Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Fat-Cat Automakers Beg for Taxpayer Money While Flying in Private Jets

Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly at 11:33 AM on November 19, 2008.


If they had flown first-class it would have been embarrassing. But company-owned private jets?
074985183x

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Alan Mulally, CEO of Ford, understands the importance of symbolic gestures and public relations. Yesterday, for example, when he arrived on Capitol Hill, hat in hand, hoping to convince lawmakers to help bail out American auto manufacturers, he arrived in a new Ford Fusion Hybrid. Ford's media team, of course, made sure reporters knew about this.

The goal wasn't necessarily to impress members of Congress, who wouldn't see Mulally's arrival; it was for our benefit. Showing up in a hybrid was supposed to convey to all of us that Ford is thinking ahead and taking innovation seriously.

If only Ford's p.r. team had thought about the other leg of the trip. How one gets to the Hill from the hotel isn't quite as interesting as how one gets from home to D.C.:

The CEOs of the big three automakers flew to the nation's capital yesterday in private luxurious jets to make their case to Washington that the auto industry is running out of cash and needs $25 billion in taxpayer money to avoid bankruptcy.

The CEOs of GM, Ford and Chrysler may have told Congress that they will likely go out of business without a bailout yet that has not stopped them from traveling in style, not even First Class is good enough.

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.

GM's Wagoner parked his G4 private jet at a nearby airport. It's one of a fleet of GM-owned luxury jets used to ferry executives around the world. Ford's Mulally has access to a jet as part of his $28 million employment contract; it's one of eight private jets Ford owns for its executives.

If these guys had flown commercial first-class, while their companies are teetering on the brink, it would have been embarrassing. But company-owned private jets?

I've seen some persuasive arguments, most notably from Jonathan Cohn, on government intervention to rescue the auto industry. But a) these CEOs aren't helping; and b) they'll probably have to be replaced as part of any rescue plan.


Obama: 'If Paul Krugman Has a Good Idea … Then We're Going to Do It'
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has been a frequent critic of President-elect Obama.
Post by Amanda Terkel. January 9, 2009.
Kucinich Speaks Out Against Congress' Blind Support of Israel
"We must take a new direction in the Middle East.
Post by Staff. January 9, 2009.
TVA Responsible for Yet Another Toxic Coal-Related Spill
So, now is it time for clean energy?
Post by Tara Lohan. January 9, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Fight the (straight male) Patriarchy!
Posted by: arieden on Nov 19, 2008 12:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is all about the old straight white guys who feel they are entitled to everything. They all need to be flushed as well as the whole patriarchical system (AKA the good old boys club)and the patriarchical religions that keep them in power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This so-called bailout for the Auto Industry isn't for these dicks...
Posted by: Quannah on Nov 19, 2008 12:19 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In fact, they need to GO! This is about our manufacturing base. This is about protecting the very few manufacturing jobs that are left that allow a family to earn a decent living and have decent benefits. This is about allowing one-in-ten jobs in this country to remain. This is about not letting China buy General Motors in order to gain a foothold to sell their cars in this country. This is about not allowing India to buy Chrysler in order to sell their cars here instead. It's about not letting South Korea to buy up Ford Motor Company.

It's awfully strange that when the Financial Institutions came to Congress, hats in hand, asking for the Federal Government to SAVE WHITE-COLLAR JOBS, the answer was, "No Problem!" But when the Auto Industry comes to ask for help saving BLUE COLLAR JOBS, the Republics scream out a very loud, "No Way!"

I think they should save this industry, get rid of the current management as a condition of the loans, and let the WORKERS RUN THE OPERATION! They know better than anyone what needs to be done. Let them do it.

Cut out the fat. Not the meat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So what
Posted by: Declan on Nov 19, 2008 3:03 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How did the executives of Behr Stearns, AIG and Goldman-Sachs arrive in Washington? Or did they even have to go there since their boy, Paulson, was there ahead of them?
What dipshit thinks that all of these companies don't own private corporate transportation? It is disingenuous and hypocritical to think and write that it might be otherwise. (Shocked, we're shocked at this fact!!)
The big three represent,literally, millions of jobs. The jobs of working and middle class people in America (up to 1,000,000). While those who are benefiting from the "Wall Street Bailout" represent merely thousands of the extremely wealthy elite, those who George Bush once described as "his base."
The loans proposed for the auto manufacturers are based and contingent upon strict criteria and performance standards. Meanwhile Paulson's budies' bailout money is none of our damn business.
Thanks, but I'd rather support loans tied to conditions, which will keep my neighbors working rather than free money given away to wealthy wastrels who pose as the elite of our society...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stupid article
Posted by: PJT on Nov 20, 2008 4:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you are making $10,000,000 a year and working, say 2,000 hours a year, your salary is $5,000 an hour. As a stockholder in a big three auto company I would be VERY upset if these guys were wasting their time sitting around commercial airports in order to "save" the ten or twenty bills it costs to fly the pool jet to DC, or to make some kind of symbolic statement to impress morons such as the writer of this article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» NOBODY is worth $5000 an hour Posted by: aislinnluv
» RE: NOBODY is worth $5000 an hour Posted by: John Annis
» No You're Not Posted by: rgoalierob
» RE: Stupid response Posted by: fearn
» RE: Stupid article Posted by: Bliss Doubt
The big difference between the Wall Street and Auto bailouts.....
Posted by: rotorooter on Nov 20, 2008 6:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is the UAW. The repubs have been trying for decades to break unions of all types and this crisis is a perfect opportunity to do in the UAW. With no unions involved in the Wall Street crisis they give away $700 billion, no conditions. No questions about the astronomical salaries and bonuses to execs or how they got to their hearings. But when the auto companies ask for a relatively meager $25 billion, its another story. The big difference is that if they let the auto companies go under, they have effectively destroyed the UAW. This is class warfare.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was watching the hearing.
Posted by: weslen1 on Nov 20, 2008 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The absolute best part was when one of the congressmen asked the whole group if they approved the bailout, how many of them were going to SELL their jets? No one raised his hand and the congressman said, "Let the record show that no one responded in the affirmative."
3 Jets, $60,000, for ONE TRIP. And these guys hop on and spend that $20,000 per trip dozens of times a month. Wonder how big their expense accounts are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And another thing...
Posted by: rotorooter on Nov 20, 2008 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are the auto companies having trouble? Right now, the main reason is that people cannot get loans. They can't get loans because of the subprime mortgage crisis. That is the Wall Street bankers doing. So they get $700 billion and people still are having difficulty getting loans. Where is that bailout money going? Who knows? It is all cloaked in secrecy. If it is because it takes time for the bailout to have an effect on lending, then what is wrong with giving out loans to tide the auto industry over until this happens? Remember we're talking about a LOAN.
And how about southern states giving out billions in incentives to foreign auto companies to locate in their states? Do they offer the same to U.S. manufacturers? Hell no, that would mean (shudder) introducing unions into their "right to work" states.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

caronome
Posted by: Bayardtom on Nov 20, 2008 9:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are we allowed to jettison these "Fat cats" and still bail out the workers who will lose their jobs if we don't? We're talking so many people and that will make a big hole in the work force in this country.

Yes, the car companies had years to change their raping ways and they thumbed their noses at all of us. So, I say dump all of the guys who showed up in their company jets in their thousand dollar suits and give the money to the workers to keep the machinery going.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And exactly who is going to buy the products of these bailed out companies?
Posted by: halg on Nov 20, 2008 10:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here we are in the midst of one of the worst -- if not, in fact, THE worst -- economic crises in history. Let's say we did "bail" these guys out: What good would that do? No one is buying cars. And, moreover, no one is buying American-designed gas-guzzlers.

Do we have to resort to a Gerald Ford-style "Buy American" campaign to salvage a corrupt industry whose products lack imagination and innovation, and only add to our energy woes?

The problem here is the ol' Marxist "overproduction" problem of Capitalism. We have car dealers going out of business because they can't sell the fucking things. The only ones who are selling at all are the Japanese and some European makers whose vehicles get decent gas mileage and actually live longer than your dog.

I feel sorry for the million or so workers who are going to be hurt by this. But consider the fact that more workers than that are already hurting just in the last 4 months (approximately 1.2 million I hear). I am not arguing that this makes it OK, only that trying to save one "sector" of what is really one unified economy that doesn't really have any such sectors will not do anything to stem the disaster that is already upon us. We are going down, and we are ALL going down together. Let's help each other -- one on one -- as we can, and work to get through this as a country.

It's time to sober up, hold Obama's feet to the fire, and FORCE government to start taking care of THE PEOPLE, not crooked institutions run by self-delusional sycophants who only care about themselves and their old boy networks of fraternity brothers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Boycott Walmart??
Posted by: jennymac on Nov 20, 2008 5:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By using your computer to rant on Alternet or Huffpo? All the while using your printer, cell phone, microwave, tv and everything else in your house made in China? Yeah, commenting on WalMart while on your Chinese computer makes a hell of a lot of sense!

Granted, WalMart as a company sucks (not the worker bees who are no doubt thankful to have a job at all), but if you truly cared, you'd be living in a handmade cabin or teepee somewhere without any electronics at all. Oh, and be sure and make all your clothes, Xmas gifts, bedding, utensils, etc, etc by hand as well, with handmade tools. And get that garden growing!

I personally don't shop at WalMart, but I sure as hell don't begrudge the folks who do because they can't afford to shop anywhere else. Like Target or Best Buy or even high end stores like Saks don't sell goods imported from China or Taiwan or Vietnam or Mexico or anywhere but here. Please. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees! You can't have it both ways - or maybe we can.

Let the Chinese people make a buck or two and make sure that if we bail out the moribund American auto industry (which in some way will ultimately need to be done with a LOT of strings attached) and use Americans to work on products that the auto industry, as Michael Moore pointed out last night on Larry King, should be making - light rail, energy efficient vehicles, etc. Then it's a win-win all the way around.

Again, as MM said, FDR put the auto industry to work making the needed planes and tanks that were, unfortunately, needed at that time and there will be plenty of jobs to go around.

Anyone that remotely believes overseas jobs are coming back is beyond self-delusional. Like it or not, a global economy is here to stay - and it will without a doubt expand. Going back to the 1950s isn't an option anymore (thank goodness - ask women or any minority). Trite, but true, we're all in this mess together and the sooner we learn to deal with it in a constructive manner the better instead of pointing fingers and casting blame.

Our infrastructure is in such horrendous shape that starting a CCC like program to deal with that alone - while putting people to work is just one example of something that can be done. Expand the peace corps. Get realistic instead of complaining endlessly on blogs that will fade along with the sunset, it's time to think positively and come up with ways to help the world populace, not just Americans. If it's not too late.

I'd just be happy to have the extremely nice and polite Indian customer service workers get some training to get my Apple (made in China) computer software working properly!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My retirement is dependent on......
Posted by: tap17x on Nov 21, 2008 7:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....GM and Ford bonds, so if they go under I will be in trouble. But the CEO's should show up at work wearing burlap bags and eating cheap sandwiches until this is over, then upgrading to what the assembly line people wear and eat. In other words, fuck 'em, and make them see what regular people have to do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]