If Richard Branson Ran GM | Hacker News Reader

If Richard Branson Ran GM

graduatedtaste.com

79 pointssteveplace41 comments

This whole taking a private jet thing borders on completely stupid and shows how inept some folks are in understanding how companies work.

CEOs are any companies most important human asset. That asset has a finite amount of time he can work in any given day.

Standing in line at an airport, waiting on layovers, not having access to communications -- are all wastes of time if you are a CEO.

Especially NOW, when the big 3s are about to enter bankruptcy, you can't afford to waste a minute of the big 3's CEOs time.

(Nobody is bitching that the US President rides around in the air's biggest fuel pig -- a 747.)

EDIT: I just noticed a news clip where a senator was making the point, too. I'm embarassed. It's harder to build a broom closet than a nuke plant. Wasting anyone's time to talk about a $20,000 plane trip versus dealing with the $50B bailout is sad.

Did they have to take 3 separate planes from Detroit?

Their time is precious, I won't disagree with that. But if your company is going bankrupt and about to ask to get a bail-out, then you had at least look like you're trying to cut back on expenses. Jets don't help that image.

I'm not angry about this use, but it infuriates me that we're not seeing these companies make any sizable cuts. If I've missed these headlines, please direct me to them!

"CEOs are any companies most important human asset."

Please explain to me how these CEOs who have managed to bankrupt an entire U.S. industry constitute an "important human asset." The empirical evidence seems to suggest they are a net negative asset, and maybe filling up their schedules with unproductive activities will mitigate the further damage they could do by actually trying to make decisions and taking actions.

It was a general point, not restricted to these CEOs. Though I have a feeling they have been rather highly motivated lately.

They are still CEOs. Giving them less time is still costly.

That is really missing the point. If they want to make calculated decisions that are unpopular but rational, taking into account the importance of the executive team, go do that. Go make your businesses profitable. Go arm wrestle with unions. But ask for no quarter.

They are asking for bailouts. Asking for unions & employees to cut them a break. Asking for help & understanding. If you go to a bank to ask for a loan, you better not show up wherein banana leafs & a feathered top hat. Where a suit. Shut up about air flow, weather & being more productive in a banana. If you don't need the bank, you can wear what you want.

They want unions to cut them a break (or someone else to cut the unions). They want tax money. They need to meet the expected terms. The public doesn't like executive jet CEOs. Neither do unions or ground floor employees. A CEO that meets with a banks in a banana is not showing good judgement. Neither are these CEOs. It's not a good sign.

You the bank manager, employee, union or tax payer are above the rest. You understand about the importance of airflow & comfort that just can't be achieved in a suit. You can relate to a CEO hr being worth far more then that measly $23.6k.

But take it a level further. You know that they made the bad choice of asking for a loan wearing a banana. You know that 9/10 (you're the 1/10) would've rejected them. You know they made a really dumb choice, considering all these effects. Still giving them the loan?

"They want unions to cut them a break"

Sort of. It would be at least as accurate to say that the UAW wants the US gov't to hand over $25B (or $50B, or $75B) to the big 3 s.t. all 4 entities (Ford, GM, Chrysler, UAW) can carry on with business more-or-less as usual, and stay out of bankruptcy court. Chapter 11 would likely mean bad things for the UAW.

It seems (and, of course, w/o seeing the books, it's awful hard to tell) that the big 3 just can't make money - despite making some pretty nice cars - due to labor costs that are perhaps 150% of market, and a bloated dealer infrastructure that can't be trimmed due to franchising laws. Plus, a lot of b------t mandates (CAFE, etc.) to make products people don't really want.

The Detroit bailout isn't about saving the jobs of the executive teams (who can always get other jobs, and hell, who tend to be highly incentivised to stick around through Chapter 11) or saving the US manufacturing base (it's not like all those factories will go poof overnight, or all those cars will stop being built and sold) or avoiding shocks to the economy, or preserving shareholder value (which has already been largely wiped out). It's about propping up an uncompetitive cost structure in order to serve special interests, with a side-order of do-gooder power-tripping meddling.

And none of it has a g-----n thing to do with how the big 3 CEOs travel around the country.

Sorry about the rant. But the idea that the unions are gonna get all huffy about the private jet angle, or indeed that this is some sort of "suits-vs.-line-employees" drama strikes me as wrong-headed; if the bailout doesn't happen, no one is going to be more unhappy than the UAW.

Your post would have been easier to read (for someone not entirely familiar with English curses at least) without the ----.

It would also have been in better style. Either use expletives, and spell them out, if you think that best gets your point across; or don't use expletives at all.

Nice to see that the http://bikeshed.com/ is alive and well.

Its a gesture. Just like taking a $1 salary is a gesture, which only the Chrysler CEO was willing to do: http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/20081119...

I would have just flown first. There are shorter lines and not much time is spent incommunicado. It avoids the scandal of flying in a private jet, but doesn't give the pretence the CEOs suddenly want to act like regular Joes, which may come off as phony.

I'm sorry. Since when is the CEO the most important thing? That's bullshit.

The WORKERS are the most important thing.

And that is why Apple was doing so well before Jobs. You can argue it either way, and that's because both are important.

What's more important for typing? fingers or arms?

One arm is more important than one finger.

What good is an arm, if you have no fingers?

Infact, what good is a CEO -without- the workers? Then he's just a guy.

A guy can start a company. A CEO is a worker, too, in a sense.

Your observation is correct, and you are missing the point. This is political, not rational - they need to appear to be responsive and understanding of the financial plight they are in. The average person sees a rich, cigar smoking CEO taking a $20000 flight to ask poor taxpayers for 25B.

That's more or less what's going on.

What amazes me about the CEOs of the automakers is how tone-deaf they are to the PR debacle they're creating.

It's hard to escape your environment, strip everything away, and see your life from 10,000 feet. It's hard to see what it's like at the bottom if you're on top and there's dozens of layers between you and the people that actually get their hands dirty. It's even harder if you've done this job for years and have no idea how things have changed since you rose in the corporate structure, if you were even at the bottom to begin with. It's a perennial problem in large groups with hierarchical structure, and GM is one of the largest and most hierarchical groups out there.

What may seem to them as being a "go-getter" and exercising earned corporate privilege just makes them seem even more elitist and out-of-touch to the general public.

It reminds me of the importance of the consigliere in the Italian Mafia (or at least in the fiction surrounding it). You need a close friend that you can trust to tell you what is right rather than what you want to hear. If you don't have a way to back up and see the big picture, you won't be able to see trouble until it's staring you in the face, no matter how dangerous it may be.

Every time I hear of something like this, I remind myself to always be aware of the echo chamber that may be surrounding my own life and its affairs. What I think is real could very possibly be wishful fantasy.

I'll take some negative PR in exchange for 25 billion dollars. Email me if you're interested :P

Well, it can be hard to hear over the roar of private jets

Tongue in cheek perhaps but very true! Never underestimate the power of publicity stunts :D (hmm).

Although of course if he did run GM then they wouldn't be in this mess in the first place would they (though Im not sure I'd want to drive a care branded "Virgin".. only comes in white :P).

Sharp commentary.

And he clearly has a very good eye for how Richard Branson promotes his businesses!

Definitely concur... very sharp commentary.

Thanks. I read his book about a month ago.

And undercar kits would be standard.

All jesting aside, this blog author makes a good point about the lack of panache and poor PR of American auto manufacturers to coastal Americans.

If he ran GM they wouldn't need a bailout in the first place.

That's the crux of it. The Big Three are selling cars at a loss, and you can never make up selling at a loss in volume.

There is no plan in place to create vehicles profitably so a bailout will only prolong death.

Take it further: he is probably not running GM because you cant make it profitable.

I think he could make it profitable. He's making cash in the airline business ($90m last quarter), which isn't exactly an outperforming sector. The car business isn't hard to make money in, it's just the big three that are fuck ups.

fair point I suppose (making Virgin atlantic pay was certainly no mean feat :D)

thats the problem isn't it? GM/Ford/Chrysler CEOs just don't get it. If they got it, their companies wouldn't be in the crapper like they are today.

he would bundle an alternative energy source with the car and deliver it as one product. he would realize the dealers are the prefect distribution system to establish a standard. he would mobilize the retirees who still somehow love the company and make them an asset instead of a liability (to say nothing of the perpetuity the old, loved cars represent). he would make an opportunity of the customization trend that has been going on for years and listen to his customers. he would have one more than model of a brand like corvette he would....

These guys are not entrepreneur. They are executives(read PHB's). They might not even be good leaders. Henry Ford would have done things differently....

These guys just need to get hit in the face with a copy of Atlas Shrugged.

What if pg ran GM? :-)

We would be reading an essay about people painting cars?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com