Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canoo spent double its annual revenue on the CEO's private jet

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 270 posts

Re: Canoo spent double its annual revenue on the CEO's private jet

#61

Post by skhunted »

dexterdog wrote: post #44
Workaccount2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A former president only stayed at properties owned by his company, billing the government millions in extra overhead. His voters love him.

I'm not fan of the guy by any measure, but how is this any different than the government paying to make any president's existing properties places where a president and his massive entourage can stay? It's been done by every president I can remember aside from maybe Clinton because I don't remember him having any significant places.

What other President profited from government employees being forced to rent rooms at his hotels? You really have to be deep in the cult to not see a problem with this.

Re: Canoo spent double its annual revenue on the CEO's private jet

#62

Post by bombcar »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #39
usrusr wrote: post #32

> Under a deal reached in November 2020, Canoo reimburses Aquila Family Ventures, an entity owned by the CEO, for use of an aircraft. Any guess how much of that money actually went into operating the aircraft, and how much was skimmed by the CEO? Madness either way, but we can't have it filed under the wrong kind of madness, right?

If he's skimming, it's not enough to immediately stand out. They reimbursed $1.3 - $1.8 million per year, which is about how much it costs to operate a private jet.

A random search indicates that the amount is well within annual parameters: https://www.libertyjet.com/jet-ownership-costs.aspx?jetType=...

Note that the capital outlay for a jet is a minor portion of the total operating budget over the years. Fuel and crew is the major component especially with smaller jets.

Re: Canoo spent double its annual revenue on the CEO's private jet

#63

Post by lionkor »

efnx wrote: post #31
gumptionary wrote: post #25

Tony Aquila is the CEO of both companies - Canoo and Aquila Family Ventures. I'll never understand why it's okay for CEOs to have multiple concurrent jobs, while one of the biggest fervors of the pandemic was when employees were found to have... multiple concurrent jobs.

Not sure why you’re getting downvoted as this is a legit question I’d like answered.

Yeah, but answered by who?

Re: Canoo spent double its annual revenue on the CEO's private jet

#64

Post by calvinmorrison »

benjlcox wrote: post #46
dgrin91 wrote: post #36

The headline is relatively clickbait-y. Its double their revenue because their revenue is basically 0. Their actual expenses are hundreds of millions, of which this 1.7 million is a drop in the bucket. Once their upfront expenses are paid they will (presumably) be making hundreds of millions/billions in revenue, which means this 1.7m is not particularly important. You can talk about standard complaints of CEOs with p…

$1.7 million is 1-3 employees working to ship your product. When you're company is on the edge of collapse you should have your priorities straight. Diverting company resources to your own private jet is a preposterous use of resources and, imo, speaks volumes about where Canoo is headed.

1.7 million is 1-3 employees? Jesus this place is so out of touch. I've worked at places with annuals between 1 and 5 million and none of them had less than 10 people. most between 15-30

Re: Canoo spent double its annual revenue on the CEO's private jet

#65

Post by pjerem »

dgrin91 wrote: post #36

The headline is relatively clickbait-y. Its double their revenue because their revenue is basically 0. Their actual expenses are hundreds of millions, of which this 1.7 million is a drop in the bucket. Once their upfront expenses are paid they will (presumably) be making hundreds of millions/billions in revenue, which means this 1.7m is not particularly important. You can talk about standard complaints of CEOs with p…

Well, the article also says that the plane isn't even owned by the company but by the CEOs family holding.

So even if it's "a drop in the bucket", it's also not really a company expense, just an outrageous compensation.

Re: Canoo spent double its annual revenue on the CEO's private jet

#66

Post by [deleted] »

blackhawkC17 wrote: post #19
nytesky wrote: post #6

Wow, it’s bad enough if they were NetJet fees. This is WeWork level sketch: “ Canoo reimburses Aquila Family Ventures, an entity owned by the CEO, for use of an aircraft” This is a PUBLIC company??

Such deals are reasonable under some circumstances. For example, Tesla pays SpaceX for Musk's travels on the SpaceX jet (whenever he travels for Tesla-related business). But definitely not for a company with just a few $100k in annual revenue that's teetering on bankruptcy. Not surprised it's a SPAC stock... Edit: Upon digging; I discovered that this CEO has invested $230 million+ in Canoo (from personal funds he mad…

[deleted]

Re: Canoo spent double its annual revenue on the CEO's private jet

#67

Post by edmundsauto »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #64
benjlcox wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$1.7 million is 1-3 employees working to ship your product. When you're company is on the edge of collapse you should have your priorities straight. Diverting company resources to your own private jet is a preposterous use of resources and, imo, speaks volumes about where Canoo is headed.

1.7 million is 1-3 employees? Jesus this place is so out of touch. I've worked at places with annuals between 1 and 5 million and none of them had less than 10 people. most between 15-30

This doesn’t change the point, which is to put your resources into wise areas. Additionally, I would say that 15-30 people for $1.7M is more out of touch than 1-3, if we’re talking about employees with potential to turn the business around.

Re: Canoo spent double its annual revenue on the CEO's private jet

#68

Post by pbhjpbhj »

blackhawkC17 wrote: post #47
gumptionary wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a totally fair point. The incongruity arises for me in that if I said in a job interview process that I'd be continuing to hold another position while adding this one, I'd get laughed out of the room. If it's critical that rank and file guys don't have divided time or loyalties, why is the standard different for the single person most responsible for success or failure of the company?

Aquila Family Ventures is basically a family office that the CEO likely just oversees but doesn't run day-to-day. It's a different thing than having multiple full-time jobs like Musk.

It's a shell company used to dodge taxes, presumably? Or something similarly nefarious; avoiding liabilities or whatever. Not really a company but a legal instrument.

Re: Canoo spent double its annual revenue on the CEO's private jet

#69

Post by imzadi »

dgrin91 wrote: post #36

The headline is relatively clickbait-y. Its double their revenue because their revenue is basically 0. Their actual expenses are hundreds of millions, of which this 1.7 million is a drop in the bucket. Once their upfront expenses are paid they will (presumably) be making hundreds of millions/billions in revenue, which means this 1.7m is not particularly important. You can talk about standard complaints of CEOs with p…

The $1.7m is being paid to the family holdings of the CEO to rent the jet already belonging to the CEO for the CEO. Plus an additional $1.7m to the same holdings for "support services."

Re: Canoo spent double its annual revenue on the CEO's private jet

#70

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

pjerem wrote: post #65
dgrin91 wrote: post #36

The headline is relatively clickbait-y. Its double their revenue because their revenue is basically 0. Their actual expenses are hundreds of millions, of which this 1.7 million is a drop in the bucket. Once their upfront expenses are paid they will (presumably) be making hundreds of millions/billions in revenue, which means this 1.7m is not particularly important. You can talk about standard complaints of CEOs with p…

Well, the article also says that the plane isn't even owned by the company but by the CEOs family holding. So even if it's "a drop in the bucket", it's also not really a company expense, just an outrageous compensation.

I think that makes it worse, tbh.

Like the guy already has a jet, which presumably he can afford to run.

Taking money out of an unprofitable company to pay for (somewhat) unreasonable personal expenses kinda feels off to me.

But then, maybe I'd feel differently if I had a private jet ;)

Post reply on HN