did it anger you when the CEO's flew to washington?

wait for the poll!

no

asdfa

The fact that they took individual jets for each person pissed me off. If they had all taken a single private jet per company that would have been understandable.

No. What pissed me off was the f**king media circus that the "issue" was turned into. That got blown way the hell out of proportion. :rolleyes:

No. What pissed me off was the f**king media circus that the "issue" was turned into. That got blown way the hell out of proportion. :rolleyes:

so very true

so very true

Yes, yes it is!

Media cabal! :freakout:

The question should really be:

"Are you, the taxpayer, willing to pay for the "braintrust" of GM/Ford/Chrysler to travel on private aircraft, despite their inability to afford said travel themselves?"

If they have the money to do it, I could care less if they flew on jets nicer than Air Force One. However, if I'm going to pay for it, their @$$e$ better be flying coach or business class.

Yeah, sure the press made a mountain of a molehill like usual, but you have to admit, it was a real dumbass move on the CEOs' part.

Yeah, sure the press made a mountain of a molehill like usual, but you have to admit, it was a real dumbass move on the CEOs' part.

No, I don't have to admit that, because I don't believe it. The argument has been made many times over why it would make more sense for them to fly a private plane, so I won't get into it, but I'm not nearly as stirred up (read: not stirred up at all) as the idiots that fawned over all the bad press they got for it.

I'm sure the AIG guys flew in on jets too

No, I don't have to admit that, because I don't believe it. The argument has been made many times over why it would make more sense for them to fly a private plane, so I won't get into it, but I'm not nearly as stirred up (read: not stirred up at all) as the idiots that fawned over all the bad press they got for it.

I don't care if they fly on their own private jets. However when you're begging the government for $34 billion and you just wasted $30,000 on a single flight to Washington, that's just asking for people to wonder why we should bail them out.

Again not that I care, but IMO it's how people see it.

I don't care if they fly on their own private jets. However when you're begging the government for $34 billion and you just wasted $30,000 on a single flight to Washington, that's just asking for people to wonder why we should bail them out.

Again not that I care, but IMO it's how people see it.


And I imagine each of those CEO's and their entourage spent the whole flight going over preparations for the hearing (grilling) which they wouldn't have been able to do on a commercial flight whether they were in coach, business, or first class.

However when you're begging the government for $34 billion and you just wasted $30,000 on a single flight to Washington, that's just asking for people to wonder why we should bail them out.

Again not that I care, but IMO it's how people see it.

Well that, and it begs the question "What else are they wasting their money on?" For example, the "job bank". That's much worse than the private jet thing IMO. If you're going to pay people NOT TO WORK, their @$$e$ better be RETIRED.

Where there's smoke, there's fire. :yes:

Well that, and it begs the question "What else are they wasting their money on?" For example, the "job bank". That's much worse than the private jet thing IMO. If you're going to pay people NOT TO WORK, their @$$e$ better be RETIRED.

Where there's smoke, there's fire. :yes:

Don't look at GM, I'm pretty sure that's the union's doing. [ can of worms ]

Management agreed to it. Not entirely the union's fault. Why don't you guys get this?

Don't look at GM, I'm pretty sure that's the union's doing. [ can of worms ]

Yeah, and GM let the union push them into doing that. Again, it wasn't such a big deal when they weren't losing money hand over fist.

Whether or not they deserve to fly in separate jets because of status or wealth isn't really the question.

The only pardon would be if the collective cost of flying in separate private jets was justified in support of other business activities that would have cost the business MORE had they not chosen that option.

In the eye of the public, and especially since they were flying to ask for large sums of money, it's a poor example of stewardship.

Management agreed to it. Not entirely the union's fault. Why don't you guys get this?

I understand that perfectly well, but who knows what would have happened had GM not agreed to it. They might have found themselves in the midst of a strike which would have rendered them sitting ducks.

Yeah, and GM let the union push them into doing that. Again, it wasn't such a big deal when they weren't losing money hand over fist.

The union is finally seeing this and opening up the contract. I think it finally clicked that if GM, Ford, and Chrysler aren't around, then they won't get any money.

I'm sure the AIG guys flew in on jets too

It's all about who ya know.....

I understand that perfectly well, but who knows what would have happened had GM not agreed to it. They might have found themselves in the midst of a strike which would have rendered them sitting ducks.



The union is finally seeing this and opening up the contract. I think it finally clicked that if GM, Ford, and Chrysler aren't around, then they won't get any money.

From this thread: http://www.camaroz28.com/forums/showthread.php?t=648803

You gotta understand a union/management negotiation. Union aims high, management aims low, they meet in the middle on a compromise that's best for the company and employees. It just seems in this case the union aimed high, and the company said, meh, ok! Typically, if the union plays hardball and goes on strike, then the company comes back to the table after a few weeks, and makes the offer a little better. By that time, those on strike are hurting enough financially (usually through poor financial planning) that they accept.

Remember, when on strike, you don't get paid either.

The union is finally seeing this and opening up the contract.

i am not ok with this move! We only make 30 and some change for team leaders at my plant here in texas thats the max and 28 for us normal folk i already only make 14.12 but the want us to lose 30 cents off each dollar that drops the 28 to 20 or so and me to 9.88 and i for one am not ok with that!

I'm sure the AIG guys flew in on jets too

Sheesh, they probably came in on their own private ocean liner, fresh off their retreat at their own private resort. :rolleyes:

***k AIG! :mad:

Sheesh, they probably came in on their own private ocean liner, fresh off their retreat at their own private resort. :rolleyes:

***k AIG! :mad:

:lol: Dressed in baby seal pelts from their hunting trip.

i am not ok with this move! We only make 30 and some change for team leaders at my plant here in texas thats the max and 28 for us normal folk i already only make 14.12 but the want us to lose 30 cents off each dollar that drops the 28 to 20 or so and me to 9.88 and i for one am not ok with that!

Sucks, man, but if GM goes into bankruptcy, then your union's contract is dissolved anyway, which could mean instead of $9.88, you could be making $0.00 per hour.

Sucks, man, but if GM goes into bankruptcy, then your union's contract is dissolved anyway, which could mean instead of $9.88, you could be making $0.00 per hour.

so true i will have to look for another job then lol

so true i will have to look for another job then lol

Which might be what you'd have to do anyway if 9.88 wouldn't pay the bills. I'm not trying to seem heartless. I hate to see anyone on here suffer as a result of the economy going down the crapper.

Yeah, it ticked me off a bit. If it were up to me, they wouldn't get a dime. But hey, now the GM main dude is sitting shotgun in a Cobalt.

There asking us to bail them out with a few billion dollars because of the ****ty cars they build. Hell no. Yeah, I said ****ty cars.

Yeah, it ticked me off a bit. If it were up to me, they wouldn't get a dime. But hey, now the GM main dude is sitting shotgun in a Cobalt.

There asking us to bail them out with a few billion dollars because of the ****ty cars they build. Hell no. Yeah, I said ****ty cars.
and you drive a GM Vehicle for what reason?

Which might be what you'd have to do anyway if 9.88 wouldn't pay the bills. I'm not trying to seem heartless. I hate to see anyone on here suffer as a result of the economy going down the crapper.

yea at 11 bucks and hour at my last job i was barely able to make my bills lol

very stupid if you ask me. They need to show what they are doing to "change". That is just more of the same from GM. Waste cash when they don't have too. I'm guessing it was only a few hundred bucks for them to drive.

very stupid if you ask me. They need to show what they are doing to "change". That is just more of the same from GM. Waste cash when they don't have too. I'm guessing it was only a few hundred bucks for them to drive.

How much time did it take?

Most were driving prototype cars, I am sure there was a whole entorage of mechanics, and a trailers with equipment and maybe even some replacement vehicles.

The last thing they needed was to have one of there new "premier" vehicles break down along the way and leave them stranded, that would do great for sales with the public. Understandable since they are prototypes. Wouldn't surprise me if the roadtrip cost more.



I think its funny people don't see some of the biggest companies in the US might require having a private jet.


LOL Regal Cinemas has a private Jet. Yeah I can gurantee Regal Cinemas is nothing like the big 3 in size/money/jobs.







Its rediculous, its the liberal media, and a bit of a liberal congress just showing their hate for the automotive/manufacturing industry.






If anyone has Playboy, there is a really good article about the decline of manufacturing jobs and how our economy has really suffered from it.


Biggest thing being from 40s-70s, middle class was much better and controled a bigger part of the nation's wealth. Hell think about it, only 1 parent worked.

Think of today, the top 1% control much more of the wealth, and almost seems rediculous/impossible if someone stays at home now.

How much time did it take?

Most were driving prototype cars, I am sure there was a whole entorage of mechanics, and a trailers with equipment and maybe even some replacement vehicles.

The last thing they needed was to have one of there new "premier" vehicles break down along the way and leave them stranded, that would do great for sales with the public. Understandable since they are prototypes. Wouldn't surprise me if the roadtrip cost more.

I think its funny people don't see some of the biggest companies in the US might require having a private jet.

LOL Regal Cinemas has a private Jet. Yeah I can gurantee Regal Cinemas is nothing like the big 3 in size/money/jobs.


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I'm sorry, but this has to be one of the dumbest things I've read here in awhile.

So, after over 100 YEARS of building cars, you don't think GM can make a prototype that will get to DC and back? Come on now. If they can't, then there's no way in hell a federal bailout will save them.

Also, and this point has been made here AD NAUSEAM, but Regal Cinemas ISN'T ASKING FOR A FEDERAL BAILOUT. If they can afford stuff like a private jet and still run a PROFITABLE business, then more power to them.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I'm sorry, but this has to be one of the dumbest things I've read here in awhile.

So, after over 100 YEARS of building cars, you don't think GM can make a prototype that will get to DC and back? Come on now. If they can't, then there's no way in hell a federal bailout will save them.

Also, and this point has been made here AD NAUSEAM, but Regal Cinemas ISN'T ASKING FOR A FEDERAL BAILOUT. If they can afford stuff like a private jet and still run a PROFITABLE business, then more power to them.

a plug in car? I mean its unlikely it will but do you think they would even take the risk. The car isn't out.



Regal Cinemas isn't to profitable, they are hurting, why do you think they raised prices again?


LOL they were chapter 11 5 years ago.

LOL they were chapter 11 5 years ago.

Did they or did they not receive a federal bailout? :think:

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Did they or did they not receive a federal bailout? :think:

Yeah, that's what I thought.

ok... so you want to support half million or more unemployed people? If they file chapter 11?

ok... so you want to support half million or more unemployed people? If they file chapter 11?

more like 3million unemployed if the big 3 go down and other company's drop in that wake

The other thing to be considered is that you don't want to pack all of your company's most important people into a single airplane or vehicle.

I.e. what if the plane goes down?

Restructuring jokes aside, it's not a smart idea.

Its rediculous, its the liberal media, and a bit of a liberal congress just showing their hate for the automotive/manufacturing industry.

If anyone has Playboy, there is a really good article about the decline of manufacturing jobs and how our economy has really suffered from it.


Oh yeah, if you spent a little less time reading Playboy, you might know that the very "liberal congress" you curse is the only reason this automotive bailout has any chance at all.

Financially "conservative" people tend to be against bailouts of any kind.

Just a stupid Washington side show to bust them up a bit and let them know that mudslinging is still a favorite pastime on Capitol Hill.

But if you're Bear Sterns, AIG or Citigroup don't worry about the jet we'll just send the check!

So, after over 100 YEARS of building cars, you don't think GM can make a prototype that will get to DC and back? Come on now. If they can't, then there's no way in hell a federal bailout will save them.

i think that might be the best quote here

So, after over 100 YEARS of building cars, you don't think GM can make a prototype that will get to DC and back? Come on now. If they can't, then there's no way in hell a federal bailout will save them.

Wow, you're truly ignorant, aren't you?

i think that might be the best quote here

Wow, you're truly ignorant, aren't you?

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

ROTFLMFAO!

I don't care if they fly on their own private jets. However when you're begging the government for $34 billion and you just wasted $30,000 on a single flight to Washington, that's just asking for people to wonder why we should bail them out.

Again not that I care, but IMO it's how people see it.

:no: We've been through this. This particular trip cost no more than $3k to $4k tops on the jets they used.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

ROTFLMFAO!

Sorry I had to cut out early. I was in the bathroom, which turned out to be a great place to read your replies since I was already in the presence of a pile of crap. ;)

At any rate, the purpose of a preproduction vehicle (which would be the Volt that Waggoner is taking to Washington) is to test out the company's parts and designs to find and eliminate failures and to make improvements to the original design. Sure, they could have taken a Malibu that's already in production with proven assembly and technology, but since this whole hearing session has become a media circus, GM has decided to showcase part of its plan for moving forward with technology. They're taking what will be a class leader and a game changer instead of one of their "old crappy, gas guzzling cars" that you seem to be callling them out for in an earlier post.

If they do bring along maintenance technicians with them on the Volt journey, it won't exactly be because they don't trust the car. They're just covering their bases incase something does come up that proves to be problematic.

You might be surprised to know that most preproduction cars (concepts, prototypes, what have you) run into problems during their testing phases. That goes for imports and domestics. It's a part of the process. They test their cars, find the problems, and fix them. The Volt has a hell of a lot of new technology that's just being implemented and hasn't had a whole lot of time on the road to be proven and have all the bugs worked out. GM is just playing some good old CYA if they bring a few techs with them on their road trip.

Sorry I had to cut out early. I was in the bathroom, which turned out to be a great place to read your replies since I was already in the presence of a pile of crap. ;)

At any rate, the purpose of a preproduction vehicle (which would be the Volt that Waggoner is taking to Washington) is to test out the company's parts and designs to find and eliminate failures and to make improvements to the original design. Sure, they could have taken a Malibu that's already in production with proven assembly and technology, but since this whole hearing session has become a media circus, GM has decided to showcase part of its plan for moving forward with technology. They're taking what will be a class leader and a game changer instead of one of their "old crappy, gas guzzling cars" that you seem to be callling them out for in an earlier post.

If they do bring along maintenance technicians with them on the Volt journey, it won't exactly be because they don't trust the car. They're just covering their bases incase something does come up that proves to be problematic.

You might be surprised to know that most preproduction cars (concepts, prototypes, what have you) run into problems during their testing phases. That goes for imports and domestics. It's a part of the process. They test their cars, find the problems, and fix them. The Volt has a hell of a lot of new technology that's just being implemented and hasn't had a whole lot of time on the road to be proven and have all the bugs worked out. GM is just playing some good old CYA if they bring a few techs with them on their road trip.

OK, point taken.

However, I'd like to pose this question. How long do you think the propulsion technology that's going into the Volt has been around? I'm not asking this because I don't know (because I do know), but I want to see if anyone around here actually does know. ;)

OK, point taken.

However, I'd like to pose this question. How long do you think the propulsion technology that's going into the Volt has been around? I'm not asking this because I don't know (because I do know), but I want to see if anyone around here actually does know. ;)

How long it's been around and how long it's been implemented in a road-going application are two different things.

How long it's been around and how long it's been implemented in a road-going application are two different things.

The only thing different is the scale of the application.

The only thing different is the scale of the application.

It still has to be packaged and made to work seamlessly with all the other systems on the car. It's quite the undertaking and I don't fault GM or get any preconceptions about quality for them covering their butts when they take a preproduction car on the road. Hell, they've done the same thing with the Camaro and there's nothing radically different about its powertrain. :shrug:

Oh yeah, if you spent a little less time reading Playboy, you might know that the very "liberal congress" you curse is the only reason this automotive bailout has any chance at all.

Financially "conservative" people tend to be against bailouts of any kind.


I know financially conservative people don't. I actually am against most of the bailouts but I think I need to go with this one. I feel in the US we need a much bigger manufacturing base, and we need to help it.

What I think is funny, Playboy is extremely liberal and even they agree with it.


Not saying playboy is an end all of fiancial news but its a pretty decent magazine overall.

Allrightythen, I guess I'm going to have to tell you how long this "newfangled hybrid technology" has been around.
Let's put it this way, I'm sure (or almost sure) that most of you have heard of the U-Boat. Yeah, that's right, this "cutting edge" propulsion technology has been around since before World War I on submarines - and is still being used today.
Again, it's not like this technology is new. It's been around almost 100 YEARS and has been pretty well optimized. Hell, there are already hybrids all over the roads.
So, I say again.....If GM can't build a vehicle (even if it is a prototype using this "brand-new 100 year-old technology") that can get it's CEO to DC and back to Detroit, then no amount of a federal bailout/loan/whatever will help them.

Its not a hybrid...


If it was so easy why hasn't all the car companies made them? I am tlaking Foreign and domestic.


Its just the automotive companies, not wanting to make them, some non-automotive company needs to go out and show detroit how to make an electric car. WAIT,Tesla is doing it and its easy right? oh wait aren't they going under?

I actually am against most of the bailouts but I think I need to go with this one.

OK, so since we've already bailed out Jimmy (the financial industry), and if we bail out Johnny (the automotive industry), how long will it be before Sally, Scott, Paul, Fred, Timmy, Tommy, Jill, Jack, etc.(insert "vital-too-big-to-fail-entity here) are in line with their hands out? The bottom line is principles are principles. If we bail one out, we have to bail them all out, or don't bail ANY of them out.

Its not a hybrid...

If it was so easy why hasn't all the car companies made them? I am talking Foreign and domestic.


It's a true gas-electric powerplant. Again, it's technology that's been around since before ALL of us were born.
I frankly don't know why automakers haven't made them. I'm kind of surprised something didn't come out 30 years ago during the last "gas crunch".
Anyway, it's not like they have to "invent" the technology. It's just a matter of scaling it down to fit in a car.

OK, so since we've already bailed out Jimmy (the financial industry), and if we bail out Johnny (the automotive industry), how long will it be before Sally, Scott, Paul, Fred, Timmy, Tommy, Jill, Jack, etc.(insert "vital-too-big-to-fail-entity here) are in line with their hands out? The bottom line is principles are principles. If we bail one out, we have to bail them all out, or don't bail ANY of them out.


EXACTLY! but why does the company I work for have to BEG for money when the people who drove us into the ground with BAD LOANS get them not questions asked?

EXACTLY! but why does the company I work for have to BEG for money when the people who drove us into the ground with BAD LOANS get them not questions asked?

Because the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Again, I am one of MANY who were and are against the bailout of the financial industry, and the precedent it set. Now, either the line gets drawn somewhere, or we bail everyone out and become the United States of China. :mad:

nope. what kind of moron doesn't realize that CEOs fly around in corporate jets all the time without having to see it on tv?

:no: We've been through this. This particular trip cost no more than $3k to $4k tops on the jets they used.

From what I remember, some people thought it was $3k to $4k tops and others said it was much more like the number I produced. If you truly think it only costs $3-$4k to charter a private jet then sign me up next time I wanna go to Europe.

Idiot members of Congress, who spend OUR money like water criticizing them was a joke. So, I voted no. OTOH, maybe the execs should have figured out that it was bad PR and just flown commercial. I do hate the idea of bailing out people who fuxxed up so badly. It's a dilemma, for sure.

Rich

i'd only be pissed if the pilot & crew were union.

:p

:leaving:

EXACTLY! but why does the company I work for have to BEG for money when the people who drove us into the ground with BAD LOANS get them not questions asked?

Because the financial industry is infinitely more important than the Big 3 to turning around the economy, not just of the United States, but the entire world. We've been through this in many other threads.

Oh yeah, if you spent a little less time reading Playboy, you might know that the very "liberal congress" you curse is the only reason this automotive bailout has any chance at all.

Financially "conservative" people tend to be against bailouts of any kind.

That's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention, which is why I think they'll get it. They are torn between their hate for the Big 3 and the party's massive uaw contributions. They want to make the suits squirm, because they hate the corporations, yet they can't let the uaw workers lose their jobs. It's all just a big show for "The People" to make US think they actually do something!

So, I say again.....If GM can't build a vehicle (even if it is a prototype using this "brand-new 100 year-old technology") that can get it's CEO to DC and back to Detroit, then no amount of a federal bailout/loan/whatever will help them.

All of the auto makers have been producing cars that run on an internal combustion engine drivetrain since their inception. (Notable exceptions include Stanley, but they're not around anymore.) These companies have been making ICE drivetrains and cars for up to and over 100 years, yet they still make "prototypes" (preproduction test models) and have issues with them. That's just how it goes when you're packaging something up in a new way. Even though the theory is still the same, as ICE's all basically work the same way, when you make a different size engine, it still needs to be thoroughly tested and it's only expected that they will have problems at first. Again, this happens to foreign and domestic makes.

From what I remember, some people thought it was $3k to $4k tops and others said it was much more like the number I produced. If you truly think it only costs $3-$4k to charter a private jet then sign me up next time I wanna go to Europe.

Isn't Europe a little farther that DC- at least, physically, if not politically?

To the guy with the U-boat technology anology: Not only a difference in scale, but the technology has changed quite a bit, too- maybe not so much the DC motors, but batteries, controllers, metalurgy/composites,- if this was half as easy as you are trying to make it sound, people would be cranking these out in their garages- Not seeing too many working versions on the streets near my house- Yes, the theory is sound, and been around a long time- there were electric cars in the 1900's- but to build a practical durable car that consumers will actually buy, at an affordable cost- anybody care to look up what the value of the GM EV-1 car that GM leased a decade ago?-

Okay, we all drive electric cars- where is the power to recharge them going to come from? Coal? Nukes? Hydro? No, wait- solar! Yeah, like that would work- what's going to happen to the nation's electrical grid when 100 million people come home from work and plug their cars in overnight to recharge?

Well that, and it begs the question "What else are they wasting their money on?" For example, the "job bank". That's much worse than the private jet thing IMO. If you're going to pay people NOT TO WORK, their @$$e$ better be RETIRED.

Where there's smoke, there's fire. :yes:

Are you against unemployment payments. How about welfare or medicaid?

I think they are all unsustainable. Money is not infinate on the government side either.

i think that might be the best quote here

But is it thoughtful?

GM is driving an prototype - an electric prototype at that. They haven't been building these for 100+ years, there's a reason it's a prototype.

And yes, it's doubtful that Wagoner would be driving solo the entire trip in Volt.

OK, point taken.

However, I'd like to pose this question. How long do you think the propulsion technology that's going into the Volt has been around? I'm not asking this because I don't know (because I do know), but I want to see if anyone around here actually does know. ;)

Let me take a guess... Since the Nazis invented it during the third Reich?

it didn't bother me at all !


Dumb media coverage of it made it seem far more important. Just because they are asking for a loan doesn't mean they have to show up to congress on a bike wearing jeans and a t shirt.


Especially when speaking to congress. F congress, they have no moral or ethical ground to criticize these guys for flying in a private jet.

The public on the other hand can cry over the symbolism but whether they fly, walk, run or arrive in some PR stunt it doesn't change the situation. We the public should be more concerned on the outcomes that will come from the decisions being made.

Are you against unemployment payments. How about welfare or medicaid?

I think they are all unsustainable. Money is not infinate on the government side either.

Yes I'm against unemployment payments. Unemployment levels would be A LOT lower if we didn't pay people that aren't retired NOT to work.

Yes I'm against welfare payments. See above.

With that being said, there are people who would work if they were able to. I believe we should take care of those people. However, 99.9% of the time, that isn't the case. Almost everyone can do SOMETHING. :yes:

I have a 34 year-old cousin with Down's Syndrome and she has a full time job.

I"m not sure why, after this issue has been beaten to death in other threads, the question is being asked again?

I doubt very many people here were "angered" by their flying in on private jets.

The problem is the "picture" it creates for the public (who's money they are begging to receive).

It's not unlike the stupidity of certain former political figures/celebrities who fly around the world in private jets which use somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-4,000 of pounds of fuel per hour to move one human body; all so that they can tell me that I'm being a bad steward of the environment because I drive an SUV (that actually gets better MPG than most cars did 30 years ago).

First class tickets on a private carrier should be good enough for any executive and especially so when the executive in question is presiding over a company that is quickly going down the drain.

Isn't Europe a little farther that DC- at least, physically, if not politically?

To the guy with the U-boat technology anology: Not only a difference in scale, but the technology has changed quite a bit, too- maybe not so much the DC motors, but batteries, controllers, metalurgy/composites,- if this was half as easy as you are trying to make it sound, people would be cranking these out in their garages- Not seeing too many working versions on the streets near my house- Yes, the theory is sound, and been around a long time- there were electric cars in the 1900's- but to build a practical durable car that consumers will actually buy, at an affordable cost- anybody care to look up what the value of the GM EV-1 car that GM leased a decade ago?-

Okay, we all drive electric cars- where is the power to recharge them going to come from? Coal? Nukes? Hydro? No, wait- solar! Yeah, like that would work- what's going to happen to the nation's electrical grid when 100 million people come home from work and plug their cars in overnight to recharge?

It's funny you mention the EV1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

According to GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, his worst decision of his tenure at GM was "axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn’t affect profitability, but it did affect image."[17] According to the March 13, 2007, issue of Newsweek, "GM R&D chief Larry Burns . . . now wishes GM hadn't killed the plug-in hybrid EV1 prototype his engineers had on the road a decade ago: 'If we could turn back the hands of time,' says Burns, 'we could have had the Chevy Volt 10 years earlier.'

You hit the nail on the head. The fact remained that, even when gas was over $4/gallon, the plug-in hybrid still wasn't/isn't yet economically viable. However, when they start making them in VOLUME, the production costs WILL go DOWN. The point is that GM could've really beaten EVERYONE to market with this and actually been a pioneer to the automotive industry instead of a follower.
To you remark about the electrical grid. What do you think happens when 100 million people turn on their big screen LCD/Plasma TVs? Those things eat A LOT more power than you think, and charging the battery of a car doesn't eat as much power as you'd think either. :yes:

The fact that they took individual jets for each person pissed me off. If they had all taken a single private jet per company that would have been understandable.

I don't know if they could. There might be some unhappy people at the SEC if they were all on one jet.

FYI...both GM and Ford closed down their corporate flight departments earlier this week. Pilots and mechanics alike are being let go and the aircraft are being sold. There's no doubt GM and Ford are worried about public perception. The funny thing that people won't realize is, their executives will still be flying on bussiness class jets however, they will be chartered.

Also, both of those companies had corporate shuttle flights that transported thousands of regular employees annually to specific locations around the country. Do you think the need for those people to travel will stop? I think not! Now, they will have to fly the airlines which not only takes longer but, actually will cost the companies much more money than operating their own shuttle aircraft.

FYI...both GM and Ford closed down their corporate flight departments earlier this week. Pilots and mechanics alike are being let go and the aircraft are being sold. There's no doubt GM and Ford are worried about public perception. The funny thing that people won't realize is, their executives will still be flying on bussiness class jets however, they will be chartered.

Also, both of those companies had corporate shuttle flights that transported thousands of regular employees annually to specific locations around the country. Do you think the need for those people to travel will stop? I think not! Now, they will have to fly the airlines which is not only takes longer but, actually will cost the companies much more money than operating their own shuttle aircraft.

Well I hope the Senate Committee is proud of themselves. They took a small side show and blew it so far out of proportion as almost seen as a hazing exorcise. Then they in turn completely undermine who reason for asking for the loan. Save American jobs and prevent a depression!
Once again Congress we can always count on you to play God and cut the middle class one more time.

Well I hope the Senate Committee is proud of themselves. They took a small side show and blew it so far out of proportion as almost seen as a hazing exorcise. Then they in turn completely undermine who reason for asking for the loan. Save American jobs and prevent a depression!
Once again Congress we can always count on you to play God and cut the middle class one more time.

Agree!!

I would of asked "What kind of car did you drive to this hearing senator?" 100k MB? "Why didn't you take public transport to work today?"

It's funny you mention the EV1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

According to GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, his worst decision of his tenure at GM was "axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn’t affect profitability, but it did affect image."[17] According to the March 13, 2007, issue of Newsweek, "GM R&D chief Larry Burns . . . now wishes GM hadn't killed the plug-in hybrid EV1 prototype his engineers had on the road a decade ago: 'If we could turn back the hands of time,' says Burns, 'we could have had the Chevy Volt 10 years earlier.'

You hit the nail on the head. The fact remained that, even when gas was over $4/gallon, the plug-in hybrid still wasn't/isn't yet economically viable. However, when they start making them in VOLUME, the production costs WILL go DOWN. The point is that GM could've really beaten EVERYONE to market with this and actually been a pioneer to the automotive industry instead of a follower.
To you remark about the electrical grid. What do you think happens when 100 million people turn on their big screen LCD/Plasma TVs? Those things eat A LOT more power than you think, and charging the battery of a car doesn't eat as much power as you'd think either. :yes:


I am not sure, but I think you re wrong about the power grid and plug-in electrics. The typical house has just 100 amp service, older houses may have as little as 60 amps. A heavy duty circuit is 30 amps, about what you would need for an overnight charge. So, every 2-4 Volts is like adding a house to the grid. I doubt the grid in many places has this kind of capacity, especially in the inner ring suburbs and urban areas of large cities where the Volt is likely to sell. Anyway, I hope it is success.

Rich

The question should really be:

"Are you, the taxpayer, willing to pay for the "braintrust" of GM/Ford/Chrysler to travel on private aircraft, despite their inability to afford said travel themselves?"

If they have the money to do it, I could care less if they flew on jets nicer than Air Force One. However, if I'm going to pay for it, their @$$e$ better be flying coach or business class.

Yeah, sure the press made a mountain of a molehill like usual, but you have to admit, it was a real dumbass move on the CEOs' part.


EXACTLY!!!!!!!!:bow:

I would of asked "What kind of car did you drive to this hearing senator?" 100k MB? "Why didn't you take public transport to work today?"

Don't you think having the CEO of an auto company urging people to take public transportation would be a little bad for business? :think:

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!:bow:

I agree! I'm hoping a large degree of sober thinking will take hold among all that travel on the taxpayer dollar. Nancy Pelosi should be flying commercial. She's not asking for a government loan, but she is on the government payroll. Time for belt tightening, starting with all branches of our government.

I will say that the military can fly taxpayer paying the bill. That's my exception to the rule. That is, if a military person is flying to duty.

I also believe that the POTUS could make do with a smaller aircraft on the taxpayer's tab. Actually, the president should fly on military aircraft which are slated to fly to a location in the course of duty. No finer security there and any plane the POTUS is on is Airforce One.

We could all benefit from a bit of austerity symbolism. We could benefit even more if government thought about who's paying the bill.:yes:

I agree! I'm hoping a large degree of sober thinking will take hold among all that travel on the taxpayer dollar. Nancy Pelosi should be flying commercial. She's not asking for a government loan, but she is on the government payroll. Time for belt tightening, starting with all branches of our government.

I will say that the military can fly taxpayer paying the bill. That's my exception to the rule. That is, if a military person is flying to duty.

Right on brother. :D

Us military folk already fly coach. That or we get reimbursed to drive to our next duty station if we choose to go that route INCONUS.

Right on brother. :D

Us military folk already fly coach. That or we get reimbursed to drive to our next duty station if we choose to go that route INCONUS.

Thank you for your service. I mean that as up front as anyone has ever said anything to you.

It takes more than rhetoric, glib rhetort, philosophical depth, or any abstract armchair expertise one can muster... all fall horribly short of putting one's self in the line of mortal fire.

Being killed is far more serious than being un-re-elected.

Politicians should live as the least and most distressed of their constituants.

I agree! I'm hoping a large degree of sober thinking will take hold among all that travel on the taxpayer dollar. Nancy Pelosi should be flying commercial. She's not asking for a government loan, but she is on the government payroll. Time for belt tightening, starting with all branches of our government.

I will say that the military can fly taxpayer paying the bill. That's my exception to the rule. That is, if a military person is flying to duty.

I also believe that the POTUS could make do with a smaller aircraft on the taxpayer's tab. Actually, the president should fly on military aircraft which are slated to fly to a location in the course of duty. No finer security there and any plane the POTUS is on is Airforce One.

We could all benefit from a bit of austerity symbolism. We could benefit even more if government thought about who's paying the bill.:yes:

I have run into Jerry Brown and former treasury secretary Robert Reich (sp?) at Oakland airport in the Southwest area (of all places). I know Senator Feinstein flies business class commerical, and I can only assume Pelosi does too when she's commuting between Cali and DC. :shrug:

Didnt read the whole thread but no. What angered me was an incompetent clueless congressman scolding the heads of the big 3 each of whom have only come to be CEO relatively recently when congressional approval is or has been sub 20%. I believe he said something along the lines of "I am afraid to leave you to your own devices" Congressional advice was to sell the company jet, and have the CEO's who make millions leave the helm for a road trip.

Congressional advice was for these CEO's to leave the helm of their ships in this financial S storm and in GM's case drive a Hybrid to DC from Micigan on CEO salary when the company will run out of money at the end of the month. Talk about stupid...

Wagoner get some undeserved crap. He probably could have been CEO of another company that was already profitable or was easier to turn around. I look at what Lutz, and Welburn have been permitted to do and the quality inclease and Im impressed.

If they took SEPARATE jets, it would annoy me, I guess.. However time is money, and 8 hours in a car driving is a waste of time when you have limited time to fix your company.

Big uproar over NOTHING.

I have run into Jerry Brown and former treasury secretary Robert Reich (sp?) at Oakland airport in the Southwest area (of all places). I know Senator Feinstein flies business class commerical, and I can only assume Pelosi does too when she's commuting between Cali and DC. :shrug:

Maybe so Guy... I do recall some uproar in early February 2007, Department of Defense officials criticized Pelosi for using Air Force transportation in extravagance. Pelosi admitted to using a C-32 to fly coast to coast (from Washington to San Francisco) without refueling, but claims that she did not request the military version of a Boeing-757 specifically. Pelosi further claimed that the criticism was a retributive attack for her past criticism of Donald Rumsfeld and the war in Iraq.

Maybe she flies coach now. I hope so.

Stupid b*tch probably just uses her broom........

I would of asked "What kind of car did you drive to this hearing senator?" 100k MB? "Why didn't you take public transport to work today?"

Or even better yet...How many of yall have your own private jets paid for by US? I shoulda read the last page....lol! I'm pretty sure she's NOT flying coach....and I'm sure the broom is at the ready for anytime she can't ride on US!

Maybe so Guy... I do recall some uproar in early February 2007, Department of Defense officials criticized Pelosi for using Air Force transportation in extravagance. Pelosi admitted to using a C-32 to fly coast to coast (from Washington to San Francisco) without refueling, but claims that she did not request the military version of a Boeing-757 specifically. Pelosi further claimed that the criticism was a retributive attack for her past criticism of Donald Rumsfeld and the war in Iraq.

Maybe she flies coach now. I hope so.

Yea, I remember that. That was abusive on her part, and admittedly even worse judgement on her part than the big 3 CEOs.

Since then, I believe there have been restrictions on things like that (military aircraft) ie: emergencies, and sudden congressional recalls for votes. Most always, it's on a "space available" basis on aircraft already headed that way... which means the military will all but certain make a seat available. In Pelosi's case, that was highly unusual. But the Speaker of the House (like Executive cabinet members or their representitives) in my understanding have use of military "vip" planes when on official business. But any congressperson or elected official (even a county supervisor) who asks to ride on military craft will likely get a seat.

Our governor Arnold uses a private jet to commute between Sacremento and LA on the weekends, but he pays for that out of his own pocket.


Trivia: Ted Kennedy hitched a ride on a fighter jet to get to California when Robert Kennedy was shot.