Interviewing with Jeppesen

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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

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

Marco

"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.

"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.

"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

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.