Back to Squawk list
  • 35

NBAA Letter Challenges President's Mischaracterizations Of BizAv

Enviado
 
NBAA president and CEO Ed Bolen has sent an open letter to President Barack Obama to question the president’s decision to mischaracterize business aviation during his Oct. 3 debate with Republican Mitt Romney. (www.aero-news.net) Más...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


Donovan16
Don Thomson 4
As much as I distrust what politicians SAY (and then DO something else, entirely), I probably should actually LISTEN for myself, to what Pres Obama said, that has stirred this up.

I have red the rebuttals, and the media's rendition, but I take anything in the mainstream media with a grain of salt, probably even a larger grain of salt than what Politicians say.

I hope the Pres took into account how many Jobs are created in the economy by Business Aviation.
egad
James Hodges 2
Obama. Is pandering to the 47% vs. the "fat cats" who pay the way for the 47%!!!
egad
James Hodges 3
President Obama again showed his ignorance of the economy!!!
messenger
Roger Messenger 12
All this from an idiot who gets to fly in the ultimate corporate jet. But, when you are a socialist, you demonize and denigrate anyone who has a penny more than you do instead of working harder to earn more pennies.
sandylns
Brian Lager 10
Socialist have a problem with earning a living using your own initiative. Their sense of entitlement just gets broader. Their motto "Where's mine"
honzanl
honza nl -2
Wall St. has a problem paying for matters, they want privatise the profits but nationalise the losses
This is not about tax itself nor about tax on fuel, it is about depreciation of planes. Business jets at present can be written off for tax much faster than usual, so allowing their owners/users to pay less tax. All Obama wants is that the depreciation table for such planes is changed to the normal figures, so eliminating their present favourite tax regime.
But of course, Wall St believes governments and tax is bad, of course not when they go bancrupt, then of course they want to be saved and favoured...
devsfan
ken young 2
so get rid of ALL business write offs...Then see what happens to the economy.
The problem here is not eliminating the write off. It is the demonizing the very existence of the aircraft and those that employ them.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

sandylns
Brian Lager 12
As a matter of fact, my grandparents were socialist's. Both died in abject, state provided, poverty. Both died in a country bankrupted by socialist ideals. The state wharehoused them in factory like seniors complexes, robbing them of their very dignity . They both died not knowing anything but state provided "benefits" They also didn't live to see their country gain freedom from socialism and blossom into a great state.
If you are going to make snide comments, have the decency to stop making it personal.
blake1023
blake1023 10
Socialism is a great idea, until you run out of other peoples money!!
honzanl
honza nl -2
Capitalism is a great idea, until your privatised security guards at airports are paid and trained so bad that they fail to stop terrorists enterinmg the planes at 9/11; then the tax-paid firemen and policemen have to save the day...
devsfan
ken young 2
oh please. Stop waving the labor union flag.
Yer out of Av Gas here pal.
We're dealing with the over stuffed public sector right now.
Getting rid of their gold plated benefits and absurd wages.
btweston
btweston -8
There are many reasons that the President of the United States flies in Air Force One. When you present the idea that his use of that airplane makes him a socialist, you look like a mildly retarded person.

The idea of a luxury tax is not new. And when you consider how wildly inefficient private jets are, how much they pollute and how much they impact the overall price of jet fuel by increasing demand so that a few people, who are not really special and could easily be replaced by someone who didn't have that one fortuitous in with some company, can avoid the riffraff, it makes sense to consider the idea (honestly, and without brainwashed right-wing prejudice) that perhaps they should kick in a few sheckles to help the country which afforded them with such magical opportunity.
JoshZ
Josh Zylks 15
What a lot of people forget is that under the current fuel tax set-up, users of 'corporate jets' already pay more. I work at an FBO, and our rate of Federal Excise tax on Jet A is 24.4 cents/gallon, while I believe the airline rate is 3 or 4 cents per gallon. I understand that the mainline boys burn more gas, and I don't have a problem with GA paying a little more, but don't say that they aren't paying their fair share.
messenger
Roger Messenger 15
I do not begrudge the President the use of AF1, but when he starts in on the rest of us then I take issue. It is his socialist "we never pay enough to the government" ideas I don't like.

Luxury tax? HUH!#@&% Ask the folks that USED to be employed in the boat building industry how well that worked out for them back in the 1990's.

Every gallon of 100LL or Jet A that is burned by private/corporate aircraft has paid federal fuel tax. So, we are paying our fair share!!

Inefficient?? With all due respect, what alternate universe do you live in? Companies use aircraft because there is considerably less time wasted spent traveling because not everything can be solved with video conferencing. That lost time costs a company real dollars. Many times the direct cost of the aircraft for a particular flight is actually less than the cost of the airline tickets between the same two points, if you can even find a flight for a particular destination.
blake1023
blake1023 8
Celebrity in Chief Obama and Michelle Obama fly on separate airplanes... and go from one party to the next in California. Btweston you wanna talk about pollution!!! Oh and I'm sure it’s perfectly fine that Hollywood and all the other rich liberals like Al Gore can fly on their global warming private jets. Its only rich conservatives like Rush Limbaugh that pollute the air. You know go pound sand liberals! with your double standard!!!
preacher1
preacher1 8
I don't think that he is saying flying on AF1 makes him a SOCIALIST. He is already that. Stevie Wonder could see that. His description of a socialist is very accurate. Call me what you want but I earned my money and respect those that do. As you say, there are many reasons the President flies in AF1. There are no such restriction that apply to the first family and he has a whole fleet at his disposal. That is the hipocracy. They may have USAF on them but they are there for their exclusive use and their families are damn sure not on much business.
devsfan
ken young 2
taxing wealth and achievement is not going to solve a thing. Fiscal responsibility and the absence of government interference in the marketplace is the way to economic recovery and success.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 2
All that comes to my mind is that we work to make money and buy stuff. What is the difference if you buy a Ford or a Gulfstream? If it is a depreciable item the schedule is set the same for everyone. Not all planes are depreciable and not all trips are allowed by IRS as a business expense. So just because someone is riding on a jet don't think they are always beating the tax man. I will guarantee you that anyone who buys a plane has paid plenty of taxes.
BluegrassFlyer
Randy Michel 3
And to beat all, their dog flies separately on the G-V most of the time!
blake1023
blake1023 3
You must be referring to President Obama's dog flying to Maine.

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/white-house-wanderers-tour-acadia_2010-07-16.html
btweston
btweston -5
Seriously? Or are you just willing to say anything to allow yourself to hate the guy?
tarbaby
phil gibson 3
What is there to really like.......he is a showman!
BluegrassFlyer
Randy Michel 1
Seriously, the dog flies on its own aircraft most of the time.
devsfan
ken young 1
Class warfare. Obama is trying to motivate his base. Of course Biz Av is not the only industry Obama finds politically incorrect. there are over one million insurance industry workers and 500,000 coal miners in his gun sights.
captainjman
Jason Feldman 1
Three sides to this story:

1. I agree that business aviation should be promoted !

2. Obama once again prooves he has no place in the oval office.

3. As a former pilot for a fractional airline for several years I can tell you exactly how these planes are used.

- I would estimate that 90 percent of my flights were purely for recreational reasons. Hunting, fishing, shopping, sports, skiing of course - trips to wine country, trips to the Caribbean, parasailIng, scuba diving, golf trips, and every once in a while to a meeting or for surgery (both as patient and doctor.) that is why you see so many biz jets at places like PBI,MCO,MIA,FLL,RNO,LAS,EGE,ASE,RIL,TEX,SBP, BZN, SUN VALLEY ID, NAPA VALLEY CA, TURKS AND CAICOS etc etc. the vast majority of our trips were from cities to vacation spots. I never once had an out and back to teterboro

Let's not lie to get our way - these Planes are primarily flown for pleasure. But that doesnt mean it is any less important. If there were no incentives to buy planes less people / businesses would buy them and that would mean all that money would sit in the rich people's pocket and not get into the economy - and pay wages, etc etc. this proves trickle down economics works more than any other example I have ever seen.

So let's not bullsh*t them or eachother. Just like tourism is a huge part of out economy so is this. There is no honor if you lie to win - that's what socialists/communists do - we should not sink to their level and be 100 percent honest.
egad
James Hodges 1
Jason, what you say about use of fractional airlines is correct, and is close to the passenger mix of "trunk" airlines. In contrast, almost all the use of the many biz jets I see is legit business. Not all,but almost all.
captainjman
Jason Feldman 1
2 more comments

1. Obama having a single negative co
Ment about biz jets and those who use them is infuriating given his excessive use of air force one paid for by our taxes - which is much more abusive than a corp. or rich person spending money they earned.

2. To answer the comment above - most fractional aircraft are jets - and when you fly to a destination and see an ocean of biz jets (corp. owned and fractional you see what they are mainly used for.

The CEO of Philip Morris for example might fool many by saying his trip to the Super Bowl is business and not pleasure - but us pilots know better.

I am 100 percent in favor of biz jets - but come on and be real with yourselves. Yes they are sometimes used for business but are mainly used for pleasure. I'm not saying that business is not conducted at places like Augusta , or telluride - but we all know you can easily conduct business in a board room.

Don't get me wrong - I am not saying there is something wrong with it - in fact - if I can find a way to travel this way I too would do the same because I earned it. But more often than not these trips are nothing more than the 100 dollar hamburger on steroids.
preacher1
preacher1 2
The sad part is that the ones that abuse or use them for non business uses are the ones that cause us all grief. There are legitimate users out there but they don't get wrote up by the media for the public and O to talk about.
preacher1
preacher1 1
and Jason, I realize where you are coming from. You are not wrong by any means, unfortunately
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
It may be that the majority are used for pleasure, but I worked for a top executive at McDonnell Douglas for a number of years, who had access to the company plane. It rarely left the hangar because it was cheaper for 5-6 executives to fly commercial. It took a pretty significant number of people to make it more sensible to take the private plane. So not everyone uses them irresponsibly.
bishops90
Brian Bishop 1
Well we all know that only greedy millionaires and billionaires who aren't paying their fair share own private airplanes!

And awwaaaaaayy we go........
jcarey805
Jeff Carey 5
Not talking about pprivate airplanes. Talking about corporate jets getting tax relief while taking families on vacation. Don't generalize.
messenger
Roger Messenger 9
Give me a break!!! Corporate aircraft are like any other depreciable business asset, if it makes the bottom line stronger, it makes sense. If not, it is gone. I have seen corporate aircraft that range from the lowly Cessna 172 all the way up to a BBJ so when some knucklehead who does not know what the frack he is talking about starts flapping his trap, he needs to be called on it. I make my living providing FBO services and flying a corporate aircraft (TBM 700) and I do not need someone attacking my way of life. Have corporate aircraft been misused? Undoubtedly!! Remember this - when someone starts trying to set us one against another or cause us to envy others, what is his real agenda? hmmm? Inquiring minds would like to know!!
bishops90
Brian Bishop 8
Well said. I think the slight sarcasm I intended got lost on a few people. And yes, I also know people who fly everything from 182's to GIV's for business, and the fine folks like you who provide such valuable service for them. I also have a lady friend who is an attendant on Falcon 2000's for NetJets, so I too have some perspective. The letter mentioned in the O.P. is spot on. Good for him, glad someone has the cajones to call B.O.'s comments what they are; uninformed demogogery that is harmful to a vital American industry that the U.S. DOMINATES in the world market.
preacher1
preacher1 6
Well, you know he got on this kick earlier, either early this year or last year sometime, BUT, he showed his ignorance here and apparently hasn't done anything to correct his thinking. Hopefully, the fool will be gone in January, 2013
preacher1
preacher1 2
Well, I flew 135 for 35 years, starting as FE on 707 and winding up the last 20 or so in the left seat of a 757, and they took delivery of a 767-200ER when I left. They have a CRJ 200 at the mod center right now, for delivery before the 1st of the year. These don't go for joyrides
scottm
scottm 0
One could aggregate the majority of these posts and use them for a textbook definition of selfishness, greed and denial. I've owned aircraft since the 70's and we currently own and operate 3 (2 of them turboprops). If the justification for all this complaining is that the country can't move forward and be successful without corporate aviation paying the price for our privileged lifestyle, that makes no sense. Most of us spend more on one unscheduled maintenance than any tax increase. If the argument is "This is America and we earned it" then refer back to the first sentence in this post.
When I hear some in our crowd complaining about the sense of entitlement possessed by the less less fortunate and compare that to the way many of us live I'm reminded that we are often guilty of the same thing we accuse others of. I've spent most of my adult life involved in aviation at a busy general aviation airport and have seen more than enough behavior to give credence to the presidents statement.
jshhmr
josh homer -6
Wow I used to enjoy this site. I had no idea it was full of right wing morons with nothing but the same words like "socialist" when they don't even know what the word means.
preacher1
preacher1 6
Right wing, probably, moron no, and I do know what socialist means, and am not one. As I said in an earlier comment in here somewhere, I earned my money. It wasn't given to me. I didn't vote for O the last time and won't this time. Personally, if you don't like the site or the comments and opinions expressed here, then my suggestion is for you to leave. Not on account of us, but for your own peace of mind. That is my opinion and I have the same freedon to express it as you do yours. I am not downing your opinion, just disagreeing with it.
tarbaby
phil gibson 4
Think about it folks!! Hell, they make all the rules to suit THEMSELVES......and there is not a damn thing we can do about it.....unfortunately.............wake up!! There is not any one person that can help our country.......it is YOU..."we the people" are the government!!! Make the change......or God help us........
blake1023
blake1023 2
I don't how you can be a liberal and in aviation. When airplanes are a the root of "climate change or global warming". Not to mention, airplanes use that god awful thing called oil. Oh and those rich people who fly on private jets.
JetMech24
JetMech24 -5
You all crack me the h*ll up. All of this arguing for absolutely nothing, they are BOTH freakin' morons. Next month my vote stays in my pocket because I would not give either one a pot to p*ss in.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 5
Amazing what some people gave up for the right to vote, and you're anxious to bury yours in the sand. That is truly a pity when you're not only willing, but anxious, to give up your voice.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
It is MORE of a pity that we have CRAP to use our votes for!
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 2
If you don't exercise your duty as an American and cast your ballot, you don't have a vote, hence nothing to complain about.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
Do NOT give me that line of BS. As I stated in a previous comment, if there is someone worth voting for, I would be the first in line! Up intil THIS election I have always voted. This election makes me absolutely sick and disgusted and it is my right not to cast a vote. One of these TWO idiots are going to win and I am going to complain because I did NOT vote for either one. Period!
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
It's not "BS" - it's just simple fact. Calm down before your head explodes.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
It is BS, show me the "facts" then. I will not calm down when there are opinions like yours around, I don't want either of these two in office, but one of them is going to, regardless of if I vote, what I say, or what I do.
preacher1
preacher1 2
My final word on this as we all have our opinions. Like it or not. If you did not vote in a primary, you have no right to complain about who is running in the General election in November. I am not a party man either, BUT, in a local election, they have to file one way or the other. To vote for a local candidate of your choice you have to declare a party affiliation in the primary as to which ballot you vote. That said, Romney had a string of opponents in the primaries. He was not my choice either, but now that he won the nomination, I will accept that. While both nominess are far from perfect, he is more representative of my personal feelings. IMHO
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 2
I wouldn't get to vote much if I waited for a candidate that I really thought would do the job to my liking. Lol. Either you are mostly satisfied with the incumbent or it's time to try someone else. Simple choice for me.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
I'd rather vote for my dog, than these two. I'm done with all of you "just vote your party" types. You would vote for a sloth if it was in your party, and that is NOT democracy.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
I am registered to a party and not the party I primarily vote for. It has to do with the state I live in. I agree in that our choices are limited to people that are going to do what's best for their party as opposed to what is right. Our only hope is to change them out every term and maybe they will get the message. That said, the sad truth is they are just furthering their careers rather than leading America. They seem to put this country 2nd in way too many cases. The only thing that matters to me is America, however that is not the case with many who have US citizenship. We are reaching an explosive situation.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
It was a generalized statement, did not mean you or anyone else personally, for the rest, see above.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Only the great and and glorious Oz knows who my vote is going for so you're being pretty presumptuous with your statements and totally arrogant assuming you know my choices. First time ever I've felt it's probably best that someone (you) doesn't vote because someone who would vote for their dog scares the livin' heck out of me. Done with you.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
LOL! Just go settle on whoever you think will screw this country less and be pleased with yourself for doing so. I settled one time in my life and will NOT ever again. What type of messege do you think it would send if NO ONE votes? I am not arrogant, I'm P*SSED OFF, lesser of two evils my a$$, people like you who vote just to vote keep putting all these idiots in office. Of course you won't say who you are voting for, no one does, everyone is proud to say they voted, but not proud to say who for until after the fact and it's too late.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Your vote should have been cast in the primary as well, having a say to get these there in the first place. If it was and you are not happy with the way it came out, there is always next time. That is democracy and the American way. It is not perfect but that's the way it is.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
I did not vote in the primary as I am not aligned to either party, I can go either way, depending on the person or issues at hand. Apparently our views on what democracy is differs... I believe in multiple choices and unfortunately everyone else is happy with only two.
messenger
Roger Messenger 7
Well, do as you wish. I hope you do know that no decision is a decision. You may not like Romney but we sure can not take 4 more years of Barry.
JetMech24
JetMech24 -3
I didn't say that I wasn't making a decision, my decision is neither, I thought I made that clear.
preacher1
preacher1 5
Well, it may be a personal decision and that is very well your right. That said, as these 2 will be on the ballot, you no vote will actually go for the winner.
JetMech24
JetMech24 2
What is a person supposed to do if they do not like either choice then?
preacher1
preacher1 4
Well, you can write in, where allowed, NO Vote as you planned, or vote the lesser of 2 evils. None is a good feeling, but you will have participated and can at least voice an opinion later with a clear conscience. There have been several times in the past it has been done by me or others. There will never be a candidate out there that will be 100% pleasing to everybody.
BluegrassFlyer
Randy Michel 5
As it stands, Obummer is supporting a proposed $100 user fee per flight. His EPA and Energy dept. cohorts are working hard to eliminate 100LL. For a Gen Av flyer like me, those actions would severely hamper my efforts to gain experience building flight time. He isn't waivering on the user fee either. Romney isn't for or against the user fee, but his less restrictive environmental poiicy would keep 100LL from being phased out in the short-term and open up more alternative fuel possibilities in the long run. These candidates have their squawks but in a lot of people's minds, its about voting the lesser of two evils into office and my vote is on Romney in that case. By not voting, you forfeit your right to voice your opinion on the issues and actions that affect an industry we care about.
JetMech24
JetMech24 -7
100LL needs phased out, it is way too obsolete by today's standards and that would be a good kick in the a$$ that the industry needs to find better, more effecient, possibly cheaper fuels. $100 fee, so what, depending on what the money is used for, if you can afford to fly, $100 isn't squat. Lesser of two evils? You would trust a rich, shady, "Bernie Madolf" type over a president that is ALL talk but doesn't actually do anything? I have forfeited nothing, when someone comes along worth voting for, I will be the first in line, until then I WILL voice my opinion and tell our TWO choices to go to h*ll.
chalet
chalet -7
It is not only private/corporate jets that President Obama is against, he also wants do do away with the incredible amounts of money -hundreds of billions every year- in all sorts of breaks and SUBSIDIES enriching corporations, special interest organizations and individuals and let´s not forget loopholes in the tax system, for instance that GE paid ZERO income tax on TWELVE BILLION DOLLAR profits in 2010 and there are thousands more like them. I doubt that Obama will succeed with all those senators and representatives, most of them GOPers who are too prone to help the private sector instead of trying to solve the deficit and the national debt.
bishops90
Brian Bishop 7
What is at issue here is not a "subsidy" but an accelerated depreciation schedule that allows companies to write off large capital equipment over a shorter period of time. There is no net loss of tax revenue to the gov't over the life of the equipment whether it's a G-V or a fleet of million dollar construction cranes or CNC machining centers. The jets are just an easy mark for class warfare
preacher1
preacher1 4
Well said my friend
bishops90
Brian Bishop 5
Thanks ol' buddy. This issue is like a hanging curve in my wheelhouse. I know a little about a lot, but I know a LOT about this stuff. Just burns me up the way libs demonize successful people and businesses. The difference in this "subsidy" is only two years. 5 vs 7. Statistically insignificant when we have TRILLION dollar annual deficits .
preacher1
preacher1 3
Well, the average joe will not understand the tax code past their W2 and a few deductions and most accountants won't either, regardless of what they tell you. Based on that somebody will demonize those using it legally. That's just like the O campaign demonizing Romney for a 14% tax rate. Most of his income was based on investment and subjected to a different tax rate than a W2. The tax rate itself was much lower than a wage earner but look at what kind of dollars we are talking about. Nothing illegal about it and I have to admire the man for making the money to be taxed and paying that which was due. Good, Bad, or Ugly, you can't fault GE or any other corporation for doing something LEGAL. I don't always see eye to eye with Chalet on everything but he has this GE CEO thing right on.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
The above comments re: taxes are right on. People just need to keep in mind who "makes" the tax codes and who then pays taxes according to the codes. Then you can easily understand where the problem lies. And the " fair share " crap has already supposedly been taken care of in that we have a graduated tax system. So again the root of the problem lies at the feet of the 535 in DC for selling out to lobbys and special interests. My own thought is the government should never take more than 25% of anyone's income. If they can't pay the bills with that then budget cuts ought to come to mind. Duh!
blake1023
blake1023 2
GE is lead by Jeffrey Immelt, Obama's friend, so you can blame Obama on that one. Nice Try... Where was the 111th congress lead my Speaker Pelosi, to repel all these "hundreds of billions every year- in all sorts of breaks and SUBSIDIES enriching corporations, special interest organizations and individuals and let´s not forget loopholes in the tax system". You can also blame Obama on that one. Oh wait... President Obama was to busy trying to figure out what health care I need. If you want to pay more taxes, then pay more!!
chalet
chalet 0
In case you are not aware GE chief honcho Jeff Immelt is a hard core, hard right rabid Republican, so was his predecessor Jack Welsch, does that tell you something.
blake1023
blake1023 2
President Obama appointed Jeff to Chair his Jobs Council. What’s the point of a jobs council if the President doesn't show up? The Celebrity in Chief is too busy polluting the air in California with AF1, going from one party to the next; hanging out with those other 1%ers in Hollywood who don't pay their fair share. Does the last part of what I said tell you anything? How your party was busy trying to figure out what type of health care I'm being forced to buy. Rather than sticking it to rotten companies like GE. Obama even extended the Bush Tax Cuts. So you can blame him and your party for the UNFAIR tax code!
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
Solving the national debt, I fear, has become an oxymoron.
egad
James Hodges -1
President Osama proved that he is as ignorant about aviation as he is about the rest of the economy!!!

Entrar

¿No tienes cuenta? ¡Regístrate ahora (gratis) para acceder a prestaciones personalizadas, alertas de vuelos y mucho más!
¿Sabías que el rastreo de vuelos de FlightAware se sostiene gracias a los anuncios?
Puedes ayudarnos a que FlightAware siga siendo gratuito permitiendo que aparezcan los anuncios de FlightAware.com. Trabajamos arduamente para que nuestros anuncios sean discretos y de interés para el rubro a fin de crear una experiencia positiva. Es rápido y fácil whitelist ads en FlightAware o por favor considera acceder a nuestras cuentas premium.
Descartar