General Motors Nabs Delta Airlines Executive for New CFO

General Motors Co. named Paul Jacobson executive vice president and chief financial officer on Friday, Oct. 30. The 48-year-old executive will assume his new role on Dec. 1, reporting to Chief Executive Mary Barra.

Paul Jacobson (Photo
Courtesy General Motors)

Jacobson is a veteran of Delta Air Lines, Inc., a company Wall Street widely considers the best managed U.S. airline, and the most profitable carrier of the past decade.

He played a large role in that success as Delta Air Lines' CFO. He helped transform Delta Air Lines into one of Fortune Magazine's Top 50 most Admired Companies for six consecutive years, and the top-ranked airline for eight years, GM stated.

He was also named the airline industry’s best CFO eight times by Institutional Investor magazine’s poll of Wall Street analysts and investors.

“Paul is a great addition to the GM senior leadership team and is dedicated to leading the company for the benefit of all stakeholders – customers, employees, suppliers, communities and shareholders,” Barra said. “We share a commitment to teamwork and inclusion as we work toward our vision of a future with zero crashes, zero emissions and zero congestion."

After announcing his retirement in February, Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastien invited him to reconsider retiring and Jacobson had agreed to rescind his retirement and continue as CFO. Now, he's moving to GM as the airline industry struggles through a global pandemic.

Jacobson joined Delta as a financial analyst in 1997, and held several positions there, including senior vice president and treasurer, before becoming chief financial officer in March 2012.

This change in leadership is not the first upper-level management shake-up at GM. In April the Detroit-based company announced three new senior executive appointments, including additions from Proctor & Gamble.

Jacobson will replace Dhivya Suryadevara, who left GM in August for Silicon Valley payments startup Stripe. Standing CFO John Stapleton, acting CFO since August, will continue as North America chief financial officer when Jacobson steps in next month.

U.S. Army awarded GM Defense LLC, $214.3M production contract to build, field, and sustain the Army’s new ISV. (Photo Courtesy General Motors)

Jacobson will help GM rapidly build scale in vehicle electrification and autonomous technologies.

Earlier this year the automotive giant was awarded a $214.3 million contract to produce the U.S. Army's Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV).  The company's solution to the Army’s next-generation transportation needs is based off the 2020 Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 midsize truck architecture. It also leverages 90 percent commercial off-the-shelf parts, including dual spool-valve dampers and suspension components that can be found at established military suppliers.

Under new leadership, we hope to see more autonomous technology from GM in government contracting and the commercial arenas.

Why are Aircraft Fuel Tanks Located in the Wings?

When I first started learning to fly, nothing made me feel more bad-ass than hoisting myself up to stand on the strut of a Cessna 172 to check the fuel tanks. I don’t know if it was the feeling of being taller than my flight instructor for once or the fact that I was power posing like Captain Morgan that made me feel so mighty, but it’s always my favorite part of the preflight check.

Throughout training, I never thought about the mechanical marvel that wing tanks were or the compounds that make them possible. It wasn’t until years later as my sister and I refueled a plane on a cross country that I started to think about the why fuel tanks are being concealed in the wing.

Let me preface the situation by saying it is so difficult to lug a fuel hose and climb up the side of an high-wing aircraft when you have absolutely no arm strength.

So as I struggled to balance the heavy hose and my body weight against the plane, I thought, “Maybe it makes sense for low-wing aircraft, but why would someone put these tanks so dang high?”

I was curious (or angry that this simple task made left me sweating before hopping back into a non-air-conditioned plane) and decided to put in some research.

Wet wings, or integral fuel tanks situated in the wing, are staple structures in many commercial aircraft. These tanks are areas inside the wing structure itself that have been sealed and allow fuel storage. It’s commonly used in larger aircraft - just look outside the next time your commuter jet is being refueled, their tanks are also in the wing.

The technique I thought was over-engineered in my training aircraft is actually well designed to eliminate the need for separate fuel bladders. This is important for three key reasons:

1. Efficient Weight and Balance. Useable fuel accounts for a majority of the aircraft’s weight - you want to make sure you’re getting the most out of your storage space. Bladders not only contribute extra weight and reduce the useful load, but they aren’t as space-efficient. Keep in mind, the place where that heavy fuel is situated is important because that fuel keeps aircraft centre of gravity more or less in the desired position. Integral fuel tanks are all-around more efficient to maximize maximise the structural volume of the aircraft and airplane performance.

2. Reduce Wing Flutter. Another factor contributing to performance; the weight of the fuel provides more rigidity to the wing than if it were hollow, thereby reducing vibration caused by airflow over the wings. While wing flutter will always be a factor, reducing the effect is ideal. Large flutter can be so hazardous that it could result in a total collapse of the wing. Storing fuel in the wings actually makes your aircraft safer!

3. Manageable Leaks. While fixing a leak in these tanks may be impractical, as they’re sealed from the inside, the fuel from a leak is discharged externally rather than withing the cabin of the aircraft. Imagine smelling AvGas for your entire 1.5 hour training flight! Not fun. This varies according to different aircraft manuals, but most of the time if you’re ok with wiping off occasional stains or living wiht a few drips, it’s possible to go several years without major consequences.

One issue with these tanks is that they are more difficult to fix in the event of a leak. Since the tank is part of the aircraft structure, it cannot be removed without removing the entire wing. Every rivet, bolt, nut plate, hose and tube that penetrates the metal of the wing must be sealed watertight to prevent fuel seeping around these hardware components.

On the bright side, properly sealed wet wings can last for decades. Polysulfide sealant, like that PPG and PRC Desoto create, can last for 35 years or longer!

While I still strongly dislike having to weakly refuel a high-wing aircraft, I would much rather struggle for a few minutes than share a cabin with a fuel tank. These wet tanks also give me a great reason to pose like a sea captain with an intense smolder before every flight - and for me, that is enough.