…swift efficient transportation for people being paid enough money to warrant the expense.

I think that at least some of the backlash stems from the fact that a lot of us don’t think that ANY business executive really should be paid some of these ridiculous sums of money.

If they shouldn’t be paid that much, then suddenly the corporate jet doesn’t make that much sense. After all, if the upper management of a company is only worth 200 to 500 grand a year instead of 5 to 10 million, then their TIME isn’t worth what business aviation costs.

To me, that’s the bigger issue. Corporate aviation, both during the boom years (the past couple of decades) and the current “run for the hills!” panic to sell off jets, is merely the symptom of the problem.

The real problem is that the vast majority of those folks riding around in those corporate jets on business didn’t deserve their salaries.

From a CNN report in 2007:

If you just consider the average compensation (wages plus benefits) of full-time year-round workers in non-managerial jobs – roughly $40,000 – CEO pay is more like 270 times bigger than the average Joe’s. That’s still a far cry from days gone by. In 1989, for instance, U.S. CEOs of large companies earned 71 times more than the average worker, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

The IPS/UFE report also compared U.S. CEO pay to that of leaders in other fields and other countries. The top 20 CEOs of U.S. companies made an average of $36.4 million in 2006. That’s 204 times that of the 20 highest paid U.S. military generals, and 38 times that of the 20 highest-paid non-profit leaders. They also made three times more than the top 20 CEOs of European companies who had booked higher sales numbers than their U.S. counterparts.

The pay gap numbers don’t include the value of the many perks CEOs receive, which averaged $438,342, according to the report. Nor do they include the pension benefits CEOs receive.

The reality, my corporate jet-defending friends, is that you’re both right and wrong.

You’re right- if someone’s making millions of bucks a year, then their time is valuable enough that corporate aviation makes sense.

But you’re wrong to assume that all these dudes that some of you have been flying around are worth it. In fact, most of them are NOT worth it.

As Rob pointed out in response to Bill’s comment… if it were truly a valuable business asset, they wouldn’t be dumping it as quickly as they are.

In reality, very few of the bigwigs actually deserve the dough they’re making. Microsoft is trucking right along without Bill Gates at the helm. If Jeff Immelt croaks tomorrow, GE is going to keep cranking out light bulbs and microwaves and programming on NBC.

To me, that’s what’s driving the panic to dump bizjets. Those folks know the reality- there’s actually little to justify their salaries and perks.

And if their time isn’t actually worth that much, then flying first or business class and working out of the various airport lounges or whatever starts making a LOT more sense.

They’re dumping the symptoms of the problem (the bizjets) but not actually curing the problem itself- just like they’re not actually dealing with the structures and regulations (or lack thereof) that got the financial world into the mess they’re in.

Freakin BARACK OBAMA took AF-1 to a place in VIRGINIA this week. A 747 and all the crew and cost of that for a 30 minute flight. What BS.

(rant mode over).

Perhaps corporate flight departments (or whoever it is that does procurement) could buy airplanes that look more like the tools they are, rather the plush luxuries. What’s the average interior finish cost for a Citation X or a Gulfstream V relative to the cost of the airplane? I’m guessing that it is relatively high. All that teak can’t be cheap, right?

No one let’s a valuable business asset fly out the door, unless of course, it was never really that valuable in the first place.

I understand that the fallout from a big domestic car manufacturer would be devastating to our economy (short term), but I think a more terrifying future lies in nationalization (long term).

What’s next on the “bailout” radar screen? Airlines? Oil Companies? When do we finally say, enough is enough ?

The real answers are to be found when true captitalism is allowed to operate… not socialism or nationalism as we are seeing now!!! And if need be, bankruptcy and the courts to settle the financial quandry and how the spoils of corporate failures will be divided. The real answer to this is a trip through bankruptcy court and an acceptance that some businesses or companies (no matter how big) do need to close thier doors and fail. Only then will the winners and losers be determined and the debris of over inflated payrolls and over inflated salaries and yes a few flight departments be fixxed. Risks and opportunities can evolve if we have the courage to face the future!!! More tax payer bailouts and governement involvement is the problem not the solution!!!

First, the car guys need better PR people. One of GM spokesman is a former FAA spokesman, Greg Martin. That would explain why the facts are obfuscated by denial. Old habits are hard to break.

Second, Citi needs another jet like I do. They have two Bombardier Global Express and two Falcon 900EX. Not to mention a Sikorsky S-76 helicopter. How is a Falcon 7X going to help their new business plan?

These wizards of Wall Street are so out of touch they don’t get it. How else could a John Thain spend more on an office renovation than new hire RJ pilot make in a career!?

For all your misplaced dudgeon, I don’t see anything here, nor have I seen anything else justifying the use by these taxpayer-dependent businesses of public funds to purchase luxury jets.

Would you agree that ‘Welfare Queens’ should not pull up to the welfare office in grand Cadillac cars? I don’t see much difference between that kind of behavior and the approach taken by Citi and the auto execs. It’s bad PR, but also just bad.

I concur that under ordinary circumstances, it’s nobody’s business but the shareholders what kind of conveyance these guys take. But these are not ordinary circumstances, and when our employees are taking a pay cut to keep our small business afloat, I don’t think it behooves me to show up to work in brand new Ferragamos. Nor do I think it is sensible business practice for public dependents to zip around in gold-plated flying Cadillacs in the midst of a mess they created all by themselves.

A very good article, I agree that in the atmosphere of a crumbling financial market, people has forgotten that business aviation is a market segment and only measure the economies of business trave in terms of airline ticket versus biz jet trip cost and not in the savings accrued by the fact that the people carried cost their companies an arm and a leg and that saving their time is a far greater saving.
There is a vocal minority of arm chair economists and would be regulators who are driving the debate over the web and social networks intimidating those who do not agree with them.

Regards