Auto Execs Fly Corporate Jets to D.C., Tin Cups in Hand
 

This reminds me of the woman that showed up to Bankruptcy court wearing her fur coat and diamonds...

"There are 24 daily nonstop flights from Detroit to the Washington area. Richard Wagoner, Alan Mulally and Robert Nardelli probably should have taken one of them.

Instead, the chief executives of the Big Three automakers opted to fly their company jets to the capital for their hearings this week before the Senate and House -- an ill-timed display of corporate excess for a trio of executives begging for an additional $25 billion from the public trough this week.

"There's a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hands," Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.) advised the pampered executives at a hearing yesterday. "It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high-hat and tuxedo. . . . I mean, couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled or something to get here?" "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

It would be nice if they would declare bankruptcy, rework the executive salaries and renegotiate/terminate the union contracts (it's incredible how much money the union workers make) that are killing the companies.

The same Union seems to have two different pay scales for the same jobs. There is, per several news stories, a $10-$20/hr wage difference between the Big Three and the "Imports".
Or put another way, it costs the Big Three $2-$3000 more per car to build.

And BTB:
"Plane facts: GM cutting back fleet

Automaker downsizing to 3 jets; Chrysler owns none while Mulally, family use Ford aircraft.

Robert Snell and Alisa Priddle / The Detroit News

General Motors Corp. has been thinning its corporate jet fleet. Ford Motor Co. continues to explore ways to curtail travel expenses. And Chrysler LLC doesn't even own planes anymore.
The CEOs of Detroit's Big Three didn't mention those facts this week when lawmakers chastised them for arriving in Washington on pricey corporate jets to appeal to lawmakers for $25 billion in emergency loans.
"From a PR standpoint, it was a nightmare," said Michael Layne, a partner in Marx Layne, a public relations firm in Farmington Hills....."
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...59/1148/AUTO01

I am so against this bailout...I am in favor of bankruptcy and restructuring. I watched a few minutes of the hearings and what I caught was disheartening. I don't know who was who but the auto execs were each asked if they would agree to work for only $1 for the next year. The first exec. said yes without hesitation. The second exec. said he would consider a small pay cut but would not work for $1. The third exec. stated that he was quite comfortable with his $9.3 million dollar salary and no, he would neither work for $1 nor take a pay cut. I'm sure he wouldn't loose any sleep over laying off his employees....as long as he stays comfortable then all is right in his world. I wish I knew what his name was!!

While the executive salaries are ridiculous, the union wages are not at fault, it is simply the mismanagement of inventory/advertising/executive choices about product lines that are to blame.

Really?

-->

Doesn't matter. The UAW can set whatever standards they want for wages. However, when you look at it, those wages are chump change when looking at the budgets, and the mismanagement of the product lines, over producing inventory, and what they pay for advertising that doesn't work.

Just because you personally don't like unions, doesn't mean they are to blame for anything. Your bias is showing.

Mitch Albom expressed my feelings on this much better than I ever could...

http://www.freep.com/article/2008112...1230371/?imw=Y

I have gone as far as asking other Union members about this; including members of the AFL-CIO.
They wonder about the difference as well.
And some went as far as talking about the relationships between the car companies and the Northern and Southern Lawmakers.
All in all, all parties have to work on this matter and so far I have seen very little, if any, interest from the auto unions in doing so.
If I am wrong, please be kind enough to show us differently.

And advertising DID work. All too well. We "all" bought into the idea that we "needed" trucks/SUV's.
The Big Three, however, "forgot" that they were auto companies. The "imports" however did not.
When they started to manufacture and market truck lines in the US, they did not stop marketing their cars.

AGDEE-Good posting above^^^

Ailing GM looks to scale back generous health benefits
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...are-usat_x.htm

Another rather interesting read:
Oligopoly and the fall of the American automobile industry
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...ll_of_the.html

Auto Bailout: Seeking Signs of Sacrifice

House members push for workers to give up some pay and benefits, and ask why executives still don't seem to get the need for change
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...119_541539.htm
Includes the following:
"Besides a limit on CEO compensation, there has been a spotlight on how much the United Auto Workers and its retirees collect. Older UAW members make more than $70 per hour in combined wages and benefits, vs. around $40 for workers at rival Toyota's (TM) U.S. plants. New hires for the Detroit Three make wages about equal to those new workers for the Asian companies, however. And starting in 2010, the UAW will be in charge of handling its own health-care fund, albeit after billions of dollars in contributions from the automakers."

Myths about the Big Three automakers
The Wall Street Journal and U.S. News try some mythbusting about the Detroit automakers pressuring Congress for a bailout.
The automakers have returned home in failure, by the way, after pleading for help from lawmakers. Democrats said they wanted to see more evidence the companies had a turnaround plan in place, and asked to see a proposal next month. The inability to secure aid will increase the pressure on the companies' boards, the Journal says.
http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/to...utomakers.aspx

I'm afraid I'm much too emotional about this topic to truly debate it in any form. So for now, other than posting Mitch Albom's thoughts, I will just say... if they do not get loans from the government and file bankruptcy, I hope everybody is braced for the fallout from it.

I hope you realize how ironic this statement is...if so, I give you credit, it's pretty humorous.

As to the thread: Beyond being a terrible public relations decision, I don't have a problem with them flying their jets to the hearings. It just gives the members of Congress something more to rail against.

The bankruptcy option intrigues me, but I haven't studied the issue enough to really make an intelligent statement one way or another.

http://www.freep.com/article/2008112...1230371/?imw=Y

The sense of entitlement in that article is pretty off-putting. The claim seems to boil down to because Congress has wasted other money it makes sense to hand it over here as well.

And some of the things he mentions, I guess as analogies, don't really work. Approving a merger between Delta and Northwest, Alabama tax breaks?

What are we really talking about with the Detroit Three? Keeping them in business and guaranteeing employment for their workers until such time as the national economy is in better shape overall and can absorb the general job loss better?

Does anyone really believe those companies are going to turn it around and be self-sufficient and profitable? On what would that hope be based? Even the recent fuel price/SUV problem mirrors what happened in the 1970s.

The companies really do need to show how they plan to recover, if they can, to justify giving the money to them.

I don't mind the unions. I would just prefer that they work with the companies (not just in this instance) while things are as bad as they are. It would be better for the employees to take a pay cut than to have the company go under completely and EVERYone get laid off.

I take it you've never met a Union line worker. You've never seen the blood sweat and tears they put into their job. The hours they spend away from their family to put food on the table, going to bed before their own children go to bed because they have to be up at 2 or 3am to make it in for the early shift. They deserve that money. Auto workers are the hardest workers I know. And most aren't even Union. Most are temps who are trying to get into the Union so that they don't lose their job and can get benefits that are hard to come by these days.

Dee we've already felt that fallout. Non Michiganders won't know until shit hits the fan. With every factory or shift closing, more small businesses keep closing. More foreclosures. More job losses. More homeless people out on the street. Everyone's easy answer is to move out of Michigan. Unfortunately for some, it's not that easy. Moving takes money, and some people are lucky if they can even pay their rent or taxes.


You are highly mistaken. While they are headquartered in Detroit (actually Dearborn and wherever), they are NOT the Detroit Three. They are the Big 3 who employs people all over our country, not just in Detroit. These companies going bankrupt isn't going to affect only Detroit, but the cities in which they have factories as well.

I realize they don't actually take home the purported $70/hour. But, they cost more to the employer which is the problem. They could continue to make the same pay without being so expensive to the employer, at least for now while things are so grim. I'd like for them all to keep their jobs, but it won't happen if the businesses go under.