## The “Executive Aircraft” line item is no longer a rounding error — it’s a signal In Palantir’s most recent Form 10‑K (filed Feb. 17, 2026), the company discloses that CEO Alexander Karp uses a non‑commercial aircraft beneficially owned by him for **both business and personal travel**, and that Palantir **incurred $17.2 million of expenses in 2025** versus **$7.7 million in 2024** for this “Executive Aircraft.” ["incurred expenses… $17.2 million and $7.7 million"](0001321655-26-000011|0) ["for business and personal travel"](0001321655-26-000011|0) That’s a **$9.5 million increase** year over year (computed = $17.2m − $7.7m) and **~2.23x higher** (computed = $17.2m ÷ $7.7m). ["$17.2 million"](0001321655-26-000011|0) ["$7.7 million"](0001321655-26-000011|0) ## “Security program” framing — but the economics embed a different takeaway Palantir’s latest proxy disclosure on the aircraft arrangement (DEF 14A filed Apr. 25, 2025) explains the *why*: based on an **independent security study**, management determined Karp “should fly on non‑commercial aircraft when traveling.” ["independent security study"](0001321655-25-000057|0) ["should fly on non-commercial aircraft"](0001321655-25-000057|0) But the *how* matters for investors: Palantir either **reimburses Karp directly** or **purchases hours from a third-party aviation company** that operates the aircraft under a charter agreement. ["reimburse Mr. Karp directly"](0001321655-25-000057|0) ["purchase hours from a third-party"](0001321655-25-000057|0) ["charter agreement"](0001321655-25-000057|0) The proxy also discloses that the **audit committee reviewed and approved** the payment arrangements and hourly rates — including **decreasing incremental rates as annual hours rise** (i.e., the more it flies, the cheaper each additional hour becomes on the margin). ["reviewed and approved by our audit committee"](0001321655-25-000057|0) ["decreasing incremental rates"](0001321655-25-000057|0) ["greater the number of hours flown"](0001321655-25-000057|0) **Hidden-in-plain-sight alpha:** a volume-discount rate card is not how you structure something you expect to be occasional. It reads like management is operationalizing aircraft usage as a *repeatable input*, not an exception—precisely the kind of “small” related‑party detail that can foreshadow future governance debate. ## The personal component isn’t incidental — it’s explicitly embedded in the disclosure The proxy is unusually direct that aircraft costs are part of a broader executive security/perquisites package and that, in 2024, it included **chartered aircraft as well as Karp’s beneficially owned aircraft** for **personal travel and/or travel with personal guests** (with costs described as “actual costs incurred by Palantir”). ["chartered aircraft as well as Mr. Karp’s beneficially owned aircraft"](0001321655-25-000057|0) ["personal travel and/or travel with personal guests"](0001321655-25-000057|0) ["actual costs incurred by Palantir"](0001321655-25-000057|0) They also position these “security-related benefits” as serving corporate interests (safety of executives and proprietary data) and state they are **regularly reviewed by third parties** for consistency with the underlying security concern. ["serve Palantir’s interests"](0001321655-25-000057|0) ["regularly reviewed by third parties"](0001321655-25-000057|0) **Hidden-in-plain-sight alpha:** when a company is comfortable blending “security necessity” with “personal travel and personal guests” in the same program, the burden of proof shifts. The market may start to treat the expense less like “security” and more like a *structural governance cost*—especially once the year-over-year magnitude accelerates as sharply as it did in 2025. ["for business and personal travel"](0001321655-26-000011|0) ["$17.2 million and $7.7 million"](0001321655-26-000011|0) ## Why it can matter to the stock (even if it’s not financially material) This disclosure sits in **Related Party Transactions** in the 10‑K—not in routine travel and entertainment—so investors are being told, explicitly, that this is a governance item, not just a lifestyle footnote. ["Related Party Transactions"](0001321655-26-000011|0) The core “between-the-lines” read: the company is demonstrating (1) willingness to absorb a rapidly scaling executive benefit cost, (2) a formal mechanism that gets *cheaper with higher utilization*, and (3) comfort with the optics of personal usage inside a security rationale—elements that can become focal points in future investor scrutiny, proxy-season narratives, and broader debates about cost discipline versus founder/CEO latitude. ["decreasing incremental rates"](0001321655-25-000057|0) ["personal travel and/or travel with personal guests"](0001321655-25-000057|0) ["$17.2 million and $7.7 million"](0001321655-26-000011|0)

## The “Executive Aircraft” line item is no longer a rounding error — it’s a signal In Palantir’s most recent Form 10‑K (filed Feb. 17, 2026), the company discloses that CEO Alexander Karp uses a non‑commercial aircraft beneficially owned by him for **both business and personal travel**, and that Palantir **incurred $17.2 million of expenses in 2025** versus **$7.7 million in 2024** for this “Executive Aircraft.” ["incurred expenses… $17.2 million and $7.7 million"](0001321655-26-000011|0) ["for business and personal travel"](0001321655-26-000011|0) That’s a **$9.5 million increase** year over year (computed = $17.2m − $7.7m) and **~2.23x higher** (computed = $17.2m ÷ $7.7m). ["$17.2 million"](0001321655-26-000011|0) ["$7.7 million"](0001321655-26-000011|0) ## “Security program” framing — but the economics embed a different takeaway Palantir’s latest proxy disclosure on the aircraft arrangement (DEF 14A filed Apr. 25, 2025) explains the *why*: based on an **independent security study**, management determined Karp “should fly on non‑commercial aircraft when traveling.” ["independent security study"](0001321655-25-000057|0) ["should fly on non-commercial aircraft"](0001321655-25-000057|0) But the *how* matters for investors: Palantir either **reimburses Karp directly** or **purchases hours from a third-party aviation company** that operates the aircraft under a charter agreement. ["reimburse Mr. Karp directly"](0001321655-25-000057|0) ["purchase hours from a third-party"](0001321655-25-000057|0) ["charter agreement"](0001321655-25-000057|0) The proxy also discloses that the **audit committee reviewed and approved** the payment arrangements and hourly rates — including **decreasing incremental rates as annual hours rise** (i.e., the more it flies, the cheaper each additional hour becomes on the margin). ["reviewed and approved by our audit committee"](0001321655-25-000057|0) ["decreasing incremental rates"](0001321655-25-000057|0) ["greater the number of hours flown"](0001321655-25-000057|0) **Hidden-in-plain-sight alpha:** a volume-discount rate card is not how you structure something you expect to be occasional. It reads like management is operationalizing aircraft usage as a *repeatable input*, not an exception—precisely the kind of “small” related‑party detail that can foreshadow future governance debate. ## The personal component isn’t incidental — it’s explicitly embedded in the disclosure The proxy is unusually direct that aircraft costs are part of a broader executive security/perquisites package and that, in 2024, it included **chartered aircraft as well as Karp’s beneficially owned aircraft** for **personal travel and/or travel with personal guests** (with costs described as “actual costs incurred by Palantir”). ["chartered aircraft as well as Mr. Karp’s beneficially owned aircraft"](0001321655-25-000057|0) ["personal travel and/or travel with personal guests"](0001321655-25-000057|0) ["actual costs incurred by Palantir"](0001321655-25-000057|0) They also position these “security-related benefits” as serving corporate interests (safety of executives and proprietary data) and state they are **regularly reviewed by third parties** for consistency with the underlying security concern. ["serve Palantir’s interests"](0001321655-25-000057|0) ["regularly reviewed by third parties"](0001321655-25-000057|0) **Hidden-in-plain-sight alpha:** when a company is comfortable blending “security necessity” with “personal travel and personal guests” in the same program, the burden of proof shifts. The market may start to treat the expense less like “security” and more like a *structural governance cost*—especially once the year-over-year magnitude accelerates as sharply as it did in 2025. ["for business and personal travel"](0001321655-26-000011|0) ["$17.2 million and $7.7 million"](0001321655-26-000011|0) ## Why it can matter to the stock (even if it’s not financially material) This disclosure sits in **Related Party Transactions** in the 10‑K—not in routine travel and entertainment—so investors are being told, explicitly, that this is a governance item, not just a lifestyle footnote. ["Related Party Transactions"](0001321655-26-000011|0) The core “between-the-lines” read: the company is demonstrating (1) willingness to absorb a rapidly scaling executive benefit cost, (2) a formal mechanism that gets *cheaper with higher utilization*, and (3) comfort with the optics of personal usage inside a security rationale—elements that can become focal points in future investor scrutiny, proxy-season narratives, and broader debates about cost discipline versus founder/CEO latitude. ["decreasing incremental rates"](0001321655-25-000057|0) ["personal travel and/or travel with personal guests"](0001321655-25-000057|0) ["$17.2 million and $7.7 million"](0001321655-26-000011|0)