Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 21, 2008 13:18:44 GMT -4
The private jet thing is at least a little more sensible than AIG's spa retreat. After all, it was a very important meeting for the big three. They wouldn't want one of their executives languishing in the midwest somwhere when they should have been before Congress because they missed their connecting flight.
I've heard that the governor of Utah often flies commercial rather than via private jet.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Nov 21, 2008 14:56:46 GMT -4
So, after watching almost every news channel, I decided to post a poll to know if you would agree/disagree with a rescue to the Big Three. Some sources indicate that GM is not going to last until 2009 and almost every analyst said that the awful decisions made by their executives is the reason for this begging. With all due respect that is not what you asked in the poll. Instead you asked for a prediction of what the gov't will do. BTW I only caught a bit of it yesterday but if I heard correctly the Canadian gov't is prepared to help out the auto industry, at least operation north of the USA.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 21, 2008 17:22:06 GMT -4
The private jet thing is at least a little more sensible than AIG's spa retreat. No argument there. Even though AIG maintains the cost was minimal, they owe the world a sign of frugality and contrition. A show of opulence, even at bargain rates, rankles the sentiments of people like me who don't get bailouts or spa treatments when we make bad business decisions. After all, it was a very important meeting for the big three. They wouldn't want one of their executives languishing in the midwest somwhere when they should have been before Congress because they missed their connecting flight.Hence my dilemma. I have to grudgingly concede that private jet travel here was justified. It is common in the industry, and the CEOs' presence at the hearings was of the utmost importance. The horn of the dilemma again is opulence. I've seen these jets. They are delicious. While I can certainly understand the need to get GM's CEO to Washington on time, I don't see the need to feed him a $75 steak en route. Maybe it's silly, but I'd sort of expect them to have to sit in the same 22-inch airline seat I have to occupy when going out on site, and eat the same cold sandwich with stale bread and mustard I have to squeeze out of a little packet. Economics versus perception. Hence my characterization as possibly a red herring. There are practical concerns. And there is also the backlash against what is perceived to be a growing bourgeoisie. I guess we have nothing to lose but our chains. And cars. I've heard that the governor of Utah often flies commercial rather than via private jet.That may be true. I have met Mr. Huntsman and I know Mr. Leavitt. Huntsman seems on the surface to be more a man of the people. I don't know about his travel habits, but he doesn't seem to mind slumming on other occasions.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 21, 2008 18:22:17 GMT -4
If speed is truly of the essence, they could strap 'em into the back seat of a T-38: not many creature comforts there... ;D
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 21, 2008 18:53:11 GMT -4
I was thinking: a really big trebuchet...
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Nov 21, 2008 19:35:09 GMT -4
Travel is draining. Air travel is very draining. Inconvenient, uncomfortable travel is really draining.
If--IF!--a given CEO's work is truly as valuable as is represented in his compensation, then it makes sense to reduce as much as possible the drain on his energy and thus on his productivity caused by travel.
The less time and effort he spends worrying about cramped seats and bad food, the more time and effort he has to keep his mind on my money and my money on his mind--which is what I'm paying him big bucks to do.
On the other hand, I do expect him to step up and make the supreme effort where it really counts.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 21, 2008 22:36:11 GMT -4
If you're paying him $2,000 an hour you don't want him sitting in airports any longer than necessary either.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 22, 2008 9:08:38 GMT -4
I was thinking: a really big trebuchet... Given the size of some CEOs, the counterweight would need to be pretty hefty... ;D
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Nov 23, 2008 23:31:18 GMT -4
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 24, 2008 11:43:37 GMT -4
It doesn't really matter at the moment if a bank got into sub-prime mortgages or not - pretty much the entire banking industry is currently under fire. The bank I work for wasn't involved in much sub-prime lending at all, but our stock value has dropped from $80 to around $30 because we do business in some of the more vulnerable markets - California and Nevada - and investors think we must be exposed to more risk because of it.
Of course, if UBS investors carry through on their threat they'll have to import the crocodiles.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 24, 2008 12:05:34 GMT -4
I hadn't followed your bank though this mess. I'm somewhat amazed that their stock has almost mirrored Citigroup's shares since June.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Nov 24, 2008 19:24:55 GMT -4
I was thinking: a really big trebuchet... In which case a pair of ski goggles, a decent helmet, and an equally really big net would be in order, but a cape would be, IMHO, extravagant.
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Nov 25, 2008 16:12:47 GMT -4
I was thinking: a really big trebuchet... In which case a pair of ski goggles, a decent helmet, and an equally really big net would be in order, but a cape would be, IMHO, extravagant. Nah, a mattress and the Mythbusters' slingshot should do it.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Nov 25, 2008 19:29:43 GMT -4
In which case a pair of ski goggles, a decent helmet, and an equally really big net would be in order, but a cape would be, IMHO, extravagant. Nah, a mattress and the Mythbusters' slingshot should do it. I guess I am an old softy. I figured only on putting in place the apparatus that would, at worst, require that the CEO in question change his/her(yeah, right) underwear upon returning to Earth (while saving the company a whack of cash) whereas you seem unconcerned as to the person's continued existance in the plane of the living. ;D Then again I am not sure what the accelleration forces would be in a launch from a trebuchet, so the health of the CEO might be a moot point anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Tanalia on Nov 25, 2008 22:37:10 GMT -4
Some quick figures, ignoring air resistance, assuming constant acceleration in the available space and rounding off...
Assume we use a football field to build some sort of massive launcher -- call it 100 m in which to accelerate our CEO. At an uncomfortable 5 g, he would leave after 2 seconds, going around 100 m/s. Assuming a 45o elevation, we get a range of 1km.
Trying it with an excruciating 10 g, he would leave at 140 m/s (not double the previous, as he exits sooner), and lands about 2 km away. Increasing the launcher to 200 m on top of that would get him to 4 km.
Doesn't sound all that practical, but might be fun ;D
|
|