B. Elliott said:
I don't think it even needs to go that far. Would it not cost less for the officials to fly on commercial flights than it would to maintain and operate a private plane?
Why would it? The price of a commercial flight includes the cost of maintaining and operating a fleet of privately owned planes, along with the costs of booking agents, checkers, security, baggage handlers, profit for the stockholders, commercial promotion, marketing teams, route planners, salaries for executives, healthcare and pensions for everyone involved, etc. There's also the cost savings that a private plane provides: you don't have to pay your public servants to go to the airport an hour early, wait in a security line, wait at the gate, wait for everyone to board, wait for everyone to deboard, wait for their luggage, and then take a taxi to the place they actually want to go. Instead they drive to an airfield, get on the plane, and fly to the airstrip closest to where they're going, hopefully doing work the entire trip.
It really comes down to how often you need to fly, and how many people you need to fly. If it's one person, once a month, then commercial flights are almost certainly cheaper. But if it's being used every day, maybe not. And I would expect that in Alaska, a huge state with a dispersed population, inadequate road infrastructure, and a long distance from all other states (and in particular the national capitol), there could well be a need for it.