Interviewing with Jeppesen

[Jason Smithers]

Hi all. I'm interviewing with Jeppesen later this month and while I am a
pilot (ASEL and hot air balloon), I don't have any particular insights into
Jeppesen products. What I need are a few "insightful questions" that I can
ask during the interview that demonstrate my interest in the company and its
products. Are there competitive products that you think are superior to a
Jeppesen product? Are there areas that you think some products fall short?
Is there some aspect of their business that they could do better (e.g.
customer support)? Do you see any missed opportunities for the company?

Any thoughts that would lead me to doing a bit more research and formulating
a few questions I could ask would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Mark

[john smith]

> Any thoughts that would lead me to doing a bit more research and formulating
> a few questions I could ask would be greatly appreciated.

Check out their website for all the products they offer.

[Jason Smithers]

I suppose I should have stated the obvious. As are most all of us here --
I'm familiar with Jeppesen's products. I've been through their website, read
countless press releases, read a number of articles on the paperless
cockpit, and so forth. However, I've never looked at Jeppesen through the
perspective of critiquing their products and was hoping to find someone who
might have an opinion like "I like the concept of the paperless cockpit but
until we get X, Y, and Z, I'll keep my paper." Or "How will Jeppesen deal
with the new FAA regulation Foo". Or "I think there's an opportunity to
provide better solutions for fractional jet operators by implementing Foo."


"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Any thoughts that would lead me to doing a bit more research and
>> formulating
>> a few questions I could ask would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Check out their website for all the products they offer.
>

[thecaptain]

They could improve on the access to weather products for their
FliteStar program. Currently you have to phone them directly to get
the service for FliteStar... Everything else is available online with
them, so why not that???

[john smith]

The obvious one is how to make their products less expensive... but I
don't think they are too interested in that unless they can charge their
customers the same price and increase their profits. :-))

[Sylvain]

john smith wrote:
> The obvious one is how to make their products less expensive... but I
> don't think they are too interested in that

besides, it might not be the best question to ask in a
job interview; "oh! what a splendid idea! we'll offer
you half what we initially thought to offer then!" :-)

out of curiosity, and without going into too much
specific, what kind of job? and which location?

--Sylvain

[Yankee Whiskey]

> Hi all. I'm interviewing with Jeppesen later this month and while I am a
> pilot (ASEL and hot air balloon), I don't have any particular insights
into
> Jeppesen products. What I need are a few "insightful questions" that I can
> ask during the interview that demonstrate my interest in the company and
its
> products. Are there competitive products that you think are superior to a
> Jeppesen product? Are there areas that you think some products fall short?
> Is there some aspect of their business that they could do better (e.g.
> customer support)? Do you see any missed opportunities for the company?
>
> Any thoughts that would lead me to doing a bit more research and
formulating
> a few questions I could ask would be greatly appreciated.
>

I interviewed with them for a software engineering position a couple of
years ago. It was a very technical interview. Detailed questions about
things on my resume, software engineering processes, design techniques,
DO-178, graphics, on and on. I couldn't even answer some of the questions
because the answers were proprietary to my former employer. I chatted with
an HR guy for a few minutes before he led me down to the interrogation room
where they went at me four on one for about an hour. I'm not saying yours
is going to be like this, but you should be prepared to defend yourself.
There was never any opportunity to ask them questions. I thought I held in
there pretty good with them, but I didn't get an offer and after the fact
I'm not sure I wanted one.

Here's a question you can ask: Why does your company continue to
unethically take advantage of its monopoly on US aviation data to squeeze
the general aviation community ?

[Peter R.]

thecaptain > wrote:

> They could improve on the access to weather products for their
> FliteStar program. Currently you have to phone them directly to get
> the service for FliteStar... Everything else is available online with
> them, so why not that???

The last time I performed an Airway Manual checklist (last November), I had
to place my order for missing/damaged charts via fax or snail mail. Why
can't this entire process be online?

Also, their customer service department has relatively limited hours, with
none available on Sundays.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Scott Draper]

<<Why does your company continue to unethically take advantage of its
monopoly on US aviation data to squeeze the general aviation community
?>>

Why is it unethical for a company to maximize its profits?

[Michael 182]

"Yankee Whiskey" > wrote in message
...

> Here's a question you can ask: Why does your company continue to
> unethically take advantage of its monopoly on US aviation data to squeeze
> the general aviation community ?

Yeah, that will get him hired :)

Besides, it's not a monopoly - the US Gov't has the same data. And, I
assume, anyone willing to invest the money can get the data and compete with
Jep - no one wants to because the market is so small it would be too
difficult to make any money.

Michael

[Matt Barrow]

"Scott Draper" > wrote in message
...
> <<Why does your company continue to unethically take advantage of its
> monopoly on US aviation data to squeeze the general aviation community
> ?>>
>
> Why is it unethical for a company to maximize its profits?

Especially one that is NOT a monopoly (at least not a LEGAL monopoly, such
as utilities, postal service...).

Aviation data is not privileged, so anyone can form a company to compete
with Jeppesen.

[Matt Barrow]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Yankee Whiskey" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Here's a question you can ask: Why does your company continue to
>> unethically take advantage of its monopoly on US aviation data to squeeze
>> the general aviation community ?
>
> Yeah, that will get him hired :)

Not only his attitude, but even more importantly, his lack of knowledge of
the business/industry.

>
> Besides, it's not a monopoly - the US Gov't has the same data. And, I
> assume, anyone willing to invest the money can get the data and compete
> with Jep - no one wants to because the market is so small it would be too
> difficult to make any money.

[Michael 182]

"Scott Draper" > wrote in message
...
> <<Why does your company continue to unethically take advantage of its
> monopoly on US aviation data to squeeze the general aviation community
> ?>>
>
> Why is it unethical for a company to maximize its profits?

Ther are times and circumstances when maximizing profits is unethical -
profiteering off Katrina is an obvious example. Anytime maximizing profits
includes illegal behavior, as dramatically evidenced by Enron, Adelphia, et
al. Some argue that exploitation of third world resources/labor leads to
unethical profit taking. But building a company that markets and distributes
aviation data, and then finding yourself in the enviable position of having
very little competition or sales limitations except market elasticity is
obviously not unethical.

>

[Greg Farris]

I'm surprised that in the initial post, as well as the follow-ups, no one
felt it important to indicate what type of position you're interviewing for.
Jeppesen is a large company (owned by Boeing) with interests in very big
business, but an understanding of the General Aviation market as well.
Everything about your interview - what their approach will be as well as what
yours might be is dependant on what position you are seeking.

[Marco Leon]

What position are you applying for? I would think that you should make
sure you're ready for the particulars of the position you seek. Does
the position have anything to do with being a product manager or
finance? I wouldn't think you would need deep knowledge in their
product base and their various pricing/feature strategies unless the
position really called for it. Don't get me wrong, try to gain as much
knowledge about the company as you can but don't fret over the stuff
that's not related to the job responsibilities at hand.

Marco Leon

[Marco Leon]

Yikes, didn't see you post until after I posted the same question.

Marco

[Matt Barrow]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> I'm surprised that in the initial post, as well as the follow-ups, no one
> felt it important to indicate what type of position you're interviewing
> for.
> Jeppesen is a large company (owned by Boeing) with interests in very big
> business, but an understanding of the General Aviation market as well.
> Everything about your interview - what their approach will be as well as
> what
> yours might be is dependant on what position you are seeking.
>

Chairman of the Bored.

[Matt Barrow]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scott Draper" > wrote in message
> ...
>> <<Why does your company continue to unethically take advantage of its
>> monopoly on US aviation data to squeeze the general aviation community
>> ?>>
>>
>> Why is it unethical for a company to maximize its profits?
>
> Ther are times and circumstances when maximizing profits is unethical -
> profiteering off Katrina is an obvious example.

Care to define what you mean by "profiteering off Katrina"?

> Anytime maximizing profits includes illegal behavior, as dramatically
> evidenced by Enron, Adelphia, et al.

Well, yes, ouright theft is, I suppose, one form of profit maximization. :~)

> Some argue that exploitation of third world resources/labor leads to
> unethical profit taking.

And wealth creation in areas that are otherwise cesspools... :~(


> But building a company that markets and distributes aviation data, and
> then finding yourself in the enviable position of having very little
> competition or sales limitations except market elasticity is obviously not
> unethical.

As long as you have two parties _voluntarily_ (uncoerced by either one of
the parties) engaging in a transaction, it's ethical.

[Michael 182]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Care to define what you mean by "profiteering off Katrina"?

Not sure why this isn't obvious, but raising the cost of building materials,
transportation, water, food, etc. beyond that which will yield a reasonable
profit. Don't bother telling me about supply and demand - just because one
can get away with charging absurd prices in a crisis situation does not mean
it is ethical.

>
>> Anytime maximizing profits includes illegal behavior, as dramatically
>> evidenced by Enron, Adelphia, et al.
>
> Well, yes, ouright theft is, I suppose, one form of profit maximization.
> :~)

It is a huge form of profit maximization, as evidenced by the passage of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

>> But building a company that markets and distributes aviation data, and
>> then finding yourself in the enviable position of having very little
>> competition or sales limitations except market elasticity is obviously
>> not unethical.
>
> As long as you have two parties _voluntarily_ (uncoerced by either one of
> the parties) engaging in a transaction, it's ethical.

Too broad. By this definition drug dealing, prostitution and child porn are
all ethical business transactions. In fact, by this definition Enron and
Adelphia are excused as well. The transactions they completed were
completely voluntary. I'm a committed capitalist, but life, and business, is
full of ethical quandries and shades of grey.

Michael

[[email protected]]

Michael 182 wrote:
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Care to define what you mean by "profiteering off Katrina"?
>
> Not sure why this isn't obvious, but raising the cost of building materials,
> transportation, water, food, etc. beyond that which will yield a reasonable
> profit. Don't bother telling me about supply and demand - just because one
> can get away with charging absurd prices in a crisis situation does not mean
> it is ethical.

"Don't bother telling me about supply and demand."

OK, let's discuss architecture without touching on the little-known
subject of "gravity."

"Profiteering" can provide social goods in the form of efficient
allocation of supply. With a hurricance shutting pipelines and
refineries down, there will be no fuel deliveries for the next week.
This means there is not enough gas for everyone to fill up their tanks
"just because." So, you have three choices:

1. First 1000 people to fill up their tanks win. 950 of them park their
cars in their driveways and watch the storm on CNN. Anyone after those
1000 who neds gas is SOL and cannot buy it at any price.

2. Raise the gas price to $6. 950 people say "shee-it!" an drive home
without filling up their tanks, and watch the storm on CNN. Anyone who
-really- needs gas, can buy it.

3. Hold prices steady, and ration supply.

The average person thinks #3 is "fairest" but in fact it is the worst,
because it depends on some brain surgeon somewhere to figure out and
implement a fair rationing scheme. This is not realistic. Thus, leaving
market actors to their own devices will ensure that people who really
need gas, can get it, while people who don't, choose not to. No
bureaucrats required.

There is no area of "profiteering" that is not subject to these same
rules. We can write laws that contradict them, but writing a law which
states that 2+2=3 does not make it so.

> >> Anytime maximizing profits includes illegal behavior, as dramatically
> >> evidenced by Enron, Adelphia, et al.
> >
> > Well, yes, ouright theft is, I suppose, one form of profit maximization.
> > :~)

Enron and Adelphia engaged in blatant fraud, which is another thing
entirely. It's the difference between simply marking up a used car by
50% over book and rolling the odometer back.

> It is a huge form of profit maximization, as evidenced by the passage of the
> Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Proof that there should be a 2-year waiting period--for Congress to
pass laws. SarBox should have been called the Lawyers and Accountants
Full Employment Act, as they're the only ones to objectively benefit
from it.

> > As long as you have two parties _voluntarily_ (uncoerced by either one of
> > the parties) engaging in a transaction, it's ethical.
>
> Too broad. By this definition drug dealing, prostitution and child porn are
> all ethical business transactions.

What if the attempt to legally impose ethics produces an even less
ethical result? C.f. Prohibition.

> In fact, by this definition Enron and
> Adelphia are excused as well. The transactions they completed were
> completely voluntary.

No, no, no no. These companies used accounting tricks which made it
appear that they had/made money they didn't (among other things). It's
why I used the analogy of rolling back an odometer. We didn't need a
new law to make what they did illegal.

-cwk.

[Matt Barrow]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Care to define what you mean by "profiteering off Katrina"?
>
> Not sure why this isn't obvious, but raising the cost of building
> materials, transportation, water, food, etc. beyond that which will yield
> a reasonable profit. Don't bother telling me about supply and demand -
> just because one can get away with charging absurd prices in a crisis
> situation does not mean it is ethical.

Don't bother you with stepping on your whimsical version of reality: got
cha'.

>
>>
>>> Anytime maximizing profits includes illegal behavior, as dramatically
>>> evidenced by Enron, Adelphia, et al.
>>
>> Well, yes, ouright theft is, I suppose, one form of profit maximization.
>> :~)
>
> It is a huge form of profit maximization, as evidenced by the passage of
> the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Yeah, like Congress has any grasp of the situation.
>
>>> But building a company that markets and distributes aviation data, and
>>> then finding yourself in the enviable position of having very little
>>> competition or sales limitations except market elasticity is obviously
>>> not unethical.
>>
>> As long as you have two parties _voluntarily_ (uncoerced by either one of
>> the parties) engaging in a transaction, it's ethical.
>
> Too broad. By this definition drug dealing, prostitution and child porn
> are all ethical business transactions.

They are.

> In fact, by this definition Enron and Adelphia are excused as well.

They were fraud. As such, they were NOT freely entered into.

> The transactions they completed were completely voluntary. I'm a committed
> capitalist,

Too bad your grasp is evidently the comic book version.

> but life, and business, is full of ethical quandries and shades of grey.

Crips!!

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Michael 182 wrote:
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Care to define what you mean by "profiteering off Katrina"?
>>
>> Not sure why this isn't obvious, but raising the cost of building
>> materials,
>> transportation, water, food, etc. beyond that which will yield a
>> reasonable
>> profit. Don't bother telling me about supply and demand - just because
>> one
>> can get away with charging absurd prices in a crisis situation does not
>> mean
>> it is ethical.
>
> "Don't bother telling me about supply and demand."
>
> OK, let's discuss architecture without touching on the little-known
> subject of "gravity."
>
> "Profiteering" can provide social goods in the form of efficient
> allocation of supply. With a hurricance shutting pipelines and
> refineries down, there will be no fuel deliveries for the next week.
> This means there is not enough gas for everyone to fill up their tanks
> "just because." So, you have three choices:
>
> 1. First 1000 people to fill up their tanks win. 950 of them park their
> cars in their driveways and watch the storm on CNN. Anyone after those
> 1000 who neds gas is SOL and cannot buy it at any price.
>
> 2. Raise the gas price to $6. 950 people say "shee-it!" an drive home
> without filling up their tanks, and watch the storm on CNN. Anyone who
> -really- needs gas, can buy it.

When gas rises to $6 a gallon, see how many providers will get off their ass
and rush to the scene with tankers trucks filled to the brim.

When gas stays at $2.50, there is no incentive to go there for "norlmal"
profits.

The new rules in Hawaii are an example; why would providers ship gas to
Hawaii when the markets says it should go elsewhere? Hawaii will have cheap
gas, just not enough of it.

Bureaucrats have been playing that game going back thousands of years
beginning with copper during the early days of written history and it STILL
doesn't aleviate the situation.


>
> 3. Hold prices steady, and ration supply.
>
> The average person thinks #3 is "fairest" but in fact it is the worst,
> because it depends on some brain surgeon somewhere to figure out and
> implement a fair rationing scheme. This is not realistic. Thus, leaving
> market actors to their own devices will ensure that people who really
> need gas, can get it, while people who don't, choose not to. No
> bureaucrats required.
>
> There is no area of "profiteering" that is not subject to these same
> rules. We can write laws that contradict them, but writing a law which
> states that 2+2=3 does not make it so.
>
>> >> Anytime maximizing profits includes illegal behavior, as dramatically
>> >> evidenced by Enron, Adelphia, et al.
>> >
>> > Well, yes, ouright theft is, I suppose, one form of profit
>> > maximization.
>> > :~)
>
> Enron and Adelphia engaged in blatant fraud, which is another thing
> entirely. It's the difference between simply marking up a used car by
> 50% over book and rolling the odometer back.
>
>> It is a huge form of profit maximization, as evidenced by the passage of
>> the
>> Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
>
> Proof that there should be a 2-year waiting period--for Congress to
> pass laws. SarBox should have been called the Lawyers and Accountants
> Full Employment Act, as they're the only ones to objectively benefit
> from it.

And there was nothing in S-O what wasn't already illegal; it was all just
window dressing and posturing.

>
>> > As long as you have two parties _voluntarily_ (uncoerced by either one
>> > of
>> > the parties) engaging in a transaction, it's ethical.
>>
>> Too broad. By this definition drug dealing, prostitution and child porn
>> are
>> all ethical business transactions.
>
> What if the attempt to legally impose ethics produces an even less
> ethical result? C.f. Prohibition.
>
>> In fact, by this definition Enron and
>> Adelphia are excused as well. The transactions they completed were
>> completely voluntary.
>
> No, no, no no. These companies used accounting tricks which made it
> appear that they had/made money they didn't (among other things). It's
> why I used the analogy of rolling back an odometer. We didn't need a
> new law to make what they did illegal.

Quite.


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO