Flying High, On Your Dime

Flying Coach? Many Federal Employees Aren't, And It's Costing Taxpayers Big

(CBS) Most people would prefer to fly first class or even business class - for the extra space and luxury perks - but so-called "premium" class flights don't come cheaply.

"Travel that costs between five and 10 times what a regular airline ticket would cost," said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn.

Yet thousands of times a year, federal workers are breaking the rules limiting such flights, treating themselves to expensive upgrades. And you're picking up the tab, CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports.

A new Government Accountability Office report obtained by CBS News shows widespread abuse. In one year, federal workers bought 53,000 premium-class airline tickets at a cost of 230 million tax dollars.

Rest of article here

Yes, just shut your mouth and pay up so your masters can fly like the rich at your expense. Don't want to pay for it? Well then they'll keep some men with guns ready to send to your home if you don't want to pay up.

Just shut up, keep working and obey. Ignore the man behind the curtain...leading to the first class compartment.

1) The report said that 2/3 of those upgrades were improper, so the cost was $140 million not $230 million.

2) These "masters" in once case included 21 employees from the U.S. Trade Representative's office. In other words, this seems to involve a lot of low-level employees and is thus unlikely to trigger the downfall of Western civilization.

3) I'd be interested to see what, if any, were the productivity gains from the upgrades. Companies don't fly their employees in buisiness class because they like wasting money, but because they can get more work done during the flight, and arrive at their destination more rested and alert. Perhaps that's why 1/3 of the upgrades were deemed proper by the GAO, but the article doesn't specify.

You're a good little government apologist with the type of slave mentality that they like. Keep making excuses for them.

Care to try that again, but perhaps by actually addressing at least one of my points?