arewenearlythereyet? wrote:
Airabbit, and your point is.... apart from the bleedin' obvious?
Thanks for the Economics 101 lecture but as you say, you don't have the answer or even a plan. Suffice it to say that we, as pilots, do buckle down, do work hard and some do even leave.
Perhaps the answer is in getting the 'sociopaths' at the helm to be more liable for the results of their decision making. Not just by denying them their bonuses but by making them as liable as most hard working small businesses with their own assets such as their homes being liable to surrender or even, shock horror, their pension funds being decimated in order to make up the losses. I'm pretty sure that'd make them think things through a bit more thoroughly.
…and you want what from me? An apology? A viable solution? Sorry, don’t hold your breath.
You have every right to squawk if your salary is reduced; for whatever reason: poor decisions by management; skyrocketing fuel prices; China and India getting industrialized and fighting (and paying) more for available oil; whatever the reason. What grates on the feelings of many however, are the stories about the occasional airline pilot who melancholically laments that he is going to have to “sell the ski lodge in Aspen
and the ski boat docked at the lake house, in order for him to keep the three race horses he has on his ranch.” However, before you start taking pot shots at that comment, everyone recognizes that this is far from every pilot out there. But you have to admit that being an airline pilot, has, for a number of years, been a rather lucrative “job” that allowed a comfortable income and several valuable perks of the job – time off, free (or cheap) transportation and discounts on hotels, rental cars, and the like. Recently, this has been less so, of course. But still, flying for one of the “majors,” up until 2001, still had its benefits. Times have, indeed, changed.
I also recognize that some of the impacted persons do, as you say, buckle down and work hard. If that is enough, great! If it is not – it is not, regardless of the reasons. If the “outflow” in the bathtub has not been stemmed or the “inflow” has not increased to the extent that it overcomes the increasing “outflow” – something has to change; or the bathtub will become dry and leave employees the same way.
If you have an idea as to do it differently, spring it on us, friend. We’ll all be in your debt. You say you would
“get sociopaths at the helm to be more liable for the results of their decision making.” Perhaps that would work. All you have to do is find those who are willing to take the helm under those agreements. I’m quite sure there are some out there who would. Identifying them first and reaching an agreement with them next seems to be the universal stumbling block. An airline (or any other business) finds just “the right” mix of circumstances and everything is bliss. But let any one of the factors change and bliss becomes broke. Whose fault is that? Mine? The CEOs? Yours? I would also suggest that in many (perhaps most) of those situations, the CEO does, just as you say, loose his/her job. But, as is true in many instances, that CEO probably had his/her head screwed on straight and had a “golden parachute” written into their contract. That is nothing new – it is just more publicized today. Should we outlaw such contract contents? Perhaps we should. Would that reduce the potential population of interested CEO candidates? Perhaps. What then?
I know that the aviation business has its share of predators – as does the rest of the economic world. But I might suggest that the decisions that are usually made in aviation Board Rooms are made with the information available at the moment – as guided by instinct, experience, and goals; either personal, professional, or corporate -- or a mix of the three. It would probably be a better place if well-intended CEO’s could exert appropriate influence on the factors that impact their own businesses – but that sort of influence is very limited (and what there is of it just may not be ethical at all). Sometimes I think the general public, in the US anyway, is so pent up on correcting such “ills” that we wind up sending Martha Stewart to prison – while OJ and Robert Blake go free.
Hmmm… OK. I’ve regained some control. Sorry. Got carried away just a bit.
Back to your point of
“… making them (“helm holders”)
as liable as most hard working small businesses with their own assets such as their homes being liable to surrender or even, shock horror, their pension funds being decimated in order to make up the losses…”: that sounds like a logical approach, but I would ask how you might feel if someone approached you to take a job under similar circumstances. Imagine the job offer: “Sir (or Madam), we would very much like you to lead our company, but if you make bad decisions, you will be fired, you will loose your house and we will take away your pension fund as well, and whatever else we may think is appropriate at that time. But we have big hopes for you and our company. What do you say, sir (or madam)?” Would you take the job? I don’t think I would - at least not without some sort of different guarantee.
So, we’ve gone ‘round and ‘round Robin Hood’s barn. And we keep winding up at the same point. What’s the answer? As I said, I don’t have one. And, I guess, for that, you jumped on me for the “economics lecture.” Sorry, but the facts and the circumstances haven’t changed.
________
AirRabbit