Recently it has become popular to point out CEOs of failing or struggling companies that use private aircraft. In fact they have been scoffed at and made to feel bad for the practice. I understand that it looks bad, considering it costs about $1000 a second to run a private plane. With all this talk it makes the president's choice of new helicopters more interesting. Admittedly this contract is the result of a Bush administration request. I understand the need for safety, but maybe there's a less expensive way of bringing about safety. If the president decides to go forward with new expensive helicopters should he not be ostracized the way these CEOs are - especially considering tomorrow he's signing a bill that's going to put the government nearly a trillion dollars more in debt?
My opinion is suspect, since I live in CT and know a large number of Sikorsky employees. But I have to say it makes sense to bring this project back to an American company. It made sense to reward an ally with this contact back during the Boom. During a recession, we want this money going to American workers... even if they wind up buying parts from Europe.
YanıtlaSilThis also seems like a good compromise between fiscal accountability and the needs of the future. It becomes another mini-stimulus package for the Northeast, while providing the tools that we need for a President presiding over the War on Terror (even if he doesn't believe in it).