[John23832]

I think these kind of comparisons are a little miss guided.

WHO is a world organization, so by definition they have to travel the world. Every time you get in a plane, car, or train, that costs. On top of that, a lot of their work has to be done in person. You can't test a local population in Africa for a specific strain of ebola in a lab in North America. A team has to be sent to do that work and exfiltrate samples. Also, there often has to be a person on the ground directing. If I'm working with a warlord to ensure the safe movement of medical supplies, that's better done in person.

I can do all the AIDS, TB and malaria research I want in a lab. We have samples that were previously taken and can be mailed. I can share my findings with people on the other side of the world with the help of the internet.

To top my argument off, even if you could reduce spending on travel, that doesn't directly translate into more effective fighting of AIDS, TB, or malaria. Many of the people that are able to do the most effective work in these fields are already doing so. Just throwing more money in the pot doesn't necessarily speed up the process. And not to get political, but if you want to look at allocations of money for medical research, look at the HUGE cuts that are about to happen at the National Institute of Health.

[kbart]

I think you've missed the point here. It's not against traveling, but traveling in first/business class. Most other similar charities have explicit decree that forbids traveling first/business class and mandates even the highest ranking officials to travel economy class.

[zimzam]

Having always flown economy I recently took advantage of a cheap, domestic upgrade to business class. I had to work while on the plane and I was noticeably more productive on the flight and less fatigued than I normally would be in economy. So I think there is an argument to be made for the following categories of trips to be a step above economy:

* when the traveller is expected to get work done on the flight * when the time at the destination is short (1-3 days) and is densely packed * when the traveller is moving immediately from flying to being productive on the ground

Otherwise after flying economy it would only take a good, relaxed meal and/or a 20 minute catnap to bring me to post-business class levels of productivity.

[John23832]

And I agree there. If people are flouting the rules, that's an issue. However, the article seems to both say that some specific people spend to much on travel (which I can agree with), and overall shouldn't be spending as much on travel (which I disagree).

WHO is a still a political organization, which works on medical issues.

[dismantlethesun]

But the WHO is not a charity. It is more something akin to the World Bank, UN, or IMF. Members typically fly businesses class.

[mcguire]

Who are the traveling expenses going to, though? WHO staff is one thing, outside experts and representatives are another. And the latter is 60% off their costs, according to the WHO.

[hn_throwaway_99]

From the article, though, it doesn't make sense that Doctors Without Borders has more than 4 times the staff but less than a fourth of the travel costs.

It's not about banning travel, it's about not traveling first class.

[John23832]

I would say that MSF serves a different purpose. They create long term stationary projects. That has inherently less travel, even for a larger number of people.

I think another commenter (zimzam) hits the nail on the head. While I'm against flouting travel spending rules, I do think it also depends on the type and level of productivity expected from the person traveling.