Is the aircraft half-empty or half-full?

April 16, 2006 11:45 AM

Free Air Transport for Cancer Patients
The Corporate Angel Network puts cancer patients and half empty corporate jets together for travel to treatment centers for free. Win meets win.
posted by fenriq (21 comments total)

I think if you're sick you'll take (and be glad for) help wherever you can find it. Having said that, "Corporate Angel Network"?
posted by 327.ca at 11:58 AM on April 16, 2006

It's better than "Moneygrubbing Sociopaths Looking for a Tax Deduction Network"
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:02 PM on April 16, 2006

Yeah, the name blows but what they are doing is pretty awesome.
posted by fenriq at 12:02 PM on April 16, 2006

Good.
posted by Drexen at 12:07 PM on April 16, 2006

This is great, but I agree with the others on the name.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 12:27 PM on April 16, 2006

dirtynumb: certainly they prefer tax deduction instead of donation, it costs less ! And it means it's basically paid by other taxpayers in the form of increased need for taxes. Yet it looks like they are good, why do you hate corporate so much ?

Certainly it would cost much less to publicly subsidize flights for all cancer patients without having to rely on corporate desire to be or look slightly less sociopathic then usual , but democratic ideals and rights are being hammered by a culture of god fearing oligarchs in which darwinims and competition applies only to you my little associate.

So , little dirty one , want your job position ? Never ever criticized corporate again, or meet your GOD sooner ok ?
posted by elpapacito at 12:29 PM on April 16, 2006

Sometimes mefi seems like the only place with people that can find fault with helping cancer patients.
posted by mathowie at 12:37 PM on April 16, 2006

Who finds faults with helping cancer patients ? The fault is in assuming people who help can't be harming a lot more at the same time
posted by elpapacito at 12:44 PM on April 16, 2006

mathowie, did I hear a silent sigh? Well, I should note that it really is a conspiracy and they fly the cancer patients to forced labor camps in Utah an Wyoming. AND take a big tax write off.
posted by fenriq at 12:44 PM on April 16, 2006

Ironically, exactly such a plan was once proposed by Michelle Malkin, although she specified the cancer patients should be Asian.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:54 PM on April 16, 2006

You all are a bunch of cynics. From the corporate FAQ on the site:

5. Are there any tax ramifications?
No. The IRS has confirmed that this is not a taxable event for the patient, and there is no additional tax benefit to the corporation. The company is not incurring any additional expense since the staff travels in the normal course of company business.

So no tax write off.
posted by Pink Fuzzy Bunny at 1:31 PM on April 16, 2006

Um.. to clarify, I was joking. 327 said the name sucked, and I made a joke. While it's true that in many instances the bigger end of the corporate world is, if not actively evil, at least passively so, it's equally true that many corporations do good things. Whether it's out of altruism or not, the end result--as in this case--good things are nevertheless occurring. And since it's sadly true that most corporate donations would not occur if there were no tax benefit, those donations result in a better world to live in. I'll reference jazz festivals, theatrical/operatic/balletic companies, reading programs, scholarships, etc.

Does this mitigate the evils of, say, DuPont, or Big Tobacco, or Big Pharma? Probably not. They think it's better for their image, and since what they think is better for their image--or, possibly, simply less bad (think of the potential good spin from the fligths, versus the appallingly bad publicity were they to refuse)--is of net benefit to the rest of us, obviously I have to support it.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:36 PM on April 16, 2006

The company is not incurring any additional expense since the staff travels in the normal course of company business.

Don't think so. Each additional passenger is more weight, more weight means at least more fuel spent. Marginal ? Probably, but it's not zero cost. Is it a "beancounter" attitude ?

Hell yeah it is, but it is applied when wages are calculated and when plane tickets are calculated, not because accountant take fun from that, but because they are -demaned- to do so or get replaced with others that do.

It is also thanks to the cost evaluation of the accountat that carrying cancer suffering childs is seen as a good image product ; any advertisement would probably cost more and do less good to people actually could use help. It's a win win combination that has been know from EONS.

So yeah it's a welcome change, it's a "good thing" but that doesn't change my perception ; being thrown dimes is better then being thrown rocks, but they still hurt.
posted by elpapacito at 1:53 PM on April 16, 2006

Sometimes mefi seems like the only place with people that can find fault with helping cancer patients.

I don't find fault with helping cancer patients. I questioned the name "Corporate Angel Network" because it panders to institutions that exist for profit-making and nothing else. For example, I think Ronald McDonald House does good work -- but McDonalds' real business is selling products that, among other things, promote cancer, obesity, and heart disease.

Corporations are sensitive to their public reputations. Here in Canada, McDonalds stopped using the phrase "Supersize" at about the same time Morgan Spurlock's movie "Supersize Me" was released. They still offer supersized portions but now the language has morphed into things like, "Would you like that upsized?" or "Would you like two hash browns with that?"

I think the payoff to corporate interests in this case is the benevolent, 'taking care of the little guy' impression it adds to their public reputation. They don't need a tax writeoff -- the actual cost of filling an empty seat is probably minimal. But the gratitude of people they've helped in this way goes straight to the bottom line.

I guess that does sound cynical. We live in an age when tobacco companies sponsor things like womens shelters and the grateful recipients of this largesse are profiled in full-page New Yorker ads. ('Cause, y'know, Philip Morris really cares about people.)
posted by 327.ca at 2:03 PM on April 16, 2006

The name's not that odd, and the oddness is as much jargon as it is PR positioning. The original charitable flight network was the Angel Flight Network and involved private pilots in small aircraft, and flights on time-sensitive medical missions that aren't medevac ("lifeguard") missions add "angel flight" to their call sign. So these are angel flights in corporate jets: Corporate Angel Network.
posted by mendel at 2:08 PM on April 16, 2006

You lefties all hate cute little terminally ill angels. Do you want KIDDIES to DIE of CANCER without first drinking some FINE FINE champagne on a NICE SHINY AIRPLANE?

If it were up to you lefties, it'd be the Corporate Jets Transport Evil Terrorists Secretly For Free program.

Oh wait a minute, the CIA has that one down
posted by lalochezia at 2:34 PM on April 16, 2006

327.ca, you're right that doing this could generate good will towards a company that was taking part. That's kind of the whole point.

Now, would I think any more of a death-dealing company like Phillip Morris for doing this? No, they distribute poison and no good will gesture will "pretty" that up. Especially with watchdogs spotlighting their idiot PR moves (they donated something like $120,000 to the women's shelters and then spent $21 million telling people about it).

But it gives a chance to corporations to actually do something decent and good and at a minimal cost (since the majority of companies with their own jets are public and have a board of directors to justify things like this too).

mendel, that's it the convention doesn't make it any more appealling.
posted by fenriq at 2:40 PM on April 16, 2006

Sometimes mefi seems like the only place with people that can find fault with helping cancer patients.

Don't get out much on the internets these days, I guess?

It's a shame America needs something like this, and it's a shame that it's 'Corporate Angels' (seriously, that's a hilarious phrase) that step into the breach.

Helping people with cancer is Good. The ongoing and intensifying interpenetration of corporations into every aspect of life is Bad. The two can exist simultaneously without cancelling each other out.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:31 PM on April 16, 2006

Helping people with cancer is Good. The ongoing and intensifying interpenetration of corporations into every aspect of life is Bad.

Thank you. I wish I'd been able to say that as succinctly.
posted by 327.ca at 5:39 PM on April 16, 2006

stavrosthewonderchicken writes "Helping people with cancer is Good. The ongoing and intensifying interpenetration of corporations into every aspect of life is Bad. The two can exist simultaneously without cancelling each other out."

Yeah, as 327 said, that's the best way to put it.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:22 PM on April 16, 2006

I guess those Jet discounts that David Cay Johnson talks about in Perfectly Legal are coming up for a vote again, or something.

For those of you who missed it:

Corporate perks – such as private jets – are an obvious way that government allows the rich to enable the rest of us to subsidize lavish tastes and luxuries. Ms. Welch’s divorce suit against husband Jack Welch gave us an extraordinary window into the world of executive perks. DCJ tells the legislative history of how owning a private jet can be cheaper, after tax deductions, than flying coach – and how Senators sneaked the provision into the law despite vigorous objections of Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (Chapter 5, "Plane Perks").

From A review

The book's pretty fun reading.
posted by Orb2069 at 7:39 AM on April 17, 2006