Submitted by Blackhawk on December 28, 2012.

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.

80%
Good comment?
yes
no

Submitted by Lambo805 on January 01, 2013.

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.

100%
Good comment?
yes
no

Submitted by johnh53157 on January 04, 2013.

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!

100%
Good comment?
yes
no

Submitted by Vermeer on December 27, 2012.

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...

67%
Good comment?
yes
no

Submitted by CharlieWP on December 27, 2012.

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.

67%
Good comment?
yes
no

Submitted by novipilot on December 27, 2012.

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.

67%
Good comment?
yes
no