PHLstudent From United States of America, joined May 2006, 498 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9353 times:
The company I work for is laying off, and currently owns 1 jet and leases 2 props. I work in our corporate audit department so my group goes over the planes usage along with a ton of other things. But it makes me kinda mad with what the execs get away with for purposes to use the planes yet then they claim our expenses are too high. Flying from PHL-NYC or to Washington, DC is not a very efficient use of our corporate planes. Our planes go out on average 20-25% filled. Even flying on paid first class has to be cheaper, but then they complain about wasted time. It seems to be a waste, word around the water cooler is that were getting rid of our 2 leased planes and keeping the jet we own, but who knows..
Crewchief From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9212 times:
I've heard the US government is about to run trillion dollar deficits for the next several years, yet several agencies have aircraft they use for their SES and congressional junkets, and the President has several aircraft at his disposal. Maybe Obama should demonstrate his commitment to use taxpayer dollars properly and give up his planes as well.
Try flying commercial...time is money for most upper management and commercial flying wastes a ton of time. I understand a lot of companies are laying off but I guarantee it could be a lot more if upper management didn't have access to smaller airports in smaller cities around the US.
YXXMIKE From Canada, joined Apr 2008, 308 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9041 times:
There seems to be a constant debate about the use of private jets and working on a GA ramp I can tell you that business is down and that flying habits of have changed. Having talked to many pilots that fly corporate machines they have said that their hours are way down and that they are starting to get worried about job security (something many corporate pilots haven't had to worry about for 10 years).
Times are changing and just because the company you may work for still owns a private jet it doesn't mean that they are flying it just as much. It also doesn't make much sense to sell a bird in a market that is currently flooded with small and mid sized private jets. It'll still be cheaper to not fly and have them in the hangar rather than selling them at huge losses.
All the more reason to maximize the productivity and efficiency of your highest-paid employees. Corporate jets can do this.
Quoting YXXMIKE (Reply 11): Having talked to many pilots that fly corporate machines they have said that their hours are way down and that they are starting to get worried about job security
With the sensationalism and uneducated reporting being shoveled out by the media and believed by the public (ie: shareholders), it's no surprise pilots are starting to become concerned about job security.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8973 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting PHLstudent (Reply 12): What do you call a wasteful manner and what do you call actual evidence.
Opinions will vary, but in general, using a corporate aircraft in a wasteful manner can take on many characteristics. Consistently using a larger aircraft than needed would seem wasteful. So would using one when doing so wouldn't save much time over the actual door-to-door time via the airlines. Using one for unnecessary trips would be wasteful. And I'd say it would be wasteful to use one simply as a 'perk' for an employee. The last thing that comes to mind off the top of my head is flying someplace and not using the time enroute to be productive. Playing solitaire, for example.
Actual evidence, to me, would be official records and first-hand accounts of this kind of utilization taking place.
Quoting PHLstudent (Reply 12): I have work papers at work proving our aircraft only go out 20-25% filled, that seems wasteful to me.
Your particular operation might indeed have more aircraft than they need. It would be interesting to find out A) whether they expect loads to increase in the short to medium-term, and B) if they would come out ahead by downsizing.
And it's entirely possible that your company's business model simply doesn't lend itself to owning and operating a corporate aircraft. I've never said corporate aircraft work for every company, in every case. I simply maintain that corporate aircraft are not necessarily opulent luxuries. The media seems to have trouble understanding this.
YXXMIKE From Canada, joined Apr 2008, 308 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8955 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 13): All the more reason to maximize the productivity and efficiency of your highest-paid employees. Corporate jets can do this.
I am not saying that a private jet can't do this, there are more times than I can count where many execs are getting off a jet and are constantly working. One time I remember an exec that was working on a deal here at YVR, then closed it only to fly to SEA so he could deal with an issue there only to come back a day later to work on another deal. If he had spent time waiting for around for flights it certainly would have been very disruptive and wasteful.
Ginger727 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8921 times:
I know of numerous companies with a fleet of corporate aircraft that are used primarily to transport personnel of all levels, including the lowest ranking people, to job sites around the country. In many cases, the travelers are rarely the CEO and top management, but the folks who do the heavy lifting out in the field and can't get to their destinations quickly by commercial airlines. It is terribly unfair to lump all corporate aircraft into the notion of executive perks.
Our CEO is required to travel using the corporate jet for any travel needs, both personal and business purposes. Any exec as far as I know uses the planes for business purposes. One of the main reasons the planes were purchased was for the time savings and ease of driving up boarding the plane, and taking off in give or take 20 minutes.
When we were purchasing a company in Pittsburgh many years ago, my mother who also works for this company said she heard that if 7 people are flying to the same place it is cheaper to use the company plane. So if usually our 7-10 seat planes are going out with 2-4 people we are losing thousands of dollars on every trip. We have plants/refineries/terminals all across the Midwest so trips out there happen very very often. I do not want to risk my job by providing support so unfortunately you'll have to take my word on the utilization.
To me though, it just seems ironic that we are being forced to cut back, and people are going to lose their jobs, yet we have 3 planes flying all over the east coast/mid west. We are alleged getting rid of 2 of our leased planes, which should hopefully cut back on some costs.
Great example! If anything good is coming from the current media witch-hunt that's going on, it's that many companies are making darn sure their assets are being utilized in a responsible manner, like the example you provided.
Quoting Ginger727 (Reply 16): It is terribly unfair to lump all corporate aircraft into the notion of executive perks.
It's a shame that doing so generates entertaining and sensational news stories, and an even bigger shame that the general public buys every bit of it.
Quoting PHLstudent (Reply 17): Our CEO is required to travel using the corporate jet for any travel needs, both personal and business purposes.
This could be an example of an outdated or unnecessary policy that's making the ownership and utilization of the aircraft less efficient than it could be.
Quoting PHLstudent (Reply 17): One of the main reasons the planes were purchased was for the time savings and ease of driving up boarding the plane, and taking off in give or take 20 minutes.
Understandable. If you're transporting several very highly-paid people, the time saved could easily be worth more than the expense incurred.
I will. You seem to be examining things in a very logical and well-balanced manner. And it doesn't seem that we disagree on any fundamentals. If your company isn't using the aircraft in a responsible, efficient manner, they probably should go.
Flyinryan99 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8782 times:
Quoting PHLstudent (Reply 17): I work for a large Oil company based in Philadelphia, do a little research and it should be easy to figure out.
Sunoco right? If that's the case then I'll use one example because I know they fly it at least once a month. If it's not Sunoco then I'm sorry. I know they fly quite often ILG - TOL to do their business around here. Can they fly PHL-TOL nonstop? Nope. Can they fly PHL-DTW? Yep. However, that would require going through TSA security twice, renting a car, dropping the car off, driving at least 60 minutes each way (maybe more due to weather or traffic) and oh yeah ATC delays due to PHL. ILG doesn't have delays and TOL will bend over backwards for the bizjet traffic. Which is more economical?
Quoting PHLstudent (Reply 17): To me though, it just seems ironic that we are being forced to cut back, and people are going to lose their jobs, yet we have 3 planes flying all over the east coast/mid west.
Don't blame the CEO, blame the BOD and shareholders demanding more profits.
BDL2STL2PVG From China, joined Jun 2006, 150 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8745 times:
I think that even in down times, a corporate jet or jets can be justified easily. But, it really needs to be on a case by case basis. I'll use my old STL company as an example......manufacturing facilities scattered throughout the country. Some years back the decision was made to move manufacturing out of STL and take advantage of the lower costs of operating in the South and then later Mexico, and then later China. The folklore has it that when they wanted to site a new facility they flew into a city, drove away from the airport and when they lost the AM radio signal from that city - well, then they could look for a site for the plant. Now they have facilities hours away from major airports. A good number of them average 1.5 hours from a commercial airport. Having a few Citation Vs to get a team of up to 7 people in and out in a workday pays for itself. A lot of these trips could not be accomplished in a day. Of course there is the cost of flights, some of which require connections, eating up additional time. Add the cost of rental cars and hotels and meals, and the formula works. Getting people there in person for reviews and addressing issues, it works to. So, I think it is case by case and unfortunately, the automotive guys started a firestorm that will make all corporate aircraft be subject to the same brush. Even if a company is laying off, if there is still a cost savings or efficiency benefit that exceeds the a/c costs, it is still a sound business decision.
Avt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8716 times:
I'll guarantee you one thing- getting rid of corporate aircraft will directly cause more job losses-pilots , FAs, maintenance, purchasing, independant businesses like avionics shops, component overhaul companies, etc. All of these people will be impacted by those choices. I know, I've been laid off when corporate aircraft are dropped.
Acey559 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1523 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8580 times:
John Deere has two C750s, 1 C680 and one (I've heard that it is going to be two by July) Gulfstream V based at MLI and one King Air 350 down in Porto Alegre, Brazil and they are also laying people off. However, they still fly internationally almost every week and it would be ridiculous to send all of the people they normally fly on the Gulfstream V on the airlines. For one, they usually fly into more obscure international markets and it would cost them a fortune to send their execs to those places. Combine that with the fact that I can't see a Fortune 100 company CEO stuck in the middle seat in Y class all the way to Africa or India or Russia or China. While they seem frivolous, biz jets DO serve a purpose and actually SAVE money!!! I took a corporate aviation class last semester and we talked not only about actual money saved, but intangible benefits such as less time overseas and more time with families at home which equates to more productivity which equates to more money made for the company. I think these companies are smart for having corporate jets because they are very large corporations. Next, please.