Obviously the number, length, and complexity of flights would have a big impact as well. For 1 or 2 round-trip domestic flights per week, it should be doable.
Source: Had a friend who worked on several private flight crews that operated like this.
Edit: They mostly worked with clients in the $100MM/yr range, who tended to treat their staff like garbage and consequently had high turnover. Über-rich lurkers, YMMV.
The billionaires I've met, who by and large own and don't rent, have what I'd call three distinct use cases for private air travel: business, social, and family. Business travel can range from more or less daily to at least 3x per week. Family travel is less frequent and generally limited to whole-family trips, but said trips can and do occur a lot more frequently when you have those means. And then there are what I'd call social trips -- a bucket into which I'd lump anything from charity events, to fundraisers in DC, to golf tournaments, to spur-of-the-moment trips to the house in Aspen or the Hamptons.
Said billionaires, if asked, would consider most of the above to be business trips, because their business lives never stop, and some measure of business is usually baked into most trips -- even if it's a quick stop at one city to conduct business before heading on to the vacation spot.
There aren't very many of these jobs going around at any given time, and they involve exhaustive security and background clearances. You are also privy to a ridiculous amount of inside info flying these guys around everywhere, and you need to be trustworthy, i.e., come with references from other billionaires and such. It's a very hard world to break into, and if flying commercial paid better than this did, no one would bother trying.
That's worth a lot to a billionaire.
A pilot has your life in their hands. Smaller jets can be very 'shifty' when landing which is scary. Also you want a pilot that can land anywhere.
Not a cent of the money is in any way wasted.
I'm reminded of the Maryland luxury tax, which allegedly crippled their boat building industry and put a lot of middle class people out of their jobs. I say allegedly because I remember the story, not the source that confirmed that there weren't other coinciding factors.
Fuel and depreciation is simply wealth being destroyed.
Presuming so would also argue that the majority of human endeavor is also waste; everything from entertaining TV shows to having small animals as pets to music lessons to trips to private space flight to works of fiction.
Cash for clunkers is an example of the fallacy, operating a vehicle (be it a car or jet) for work/pleasure is not.
You're moralizing the issue, which points to the fact that most of what you said is nothing more than a personal subjective judgement. For someone with that wealth, it's not usually going to be a wasteful extravagance at all.
Billionaires are like large corporations unto themselves. Their business interests are of the scale of small companies in the S&P 500.
Take Patterson Companies, an S&P 500 company, among the smallest with a $3.4 billion market cap. $3.4 billion in wealth isn't enough to get you onto the Bloomberg global richest 500 list.
By contrast, Henry Kravis of KKR fame, is worth $5.x billion (merely #345 on the billionaire list). It makes perfect sense for someone with his large business interests to utilize a personal jet for optimization of time. It's about as wasteful as an average person in the developed world owning a car. Oh those average people in the developed world, living that luxurious extravagant life in which they own a car (or a home, gasp!).
Indeed it was, I was offering my own considered opinion, not some absolute universal truth.
No surprise such opinions don't go down favourably on HN though. Amidst all the interesting technical and scientific discussion, there are disappointing overtones of wealth worship, and a weird cult-like following of billionaire entrepreneurs.
I reckon it is a good investment for many CEOs. There time is worth FAR MORE to their companies than whatever a jet costs to run, the saved time is invaluable as is the clarity that comes with better conditions when flying.
Cuz it was important.
Many people schedule meetings to end right before they have to leave for the airport and catch the last flight back home for another important meeting the next day. Would prefer that someone making decisions impacting the livelihoods of thousands of people each day is focused on the issue at hand, not catching the next flight.
Being able to show up, in-person, walk around, shake hands, interview the customer, look them in the eye, walk their factory floor or otherwise see things first hand and then still make it home to put the kids in bed is far more impression setting than dialing into a video call.
What little I've used mine for business, being able to be out and back the same day, direct, makes it more likely that I'll bother to show up (vs call or visit annually). Video conferences are better than phone calls, but a poor substitute for an in-person visit.
Not saying every meeting has technical issues, or even most of them, but some do and finding a technology that everyone who needs to be in the meeting can use given different corporate standards is a PITA.
It's still also no substitute for meeting face to face over the long term.
(If you own your own jet, it's always where you want it, you can decorate it the way you want, and you can leave your stuff in its bedroom and living room. It's like having a pied-à-terre in a city instead of renting a hotel room each time you visit.)
The operating cost of a jet that's actually ready at your beck and call also includes its crew. That's maybe another $200k/year, or 4% annual interest on $5M principal, so add another ~$5M to the wealth required in order not to go broke this way. (Disclaimer: I unfortunately have neither the practical experience nor finance knowledge to know if I've used the right fully burdened labor costs and multiplier, but it's going to be in that ballpark.)