

Geithner forces Citi to cancel jet order - condor
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e4093646-eca6-11dd-a534-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

======
pragmatic
Anybody else see a problem with 1) the government propping up companies that
should be reorganized by bankruptcy 2) taking over these zombie corporations
like head crabs 3) and then interfering in all kinds of business decisions?

Air travel post 9-11 is ridiculous in this country. How Citi spends Citi's
money is between Citi and Citi's shareholders. Except when the government
intervenes.

Now we have a giant mess. Now every interference can be made in the "public
interest." Why do employees get free coffee? Why do employees get gym
memberships. What about education reimbursement?

What is in the "public interest" now?

~~~
jfornear
I agree 100%, but supposedly the sky would have fallen if these companies
would have gone bankrupt? (I have yet to be convinced of this)

~~~
hardik
From my understanding, there certainly would have been huge crack in the
system had some of the big ones gone down just like that. This is because of
the incest-like inter-connection between the major players; if one fails, it
reneges on its derivative obligations, leaving several others' "naked" to
risk. Those affected by this would have either lower credit rating or may not
be able to fulfill _their_ derivative obligations and so on.. domino effect.
So, agreed, some of these biggies just had to be stopped from failing (AIG was
the king of them) But what I fail to understand is that why is the government
supporting these on an on-going basis? I would expect the government to
strictly save them on the terms that they eventually wind down the operations
or at least break up and sell to interested parties. It is very important for
companies to fail every once in a while; in this special case the govt. should
have helped _soft-land_ their failure not _prevented_ it!

------
ckinnan
It is far more offensive that Citi is still using tax dollars to pay its
shareholder dividend.

~~~
dockd
Why must the shareholder get stuck holding the bag? It's not like they get
special inside knowledge or treatment. We're punishing the people who bought
Citi's story instead of the ones who ran it into the ground?

~~~
reitzensteinm
So you'd rather punish the US taxpayer, who very likely has no direct
investment in the company (outside of index funds), and has nothing to gain if
the company does well? Sure, it sucks for the shareholders, but that's exactly
what they signed up for - a share of the companies returns in good times _and_
bad.

------
gcheong
"That money should be used to lend to consumers to get the economy moving
again"

Maybe the problem was they didn't write that on the back of the check when
they made the deposit.

~~~
gills
Maybe the problem is that Americans are already bursting at the seams from too
much debt and no matter how far you stuff that firehose down the pig's throat
it just can't hold any more.

So no matter how much CONgress wants the banks to lend, it _just doesn't
help_.

------
mhb
The car companies that had to give up their jets aren't too happy about it
either. And so goes nationalization.

[http://www.freep.com/article/20090126/NEWS15/90126063/1001/N...](http://www.freep.com/article/20090126/NEWS15/90126063/1001/NEWS/Levin+livid+over+reported+Citigroup+jet+purchase)

------
paulgb
If it prompts you to log in, use this link:
[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e4093646-eca6-11dd-a534-0000779fd2...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e4093646-eca6-11dd-a534-0000779fd2ac.html)

------
Gibbon
Looks like they were going to buy a Dassault Falcon. I wonder how these kinds
of decisions will affect Aerospatiale/Dassault? It's not like they make a lot
of them.. last year they made eight Falcons per month. They've already fired
all their temps and cut back on subcontractors hours.

It just goes to show, you can't win for losing. One more notch in the economic
death spiral.

------
cabalamat
While they're at it, make them fly economy class.

------
mhb
More accessible article:
[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/27/citigroup-
nixes-p...](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/27/citigroup-nixes-plan-m-
corporate-jet/)

------
DanielBMarkham
As a taxpayer, I'm glad they canceled the order -- if it made business sense
to do so. If it was just to look good (and they end up spending more money
without the jet) then double bad on them.

As a pilot? A Falcon 6X? 5950 nautical mile range? 3 engines? Complete glass
cockpit with lots of standby gear? Have you seen that cabin size? The possible
configurations? Anybody like to have a private ride you could pick up in DC
and get off in, say, Milan?

What were we talking about again?

------
gojomo
Don't jet companies deserve 'stimulus' too?

~~~
amobilebiz
While the theory of your comment makes complete sense to me, I do have a
problem with French (and no offense to the French people here) companies
getting my tax dollars. Last I checked (and I could be wrong) Aerospatiale-
Dassault was a French company. If U.S. companies are going to be buying
corporate jets with my tax dollars I would much rather they buy them from U.S.
companies.

~~~
gojomo
What a fine recipe for recovery: every nation for itself, make companies buy
only what's politically-favored, reduce competition, reduce world trade.

(Those were all popular-but-misguided mistakes that made the 1930's depression
deeper and longer.)

~~~
lg
I think the misguided mistake was giving Citigroup too many tax dollars.

