“The short version is that any multi-hundred-billion-dollar company that sends its CEO around on commercial airlines is grossly irresponsible.”
I don’t think anyone has a beef with a profitable company owning a corporate jet and flying anyone they wish on it.
The problem is when your company is technically, if not actually bankrupt - and the government is providing the cash that keeps your bankrupt enterprise afloat. In this case, a company will be criticized for spending money flying their CEO on a corporate jet, because, the government gave them the money.
This is not class envy - if an enterprise is bankrupt, the CEO should be flying economy class (if at all) - and preserving capital above all else.
Congress, when controlled by democrats, will flying the wings off of any jet they can get their hands on.
“This is not class envy - if an enterprise is bankrupt, the CEO should be flying economy class (if at all) - and preserving capital above all else.”
I understand how appearances are, but in reality, if you are dealing with a business with 9-digit daily revenues, it is just crazy to stick top officers in the commercial air travel grinder to chew up their productive hours (even without delays/cancellations). It is just crazy. These people make decisions with tremendous economic impact on the company. You cannot risk what amounts to a few days a year minimum spent dealing with commercial air travel crap, and that is assuming no overnights in hub cities, missing important meetings, etc. The potential financial risk to the company exceeds the cost of the chartered/whatever flight hugely, at least for top officers. How many people deserve/need such access is another matter for debate.
To address the class-warfare rhetoric directly, as I noted on the example, would the house banking committee have been sympathetic if one of their 8 punching bags had been a no-show because of weather in ORD causing a canceled connecting flight?