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.