So, the Big Three.

RedPlanet

Was reading some stuff about that the Republicans are playing politics with this one.
That basically, Detroit in particular is a democratic-hotbed, and if the "big 3" fall, then they can eliminate a large chunk of organised labour and pull the rug out from thousands of blue collar worker families, which could put them in play for the next election, if the blame can be placed on Democrats.

Michael Moore was saying something to the effect that Congress should bail them out, save loads of jobs, and force the big 3 to build hybrids, electric cars and mass transit.
Now that would would be something.

CPT. SURF

RedPlanet wrote: »

Michael Moore was saying something to the effect that Congress should bail them out, save loads of jobs, and force the big 3 to build hybrids, electric cars and mass transit.
Now that would would be something.

I saw that interview with Michael Moore on Larry King last night and I have to say that I hate his views on this issue. The whole idea of forcing companies to operate in a certain way or produce certain kinds of products is awful. As long as they operate legally, the government should not be telling them what to do.

So they are crap and will go under, people will lose jobs, etc. but I still think it is better to let that happen than continue to let them get away with bad business. The market conditions will demand change and successful companies will provide it, let the others fail.

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

So a doctor that sells medicine isnt allowed to prescribe it

In most States, no, they can't.
A few do, with caveats, and a small number have no prohibition on it.

Besides, his proposed medicine was opposed in California by both main political parties and almost all the environmental groups. What does that tell you?

Michael Moore was saying something to the effect that Congress should bail them out, save loads of jobs, and force the big 3 to build hybrids, electric cars and mass transit.
Now that would would be something.

The aforementioned EV-1 disaster was a direct result of legislature mandating electric cars, I'm not convinced of that sort of mandate. It might run all the manufacturers into the ground. When cars like Volt and Tesla become reality, I'm sure that they'll take a serious look at electric cars again without the need for mandates. All three companies have hybrids in their lineups. GM, at least, used to make trains. Those F40PHs powering Caltrain or Metrolink commuter trains were made by GM. Indeed, GM basically ruled the rails from the 40s to the 90s. They had to sell EMD four years ago. Heck, if you take Irish Rail Dublin to Cork, you're using a GM product.

NTM

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

In most States, no, they can't.
A few do, with caveats, and a small number have no prohibition on it.

Besides, his proposed medicine was opposed in California by both main political parties and almost all the environmental groups. What does that tell you?

That Californian's love their beaches; hate Rigs :pac: I jest.

All I'm saying is Pickens or not, theres merit to stopping our dependency on mideast oil. If Gas is a good way to do that, I'm for it. What argument was put forward for throwing out the gas plan? From what I've heard the plan is sound; so I might need more information.

I'm still under the belief as far as the Beg-Three go to let them run aground, and reorganize. As for New Commuter Systems? Hell Yes. I'm all for it. The Interstate was the biggest public works project in history, and it was a massive step forward for the country's infrastructure. We could do the same thing with a new Electric/Hybrid Rail System: Pushing millions of tons of goods around the country with (potentially) not using an ounce of diesel? Giggity.

Manic Moran

We could do the same thing with a new Electric/Hybrid Rail System: Pushing millions of tons of goods around the country with (potentially) not using an ounce of diesel? Giggity.

Many moons ago (1956), GM came out with the FL9 diesel-electric, for service in the New York area. It used a third-rail to receive electricity, and had a diesel prime mover for non-sourced use. The PA-32DMs which succeeded it also have dual power-source cability.

The problem is that electrification is stupidly expensive. It works on the NorthEast Corridor because of the population density. There are sufficient trains and stops that the expenses incurred in setting up all that catenary can be recouped. But there's no way, even with fuel prices the way they were six months ago, that one can electrify the transcontinental routes and justify it economically. Especially when one considers the raw fuel economy numbers. Hauling one ton of freight an average of 420 miles on a single gallon of diesel is going to be pretty damned hard to beat when one considers the raw costs of electification. The expensive bit about running a railroad is the track, not the fuel.

NTM

brianthebard

Overheal wrote: »

That Californian's love their beaches; hate Rigs :pac: I jest.

All I'm saying is Pickens or not, theres merit to stopping our dependency on mideast oil. If Gas is a good way to do that, I'm for it. What argument was put forward for throwing out the gas plan? From what I've heard the plan is sound; so I might need more information.

I'm still under the belief as far as the Beg-Three go to let them run aground, and reorganize. As for New Commuter Systems? Hell Yes. I'm all for it. The Interstate was the biggest public works project in history, and it was a massive step forward for the country's infrastructure. We could do the same thing with a new Electric/Hybrid Rail System: Pushing millions of tons of goods around the country with (potentially) not using an ounce of diesel? Giggity.

Are you still referring to Pickens argument on The Daily show? Cause he said they would keep gas for the 18 wheelers I think, and run everything else on gas and hybrid and stuff.

Overheal

Natural Gas for Heavy Vehicles, Hybrid and Electric for Light Vehicles, was the idea.

brianthebard

Was just checking how that related to MM's point, seemed there were crossed wires at some point. (unintentionaly roffles :pac: )

justfortherecor

Oh Dear, not a good start to the Big 3's plea for public finances!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsNcBMxHt00

Note the political grandstanding at 3.17 as well, this played perfectly into the Republican's hands and they are certainly making the most of it.

As the report mentions, this sort of profligacy is symbolic of the cash burning cultures of the near bankrupt companies. They should be forced to take Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and undertake a massive restructuring programme (complete with a senior management overhaul, particularly at Wagoner's GM).

If a potential bailout would allow the current business plans to continue, it should be opposed at all costs. American auto manufacturing has a chance to change now, hopefully vested interests wont delay it further.

JohnMc1

justfortherecor wrote: »

Note the political grandstanding at 3.17.

I wouldn't consider that grandstanding. Those were legit questions. They flew in on $36+ million private jets and they're looking for handouts. They should have ended it right and there and said "Sell your jets and pay off your debts and fly commercial until you can turn a profit again."

RedPlanet

It really demonstrates that these guys live inside a bubble.

Manic Moran

JohnMc1 wrote: »

They should have ended it right and there and said "Sell your jets and pay off your debts and fly commercial until you can turn a profit again."

Believe it or not, there can actually be legitimate business purposes to having your own aircraft. Time is money, and all that.

Meanwhile, these same Congresscritters are not adverse to using tax dollars for their own private aircraft. Three C-40Cs (Basically Boeing Business Jets: Luxury 737s) are available for their primary use delivered last year, and they have authorisation to use pretty much any aircraft in the USAF as their needs require, to include a C-35 (B757) and almost a hundred VIP transport executive jets. Even Obama used a 757 in his campaign, why didn't he travel commercial?

NTM

brianthebard

Out of interest, how far do these money wasting failed businessmen have to go before you stop excusing them for their actions? Its one thing to be pro-business, I might not like it but I can understand it, but you are just making excuses for these CEO's when there's no reason for it, that I can see at least.

JohnMc1

Manic Moran wrote: »

Believe it or not, there can actually be legitimate business purposes to having your own aircraft. Time is money, and all that.

Meanwhile, these same Congresscritters are not adverse to using tax dollars for their own private aircraft. Three C-40Cs (Basically Boeing Business Jets: Luxury 737s) are available for their primary use delivered last year, and they have authorisation to use pretty much any aircraft in the USAF as their needs require, to include a C-35 (B757) and almost a hundred VIP transport executive jets. Even Obama used a 757 in his campaign, why didn't he travel commercial?

NTM

Comparing Obama to motor company execs is ridiculous. Obama didn't run a company into the ground like these assholes did and now crying for handouts.

Overheal

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Comparing Obama to motor company execs is ridiculous. Obama didn't run a company into the ground like these assholes did and now crying for handouts.

Thank You!

All the late night jokes delivered well enough. When asked to state why they flew in private jets, the congressmen answered: "We couldn't drive here, our cars get 3mpg".

And as one congressmen really asked: "Why didnt you 3 Jetpool?"

I realise 3 private jets barely measure on the bailout theyre asking for, but its just one example so readily available to us among what must be thousands of how these CEOs can find ways to slim down their companies.

Sand

The point is valid. The US economy is not doing so well, public or private. Whilst its well worth highlighting the casual use of private jets by corporate executives and their preference to sacrifice worker livelihoods instead of the jet [ especially in todays world of communications technology] , its also worth noting that politicians tend to avoid travelling commercial whenever they can.

Just because the CEOs might be assholes doesnt make the congressmen heroes of the common man.

JohnMc1

Sand wrote: »

The point is valid. The US economy is not doing so well, public or private. Whilst its well worth highlighting the casual use of private jets by corporate executives and their preference to sacrifice worker livelihoods instead of the jet [ especially in todays world of communications technology] , its also worth noting that politicians tend to avoid travelling commercial whenever they can.

Just because the CEOs might be assholes doesnt make the congressmen heroes of the common man.

Nobody is proclaiming any congressman or politician in general as a hero for the common man. Republican or Democrat. It doesn't matter. The common man always ends up getting the shaft.

The fact that these companies had multiple jets is the alarming thing. These guys had at least 7 private jets. WTF do they need 7 jets for? Plus these CEOs make nearly $1m+ with their annual salaries and make another $1m+ with their annual bonuses is disgusting that these clowns won't make any personal sacrifices to make their companies profitable again.

brianthebard

Brian...agree with....JohnMc?? That's unpossible! :eek: What's happening?

JohnMc1

brianthebard wrote: »

Brian...agree with....JohnMc?? That's unpossible! :eek: What's happening?

Welcome to the DARK SIDE...HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!!!!!!!!

brianthebard

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Welcome to the DARK SIDE...HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!!!!!!!!

I doubt there's much else about this topic that we agree on tbh.....

JohnMc1

brianthebard wrote: »

I doubt there's much else about this topic that we agree on tbh.....

All it takes is one agreement. And the Dark Side has you.

Manic Moran

These guys had at least 7 private jets. WTF do they need 7 jets for?

Corporate travel? They have huge companies with arguably a bunch of people to get from A to B. GM has five jets and over a quarter million employees. The US military has about 120 executive jets for jetting its senior people around the world, a hugely higher ratio, especially considering they could just hop a transport instead. Even the Irish Government thinks it worthwhile to own two executive jets and a KingAir for transport. What, they can't take Aer Lingus to Brussels?

The true cost of an aircraft is not the millions that it costs, it's a reflection of how often they're used. If GM's 5 jets are in constant use, it's probably cheaper for them to use them than to fly commerical. If they're sitting in a hangar all day waiting for the CEO to decide he wants to go on a lobbying trip to DC, then absolutely it's a waste of cash.

NTM

brianthebard

The Irish government has often been criticised for owning those jets. But this isn't a "what about" issue. Is there a level of wastefulness beyond which these CEO's are indefensible?

JohnMc1

Manic Moran wrote: »

Corporate travel? They have huge companies with arguably a bunch of people to get from A to B. GM has five jets and over a quarter million employees. The US military has about 120 executive jets for jetting its senior people around the world, a hugely higher ratio, especially considering they could just hop a transport instead. Even the Irish Government thinks it worthwhile to own two executive jets and a KingAir for transport. What, they can't take Aer Lingus to Brussels?

The true cost of an aircraft is not the millions that it costs, it's a reflection of how often they're used. If GM's 5 jets are in constant use, it's probably cheaper for them to use them than to fly commerical. If they're sitting in a hangar all day waiting for the CEO to decide he wants to go on a lobbying trip to DC, then absolutely it's a waste of cash.

NTM

I doubt all those jets get used. So to say they can't get rid of some of them is ludicrous. And really how many of these employees actually travel. Its usually just the CEO, the guy under him and possibly a secretary and they all travel together. Making the need all of those jets unnecessary.

nytraveller

Why don't the oil companies loan the Big 3 the cash??
They're the ones making the record profits!!!

JohnMc1

That makes too much sense.

Manic Moran

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I doubt all those jets get used. So to say they can't get rid of some of them is ludicrous. And really how many of these employees actually travel. Its usually just the CEO, the guy under him and possibly a secretary and they all travel together. Making the need all of those jets unnecessary.

Making assumptions now, are you?

With a mere 86,000 people, Intel has two Embraer 135s which fly morning and evening from San Jose to Seattle and Folsom and back. It's a jet big enough to be in service with airlines, and is routinely full. They may also have a link between Seattle and Folsom, I'm not sure. Knowing some of the passengers personally, I assure you that it's not executives doing the travelling in them, it's operational people. Until some data is shown to the contrary, there is no reason not to assume that GM aren't being efficient with their aircraft use.

NTM

Manic Moran

Oh, the irony.

A crumbling economy, more than 2 million constituents who have lost their jobs this year, and congressional demands of CEOs to work for free did not convince lawmakers to freeze their own pay.

Instead, they will get a $4,700 pay increase, amounting to an additional $2.5 million that taxpayers will spend on congressional salaries, and watchdog groups are not happy about it.

“As lawmakers make a big show of forcing auto executives to accept just $1 a year in salary, they are quietly raiding the vault for their own personal gain,” said Daniel O’Connell, chairman of The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), a non-partisan group. “This money would be much better spent helping the millions of seniors who are living below the poverty line and struggling to keep their heat on this winter.”

I really hope GM makes it through. The more I look at that Caddy, the more I like it.

NTM

JohnMc1

Manic Moran wrote: »

Oh, the irony.



I really hope GM makes it through. The more I look at that Caddy, the more I like it.

NTM

uhhhh. HOPE and CHANGE!!!!! :rolleyes:

brianthebard

JohnMc1 wrote: »

uhhhh. HOPE and CHANGE!!!!! :rolleyes:

Why yes, I remember when the entire congress ran on a joint across the board platform of hope and change. They agreed not to raise their wages didn't they? Oh no wait, you're just trying to blame the president elect for something he has nothing to do with and no power over. Good call there John, good call.