Pinnacle-USW statement, latest financial news
 

Airlines | LeveragedLoan.com

"The United Steelworkers issued a statement late Monday condemning management at bankrupt Pinnacle Airlines for a series of layoffs at the company..."

To read more about this statement and ongoing progress of Chapter 11 proceedings, please click the link above or below.

We cover the financial markets and have multiple reporters listening in at trial or going through necessary documents to file updated reports.

Airlines | LeveragedLoan.com

Same song different venue. This bankrupt company is a joke and the management should be put in prison for destroying people's lives and breaking federal law. I truly believe it has to come around and kick all these guys in the ***** at some point. Right?

Exactly which federal law has been broken?

The Federal Law that says life is fair? Just because a company is going out of business some think that there must be laws being broken. It couldn't possibly be poor managment.

As a board member, trustee, CEO etc. you have a legal obligation to act in the best interest of your stakeholders, employees and the company as a whole. Legally speaking you are representing these people, thus you are suppose to act in everyone's best interest. It is illegal to represent, run, manage (whatever term you choose to use) a publicly traded company like your own personal piggy bank. This is why many companies do not go public or have significant changes in leadership prior to doing so. As a publicly traded company you are bound by different laws.

Really? :rolleyes:

U wasted a Ton of keystrokes on something that will never be proved

I agree proving it would be nearly impossible. However, to think it isn't happening is complete denial. Just my two cents...:eek:

You are on the right track, but you can't run a company with the best interests of BOTH your employees AND your stakeholders in mind at the same time. Paying employees less is against their best interests but generally is in the best interest of other stakeholders, for example. Ideally, your company does so well that you can pay great wages AND keep shareholders, creditors, boardmembers, etc all happy, but regionals are not Google and we don't have the margins.

CEO's of public companies have numerous rules by which they must adhere, but acting the "best interests" of their employees is not one of them.

not sure if you realize, a stake holder is an employee or other business partner such as a vendor (i.e. fueler, contract mx, hotel, cab company). I think what you mean is that you cannot look out for both stake holders and stock holders. I disagree, truly successful businesses realize the importance of good of value with stake holders which helps to build a successful business which benefits stockholders. It seems management in the modern world has forgotten this important part of the process of building a successful business.

Yeah, i understand the correct definition of "stakeholder" vs "stockholder" but the original poster differentiated "employees" vs "stakeholders" even though by stakeholders I'm sure he meant stockholders (or shareholders), creditors, etc and not "stakeholders" in it's most correct sense. Instead of getting into a semantic argument I just went with it.

Is any regional airline a "truly successful" business, as you put it, right now? Would any of them be more successful if they raised pilot wages by $10/hr across the board? That would be at least what it would take to act in our best interest, but it would most likely ruin that company over time. There might be a small increase in productivity, maybe pilots would make more effort to get flights out on time or call in sick less, but really that would never make up the added costs.

McDonald's has been a highly successful business for a long time. Most of their employees are minimum wage, part time workers. The company made a specific decision to hire part timers because they could pay lower benefits. Obviously, this wasn't in the best interest of most employees.

My point is that companies don't exist for the benefit of their employees. They exist to make money for their owners or stockholders. Remember how the FAA used to have a dual mandate to promote safety and airline profitability? They figured out pretty fast that those two forces are opposed to one another. For the most part, so are labor costs and profitability. There is a sweet spot on the curve that management wants to hit where the overall cost of labor (including salaries, benefits, training costs, turnover, and productivity) is at it's most efficient level.

Name me any successful company that you think management has decided to overpay its workforce to promote their best interests and I'll show you that they are really not overpaying at all, but that they think the overall result is the most efficient way to get as much out of their workforce as possible.