I always wondered whether the market for corporate jets revolves around the fact that they can write off profits on one, as a "legitimate business expense". Maybe this only applies in the USA?
Have UK equivalent rules changed? (They knobbled company cars as a perk system some years back, didn't they?)
With 5 jets, it's a wonder they didn't attempt to create a mini Tesco airline, serving corporate customers who can't afford one of their own.
Is £30 million enough to build another store from scratch? Again, I thought the Starbucks technique applies and, so long as you are building or buying new premises, to expand, you can write off profits against the costs and pay little, if any corporation tax at the end of the year. This is completely unfair on competing startups and "mom and pop" businesses, as the Yanks call them.
If you pushed me to, I'd say that the customer wins: rather than 20 chains all on different stages of the learning curve, a new store is instantly up to speed in best practice (money saved, rather than "lessons being learned", with savings passed on to customers) and the brand name tells customers what to expect in terms of service and price.
Lastly, jets fits their past intentions to expand in the USA. Changing planes to get to the smalltown/regional airport adds hours to a transatlantic trip. With 'n' executives, it is a more constructive use of their time and cheaper overall (salary costs of the delegation) to send them straight to the smalltown airport on a bizjet.
Abandoning their US expansion was announced some months ago but probably went unnoticed except for watchers of the business news segment. Selling the fleet just draws attention of a wider audience to the situation.
Much meandering there. Thanks to anyone who read this far. ;-)