Sounds like the WaPo wanted to sting Elon with a piece about his conspicuous consumption. You gotta laugh at the "thousands of pounds of fuel" per hour the reporter cites, making it sound like a really, really big number. The general public doesn't measure fuel consumption in lbs/hr. Only pilots etc. do that. It's still a sizeable number: 450 gallons/hr for that 650ER which Musk travels in - or 2700 lbs/hr. But "thousands" of pounds makes it sound huge.

The other thing that's interesting about the article is that apparently Musk bad/Bezos good. Because Bezos made 100 fewer flights than Musk. Now does the reader of the article know that Jeff Bezos owns the WaPo and its reporters ***** lock, stock and barrel? Or that Amazon ships tons and tons of goods night and day on air cargo flights?

It's true that celebrities, billionaires or politicians tend to look at the world in a different way and don't measure themselves with the same yardstick that we regular people might. That said, you don't expect Barack and Michelle to travel coach or even first class do you? Any number of power players in Hollywood fly on "studio jets"; A-listers, producers, directors and studio heads. No mention of their travels.

Gotta wonder what prompted this sudden interest in Musk's travel habits from the WaPo? Does this paper track Leonardo DiCaprio's travels on his private jet or his private yacht, or how much of a carbon footprint he has? It's a flawed article because it takes aim at Musk vs generally going after any number of high and fast flyers out there.

Talk radio is really, really bad for its listners, it rots their minds from the inside out and makes them spout things like this.

 

I know what you mean, but if it turns out a resource is not that finite (hundreds of years) then what he says doesn't objectively represent reality. But I think that's probably what he believes, and of course he wants to sell his EVs.

As for Talk Radio, I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. Me, I wouldn't line my birdcage with the NYT. My next-door neighbor is a avid reader. We're good friends. Go figure.

 

Of course it does finite is finite regardless if that supply is 10 years or 400 years. You think it would be better to sit around and do nothing hoping that sustainable transport magically becomes reality?

 

I think the real question here - which I am surprised no one has mentioned yet - is fiduciary responsibility.

This is the issue, right here. If the trips are business-related, that's fine. Otherwise, I think it gets into a gray area.

That being said this article is being written in a shady way. If you read on, you find this:

So, there's a caveat to this whole issue - it may be overblown if Musk is being responsible with company funds.

 

Looking at something like a private jet from a financial/accounting perspective will almost never make sense. But from a time-saving perspective, you can't put a price on it. Most billionaire's have a busier schedule than the POTUS. Imagine having to keep that schedule AND fly commercial? It would be impossible.

 

Not quite. Many airlines have aircraft that they charter on special request. The Pope, for example, uses chartered Alitalia flights for most of his trips abroad.

 

The private jet thing is partly ego, I would guess but for many it's mostly about cost.

There are a great many folks who make $1,000,000 a year or over. That represents $500 an hour if one goes by the traditional work week. Private jets mean you fly by your own schedule, with very little downtime.

My lawyer sister billed out her time at about $1,000 an hour. She tracked her time in 10-minute increments. Seriously, flying commercially?