If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
("Robert M. Gary" wrote)
[snip] Maybe you should point the finger at the unions that created an unrealistic pension to begin with and didn't allow changes to the program as discount airlines ate their shorts. Discount airlines ate their shorts because of bad management decisions not related to pension costs. Shall we also talk about "unrealistic" management compensation packages? Montblack |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What bad management decisions? Airline management has about three basic
decisions - planes to fly, routes to fly, and how much to pay their employees. The legacy carriers are paying about 2 cents per seat per mile more for labor than the discount airlines. Some of that difference is pension costs. "Montblack" wrote in message ... ("Robert M. Gary" wrote) [snip] Maybe you should point the finger at the unions that created an unrealistic pension to begin with and didn't allow changes to the program as discount airlines ate their shorts. Discount airlines ate their shorts because of bad management decisions not related to pension costs. Shall we also talk about "unrealistic" management compensation packages? Montblack |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
("sfb" wrote)
What bad management decisions? Airline management has about three basic decisions - planes to fly, routes to fly, and how much to pay their employees. The legacy carriers are paying about 2 cents per seat per mile more for labor than the discount airlines. Some of that difference is pension costs. Is this out of 37 cents per seat mile or 5 cents per seat mile? Curious. Is it 3% more or 28% more? To the larger point: Management, itself, is one of those "basic" decisions - what type of management will we be? It snowballs from there... Pension funds, fuel prices, gate fees, lawsuits, rising interest rates, health care costs, advertising, weather on the east coast g, changing travel habits, Internet integration, oil hedge funds, stock prices, logos ....I'd say (a good) management had better be able to juggle them ALL. Heck, I can juggle just three balls at once. Montblack |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Discount airlines ate their shorts because of bad management decisions not
related to pension costs I'm not sure what your point is. The airline couldn't compete against the discouts, the reason makes no difference. If management is good, employees don't mind enjoying the benefits of that, if management is bad you have to accept it. Remeber that the purpose of a company IS NOT to provide employement to people. People work for a company for as long as it benefits the company. If you don't like that, seek out a socialist place to lay your head. BTW: The reason UAL filed bankruptcy was to avoid having to make their next massive payment to the pension fund. No one would argue that without the pension/benefits program of an "old school" airline UAL woudln't be in the situation it is in now. -Robert |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message oups.com... Discount airlines ate their shorts because of bad management decisions not related to pension costs I'm not sure what your point is. The airline couldn't compete against the discouts, the reason makes no difference. If management is good, employees don't mind enjoying the benefits of that, if management is bad you have to accept it. Remeber that the purpose of a company IS NOT to provide employement to people. People work for a company for as long as it benefits the company. If you don't like that, seek out a socialist place to lay your head. People forget the only reason a company is in business is to make money. The only reason they hire someone is so they can make money for the company. If your not needed your gone, if they don't get rid of you eventfully you will get rid of the company. If the company stock is traded publicly the only real concern is that it makes the stock holders money. BTW: The reason UAL filed bankruptcy was to avoid having to make their next massive payment to the pension fund. No one would argue that without the pension/benefits program of an "old school" airline UAL woudln't be in the situation it is in now. -Robert |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The only reason they hire someone is so they can make money for the company. If
your not needed your gone, if they don't get rid of you eventfully you will get rid of the company. It's such a beautiful law of nature. However, unions alter it and can only result in a less than perfect outcome. Companies make money by retaining (i.e. compensating) the best people and getting rid of the dead weight. Unions are the equalizers and prevent the best employees from getting their share so the dead weight can be carried. When they increase the pay above what the company needs to pay to get the people they need, they create a shortage of employment (i.e. a surplus of applicants). So you have people who want to work for the company but can't because there is a waiting list and the normal supply/demand of the employment market have been broken. -Robert |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message oups.com... Discount airlines ate their shorts because of bad management decisions not related to pension costs I'm not sure what your point is. The airline couldn't compete against the discouts, the reason makes no difference. The reason makes all the difference: in short, their level and quality of service was not all that far removed from the discount carriers. They could not compete PERIOD. Their management was trained and brought up in the world a heavy regulation and was thus completely out of the water on running a competitive enterprise. Recall, too, that several discount carriers didn't survive either (People Express, etc). -- Matt --------------------- Matthew W. Barrow Site-Fill Homes, LLC. Montrose, CO |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Barrow wrote:
They could not compete PERIOD. Their management was trained and brought up in the world a heavy regulation and was thus completely out of the water on running a competitive enterprise. I think you've hit the main reason. As they grow, companies develop a "corporate culture" caused by the fact that existing managers tend to promote people who do things the same way they do. As time goes on, this "culture" may get out of touch with reality. About the only thing that will change it is a hostile takeover. I saw this in action at my former place of employ. The company started out developing projects on a "cost-plus" basis, with money being fronted in advance. They were put up for sale about 15 years ago and were supposed to develop competitive practices, but they're still struggling with that. The old "who's going to fund this" attitude continued to work with their new owner for long enough that they never got out of it. They have another new owner now. The CEO just got handed his walking papers. There's still a little hope. George Patterson Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Shall we also talk about "unrealistic" management compensation packages?
Who cares? The owners of the company (elected board of directors) decided what was necessary to pay the execs. Its not like there are execs out there waiting to be hired. Execs that can run a large company are like NFL quarterbacks. There aren't many of them and they demand a high package or they'll just go somewhere else. The owners of the company have to decide how much they are willing to pay them. What the owners decided to pay their execs is none of the employees business. The purpose of the company is to return value to shareholders (owners) **NOT** to provide employement. If you don't like it, there are still some communist countries out there for you to choose from. -Robert |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote: Shall we also talk about "unrealistic" management compensation packages? Who cares? The owners of the company (elected board of directors) decided what was necessary to pay the execs. Its not like there are execs out there waiting to be hired. Execs that can run a large company are like NFL quarterbacks. There aren't many of them and they demand a high package or they'll just go somewhere else. The owners of the company have to decide how much they are willing to pay them. What the owners decided to pay their execs is none of the employees business. The purpose of the company is to return value to shareholders (owners) **NOT** to provide employement. If you don't like it, there are still some communist countries out there for you to choose from. -Robert I'm not so sure that execs are that rare -- so many of them screw up so many times and, then go off to other companies and ruin them, too. The boards of directors appear to have an incestuous relationship with each other and with other companies, allowing the above phenomenon. Case in point: TWA cancelled the NY-Frankfort run because "the load factor showed no increase." Fact is, the load factor was 100% and could not increase! What company needs 17 levels of vice president, including "vice president of wines and cheeses?" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
Inspiration by friends - mutal interest and motivation to get the PPL | Gary G | Piloting | 1 | October 29th 04 09:19 PM |
USAFM Friends Journal | EDR | Piloting | 0 | February 13th 04 02:19 PM |
Friends hold D.C. vigil for downed pilot | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 19th 04 01:58 AM |
OT - For my American Friends | funkraum | Military Aviation | 1 | June 30th 03 09:37 PM |