"Peter Duniho" wrote:

I've heard of similar policies at other companies. I think it's
similarly misguided. Employees traveling together may be able to
accomplish business while on the flight, and the risk of even one
being killed in an accident is remarkably small. There is greater
hazard in allowing employees to drive to lunch together in the same
car every day, or to carpool to work for that matter (activities that
are generally not prohibited by those same companies). Some companies
not only allow employees to travel by air together, they pay for the
airplane! How can it be so important to one company to keep their
employees apart, and yet another is willing to put them together on a
higher-risk mode of transportation?

Frankly, a company that cannot withstand the loss of a couple of
employees is a company that has a pretty weak business plan.

It's all driven by $$$. There have been a couple of examples where the
entire management team of a company was killed in a bizjet crash. It is
a very significant event when you lose the CEO, the COO, the CFO, and a
couple of other VPs at the same time, along with their supporting
people. Often they were involved in major acquisitions that fell apart,
or were developing new business that failed shortly thereafter. The
results were millions of dollars in losses, not to mention the loss of
the talent, and the payouts to families.

While other managers can often fill in, there will be a time lag while
they get up to speed on various subjects. Major companies like GE have
rules that limit the number of their executive team that can fly on the
same flight because of this. The rules do not prohibit two or three
together, just more than that.

As far as other forms of travel being riskier, the business aviation
sector does not have a particularly good record in comparison to airline
or highway travel.