As part of the deal for a government bailout of its failed business in 2009, GM agreed to get rid of its jets. The stipulation was a result of the public “outing” of three automaker CEO’s for having flown to Washington, D.C. for hearings in their business jets. The trio of car bosses was excoriated for the decision, which was trumpeted as a symbol of corporate excess, which it was not.
Now, three years later, with the initial bailout period ended with GM having bought back 200 million shares of stock from Uncle Sam, the company is reportedly free again to fly its own friendly skies instead of airlining it.
But will it happen?
The mainstream media has consistently referred to these aircraft as “private” jets, and we’ve seen the term “luxury” jets thrown around to describe them, too. The way they are seldom described is as “business” jets, despite that being their purpose. In fairness, they are often described as “corporate” jets, which is relatively spin free. We like a little pro-business spin applied. They are, after all, good for business.
While the issue should come down to what a jet does for a business, it seldom does. That’s sad, because the math is easy. Bizjets make money for the bizzes that use them (in addition to bestowing additional competitive advantages). They cost money, sure, but if there’s a need, owning and managing a jet or two or three is a much better deal than paying charter rates for the same amount of flight time. And that’s not getting into the issue of availability.
Want to go somewhere with the airlines? Anything but a hub-to-hub coach flight, you’d better have a few days to spare. Want to go by charter? Depending on where and when you need to go, it’ll be more comfortable than Delta, but don’t expect to hop right on an airplane. Want to fly with Flexjet or NetJets or some other fractional provider? It’s a great deal. They’ll pick you up at your airport in a few to several hours and take you where you want to go.
But if you’re flying your own airplane, well, you’d be reading this while on departure, not waiting for tomorrow morning’s flight.
I get that the calculus is complicated, that this is a political decision more than a business one, but I can’t help but wish that GM would make the smart more, the right move, and announce to the world that business jets make business sense with the purchase of a small fleet of light to large jets.
Do I think this is going to happen? Unfortunately, no. The company will probably instead spend more money than they have to or tie up high-powered talent on the airlines for fear that their sensible use of bizjets would be exploited for political gain, just as it was in 2009.
This, sadly, is the state of affairs today, and it has cost our industry dearly, a fact that matters not at all to those who would exploit the situation for even the slightest political advantage. But these, unfortunately, are the times in which we live.
All Comments
Totally agree here. However GM does need to show to the general public that they are counting "every penny" and being very efficient. Keeping a frugal image is much more important than flying business jets. They can still indulge in private class trips, that's not too much of a sacrifice.
I love business jets but understand GM's position. They need to lay low for a few years still...
Let's be honest. Business, corporate, or private jets are a luxury. Airlines and charters can get the few executives that really need to travel to their destinations cheaper than owning a fleet of almost anything. Since the invention of the telephone, and especially since Skype, travel itself is usually a luxury.
I don't believe the time of corporate "high-powered talent" is really as valuable as they say it is. Aren't they the ones that got GM into its mess in the first place? Mightn't we be better off if they had just disappeared into a giant public airport during an interminable snow storm?
I DO believe in luxury for anyone who can earn enough to afford it. I fly an old Mooney and I'm currently looking for a new wife who can buy me a faster one.
If you used passenger seat miles, most of the travel by the Big 3 was low level employees being ferried to a faraway plant, a proving ground, or the site of some pre-launch event. The only "luxury" of this travel was that you didn't have to deal with the TSA, had a decent schedule, and landed at other than a big city airport where the trip to the rental cars was mere steps away. Of course the imposter in chief would never correlate the efficiencies in how he travels to any business advantage.
Somewhere between the "business need" and "private benefits" lies the truth. Warren Buffet honestly says he loves his jet. Warren Buffet is a bit of an outlier however in terms of success, honesty, and political correctness.
One "truth" is that private transportation of any type is more convenient than public transportation and usually more comfortable--in many ways.
How one person or company chooses to spend its money depends on its resources and its successes.
Dick Karl, Peter Garrison, and Robert Goyer fly different airplanes for different reasons. Each individual has different incomes, different expenses, and different missions.
The same reasoning can be applied to whether or not GM flies its missions via public transportation or private.
Sometimes a Porsche Boxter is a good choice, at other times, taking the subway is more efficient.
Nothing like having a guy who uses a 747 to fly with his wife to NYC for a Broadway show wagging his finger at "fat cats" flying on corporate jets.
I think people miss the point. BizAv is used for business purposes, ALL business purposes. Sometimes justified, sometimes unjustified. I'm a lowly peon level employee, but my job is critical to where I work. Friday I have to take a day off work to take care of some business because that was the flight I could find right during a critical time for my position. How could this be averted? Well the business I need to take care of is on Saturday. If my company had a private aircraft then I could head out Friday after work, be back Saturday night and my company has saved thousands.
Now I'm not saying every company needs a G650 in their hangar, sometimes a good old workhorse Bonanza can soundly handle the needs, and as such companies that have the means and the need should use an aircraft appropriate to their typical mission.
Senators, Congressmen and Presidents should all remember, those "military" jets they commute around the country in look like corporate jets too when you take the big star off of them!
GM now back to flying, i am really very happy to hear that, I wish him success.
Regards,
Shipping Company In Miami
