Owning vs. charter vs. airlines

[Scott Jensen]

There is usually a point where it is cheaper to do it yourself than have
someone else do it for you. What I'm wondering is what would that point be
when it comes to trans-world air travel. When does buying your own jet and
employing your own pilots make economic sense than using an airline? Or
will the airlines always be cheaper?

More specifically, let's say you have a number of employees in Fiji. Each
gets four round-trip flights to anywhere in the world each year as part of
their benefit package. Most will want to use at least one of those for the
Christmas season to spend the holidays with family. There would also be an
expected heavier usage of their flight options during the summer. The
question I have is: How many employees would one need to have where buying a
private jet and employing pilots would make economic sense? Would there
also be a span between these two options where chartering a private jet
would make economic sense?

Scott Jensen
--
Like a cure for A.I.D.S., Alzheimer, Parkinson, & Mad Cow Disease?
Volunteer your computer for folding-protein research for when it's idle.
Go to http://tinyurl.com/6fsdg to sign up your computer.

[nuke]

In article >,
"Scott Jensen" > wrote:

> There is usually a point where it is cheaper to do it yourself than have
> someone else do it for you. What I'm wondering is what would that point be
> when it comes to trans-world air travel. When does buying your own jet and
> employing your own pilots make economic sense than using an airline? Or
> will the airlines always be cheaper?
>
> More specifically, let's say you have a number of employees in Fiji. Each
> gets four round-trip flights to anywhere in the world each year as part of
> their benefit package. Most will want to use at least one of those for the
> Christmas season to spend the holidays with family. There would also be an
> expected heavier usage of their flight options during the summer. The
> question I have is: How many employees would one need to have where buying a
> private jet and employing pilots would make economic sense? Would there
> also be a span between these two options where chartering a private jet
> would make economic sense?
>
> Scott Jensen

It is difficult to beat the airlines on price alone, especially for
travel to well served locations that can be booked in advance.

Hey, they are employees, they can ride in coach.

Now, if you are routinely flying people between locations that are not
well-served by the regular airlines and you do a lot of last minute
travel and you have the right number of people who get first class or
better tickets because they are important enough to get it whenever they
want, then you might make an argument based on cost.

If you want to know what it costs, just hit any of the on-demand jet
travel websites on the net and get a quote for a charter.


Fiji huh?

[Earl Grieda]

"Scott Jensen" > wrote in message
...
> There is usually a point where it is cheaper to do it yourself than have
> someone else do it for you. What I'm wondering is what would that point
be
> when it comes to trans-world air travel. When does buying your own jet
and
> employing your own pilots make economic sense than using an airline? Or
> will the airlines always be cheaper?
>
> More specifically, let's say you have a number of employees in Fiji. Each
> gets four round-trip flights to anywhere in the world each year as part of
> their benefit package. Most will want to use at least one of those for
the
> Christmas season to spend the holidays with family. There would also be
an
> expected heavier usage of their flight options during the summer. The
> question I have is: How many employees would one need to have where buying
a
> private jet and employing pilots would make economic sense? Would there
> also be a span between these two options where chartering a private jet
> would make economic sense?
>

I seriously doubt if private jets make economic sense for even 1% of the
businesses that use private jets. The impression I get is that the ego
factor is what mainly justifies private jets. Of course I certainly want
one.

[Mike]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 01:21:11 -0600, "Scott Jensen" >
wrote:

>There is usually a point where it is cheaper to do it yourself than have
>someone else do it for you. What I'm wondering is what would that point be
>when it comes to trans-world air travel. When does buying your own jet and
>employing your own pilots make economic sense than using an airline? Or
>will the airlines always be cheaper?
>
>More specifically, let's say you have a number of employees in Fiji. Each
>gets four round-trip flights to anywhere in the world each year as part of
>their benefit package. Most will want to use at least one of those for the
>Christmas season to spend the holidays with family. There would also be an
>expected heavier usage of their flight options during the summer. The
>question I have is: How many employees would one need to have where buying a
>private jet and employing pilots would make economic sense? Would there
>also be a span between these two options where chartering a private jet
>would make economic sense?
>
>Scott Jensen

I am pretty sure that private jet ownership will lose in a pure cost
comparison. However, to make a fair comparison, one would have to
consider many factors. What is the passenger's time worth? Is there
convenient regular scheduled service? etc. A round trip first class
ticket from the US to Europe can be upwards of $10,000 if purchased at
the last minute. Or you could buy your own Boeing Business Jet for
$40,000,000. Even if only used for one trip, the BBJ could have a net
lower cost. If the passenger takes the commercial flight for $10,000
and the airline gets him there late and he loses the $4 billion dollar
deal, then you can see why he would be better off spending the money
for the BBJ.

[Slow-Flyte]

If you had a lot of employees who all wanted to go to the same place,
it might make sense. Even then, I suspect that you would have to
factor in the "convenience factor" quite a bit before the numbers
worked out.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Mike" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 01:21:11 -0600, "Scott Jensen" >
> wrote:
>
>>There is usually a point where it is cheaper to do it yourself than have
>>someone else do it for you. What I'm wondering is what would that point
>>be
>>when it comes to trans-world air travel. When does buying your own jet
>>and
>>employing your own pilots make economic sense than using an airline? Or
>>will the airlines always be cheaper?
>>
>>More specifically, let's say you have a number of employees in Fiji. Each
>>gets four round-trip flights to anywhere in the world each year as part of
>>their benefit package. Most will want to use at least one of those for
>>the
>>Christmas season to spend the holidays with family. There would also be
>>an
>>expected heavier usage of their flight options during the summer. The
>>question I have is: How many employees would one need to have where buying
>>a
>>private jet and employing pilots would make economic sense? Would there
>>also be a span between these two options where chartering a private jet
>>would make economic sense?
>>
>>Scott Jensen
>
> I am pretty sure that private jet ownership will lose in a pure cost
> comparison. However, to make a fair comparison, one would have to
> consider many factors. What is the passenger's time worth? Is there
> convenient regular scheduled service? etc. A round trip first class
> ticket from the US to Europe can be upwards of $10,000 if purchased at
> the last minute. Or you could buy your own Boeing Business Jet for
> $40,000,000. Even if only used for one trip, the BBJ could have a net
> lower cost. If the passenger takes the commercial flight for $10,000
> and the airline gets him there late and he loses the $4 billion dollar
> deal, then you can see why he would be better off spending the money
> for the BBJ.

How would the BBJ have a lower cost?

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Scott Jensen" > wrote in message
...
> There is usually a point where it is cheaper to do it yourself than have
> someone else do it for you. What I'm wondering is what would that point
> be
> when it comes to trans-world air travel. When does buying your own jet
> and
> employing your own pilots make economic sense than using an airline? Or
> will the airlines always be cheaper?
>
> More specifically, let's say you have a number of employees in Fiji. Each
> gets four round-trip flights to anywhere in the world each year as part of
> their benefit package. Most will want to use at least one of those for
> the
> Christmas season to spend the holidays with family. There would also be
> an
> expected heavier usage of their flight options during the summer. The
> question I have is: How many employees would one need to have where buying
> a
> private jet and employing pilots would make economic sense? Would there
> also be a span between these two options where chartering a private jet
> would make economic sense?
>

The economic justification for business jets is that they can save very
valuable time of highly paid executives. It never makes sense on a cost per
mile basis.

Mike
MU-2

[Michael]

Scott Jensen wrote:
> More specifically, let's say you have a number of employees in Fiji.
Each
> gets four round-trip flights to anywhere in the world each year as
part of
> their benefit package. Most will want to use at least one of those
for the
> Christmas season to spend the holidays with family. There would also
be an
> expected heavier usage of their flight options during the summer.
The
> question I have is: How many employees would one need to have where
buying a
> private jet and employing pilots would make economic sense? Would
there
> also be a span between these two options where chartering a private
jet
> would make economic sense?

And the answer is, never. These people are flying coach, to
airline-served destinations, probably purchasing their tickets well in
advance. Those tickets are filler - the airlines sell them at below
cost to keep the seats filled. Plus the time of the employee is worth
nothing because they are doing this travel on vacation, not company
time.

A private jet makes economic sense only when the people are traveling
at the last minute, to destinations not served (or not well served) by
the airlines, and their time is worth a lot.

Michael

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I am pretty sure that private jet ownership will lose in a pure cost
> > comparison. However, to make a fair comparison, one would have to
> > consider many factors. What is the passenger's time worth? Is there
> > convenient regular scheduled service? etc. A round trip first class
> > ticket from the US to Europe can be upwards of $10,000 if purchased at
> > the last minute. Or you could buy your own Boeing Business Jet for
> > $40,000,000. Even if only used for one trip, the BBJ could have a net
> > lower cost. If the passenger takes the commercial flight for $10,000
> > and the airline gets him there late and he loses the $4 billion dollar
> > deal, then you can see why he would be better off spending the money
> > for the BBJ.
>
> How would the BBJ have a lower cost?
>

$40 Million versus $4 BILLION.

[Mike]

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:22:04 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>
>"Mike" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 01:21:11 -0600, "Scott Jensen" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>There is usually a point where it is cheaper to do it yourself than have
>>>someone else do it for you. What I'm wondering is what would that point
>>>be
>>>when it comes to trans-world air travel. When does buying your own jet
>>>and
>>>employing your own pilots make economic sense than using an airline? Or
>>>will the airlines always be cheaper?
>>>
>>>More specifically, let's say you have a number of employees in Fiji. Each
>>>gets four round-trip flights to anywhere in the world each year as part of
>>>their benefit package. Most will want to use at least one of those for
>>>the
>>>Christmas season to spend the holidays with family. There would also be
>>>an
>>>expected heavier usage of their flight options during the summer. The
>>>question I have is: How many employees would one need to have where buying
>>>a
>>>private jet and employing pilots would make economic sense? Would there
>>>also be a span between these two options where chartering a private jet
>>>would make economic sense?
>>>
>>>Scott Jensen
>>
>> I am pretty sure that private jet ownership will lose in a pure cost
>> comparison. However, to make a fair comparison, one would have to
>> consider many factors. What is the passenger's time worth? Is there
>> convenient regular scheduled service? etc. A round trip first class
>> ticket from the US to Europe can be upwards of $10,000 if purchased at
>> the last minute. Or you could buy your own Boeing Business Jet for
>> $40,000,000. Even if only used for one trip, the BBJ could have a net
>> lower cost. If the passenger takes the commercial flight for $10,000
>> and the airline gets him there late and he loses the $4 billion dollar
>> deal, then you can see why he would be better off spending the money
>> for the BBJ.
>
>How would the BBJ have a lower cost?
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>
Spend $40 million to get a $4 billion contract, or spend $10,000 and
get nothing. Spending $40 million makes more money. Therefore,
spending $40 million has a NET lower cost.

[Alan Street]

In article >, Mike
> wrote:

€ On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 01:21:11 -0600, "Scott Jensen" >
€ wrote:
€
€ >There is usually a point where it is cheaper to do it yourself than have
€ >someone else do it for you. What I'm wondering is what would that point be
€ >when it comes to trans-world air travel. When does buying your own jet and
€ >employing your own pilots make economic sense than using an airline? Or
€ >will the airlines always be cheaper?
€ >
€ >More specifically, let's say you have a number of employees in Fiji. Each
€ >gets four round-trip flights to anywhere in the world each year as part of
€ >their benefit package. Most will want to use at least one of those for the
€ >Christmas season to spend the holidays with family. There would also be an
€ >expected heavier usage of their flight options during the summer. The
€ >question I have is: How many employees would one need to have where buying a
€ >private jet and employing pilots would make economic sense? Would there
€ >also be a span between these two options where chartering a private jet
€ >would make economic sense?
€ >
€ >Scott Jensen
€
€ I am pretty sure that private jet ownership will lose in a pure cost
€ comparison. However, to make a fair comparison, one would have to
€ consider many factors. What is the passenger's time worth? Is there
€ convenient regular scheduled service? etc. A round trip first class
€ ticket from the US to Europe can be upwards of $10,000 if purchased at
€ the last minute. Or you could buy your own Boeing Business Jet for
€ $40,000,000. Even if only used for one trip, the BBJ could have a net
€ lower cost. If the passenger takes the commercial flight for $10,000
€ and the airline gets him there late and he loses the $4 billion dollar
€ deal, then you can see why he would be better off spending the money
€ for the BBJ.

$4 billion dollar deals are pretty rare.

[Matt Barrow]

"Alan Street" > wrote in message
...
>
> $4 billion dollar deals are pretty rare.

Not any more! Wal-Mart alone does 100 of those each year.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Alan Street" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Mike
> > wrote:
>
> ? On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 01:21:11 -0600, "Scott Jensen" >
> ? wrote:
> ?
> ? >There is usually a point where it is cheaper to do it yourself than
> have
> ? >someone else do it for you. What I'm wondering is what would that
> point be
> ? >when it comes to trans-world air travel. When does buying your own jet
> and
> ? >employing your own pilots make economic sense than using an airline?
> Or
> ? >will the airlines always be cheaper?
> ? >
> ? >More specifically, let's say you have a number of employees in Fiji.
> Each
> ? >gets four round-trip flights to anywhere in the world each year as part
> of
> ? >their benefit package. Most will want to use at least one of those for
> the
> ? >Christmas season to spend the holidays with family. There would also
> be an
> ? >expected heavier usage of their flight options during the summer. The
> ? >question I have is: How many employees would one need to have where
> buying a
> ? >private jet and employing pilots would make economic sense? Would
> there
> ? >also be a span between these two options where chartering a private jet
> ? >would make economic sense?
> ? >
> ? >Scott Jensen
> ?
> ? I am pretty sure that private jet ownership will lose in a pure cost
> ? comparison. However, to make a fair comparison, one would have to
> ? consider many factors. What is the passenger's time worth? Is there
> ? convenient regular scheduled service? etc. A round trip first class
> ? ticket from the US to Europe can be upwards of $10,000 if purchased at
> ? the last minute. Or you could buy your own Boeing Business Jet for
> ? $40,000,000. Even if only used for one trip, the BBJ could have a net
> ? lower cost. If the passenger takes the commercial flight for $10,000
> ? and the airline gets him there late and he loses the $4 billion dollar
> ? deal, then you can see why he would be better off spending the money
> ? for the BBJ.
>
> $4 billion dollar deals are pretty rare.

And ones that get lost because you get there a day later are non-existant.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Alan Street" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> $4 billion dollar deals are pretty rare.
>
> Not any more! Wal-Mart alone does 100 of those each year.
>
>


Name one.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Mike" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:22:04 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 01:21:11 -0600, "Scott Jensen" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>There is usually a point where it is cheaper to do it yourself than have
>>>>someone else do it for you. What I'm wondering is what would that point
>>>>be
>>>>when it comes to trans-world air travel. When does buying your own jet
>>>>and
>>>>employing your own pilots make economic sense than using an airline? Or
>>>>will the airlines always be cheaper?
>>>>
>>>>More specifically, let's say you have a number of employees in Fiji.
>>>>Each
>>>>gets four round-trip flights to anywhere in the world each year as part
>>>>of
>>>>their benefit package. Most will want to use at least one of those for
>>>>the
>>>>Christmas season to spend the holidays with family. There would also be
>>>>an
>>>>expected heavier usage of their flight options during the summer. The
>>>>question I have is: How many employees would one need to have where
>>>>buying
>>>>a
>>>>private jet and employing pilots would make economic sense? Would there
>>>>also be a span between these two options where chartering a private jet
>>>>would make economic sense?
>>>>
>>>>Scott Jensen
>>>
>>> I am pretty sure that private jet ownership will lose in a pure cost
>>> comparison. However, to make a fair comparison, one would have to
>>> consider many factors. What is the passenger's time worth? Is there
>>> convenient regular scheduled service? etc. A round trip first class
>>> ticket from the US to Europe can be upwards of $10,000 if purchased at
>>> the last minute. Or you could buy your own Boeing Business Jet for
>>> $40,000,000. Even if only used for one trip, the BBJ could have a net
>>> lower cost. If the passenger takes the commercial flight for $10,000
>>> and the airline gets him there late and he loses the $4 billion dollar
>>> deal, then you can see why he would be better off spending the money
>>> for the BBJ.
>>
>>How would the BBJ have a lower cost?
>>
>>Mike
>>MU-2
>>
> Spend $40 million to get a $4 billion contract, or spend $10,000 and
> get nothing. Spending $40 million makes more money. Therefore,
> spending $40 million has a NET lower cost.

I suppose that you are right if there is any such thing as a $4B opportunity
that depends on being somewhere at a specific time. I any event, a BBJ will
never be the cheapest way to get anywhere.

Mike
MU-2

[Dude]

>>
>> $4 billion dollar deals are pretty rare.
>
> And ones that get lost because you get there a day later are non-existant.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>

Okay, the $4B thing is a bad example, but anyone who doesn't think that
large deals have not been lost over small things has not spent enough time
around the petty country club that is now the american boardroom. The
people running most of our large corporations are more about power and ego
than dollars and sense - yes, I mean "sense".

I can't stand them, can't understand them, can't underestimate them, and
will likely have to go back to dealing with them to make enough dough to pay
for my aviation habit. Sure, many of them are just being pragmatic about the
way things are, but too many of them wouldn't change it if they could.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Mike Rapoport" > writes:

> "Mike" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:22:04 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 01:21:11 -0600, "Scott Jensen" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>There is usually a point where it is cheaper to do it yourself than have
>>>>>someone else do it for you. What I'm wondering is what would that point
>>>>>be
>>>>>when it comes to trans-world air travel. When does buying your own jet
>>>>>and
>>>>>employing your own pilots make economic sense than using an airline? Or
>>>>>will the airlines always be cheaper?
>>>>>
>>>>>More specifically, let's say you have a number of employees in Fiji.
>>>>>Each
>>>>>gets four round-trip flights to anywhere in the world each year as part
>>>>>of
>>>>>their benefit package. Most will want to use at least one of those for
>>>>>the
>>>>>Christmas season to spend the holidays with family. There would also be
>>>>>an
>>>>>expected heavier usage of their flight options during the summer. The
>>>>>question I have is: How many employees would one need to have where
>>>>>buying
>>>>>a
>>>>>private jet and employing pilots would make economic sense? Would there
>>>>>also be a span between these two options where chartering a private jet
>>>>>would make economic sense?
>>>>>
>>>>>Scott Jensen
>>>>
>>>> I am pretty sure that private jet ownership will lose in a pure cost
>>>> comparison. However, to make a fair comparison, one would have to
>>>> consider many factors. What is the passenger's time worth? Is there
>>>> convenient regular scheduled service? etc. A round trip first class
>>>> ticket from the US to Europe can be upwards of $10,000 if purchased at
>>>> the last minute. Or you could buy your own Boeing Business Jet for
>>>> $40,000,000. Even if only used for one trip, the BBJ could have a net
>>>> lower cost. If the passenger takes the commercial flight for $10,000
>>>> and the airline gets him there late and he loses the $4 billion dollar
>>>> deal, then you can see why he would be better off spending the money
>>>> for the BBJ.
>>>
>>>How would the BBJ have a lower cost?
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>MU-2
>>>
>> Spend $40 million to get a $4 billion contract, or spend $10,000 and
>> get nothing. Spending $40 million makes more money. Therefore,
>> spending $40 million has a NET lower cost.
>
> I suppose that you are right if there is any such thing as a $4B opportunity
> that depends on being somewhere at a specific time. I any event, a BBJ will
> never be the cheapest way to get anywhere.

Will it ever be the most reliable? The airlines have more planes to
swap around if something breaks, for example. And the private jet is
subject to most of the same air-traffic delays, isn't it?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Montblack]

("Mike" wrote)
>>How would the BBJ have a lower cost?

> Spend $40 million to get a $4 billion contract, or spend $10,000 and
> get nothing. Spending $40 million makes more money. Therefore,
> spending $40 million has a NET lower cost.


Dang it. Corporate Team B has a chartered helicopter waiting to take them
from the airport to Midtown. We're ruined!!

($10,000 in airline tickets x 4,000 units of risk = $40 Million)
($10,000 up to $40 million is a 400,000% increase in spending)

That $40 million spent for the BBJ by the oh-so-close Team A is now just one
more hit against the bottom line.


Montblack
Rommel, you magnificent *******. I read your book.

[Dude]

This is all about angels on the head of a pin, but if your executive and the
rest of the team on the plane is worth $2,000 per hour, it doesn't take much
time to make it all make sense.

Especially if those people would skip to your competition or otherwise be
less valuable because they got tired of living at the airport and being away
from their families.

[Adam Weiss]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> "Scott Jensen" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>There is usually a point where it is cheaper to do it yourself than have
>>someone else do it for you. What I'm wondering is what would that point
>>be
>>when it comes to trans-world air travel. When does buying your own jet
>>and
>>employing your own pilots make economic sense than using an airline? Or
>>will the airlines always be cheaper?
>>
>>More specifically, let's say you have a number of employees in Fiji. Each
>>gets four round-trip flights to anywhere in the world each year as part of
>>their benefit package. Most will want to use at least one of those for
>>the
>>Christmas season to spend the holidays with family. There would also be
>>an
>>expected heavier usage of their flight options during the summer. The
>>question I have is: How many employees would one need to have where buying
>>a
>>private jet and employing pilots would make economic sense? Would there
>>also be a span between these two options where chartering a private jet
>>would make economic sense?
>>
>
>
> The economic justification for business jets is that they can save very
> valuable time of highly paid executives. It never makes sense on a cost per
> mile basis.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>

Add to that marketing (or lobbying) value. What better way to win over
a b2b client's business or a congressman's vote than to give them a free
ride in a corporate jet?

[Rich Lemert]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> "Mike" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 01:21:11 -0600, "Scott Jensen" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There is usually a point where it is cheaper to do it yourself than have
>>>someone else do it for you. What I'm wondering is what would that point
>>>be
>>>when it comes to trans-world air travel. When does buying your own jet
>>>and
>>>employing your own pilots make economic sense than using an airline? Or
>>>will the airlines always be cheaper?
>>>
>>>More specifically, let's say you have a number of employees in Fiji. Each
>>>gets four round-trip flights to anywhere in the world each year as part of
>>>their benefit package. Most will want to use at least one of those for
>>>the
>>>Christmas season to spend the holidays with family. There would also be
>>>an
>>>expected heavier usage of their flight options during the summer. The
>>>question I have is: How many employees would one need to have where buying
>>>a
>>>private jet and employing pilots would make economic sense? Would there
>>>also be a span between these two options where chartering a private jet
>>>would make economic sense?
>>>
>>>Scott Jensen
>>
>>I am pretty sure that private jet ownership will lose in a pure cost
>>comparison. However, to make a fair comparison, one would have to
>>consider many factors. What is the passenger's time worth? Is there
>>convenient regular scheduled service? etc. A round trip first class
>>ticket from the US to Europe can be upwards of $10,000 if purchased at
>>the last minute. Or you could buy your own Boeing Business Jet for
>>$40,000,000. Even if only used for one trip, the BBJ could have a net
>>lower cost. If the passenger takes the commercial flight for $10,000
>>and the airline gets him there late and he loses the $4 billion dollar
>>deal, then you can see why he would be better off spending the money
>>for the BBJ.
>
>
> How would the BBJ have a lower cost?
>

With BBJ: $4,000,000,000 income from deal
-40,000,000 cost of BBJ
--------------------------------
$3,960,000,000 net income to company

Without BBJ: $ 0 income from deal
-10,000 cost of airline ticket
-------------------------------------
$ -10,000 net income (loss) to company

Net cost to company of not owning BBJ: $3,960,010,000

These numbers aren't typical, but then again these days they're
not unreasonable.

Rich Lemert

[Don Hammer]

Corporate and private jets are never about saving money. They
fulfull many strategic needs. Can you own a car cheaper than take the
bus? Never. There are other reasons you pay for that car or two you
own -

Ego - It's mine
My schedule
My space
Security
Point to point travel where the bus doesn't go
etc.

You pay dearly to own a car and do it yourself($15 to $30 per day).
People that buy corporate arcraft do the same. They are just on a
different level than the rest of us. If you were a citizen of a third
world country living in a shack, that fat cat that drives by in a Jeep
looks to him like the guy in a corporate aircraft looks to you and me.
I't just a matter of prospective.

I'm in the business of putting people in private jet aircraft and it's
not about hauling a bunch of people either. The average load factor
for all Gulfstream GV/G-550's is 3.5 even though most have 12 to 14
pax seats. This aircraft has a range of 6,700nm and the average stage
length is 1.6 hours.


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Alan Street" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> $4 billion dollar deals are pretty rare.
> >
> > Not any more! Wal-Mart alone does 100 of those each year.
> >
> >
>
>
> Name one.
>
Kimberly Clark, RubberMaid...

[Alan Street]

In article >, Matt Barrow
> wrote:

€ "Alan Street" > wrote in message
€ ...
€ >
€ > $4 billion dollar deals are pretty rare.
€
€ Not any more! Wal-Mart alone does 100 of those each year.
€
€
€

That would imply about $400 billion a year turnover. According to
WalMart's financial statements, their total turnover was $259 billion
last year. ( http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WMT&annual ).

[Grumman-581]

"Alan Street" wrote in message
...
> That would imply about $400 billion a year turnover. According to
> WalMart's financial statements, their total turnover was $259 billion
> last year. ( http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WMT&annual ).

Hey Alan... Didn't know that you frequent this group also... What's up? No
diving in San Diego this weekend? Up here the water has visibility as bad
as New Orleans and it's cold to boot...

[Scott Jensen]

"Adam Weiss" > wrote:
> Add to that marketing (or lobbying) value. What better
> way to win over a b2b client's business or a congressman's
> vote than to give them a free ride in a corporate jet?

Now I would think this is a very good point. If the Fiji business were
needing to impress a little over 200 clients a year and these clients would
always want to travel to the business' location to personally inspect the
facilities, wouldn't a private jet greatly assist in this? The clients
being from all over the globe and at least half not from a major city. Each
client would always be accompanied by two assistants on these inspection
trips. However, they could be grouped together to come with other
three-person client groups and all these scheduled well in advance.

Also, each year the company would fly in its Board of Directors and they
would be spread over different continents. Wouldn't offering to fly them in
on the company's private jet be another enticement for them to want to sit
on the board? Or at least make the hassle of the trip less of a hassle thus
not as big of a negative against them joining the board?

Then again, would offering to fly the above two groups first-class be just
as good of a way to impress them?

And what about offering employees the option of trading in their four annual
vacation coach-class round-trip anywhere-in-the-world airline tickets for
one first-class round-trip anywhere-in-the-world airline ticket? Or, saying
it was going their way to do one of the above two types of trips, one
round-trip flight in the corporate jet? If they decide to take just one
vacation a year, I could see them trading up for this.

Scott Jensen
--
Like gumshoe detective stories? Like free comics?
If so, Private Eye Butterfly is the webcomic for you!
http://www.users.bigpond.com/toonerfish/peb.html

[Matt Barrow]

"Alan Street" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Matt Barrow
> > wrote:
>
> ? "Alan Street" > wrote in message
> ? ...
> ? >
> ? > $4 billion dollar deals are pretty rare.
> ?
> ? Not any more! Wal-Mart alone does 100 of those each year.
> ?
> ?
> ?
>
> That would imply about $400 billion a year turnover. According to
> WalMart's financial statements, their total turnover was $259 billion
> last year. ( http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WMT&annual ).

Okay...they do 65 of them.

Read Sam Walton's biography how he changed the way of dealing with vendors.

[Mike Rapoport]

Those are suppliers, not "deals".

Mike
MU-2


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Alan Street" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> $4 billion dollar deals are pretty rare.
>> >
>> > Not any more! Wal-Mart alone does 100 of those each year.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> Name one.
>>
> Kimberly Clark, RubberMaid...
>
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Those are suppliers, not "deals".
>

And just how do they manage to "Supply" the company without working out a
deal?

[Mike Rapoport]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>> Those are suppliers, not "deals".
>>
>
> And just how do they manage to "Supply" the company without working out a
> deal?
>

Walmart has never signed a single $4B deal AFAIK. Period. Furthermore I
doubt that *any* supplier has ever lost Walmart as a customer because they
could not arrive somewhere at a particular time.

Mike
MU-2

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> >> Those are suppliers, not "deals".
> >>
> >
> > And just how do they manage to "Supply" the company without working out
a
> > deal?
> >
>
> Walmart has never signed a single $4B deal AFAIK.

The two I mentioned. Wal-Mart was perhaps the first compnay to do long term
deals with their vendors, which is why they were able to get fabulous deals.

> Period. Furthermore I
> doubt that *any* supplier has ever lost Walmart as a customer because they
> could not arrive somewhere at a particular time.

Read Walton's biography.

[Matt Barrow]

"Stephan in Burlington" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 18:45:31 -0700, while the Captain of the mv
> Perfecto was guiding her to her next port, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
> >And just how do they manage to "Supply" the company without working out a
> >deal?
> >
>
> But if they do 100 of those $ 4 billion deals a year, that means they
> buy $ 400 billion of merchandise, yet their annual sales last year
> were only $ 285 billion.

I didn't say (IIRC) they did them ANNUALLY, but they do a load of long term
deals with vendors which is how they manage to get great deals over the long
term.

Also, there was a interesting write-up about Wal-Mart's flight operations a
couple years ago in Professional Pilot (?) on how ANYONE in the company can
book a seat on theri aircraft (of which they have something like a couple
dozen that fly everyday.

Of course, Walton made his company by visiting every single store annually
(when they had something like 700), using his Cessna 421 (?) and he flew up
until his cancer made it unfeasible for him to fly any more.

When he finally stopped flying (just a few months before his death) he had
amassed soemthing like 8000 hours...all of it from the left seat.

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> > >
> >
> > Walmart has never signed a single $4B deal AFAIK.
>
> The two I mentioned. Wal-Mart was perhaps the first compnay to do long
term
> deals with their vendors, which is why they were able to get fabulous
deals.
>
> > Period. Furthermore I
> > doubt that *any* supplier has ever lost Walmart as a customer because
they
> > could not arrive somewhere at a particular time.
>

I also forgot to mention all the corporate buyouts that run well over $4
billion.

[Rich Lemert]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
>>
>>>Those are suppliers, not "deals".
>>>
>>
>>And just how do they manage to "Supply" the company without working out a
>>deal?
>>
>
>
> Walmart has never signed a single $4B deal AFAIK. Period. Furthermore I
> doubt that *any* supplier has ever lost Walmart as a customer because they
> could not arrive somewhere at a particular time.
>

You know, it doesn't really make a damn bit of difference what deals
Walmart has or has not made, nor does it matter what any other company
has or has not done. The original point was that started this whole
waste of time was the fact that sometimes the "economical" choice winds
up losing you money. This is true whether or not the original example
has ever actually been represented in real life, and it's something that
every company either knows intuitively or soon learns in sorry detail.

Furthermore, in the engineering management world, when a request for
bids says that bids must be received by such-and-such time, then they
better be there at that time. Bids that aren't received on time are
simply not considered - there are usually plenty of bidders who do get
their bids in on time, and if not, the client will probably re-start
the bidding process.

Rich Lemert

[Dude]

>>
>> Walmart has never signed a single $4B deal AFAIK. Period. Furthermore I
>> doubt that *any* supplier has ever lost Walmart as a customer because
>> they could not arrive somewhere at a particular time.
>>
>
> You know, it doesn't really make a damn bit of difference what deals
> Walmart has or has not made, nor does it matter what any other company
> has or has not done. The original point was that started this whole
> waste of time was the fact that sometimes the "economical" choice winds
> up losing you money. This is true whether or not the original example
> has ever actually been represented in real life, and it's something that
> every company either knows intuitively or soon learns in sorry detail.
>
> Furthermore, in the engineering management world, when a request for
> bids says that bids must be received by such-and-such time, then they
> better be there at that time. Bids that aren't received on time are
> simply not considered - there are usually plenty of bidders who do get
> their bids in on time, and if not, the client will probably re-start
> the bidding process.
>
> Rich Lemert


You can often get a waiver if you show good faith effort, and if you show
that it could not have been changed. For instance, if Fed Ex put it on the
wrong truck.

Still, it doesn't help, and people who don't know how these things work just
really have not seen the pettiness and/or bureaucratic idiocy that goe on
these days. Often, you have a big ego type who is looking to get rid of
competitors so he can choose the vendor who best kisses his arse, or some
power starved purchasing maggot who loves his/her chance to veto the will of
the executive and sales people who all make 3 to 30 times what they make.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> >> Walmart has never signed a single $4B deal AFAIK. Period. Furthermore
I
> >> doubt that *any* supplier has ever lost Walmart as a customer because
> >> they could not arrive somewhere at a particular time.
> >>
> >
> > You know, it doesn't really make a damn bit of difference what deals
> > Walmart has or has not made, nor does it matter what any other company
> > has or has not done. The original point was that started this whole
> > waste of time was the fact that sometimes the "economical" choice winds
> > up losing you money. This is true whether or not the original example
> > has ever actually been represented in real life, and it's something that
> > every company either knows intuitively or soon learns in sorry detail.
> >
> > Furthermore, in the engineering management world, when a request for
> > bids says that bids must be received by such-and-such time, then they
> > better be there at that time. Bids that aren't received on time are
> > simply not considered - there are usually plenty of bidders who do get
> > their bids in on time, and if not, the client will probably re-start
> > the bidding process.
> >
> > Rich Lemert
>
>
> You can often get a waiver if you show good faith effort, and if you show
> that it could not have been changed. For instance, if Fed Ex put it on
the
> wrong truck.
>
> Still, it doesn't help, and people who don't know how these things work
just
> really have not seen the pettiness and/or bureaucratic idiocy that goe on
> these days. Often, you have a big ego type who is looking to get rid of
> competitors so he can choose the vendor who best kisses his arse, or some
> power starved purchasing maggot who loves his/her chance to veto the will
of
> the executive and sales people who all make 3 to 30 times what they make.

Funny thing is, the OP was NOT about BIDDING, but negotiating, dealing
face-to-face, selling...

In a world where most business with end-users is done by phone menus and
CSR's in India, the upper levels typically deal across the conference table.

[Andrew Sarangan]

Not sure what kind of car you are talking about, but it does not cost me
$15-$30/day. Mine is about $2.00 per day, which includes purchase price,
insurance and maintenance. But your point is still valid.



Don Hammer > wrote in
:

> Corporate and private jets are never about saving money. They
> fulfull many strategic needs. Can you own a car cheaper than take the
> bus? Never. There are other reasons you pay for that car or two you
> own -
>
> Ego - It's mine
> My schedule
> My space
> Security
> Point to point travel where the bus doesn't go
> etc.
>
> You pay dearly to own a car and do it yourself($15 to $30 per day).
> People that buy corporate arcraft do the same. They are just on a
> different level than the rest of us. If you were a citizen of a third
> world country living in a shack, that fat cat that drives by in a Jeep
> looks to him like the guy in a corporate aircraft looks to you and me.
> I't just a matter of prospective.
>
> I'm in the business of putting people in private jet aircraft and it's
> not about hauling a bunch of people either. The average load factor
> for all Gulfstream GV/G-550's is 3.5 even though most have 12 to 14
> pax seats. This aircraft has a range of 6,700nm and the average stage
> length is 1.6 hours.
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com
>

[George Patterson]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
> Not sure what kind of car you are talking about, but it does not cost me
> $15-$30/day. Mine is about $2.00 per day, which includes purchase price,
> insurance and maintenance.

My insurance alone is nearly $2.00 a day.

George Patterson
Whosoever bloweth not his own horn, the same shall remain unblown.

[Andrew Sarangan]

Don't know about $4 billion deals, but there are plenty of examples
where uncertainties in airline schedule has increased customer costs.
For instance, I used to be able to take an early flight and be on time
for a morning meeting in DC, and return the same day. I can't do that
anymore. Now I have leave on the previous evening and stay at a hotel. I
have, on many occasions, spent more time waiting in airports than it
would have taken me to drive that distance. It still does not make it
worthwhile to charter an airplane, but I can see how it might for
someone else. If your time is worth a few thousand $ per hour,
chartering might be well worth it.



"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in
k.net:

>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>>> Those are suppliers, not "deals".
>>>
>>
>> And just how do they manage to "Supply" the company without working
>> out a deal?
>>
>
> Walmart has never signed a single $4B deal AFAIK. Period.
> Furthermore I doubt that *any* supplier has ever lost Walmart as a
> customer because they could not arrive somewhere at a particular time.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>

[Mike]

>> I suppose that you are right if there is any such thing as a $4B opportunity
>> that depends on being somewhere at a specific time. I any event, a BBJ will
>> never be the cheapest way to get anywhere.
>
>Will it ever be the most reliable? The airlines have more planes to
>swap around if something breaks, for example. And the private jet is
>subject to most of the same air-traffic delays, isn't it?

Let me preface this by saying that I am by no means an expert. I
think with some fractional ownership jets, you have a choice between
several. Therefore, I think reliability would be less of an issue. I
also think that air traffic control can subject private aircraft to
the same delays as commercail. However, our city has 2 airports. One
downtown with mostly private aircraft and one large interanational
airport. I have been 16th in line for takeoff from the international
airport, but it is rare that a lot of aircraft are moving or taking
off at the same time at the downtown airport.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > >
>> >
>> > Walmart has never signed a single $4B deal AFAIK.
>>
>> The two I mentioned. Wal-Mart was perhaps the first compnay to do long
> term
>> deals with their vendors, which is why they were able to get fabulous
> deals.
>>
>> > Period. Furthermore I
>> > doubt that *any* supplier has ever lost Walmart as a customer because
> they
>> > could not arrive somewhere at a particular time.
>>
>
> I also forgot to mention all the corporate buyouts that run well over $4
> billion.
>


Do you think that any of these buyouts or any other $4 transaction hinged on
having a corporate jet?

Mike
MU-2

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Will it ever be the most reliable? The airlines have more planes to
> >swap around if something breaks, for example. And the private jet is
> >subject to most of the same air-traffic delays, isn't it?
>
> Let me preface this by saying that I am by no means an expert. I
> think with some fractional ownership jets, you have a choice between
> several.

I believe Gulfstream and Cessna have replacemnt (loaner) programs if your G
or Citation is down for some reason.

I've had far fewer availability problems with my Bonanza than I did when I
did the airline (United) shuffle.

> Therefore, I think reliability would be less of an issue. I
> also think that air traffic control can subject private aircraft to
> the same delays as commercail.

They can, and do. According to APOA, GA serves over 19,000 airports, the
airlines serve 374 with scheduled service and only 29 major hubs.
http://aopa2.org/special/newsroom/facts.html


> However, our city has 2 airports. One
> downtown with mostly private aircraft and one large interanational
> airport. I have been 16th in line for takeoff from the international
> airport, but it is rare that a lot of aircraft are moving or taking
> off at the same time at the downtown airport.

How fast can you be out the front gate of your GA airport compared with the
same factor at your airline/hub? My best time was 11 minutes at Rapid City
(RAP) SD. Best on the airline? Maybe 30 minutes.

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Walmart has never signed a single $4B deal AFAIK.
> >>
> >> The two I mentioned. Wal-Mart was perhaps the first compnay to do long
> > term
> >> deals with their vendors, which is why they were able to get fabulous
> > deals.
> >>
> >> > Period. Furthermore I
> >> > doubt that *any* supplier has ever lost Walmart as a customer because
> > they
> >> > could not arrive somewhere at a particular time.
> >>
> >
> > I also forgot to mention all the corporate buyouts that run well over $4
> > billion.
> >
>
>
> Do you think that any of these buyouts or any other $4 transaction hinged
on
> having a corporate jet?
>

Certainly. Have you ever participated in one? They don't do it my phone
calls and email.

MOF, John Deakin tells the story of one in his article after making the
transition to the G-IV, and how the business crew prepped for their meeting
during the flight. http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/185048-1.html (about
2/3rds down). I rather expect this is the rule more than the exception.

This past week we began our "season" by doing a land buy and then
negotiations with sub-contractors near San Antonio. The entire flight the
contractor foremen were working up scenarios. We did the whole thing in one
day and closed a $1.8M deal on two fronts. This is, of course, chicken feed
compared to the Fortune 50 world.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Mike Rapoport]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> . net...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > Walmart has never signed a single $4B deal AFAIK.
>> >>
>> >> The two I mentioned. Wal-Mart was perhaps the first compnay to do long
>> > term
>> >> deals with their vendors, which is why they were able to get fabulous
>> > deals.
>> >>
>> >> > Period. Furthermore I
>> >> > doubt that *any* supplier has ever lost Walmart as a customer
>> >> > because
>> > they
>> >> > could not arrive somewhere at a particular time.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I also forgot to mention all the corporate buyouts that run well over
>> > $4
>> > billion.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Do you think that any of these buyouts or any other $4 transaction hinged
> on
>> having a corporate jet?
>>
>
> Certainly. Have you ever participated in one? They don't do it my phone
> calls and email.

Yes I have and over the phone is how most of it is done. Once there is a
conceptual deal, THEN you have the finance people, product people ect start
getting together. Having people flying around to meet in person usually is
discovered and the word gets out. Then the stocks go up and the deal can't
be done. There was a large oil company aquisition that cost over $300MM
more because someone thought it would be secret and clever to hold talks on
their jets while they were parked next to each other. It didn't take a
genius to figure what was going on



> MOF, John Deakin tells the story of one in his article after making the
> transition to the G-IV, and how the business crew prepped for their
> meeting
> during the flight. http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/185048-1.html (about
> 2/3rds down). I rather expect this is the rule more than the exception.
>
> This past week we began our "season" by doing a land buy and then
> negotiations with sub-contractors near San Antonio. The entire flight the
> contractor foremen were working up scenarios. We did the whole thing in
> one
> day and closed a $1.8M deal on two fronts. This is, of course, chicken
> feed
> compared to the Fortune 50 world.
>

The fact remains that big deals are not lost due to the lack of a coporate
jet to get people somewhere a few hours earlier..

Mike
MU-2

[Dude]

>
> The fact remains that big deals are not lost due to the lack of a coporate
> jet to get people somewhere a few hours earlier..
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>

Mike,

I don't believe its established that its a fact. You cannot prove a
negative, so you cannot prove your point. On the other hand, I have seen
multi million dollar deals go south for reasons of people being late, and
other small things.

At a certain level in corporate america, the schedules get tight enough that
even a corporate jet isn't enough to get your top executives around enough
to keep the relationships strong enough. I have hade plenty of experience
with SMB's that get insulted that your Fortune 100 CEO or other C level guy
hasn't been out to see them in person. Sometimes you can overcome that, and
sometimes you can't.

One thing that is even harder to overcome is your guy showing up on late AND
saying the wrong things. This problem has cost me enough to pay for my
airplane, and one jerk who blew it for me left our company (after
mismanaging it as president and COO, and went on to mismanage a bigger
company as CEO for even more money). It pays to have connections on Wall
Sreet. Especially if you are incompetent.

[Mike Rapoport]

My point is that being somewhere at a particular time seldom makes or breaks
any transaction and the larger the transaction, the less likely it matters.
Does anybody really think that today's merger between Chevron and Unocal
would not have taken place if someone had been a few hours or even a week
late?

Corporate jets serve many purposes but mainly to conserve valuable people's
time. The value of an employee's time to the company is about 3x his/her
salary and it is easy to see how the cost could be justified with highly
compensated employees. Travel by corporate jet is also considered more
secure since passengers aren't exposed to the public.

Mike
MU-2


"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> >
>> The fact remains that big deals are not lost due to the lack of a
>> coporate jet to get people somewhere a few hours earlier..
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>
> Mike,
>
> I don't believe its established that its a fact. You cannot prove a
> negative, so you cannot prove your point. On the other hand, I have seen
> multi million dollar deals go south for reasons of people being late, and
> other small things.
>
> At a certain level in corporate america, the schedules get tight enough
> that even a corporate jet isn't enough to get your top executives around
> enough to keep the relationships strong enough. I have hade plenty of
> experience with SMB's that get insulted that your Fortune 100 CEO or other
> C level guy hasn't been out to see them in person. Sometimes you can
> overcome that, and sometimes you can't.
>
> One thing that is even harder to overcome is your guy showing up on late
> AND saying the wrong things. This problem has cost me enough to pay for
> my airplane, and one jerk who blew it for me left our company (after
> mismanaging it as president and COO, and went on to mismanage a bigger
> company as CEO for even more money). It pays to have connections on Wall
> Sreet. Especially if you are incompetent.
>
>

[Don Hammer]

On 3 Apr 2005 14:07:50 -0500, Andrew Sarangan
> wrote:

>Not sure what kind of car you are talking about, but it does not cost me
>$15-$30/day. Mine is about $2.00 per day, which includes purchase price,
>insurance and maintenance. But your point is still valid.
>
>

$2.00 is less than the price of 1 gal of gas. Hum - -

I was thinking something along the lines of -

Lease or payment $450 per mo = $14.80/day
Insurance $1,000 per year = $2.74/day
Gas $100 per mo = $3.29

Throw in maintenance etc. ---

Your numbers may be different, but $2.00/day??



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> >>
> >> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Walmart has never signed a single $4B deal AFAIK.
> >> >>
> >> >> The two I mentioned. Wal-Mart was perhaps the first compnay to do
long
> >> > term
> >> >> deals with their vendors, which is why they were able to get
fabulous
> >> > deals.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Period. Furthermore I
> >> >> > doubt that *any* supplier has ever lost Walmart as a customer
> >> >> > because
> >> > they
> >> >> > could not arrive somewhere at a particular time.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I also forgot to mention all the corporate buyouts that run well over
> >> > $4
> >> > billion.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Do you think that any of these buyouts or any other $4 transaction
hinged
> > on
> >> having a corporate jet?
> >>
> >
> > Certainly. Have you ever participated in one? They don't do it my phone
> > calls and email.
>
> Yes I have and over the phone is how most of it is done.

That's right! We spend days and weeks on the phone before going out and
talking face to face about land, zoning, land use ordnances, contractorsm
sub-contractors...

We do tons of email and fax and FedEx packages seting things up.

Then, we hop in the plane and meet all the parties involved.

> Once there is a
> conceptual deal, THEN you have the finance people, product people ect
start
> getting together. Having people flying around to meet in person usually
is
> discovered and the word gets out. Then the stocks go up and the deal
can't
> be done. There was a large oil company aquisition that cost over $300MM
> more because someone thought it would be secret and clever to hold talks
on
> their jets while they were parked next to each other. It didn't take a
> genius to figure what was going on

It didn't take a genius to figure out what was going on BEFORE the started
parking jets next to each other (this thing sounds like some goofy
Hollyweird script).

Funny, isn't it, that a few years ago video conferencing and high spped
communications was thought to be the end of flying around and conducting
meetings? Weren't we supposed to telecommute instead of having office space?

Don't even get me started on the "paperless office".

The point isn't (or shouldn't be) that being a bit late is solved by a
business jet. In that you're correct. OTOH, it's not merely a notion that
flying a team out to negotitate and conclude deals face-to-face, with the
"highly compensated employees and executives" is HIGHLY beneficial AFTER a
lot of leg work is completed.


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO
>
>
>
> > MOF, John Deakin tells the story of one in his article after making the
> > transition to the G-IV, and how the business crew prepped for their
> > meeting
> > during the flight. http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/185048-1.html
(about
> > 2/3rds down). I rather expect this is the rule more than the exception.
> >
> > This past week we began our "season" by doing a land buy and then
> > negotiations with sub-contractors near San Antonio. The entire flight
the
> > contractor foremen were working up scenarios. We did the whole thing in
> > one
> > day and closed a $1.8M deal on two fronts. This is, of course, chicken
> > feed
> > compared to the Fortune 50 world.
> >
>
> The fact remains that big deals are not lost due to the lack of a coporate
> jet to get people somewhere a few hours earlier..

Which wasn't the point (timing, though that is certainly a MINOR factor).

[Alan Street]

In article <w8s3e.130030$Ze3.41941@attbi_s51>, Grumman-581
> wrote:

€ "Alan Street" wrote in message
€ ...
€ > That would imply about $400 billion a year turnover. According to
€ > WalMart's financial statements, their total turnover was $259 billion
€ > last year. ( http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WMT&annual ).
€
€ Hey Alan... Didn't know that you frequent this group also... What's up? No
€ diving in San Diego this weekend? Up here the water has visibility as bad
€ as New Orleans and it's cold to boot...
€
€

Actually, this is cross-posted to rec.travel.air, which I tend to hang
out on (fair amount of business travel, and for a peon like me, never
in the CitationX). But it's interesting to see the difference in
perspectives between the front and back of the plane.

The diving has been good recently, but I've been too busy to get wet.
Hope to change that in a month or two.

Alan

[[email protected]]

There is also the point that many corporations have policies that
prohibit having more than one or two high level/ key executives on the
same flight, just in case.

Randy