While I’m not one to typically bash the so-called mainstream media, this story has me fuming for a number of reasons. First, it’s not news. Of course people are still flying corporate. Did the writer really think the entire industry would vanish after the automakers flew to Washington? I just heard Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. Somebody should tell Reuters.
But of course this isn’t the real problem. The story is biased and is so clearly an attempt at eliciting an emotional response that it belongs on an editoral page, not as news. Come on, “highflying U.S. corporate chiefs”? I didn’t realize “highflying” was a title. Since when is it OK for a supposedly impartial news source to lead the reader to the writer’s intended conclusion? It’s absurd.
But if there was any doubt as to the story’s slant, we come to the end and realize there’s no question as to where the writer, editor, and therefore, Reuters, stands. Because the only evidence that’s given for the continuation of flying is the compensation survey. There’s no mention of the tens of thousands of jobs lost this year in general aviation. No mention of business aviation activity dropping off as much as 40 percent. There’s only a few numbers that say yes, CEOs at the largest 100 companies fly on corporate aircraft.
I’m sorry if the writer is so bitter with flying coach that he or she feels the need to start (continue?) class warfare on executives. But if truth and objectivity are the goals of a journalist, maybe the writer should learn to fly and realize the problem is not private aviation. Words are a powerful thing, especially to the hundreds of thousands of people around the country involved in GA that contribute billions to our national economy.