Well on one hand you can argue that there are many wealthy businesses owners doing the same - they are just not as high profile.
That said it does stick in the craw.
Particularly because the business has never made a profit.
It's one thing using taxpayer money to prop up an otherwise profitable business that is important to the economy and provides needed services to a wide socio-economic proportion of the population , but quite another to support a luxury lifestyle brand that has a very small wealthy customer base and functions as a vanity project for a very wealthy individual.
We are going to be paying this money back in taxes for decades and frankly I think it's right to question the validity of where it's going.
Not because someone is famous or indeed personally wealthy but rather the "worth" of the business as a whole wrt the value it brings to the wider economy and the customers it serves.
In that regard there's a huge gulf between VB and Branson.
He's asking for a loan (and offering security for it in the form of Necker Island) for a company that provides a service to a wide demographic, employs many thousands of people and enables international trade (not just through transporting people, but also the freight many people don't realise commercial planes also carry).
At the other end of the spectrum we have the football clubs wanting to furlough staff but keep paying the players £££ who have celebrity owners worth millions.
Also add the companies that "offshore" and don't pay (or minimise) UK taxes asking for furlough payments.
There are many companies that deserve support and many that don't.
The problem is what's the criteria and how do you assess it quickly?
Some "worthy" business need money now if they are to survive. They can't wait for weeks of red tape and ultimately that will mean some cheeky fuckers will absolutely take advantage.
That said I think people will remember this for a long time and those that behaved inappropriately will suffer reputational damage to their brands and business.