In THIS case
Originally Posted by jcat
Whether it makes sense to use corporate jets is irrelevant, as it's the public's perception that counts.
, yes, I agree. As I said, it was a stupid public relations move. It's the perception that counts with respect to getting their request approved.
But it's not irrelevant that yet one more lie is trotted out by legislators in order to push their own agendas.
|not even attempting to give the impression that they were "jet pooling" their way down to D.C.. .
Actually there are very good reasons to not do that as well, which I didn't put in my op-ed piece. First - there's a strong probability it may be in violation of Federal anti-trust laws for the heads of competing business in the same sector to be together in the same airplane; I do believe they can't meet together in private without some non-affiliated or some non-interested oversight, and this would certainly qualify. Second, many companies have operating policies that forbid the very top executive personnel from all travelling together in the same airplane, in case the airplane crashes and all the top management is wiped out. This would certainly apply as well to the top executives of multiple companies travelling, I would think.
So, again, it's public misperception that is levered to the advantage of legislators for their benefit.
You know what will be ironic, is if they charter an airplane to fly down to their next appearance so they won't be seen debarking from their own company airplanes. How much you want to be that will be an airliner-type aircraft and that the cost is going to be many times the cost of flying the company airplane.....all for PUBLIC RELATIONS....so they can be seen "jet pooling"
It's totally ridiculous what is done for appearances. Nevertheless, they all should have realized that and done it the first time. Oh well, I suppose they're all going to be unemployed within the next few months, anyway.
I guess my main point is that these CEOs coming to Washington, from their point of view, was just normal company operations. Yes, it was stupid and shows their lack of foresight and lack of understanding to be able to see that it would be a PR disaster. It shouldn't necessarily be seen as arrogance and disdain. And the secondary point is to say that on the other side, the legislators milked it for all it was worth (as should have also been foreseen.) Both sides are out of line, but only one side gets tarred and feathered for it.