Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Corporate
Senators Corporate Jet Use >

Senators Corporate Jet Use

Notices
Corporate Corporate operators

Senators Corporate Jet Use

Old 06-16-2009, 07:37 AM
  #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ockham's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 110
Default Democrat or Republican

We need to vote them all out, the process is just not working.
ockham is offline  
Old 06-16-2009, 08:26 AM
  #12  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,480
Default

Originally Posted by Zach View Post
Yeah, what about that 'little' plane Obama flys? I believe it is a 747? Pot, meet kettle, big time.
Actually, he has a selection of jets to use, depending on the length of flight and the airport he's going to. I believe the SAM squadron operates 757s and G-Vs in addition to the 747.
Fishfreighter is offline  
Old 06-16-2009, 10:03 AM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
USMCFLYR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,835
Default

Originally Posted by Zach View Post
Yeah, what about that 'little' plane Obama flys? I believe it is a 747? Pot, meet kettle, big time.
This is a great discussion about corporate jet use and the current black eye given to corporate aviation in light of the congressional hearings. Feel free to discuss congress' use of business jets and the current media/public views - but let's keep the particular names out of the discussions as this often leads to a political debate (is the current president's name really required above?) which is not allowed per APC TOS.

USMCFLYR
USMCFLYR is offline  
Old 06-16-2009, 02:03 PM
  #14  
Gets Weekends Off
 
SmoothOnTop's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: retired
Posts: 645
Default

Originally Posted by ockham View Post
We need to vote them all out, the process is just not working.
Agreed, we should start:

P.A.I.D.

Pilots Against Incumbent Dopes

...
SmoothOnTop is offline  
Old 06-17-2009, 08:39 PM
  #15  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: CL604
Posts: 90
Default

but let's keep the particular names out of the discussions as this often leads to a political debate (is the current president's name really required above?) which is not allowed per APC TOS.
I would normally agree, but when this guy is publicly bashing corporate aviation AND forcing companies to sell their business tools, then I believe the name usage is appropriate in the discussion. I would think nancy p is fair game too with her abuse of the GV and 757 going to CA almost every week.
Flyer00 is offline  
Old 06-17-2009, 10:51 PM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
USMCFLYR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,835
Default

Originally Posted by Flyer00 View Post
I would normally agree, but when this guy is publicly bashing corporate aviation AND forcing companies to sell their business tools, then I believe the name usage is appropriate in the discussion. I would think nancy p is fair game too with her abuse of the GV and 757 going to CA almost every week.
There is enough abuse of all kinds of power to go around. Focus on the ISSUE and not the individuals involved. Naming names will only lead this useful thread down the path of my politicans are better than your politicans and will end up with the thread being closed. We have proven time and time again that we are incapable of discussing certain subjects like adults.

USMCFLYR
USMCFLYR is offline  
Old 06-18-2009, 06:34 AM
  #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Ziggy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: Sofa Stress Tester
Posts: 614
Default

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR View Post
We have proven time and time again that we are incapable of discussing certain subjects like adults.

USMCFLYR
Sadly, we have lost the ability to have a rational discussions with opposing points of view. People need to learn went it's time to "agree to disagree" and still have respect for the other party.
Ziggy is offline  
Old 06-20-2009, 10:15 AM
  #18  
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Posts: 5
Default

NYSPK9 - Still flying out of Stewart? Like to ask you some questions if you still are?
tucker11 is offline  
Old 06-20-2009, 07:39 PM
  #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
BillyBaroo's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: A320 F.O.
Posts: 176
Default

Unfortunately, jumping on the Senate band wagon on the use of corporate jets led to the demise (or didnt help the cause) of many corporate flight departments--including mine. Although we had not been making the projected revenue to that made in 2006 and 2007, the image alone of corporate air travel was at least a final nail in many coffins.
After being laid off, I found it a bitter pill to swallow watching the many senators, and even the top man himself (who by the way we used to fly and his family and staff) completey disregard the benefits to corporate aviation. Speed, flexibility, and time savings. All tools for the corporate tool box, the same as any mechanic using top of the line tools to complete his or her project. The better the tools, the more efficient a job gets done, and efficiency=time=dollars.
Most of know that if you were to break down some of the CEO's salary to an hourly wage, it is alot. And we dont need these guys sitting in an airport 2 hours ahead of schedule, to get on an already delayed flight, to fly to an airport that may or may not be near their place of business. As a former airline pilot, and most recent corporate pilot, I can see the benefits to corporate aviation. Im surprised not many of our esteemed government officials that have flown on these aircraft, and know the value did not step up to the plate in our defense. I guess what is right is sometimes not popular, and what is popular gets the votes.
I do hope they realize that it wasnt just the planes and it's pilots, but an armada of a workforce that goes into corporate aviation (aircraft manufacturers, avionics, sales, FBO's, etc). There are alot of faces involved, and in one fellow swoop, were "thrown under the bus".
What I would have liked to have seen is a congressional committee member asking where "Mr CEO" is, with a response "He's flying standby on brand X airlines because the previous flight was cancelled".
BillyBaroo is offline  
Old 06-21-2009, 01:45 PM
  #20  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: Corporate Chief Pilot
Posts: 198
Default

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR View Post
This is a great discussion about corporate jet use and the current black eye given to corporate aviation in light of the congressional hearings. Feel free to discuss congress' use of business jets and the current media/public views - but let's keep the particular names out of the discussions as this often leads to a political debate (is the current president's name really required above?) which is not allowed per APC TOS.

USMCFLYR
Sorry, I should have said every president since the 1950's. It just hasn't been a problem until recently.

It is total BS that some people (we know who) can use private aircraft, while others get looked down upon for it. I don't know why some of these companies that were made to feel guilty about using private aircraft haven't pointed their fingers back. Our country's finances aren't any better than the bailed out companies.

Also, forgive me for not memorizing the rules to a free and public message board. I have better things to remember. Using common sense I have only committed minor violations.
Zach is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Justdoinmyjob
Regional
34
06-04-2009 11:05 AM
widebodyjunkie
Corporate
28
02-23-2009 09:04 PM
F172Driver
Hangar Talk
9
01-20-2009 04:35 AM
fros0080
Corporate
3
10-20-2008 12:58 PM
fireman0174
Foreign
2
10-12-2008 07:03 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices