Starbucks has appointed a new CEO that pledges to “SuperCommute” 1,000 miles for three days weekly in the office. Is this unethical?
If you are considering booking travel or signing up for a new credit card please click here. Both support LiveAndLetsFly.com.
If you haven’t followed us on Facebook or Instagram, add us today.
Starbucks CEO’s Private Jet SuperCommute
Brian Niccol left Chipotle to run Starbucks this week and mentioned that he will be SuperCommuting the 1,000 mile journey from his California home three days weekly to the coffee chain’s Seattle headquarters.
“In Starbucks’ offer letter to Niccol, the company said: “During your employment with the company, you will not be required to relocate to the company’s headquarters… You agree to commute from your residence to the company’s headquarters (and engage in other business travel) as is required to perform your duties and responsibilities.”
The document also states that he will be eligible to use the company’s aircraft for “business related travel” and for “travel between [his] city of residence and the company’s headquarters.”
A Starbucks spokesperson clarified to CNBC that its new chief will still be expected to work from Starbucks’ Seattle office at least three days a week, in line with the company’s hybrid work policies. – Yahoo! Finance
The two-hour private jet flight from California to Seattle and back is not intended to be daily for three days each week but rather one roundtrip weekly but it could be as business requires.
The executive also SuperCommuted to Chipotle headquarters as he ran that company. Starbucks stock was initially up 25% on news of Niccol’s appointment.
Is It Ethical To Fly Private This Much?
Even for a travel blog with a history of mileage running, this seems excessive. It’s excessive for a few reasons but chiefly among them, running Starbucks should be worth relocating if even for a few years’ duration. Writing it into the contract, no doubt his stipulation and not theirs, is a pretty big ask and gives the sense that perhaps one foot is in and one is out of Starbucks.
Social media was not kind on Niccol’s decision:
Starbucks CEO has decided to travel on a private jet for work instead of relocating.
Meanwhile, we are supposed to save the environment and have our coffee with a paper straw that gets soggy in minutes.
— Parth MN (@parthpunter) August 22, 2024
NPR reported the new @Starbucks CEO will commute from his So. Cal home to Seattle & back on the corporate jet three times a week. What a bunch of performative hypocrites with their enviro friendly branding. No company who truly cares about the climate would agree to this.
— Chickie (@ChickieBayB) August 21, 2024
“Ben Alalouff, chief strategy officer at the marketing agency Live & Breathe, thinks that while the public backlash will blow in a matter of days, Starbucks workers won’t forget the news so quickly.
“If I was a Starbucks employee at corporate and I heard that a huge amount of costs every month is being used [to fuel a private jet] rather than investing into the workforce or investing into benefits or bonuses or whatever it may be, I’d be pretty pissed off,” he told Fortune.
Elon Musk Justified?
The world’s richest man, Elon Musk, famously SuperCommuted between SpaceX and Tesla headquarters in San Francisco and Los Angeles as CEO of both firms. He is also CEO of The Boring Company, Neuralink, and was a significant board member and investor in Solar City.
While the distances may be shorter, does this not beg for the same situation. Musk is trying to save the planet through electric vehicles and colonize new ones with SpaceX, yet he’s burning tons of carbon on his private jet to move back and forth between offices he chose to locate in different cities.
The one difference here is that Musk was flying between the cities of companies he was managing. Niccol is doing so to keep his home and current life in California. Musk’s trips seemed necessary to perform business functions while Niccol’s purpose is both to satisfy the bare minimum for office attendance requirements without changing his home life.
Conclusion
The culture of Starbucks is probably less understanding of Niccol’s SuperCommute than other companies. The progressive coffee business leans into reducing waste and being environmentally conscious and it would seem to me that his commute is the antithesis of the company’s ethos. Further, SuperCommuting solely to satisfy a three-day in office work week is also going to rub some the wrong way. Is it unethical? I’m not sure I can judge that, but is it wise – on that I am confident it is not.
What do you think?
I’ll bet he does not drink Starbucks at home .
I’ll bet he drinks Kona coffee with a french press at home .
…….that his illegal housekeeper from Mexico or Central America brewed for him.
You really can’t help yourself can you?
Nope, it’s red meat for me, like a hairless man on his 18th birthday for you.
Ew, stop projecting your homoerotic fantasies onto me.
I shall help pick out the wedding china. Love you both.
I think you’re the one he needs to marry.
Ethical or unethical is not the point here. The Board approved so if shareholders are not happy they can respond by dumping the stock and making the market know. Now, I want to see these snowflakes talking about climate change, carbon and saving the planet.
You are 100% correct.
Ethical or unethical is always the point . The applicable Law is the Ten Commandments .
Um, actually, the whole point of the article is whether this is ethical or not. So it is the point.
Ethical or unethical is the point. But there isn’t always a clear and widely-agreed upon dividing line between what is ethical and what is unethical.
In some parts of the world, private jet commuting like this would be taxed in a way where it wouldn’t make sense to commute like this because in essence the company is providing a taxable perk as income in essence and grossing up for taxes on such a thing can be problematic in their own ways.
Have an acquaintance whose attempt to get the company he founded to pay for a helicopter and private jet service for commutes within his own country end up becoming a no-go upon his demand for such just because the tax authorities wouldn’t go with it in a way that would make financial sense for him and not risk public fallout.
Worse than that . Company chief executives have been unfairly prosecuted for over-spending their company resources . Although apparently an unfair pile-on , something similar happened to Conrad Blake .
Conrad Black . The amount was less than $ 300,000 , which was insufficiently documented .
The former head of Nissan , Carlos Ghosn , fled Japan in an executive jet , also for an apparent unfair pile-on .
This Starbucks fellow better pay for his own commute with his own personal money , just to be on the safe side .
Conrad Black is a crook. He should have been prosecuted for additional crimes. But there is a two-tier justice system in too many countries, and it also shows in the US with the crooked Donald Trump having pardoned the crooked Conrad Black.
Much like so-called “systemic racism”, “climate change” is a made up issue so these animals have a reason to go after people and things they don’t like or want.
You really do enjoy making asinine comments.
First I think a CEO should not be under the wfh job expectations as other employees. If your getting the big money you should earn it by always being available. The super commute is foolish (not only because it’s a waste of resources) but because it signals the job is less important than your ego.
@Maryland … +1 . Also , when Boeing corporation moved to Chicago , they lost touch with engineering in Seattle .
“Always” being available is very easy nowadays with all the electronic leashes people carry about with their personal electronic devices and rather ubiquitous internet service for them. Commuting and working remotely as senior corporate management is actually much more practical nowadays than it used to be when face-time in-person was the end all and be all of being a corporate leader and leadership workhorse.
That said, senior leadership needs to be present for lower level employees to have formal and informal access and exposure to the senior leadership in ways that senior leadership can’t just hide behind electronic devices and being “off-site”.
You are confusing genuine leadership , with filling an expensive chair with a false title . Special Forces did it best : the soldier with genuine experience leading a team , is the actual leader of the team , regardless of the rank of the other members .
Leading by example and responsibility is something that escapes many a CEO anymore. This guy got a 10 million signing bonus. I question if some of the corporate failures recently result from the absence of leadership.
The only ones complaining are the broke losers that spend $8 on a $1.39 cup of coffee. The stockholders get richer daily because of suckers buying the product. While the losers will bitch they can’t afford a house as they waste their money on the newest IPhone annually and spend a $100 for a picture with Billy Dee Williams at a Comic-Con.
As for this guy flying to work, who cares, it makes zero difference in the real world. It’s all jealousy being transformed into false outrage.
Sales are down actually, which is why he is a replacement hire.
+1. Losers are the ones funding this. They can’t afford a house, can’t afford a decent car but think it is cool to spend this much money to carry a paper cup with their name on it. The only time you will see me at a Starbucks is if that is the last resource during a business trip. They won’t see my personal money but since I don’t eat breakfast at hotels even if included in my status (only if at vacation with family) sometimes Starbucks is my only option. Last time I was charged $9.80 for a large latter and they had the guts to turn the screen and ask me to choose the tip. No way!!! 2 shots of espresso and foamed milk. That is no more than €2 in Europe. America has gone crazy.
And , it is not even good coffee beans .
Where are you getting your statistics from on who is buying Starbucks products?
Is the Chipotle guy’s commute to Starbucks unethical? Well, it seems like an expensive way to commute in various ways. But people have to commute to work and will use the lawful means of commuting that works for their own personal situation.
I commute by air and train, but it’s commercial scheduled service unless I am piggybacking on others. My frequent flyer days began by being a day commuter by air between DC and NYC.
1000-2000 miles of flying no longer sounds like a lot to me, as someone that went from domestic commutes to international long-haul ones. People commute because they have reasons to not relocate and end the commutes. The Chipotle guy’s flying won’t even get him kickbacks from flying in the form of frequent flyer miles unless he migrates to common carriers at shareholder expense or manages to have his own deal with the flight operators and puts up the money himself first (for expensing).
Or purchases a personal private airplane , and takes lessons .
Get over it he earned the privilege
He has not earned anything yet ; he is a new hire .
He earned a compensation package from the board of directors owing to his track record in chain food businesses.
From Chipotle? But when you successfully manage crap food moving on to manage crap coffee should be quite easy.
@Martyland … +1 . True and Funny .
: )
I would support whatever a big corporation or CEO wants to do. They live in a different world but I better not see them continue to preach their religion of climate change to us.
15 years ago I worked for an executive who commuted from Baltimore to Chicago weekly on the company expense account yet when things got tight in 2008 she restricted all business travel to “save money”. She continued to fly back and forth to Baltimore weekly yet I couldn’t even rent a car to drive 3 hours to attend necessary meetings with clients.
Doesn’t bother me. Clearly the board believes this guy can get results that the former ceo couldn’t, and was willing to accommodate the arrangement.
Maybe it will come with a side benefit of the company being less woke and preachy.
Unfortunately, he is likely not alone. Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, reportedly making 49 million a year, recently purchased a ten-million-dollar home in Southern California. It is said that he uses the company’s private jet to commute to it. Some things for sure is that he does not drive to it from Cupertino, and does not fly commercial as he is not allowed to for security reasons.
Ethics has nothing todo with his commute
Board has its reasons to approve this commute
What is excess ?
For some their neighbors house, car, clothes or trips are too much.
Get used it losers, some people are worth every million of it, what is your brain worth??.
What is a brain worth ?
More than a primitive Chipotle taco or a frilly Starbucks milk-coffee , I can assure you .
Because ethics Do count for a Lot . The Ten Commandments , for ten of them .
The Starbucks board wanted this guy. The commute deal was part of the package when they hired him. Their business, not mine. I’m sure I can find something else to be outraged by this week.
This was the most compelling news of the week .
@John A. Agree 100%.
Internet being very judgy, if say it was reported that Starbucks board had to make a very compelling offer to get the guy to quit Chipotle, which included a package where his kids didn’t have to leave high school in their last years, where he agreed to commute by company plane at 5am on a Monday and return 10pm Friday. Now, does the image look different? The above is consistent with what was reported, but instead the Internet chose to read it like a fat cat flying back and forth every day.
Yet , he remains a fat cat .
The kind of people who scream about the “Ethics of flying” are silent about the “ethics” of murdering unborn children (abortion). They call it “reproductive freedom” and it’s the main issue the Kamala Childless Cat ladies are worried about, killing their babies.
Nonsense. You really kill something that hasn’t been born. A fetus isn’t a child.