Airlines Cut Minimum Pilot Experience to 500 hours and Below

On Nov 27, 9:36 am, "Gatt" wrote:
I'd could wreck their company for a fraction of what they paid her to do it,
and for a fraction of what they paid her to stop. Doesn't take hindsight.

I worked for Agilent at that same time. Agilent had spun off from HP
before things went bad. I can tell you that things at Agilent were not
much better. The market changed. In fact, in our later analysis at
Agilent we concluded that we could have reduced much of the pain if we
hadn't waited so long to begin lay offs (we called them "Work Force
Management"). When revenues are falling because of the "telecom
winter" and you wait too long to reduce your cost structure, everyone
suffers in the end.
On the other hand, we were not able to reduce our workforce in the
same way in France. As a result, France saw fewer layoffs. However, we
also are very, very slow to hire in France because of that and, as a
result, France has very, very high unemployment. Companies MUST be
able to adjust their cost structure (up and down) as necessary to
react to the market. There simply isn't endless loads of cash coming
in the back door to make decisions easier the way it was in the old HP
days. When revenues were easy HP was a choice place to work. However,
there is simply no economic way to continue that when the revenues go
away.

That's sort of a serious tangent, but, I bet plenty of employees in
communist countries fair far better economically than pilots trying to pay
off their school loans and survive for under $25,000 a year.

Maybe but most of us choose to live in a capitalist country because we
believe in it. GA is a perfect example of the benefits of a free
society. Look at what a 172 rents for in France.

Sure, the
primary purpose of a for-profit company is to maximize return to their
investors, but the laws against slavery, illegal labor, child labor, etc
demonstrate a developing sense in America that there is a higher value and
ethic than simply making money for investors.

Again, if you want to say that the purpose of a company is to provide
employement then you are operating on a different premise. If you are
saying a company should continue to lose money because its cost
structure is well beyond its income (which is what happened to HP), in
order to protect the employees, to the cost of investors, then you are
saying that investors have the burden of providing employment. You are
certainly allowed to start your own company and in your articles of
incorporation and in your SEC filing state that the purpose of your
company is to provide employment. However, having been in the
situation of falling revenues with a high cost (employee) overhead, I
can tell you that you either must adjust to the situation or go out of
business fast. There is only so much money out there and you can't
forever fund a company that is losing money that doesn't attempt to
reduce costs.

-Robert