Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
30 Interesting Facts About Private Jets  
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8543 times:

"The private jet industry employs 1.2 million people and creates biliions in tax revenue"..

I wonder if Mr. Obama knows that? he likes bashing the private jet indutry

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewa...-amazing-facts-about-private-jets/

61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15841 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8356 times:

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
I wonder if Mr. Obama knows that? he likes bashing the private jet indutry

It's better to take potshots at the 1% apparently.

People don't understand that corporate jets are not toys. These are real business tools just as much as a laptop or a conference room.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3367 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8265 times:

Fact 31.
I can not afford one.      

On a serious note my neighbour is a Stew for a private jet company and there is no downturn in her work load last year or this, she is very busy.



you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7811 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8166 times:

Really what an awful fluff piece -- doesn't really do anything to argue that the current tax incentives/break for private jets are valuable or not.


For one I don't know what type of tax breaks private jet owners/companies get. But if they are such an invaluable business tool why would they need to be subsidized like that? Now I don't doubt the value of general aviation and its economic impact either. Nor do I like how private jets get used in political theater (remember all the hoopla the CEO's of the Big 3 got for flying in their corporate aircraft to testify before Congress before the auto industry bailout a few years ago).



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlinedfambro From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 346 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8132 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
People don't understand that corporate jets are not toys. These are real business tools just as much as a laptop or a conference room.

Sure, but it's very easy to overstate that. Reading the Buffet and Winfrey bits shows that what we all know - that having a jet at your beck and call is really cool - is a significant part of the equation. I love how Buffet named a jet "The Indefensible".

One of the business functions of the jet that's seldom mentioned? Executive retention. Once you've got access to it (and at-cost usage hours for personal use as part of your compensation) it's hard to give it up.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21880 posts, RR: 55
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8069 times:

Quoting DesertJets (Reply 3):
For one I don't know what type of tax breaks private jet owners/companies get.

I'm not up on the specifics, but they do get some breaks on depreciation at least.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15841 posts, RR: 27
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8003 times:

Quoting dfambro (Reply 4):
Sure, but it's very easy to overstate that. Reading the Buffet and Winfrey bits shows that what we all know - that having a jet at your beck and call is really cool - is a significant part of the equation. I love how Buffet named a jet "The Indefensible".

It really isn't though. Calling it a "business jet" is not a euphemism. I read the story of one guy who was a successful general contractor who did a lot of work for the government. He bought himself a Citation that he used to fly to job sites. Another guy owns a Caterpillar dealership with his family and commonly uses his plane to take customers to the factory.

Quoting dfambro (Reply 4):
One of the business functions of the jet that's seldom mentioned? Executive retention.

Well, yeah. I still curious as to why spending money to try and retain employees is somehow taboo or viewed as an illegitimate use of resources. Apparently offering incentives to people below the executive level is good, but doing the same for top executives is bad?

Quoting Mir (Reply 5):
I'm not up on the specifics, but they do get some breaks on depreciation at least.

Probably not any more than on any other asset.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3367 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7954 times:

Hey DesertJets, Happy A.Net Birthday. 13years old today.  


you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently offlinedfambro From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 346 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7949 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
Calling it a "business jet" is not a euphemism. I read the story of one guy who was a successful general contractor who did a lot of work for the government. He bought himself a Citation that he used to fly to job sites.

For some businesses I'm sure the cost-benefit equation works out nicely. For others, well...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
I still curious as to why spending money to try and retain employees is somehow taboo or viewed as an illegitimate use of resources. Apparently offering incentives to people below the executive level is good, but doing the same for top executives is bad?

I'm with you on this one and had no intention of implying otherwise.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7936 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
People don't understand that corporate jets are not toys. These are real business tools just as much as a laptop or a conference room.

They are great business tools when used properly. More often they are toys justified by poor planning, at high cost to owners.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15841 posts, RR: 27
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7878 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 9):
More often they are toys justified by poor planning, at high cost to owners.

Any data to back that up, or just political rhetoric?

Even the assumption that using a private jet equals owning a private jet is flawed in practice.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7700 times:

Every now and then a CEO uses the company's jet for personal reasons and the whole "private jets are personal toys" argument flares up again... A fortune 100 corporation's CEO used his company's G-V for a family vacation to New Zealand, and a local newspaper found out about it, they put it on the front page of the newspaper.

But most of the time, private jets are used for company's business and they are a great tool. A corporate jet enables a company to do a lot more in less time. Efficiency greatly increases

Private jets also enable a company's CEO to show the world his company is financially healthy


User currently offlinedfambro From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 346 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7610 times:

Quoting g500 (Reply 11):
Every now and then a CEO uses the company's jet for personal reasons

As I mentioned above, personal use of the corporate jets can and is used as a perk, and is included as part of executive compensation. I am very familiar with one specific case - a private REIT that for top execs had personal time in the contract, and for other employees they bonused out jet time for top performance. At-cost usage was reported to the IRS as part of compensation, so the REIT also gave a tax gross-up payment to make the jet use "free". Granted, I don't know how widespread that is, but within that REIT it was viewed as a huge incentive.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15841 posts, RR: 27
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7587 times:

Quoting g500 (Reply 11):
Every now and then a CEO uses the company's jet for personal reasons and the whole "private jets are personal toys" argument flares up again...

Except that the sort of thing you are talking about is either provided as part of the contract the executive has with the company and/or he pays for it in some way.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecanyonblue17 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7029 times:

Quoting g500 (Reply 11):
Private jets also enable a company's CEO to show the world his company is financially healthy

Isn't that what profits are for?


User currently offlinemacpat From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 2 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6888 times:

The ongoing discussion about "Corporate Jets" borders on the silly. As best I can tell the cliche' about corporate jets began, or at least accelerated, in 2008 when the financial crisis was cratering everything and the auto execs flew to DC on their jets to testify in front of Congress regarding their bailouts or whatever. Of course, Barack Obama picked up that sledge hammer during the campaign and after. I don't need to reprise all that.

Here is the thing that I have never seen mentioned. From my background which I will not detail here but it has almost nothing to do with aviation, and nothing to do with being a top executive, I can tell you this. Companies don't fly their executives around just to waste money. Sure, it's a bit of a perk, in some ways. But consider this: A company has only one Chief Executive, and only one of several other executives be they Chief Operating Officer, Treasurer, whatever. Companies pay these people lots of money, as well they should.

So, do you want your one and only CEO fooling around with scheduled airlines to go here or there that his job entails? In some cases no scheduled airline service? Of course not. Same thing for other core executives. You want to leverage their time. I know this to be true.

That, and only that is the fundamental reason for corporate aviation and it's good enough for me.

Is it a perk to be an executive and fly on those planes? Of course it is. But the company gets back the use of their one and only CEO or other executive's time. That's all it is for the most part.

Yakking about corporate aircraft is just populist envy mongering as far as I'm concerned.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21880 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6826 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
Apparently offering incentives to people below the executive level is good, but doing the same for top executives is bad?

It has to do with the proportionality of the incentives. A discussion of whether that's right or not belongs in Non-Av, but that's what it is.

Quoting g500 (Reply 11):
Private jets also enable a company's CEO to show the world his company is financially healthy

I'm not sure about that. I know of plenty of companies that are in some troubled financial straits, and the fact that they have a jet or two doesn't change that.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinemacsog6 From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6654 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting macpat (Reply 15):
Yakking about corporate aircraft is just populist envy mongering as far as I'm concerned.

macpat, I concur with you completely. Also seldom mentioned is that other people than the CEO often use corporate aircraft - and yes, not all of them are jets. I suspect the KIng Air is probably the most common but I've not looked it up.

At most of the companies I worked for, when the plane was going from, say, Dallas to New York, the corporate travel department ensured the aircraft was full of people who needed to go to New York, thus avoiding having to buy a ticket for them out of the company's profits.

Yes, I am certain that there are CEO's who have to have the plane totally to themselves, but there are many who want to ensure the plane is full with legit business travelers when they take off.



Sixty Plus Years of Flying! "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." - Saint Ex
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15841 posts, RR: 27
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6605 times:

Quoting macsog6 (Reply 17):
Also seldom mentioned is that other people than the CEO often use corporate aircraft - and yes, not all of them are jets. I suspect the KIng Air is probably the most common but I've not looked it up.

You have hit on two misconceptions about corporate aircraft. First, it is more than just the CEO. Other managers, sales reps, etc. also sometimes fly privately. And then there are the various energy companies and others that shuttle many employees around on private aircraft, sometimes essentially operating an in house airline.

The second is that there are small and midsize businessmen who will fly their Cirrus or Piper for business trips. Still better than driving and on short trips there's less advantage to using a jet instead.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4070 posts, RR: 30
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6553 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 5):
I'm not up on the specifics, but they do get some breaks on depreciation at least.

For the umpteenth time, depreciation is not a tax break. The fact is that a buyer of an asset should be allowed to expense it immediately, since the seller of the asset is taxed immediately, but it is not. If IBM buys a new G650, Gulfstream gets taxed immediately on the profit, for the full amount, while IBM can only expense it over 10 years (or whatever the depreciation schedule of a business jet is), so IBM is in essence lending the government money for free for 10 years. The same can be said of any depreciable asset.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2170 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5144 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
People don't understand that corporate jets are not toys. These are real business tools just as much as a laptop or a conference room.

They really are both. Yes, they may make economic sense, but they're also an integral part of corporate impression management.

Unless you consider impression management a necessary part of conducting a business, in which case I will consider taxation a necessary part of regulating impression management.  



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlinejbcarioca From Brazil, joined Jan 2013, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4880 times:

As a former owner and operator of a number of corporate aircraft I am often torn in my views. While operating a charter service in the Los Angeles area the majority of business was to places like Las Vegas, Salt Lake City (winter only), Vail etc. There was business charter too but most ostensible business was conveniently co-located with the clients personal interests. My own use was not materially different, but I did make all my business trips with these aircraft.

As for MACRS the depreciation benefit is front-ended enough that first year cost is usually negative, but one needs income to shelter. I know enough accounting to debate the merits of expensing all capital goods vs depreciating over the expected life of the asset, but taht seems a discussion out of place for this forum.

I though Warren Buffet was right when he called it The Indefensible, less so when he changed it to The Indispensable.

Frankly we all know toys are big business. From yachts to aircraft to super cars toys sell, just as jewelry and trophy houses. That is the way the world works. IMHO, giving fewer subsidies to such toys are unlikely to damage sales too much, but will severely change timing of sales.

Personally I see no reason whatsoever to provide tax advantages for such sales. Allowing accelerated depreciation is itself pretty silly for equipment taht does not rapidly depreciate, unless there is a clear benefit. Of course there is; the donations and perks granted by the owners of such equipment.


User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3157 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4879 times:

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):

"The private jet industry employs 1.2 million people and creates biliions in tax revenue"..

I wonder if Mr. Obama knows that? he likes bashing the private jet indutry

This is an interesting discussion, yet the OP immediately goes into a political opinion, which taints it from the onset. How does one suggest deletion of an thread-starting original post -- directing to Non-Av -- while keeping the thread open?

Like most (all?) of you, I'm not a corporate finance attorney. I certainly support the need for general aviation, at all levels. I do wonder what tax loopholes exist associated with the purchase and operation of business jets, loopholes I wouldn't have owning, say, a car for my business? Or are they the same, just a different order of magnitude? Or is it that I won't be able to finance it with a Cayman Islands bank account?

-Rampart


User currently offlineDashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1565 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4696 times:

Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 2):

On a serious note my neighbour is a Stew for a private jet company and there is no downturn in her work load last year or this, she is very busy.

I apparently absorbed that downturn for her, along with a few hundred other pilots. NJA still has 495 on the street. Flex was offering voluntary separations recently, FLOPS still has guys furloughed, CS is pretty much shutting down and Avantair is barely hobbling along.

Quoting jbcarioca (Reply 21):
Personally I see no reason whatsoever to provide tax advantages for such sales.

I do. There are thousands of us that depend on these damn things for our livelihood. We usually make good money doing so and although I can't back this statement up, I bet we pay more in taxes than any advantages the buyers have.

Also, accelerated depreciation is not a tax break, as has been stated before.


User currently offlinemastermis From Cayman Islands, joined Apr 2008, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4475 times:

Business tool huh?

"The biggest event for private jet travel is the Super Bowl; this year, over six hundred private aircraft flew into New Orleans Lakefront Airport for Super Bowl XLVII (typical weekend traffic at the airport is just 125 landings). Other top events include the Masters Golf Tournament and Art Basel Miami Beach."

  


User currently onlineDufo From Slovenia, joined May 1999, 811 posts, RR: 4
Reply 25, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4354 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
Another guy owns a Caterpillar dealership with his family and commonly uses his plane to take customers to the factory.

This one?
It's registered as a Caterpillar jet..




I seriously think I just creamed my pants without any influence from any outside variables.
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 26, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4263 times:

Quoting DesertJets (Reply 3):
But if they are such an invaluable business tool why would they need to be subsidized like that?



I agree totally, when an industry starts feeding at the trough of public assistance it opens itself up to criticism. Don't like it, stop asking for it. Republicans do it to people on public assistance, why can't the President do it to corporations? Aren't they people too?

Quoting g500 (Reply 11):
Every now and then a CEO uses the company's jet for personal reasons and the whole "private jets are personal toys" argument flares up again...



I'm looking at Flightaware right now for Teterboro, just this Morning alone I see:

two separate flights to Turks and Caicos
two separate flights to Bermuda
one to Punta Cana
Five to South Florida, I guess those could be business trips. Or not.
one to Santa Fe
One to Las Vegas
One to the Bahamas

Thats just a snapshot of activity at TEB this Morning. It's seems the flights to leisure destinations outnumber the flights to more business oriented markets.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offline26point2 From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3792 times:

I have worked in biz av my entire career...25+ years. Whenever one of these stories appears it's always the usual misinformed fluff piece dolled up to look legit. Some of the points are close or on target but I raised an eyebrow at:

"...There were 1,466 private jet crashes in 2011, resulting in 263 fatalities."

Now, statistics can mislead but this is horrendously off the mark. There was ONE fatal biz jet crash in the US in 2011 and that was a test flight crash that killed four from Gulfstream. I'm not sure where this stat came from but a little research would have been prudent.

Another was the reference to Global 8000. This plane hasn't even been flown yet and is years away from a delivery.

Anytime celebrity connections are included in a story it "dumbs" down the piece.

Despite what many on this forum believe biz jets are a critical tool in the corporate world and with the state of the airlines the biz jet is becoming a more viable option to many who could not quite justify it in the past.

The fractional ownership industry has taken a hit but this is a whole different type of biz av...one who is trying to make a profit. A true corporate jet/private jet is an invaluable tool.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 28, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3359 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
Any data to back that up, or just political rhetoric?

Political rhetoric, it may be your motivation. It certainly isn't mine. I want efficiency.

As to data to back it up, experience. When you work we large companies you get to see a lot. I was part of the M&A team of a fortune 500 company several years and there were scary examples, great examples too.

I have signed off using private jets for technicians and spare parts. I have signed off renting an 737 to send everyone from one office to a Christmas party. I have several times signed off on using a private plane to visit a location in Alabama, because it would take the better part of three days otherwise. I have declined every request for flying private between south Florida and New York.

But let's take the question back to you. What is your source questioning that they are used as toys?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
Even the assumption that using a private jet equals owning a private jet is flawed in practice.

Only you made that assumption. Most business flights are made by employees of companies. It is the owners of the company footing the bill.

Quoting g500 (Reply 11):
Private jets also enable a company's CEO to show the world his company is financially healthy

As often the message is that here is a person who will salt our bill to cover his high expenses.


User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3157 times:

Business trips, pleasure trips, company's business tool, etc etc etc. everybody is got an opinion and everybody is an expert on private aviation

The fact of the matter is that this industry employs 1.2 million people and creates billions in tax revenue for the governmnet, at the end of the day that is what counts.

Let's leave it at that


User currently offlinenjxc500 From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2820 times:

Quoting mastermis (Reply 25):
The biggest event for private jet travel is the Super Bowl

Do you think there were a few contracts signed at that event? I bet many of those aircraft had potential clients aboard.

Do you know what the government spends for private travel in a year, excluding the President? I'd be much more interested in that information than what's being discussed here.



At the beginning of 2008, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) led a group of 13 lawmakers on a trip to Vietnam, Australia and New Zealand. The lawmakers flew on the military's version of a Boeing 757, the same plane that is typically used as Air Force Two when the vice president is aboard.

The lawmakers reported that the cost of the 12-day trip was $68,623, according to a travel report filed by the lawmakers for the trip. The cost of flying for 57.8 hours was another $1.1 million, according to the Journal calculation based on the information from the Air Force.

User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2847 posts, RR: 4
Reply 31, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2801 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting STT757 (Reply 27):
Thats just a snapshot of activity at TEB this Morning. It's seems the flights to leisure destinations outnumber the flights to more business oriented markets.

I'm not doubting what you are saying, but you also didn't list who owns those jets. I don't doubt some executives are using the jets for personal use, but at the same time it could be some New Yorkers with a little bit of money chartering a jet from NetJets for a little vacation.

I'm torn on Corporate Aviation. There should be only a select few who have access to these jets for business use. If they want to use them for personal reasons they should have to reimburse the company for that use. I know the head bean counter at a large Aerospace company that uses their corporate jet occasionally. They'll only use it if a bunch of people have to be at a facility for a meeting. When you're talking about executives who are making millions I don't think a business jet is a bad idea for getting them around. If I am a shareholder I would rather the company make good use of these employees time. If they have a 5 day week where they have to visit 7 facilities I would rather they can get their work done and move onto the next one than stretch it out for an extra period because they have to follow an airline's flight schedule.
Pat



All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 32, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2780 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
I wonder if Mr. Obama knows that? he likes bashing the private jet indutry

It's better to take potshots at the 1% apparently.

Not surprising from the President Hypocrite. One of the two tax breaks he keeps harping about is one HE put in place as part of his first stimulus bill - that is an accelerated depreciation table. The other one, according to ThinkProgress (which is probably full of BS, but let's assume they are truthful) is the 5-year depreciation window (vs 7 year more typical in commercial aviation) which was granted by a Democrat Congress way back in 1987.

Quoting Mir (Reply 5):
I'm not up on the specifics, but they do get some breaks on depreciation at least.

Yes, but they still pay 100% tax up front.

If a company buys a business jet, it is treated the same as if they buy any other Capex asset - assuming that they satisfy the tax authorities that it is indeed primarily used for legitimate business purposes. That means that the initial purchase is made with after-tax dollars, and you get those taxes back over a 5-year period.

Example: Microsoft wants to buy a G-V. They pay $50 million for the plane out of their balance sheet - i.e. they had to earn $67.5 million in operating income, and paid $17.5 million income tax for the plane.

Being allowed to depreciate the airplane means you get the $17.5 million back from the government over a period of 5 years.

Depreciation on capital expenses are intended to A) reduce the tax penalty on businesses when buying equipment they need, and B) Make it easier for manufacturers of capital goods to sell their wares.

Considering that the corporate jet industry is a very high value-added industry, dominated by US manufacturers and with a high US-content, you would think that any president would try to encourage the industry as much as possible. But just like his stupid comments a few years ago that people should not vacation in Las Vegas, this is further proof that our current president doesn't have a clue about economics - as if we needed more.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 33, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2676 times:

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 27):
I'm not sure where this stat came from but a little research would have been prudent.

Agreed, the reporting is very sloppy. They do post a link to NTSB statistics but if you follow it it shows figures for General Aviation, which does not appear to be broken down into aircraft type.

The table shows 1,466 accidents of which 263 were fatal - not fatalities. The figure shown for fatalities is 444, of which 433 were on board. Either way, the table linked to does not support the suggestion that all the incidents involved private jets. There is some support for the claim that flying "in the company plane" is "safer", judging by the figures in the linked IBAC document.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15841 posts, RR: 27
Reply 34, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2676 times:

Quoting Dufo (Reply 25):
This one?
It's registered as a Caterpillar jet..

That's one of Cat's corporate fleet. The guy in this story just owned a dealer.

Quoting cmf (Reply 28):
What is your source questioning that they are used as toys?

Corporate America is much too greedy for that. And giving perks to employees is a legitimate business expense, and it's none of the government's problem. The shareholders and management can hash it out as it chiefly concerns them.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 35, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2592 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 34):
Corporate America is much too greedy for that. And giving perks to employees is a legitimate business expense, and it's none of the government's problem. The shareholders and management can hash it out as it chiefly concerns them.

In other words, you have no facts, just political conviction. And even then you state they are toys. In direct contrast with your earlier statement.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15841 posts, RR: 27
Reply 36, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2536 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 35):
In other words, you have no facts, just political conviction.

What info do you have regarding the proportion of business vs. personal flights? Or that flights to vacation destinations are aircraft being used by companies rather than high net worth individuals?

Quoting cmf (Reply 35):
And even then you state they are toys.

I'm just curious as to why that's your business or mine if they are.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2843 posts, RR: 12
Reply 37, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2532 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
People don't understand that corporate jets are not toys. These are real business tools just as much as a laptop or a conference room.

I agree. Most people on this site seem fixated on commercial aviation. Having worked for almost 8 years at a FBO at a relatively large regional airport I've seen how these aircraft are used for business. Say you're the CEO of ConAgra in Omaha and you need to fly to some meeting in a small town in Minnesota, it makes a lot of sense to use a private jet. His time is probably worth $500/hour, why spend that in a rental car or waiting in line at security.

There's a reason that even state agencies own small private jets or turboprop aircraft. They make multiple trips a day to cities and towns not served by a commercial airline.

Quoting dfambro (Reply 4):
I love how Buffet named a jet "The Indefensible".

When Gorbachev flew in to the airport I worked at, he flew in on Armand Hammer's 727. It was called "The Capitalist Tool".



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6733 posts, RR: 24
Reply 38, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2511 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 32):

Considering that the corporate jet industry is a very high value-added industry, dominated by US manufacturers and with a high US-content, you would think that any president would try to encourage the industry as much as possible.

So, it's the president's job to pick and choose which industries we should encourage? Shouldn't the free market do that instead?

Quoting g500 (Reply 29):
The fact of the matter is that this industry employs 1.2 million people and creates billions in tax revenue for the governmnet, at the end of the day that is what counts.

And that's fine. But why should this industry be treated any differently than any other?

Wal-Mart, Target and other retailers employ far more than 1.2 million, so should they get special treatment too?


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15841 posts, RR: 27
Reply 39, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2502 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 37):
There's a reason that even state agencies own small private jets or turboprop aircraft.

...that's because some states have governors who like being governor, but not enough to go live in the capital.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2843 posts, RR: 12
Reply 40, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2505 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 38):

Wal-Mart, Target and other retailers employ far more than 1.2 million, so should they get special treatment too?

Do you support employment in rural areas? If I was an executive in a large company like Wal-Mart or even a grocery store like HyVee having the ability to visit stores I run would be important to me. Tax breaks for companies that do that sort of thing lead to more stores and more employment.

IMO, discouraging corporate jet ownership is a bad thing and cutting the tax breaks would only lead to passing the cost onto the consumer. One small businessman I know owned a CitationJet he used to fly around to 3-4 banks in rural Missouri a day. He worked on updating their ATM software and installing hardware. No way he could have done that in a car or flying commercially.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6733 posts, RR: 24
Reply 41, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2495 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 40):
Do you support employment in rural areas?

I'm neither for nor against it. Let the free market decide if it makes sense to do business in rural areas.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 40):
Tax breaks for companies that do that sort of thing lead to more stores and more employment.

Sorry, but it's a pretty weak correlation to claim that tax breaks for private jets mean companies will open more stores in rural areas. Wal-Mart opens stores in rural areas because the economics of running the store makes sense, not because they have a private jet to fly there.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 40):
One small businessman I know owned a CitationJet he used to fly around to 3-4 banks in rural Missouri a day. He worked on updating their ATM software and installing hardware. No way he could have done that in a car or flying commercially.

That's great, but it didn't create any jobs. If your small businessman didn't have a jet maybe he wouldn't have reached all those banks, but someone else would. So net, no jobs created.

Again, no one has provided good reasoning why private jets should be treated any different than any other business? The reason private jets get special treatment has nothing to do with job creation and everything to do with lobbying by wealthy and influential donors.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying private jets are bad. I'm just saying they don't deserve any special tax treatment.


User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2843 posts, RR: 12
Reply 42, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 2480 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
...that's because some states have governors who like being governor, but not enough to go live in the capital.

The small fleet of government owned turboprop aircraft I worked with didn't always cater to the governor, who did live in the capital city. Even the Highway Patrol typically bought surplus turboprop aircraft off the feds when they needed a plane to move leadership around.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 41):
That's great, but it didn't create any jobs. If your small businessman didn't have a jet maybe he wouldn't have reached all those banks, but someone else would. So net, no jobs created.

So, you're suggesting businesses in small towns like Fort Dodge, IA just hire whoever is in town that does that kind of work? Rather than hiring an entrepreneur that can economically operate a small business jet and provide the same service that someone in St. Louis or Chicago gets?



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15841 posts, RR: 27
Reply 43, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 2482 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 41):
That's great, but it didn't create any jobs. If your small businessman didn't have a jet maybe he wouldn't have reached all those banks, but someone else would. So net, no jobs created.

The plane doesn't assemble and maintain itself. And someone has to put gas in it and possibly fly it too.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 41):
I'm just saying they don't deserve any special tax treatment.

What special treatment exactly do they get? They pretty much get treated like any other capital investment don't they?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 44, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2405 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 36):
I'm just curious as to why that's your business or mine if they are.

It was you who stated they are used as business tools and not toys and then went on political motivation when your statement was challenged. Now you try to suppress it when the answers are not to your liking.

Personally I don't care if people use them as toys or for business. But in companies where I am involved it is for business only.

If I see a vendor use private jets where commercial flights are perfectly suitable I take an extra look at the quote.
If we pay for a vendors travel, and we often do, we will buy the ticket(s) or they will be reimbursed the ticket price we found.
Have saved fortunes that way. Especially since we changed to economy travel only after 9/11. Vendors are still happy and there is no difference in performance. Enough to cover the minimum wage increase, if we paid that little.

Again, doesn't mean we don't use private jets, when it is smart to do so. That said we got rid of NetJets, and spent the money on additional factory employees instead. Much better return.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15841 posts, RR: 27
Reply 45, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2389 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 44):
It was you who stated they are used as business tools and not toys and then went on political motivation when your statement was challenged.

And you said the same. They are business tools, and even if they aren't, it's none of our business.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 46, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2380 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 45):
And you said the same.

No, I said they are used as both, big difference. Sorry that doesn't fit your political conviction.

As to the topic, I see no reason why they should have tax breaks.


User currently offlinesccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5618 posts, RR: 28
Reply 47, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2321 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 41):
Again, no one has provided good reasoning why private jets should be treated any different than any other business?

Perhaps that is because private jets are not treated any differently than any other capital asset. The jet (or turboprop, or helicopter, or tracked excavator, or CNC mill, or concrete batch plant, etc.) is simply another business asset. Accelerated depreciation is a long-accepted means of stimulating demand for high-value goods, and encouraging replacement of older, less-efficient equipment with newer, more-efficient.

Jets do not get any "special" breaks. It's disingenuous and petty class-warfare to suggest otherwise.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15841 posts, RR: 27
Reply 48, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2309 times:

Quoting sccutler (Reply 47):
Accelerated depreciation is a long-accepted means of stimulating demand for high-value goods, and encouraging replacement of older, less-efficient equipment with newer, more-efficient.

And before anyone says "Airlines don't do that" it's necessary to point out that people don't account for their personal vehicles the same way FedEx accounts for their truck fleet.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 49, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2300 times:

Quoting sccutler (Reply 47):
Perhaps that is because private jets are not treated any differently than any other capital asset.

They aren't?

Quoting sccutler (Reply 47):
Jets do not get any "special" breaks. It's disingenuous and petty class-warfare to suggest otherwise.

They don't? How about different maximum?

But of course it is class warfare (petty no less) to acknowledge the differences.


User currently offlineblueflyer From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Jan 2006, 4193 posts, RR: 2
Reply 50, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2300 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 45):
They are business tools, and even if they aren't, it's none of our business.

The accelerated depreciation schedule that the industry is fighting to keep from expiring is intended for business equipment, so "if they aren't" is very much our business because that is tax fraud, which every honest tax payer pays for...

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 41):
That's great, but it didn't create any jobs.

It's hard to have absolutes one way or the other. If a certain company didn't build a food processing plant in rural America confident that parts and support staff could be flown to the local airport when necessary, would it have been built in suburbia? In Mexico? At all?

Quoting njxc500 (Reply 30):
Do you think there were a few contracts signed at that event?

Please, that is such a load of crap. If a deal makes sense, it makes sense, whether or not the vendor flies you to the Superbowl in a private plane.

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 27):
Despite what many on this forum believe biz jets are a critical tool in the corporate world and with the state of the airlines the biz jet is becoming a more viable option to many who could not quite justify it in the past.

Even on this board few people question that private jets may be very useful business tools. The question is whether that makes them worthy of preferential tax treatment. I vote no.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlinenjxc500 From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2233 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 50):
Quoting njxc500 (Reply 30):
Do you think there were a few contracts signed at that event?

Please, that is such a load of crap. If a deal makes sense, it makes sense, whether or not the vendor flies you to the Superbowl in a private plane.

Well then who needs to travel at all, why not just conduct all business through webcams. May sound good on paper but that's not how the real world works. In all reality the jet had to travel somewhere to get the deal done, what's the difference if it lands at the super bowl? A good time had by all I would assume.


User currently offlinesccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5618 posts, RR: 28
Reply 52, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2214 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 50):
Even on this board few people question that private jets may be very useful business tools. The question is whether that makes them worthy of preferential tax treatment. I vote no.

By all means, if you cancel accelerated depreciation for business aircraft, do so for every other capital equipment. No difference. Just a tool.

Nothing better than taking another stab at one of the very few remaining industries which employs lots of people in highly-paid, highly-trained work, and is still performed in the United States.

Idle question: businesses deduct, as business expense, all manner of costs. Office space and plant construction, motor vehicles, office equipment, computers/data processing equipment, you name it, they got it. Is it the business of government to examine the choices of what equipment each business uses and rule upon whether that particular piece of equipment is "too good," "too expensive," "too nice"?

No F250 Super-Duty truck, because the Commissar of Trucks decides a Chevy Colorado with a towing kit should be adequate to the task. And, all such trucks shall be white - no need to paint in any other color.

No iPad, because a generic Droid tablet can function for a fifth of the money - so sayeth the Commission on Adequate Computing Ability.

No offices larger than 100 square feet. No airline seats other than coach, 28" pitch. Wait, on a per-seat basis, buses are more efficient than airplane seats anyway, so no airline flights can be used.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

The only reason - the sole and exclusive basis - for objection to the use of these aircraft is plain ol' class envy, with a healthy and overwhelming stench of ignorance about the true utility and value of business aviation.

When you see the continuous flow of business aircraft coming and going at secondary airports, the Teterboros and Addisons and Van Nuys and Centennials, they are engaged in valuable commerce, enabling the economy that grows and actually creates wealth (and jobs), not consuming it and wasting it. If the use of commercial aircraft allows a business to conduct its affairs more efficiently and with greater profit and return for its stakeholders, you should cheer out loud; if the use of those aircraft is not a value-add, its use will end or the enterprise will fail.... same as every other tool or process.

It is exceedingly unlikely that I will ever have, or have the use of, a jet or turbine-class aircraft, but I can surely hope to - and the fact that haven't and likely won't ever have access to such a tool does not make me desire to restrict the use of that tool by those whose energy, ingenuity, creative drive and judgment have enabled them to do so.

For those who would dampen and destroy the opportunity to do so (and I point at no particular individual here), I vigorously say this: For shame! Petty, small minds seek to destroy, to restrict, to disable. Don't be that person.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 53, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2154 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 50):
The accelerated depreciation schedule that the industry is fighting to keep from expiring is intended for business equipment, so "if they aren't" is very much our business because that is tax fraud, which every
honest tax payer pays for...

IIRC the requirement is that they are used for business purposes at least 25% to qualify...

Quoting njxc500 (Reply 51):
May sound good on paper but that's not how the real world works.

Who is saying there is no need to travel? But why pay several thousand per hour traveled when you can pay a fraction of that flying commercial. Now if you load it up it may be competitive.

Quoting njxc500 (Reply 51):
In all reality the jet had to travel somewhere to get the deal done

No it didn't. People fly commercially and manage to make big deals every day.

Quoting njxc500 (Reply 51):
what's the difference if it lands at the super bowl?

You really think there were many deals made at super bowl? Not that I'm saying there is no value in meeting in an environment like that, but deals being signed there is the exemption. It is much more likely to be a (selective) company outing.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 52):
No difference. Just a tool.

What you're saying is that all tools are equal. A stapler is as valuable as compressor...

Quoting sccutler (Reply 52):
one of the very few remaining industries which employs lots of people in highly-paid, highly-trained work, and is still performed in the United States.

I'd love to see the data supporting this claim.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 52):
Idle question: businesses deduct, as business expense, all manner of costs. Office space and plant construction, motor vehicles, office equipment, computers/data processing equipment, you name it, they got it. Is it the business of government to examine the choices of what equipment each business uses and rule upon whether that particular piece of equipment is "too good," "too expensive," "too nice"?

This is ofcourse about depreciation schedule... and while there is nothing of the "too expensive" and "too nice: you insiniate, there are rules about what kind of equipment and how much can use the accelerated depriciation.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 52):
No iPad, because a generic Droid tablet can function for a fifth of the money - so sayeth the Commission on Adequate Computing Ability

No, they don't say that, as CIO I do.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 52):
The only reason - the sole and exclusive basis - for objection to the use of these aircraft is plain ol' class envy

Ahh, the envy and class argument. Pot, kettle, black.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 52):
they are engaged in valuable commerce, enabling the economy that grows and actually creates wealth (and jobs), not consuming it and wasting it

Some are. Others are wasting it. Like the sales guy who spends 5% of a deals profit on flying private to a meeting in Europe. I could have two people on the factory floor for that money and thus allow us to bring in one more deal.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 52):
It is exceedingly unlikely that I will ever have, or have the use of, a jet or turbine-class aircraft, but I can surely hope to - and the fact that haven't and likely won't ever have access to such a tool does not make me desire to restrict the use of that tool by those whose energy, ingenuity, creative drive and judgment have enabled them to do so.

If you want to spend a lot of money on something that can be done much cheaper with almost identical result, be my guest. But don't expect me to subsidize it with accelerated depreciation rates for more than a decade. That is just corporate welfare.


User currently offlinesccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5618 posts, RR: 28
Reply 54, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2086 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 53):

Quoting sccutler (Reply 52):
No iPad, because a generic Droid tablet can function for a fifth of the money - so sayeth the Commission on Adequate Computing Ability

No, they don't say that, as CIO I do.

Absolutely! As CIO of the enterprise, that's a proper management function. You decide. Not the government.

Quoting cmf (Reply 53):
Quoting sccutler (Reply 52):
they are engaged in valuable commerce, enabling the economy that grows and actually creates wealth (and jobs), not consuming it and wasting it

Some are. Others are wasting it. Like the sales guy who spends 5% of a deals profit on flying private to a meeting in Europe. I could have two people on the factory floor for that money and thus allow us to bring in one more deal.

Again, management prerogative. The wasteful ones will fail. Natural selection at work.

Quoting cmf (Reply 53):
Quoting sccutler (Reply 52):
It is exceedingly unlikely that I will ever have, or have the use of, a jet or turbine-class aircraft, but I can surely hope to - and the fact that haven't and likely won't ever have access to such a tool does not make me desire to restrict the use of that tool by those whose energy, ingenuity, creative drive and judgment have enabled them to do so.

If you want to spend a lot of money on something that can be done much cheaper with almost identical result, be my guest. But don't expect me to subsidize it with accelerated depreciation rates for more than a decade. That is just corporate welfare.

Again, point is, different tools (of whatever kind, whether they be for transportation or manufacturing) can be used varying purposes and efficacy.

Reality: most businesses which use aircraft, do so because it allows them to achieve more and compete more strongly.... same reason they'd use a different kind of punch press or edge-bander or finishing line.

Fact is, we ought not want the government micro-managing what tools we can use in our businesses.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 55, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2075 times:

Quoting sccutler (Reply 54):
You decide. Not the government.

Government never tried to make the decision.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 54):
The wasteful ones will fail. Natural selection at work.

The wasteful do not fail. It isn't bad enough to create negative returns. It is lost opportunity that doesn't show in the profit and loss statements. Lost opportunity it is extremely difficult quantify.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 54):
Reality: most businesses which use aircraft, do so because it allows them to achieve more and compete more strongly.... same reason they'd use a different kind of punch press or edge-bander or finishing line.

Very questionable. Some certainly do. Most, I don't think so. In my experience they are very often used for convenience, not for return.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 54):
Fact is, we ought not want the government micro-managing what tools we can use in our businesses.

Fact is, this isn't the issue at hand. Another fact is, the government isn't micromanaging what tools companies use.

Fact of the issue is, business jets receive preferential treatment that doesn't make sense.


User currently offlineblueflyer From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Jan 2006, 4193 posts, RR: 2
Reply 56, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2037 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cmf (Reply 53):
IIRC the requirement is that they are used for business purposes at least 25% to qualify...

I thought the MACRS' 50% requirement applies.

Quoting njxc500 (Reply 51):
Well then who needs to travel at all, why not just conduct all business through webcams. May sound good on paper but that's not how the real world works. In all reality the jet had to travel somewhere to get the deal done, what's the difference if it lands at the super bowl?

Wow! I don't know where to begin... How do we go from the Superbowl not being necessary to get a good deal signed, to writing off all business travel altogether? Come to think of it, I can't even begin...

Quoting sccutler (Reply 52):
Is it the business of government to examine the choices of what equipment each business uses and rule upon whether that particular piece of equipment is "too good," "too expensive," "too nice"?

We are talking about whether and when a depreciation schedule should change. How is that government interference in how a business is run?!?

Quoting sccutler (Reply 52):
By all means, if you cancel accelerated depreciation for business aircraft, do so for every other capital equipment. No difference. Just a tool.

Deal. Glad we agree on something.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 52):
The only reason - the sole and exclusive basis - for objection to the use of these aircraft is plain ol' class envy

Class envy, really? I have flown many times in business jets, far more earlier in my career than now, when I was a field engineer being dispatched to a customer location in the middle of nowhere because waiting out for mass transportation simply was too expensive from a lost revenue angle. Perhaps unlike other critics, I do understand quite well that a $10,000 flight is chump change when a production line goes down at 1 am at a cost of $50,000 per hour and the earliest commercial flight will get someone on site at 10 am. I appreciate still today when my travel takes me in the same direction as one of our top executives and I am told to catch a ride instead of flying commercial. I can see the savings in my budget when I put a team of highly paid engineers on a business jet because they need to be in two places at the same time or somewhere hard to reach.

Yet I still think it is time for the accelerated depreciation schedule to expire.

And contrary to what you might think, when you have to hit the local airport at night to fly to Nebraska in the middle of winter, it sucks just as much whether the ride is an old 737 or a brand new GV.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 57, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2021 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 56):
I thought the MACRS' 50% requirement applies.

Even 50% show it isn't just for business, as was claimed. But I think 50% or 25% depends on who is the owner. It has been a few years since we had this discussion in relation to a company we looked at buying. Funny enough the owner made the argument the deduction of the plane should be considered when we decided on the companies value...

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 56):
I do understand quite well that a $10,000 flight is chump change when a production line goes down at 1 am at a cost of $50,000 per hour

Solving unplanned production stops is where I see the biggest benefit. Most other times is remote locations.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 56):
And contrary to what you might think, when you have to hit the local airport at night to fly to Nebraska in the middle of winter, it sucks just as much whether the ride is an old 737 or a brand new GV.

I've always found the ease at the airport the best part. But there is no way that can make up for a 4 hour flight on a King Air.


User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1938 posts, RR: 2
Reply 58, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1907 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I say that if corprate jets didn't exist at the level that it currently does there would be a job loss. There would also be a job gain in the airline industry to support the additional passengers no longer being carried on the private aircraft. Of course it wont be balanced but it will not be 100% loss either.


The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlinesccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5618 posts, RR: 28
Reply 59, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1872 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 55):

Fact is, this isn't the issue at hand. Another fact is, the government isn't micromanaging what tools companies use.

If government treats any category of business asset differently than other business assets. that is certainly a form of "micro-managing."

Quoting cmf (Reply 55):
Fact of the issue is, business jets receive preferential treatment that doesn't make sense.

What is the preferential treatment received by business jets?

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 56):
We are talking about whether and when a depreciation schedule should change. How is that government interference in how a business is run?!?

Only if different categories of business equipment are treated differently, which represents a policy decision.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 60, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1802 times:

Quoting sccutler (Reply 59):
If government treats any category of business asset differently than other business assets. that is certainly a form of "micro-managing."

Your description is so wide it can encompass micro management but it isn't micro management just because you split things in categories.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 59):
What is the preferential treatment received by business jets?

How many times do we need to mention accelerated depreciation? And before you state business jets are not the only thing with accelerated depreciation take a look at the details.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 59):
Only if different categories of business equipment are treated differently, which represents a policy decision.

Where do you have a system treating all equipment the same way?


User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3014 posts, RR: 8
Reply 61, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1723 times:

Some more pics of private jets

This time with much better taste !

http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/t...0130226-2f3nq.html?selectedImage=0



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Interesting Facts About Israel posted Wed Jun 2 2004 06:45:06 by Rjpieces
Random Facts About Yourself. posted Sat Jun 26 2010 18:01:07 by bill142
Interesting Piece About Beck's Past History posted Wed Sep 23 2009 11:53:44 by Avent
Interesting Fact About Porn In Hotels! posted Fri Jan 25 2008 14:02:52 by Cumulus
Facts About Chuck Norris posted Tue Sep 25 2007 13:32:52 by Gkirk
Random Facts About You....Part III posted Fri Mar 2 2007 02:47:24 by FutureSDPDcop
Facts About US Greenhouse Emmissions posted Tue Feb 27 2007 15:22:26 by Pope
Interesting Post About Why Girls Are Weird... posted Fri Jan 26 2007 20:47:39 by Jaws707
Random Facts About You Part 2 posted Wed Aug 2 2006 07:29:38 by FutureSDPDcop
Random Facts About Yourself posted Mon Jul 31 2006 17:33:00 by FutureSDPDcop