Fairness is a question of ethics, not a question of how much money a company is making. An ethical decision might actually cost the company money, but still be the right thing to do.
Distributing the profits of the company more equitably among its employees is arguably the right thing to do, whether or not it results in a greater profit for the company.
That said, with CEO salaries being as astronomical as they are, it's doubtful whether paying them substantially less so that the rest of the employees will be paid more will result in any serious negative impact on the company's profits. Even a tenth of an astronomical salary is still an astronomical salary, and there'll always be supremely qualified people lining up around the block to take those jobs.
It is therefor the charge of the political system to set boundary conditions to shape the optimal point to be ethical (and, at the same time, capable to survive in the world) That's, for example, the idea behind social market economy as in Germany.
Remember, Jobs’ choices were controversial. No stylus!
The question in determining the fairness of a 1000x CEO pay is, to what extent the success is attributible to that CEO. It WIDELY varies. Some CEOs inherit money machines.
People don’t realise, pay, for the masses who dont participate in stock or profit sharing, is ONLY a function of market rates for your role and your salary negotiation.