Ahhh..it's only taxpayer's money!
 

The abuse just never stops.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01262009...ble_152033.htm

It's enough to pi$$ off a taxpayer!!!!!!!!!!!!.....i2f

This is a non-event. As long as the use it for business, what's the problem?

Sorry, it is NOT a non-event no matter what the use. You don't beg for $24 billion, then go back for seconds and buy a $50 million dollar plane. It is downright idiotic. They should be selling the damn planes and paying us back.

Let them drive like all us middle income people do!! It's one thing if they are in good financial shpe, but getting from we the tax payer for a jet!!
What next- everyone owning a home with nothing down--opps we are there now
joeg (Smokingcobra)

Just another incident of the famed voters' stance of.....
 

...BOHICA!!!!!! Ar-ar-ar!

Yep, fly commercial and limit travel to only very necessary trips. Hell, we had a record year last year, highest amount of revenue ever. Took #1 in market share for 3rd qtr and kept it for 4th. No bailout and we have changed our travel policy to help prepare for a hard year. Used to be Director and above would fly business class as at the lowest. Now VP and below fly coach when a trip is required. Trips are limited to only trips that cannot get the same results with video conferencing. Positions that had company paid cars used to get a new car every year or 2 years got doubled. Those that got a new car every year have to go 2 and those who get a car every 2 go 4. Also reduced the number of company paid cars. All cost saving measures that are designed to keep us ahead of the competition in a rough economic time. Especially when you consider what we produce and offer is a luxury item and not a necessity. The whole telecommunications industry fell last year on average and we gained. None of our competitors can say the same.

Hey!, it get's worst..The plane is from a French manufacturer!.

So let me see if I have this right. You're ticked because a company signed a contract to purchase an aircraft two years ago, an aircraft that is already paid for, an aircraft that is smaller more fuel efficient and newer than than the two aircraft it is replacing (thus less expensive to operate), and the sale of the other two aircraft will more than pay for the purchase of the one new one. They are clearly downsizing their flight department. I am not sure how you determine this is a bad thing.

Do they really need the jet? they can fly commercial like the rest of us. there is no rush for them to get to important meetings any more, they have allready screwed up the company. Let them stay home!! In most case's a monkey flipping a coin could have done better!!
And yes it was paid for by investors who have lost the life savngs or retirement. How many people could that $50 million help get back there lost 401ks etc.
joeg

1. They put a deposit on 2 years ago, not paid for. The article also said it is not uncommon for companies to forgo the deposit and not purchase.
2. The sale of the other 2 aircraft is not a certain. They are listed for 27M each, but not selling, once the price lowers, then maybe, but until then, it is not paying for anything and we don't know what the final selling price will be.
3. How long until this aircraft saves 50M in operating costs? A friend of mine sold his 90 Mustang GT 3 years ago because he was tired of paying the high gas prices. He bought a brand new Honda Civic so he would get good gas mileage and save money. So lets review:
Item/month Old New
Car payment 0.00 350.00
Insurance 60.00 90.00
Gas cost 60.00 40.00
Total/month 120.00 480.00
Obviously there is more that goes into the equation like repairs, insurance may go down or up on either car,etc... The mustang was in great condition and was reliable. But just the simple math shows that the Honda costs 4 times the Mustang each month. Until it is paid off, then it is about the same. Problem is we figured he would have to keep the Honda for 12 1/2 years to break even. He already hates the car and wants to get rid of it 3 years later.

I do not understand the detail financial stuff that companies do, but this is basic finance 101 to me.

WOW! this one even pissed my wife off, "what are these people thinking? bail them out and they give the money to a French company".
She said, "we ought to just cut off their respective nuts and then push them out the door of their new plane... at 35'000 feet", or did I say that.

Bill

I guess they changed their mind once the news got out as per Bloomburg today.

Jan. 27 (Bloomberg) -- Citigroup Inc. has “no intent to take delivery of any new aircraft,” spokesman Stephen Cohen said.

The New York-based bank, which received $45 billion in U.S. government bailout money, had previously said it planned to buy new aircraft and sell older ones to lower operating costs.

Last Updated: January 27, 2009 07:26 EST

Good to see that the public anger was enough for them to rethink what they are doing. At least they know and now others know that the bailout is not just a free ride.

The company today issued a statement saying, "We have no intent to take delivery of any new aircraft."

Citigroup had argued it was selling two of its four other planes to pay for this one, that the new jet would be more efficient and, besides, it had already signed a contract for the jet. Breaking that deal would cost the bank millions in penalties.

The Citigroup air fleet will now shrink from four jets and a helicopter to two planes.

Now, only millions of your funds have been lost - forever.

I have a better idea...take a commercial flight and sell all the planes. When they pay back the billions they took and are making money again, then buy all the planes you want.

Why is this an issue for you?

"When somebody else is paying, I could care less." -nevermind65

an Obama mantra.