Blogs and Stories
Memo to Congress: Buy More Jets
As a chastened House drops plans to order $550 million worth of private jets, Duff McDonald argues that shiny new planes are the only way America should be ferrying its leaders.
The latest manufactured Washington scandal—Stop the presses! Congress is planning to upgrade the plane fleet owned by the U.S. government with eight new ones!—resulted last night in the House of Representatives turning tail, and cancelling its planned $550 million purchase on eight new private jets. (A $220 million order, originally proposed y the Department of Defense, will apparently still go through.)
Yes, a half-billion is a lot of money, especially on the kind of thing that sounds more 2007 than 2009. But we’re talking about planes here, folks, not Tonka Toys. Those jets are meant to replace an older fleet of seven aircraft, meaning that the federal government would make a net addition of a single plane. (Believe it or not, planes do need to be replaced every now and then.)
Do I really need to lay out the absolutely acceptable reasons that one might choose to fly our nation’s leaders around the globe by jet as opposed to in the back of a Continental 767?
Put a call into the House Appropriations Committee, as I did, and it’s hard to get anyone to talk on the record about the issue, it’s so hot to handle. When The Wall Street Journal called the Department of Defense about the planes, the Pentagon’s press secretary tried dodging blame by pointing out that they had only asked for four of the eight. The other ones, he couldn’t be held responsible for.
But that’s all missing the point. I managed to extract from Congressional bean counters that when the planes are in use, they’ll be shared by Congress (14 percent of use), the military (44 percent), and the Administration (42 percent), each of which has perfectly acceptable reasons for choosing private air travel over commercial. A very senior former government official assured me that these planes get a lot of use.
Think the government should save some money by just chartering planes when it needs them, or at least charter out its fleet—as even many billionaires do to count pennies—when they’re not needed for official business? Think again. “It would be a huge security risk,” says Ryan Dos Ramos, vice president of business development at Pacific Coast Jet. “Not to mention a logistical nightmare. In the private sector, management companies do all the charter work. But the Air Force is responsible for all aspects of government planes. Do we really think the Air Force should get into the chartering business?”
Not to mention the fact that these eight planes are just a sliver of the government’s overall fleet, which includes everything from cargo aircraft to surveillance planes and fighter jets. And it’s not like they’re just buying planes willy-nilly. When Congress canceled an order for seven F-22 planes in July, it saved the $1.75 billion in the process.
Nevertheless, a flurry of commentary has clogged up the blogosphere in a near-frenzy of chastisement aimed at Congress for its hypocrisy in buying planes just months after pillorying corporate executives for their own use of jets.
Remember that? When auto industry executives were nearly tarred and feathered for having the audacity for taking jets from Washington to Detroit? And how the next time they went, they all drove? That showed them! One Congressman asked why they didn’t at least share a single jet and save the cost of two flights. Right. Next thing you know, there’d be an eruption of accusations of antitrust and collusion.
Sure, it’s more of stretch to justify corporate jet travel than, say, using a plane to fly the Secretary of State to Africa, but do I really need to lay out the absolutely acceptable reasons that one might choose to fly corporate leaders—or our nation’s leaders—around the globe by jet as opposed to in the back of a Continental 767?
Time is money. Just ask those evil bankers. In March, JPMorgan Chase was taken to the woodshed for planning to buy two new $59.5 million Gulfstream jets to replace older ones it owned. (Run a Nexis search for “private jet” and JPMorgan and you get 994 stories. Isn’t there something more important to be writing about?) This is a company with 225,000 employees spread across the globe. One would think it would serve the greater good by having executive talent be able to travel efficiently instead of sitting around while their flight gets delayed again due to one of those totally aggravating “waiting on some paperwork” issues that airlines have begun using of late. I’ve got a book coming out in October on JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon called Last Man Standing. The man is a workhorse, doing things like visiting eight cities in a single day that would be impossible if he flew commercial.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Palin's Gold Mine
Duff McDonald is a contributing editor at New York magazine and a former contributing editor at Condé Nast Portfolio. His book, Last Man Standing, about Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, was published by Simon & Schuster in October.
Gross Vampire Product
Duff McDonald is a contributing editor at New York magazine and a former contributing editor at Condé Nast Portfolio. His book, Last Man Standing, about Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, was published by Simon & Schuster in October.
King of the Street
Duff McDonald is a contributing editor at New York magazine and a former contributing editor at Condé Nast Portfolio. His book, Last Man Standing, about Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, was published by Simon & Schuster in October.
This is like some 4th grader wrote it...ugly...quoting jet manufacturers on security of govt officials...really?! Maybe private jet travel does save money...but you would not know from this horribly written article...how long did it take to research and write? Maybe a whole afternoon?
There are issues that you do no address, such as is what is the carbon footprint left by individual air travel? My guess is that it is something that is unsustainable in the long run.
Whats your carbon footprint? Do you keep track of what you are contributing to global warming? Chances are, you do not. So stop harping about this. Im no liberal for sure but I have nothing against leader of countries or leaders of business that can afford them to be flying around in private jets. If it help conduct business better, quicker and more efficient, then by all means.
If the author has statistics or research that proves that individual air travel does not significantly add to the overall impact of aviation industry, then by all means be my guest. Since private air travel is a growing market, I hope I am wrong about its potential impact. And yes, believe it or not, I try to be more conscious about how I use resources. One would have to be unconscious living in a city like Los Angeles where one can FEEL the effects of filthy air, and where water conservation measures are now in place. The city has reduced its water usage by 30%.
The hype on killing new jet orders for Congress?Maybe it's just hype and it really is a money-saving reality of high level business and politics.
Internet 'whoopla' on all kinds of issues is driving everything these days. No one thinks/researches an issue through; they just trust the screamers. My mom grew up in New York, in an age where you did not draw attention to yourself. If you did, well, then, you must be important and thus, truthful to speak so bold. And if something was written in the paper, it MUST be true.
We (my siblings and I) gave our mother a computer and internet access last year. We neglected to enroll her in 'the internet is full of scams and hype' class. Oh - wait - there isn't one. Most people, 55 , don't have the techno savvy or web-based social experience to wade through all the crap they read (and mostly receive, not search for) on-line. Every 'little Timmy is gonna die if you don't forward this e-mail, I had a farm in Africa so help me invest my money stateside, Obama is the anti-Christ as prophesized in the bible --- AND --- the health care plan (and Senate jets) are commie making endeavors' sends her into a group-forwarding tizzy. Because, "if you don't forward to 10 people in 5 minutes" - your plants will die, your car will explode, your house will catch on fire - or you will simply have 3 years of bad luck. In an attempt to encourage cheap and frequent e-mail contact with my mother, I've helped create an internet annoyance with whom I am tempted, on a daily basis, to block her en-mass e-mails as JUNK.
Look at the age of these screamers at town hall meetings - they are the older demographic who is responding to mass e-mails like the listeners of the radio broadcast production of Orson Wells 'War of the Worlds.' They are not 'free-thinking.' They are 'panic-thinking.'
Let's not give then too much credit.
This issue conflicts me ... on the one hand, I'd prefer most US Federal gov't officials below a certain rank or position to fly commercial coach for every business trip ... those above a certain rank or position should probably travel in a manner that bolsters their image [especially when dealing with foreign dignitaries] ... those, who IMHO, should fly on gov't owned planes for business: senators, yes; congressmen; no ... cabinet heads and above, yes ... everyone else in the executive branch, no ... no one in the Judiciary, at all [the only place they should be traveling to on business is the best local law library]; ... the only gov't official that should ever be flown on a gov't owned plane for all their travel [personal and business] is the POTUS; regardless of whether they are going to de-weed their ranch in TX, take in a Broadway show in NYC or attend a G-8 summit in Hong Kong.
The issue is trying to slip you "new ride" into the defense budget to get it passed the tax payers who have to foot the bill. It isn't like the government doesn't already own sufficient passenger air craft. Instead of taking the need to reduce the deficit seriously, congress like the rescued banks still want business as usual. We they detroyed usual and need to get it.
The Secretary of Defense presented a $620 billion defense budget focused on what we need to keep us safe and to adequately equip our soldiers on the ground. No $15,000 million dollar golf courses in South Carolina and no boats and planes that haven't been used since WWII. The last I heard congress had already inflated it to $680 billion with pork including their new rides. OBama and Gates wanted to cancel Bush's fleet of new helicopters that will now cost 11 billion each. The last I heard congress stuck them bank into the budget.
These jets are status symbols and luxuries, but they are also rational investments of great convenience for the people that use them. If someone is managing 55 000 employees, they need to be where they need to be without any waiting or security risk, it's that simple. Any exec has had to sacrifice his entire existence for the company, so give them the convenience and perk while they are at the helm. Airtime for vacation should be paid for by the individual, though.
They are not rational investments when you are going to have to borrow money with interest from China to pay for them. You invest money that you have. The U S is broke and as far as I am concerned congress can hitchhike.
Good luck with any of this. Politicians as a class are as much loathed as banking CEOs as a class. It doesn't matter if what you are suggesting makes any sense or not, and I have no idea about that. In the current and political climate expect stormy weather on spending any money not for the military or the highway system.
Hey Numbnutt, have you not heard of commercial airlines??? Only the president, and his cabinet should take a private/charted jet.
Last time I checked, Southwest Airlines is still in business. Let 'em buy a ticket like the rest of us.
I agree with the idea to make these public servants fly commercial. Yet most of these elites are rich enough to buy their way into congress, they cringe at being flown around like the rest of the sheep.
On a different note. Let's all agree to vote out every incumbent in the next election -- every single one.
I'm with you 100%. It is time to start over.
Make that 200%.
I'll agree to vote every incumbent out of office, as long as that includes the president as well!
The thing that pisses me off most about this, is all the crap they gave the big three automakers about flying on privete jets, and then they go and try to buy a fleet of new ones themselves. That is hypocracy, no matter how bad they needed these planes. You don't scold someone for something, then go right ahead and do it yourself. Be like Jeff Gordon doing a PSA on not speeding.
The real question is: After all of these manufactured scandals encourages companies to give back the taxpayer's money, where is that returned money going?
Oh, look! A contrarian. Zzzzz.
Guess I'll be passing on this upcoming Dimon bio -- which s disappointing b/c I find him one of the most interesting figures in US business right now.
Give me another chance WestVillager. It's a good book, I promise.
This is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard of. Yes, corporate execs should have access to private jets to maximize their time and efforts. They're paid a lot of money; do you want them wasting their time at the airport? Most of these guys work incredibly hard. Are they paid too much? Different discussion.
Congress shouldn't be surprised when the bullet they fired at corporate execs ricochets back at them. They're reaping what they sowed.
These people are our REPRESENTATIVES. They seem to forget that.
Leaders...that remains to be seen. I think our legislative branch has done a pretty poor job the last 8 or so years. They treat us like we are minions and the Presidents like they are royalty. Bush called himself "the decider".
And they pretty much let him do whatever he wanted to do, including the last two years of Demoratic Congress.
These glib, contrarian, pseudo-provocative op-eds on the Daily Beast have got to stop. I get it, Tina --you want interesting stories. However, to regular readers, they're predictable and seemingly automatic. Obama SHOULDN'T have made a completely reasonable reference to educating seniors about euthanasia in his health care proposal. Rep. Murtha SHOULDN'T be held accountable for adding transparently self-interested pork to the defense bill. I can see tomorrow's headline already: Why it's NOT un-American to hang your congressman in effigy.
I realize conventional wisdom isn't interesting reading, but it's better than no wisdom at all.
Most CODELS are vacation trips.
Only the staffers attend the handful of briefings while the 'primaries' golf, shop, and hit the cocktail circuit.
Very little government business, maximum party.
Costs have gotten out of control in recent years, heck some members use the planes to commute between home and D.C. , which was never the intent or original mission.
Arguments for luxury jets for Congress? They are not Executives, they are legislators. The only Executives are POTUS and VPOTUS.
Comparing corporations owning, maintaining, flying and paying for their own jets to give cover for Congress to appropriate hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money for their comfort is obscene.
Every see a member of Congress's schedule? It's packed. They don't dash off at a moments notice to serve their districts. They will break schedule for special interest though and that we should not foot the bill for!
They should be flying on commercial airlines and if they did, just maybe they would listen to what the American people actually want them to do.
Americans are having to face painful cost cuts every day to survive and take care of their families and Congress should get new jets? Disgusting.
That Government of the parties, by the parties, and for the parties must vanish from the face of the earth
Of course the elites in Congress should have jets. And why not? They set themselves apart from us commoners upon election. Never mind that they slammed GM and Ford for using jets. Not that the big three didn't deserve it, but execs were reduced to traveling to DC by a pissant electric bug for their dressing down hearings. But for members our Congress, the masters of wasteful spending? Only shiney new G5's!
Yes, our hypocritical elites in Congress exclude themselves from our cares of travel, health and retirement and form their own programs for their comfort and well being. A perfect example is the current health care "Peasant Plan" designed for us peons that Congress has voted against joining along with us. All but three democrats voted no, all but one Republican voted yes. Odd, since it's the dems who are the author of this bill.
Relatively speaking, these elites dine in private on roast pheasant and prime rib, and will never be caught eating the same slop they mandate to their servants, the American citizen.
First class fare on a 767? Atrociously unthinkable!
Time is money, right? But then, hey, a little jet lag every now and then could serve as a belt-tightening tightening lesson for CEOs and government officials. Video-conferencing would be more cost-effective,less time-consuming and leave a fraction of the carbon footprint. Jetting off to a meeting is more than likely not required in most cases but part of a junket that includes sightseeing and meals on the public dime.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.