My head is spinning … it’s like watching a tennis match.  The most recent attacks on general aviation [and flying private jets, many of which are not really 'jets'] has me very confused.  First  we hear that private airplanes are not necessary.  Then we hear that in the stimulus bill, Congress is pushing a hefty tax incentive to purchase the same aircraft. 

In an article in the Orlando Sentinel states:

Faced with widespread unemployment, they [Congress] have decided to dial down the rhetoric and trade invective for incentive.

The fact is, corporate jets have always been nothing more than a tool for boosting efficiency — and lawmakers know it. After all, it’s not as if our representatives fly on scheduled airlines when they leave Washington to “inspect” this or that, or to “find facts” here and there. Instead, they fly on the government equivalent of “private” planes provided by the Air Force at taxpayer expense.

Regular entrepreneurs, those that have built a solid sound business from the ground up, are entitled to own an aircraft if they can afford it.  Who is Congress to put limits on what we, the Amerian People, can and cannot buy? 

I understand that the time of our elected official is valuable …. so is my time.  And so is the time of our executives.  Why should we limit their use of productive business tools … provided they can afford it.

Watch this video for more specifics on how this business aviation affects our economy.

It isn’t what they said, it’s what we think we heard.

 It appears there indeed are two sides to a story … the question is, who do you believe?  And why?

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1307-full.html#199690

Patty Wagstaff says she “probably did use a few choice words” for Winnebago County Sheriff’s deputies when she was arrested on a runway at Wittman Regional Airport but she maintains that officers overstepped their bounds during the incident. Local authorities paint a different picture. The Oshkosh Northwestern obtained copies of reports by arresting officers and jail personnel, including a video of the booking procedure, and what resulted is a she said/he said collection of mutual accusations. The newspaper reports that authorities claim Wagstaff was abusive, hit one deputy on the arm and had to be “wrestled to the ground” on the runway to be cuffed and later had to be “assisted to the ground” to be patted down. “I don’t think they gave me a chance. They didn’t offer me a field sobriety test,” she said. But the police say it’s Wagstaff who was agitated.

 The paper says the reports paint a picture of Wagstaff as an uncooperative prisoner who hurled epithets at most of those involved in the booking process. Wagstaff told the Northwestern she was “not used to being treated that way.” The newspaper reported that Wagstaff was taken to a medical center for a blood draw and was subsequently asked for a breath sample, which she refused.  “Everyone in Oshkosh has been so wonderful. It was another reason the whole incident was so shocking to me. The people there are the nicest in the world.”

I have been listening to the uninformed bash and slash business aviation … “the fat cats whisking their girlfriends / mistresses / lovers away to the islands …” or “those that can afford to own their own airplane don’t really need it … look at the Big Three!  How dare they fly on their own airplane and ask us taxpayers to pay for it!” and the list goes on and on.

Let me ask you … what do you really know about business aviation?  Do you know that they are an integral part of the economy of thousands of cities and towns?  Consider the direct employees: pilots, maintenance technicians, schedulers and dispatchers, flight attendants, management.  Then consider the fixed base operators that service the aircraft: customer service reps, caterers, maintenance and avionics technicians, fuelers, management.  Take it one step further to the manufacturers: Cessna, Gulfstream, Dassault to name a few.  Add to this mix the periphery people:  upholsterers, carpet layers, radio suppliers, windshield repairers.  See where I’m going?

Watch this video for another perspective:  

No Plane No Gain: The Truth about Business Aviation

The next time someone is criticizing an industry, a person, an idea … ask what they are basing their opinion on .. is it the truth or is it hearsay?

It isn’t what they said, it’s what I think I heard.

I always thought Ben Stein was an intelligent, funny-looking guy with a nasaly voice.  I had no idea of his background:  speech writer for presidents, a poverty lawyer, a trial lawyer in the field of trade regulation, actor, economist at the Department of Commerce, a university adjunct at several universities, a columnist and editorial writer, contributor to Barrons, commentator for CBS Sunday Morning and Fox News, writer of over thirty books, done work in unconvering TV’s concealed messages, host of his own TV show and a judge in a reality show.

He has some credibility on which he speaks … here’s his esteemed opinion on the current dismal-looking business aviation situation:

 Fury in Washington

Let’s start with the fury in Washington over the fact that executives of the [formerly] Big Three Automobiles flew to DC in private planes to plead for government aid.  Much was made of this, as if it were a great and unforgivalbe extravagance.

This is not true. A private plane is really a flying office.  It is a way for a busy executive to get from one place to another as efficiently as possible, to get as much work done as possible on the way, and to avoid down time.

The executive of an important company has immense responsibilities.  His or her time is precious.  To waste that time in an airport security line or dealing with flight delays is, quite frankly, a sin against the stockholders.  Flying on a private plane is not a decadent act — it is just a way to move a very valuable asset around to maximize its productivity.  To keep executives from using these planes is as foolish as not allowing them to use cell phones or computers.

And I certainly never see the president, his cabinet members, or key members of Congress flying commercial jets.

To find out more about exactly what he is talking about, visit www.noplanenogain.org

“We need the stimulus to jumpstart the economy”

is what we’ve been hearing so many times.

When asked what it will do, the response is “the stimulus will be creating jobs” and that is said rather smugly.  Let me ask you – does that address the core problem?  Or is it implied that throwing money in this way will resolve the situation in the long term?

Let’s start with the basics:  do we have the same definition of ’stimulus’, ‘jumpstart’ and ‘creating jobs’?  You may think we do, yet I challenge you to ask a colleague what these words mean to them.

For instance, this will “jumpstart the economy” … what timeframe is implied?  Within a month?  Within six months?  Within a year? “Creating jobs” … are these permanent jobs?  Or are they contract jobs?

And is ‘jumpstarting the economy with this stimulus’ really attacking the core problem, or is it simply a band aid on a deeper cut?

It’s not what they said, it’s what you think you heard.

Michael Steele, the Chair of the Republican National Committee, said this recently:  Creating jobs is not the same as creating work.

Creating jobs is a position that has an end date… a contract.  When the work is complete, the job is complete.  The person holding the job is free to pursue other jobs.

Work, on the other hand, is what small businesses provide …. there is no ‘end of the work’, there is only the ‘end of the job’.

If a ‘job’ is working on the infrastructure, once the roads are built, the ‘job’ is over.  These people will have to go look for another ‘job’.

If ‘work’ is putting money back in the hands of small business owners, who can grow their businesses and create more ‘work’, not necessarily a ‘job’, then wouldn’t that make more sense?

So tell me …. is creating ‘jobs’ the same as creating ‘work’?

Airline industry “now shrinking by all measures”

The year has started out with gloomy predictions as the International Air Transport Association (IATA) says that the worldwide industry is “now shrinking by all measures”. November 2008 traffic data showed a 4.6 per cent drop in international passenger traffic and a 13.5 per cent drop in international cargo. International capacity dropped by one per cent, while load factors fell three percentage points to 72.7 per cent.

The article goes on to say that those airlines in the Asia Pacific area are working in the worst environment.  Even China has been hit after the Olympics. Eurpoean traffic is down also .. every market area fell.  North American airlines were not immune to the decrease in international traffic either – the second largest drop among regions.  Yes our financial economic woes have affected international travel.

 Bisignani concluded: “with no end in sight for the worsening global economy, the 2008 gloom will carry over into the new year. Relief in the oil price has been outstripped by the falls in demand and capacity cuts are not keeping pace. The industry is back in intensive care. Improving efficiency everywhere will be theme for 2009.”

Let me ask you …. when you read news like this, are you accepting it as fact because it was ‘reported on the news’?  Or are you asking yourself ‘Is this slanted … does the publisher want me to think fear, gloom and doom?’

It’s not what they wrote, it’s what you think you read

“People fail because of what they will not give up.  They cling to what has worked in the past, even after it has clearly stopped working.”  Peter Drucker, Management Expert
  
Take a moment to look around you …. What is not working the way you want it to, the way you, or the theories, say it should?  You can continue to try again and again, and get the same result [which is a definition of insanity].  Or you can stop trying, give up and into your frustration.
 
There is another way: Break the cycle of failure by examining your routine methods that no longer work.  Determine what has changed within and around you that is causing your previous solutions to fall short. You can remove your emotions from the process and objectively re-inspect what you are doing.Your underlying emotions could include fear of failure, fear of change, pride in ownership and/or stubbornness.  Everything you experience stems from five core emotions:  happy, sad, angry, afraid, ashamed.  Have you allowed your emotions to cloud your vision and negatively impact your business decisions?  Check out my blog for more information on this relevant topic.

NEWS YOU CAN USE: Shari’s article “Communication for Bottom Line Results: How to Solve Your Workplace Communication Problems” has been published in Exchange Magazine.  Click HERE to read this informative article!

Shari Frisinger can open or close your conference or meeting with an engaging, high energy keynote address on communication disconnects. She is also available for break-out sessions on communication topics such as challenging conflict and team dysfunction.

I have been listening to a lot of talk radio lately … one question that is surfacing is “Do you want Obama to succeed?”

Now before you answer the question, let me ask you – what question are you answering?  Do you want Obama to succeed as a President?  Or do you want his policies to succeed?

I think you would be hard-pressed to find someone in the USA to say that indeed they want Obama to fail as a President.  We don’t like to see others fail, and wishing evil on another is not one of our favorite past times.

If you look at what he campaigned on, and what he has done so far, you can want his policies to not succeed, to not pass the House and Senate.  Or you can want his policies to pass and be implemented.

When a question is asked, do you answer it immediately, answering the question you thought you heard?  Or do you ask questions to be sure you are responding to the same question that was asked?

It’s not what you said, it’s what they think they heard.