Attacking business aircraft today is really counter productive anyway if the aim is to help the “little guy.” If companies can’t own business airplanes, what does that do to the thousands of jobs building, servicing and operating these aircraft?

We taxed owners of yachts a few years ago with the same idiotic belief that “rich guys” should pay so “common people” wouldn’t have to. And “common people” lost their jobs building and maintaining these boats.

It takes thousands of “common people” to design and built private aircraft. Then it takes thousands more to maintain and operate them.

Unlike your family car, you don’t just fix an airplane when it breaks. It has to be inspected every so-many hours and, at set intervals, it has to be completely torn down and rebuilt to like-new standards.

The time between overhauls, or TBO, varies by make and model. But each of these activities employs hundreds of people – people who would lose their jobs if the airplanes went away.

It’s been said one should be careful of what he wishes for.

        Do we really want business aviation to disappear?

needs to remain productive. 

I got a real lesson about the value of large salaries when I lived for years in Arlington.

Nolan Ryan was acquired by the home-town Texas Rangers and it was clear that he could put 5,000 seats in seats at the stadium when he pitched. At $50 per seat, if he pitched every fifth game, the increase in the gate alone would put $8 million more in the owners’ pockets.

But CEOs today are a popular whipping boy for everything that has gone wrong in the economy, much of the concern driven by class envy.

And any business with a “bizjet” is being attacked as wasteful in these days of economic “crisis,” to use a word our new President uses ad nauseam these days.

Yet President Obama flew the biggest, most expensive “private jet” there is – two of them, in fact – just to sign the “stimulus“ bill in Colorado and then announce a new bailout in Arizona.

The latter was $50 billion for mortgage holders and $200 billion more for Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, the two government programs directly responsible for much of the meltdown.

Yes, two “Air Force Ones” were used just to get a “backdrop” for the signing and the announcement. A spare always accompanies the first airplane – both Boeing 747 jumbo jets – when the President uses it for a trip, though it is only officially designated Air Force One when the President is on board.

I do not fault the Office of the President for using the jumbo jets for trips. He needs to be safe and he needs the communications equipment on board to stay on top of things.

But appealing to everybody to tighten their belts and attacking those who operate Cessna, Lear or other small jets was not the right time to fly a 3,500-mile round trip on two 747s, just to get a “backdrop” for the chief executive.

 

aircraft to plead for billions of dollars in bailout money.

To be sure, it was an abysmally stupid PR move on their parts. But there is a legitimate business reason for owning aircraft.

Companies own airplanes simply because they provide top company personnel with tools to help them do their jobs better.

There also have been attacks on CEOs themselves because they normally command hefty salaries and often get generous bonuses.

But if a guy can go to a meeting and bring home a multi-million dollar sale, his pay is well earned. If a business aircraft can get him to that meeting and on to another huge sale, that tool has begun to pay for itself. 

And business aviation is involved in much more than just executive transport. It is a valuable tool for law enforcement, emergency medical and firefighting, logging, ranching and dozens of other uses.

To be sure, there have been some abuses and the legitimate question of why one should get a bonus when the company is going into the tank.

But the leader of a profitable company should be paid what he is worth. And he should get the tools he

By JIM STREET

Ed & Pub

As someone who covered aviation for many years, I am well aware of attacks going back almost to the beginning on private aviation by those who do not understand and probably don’t want to understand.

But business aviation – “private jets,” as they are referred to – is under attack as never before.

The newest fuse was when the CEOs of the Big Three automakers came to Washington in their corporate

To the Editor,

I take exception with your editorial, “Who’s more equal than others?” News Leader, Feb. 6, Page 2.

You use the term “equality” too broadly when insisting that those who use it mean that “nobody should be any better than anyone else.”

The ideal in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” is equality of justice and opportunity.

It has long been acknowledged by political analysts that imperfections such as Jefferson’s ownership of slaves do not detract from accepting the Declaration as an ideal toward which we should strive.

The equality sought by those pursuing the ideal has always aimed at equality at the bottom: access to opportunity and equality before the courts, whether born to poverty or wealth, whether blue-collar or white-collar or whether a high official - as in “even Presidents are not above the law.”

Your use of the term “college education” is too narrow.

Modern usage includes the baccalaureate degree as well as degrees from “vocational-technical colleges,” often providing higher incomes.

Unfortunately, our higher education policy excludes opportunities to pursue these much-needed skills in vo-tech colleges.

All people need the opportunity for acquiring skills necessary for higher paying jobs.

We are not “all born with equal opportunities,” as you state.

Those born to low-income families with differing ethnicities and genders, with poor health and more do not have the same chances as others.

Without opportunity, one cannot work hard with dedication, nor can one practice, practice and practice, until one becomes uncommonly skilled.

An ideal of our society has long been to improve equality of opportunity – not equality of outcome – for all.

Your reference to Tony Dungy to make your point about the value of striving, hard work, dedication and practice in pursuit of perfection is intriguing.

Dungy was a beneficiary of the “Rooney Rule” in which NFL owners must interview minority applicants when selecting coaches.

Prior to the Rooney Rule, for which Dungy was appreciative and supportive, Dungy would not have had an opportunity to achieve success though his hard work.

Why should we not, as a just and fair society, provide more opportunity?

To continue your use of the NFL, consider that Herm Edwards and Romeo Crennel were beneficiaries of the Rooney Rule, both becoming head coaches of the Kansas City Chiefs and Cleveland Browns respectively. And both were fired at the end of this season for failure to be successful.

Providing opportunity does not guarantee equality of success. But, with opportunity, Edwards and Crennel had a chance they would not otherwise have had.

Producing selective examples of people who abuse their opportunity – sure, some do but they are the few – does an injustice to the majority who, when provided a chance, work hard and become better.

It is illogical  -- cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face – to deny opportunity to all to punish the few abusers.

Such practice of punishing all for the sins of the few is a direct violation of the principle of justice.

A better and more just practice would be to provide opportunity broadly and seek out the specific abusers and punish them individually.

When we as a society provide opportunity, we help ourselves.

One example, not known widely enough, is the WW II-era GI Bill. For every $1 spent to finance the bill, the net return to the US was approximately $7 through more productive people, higher revenues, etc.

President Obama and all those liberals so many despise are attempting to provide opportunity to those without opportunity and those in difficult situations through no mistake of their own.

Most will do better as a result. A few will abuse their chance.

Who, other than government, is big enough to make a difference?

So government becomes bigger. The more important question is not whether government is big but how well does it govern and for whom?

Should the ideal be “government for the people” as expressed by Lincoln?

Or should it be, as described by the Populist orator Mary Ellen Lease, “a government of Wall Street by Wall Street and for Wall Street?”

Big government is here to stay. The only question is: whom will it serve and how well?

I recommend to all readers the New York Times #1 Best Seller “Outliers: The Story of Success” by Malcolm Gladwell.

Gladwell documents that success in all walks of life, Silicon Valley, athletics, fine arts, etc., “is a collective effort” by others who provide opportunity in a protective, supportive community and oneself for the hard work and dedication to develop one's ability.

There are no “self made men.” We need each other.

David E. Wright, Jr.

Weatherford, OK

 

ANGLETON – A private memorial service was yesterday, Feb. 26, here for Jimmie Malone Bauguss of Brazoria, formerly of Sanderson, who died Friday, Feb. 20.

She was born in San Antonio on July 24, 1924, to James Nathaniel Malone and Ruby Estelle Malone. 

Jimmie served as the organist for the First Baptist Church of Sanderson for many years.  She was known for her music and her southern style cooking, especially her pecan pie.

Jimmie married the love of her life, Hewitt L. Bauguss, Sr., on December 31, 1940.  They were married for 68 years.

She was preceded in death by her parents, James and Ruby Malone, brother N.B. Malone, son-in-law Charles R. Rodefeld and great-grandchild Lila B. Becker.

She is survived by her husband; one son, Hewitt L. and Jackie Bauguss, Jr., of Sealy; two daughters, Sheila A. and Jimmy Lowe of Angleton and Deanna S. Rodefeld of Angleton; five grandchildren, Jeffery L. Bauguss, Tammy Sellers, Wendy Chancey, Kimberly Rodefeld and Kourtney Rodefeld, and six great-grandchildren, Joshewa and Clint Lowe, Brittni and Nicholas Guenot and Tyler and Ryan Bauguss. 

The family offered a special “Thank You” to Susan Ayres of Brazosport Regional Home Health who not only provided nursing care but whose friendship Jimmie cherished.

In lieu of flowers, memorials may be made in Jimmie’s name to the Houston Hospice, 1905 Holcombe, Houston, Texas 77030.