Why the Big Three Should Fly Corporate Jets

When the heads of the Detroit Three auto companies returned to Washington this week to testify before Congress about their restructuring plans, they didn't travel in their corporate jets. Not after the story broke on Nov. 19 that they had flown their "luxurious" aircraft to Washington to beg for $25 billion in loans to keep their companies afloat. Official Washington was outraged at the extravagance. Columnists and comics were ever so grateful for the gift. "I mean, couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled or something to get here?''

This from a legislative body that has raised money-wasting to an art form. It wasn't too long ago that members of Congress often mistook corporate aircraft for the Congressional Airline. "Hitching" a ride on corporate jets was such a regular event, and so abused a privilege, that eventually the solons had to stop themselves. There was nothing to stop Senator John McCain from using his wife's jet to make dozens of campaign stops this year, contravening but not breaking election laws because he, or at least Mrs. McC, "owned" the aircraft through a family company.

It was pointed out that the three could have flown commercial that morning for something like $212 each. But let's do the math. Three CEOs being paid millions a year each are going to Washington on a business trip to try to save $300 billion worth of sales and 3 million jobs — and they are supposed to risk all of that on Northwest or US Air, a.k.a. Northworst and Useless Air, formerly Allegheny a.k.a. Agony Air? I see the connection: you fly to D.C. on a previously bankrupt airline as you contemplate the bankruptcy of your own company. The experience should be enough to scare you into devising a scheme to save your own company from such a fate. But wouldn't this be a case of America's worst-run manufacturing companies relying on America's worst-run service companies? There'd be a 50% to 75% chance of the CEOs showing up on time. What are you supposed to do, call Congress and tell them you're on a gate hold?

But the issue here is that most of the Fortune 500 boards require the boss to fly in the corporate jet. And why not? What's the point of achieving the big corner office, knifing all those people on your way to the top, if you don't have the ultimate travel ticket? You might as well stop at divisional vice president. That should be no less true for the Detroit Three. Ford boss Alan Mullaly left an aircraft company, Boeing, to take the top job at the auto company — the man is used to big jets.

What really ticks us off is not that the Detroit Three flew private on a begging mission. It's that we have to fly commercial, and they don't. Anyone who has spent time seething at an airport hub, squished into a middle seat of a 737, or paid $2 for a bottle of water and some attitude has nothing but venom for those who can avoid it. The corporate fleet has mushroomed over the years as commercial service has deteriorated. Going from Grand Rapids, Mich. to Jackson, Miss.? That will only involve an entire day shoehorned into "regional" jets apparently made in a region where all the people are 4 ft. 6. It was the reduced service to secondary markets that prompted some corporations to take action. Toilet-paper and Kleenex maker Kimberly-Clark, for instance, created an airline, Midwest Express, in 1984 partly to compensate for the lack of service in Neenah, Wis. (its headquarters at the time) and to optimize the use of its owned or chartered planes. Midwest Express quickly became known for top-rated service, unsurprising coming from a company that knew a little bit about taking care of customers' tushes.

The best thing about flying corporate isn't the comfy seats or the jumbo shrimp, or even the ego massage. The best thing about a corporate jet is that it's not a commercial-airline jet. The best thing is avoiding long airport-security lines and having to simultaneously untie your shoes, take off your coat, get a laptop out of a carefully packed bag and walk at the same time; it's avoiding the crummy, overpriced airport food, the packed planes, the overstuffed overhead bins and the frazzled, overworked crews. And being No. 175 for takeoff. When you fly corporate, you are driven up to the plane, you get in, and when everyone is ready, they tell the pilot to go. And then you do. That is real, unadulterated luxury.

As for the Detroit Three, they didn'y have a choice this week. The weenies at Ford announced they were selling two jets (meaning, of course, that lower-ranking execs will be flying Northwest to the plant in Valencia) and driving a Ford Escape hybrid to Washington. GM has caved completely and shut down its air force, throwing 50 people out of work. (Thanks, Congressman Ackerman!) Maybe the President should send his helicopter for the GM honchos. He doesn't really have use for it now. And when some truly desperate Americans need a dramatic rescue, sending in Marine One isn't a bad idea at all.

Change is the Essence of Life

I know, I know its been a really long time, have been meaning to update the blog but sometimes life just takes over and before you know it months pass by, or maybe its just because I did not find reason enough to express anything, though in the past 5 months I have moved to Utah from Massachusetts, bought my own place but those I guess were just not reason enough. Now back in my daily routine of work and home it has occurred to me that if we experience the same thing everyday it just seems that there is nothing to look forward to in life and we tend to gradually lose interest in things around us. That is why I have come to the firm conclusion that change is necessary, I know I sound like I'm using the catchphrase of the political season but I'm talking about it in a totally different context. We can never experience the same thing day in and day out. We need to have something different to make us wake up every morning, something that is beyond the routine and I think that, it is this pursuit of change that keeps us going everyday. The very anticipation that something will change and present itself is the inner driving force of our daily lives.
Living here in the United States I think we are notorious for always saying that life is the same say day in and day out, the only way we are going to break that, is by motivating ourselves to do something different. The first step in doing something different is always the most difficult step but once you take it, almost always there is no looking back. I have made a conscious effort in the recent past to try to do things differently and I feel that I'm already noticing the change in the way that I perceive things. By constantly keeping something to look forward to down the road motivates us in our lives or else we will just forget what we are living for. On achieving one goal we need to immediately spell out to ourselves what the next goal is and get working on it as soon as possible and that is the only way we will keep going.
So change is a good thing and it is what keeps us going, thus "Change is the Essence of Life"

Past and Present

A strange but unsurprising thought has been lingering in my mind from quite a few days, its about our current generation, the way we think and go about our day to day lives. We differ so much from our parents and grand-parents not just in values but also in our overall outlook.When I look around myself in day to day life I can’t help but notice how fleeting the emotions among people have become, you talk to your co-workers and people on the street like best buddies today but then again act as strangers only a day later. It seems like the relationship and bond that you build is only temporary and need-based and was never meant to last.

In our parents generation relationships were for a lifetime and not a matter of convenience. A word was a word and family bonds mattered above all else including money. Today money is paramount and not just here in America where its been such since a 100 yrs but also in India now thanks to the growing economy and materialism.

I’m not advocating that materialism is necessarily bad but when it comes at the expense of concrete values and relationships it just doesn’t seem worth it. What is the point of earning a college degree, getting a job and making money if you do not have a few loved ones around you, who appreciate your very success, it just seems pointless. You can make a whole lot of money and be happy materially but you will die poor in what matters.It seems our current generation measure success only by our bank balances and not by the happiness of our families and friends around us. We keep our narrow focus on being financially successful but lose focus on loved ones.

Where will this lead us ultimately as a society and to what end? Everyone one of us should at some point, ask ourselves this question, and we will realize that the answer is very hazy and confusing. On one side we see society striving for materialism and putting is ahead of all else, but on the other hand somewhere deep down we want to uphold the values of the past.

In the recent past I posed myself this very questions, thought about an answer to satisfy my heart and realized that that there is no one single solution, to this predicament of the mind. I can only think of a middle path, to follow society and attach myself to materialism but at the same time not detach myself from my values and obligations as a human being who is part of a family and society. But then again like all other things in life this has been a lot easier said than done.

One other issue that really separates us from our parents generation is the idea of stability, when our parents were growing up all they wanted was a good steady job or a comfortable business and once they achieved that, they were satisfied with what they had at least for the most part. But today we just don’t seem to be able to do that. We are too impatient, never completely happy with what we have, always look for me and get bored with things very quickly. All these things are in sharp contrast to the way in which our parents behaved. For them stability was the norm, but for us instability is the norm, we cannot stay still in one city or in one job for too long, we are always looking around us for better things. This isn’t necessarily bad at all, because change is what makes society go forward, but the question is how fast do we want to change? And is all change for the better? This is an open question.

India Farm Loan Waiver

I have seen the details of the farm loan waiver package announced by the Finance Minister in his budget speech on 29th February. To put in one sentence the whole idea is a piece of crap. There are four crore small and marginal farmers who are unable to repay their crop loans to the banks.
Why is a waiver bad or why it misses the point?
A complete waiver vitiates the lending climate and does damage to farm and loan discipline. It penalizes borrowers who have honored their loan commitments and creates a moral hazard since farmer-borrowers are likely to assume future dues will also be written off. It creates a great sense of disrespect for fairness and fiscal discipline among farmers. It is well known fact that a lot of these so called farm loans are taken out by people who are only farmers in name, and only a small fraction of all these farm loans that are disbursed reach their rightful recieptants. Since that day we enter school we are all taught how when a loan is made from a back, the right action is to repay the loan in a timely fashion, the action of the government to excuse these loans hits at the very root of economic and financial logic. It is a slap in the face for banks and a green light for people that it is okay to not repay bank loans. It is important to remember here that the money being by the govt. to repay these loans on the behalf of the farmers is none other than tax payer money and the greater society has to bear this burden for a badly thought out election gimmick.
Small farmers face two main challenges: meeting their input needs and dealing with the weather risks to their crops. Addressing these challenges is not on the radar of the government.
Another basic problem farmer’s face is getting a fair price for their produce. Nothing is uttered about this also in this budget.
The announcement by the finance minister seems to have got its definition of small farmer all wrong. Marginal farmers (less than 1 hectare) and small farmers (1 to 2 hectares) is an incorrect classification. It should have taken the irrigated and un-irrigated areas and arid and semi-arid areas into account while classifying farmers. Without this, a large measure of the farmers in distress will remain untouched by the waiver.
The scheme misses the point that majority of the farmers are in the clutches of village money lenders. The scheme doesn’t touch them at all.
The long term solution is to make farming profitable. The way ahead in this direction is – investment in irrigation and roads, allowing farmers to sell outside their traditional areas and provision of information on seeds and agricultural practices.
Redefine small and marginal farmers duly taking into account the nature or type of their farm.
Rein in the village money lender by fixing a cap on the amount of interest that he can charge on the loans given by him.
I guess the moral of the story here is the age old proverb “ give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, but teach the man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime”.

US Presidential Primaries

Seems like I’m being routine and talking about same thing that every Tom, Dick and Harry on current affairs television is talking about these days, that is the issue of the US presidential primaries for the Republican and Democratic candidates. I cannot help but weigh in on a very important and highly over looked fact that I have observed over the course of the last two months. The so called front runner presidential candidates have been more or less been selected and now it is just a question of which individual among them will be their respective party nominees.
What is striking to me about this whole process is the path that has been followed in electing these candidates as the front runners. In fact I’m questioning the very idea where in two very small states namely Iowa and New Hampshire effectively select and seal the fate of the all the candidates running for election. The hype that is created by the media in this regard is stupendous, and in effect it is the media that elects the candidates and not the people. Coming to the states, it really strikes me that two states with a combined population of about 4.5 million which is about 1.5% of the entire US population wield so much clout in US presidential nomination races. Something about this fact just doesn’t add up. I can understand why Iowa and New Hampshire were so important in the nomination process. These were two important population centers in the 1800’s when Iowa was a farming state as it is now and New Hampshire was a stake holder in the American Industrial revolution, which has long since passed. Though America is the cradle for innovation and progress, over time nobody has cared or dared to re-orient the importance of the other states in elections. It is understood that today’s large states of California and Texas were sparsely populated in the 1800’s but now they are the heart and soul of the American continent in both demographic and economic terms, but yey they have little or no significance in the nomination process early on. It is as if UP and Bihar in India were given the same number of Lok Sabha seats as Nagaland and Assam irrespective of their populations. Due to the lack of election reform in the US presidential nomination process, two states with a voting population of about 2 million decide what the rest of the 300 million can get to pick from, effectively muffling the choice of the larger and more diverse states.
The reasons for Iowa and New Hampshire being the first states to start the primaries might be different than the ones I have mentioned, but for neutral observer like me it seems that the choice of the few is forced onto the many, and that for some reason doesn’t seem right when electing the person who will soon be the most powerful person in the world.