Starbucks' new CEO will supercommute 1,000 miles from California to Seattle
Starbucks' new CEO will supercommute 1,000 miles from California to Seattle
Brian Niccol’s arrangement underscores the gulf in bargaining power between high-ranking executives and the average employee in terms of flexibility.
Newly appointed Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol won’t be required to relocate to the company’s headquarters in Seattle when he joins the coffee giant next month.
Instead, Starbucks says Niccol can live in his home in Newport Beach, California and commute to Starbucks’ head office 1,000 miles away on a corporate jet, according to the new CEO’s offer letter, which was made public in an SEC filing last week.
In his new role, Niccol, 50, will be paid a base salary of $1.6 million annually and has the opportunity to earn an annual cash bonus that could range from $3.6 million to $7.2 million depending on his performance. He will also be eligible for annual equity awards worth up to $23 million.
You're viewing a single thread.
A few questions here:
- Why the fuck does Starbucks have a corporate jet? I know they're a global company, but surely the CEO doesn't need to be abroad that often?
- Why would a company subsidise travel for a CEO to the tune of (likely) as much as he would get paid in a salary? If I were to tell my employer "I want to supercommute it'll cost you $100k" I'd be laughed out. Hell, if I asked for $100 I'd probably be laughed out of the room...
Jets aren't even remotely cheap to run. They cost millions, they cost tens of thousands to operate, and that doesn't include personnel costs or costs regarding runway rental or the kind of shit a CEO would need while in the air.
Also, how many million tonnes of CO2 will this dump into the high atmosphere every year?
This is an unfortunately normal perk for c-level execs at major corporations. I’d be surprised if Starbucks only had one. He also most certainly has a driver (likely with military experience), and an apartment at the Ritz or similar in Seattle - all covered by the company.
For the reasons you mentioned I would hope this just means chartering flights. Owning a jet seems like the entire purpose is to flaunt how much money you can spend frivolously.
Guess what C-level execs like to do?
There was a real estate group I was interviewing with a while ago that was not particularly big and they owned a jet. Obviously not a 737 or anything but Bombardier makes jets that are smaller. Still expensive to run but C-level execs have convinced idiot boards members (who also ride around on the keys) that they are totally necessary.