Oh, yes! You should start with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, sole owners of Netjets! Buffett bought into Netjets in 1995, and then bought the entire company in 1998! Gates bought into it in 1999. They prefer to fly on the Boeing Business class Jet (aka Super-Heavy Jets., not those pocket-sized Lear Jets or intermediate Gulfstreams.). BTW: Better go after Oprah. She owns a Challenger 604. I forget the total number of Jets John Travolta owns or has owned in his life.

Google: netjets advertisement bill gates warren buffett

http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3A*&q=netjets+advertisement+bill+gates+warren+buffett

Bottom line, if you own Berkshire Hathaway stock, you’re invested in Netjets. And let’s not forget about Sergey Brin, of GOOGLE. He’s an environmentalist and an active liberal – he too flies in the Boeing Business class Jumbo-Jet, Boeing 767 (maybe he’s still interior decorating it…). And while you’re at it, better go after all of those jerks on their mega-yachts. You know, the kind of personal cruise ship Arianna Huffington hung out on in the Caribbean, compliments of her very good friend, David Geffen. And just how do Bill Gates Sr and Jimmy Carter go around saving Africa?
----------------------------

Oh, it’s so cool to be green and liberal....

love you b.e. -- however, the cat may be out of the bag on this --

our corporate chieftains are kinfolk to the flying monkeys in
the witch's castle --

don't ask me which witch

With improvements in video conferencing technologies, there is no excuse whatsoever for misusing corporate jets even for mere 1-2 hour meetings. Until society learns to actually appreciate the hard work of IT workers putting in their valiant efforts to improve telecommunications and stops allowing Big Telco from overcharging customers and even businesses, I'm afraid the corporate jets are here to stay. Remember, unlike the late 19th earlier 20th century especially the Great Depression Era, for the past 50 years Main Street has been too divided amongst itself to take on Wall $treet.

"Congress should at least impose a luxury tax on private jets to offset their environmental impact"

Well they wouldn't want to do that! Then somebody might question their travel habits. They are never required to fly commercial, but use Air Force jets to go on all their meetings with lobbyists, at taxpayer expense. Also, how many of them attended the Obama inauguration on private jets? Most, I'll bet...

Not to mention Pelosi. I can't confirm this but heard she commutes between DC and Cal via private jet.

Now that the economic crisis has demonstrated for all to see that the corporatist parasites have not been "earning" anything, certainly not their exorbitant salaries, bonuses, and perks, but have simply managed to use their connections and bargaining position to skim the cream of the top of the production of others, maybe efforts to accurately portray them in the general population will have more success. I wish somebody would start a "Get a rope" award, to be awarded to the most outrageous parasite of the week, in order to popularize the idea of stringing them up. They need to be intimidated at the very least.

Does this make any sense at all. We are in a recession because a group of sociopathic greedy SOBs overindulged in reckless speculation and loan sharking. And now that we are bailing them out, why should we be surprised that these same guys are acting like sociopathic greedy SOBs?

This is my main reason for supporting a transitional and temporary nationalization of banks. That way we get to remove the sociopathic greedy SOBs out of the loop for any decisions related to recovery from their white collar crimes.

"The American taxpayer, reeling from the economic meltdown, doesn't feel like subsidizing lavish jets and bonuses any more."

You can add Viagra to that list of subsidies as well!

"Meanwhile, the rest of us, as taxpayers and commercial travelers, subsidize private jet travel through fees, infrastructure funds and tax breaks. Private jets use 16 percent of air traffic control system services, but pay only 3 percent of the costs, according to the Federal Aviation Administration. And a third of airport improvement funds over the last couple years have gone to fix up small, remote airports serving primarily private jets, such as Oregon's North Bend airport, where 5,000 wealthy golfers a year are able to land their private jets before playing at the world-class Brandon Dunes course."

I don't know if the authors are including the small recreational planes in the 16% (it seems likely to me they are - there are a lot more small planes, also known as "general aviation", than there are private jets), but I do know that these small airports, and there are A LOT of them, have NO public purpose and NO public value (except in Alaska and a few other remote places). They are the equivalent of country clubs, where the ticket to membership is ownership or use of a small plane. There is a whole system of support for them- not just airport improvements and air traffic control, but road maintenance, weather reports, mapping services, and FAA oversight. I know several people who have small planes, and I am constantly surprised by how cheap it is for them to use this infrastructure.

Obviously the FAA and the National Weather Service like this demand for their services, and the local governments that get tax revenues, and the elites who like to fly aren't going to complain about public subsidies for general aviation.

The authors don't go far enough. I say the feds should stop subsidizing general aviation. All it does is encourage the use of a particularly environmentally damaging form of transportation.

Barbara,
I was an ATC for 20 years. I didn't strike when PATCO did in 1981. My car was vandalized, my life threatened and my wife was harrased. The air traffic control system is one of the few government programs with hardly any corruption. That said, we controllers were never too concerned with the executive jets because they are nimble and will slow down or speed up very quickly, unlike the jumbos. What you say has merit but you neglect one glaring truth: Almost every congress person belonged to the jet set before coming to office, They could care less about common peoples' concern for executive jet travel. It won't fly. Congress is complicit.
Do you want to stop it? No, they'll get around the luxury tax. Here's how: Make it an FAA regulation that all flights carrying 10 passengers or less be restricted to off-peak hours. Also, demand to have corporations establish sophisticated tele-conferencing systems to cut 90% of "business" meetings and useless conventions. If they want an excuse to party and get drunk, let them do it on their own time.
I know, ethical executive is an oxymoron but you can try.

How about he Learjet parking lot at Washington National, filling up for the big votes?

On big money legislation don't the execs park there to go and be visible in person to the Senate and the House members as they walk in to vote?

The author's lack of logic is astounding. Let's carry it further:

Shouldn't we ban limousines because they are only used by The Rich and they have a higher carbon footprint than Prisuses?

Shouldn't we ban recreational vehicles (of all types) for the same reason?

And really, shouldn't we ban all private vehicles because some folks can't afford them and their carbon footprint is far higher than the Greyhound bus?

The authors need to explain the logic of "private plane vs. flying bus" and "private car vs. Greyhound bus". How are the two different?

The fact is, lots of companies use private planes, for a lot of different reasons. There are many parts of our country that aren't easily reached by airline. A company may use a private plane to fly a part and technicians to a factory that is down for repairs. It may send out a team of salespeople who can cover 5X the amount of customers in a plane than they can by airline or car, resulting in far greater efficiency. And, yes, a CEO who makes $1M a year is worth $500 an hour...chartering him a plane to make a trip may save the company money. And, provide better security and allow him to meet with others privately during the travel time.

It all has to do with the amount of income produced by the passengers, their salaries, their travel schedule, and the locations to be served. Saving five $100K/year salespeople 10 hours of travel time by flying them in a private plane would save $2,500.

Each company should be free to spend its money the way it chooses: If there is one person going to a major city, their travel coordinator may tell them to take the flying bus. If there 3 going to an out-of the-way location, they might charter a small prop plane. If there 5 and they have to make 5 stops, they might take the company jet. If there are 15 going to a convention, maybe they'll charter a 15-seat jet. Etc., etc.

The point is: It's up to the company, not the government, to decide how that company should travel. (Yes, if the government is one of the major shareholders, then the government may wish to influence the board of directors to require the company to do the most efficient thing with its money, as could any other major shareholder.)

And, don't lump all private planes together either...some are more efficient than others. Does Citibank need a $50M intercontinental jet? No, but it might need a $3M turboprop to reach outlying branches. It all depends on the company.

And none of you here (nor the US Congress nor the authors) are qualified to make that judgment for that firm. If you want to tell private companies how to travel, become a major shareholder and get elected the company's board: that's democracy at work.

Oh, and let's keep the "logic" going on security. There is a far greater threat posed by trucks loaded with explosives (first WTC and Okla. City bombings, anyone?) than an aircraft.

Shouldn't we then ban all trucks from accessing cities?

yada, yada, yada. recreate the national bank and make it serve the real economy. this will get rid of 99% of the useless eaters and their high-flying toys.

Mr. Collins and Ms. Ehrenreich have missed the boat (or the plane as the case may be) in their recent blog posting. First of all, it is factually incorrect to say that a “ban on private jets” has moved forward in Congress. The Trouble Assets Relief Program (TARP) containing a provision on private aircraft was pulled from the House by the bill’s own author, Representative Barney Frank. Here’s what he had to say when the provision was dropped:

“The private aircraft industry is an important industry in America, and it plays a necessary role with businesses in certain areas of the country…For example, there are a number of communities that do not have commercial air service available for hundreds of miles. Some of these communities are already in economic distress, and denying businesses the ability to use private aircraft further disadvantages these businesses and seriously impacts thousands of American jobs that provide services to this industry.”

If you want to read other comments by Chairman Frank, read it at CNN here: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/21/siu-frank-talk-on-corporate-jets-gets-a-good-grounding-in-congress/

Eighty-five percent of businesses that use general aviation are small to mid-sized companies. Unfortunatetly, when Congress or the government punishes the big guys, small businesses generally get hit too. General aviation supports 1.3 million and more than $150 billion of total economic activity. The truth is, general aviation is a critical backbone of the economies of small businesses and communities and we can’t let misinformation -- or the misdeeds of a few -- cloud the true benefits.
Karen Kerrigan, SBE Council

The FAA’s own documents have said that we pay for the exact amount of the system that we use. We use about 7-9% and pay just over 8%. Moreover, we have nothing to do with the delays the major airlines are known for. Department of Transportation officials have said numerous times that after weather, airline overscheduling is the second leading cause of airline delays. In fact, we in general aviation only account for about 4% of the traffic at the nation’s top ten business airports. These businesses and charities drive the economies of many of these small towns and we can’t have them ridiculed for using such a vital tool.