SWA plan for 15% ROIC

[PCL_128]

I can never follow the changes in logic along this line of thought. I so often hear that big brother GK came storming in uninvited to negotiations and fought valiantly for SWA pilots much to the detriment of ALPA members. If he doesn't care about his employees then what exactly happened? You simply can't fight both sides of the argument since they are diametrically opposed. So please tell me, which is it, fights for his employees or couldn't care less?

Fighting to benefit SWAPA was just another bean counter's move. That's why I've never taken any of it personally and have no animosity towards GK. It's just business. He had a choice: piss off 1/3 of the combined group, or piss off 2/3 of the combined group. Because no matter what, one of those two groups is going to end up really pissed off. He made the same choice I would have made. Had nothing to do with "caring."

 

[PCL_128]

Yes but if you do not count beans, you may run out of beans, and then all the people who like getting beans on the regular basis will no longer get beans. The ultimate sign of caring fro your employes if keeping track of the beans. Now all that being said it is sometimes hard to understand some of the decisions the bean counters make.

Nowhere have I implied a negative connotation with counting beans. I actually agree with you, for once. But it's a mistake to believe that he makes decisions based on his love for the average worker bee. It's delusional. Primarily because he has a fiduciary obligation to his shareholders, so he's required by law to think of them first. No matter what he says, the shareholders are first, and the employees are a distant second.

If you do drop out please keep us posted on your progress, the grass may not be a green as you think on the other side of the cockpit door.

Oh, I'll keep you updated, yip.

 

[canyonblue]

I can never follow the changes in logic along this line of thought. I so often hear that big brother GK came storming in uninvited to negotiations and fought valiantly for SWA pilots much to the detriment of ALPA members. If he doesn't care about his employees then what exactly happened? You simply can't fight both sides of the argument since they are diametrically opposed. So please tell me, which is it, fights for his employees or couldn't care less?

I was wondering the same thing. How can it go both ways?

 

[tomgoodman]

....he has a fiduciary obligation to his shareholders, so he's required by law to think of them first. No matter what he says, the shareholders are first, and the employees are a distant second.

Wise managers know that the two obligations are closely related. Long ago, a Delta CEO refused to lay off employees during a downturn, saying: "The time has come for shareholders to pay a small price in order to keep our team together."

 

[dicko]

Wise managers know that the two obligations are closely related. Long ago, a Delta CEO refused to lay off employees during a downturn, saying: "The time has come for shareholders to pay a small price in order to keep our team together."

Disregard. I just realized Tom was talking about a previous DAL CEO.

 

[PCL_128]

Wise managers know that the two obligations are closely related.

Yes, but that calculation is also a bean counter's calculation. It all ultimately comes down to counting beans, not to "LUV." No CEO of a publicly traded corporation has ever made a decisions just because he "loves" you.

 

[HowardBorden]

But it's a mistake to believe that he makes decisions based on his love for the average worker bee. It's delusional. Primarily because he has a fiduciary obligation to his shareholders, so he's required by law to think of them first. No matter what he says, the shareholders are first, and the employees are a distant second.

I absolutely agree that shareholders come first, but where you lose comprehension of how SWA operates is the link between how employees are treated and managed and in turn shareholder profits. So when you state that love for individual worker bee is delusional I can agree, but what you are missing is the bigger picture that fiduciary responsibility to shareholders ultimately begins by treating employees right and developing a strong culture. Many here state that SWA culture is dead or dying, but most don't actually work there. As someone who does actually work there, I will submit that on its worst day Southwest company culture far exceeds most airlines on their best day.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-03/business/35453344_1_culture-core-values-customers

A consciously developed customer-centered culture is a business advantage that will serve you for years — and inoculate you against competitive inroads. Consider for a minute Southwest Airlines and the lengthy list of would-be category killers that have tried to imitate it: United Airlines’ United Shuttle, Continental Airlines’ Continental Lite, Delta’s Delta Express and US Airways’ Metro-Jet.

What did these companies lack: Money? Name recognition? Hardly. They lacked Southwest’s relentless focus on culture, which none of its pop-up competitors was willing to slow down to emulate. And all are now bust.

This is why someone leading a business today — preparing a bright future for your organization and perhaps for the world — needs to focus not just on nuts and bolts, techniques and standards, but on culture.

Without a consciously created culture, your leadership won’t last beyond the moment you leave the building. Any vacation — or even lunch break — you take is an invitation for disaster: The inevitable complaint I hear from consulting clients and at my engagements as a speaker is this: “Employees act differently when there aren’t any managers around.” But with a great company culture, employees will be motivated, regardless of management’s presence or absence.

 

[redflyer65]

Plus the fact that Southwest employees own HUNDREDS of millions of shares in LUV stock.


....we are the shareholders, as well as the stakeholders.

 

[jonjuan]

Plus the fact that Southwest employees own HUNDREDS of millions of shares in LUV stock.


....we are the shareholders, as well as the stakeholders.

No different than any other company.

 

[redflyer65]

No different than any other company.

Completely disagree. I'd say more SW employees have a stake in the company than most others. Especially when it comes to US airlines.