Having always flown economy I recently took advantage of a cheap, domestic upgrade to business class. I had to work while on the plane and I was noticeably more productive on the flight and less fatigued than I normally would be in economy. So I think there is an argument to be made for the following categories of trips to be a step above economy:

* when the traveller is expected to get work done on the flight * when the time at the destination is short (1-3 days) and is densely packed * when the traveller is moving immediately from flying to being productive on the ground

Otherwise after flying economy it would only take a good, relaxed meal and/or a 20 minute catnap to bring me to post-business class levels of productivity.

And I agree there. If people are flouting the rules, that's an issue. However, the article seems to both say that some specific people spend to much on travel (which I can agree with), and overall shouldn't be spending as much on travel (which I disagree).

WHO is a still a political organization, which works on medical issues.

But the WHO is not a charity. It is more something akin to the World Bank, UN, or IMF. Members typically fly businesses class.

Who are the traveling expenses going to, though? WHO staff is one thing, outside experts and representatives are another. And the latter is 60% off their costs, according to the WHO.