CEO Air Travel Guide
March 18, 2009 7:41 AM Subscribe
JetBlue's timely introduction to commercial air travel for CEOs only (no minions, lackeys, or "regular" people allowed). Chapter 1, chapter2 and chapter 3.
CLASS WARFARE NERD RAGE LOL BIG BUSINESS PEPSI\\wJET BLUE RRRARRGH
Do I have the bases covered?
posted by ardgedee at 7:49 AM on March 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
Do I have the bases covered?
posted by ardgedee at 7:49 AM on March 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
yeah! jetblue! CEOs SUCK! regular people rule! buy shit from US not THEM!
posted by askmehow at 7:50 AM on March 18, 2009
posted by askmehow at 7:50 AM on March 18, 2009
Ok, I'll laugh at CEOs for just a minute, but then I'm going right back to hating their stinking guts.
posted by orme at 8:04 AM on March 18, 2009
posted by orme at 8:04 AM on March 18, 2009
CLASS WARFARE
CEOs SUCK! regular people rule!
I guess there is no status so quo that it won't find a defender on MeFi.
posted by DU at 8:09 AM on March 18, 2009 [2 favorites]
CEOs SUCK! regular people rule!
I guess there is no status so quo that it won't find a defender on MeFi.
posted by DU at 8:09 AM on March 18, 2009 [2 favorites]
Luckily, I was just named CEO of my one-man company, SwiftCo. Inc. Ltd. Now bring me my blanky and a fresh appletini!
posted by swift at 8:09 AM on March 18, 2009
posted by swift at 8:09 AM on March 18, 2009
Could someone tell me what's in the video? It says right at the beginning "CEOs only," so I couldn't watch.
posted by adamrice at 8:22 AM on March 18, 2009
posted by adamrice at 8:22 AM on March 18, 2009
> I guess there is no status so quo that it won't find a defender...
You got that right.
posted by you just lost the game at 8:27 AM on March 18, 2009
You got that right.
posted by you just lost the game at 8:27 AM on March 18, 2009
no, when a big company with a CEO that is operating for profit makes an ad like this its completely transparent, disingenious and falls flat.
if they really cared about "regular people" they could operate the airline at a $0 profit. they don't, they don't care about people anymore than the CEO in their ad. hell, in 2008 the CEO of jetblue took a 50% salary cut to $250k/yr to show solidarity with his workers - power to the people!
it such shit - "edgy" "web 2.0" "viral" marketing, and it completely worked, hence a FPP and the dicussion that ensues.
posted by askmehow at 8:38 AM on March 18, 2009
if they really cared about "regular people" they could operate the airline at a $0 profit. they don't, they don't care about people anymore than the CEO in their ad. hell, in 2008 the CEO of jetblue took a 50% salary cut to $250k/yr to show solidarity with his workers - power to the people!
it such shit - "edgy" "web 2.0" "viral" marketing, and it completely worked, hence a FPP and the dicussion that ensues.
posted by askmehow at 8:38 AM on March 18, 2009
From you just lost the game's link:
Here’s a good rule of thumb: When you buy an elephant, you can’t refuse to buy the manure that comes with it.
Yes, Jonah Goldberg. Because a toxic corporation whose top executives flout common decency in the name of naked, quivering greed is exactly the same as a shitting elephant.
Christ, what an evil fucker.
Also, these videos were funnier than I expected them to be. The quick cuts to stills and graphics clearly had some inspiration from Arrested Development.
posted by hifiparasol at 8:40 AM on March 18, 2009
Here’s a good rule of thumb: When you buy an elephant, you can’t refuse to buy the manure that comes with it.
Yes, Jonah Goldberg. Because a toxic corporation whose top executives flout common decency in the name of naked, quivering greed is exactly the same as a shitting elephant.
Christ, what an evil fucker.
Also, these videos were funnier than I expected them to be. The quick cuts to stills and graphics clearly had some inspiration from Arrested Development.
posted by hifiparasol at 8:40 AM on March 18, 2009
Man, I'm glad someone warned me that link was to Goldberg before I clicked it.
posted by DU at 8:42 AM on March 18, 2009
posted by DU at 8:42 AM on March 18, 2009
Because a toxic corporation whose top executives flout common decency in the name of naked, quivering greed is exactly the same as a shitting elephant.
It's actually a pretty good metaphor: little people get shat on by both.
posted by Dr.Enormous at 8:44 AM on March 18, 2009
It's actually a pretty good metaphor: little people get shat on by both.
posted by Dr.Enormous at 8:44 AM on March 18, 2009
jesus, i hate to be the defenders of corp. america but wtf. the bonuses are just the trailing indicator of the problem, they aren't the problem.
the ppl that received them, while representative of a problem, were playing by the rules that have been put in place over the last 30 years. AIG was obligated, by law, to pay them. a set of fucked up laws, but laws nevertheless. would you prefer renegade corporations that can pick and choose which laws to follow based on the mood of the nation?
there's a massive culture of greed, born in america, that is literally destroying the planet. the AIG bonuses are a *hopefully* a vestige of that. it seems the current administration is trying to take some action to reclaim them - and rightfully so. i just don't see what the alternatives were for the ppl running payroll at AIG had except to pay them out.
posted by askmehow at 8:50 AM on March 18, 2009
the ppl that received them, while representative of a problem, were playing by the rules that have been put in place over the last 30 years. AIG was obligated, by law, to pay them. a set of fucked up laws, but laws nevertheless. would you prefer renegade corporations that can pick and choose which laws to follow based on the mood of the nation?
there's a massive culture of greed, born in america, that is literally destroying the planet. the AIG bonuses are a *hopefully* a vestige of that. it seems the current administration is trying to take some action to reclaim them - and rightfully so. i just don't see what the alternatives were for the ppl running payroll at AIG had except to pay them out.
posted by askmehow at 8:50 AM on March 18, 2009
would you prefer renegade corporations that can pick and choose which laws to follow
You mean like insurance companies picking and choosing which customers to cover or which policies to pay out on? BTW, what does AIG stand for?
posted by DU at 8:53 AM on March 18, 2009
You mean like insurance companies picking and choosing which customers to cover or which policies to pay out on? BTW, what does AIG stand for?
posted by DU at 8:53 AM on March 18, 2009
I recently discovered a member of my own family is a CEO. It's challenging for sure.
Discovering a family member is a CEO can be a shock and prejudiced ad campaigns like this only make it harder for those of us learning to live with a CEO.
posted by Stonestock Relentless at 8:55 AM on March 18, 2009 [2 favorites]
Discovering a family member is a CEO can be a shock and prejudiced ad campaigns like this only make it harder for those of us learning to live with a CEO.
posted by Stonestock Relentless at 8:55 AM on March 18, 2009 [2 favorites]
Yeah, remember when we all complained about the Bush administration not following the rule of law?
Obama's administration determined that they didn't have a legal way to stop the bonuses, so they didn't stop the bonuses. This is the right outcome, no matter how distasteful the bonus payments are.
posted by Pants! at 8:55 AM on March 18, 2009
Obama's administration determined that they didn't have a legal way to stop the bonuses, so they didn't stop the bonuses. This is the right outcome, no matter how distasteful the bonus payments are.
posted by Pants! at 8:55 AM on March 18, 2009
Chapter 3, at :49 the ticker symbols amused me. Including: BRB, G2G, ROFLMAO, etc.
Seems like a fun campaign that points out the benefits of JetBlue service by comparing it to private corporate jet travel, while the villain of the piece, the corporate CEO gets taken down a peg or two in an humorous way. It works for me.
posted by spacely_sprocket at 8:58 AM on March 18, 2009
Seems like a fun campaign that points out the benefits of JetBlue service by comparing it to private corporate jet travel, while the villain of the piece, the corporate CEO gets taken down a peg or two in an humorous way. It works for me.
posted by spacely_sprocket at 8:58 AM on March 18, 2009
> if they really cared about "regular people" they could operate the airline at a $0 profit. they don't, they don't care about people anymore than the CEO in their ad. hell, in 2008 the CEO of jetblue took a 50% salary cut to $250k/yr to show solidarity with his workers - power to the people!
You seem to have lost me there. The CEO of a multimillion dollar company was a) only getting paid $500,000 a year before 2008, and b) still took a 50% pay cut to 250,000 a year. That is a pretty serious pay cut, and completely unheard for american companies to be offering their CEOs so LITTLE. I mean, usually it is countries like Japan that pay their CEOs so little.
So what was your point again? That they should be operating their services at a loss? Because there is either a yearly profit (ie, so they can have savings and invest in infrastructure and payback the original investors for the money they gave to startup the company) or a company that spends every penny it earns on pay and equipment and staffing, but then has no savings, and usually needs a grant from the US GOV to startup, since they aren't going to get a lot of investors to give them starting capitol just because its a nice warm fuzzy thing to do.
JetBlue hasn't asked for bailout money, hasn't given totally unrealistic pay grades to the top 1%, has operated in a way to ensure it's better long term success than other airlines, is in general a nice company, and you want to rip on it for not being cheaper?
posted by mrzarquon at 9:05 AM on March 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
You seem to have lost me there. The CEO of a multimillion dollar company was a) only getting paid $500,000 a year before 2008, and b) still took a 50% pay cut to 250,000 a year. That is a pretty serious pay cut, and completely unheard for american companies to be offering their CEOs so LITTLE. I mean, usually it is countries like Japan that pay their CEOs so little.
So what was your point again? That they should be operating their services at a loss? Because there is either a yearly profit (ie, so they can have savings and invest in infrastructure and payback the original investors for the money they gave to startup the company) or a company that spends every penny it earns on pay and equipment and staffing, but then has no savings, and usually needs a grant from the US GOV to startup, since they aren't going to get a lot of investors to give them starting capitol just because its a nice warm fuzzy thing to do.
JetBlue hasn't asked for bailout money, hasn't given totally unrealistic pay grades to the top 1%, has operated in a way to ensure it's better long term success than other airlines, is in general a nice company, and you want to rip on it for not being cheaper?
posted by mrzarquon at 9:05 AM on March 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
the ppl that received them, while representative of a problem, were playing by the rules that have been put in place over the last 30 years. AIG was obligated, by law, to pay them. a set of fucked up laws, but laws nevertheless. would you prefer renegade corporations that can pick and choose which laws to follow based on the mood of the nation?
Actually it looks like AIG may not have been playing by the rules (if by 'rules' you mean 'laws')
posted by delmoi at 9:05 AM on March 18, 2009 [2 favorites]
Actually it looks like AIG may not have been playing by the rules (if by 'rules' you mean 'laws')
posted by delmoi at 9:05 AM on March 18, 2009 [2 favorites]
Obama's administration determined that they didn't have a legal way to stop the bonuses
Of course they do. The federal government has a way they use every year to get money from people. A 99% tax rate on any non-performance-based bonus for businesses kept afloat by federal intervention ought to do the trick.
I realize changing the tax code probably takes an act of congress, but if the publicly expressed anger of officials isn't just theater, you'd think there'd be support for it.
posted by weston at 9:05 AM on March 18, 2009
Of course they do. The federal government has a way they use every year to get money from people. A 99% tax rate on any non-performance-based bonus for businesses kept afloat by federal intervention ought to do the trick.
I realize changing the tax code probably takes an act of congress, but if the publicly expressed anger of officials isn't just theater, you'd think there'd be support for it.
posted by weston at 9:05 AM on March 18, 2009
You mean like insurance companies picking and choosing which customers to cover or which policies to pay out on? BTW, what does AIG stand for?
Uh, it stands for American International Group, but it was actually started in China when China was a capitalist country under the republican government (After the Qing dynasty but before the communist takeover)
posted by delmoi at 9:10 AM on March 18, 2009
Uh, it stands for American International Group, but it was actually started in China when China was a capitalist country under the republican government (After the Qing dynasty but before the communist takeover)
posted by delmoi at 9:10 AM on March 18, 2009
Regarding the bonuses, if I were a conspiracy theorist, the bonus brouhaha is just a cover to distract the media from the real news, a change of FASB accounting regs on Level 3 assets, have you seen the performance of AIG, C, FNM in the past week? This AIG bonus crap came out at the exact same time. /tinfoilhat
posted by amuseDetachment at 9:10 AM on March 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by amuseDetachment at 9:10 AM on March 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
If it takes an act of Congress, let me remind you that the Obama administration is not in the legislative branch.
posted by Pants! at 9:12 AM on March 18, 2009
posted by Pants! at 9:12 AM on March 18, 2009
As for Jet Blue... I used to have some nice feelings about the airline, having had a few good flight experiences with them. However, not only are they apparently control freaks about passengers using cameras in-flight, they're also videotaping the cabin themselves during all flights. Hypocritical double fun given that Jet Blue has a some history of violating its own privacy policy and handing off passenger information to third parties.
You seem to have lost me there. The CEO of a multimillion dollar company was a) only getting paid $500,000 a year before 2008, and b) still took a 50% pay cut to 250,000 a year.
It's cool, especially considering that JetBlue generally targets its salaries on the low side (at least, according to firsthand accounts of a friend who worked their), but I kindof suspect as a founder, the CEO's salary isn't the bulk of his compensation.
posted by weston at 9:19 AM on March 18, 2009
You seem to have lost me there. The CEO of a multimillion dollar company was a) only getting paid $500,000 a year before 2008, and b) still took a 50% pay cut to 250,000 a year.
It's cool, especially considering that JetBlue generally targets its salaries on the low side (at least, according to firsthand accounts of a friend who worked their), but I kindof suspect as a founder, the CEO's salary isn't the bulk of his compensation.
posted by weston at 9:19 AM on March 18, 2009
If you didn't watch them because they're, well, ads -- they're funny, well, ads. In the context of ads. Which they are.
posted by dhartung at 9:21 AM on March 18, 2009
posted by dhartung at 9:21 AM on March 18, 2009
Obama administration is not in the legislative branch
Obviously they can't just pass a law themselves. On the other hand, the presidency has an enormous influence on the legislative process. Combined that with Obama's political capital,
the ostensible outrage I've heard from members of congress, and broad public disgust at the bonuses, and I'm pretty sure that if the outrage isn't just theater, they could get the job done.
posted by weston at 9:23 AM on March 18, 2009
Obviously they can't just pass a law themselves. On the other hand, the presidency has an enormous influence on the legislative process. Combined that with Obama's political capital,
the ostensible outrage I've heard from members of congress, and broad public disgust at the bonuses, and I'm pretty sure that if the outrage isn't just theater, they could get the job done.
posted by weston at 9:23 AM on March 18, 2009
i didn't think the ads were funny b/c they felt disingenous
regardless of the % cut in salary, $250k/yr is a boatload of money. as weston notes probably doesn't represent the bulk of his compensation.
the country has a lot of problems right now. hopefully the current administration starts enacting laws that protect people over corporations which would be a refreshing change of pace.
posted by askmehow at 9:34 AM on March 18, 2009
regardless of the % cut in salary, $250k/yr is a boatload of money. as weston notes probably doesn't represent the bulk of his compensation.
the country has a lot of problems right now. hopefully the current administration starts enacting laws that protect people over corporations which would be a refreshing change of pace.
posted by askmehow at 9:34 AM on March 18, 2009
The video is funny.
This OMGCEOBONUS crap completely ignores the actual problems, and needless to say, offers no viable solution to them. As long as we are foaming in outrage about specific one time cash bonuses and golden parachutes, we can only complain about things that already happened, no long term change will come from this sort of meaningless outrage. As long as the debate is "are the bonuses too big or not?", the system as it exists has won already.
Instead of bonuses and CEO compensation, let's please focus on regulation, accountability, and sustainable business practices. They have shown that they were underregulated and are incapable of sorting things out themselves without destroying the economy. So rebuild the economy, and bring back the regulation that prevents that sort of crap from happening.
posted by idiopath at 9:42 AM on March 18, 2009 [2 favorites]
This OMGCEOBONUS crap completely ignores the actual problems, and needless to say, offers no viable solution to them. As long as we are foaming in outrage about specific one time cash bonuses and golden parachutes, we can only complain about things that already happened, no long term change will come from this sort of meaningless outrage. As long as the debate is "are the bonuses too big or not?", the system as it exists has won already.
Instead of bonuses and CEO compensation, let's please focus on regulation, accountability, and sustainable business practices. They have shown that they were underregulated and are incapable of sorting things out themselves without destroying the economy. So rebuild the economy, and bring back the regulation that prevents that sort of crap from happening.
posted by idiopath at 9:42 AM on March 18, 2009 [2 favorites]
I hate that the weasels that helped orchestrate this mess are getting bonuses but I don't want Obama to start doing unconstitutional things to single them out. The bonuses have been written into contracts, the contracts are valid. Violating the constitution to single out and punish these guys would feel great, but the constitution should be held above the need for revenge. I think Obama knows this, and more than that, believes it which is why he hasn't called out Summers for saying not much can be done.
Special 100% tax brackets that single out these few people or negating the contracts are both unconstitutional. The time to address the bonuses was before offering the money, it would have been fair to add a clause that said that accepting the money nullified all existing bonus contracts. It'd have been fair but probably politically questionable to assign a bonus czar to approve future bonus plans while they were still sucking on the government teat.
It actually hurts me to say let them have the bonuses, the vengeful side of me would like nothing more to see them punished by any means possible. The rational side realizes that this would not be a good thing.
posted by substrate at 10:09 AM on March 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
Special 100% tax brackets that single out these few people or negating the contracts are both unconstitutional. The time to address the bonuses was before offering the money, it would have been fair to add a clause that said that accepting the money nullified all existing bonus contracts. It'd have been fair but probably politically questionable to assign a bonus czar to approve future bonus plans while they were still sucking on the government teat.
It actually hurts me to say let them have the bonuses, the vengeful side of me would like nothing more to see them punished by any means possible. The rational side realizes that this would not be a good thing.
posted by substrate at 10:09 AM on March 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
as a founder, the CEO's salary isn't the bulk of his compensation.
I'm wrong about this. The CEO who had his salary cut is not founder David Neeleman, it's the guy who took the post in 2007, David Barger. I also suspect that the bulk of his compensation isn't salary, but you never know.
Interestingly enough, according to wikipedia, Neeleman's 2002 salary "was $200,000 with a bonus of $90,000. Neeleman donated his entire salary to the JetBlue Crewmember Crisis Fund, which was established for JetBlue employees who fall on hard times."
So, Barger's had his salary cut to more or less what the founding CEO's salary who donated all of it to his employees was.
posted by weston at 10:11 AM on March 18, 2009
I'm wrong about this. The CEO who had his salary cut is not founder David Neeleman, it's the guy who took the post in 2007, David Barger. I also suspect that the bulk of his compensation isn't salary, but you never know.
Interestingly enough, according to wikipedia, Neeleman's 2002 salary "was $200,000 with a bonus of $90,000. Neeleman donated his entire salary to the JetBlue Crewmember Crisis Fund, which was established for JetBlue employees who fall on hard times."
So, Barger's had his salary cut to more or less what the founding CEO's salary who donated all of it to his employees was.
posted by weston at 10:11 AM on March 18, 2009
Actually, from the articles in the filing, the Dave Barger is still making $500k after all his other bonuses / incentives, and he is not the founder. (He does however have 4 million or so in unused options that he is sitting on, which he's accumulated over the 10 years he has been with JetBlue).
I am not arguing that 250k/500k is NOT a boatload of money, however, in the US, because of the crazy way corporations have decided to reimburse themselves, JetBlue is still reimbursing well below what other companies would consider the going rate for the CEO.
So if you want to talk about the need for companies to have realistic and practical assumptions for the reimbursement of their CEO's, JetBlue is actually doing a much better job of it than other companies. This one's CEO only took a 10% pay cut to just a million dollars, and their company is valued at 319 million vs 3.8 billion that jetblue is.
posted by mrzarquon at 10:22 AM on March 18, 2009
I am not arguing that 250k/500k is NOT a boatload of money, however, in the US, because of the crazy way corporations have decided to reimburse themselves, JetBlue is still reimbursing well below what other companies would consider the going rate for the CEO.
So if you want to talk about the need for companies to have realistic and practical assumptions for the reimbursement of their CEO's, JetBlue is actually doing a much better job of it than other companies. This one's CEO only took a 10% pay cut to just a million dollars, and their company is valued at 319 million vs 3.8 billion that jetblue is.
posted by mrzarquon at 10:22 AM on March 18, 2009
Special 100% tax brackets that single out these few people [is] unconstitutional.
Certainly a tax code or any law that singles out people would be. I am not a constitutional scholar or lawyer, but I have yet to see an argument that a situation can't be singled out... I'm not sure why what I proposed above would be any less constitutional than the Alternative Minimum Tax.
I recognize there can be a fine line between people and a situation, and that it sounds a lot like what I proposed is targeting people, but I'm not suggesting *they* be taxed at a 99% rate. Just bonus compensation that isn't related in any clear way to job performance and business success that's issued by companies effectively operating on public money.
As for whether contracts can be negated or renegotiated... obviously they can, unions are being asked to do it, courts can force people in bankruptcy to do it. The big problem here is that even though AIG is in fact inarguably bankrupt, we bypassed a formal step that allowed everyone to legally recognize it. Any dilemma involved in whether or not contracts with AIG can being renegotiated may be important on a number of levels, but it's also essentially technical. There's not really an ethical dilemma here.
posted by weston at 10:24 AM on March 18, 2009
Certainly a tax code or any law that singles out people would be. I am not a constitutional scholar or lawyer, but I have yet to see an argument that a situation can't be singled out... I'm not sure why what I proposed above would be any less constitutional than the Alternative Minimum Tax.
I recognize there can be a fine line between people and a situation, and that it sounds a lot like what I proposed is targeting people, but I'm not suggesting *they* be taxed at a 99% rate. Just bonus compensation that isn't related in any clear way to job performance and business success that's issued by companies effectively operating on public money.
As for whether contracts can be negated or renegotiated... obviously they can, unions are being asked to do it, courts can force people in bankruptcy to do it. The big problem here is that even though AIG is in fact inarguably bankrupt, we bypassed a formal step that allowed everyone to legally recognize it. Any dilemma involved in whether or not contracts with AIG can being renegotiated may be important on a number of levels, but it's also essentially technical. There's not really an ethical dilemma here.
posted by weston at 10:24 AM on March 18, 2009
would you prefer renegade corporations that can pick and choose which laws to follow based on the mood of the nation?
OOOoooh, that explains why the auto workers didn't have to renegotiate their contracts with the Big Three.
Thanks! I had been wondering! Contractual obligations rule!
posted by Michael Roberts at 10:41 AM on March 18, 2009
OOOoooh, that explains why the auto workers didn't have to renegotiate their contracts with the Big Three.
Thanks! I had been wondering! Contractual obligations rule!
posted by Michael Roberts at 10:41 AM on March 18, 2009
I saw chapters 2 and 3 as featuring a sort of Americanized Upper Class Twit.
posted by jim in austin at 11:28 AM on March 18, 2009
posted by jim in austin at 11:28 AM on March 18, 2009
BOO web 2.0 marketing viruses and their patsies/shills.
YAY mefites for talking about something relevant anyway.
I'm all for taxing the f*** out of these guys. Or publishing their names, pictures, and addresses in the newspaper. Give em the choice.
posted by flotson at 11:44 AM on March 18, 2009
YAY mefites for talking about something relevant anyway.
I'm all for taxing the f*** out of these guys. Or publishing their names, pictures, and addresses in the newspaper. Give em the choice.
posted by flotson at 11:44 AM on March 18, 2009
It's like you think those of us enraged by the bonus issue simply don't understand that they amount to a relatively small sum of money, or that they are contractually obligated to pay it, or that it is not the source of the real problem. I know all this, and I DON'T CARE.
Symbolic gestures mean something. The AIG bonuses represent how many Americans feel about the tremendous, unimaginable amounts of money being taken from us, and given to the people who fucked us over, so that they can continue to fuck us over. That our government is impotent at best, but much more likely, guilty of complicity. Despite all the lip service, no reform will happen, and nothing is changing.
Doing something about the bonuses won't fix shit on its own, but it would be a great way to say "the bullshit stops now."
posted by danny the boy at 12:04 PM on March 18, 2009
Symbolic gestures mean something. The AIG bonuses represent how many Americans feel about the tremendous, unimaginable amounts of money being taken from us, and given to the people who fucked us over, so that they can continue to fuck us over. That our government is impotent at best, but much more likely, guilty of complicity. Despite all the lip service, no reform will happen, and nothing is changing.
Doing something about the bonuses won't fix shit on its own, but it would be a great way to say "the bullshit stops now."
posted by danny the boy at 12:04 PM on March 18, 2009
YES, AIG bonuses are in the bigger picture, completely stupid and not particularly relevant. But so many times in the past it's been the trivial that gets people hanged and revolutions started.
To quote Mos Def:
Numbers is hardly real and they never have feelings
but you push too hard, even numbers got limits
Why did one straw break the camel's back? Here's the secret:
the million other straws underneath it - it's all mathematics
posted by danny the boy at 12:11 PM on March 18, 2009
To quote Mos Def:
Numbers is hardly real and they never have feelings
but you push too hard, even numbers got limits
Why did one straw break the camel's back? Here's the secret:
the million other straws underneath it - it's all mathematics
posted by danny the boy at 12:11 PM on March 18, 2009
I agree that getting these bonuses back is an important symbolic gesture. The American (and thus global) financial system has been operating with unrivaled impropriety. Those who desperately seek to maintain our disgusting debt oriented economic practices place corporate expediency over the rule of law.
Fortunately, when we get upset we can log in to AT&T or Time Warner's content delivery systems and whine about it to each other.
Everyone knows on some level that we Enroned the whole finance sector.
posted by polyhedron at 2:44 PM on March 18, 2009
Fortunately, when we get upset we can log in to AT&T or Time Warner's content delivery systems and whine about it to each other.
Everyone knows on some level that we Enroned the whole finance sector.
posted by polyhedron at 2:44 PM on March 18, 2009
You seem to have lost me there. The CEO of a multimillion dollar company was a) only getting paid $500,000 a year before 2008, and b) still took a 50% pay cut to 250,000 a year. That is a pretty serious pay cut, and completely unheard for american companies to be offering their CEOs so LITTLE.
Correction: he took 50% for the 2nd half of the year. So he took $250k in the first half of the year, and then $125k for the second half, for a total $375k. He also would have taken in stock options ($250k the previous year), and various benefits. So in all, he took a $125k cut on roughly $650k, so about 20%.
Still pretty impressive, and it's really nice to see that there are sane CEOs. I believe WestJet's CEO is similarly compensated (and perhaps significantly lower, though he also owns about 25% of the company stock, IIRC). Meanwhile, United's CEO is getting $40M or so.
I know Westjet's employees have a fantastic stock option plan and a lot of freedom to perform their jobs better and more enjoyably. The CEO is an ex-pilot, and he has developed a company culture that seems pretty enviable. In my experience, they provide superlative service and are very price-competitive.
If Jet Blue is like WestJet, it would be another indication to me that there is a natural maximum "size" for a business at which it will perform best for everyone concerned: stockholders, customers, employees, and communities. Once it gets "too big," one or more of those groups is going to be sacrificed to the interests of upper management.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:02 PM on March 18, 2009
Correction: he took 50% for the 2nd half of the year. So he took $250k in the first half of the year, and then $125k for the second half, for a total $375k. He also would have taken in stock options ($250k the previous year), and various benefits. So in all, he took a $125k cut on roughly $650k, so about 20%.
Still pretty impressive, and it's really nice to see that there are sane CEOs. I believe WestJet's CEO is similarly compensated (and perhaps significantly lower, though he also owns about 25% of the company stock, IIRC). Meanwhile, United's CEO is getting $40M or so.
I know Westjet's employees have a fantastic stock option plan and a lot of freedom to perform their jobs better and more enjoyably. The CEO is an ex-pilot, and he has developed a company culture that seems pretty enviable. In my experience, they provide superlative service and are very price-competitive.
If Jet Blue is like WestJet, it would be another indication to me that there is a natural maximum "size" for a business at which it will perform best for everyone concerned: stockholders, customers, employees, and communities. Once it gets "too big," one or more of those groups is going to be sacrificed to the interests of upper management.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:02 PM on March 18, 2009
not registered to jetblue at all.. seems like a [fantastic] yes-men kinda hoax...
posted by yonation at 6:26 PM on March 18, 2009
posted by yonation at 6:26 PM on March 18, 2009
I'd say $500k is a perfectly reasonable CEO salary for a moderately large company.
I don't think it's getting silly until total cash and stock compensation is somewhere north of a million or two.
$40 million? Ridiculous. $10 million might be reasonable for some of the largest companies.
posted by wierdo at 1:27 PM on March 19, 2009
I don't think it's getting silly until total cash and stock compensation is somewhere north of a million or two.
$40 million? Ridiculous. $10 million might be reasonable for some of the largest companies.
posted by wierdo at 1:27 PM on March 19, 2009
Lawmakers voted decisively Thursday to impose a 90 percent tax on millions of dollars in employee bonuses paid by troubled insurance giant AIG.
Obama on back foot as representatives vote to tax bonuses amid AIG row.
I am actually surprised. Despite the fact I think this is a good idea if for no other reason than the symbolism, I didn't think it would even pass muster in the populist House. It'll be interesting to see how the Senate and White House might eventually respond.
Boehner opposed it, ostensibly on grounds that it doesn't help him figure out how to blame Democrats for the problem, some other Republicans stated opposition because bonuses will be paid to individuals overseas and they think they still won't get the money back.
posted by weston at 4:10 PM on March 19, 2009
Obama on back foot as representatives vote to tax bonuses amid AIG row.
I am actually surprised. Despite the fact I think this is a good idea if for no other reason than the symbolism, I didn't think it would even pass muster in the populist House. It'll be interesting to see how the Senate and White House might eventually respond.
Boehner opposed it, ostensibly on grounds that it doesn't help him figure out how to blame Democrats for the problem, some other Republicans stated opposition because bonuses will be paid to individuals overseas and they think they still won't get the money back.
posted by weston at 4:10 PM on March 19, 2009
IMO CEO pay should be capped at 50x the average non-executive pay.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:59 PM on March 19, 2009
posted by five fresh fish at 4:59 PM on March 19, 2009
« Older Don't try this at home kids. | Shame of the Survivors Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
PepsiJetBlue?
posted by synthetik at 7:48 AM on March 18, 2009