, make sure everything goes smoothly (read: company makes money and develops into future).

* Underneath CEO you again have management whose job it is to feed info/stats/whatever to top level management (see above). These are essentially the "middle men". Same deal but on a smaller level - oversee operations, look for cost cutting measures, make sure dollars are made.

*Now at the very bottom of this chain you have the average worker - the one who makes the product that sells to make the company money. His job is to get up, go to work every day and do his best at whatever his role is in the production of the item that the company sells - in Fords case, let's say that this is John Q. Public who works at the Geelong Plant casting I6 blocks.

Now, explain to me who out of the above does the most work, and what they get paid. Which comes first, chicken or egg etc - does the CEO deserve the big dollars because he is at the top and oversees everything? Or does the middle management guy deserve it for being the meat in the corporate sandwich? Or does the work deserve it for being consistent and producing the product that the above mentioned managers stand next to at the motor show? I'm not trying to incite a revolution here, I'm just wondering how the pay rates etc are determined and justified.

Fast forward a bit to our friends in the corporate jet who are going to ask for more cash to keep things going, and take a look at their payslips while you're there. Now compare that to the shortfall for which they're going to try and get a handout to fill. Obviously this is going to be dependent on the size of the company, but which are you better to do - find the money in-house through cost cutting (and if you do choose this option, look at the above levels of the company, and choose who/what you'd cut based on the needs of the company and the costs incurred to keep that person), or go into debt to maintain the company at the same level (or close to) that it's at right now - corporate jets and all.

The way I, a lowly middle class worker with no kids and no house to pay for (yet) see it, is that you find the weaknesses in the company (or perhaps not weaknesses, more things that are not a necessity), remove them or get rid of them, and find your extra cash that way. The company I work for can't go to the government and say 'hey we need cash' if we lose a major contract - we find what we don't need or can do with out, cut back and try to move on. So why can't the big corporations do this?

And as for the corporate jet being a necessary item due to phones not working/missing appointments etc, what about using the Internet and doing a live hookup? Email? Fax?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by XWGT

Sorry, but your blatant arrogance in the belief that only the ridiculously highly paid can steer a company are starting to grate.

I am a division manager. Global company. 100,000+ employees. Good track record of results over the last 5 fiscal years from my business unit. AND I DONT HAVE A PRIVATE JET. NEITHER DOES THE CEO, BOARD, SMG or GM's. In fact unless you are traveling for 10 hours plus business class is not available to your either. Funnily enough we still manage to get 24/7 internet and VPN access with our laptops and mobiles work surprisingly well at all airports. All of our packages are highly incentivised and based on tangible positive financial and safety results only. Of which nearly all managers have collected on in the past years for damn good results. So i think I'm reasonably qualified to state that you dont need to pay $15 million to get good leadership and strategic managers.

So to see what these clowns did is highly frustrating not to mention damn stupid and showed neither political savvy or common sense to antagonise a target audience that clearly has taken a battering over the last 3 months and is probably tired of hearing the most highly paid individuals on the planet cry that they are poor and the public should replace their coffers with their hard earned cash. And they certainly didnt need the 3 guys to arrive in 3 seperate corporate jets with no plan on how they were going to reinvigorate their organisations or stem the bleeding in any way.

As I have stated before and will stand by, their arrogance just made them a prime target for ridicule, and it seems the Senators didnt hesistate in doing just that. Problem is that it actually hurts the chances of those organisations to gain support and reinforce the theory that the auto industries are run like dinosaurs by dinosaurs.

The original thread was about a corporate jet. Usually they are used for other things besides CEO transport.

At no time have I ever supported $15M is an appropriate salary package but I have said that $100K as suggested by others is a joke.

I would be prepared to bet a large anout of beer that you, your compatriots and all above you in your company earn significantly more than $100K a year.

Yes there are excesses but there is also a gross shortage of talent so you pay what you is asked to get what you want.

If that was not the case then Phase 3 GTHOs would be $5000 each wouldn't they?

[guzzis3]

Originally Posted by flappist

So what you are saying is that you earned a whole heap of money in a short time working for someone else (actually tax payers, CSIRO) and then did a runner living off the profits of the money earned......
Sort of a lot like what these CEOs seem to be abused over of really isn't it?

No I earned an average salary and was careful with my money. My point is i know something about investing, budgeting and the structure of public companies. I really didn't want to get into a phallis waving competition but since you pretty much demanded...

This is a no win argument.

Yes.

If the "company" makes an enormous profit there is whinging about profiteering.
If they lose money they are incompetent.
If they sack people and close plants to reduce costs they are uncaring and mercinary.
If they do not and lose money they are incompetent.
If the workers want more money because some union say they deserve it and they strike causing disruptions and the management does not give in they are heartless bastards.
If they do so and lose money they are incompetent.

The thread started about the jets. USA has 50 capital cities not 7. There are more people working in the automotive and associated industries in USA than work in everything in Australia.

While I am sure there are several members of AFF who actually DO understand the situation (Happy Jack and GP were members) I am equally sure that none of them are going to say anything about it on here.

A corporation is charged, obliged, with making a profit. That's fine. The government and the people also demand it do so in a manner which causes no undue harm to the community. Managment is charged with balancing these and other contradictory requirements. If they drift too far either way people complain.

These three comapnies have failed utterly. They hve failed to sustain profitability, so they have failed investors. They have failed to be good corporate citizens by if nothing else failing their enormous workforces. They are demanding the government pay their way because the impact of thier failure on the community is tremendous. I don't understand why you insist on defending 3 executives who have failed by any and every measure.

Anyway, I've got storm damaged houses to deal with. Have a nice weekend everyone...

[flappist]

The video conference/internet idea seems popular. I wonder if the senator for whatever would have been happy to do the whole inquisition on a phone hookup instead of making them all come down to visit.

Probably not

[Wally]

I doubt the corporate jet cost was the thing that got the dander up, more likely the ostentatious display instead of piety when asking "please sir can I have more" from a public servant who is, by nature, not endeared to entrepreneurs.

[Falcon Coupe]

Meh, I'll join in on mine too......

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Meh, I'll join in on mine too......

That makes me sick Nick! THE AUDACITY OF ARRIVING ON A PRIVATE HORSE! You didnt even horsepool!!!

[Serial_Fool]

Originally Posted by 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.

That 20 million dollar jet is about what it wil take to redevelop the I6 for the Euro 4 laws... to think of 20 million dollars as a small amount is just stuiped.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

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.

Then the CEO's of today shouldn't be getting the bonus' of yesterday's CEOs, they are being paid in advance for forecasted earnings years from now?

If the corporation is so inflexible why the reward? Why hasn't management made the corporation dynamic to adjust direction rapidly to a rapidly changing world? The Jap car makers seem to cope pretty well with change.

The truth is that these three companies were on the slippery slope many years ago and just blustered their way ahead producing vehicles the public were fed up with. They thought they could tell the consumer what they wanted and the gamble didn't pay off.

[GT0132]

In some respects I do agree with what Flappist is saying.

Yes, CEO's do get generous financial rewards, no doubt about that, but at huge personal cost. While most of us pack up at 5 and go home and forget work totally and be with our families the typical CEO's day has only really just begun....in the office till 8pm..then a dinner with a client or a supplier...corporate events, media interviews, home at midnight when kids are in bed....up at 4.30am to do it all over again.....Weekends are either spent in the office or they've brought a pile of work home. When they aren't working they're thinking about working. While on holiday most have to be contactible with Blackberry and Laptop on hand. You can be out the door quick smart too in an instant the minute you take your eye off the ball and make a poor decision....Having to cop the demands of shareholders, banks, consumers and the Board and maintain a balance as best you can between all stakeholders in the organisation is a huge responsibility....not to mention the detrimental impact on health.

So while there's great financial rewards , most don't have what I'd call, a satisfying personal life and I wouldn't trade places.

While many will argue that Australian CEO's are overpaid, they have to be paid at those levels otherwise many would simply pack up and move to Asia to get the much higher remuneration packages on offer.

[Wally]

It is their repsonsibility to make the structure that allows them to go home at night and weekends, spend time with the family, etc. That they don't do it is the nature of these type of people who fear losing influence if they share the load.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by Wally

Then the CEO's of today shouldn't be getting the bonus' of yesterday's CEOs, they are being paid in advance for forecasted earnings years from now?

If the corporation is so inflexible why the reward? Why hasn't management made the corporation dynamic to adjust direction rapidly to a rapidly changing world? The Jap car makers seem to cope pretty well with change.

The truth is that these three companies were on the slippery slope many years ago and just blustered their way ahead producing vehicles the public were fed up with. They thought they could tell the consumer what they wanted and the gamble didn't pay off.

I dont really care what the execs get paid. The oversight for this is the shareholders meetings, and I'm not one of those.

I dont see governments trying to avoid another wave of downturn as a reward for anyone except the citizens it benefits.

Asian car makers arent doing well. They are posting profit losses, even with the added advantage of asian manufacturing cost savings. Toyota's forecast for 2009 is a 68% profit drop. And I'll tell you what, if GM/Ford/Dodge go under, that number will drop further in the wake of depression.

lets not forget the diversified portfolios of GM/Ford/Chrysler, many own or have controlling interests in Asian and European manufacturers. Cars, as a product, arent selling at the same rates they were 24 months ago.

I dont see the public on this forum suddenly sick of Fords products. I see more caution in purchase, i see delay, i see uncertainty. Lack of consumer confidence is the issue.

I'm a normal bloke on a normal wage, if I had the cash in the bank at the moment, I wouldnt go and buy a new GT today. If the company I work for slashes numbers, I'm going to need that coin. If I have to get a loan for that GT, im twice as unlikely to commit. This is the issue.

[Rodp]

If I was on the board of any of these companies, I'd certainly want the head, when travelling to whatever destination to be potentially contactable and productive at all times.

Send him business class, the moment he walks into the airport he enters the void where he might be contactable for 1% of the time between his entrance and whenever it was decided they'd spit him out the other side.

Send him via an already budgetted and funded corporate jet, and given the strife the company is in, he's immediately contactable and running on an agreed timetable.

So yes, I can believe those CEO's. Sounds like a huge case of tall poppy syndrome to me.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Serial_Fool

That 20 million dollar jet is about what it wil take to redevelop the I6 for the Euro 4 laws... to think of 20 million dollars as a small amount is just stuiped.

Which, due to the current economic crisis would have to be firesaled for $bugger all. So lets say they get $5M CASH for it. They need another $15M which they can't borrow so the project is trashed and there is another $15,000,000 LOSS added to their bottom line.

[Wally]

It's just that as CEO's salaries have increased, it seems to have been at the expense of decreased profitability.

In 1993 Jack Smith of GM was paid $1.4M. In 1994 he got a rise to $1.5M and a bonus of $4.2M for being at the helm when the profit doubled to $4.9B

In the last three years GM has lost $67B while also losing market capitalisation of $37B over the last eight years, and a drop of 83% in stock value, all in the tenure of Rick Wagoner. He earns $1.6M and gratuities of another $13M per annum.

I know if I owned the business I'd be looking for someone like Jack Smith to take up immediate residency and I would have done it seven years ago. $4.9B profit in one year looks a hell of a lot better than $67B loss in three years.

Eight years is a long time to see trouble ahead, but the CEO doesn't seem to have the ability to steer into profitability. The market crash is really just an opportune time to ask for public funds.

[SM1DY]

David Hicks flew back on a Gulf-Stream from Guantumamo Bay at the cost to tax payers of about half a million.

Im sure Jetstar could've had a more competitive price.

[gcg2503]

this thread is better than TV

[vanman_75]

and i cant remember who said 1 country in trouble wont bring the whole world to its knees .all of the above threads i would read as correct,thats why we dont have a balanced society ,economicaly that is .the world is yet to work out a sustainable future . as long as there is greed we need growth otherwise we would all be equal and told what we were gunna be when we grew up. communism ? these blokes do have a hide but ,thats probably how they got the job in the first place .

[ebxr8240]

If the CEO's can get paid for when they make good times for the company ??
Then if the company looses why should they take the credit ??..
They have managers etc under them that can take phone calls..
Plus in first class there are phones you can use.. Its cop out..
Many other CEO's have to travel on commercial jets.. Why do they think they are different ??
Oh btw before anyone starts about what I do. I work as an electrical inspector and have over $1.5m real estate portfolio.. I did it myself!! NO way was I going to have a CEO wasting my money sending me broke!! As in Mortgage estate, One Tell, etc etc..
55 year old...
The trouble in U.S is the employer pays medical etc and retirement etc..
It costs them heaps to put workers off.. Employers are the social security there..
The loading on there cars due to this over indulging is pathetic..