The corporate jet: Necessity or ultimate executive toy?

The problem with these sort of articles talking about corporate perks is that they sensationalize issues without necessarily getting to the truth.

While it is necessary and important for Executives to justify their expenses, it is not necessarily wasting company money to use a corporate jet as opposed to the alternative forms of travel.

Do we really want our senior executives to wait around airports for flights, for connections, for delays?

Take one of the examples used in the article, Morgan Stanley CEO, Phillip Purcell. He is being paid a salary of approximately $6,000 per hour, and that ignores gains on stock options. I am not arguing with the salary here, it was set by his Board and accepted by his shareholders.

Assuming we do not want to ground him, do we really want Mr. Purcell to spend hours wasted during his travel, at that cost, especially when corporate jets enable him to continue working?

Sounds to me like a corporate jet is a cost saver!

OAM

Related links:
The corporate jet: Necessity or ultimate executive toy?