Boeing executives are getting to know their products and those of competitors like they've probably never done before after their new boss all but grounded the company's fleet of Challenger 650 business jets. Bloomberg used ADS-B tracking sites to deduce that use of the Challengers has dropped 80 percent with just 29 flights in October compared to 149 in August. Instead of red carpets and catered meals, the 19 C-suite staff are munching pretzels in Economy with the customers of their customers on the planes their company makes along with those from Airbus, Embraer and other competitors.
At least occasionally being as close to product, customers and competition as reasonably possible is probably a good idea for all bosses, if just to check on whether their middle management reports the truth or what they are supposed to want to hear.
One wonders how much money is saved by having high-salaried management members standing in line in airports, shoes in hand. Hardly their fault that airline travel has turned into an ordeal.
It would hardly make sense to have execs loitering around airports turning a four-hour trip into a daylong waste of time. Maybe the execs just didnāt have a reason to fly anywhere that month. That sometimes happens in the GA world. And I would add these jets not only transport execs but often times technicians and engineers. There seems to be a lot of assumptions in this story. It will be interesting to see if the Challengers return to a normal schedule weāll read anything about it.
Iād chalk it up to ātuitionā for the execs to learn what their ultimate customers go through to get on one of their planes. Perhaps an idea or two will percolate on how to make the whole process more pleasant.
When I flew a King Air for FlightSafety Services Co. the total trip cost had to come in under the cost of airline tickets. That generally only happened when visiting the simulator sites, e.g., Denver to San Antonio, to Wichita, to Grand Forks and return. It was sad to think of a corporate VP sitting in St. Louis airport for several hours because it was cheaper than flying him directly to NY. Salary was never part of the equation.
I am retired Boeing. For 8 years I worked directly for a Senior Level Director (one step below VP level). Perk of the office for him was business or first class travel. He always worked company business on the flights and he said he had to be very careful who was sitting next to him to avoid visual spying. On many occasions that we traveled together, he booked me the adjoining seat so that we could talk business and business work on our laptops. My boss told me that most execs worked this way while traveling. I enjoyed the perk because when I traveled by myself, it was back of the plane for me, sigh.
Corporate aircraft provide a secure environment for executives to work, and today allowing them to stay in touch via phone, text, e-mails, even video conferences.
Some business aircraft are indeed used for the business.
GTE Northwest telco, TC Tel, and BC Hydro used them regularly. A specialist could be taken to a location to do her work, the airplane would move around the region/province transporting other people and needed parts, then pick her up on the way back to HQ town before night.
Generous Motors had a fleet of airplanes ferrying people and parts in the NE US and ON/PQ, IIRC twin Convairs circa 1970s-80s,
I am receptive to talk about saving time of individuals, but also suggest that it would be good for Boeing executives to see first hand what crew and pax face in using their products.
It could be that the new boss has got it right. Executives can and will work as conditions permit. They too have a huge stake in turning Boeing into a profitable enterprise. All the top folk need to understand the entire business to make meaningful contributions and suggestions. Good for Mr. Ortberg.
I worked for Boeing from 1981 to 2017, and NEVER got anything but an economy seat. Typical trips were from Seattle to DC.
Back when I started, I asked if Boeing had any ābusinessā jets (this was well before the BBJ). Was told that Boeing didnāt, as they wanted to appear to be supporting their airline customers.
Was also told that, if an executive needed to go somewhere, somehow there would be a not-yet-delivered airliner in pre-delivery testing that was going to where they needed to beā¦
Sadly, the choice is almost always between (a) flying commercial with four-hour connections, and (b) the largest possible business jet.
Thereās a huge in-between area. Letās start with luxuriant piston singles like the Piper M series. Then you have piston twins like the cabin class Cessnas and Pipers. Single turboprops from Piper, Pilatus and others. Twin turboprops like the King Air someone mentioned.
All of them have operating costs far, far lower than Boeingās Challenger 650s. They consume less fuel, leave behind fewer tons of greenhouse gases, leave behind more money to run the company, and so on.
Iād love it if executives would say, āThe trip is only 500 miles. Letās take the Malibu.ā