Posted on 02/13/2009 3:24:31 AM PST by Evil Slayer
Cessna: Business Aircraft Are Good for BusinessesBy Chad Trautvetter
February 12, 2009
Aircraft
Cessna Aircraft yesterday kicked off an initiative to debunk myths about business aircraft and outline how these machines make companies more competitive. “The reality of business aviation is a far cry from the misconception of CEOs flying in large, luxurious airplanes,” said Cessna chairman, president and CEO Jack Pelton.
“Anyone who has ever seen managers board a business aircraft at dawn and return well after dark, having visited multiple cities and attended countless meetings in one day can attest to the fact that business aviation allows companies to get the most out of every minute of every day. Small and medium-size companies fly about 85 percent of business aircraft, Pelton said, and the majority of the passengers are middle managers and technicians.
The aircraft most often used by companies, he noted, are turboprops or light jets, adding that they are “fairly Spartan” and have small cabins. To amplify its pro-aircraft message, Cessna will run in trade and general media outlets advertisements with pro-business themes encouraging operators to keep flying business aircraft to demonstrate leadership in the face of economic challenge.
The ads will also point out the increased productivity and efficiency gained by using business aircraft.
Air Businesses Grounded In Obama’s No-Fly Zone
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2184932/posts
Air Businesses Grounded In Obama’s No-Fly Zone
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2184932/posts
My first skydive was out of one of those. We banked around the DZ for a look at the winds, we had the door rolled up and I was sitting right in front of it- holding onto the carpet fibers with my fingernails. LOL!
“, but I’m damn tired of the tax payers subsidizing a private hobby. “
They do. What do you know of aviation, anything?
Why? That would be counterproductive, as it would reduce the executives' productivity, resulting in a less efficient, less profitable company, which would potentially delay the ultimate repayment of the debt.
I guess they are saying that the go to meetings promoted by Rush is all BS. Are maybe they think that computers server no useful purpose. Actually all that travel is the true waste of time. If you cannot trust those you delegate to, hire new help.
Also worthy of note is the fact that a Senator flew a private flight home to the funeral of his mother in order not to miss the vote on porkulus.
The world wants to know why? What was so important to justify the taxpayer expense and fuel use and carbon polluting for a dead woman? She was dead. She was in no hurry.
Do you pay 100% for the roads you use, is driving a “hobby” for you? You DON’T pay 100% of the roads you use through gas, vehicle taxes, and property taxes. We business owners support your driving hobby with our corporate taxes far more than you pay yourself.
So, I suggest you stop driving and petition your local and State governments to stop using other people’s money to pay for your pleasure hobby of driving. You can ride a bike or walk to work. Driving is not a necessity. Move closer to work and stop mooching other people’s money so you can live farther away.
As far as aviation, it pays for itself through gas taxes, usage fees, and other means of taxation. People receive their postal mail, UPS/FedEx, utility line repairs, emergency medical services, supplies, etc. through general aviation airports all across the country, so the US and State general funds provide some funding for those purposes. Some. Pilots, aircraft owners, airline operators, airport restaurant owners, etc. pay enormous taxes to provide for airports that you use every day no matter if you know it or not. In fact, the airport I fly out of had an $815 million impact to the local economy with over $95 million just in payroll alone. Hardly a “hobby” paid for by taxpayers as you suggested.
Saying general aviation airports are “hobbies” is nothing but class envy bullshit ignorant of the facts.
> Why?
Because a jet aeroplane is an asset that depreciates rapidly and incurs large about of oubound cashflows (fuel, maintenance, personnel costs, landing costs, catering, &tc). Capital erodes every minute it is in their possession.
The capital it ties up would be better deployed reducing debt or, at very least, placed into something that appreciates in value.
That’s the accounting reason. Now for the “Leadership” reason:
It sends the wrong message to the Leadership team. They screwed up Big Time. They do not deserve any perquisites beyond their already-ridiculously-large remuneration. Come back with the problem that you created solved, then we can talk about you getting your toys back.
It also sends the wrong message to the troops — at least, to the ones that get to keep their jobs. The big-wigs who screwed up get to keep their toys, therefore there is no real consequence to doing the job wrong.
> That would be counterproductive, as it would reduce the executives’ productivity,
One shudders to think how much value these executives could destroy if they were even more “productive”. They would have lost less money if they had sat on their hands all day and done nothing.
> resulting in a less efficient, less profitable company, which would potentially delay the ultimate repayment of the debt.
Naaaah. Henry Ford built a very profitable company without the benefit of a company jet. So did the British East India Company. So did the Hudson’s Bay Company. So did Lloyds of London (at least, until they got too fancy for their own good in the 1980’s and 1990’s).
Fancy toys don’t make an efficient company, and they don’t make effective leaders. They certainly don’t equate to profit.
Take away their jets! If they need to fly, they can go coach. Better still, do without the flites and tackle the issues by conference call. Money doesn’t grow on trees, as we are finding out.
That’s what I say...
“BS about ten foot deep. Privatize them and get out of my hip pocket. And stop shaking you tin cup asking for hand outs.”
Gotcha, didn’t I? You don’t want to admit that you drive on roads you don’t pay for but want to think aviation is getting a free ride when it is you getting a free ride.
I bet that road you live on is paved. It should be a dirt road but you don’t want to get you car dirty, so you have your tin cup out demanding handouts at tax payer expense to pave it.
So, you think I am full of it, well, why don’t you prove me wrong instead of playing crybaby liberal trying to put down aviation using class warfare claiming “the rich” are getting their “hobbies” paid for by the taxpayer. You don’t have a clue what you are talking about and simply have listened to liberals saying such garbage.
You are on the wrong site, commie.
You did not get **it elitists. Pay for your own damn hobby. I pay for mine.
Wonder if the CEO from boeing was in attendance. They get alot of gov’t contracts. Can they own a plane?
You sound more like a whiny liberal with every post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.