Obama Officials Tell Citibank To Ditch Plans For $50 Million Private Jet

According to a report from ABC News, President Obama is not taking kindly to corporate greed, especially when it's funded by taxpayer money. Read more from ABC here:

The high-flying execs at Citigroup caved under pressure from President Obama and decided today to abandon plans for a luxurious new $50 million corporate jet from France...

ABC News has learned that Monday officials of the Obama administration called Citigroup about the company's new $50 million corporate jet and told execs to "fix it."

On Monday, the news broke that bailed out bank was going through with its $50 million private jet purchase even though it had recieved $45 billion in government funds:

The New York Post's Jennifer Keil and Chuck Bennett reported in Monday's paper that Citigroup, which has received $45 billion in government bailout funds, is about to upgrade to a new $50 million, twelve-seat corporate jet.

The plane, the Dassault Falcon 7X, is a luxurious jet with a range of 5,950 nautical miles (meaning it can fly from New York to all of Europe and South America, as far east as Riyadh, and as far west as Honolulu or Petropavlovsk, Russia). The Post reports it has "plush interior with leather seats, sofas and a customizable entertainment center."

Comments

[PoliticalCrave]

02:56 AM on 02/02/2009

What's the problem with Citigroup buying a $50 million plane when President Obama gave it to them without any regulation­? Am I missing something here?

[fliescoach]

02:39 PM on 02/01/2009

It's great that Obama wants corporatio­ns to ditch their private planes but what about the U.S. government­? According to a GAO report, they don't even know how many government­-owned aircraft there are - although it's at least 1400, or how much they cost annually - although it's at least $700MM. How about doing something about those private planes too?

Here's the link to the GAO report http://www­.gao.gov/p­roducts/GA­O-04-645

[bigOUfan]

10:08 PM on 01/31/2009

I can't believe no one has posted anything about JP Morgan Chase and what was reported on
bloomberg.­..not even bloomberg themselves but probably because JP Morgan Chase is spending billions on advertisin­g with their network...­here is an excerpt from the article and the link...

"At a panel on leadership yesterday morning before HOSTING A RECEPTION WITH CHAMPAGNE AND CANAPS AT THE HOTEL EUROPE PIANO BAR, JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon expressed frustratio­n at those who seek to pin all the blame on bankers."

http://www­.bloomberg­.com/apps/­news?pid=2­0601170&re­fer=home&s­id=abAA1ie­h6wTk

So now the taxpayers are hosting receptions and an un-needed trip for this CEO. He was the only Bank CEO from the United States to attend!!!

[ccpostman]

10:17 PM on 01/30/2009

Their two older planes that they have are just fine. Why do they need to spend OUR money on a new plane now? Greed and want running TOTALLY rampant !

One of the current jets Citi use$:

http://www­.airliners­.net/searc­h/photo.se­arch?engin­e_version=­6.0&search­_active=1&­search=&sh­eadline=&d­omains=Air­liners.net­&sitesearc­h=Airliner­s.net&clie­nt=pub-829­7169501225­184&forid=­1&channel=­1924797129­&ie=ISO-88­59-1&oe=IS­O-8859-1&c­of=GALT%3A­%23E6E8FA%­3BGL%3A1%3­BDIV%3A%23­000000%3BV­LC%3AE6E8F­A%3BAH%3Ac­enter%3BBG­C%3A45678C­%3BLBGC%3A­45678C%3BA­LC%3AE6E8F­A%3BLC%3AE­6E8FA%3BT%­3AC4C8CC%3­BGFNT%3AC4­C8CC%3BGIM­P%3AC4C8CC­%3BLH%3A36­%3BLW%3A63­9%3BL%3Aht­tp%3A%2F%2­Fcdn-www.a­irliners.n­et%2Fgraph­ics%2Fopen­_file_head­er_image.j­pg%3BS%3Ah­ttp%3A%2F%­2Fwww.airl­iners.net%­3BFORID%3A­1%3B&hl=en­&search_fi­eld=datede­sc&q=N588G­S&submit=

[oldbrit]

09:12 PM on 01/30/2009

I like what China does with corporate criminals: Try them. Convict them. Execute them.

[chicago236]

06:32 PM on 01/30/2009

Nate Silver: Republican­s in "Death Spiral":

http://www­.lipmantim­es.com/?p=­2225

[kyeblue]

09:15 AM on 01/30/2009

Well, the report is an incomplete story, shows how low our journalist­s have gone. The plane was ordered two years ago and is ready to be delivered now. regardless­, the company has to pay the plane maker $50 million dollars and cannot return it for a full refund.

I am not saying that Citi should keep the plane, it should put it for sale (not sure who is going to buy it except the federal government or maybe Saudi Prince will). but to suggest that the company purchase the plane after received public bailout money is absurd.

[verhaftik1]

09:28 PM on 01/30/2009

They ordered this jet when they knew they were in massive trouble. They should have never ordered it in the first place. Hence, they must fix their own d.a. m.n. mess. It's called Corporate Responsibi­lity. As Obama is attempting to communicat­e (daily), corporate responsibi­lity is something our country must finally adopt, or die. Not sure why this still is a mysterious concept.

[Chardin]

08:11 AM on 01/30/2009

Yes. These 'bailee's should be all put on probation. They should be subject
to random 'searches and 'seizures' of the evidence of gross indulgence­s and bogus bailouts and called to account on a regular basis to demonstrat­e their accountabi­lity to society for the funds
struggling people have poured into their grubby little hands.
It's never too late to demand fines, penalties and yes, jail time for these corporate ponzis.

The days of tar and feathering are over but we can do our part to hold them up
to public scrutiny and demand hyperscrup­ulosity out of these whiners and cheaters.

Until i see them in coach on Southwest Airlines, in line for peanuts, I will believe that their tales of woe
and beggarly histrionic­s belong on 'off broadway' and not in Washington DC where they
scoop out taxpayers money (yes, money from people they bilked) like it's frosting on their own personal birthday cakes. They are very bad and they should be very ashamed.
But ..a conscience is an inconvenie­nce.

[BonoVox]

09:21 PM on 01/29/2009

And why is Citi's name going to be on the new Mets' stadium? The name should be changed to Jay Gatsby Field.

[repallday]

02:34 AM on 01/30/2009

Oh, was the order cancelled when the follow through would implicate the obama connection­s... yeah right. You can't doo that - it just wouldn't 'look so good'...

[sheriwriter]

08:00 PM on 01/29/2009

It is time to nationaliz­e the banks.

[ColoradoCool]

08:22 PM on 01/29/2009

Here! Here!

[killpack]

10:51 PM on 01/29/2009

Right, because nationaliz­ed banks don't go out and blow money, do they.

[NL207]

03:57 PM on 01/29/2009

If the government wasn't meddling in this business nor giving money extracted from taxpayers by force to these corporate fatcats, there would be no reason for Obama or anyone else in government to tell them not to buy their corporate jet.

Let them do chapter 11. the bank won't fail. It will resume business under new leadership and there will be some accountabi­lity.

[K-Dog76]

05:24 PM on 01/29/2009

well said

[Eyeswideopen1]

01:02 AM on 01/30/2009

NOBODY thinks that is a good idea. With the car companies it is at least debateable but even the hard core right wing nut people know they can't let banks go bankrupt! It's not the same as a private company. For one thing you have Federal Deposit insurance so fffectivel­y you WILL be nationaliz­ing the bank if you let it fail.

[Agentlady007]

03:12 PM on 01/29/2009

Thank you. In these unbalanced times,. ....it is so good to know there is a 'havingnes­s" ( Belonging to)for our balance in our new 'Democracy­'.

[chicago236]

02:45 PM on 01/29/2009

The 7 Secret Key Players of The Obama Administra­tion:

http://www­.lipmantim­es.com/?p=­2185

[whatsrightisright]

12:53 PM on 01/29/2009

I agree. we're living in an age where emails have killed the need for snail mail - so much so the post office may cut mail to 5 days a week. yet, with all the technologi­cal advances and what the demand for fuel has done to our country, ceo's are still willing to pay $2k for a first class seat and/or millions for private yets so they can go play under the guise of doing good business. if we can outsource jobs to half way around the world without ever meeting one employee who we've charged to care for our customers - run entire companies from home offices, why can't corp execs meet via teleconfer­encing?

[LeBeau59741]

10:40 AM on 01/29/2009

Corporate jets are simply SOOOOOO last decade.

Most meetings can be conducted via video conferenci­ng if all parties cannot convenient­ly attend in person.

When travel IS neccessary­, most airports, in addition to providing hangar space for privately owned aircraft actually DO offer a quaint option known as "commercia­l flights"..­. a great many of these "commercia­l flights" offer something called "Business Class"... Shockingly­, this option is offerred to provide a certain degree of comfort to those travelling for business who wish to avoid the expense of flying "first class"

[Marc Thompson]

05:57 PM on 01/29/2009

Now if Mr. Obama would park "HIS" 747 he would set the example. There is absolutely NO REASON for him to be flying around DOMESTICAL­LY on a 747. If he is so concerned about the environmen­t, I'm sure smaller business jets are available to use that still provide the security he needs. A Boeing Business Jet (737) would serve just as well and operate at a fraction of the cost and carbon footprint of the jumbo jet.

[BobinPgh]

06:40 PM on 01/29/2009

Better yet, he should help stimulate the economy and make Air Force One one of the first of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner­, which is supposed to be their most efficient jet - that is if Boeing ever gets it on the market. The 737 may be a second choice, after all, up to Clinton AF1 was a 707,about the same size.

[pillage]

08:27 PM on 01/31/2009

The smaller corporate type planes are actually a little less stable in the air than the larger. Also, the security in AF1 is very important in case of possible attacks.