LTBC, wer'e essentially arguing semantics but it's an important one.
The CEOs 'base' is set at about $2.5Mill (plus or minus a lazy Million). That is his base pay no matter what. If the company does well, his bonuses and options take him up to $6.4. If the company does not so well then his base pay is all he gets. (I do recall the management taking a 'half bonus' three or four years ago?!?!).
To use the same logic, if I too were on a bonus of say 50% of my pay then I too would have a significant portion of my 'earnings' at risk- 1/3 of it to be exact. In fact, bring it on! As I said before, i'd LOVE to be on a similar wicket to the powers that be. I'd be happy to be on the same deal as the Chief Pilot where my base pay is fixed and I take a bonus for when the company does well.
OK, lets look at the other side of your argument. Things don't go so well- IE, GD doesn't deliver on his KPIs- then he gets the flick. I'm not sure how this is any different to me not delivering on any of the KPIs that the company puts in front of me every three months or so (every two days at the moment!
). If I don't deliver as advertised, I get the flick too. The only difference between GD and me in this respect is that he probably gets a great pay out and I get zero. Compare that to the CP if he doesn't do well. How much does he have 'at risk'? Only that part that takes him from a normal line Captains pay up to CP pay. I bet his bonus is significantly more than what he has 'at risk' too.
Finally, just because executive renumeration 'works this way', doesn't make it right! Not all 'conventions' are good ones!
