What's new

How to fix AA

Having an MBA doesn't mean much unless you have the background in the field.
... snip
B) xUT
I wouldn't say that. I recall one of the "suggestions" for connections that pop up on LinkedIn was a woman in a manager position at AA that held a degree in music.

I've had it proven to me beyond any doubt over the years that a degree of any sort - even in basket weaving - is all that's required as it keeps the jobs "in the club". The degree has been shown to be nothing more than a third party's opinion as to whether or not one is willing to "play the game".
 
All an undergraduate degree says to me is where someone's strengths and interests were when they were 18-22. Others see a degree as an indicator that the individual was able to stay focused and finish something requiring more than a year's worth of effort.

I've known people with engineering degrees that couldn't tie their own shoes, dress in matching colors, or construct a coherent sentence when necessary. I've also seen people with music backgrounds (and no degree) who were able to do complex programming without batting an eye.

Sure, some people require degrees. I've never required it -- demonstrable experience has always sufficed when I've got someone I think can do the job well.
 
All that any education does is demonstrate the ability to learn.... life is full of learning.. some do it in formal environments, some do informally. An MBA just provides more tools but you can't and won't succeed if all you can do is learn in books and can't apply theory to practice.

Pushing too many people w/ book knowledge but no "real world experience" can be very damaging not only for the employee but also for the company.

Taking any employee who has an aptitude to learn and who knows the business can yield great results for both.....

airlines traditionally promoted from within ... many have shifted to formal education outside of the industry ... the ideal is a healthy blend of both with neither promoted as the "end all and be all".
 
A lot of people credit Herb at Southwest for many of the great ideas that have helped WN succeed but they mistakenly forget that he was Rollins' lawyer, not the first CEO. Lamar Muse, a CPA and long-time airline industry veteran, including stops at Texas International and American Airlines, was the first president of WN. Herb just had the good sense to keep with the program established by Muse.

Many posters on this forum decry the scourge of the "beancounters," yet conveniently forget that Crandall was himself a beancounter (Crandall had an MBA from Wharton). As were his proteges, Carty, Arpey and Horton (plus all the others who left AA, like Parker). In the oft-linked Charlie Rose interview with Crandall, he told Rose that beancounting is essentially a prerequisite to running a successful airline.

I've read a lot of criticism of Horton on other sites (not so much on here) that either he is an AA lifer (and thus tarred with being current management that needs to leave) or that he's an outsider brought in solely to manage during the Ch 11 case. The latter might be true, I don't know, but the latter view ignores the fact that he, like many before him, is an AA lifer except for that short stint at AT&T. And objectively, who could blame him for bailing in 2002 when the future of looked very grim. My guess is that had Horton stuck around, he would have been tapped instead of Arpey in April 2003 when Carty was sent packing. I also assume that he would not have stuck with Arpey's eight year long objection to using Ch 11 to force labor costs in line with the competition.

As the hatchet man, however, many AA employees despise Horton more than they ever hated Carty or Arpey. It's normal to hate the person who is in charge on the day that labor costs are reduced by a billion dollars and work rules are completely re-written, undoing decades of negotiation success. And it's natural to hate the guy who follows the rest of the pack and implements serious outsourcing on a big scale (maintenance, fleet service and agents).

So if the long-term plan stand alone plan does not include Horton at the top, would AA look to an outsider (who would be criticised for not being "an airline person") or would AA promote someone from within (who's likely to be criticised as just another MBA-possessing beancounter)?

Elevating the company lawyer to the top spot worked out OK for Southwest. Over at UA, however, the former general counsel-turned CEO, Jeff Smisek, has stumbled repeatedly this year in attempts to combine two airlines into the world's largest. Gordon Bethune turned lackluster CO into a formidable competitor, even if their strongholds are in Houston and New Jersey. Bethune was a mechanic and pilot, although he did graduate from Harvard Business School. Since Bethune's retirement, he's joined that rarified group that includes Crandall as "the SOB that was at least our SOB." His successor, Larry Kellner, was yet another beancounting accountant. Before he joined CO, Kellner was CFO for a bank. When Kellner surprised everyone with his early retirement, the lawyer Smisek was tapped.

Crandall? Despite the impressive academic credentials, he was an airline lifer (except for a short stint at Bloomingdales). Horton, also a beancounter with an MBA, is also a lifer (except for the stint at AT&T). He may be hated, but he knows the airline biz. Plenty of accountants and lots of MBAs have run airlines. A few lawyers, with mixed results. The one thing the airline CEOs seem to have in common is that they all had some degrees, many of them graduate degrees. The degree doesn't guarantee they'll be worth a damn, but very few airlines have been turned over to someone without a lot of formal education.
 
Good points... but many people glamorize Crandall and others in the early period of aviation - even the deregulated era when it was relatively "simple" to succeed. The airline industry has never been easy but there is an accumulation of "junk" that has built up in the airline industry over years and which deregulation only brought to light.
Like it or not, but BK is part of the process to purge the junk from the company and create a sustainable business model. not all companies have gotten BK right, returning to the same mindset that they had during deregulation.

Much has to do w/ the characteristics of the leaders... are they visionary, do they recognize the trends that are occuring in the industry and the economy as a whole, do they negotiate or dictate... Crandall WAS a great leader but he didn't have to work w/ all of the accumulated "junk" of the industry that built up 20 years longer after he left (or whatever the length of time was).

Leadership is not limited to one title or another... and any "title" can run a good company or not.... airlines are too big for one person to know many areas so you have to create a company where you have experts who communicate well with other leaders and where the team together can solve problems.

AA also developed a combative relationship w/ mgmt that only grew during the 10 years of failed restructuring post 2003. AA's survival depends on ridding the company of that combative relationship more than anything else. AA WAS creative and adaptive to the market - and still paid its people well in the past. Companies CAN return to their core historical values and we can all hope that AA will be able to do that, esp. w/ respect to marketing where AA was a force to be reckoned with.
 
Good points... but many people glamorize Crandall and others in the early period of aviation - even the deregulated era when it was relatively "simple" to succeed. The airline industry has never been easy but there is an accumulation of "junk" that has built up in the airline industry over years and which deregulation only brought to light.
Like it or not, but BK is part of the process to purge the junk from the company and create a sustainable business model. not all companies have gotten BK right, returning to the same mindset that they had during deregulation.

Much has to do w/ the characteristics of the leaders... are they visionary, do they recognize the trends that are occuring in the industry and the economy as a whole, do they negotiate or dictate... Crandall WAS a great leader but he didn't have to work w/ all of the accumulated "junk" of the industry that built up 20 years longer after he left (or whatever the length of time was).

Leadership is not limited to one title or another... and any "title" can run a good company or not.... airlines are too big for one person to know many areas so you have to create a company where you have experts who communicate well with other leaders and where the team together can solve problems.

AA also developed a combative relationship w/ mgmt that only grew during the 10 years of failed restructuring post 2003. AA's survival depends on ridding the company of that combative relationship more than anything else. AA WAS creative and adaptive to the market - and still paid its people well in the past. Companies CAN return to their core historical values and we can all hope that AA will be able to do that, esp. w/ respect to marketing where AA was a force to be reckoned with.

You so-called "business" people will never get it.

Bob Crandall was a son-of-a-#### in his position but he was our personal son-of-a-#### that, when all was said and swung, had his peoples' backs. That is the difference betwixt Horton and Crandall and why, in spite of his toughness re: business decisions, Crandall is revered. He lived the thought his people were the strength of the corporation as opposed to the BS put forth in the weekly issues of PrAAvda with no real action to back up the words.

Loyalty to fellow workers is not a strong point for one whose purposes in life and obsessions are maximizing their bonus and gaining the "respect" of their peers, sometimes measured in the number of lives severely disrupted. I'll leave the speculation re: what causes this aberrant behaviour to the psych majors out there.
 
I don't know if anyone expects anything other than a "beancounter" to succeed Horton at AA. He will of course have to ride in as a good guy on a white horse if he is going to turn this mess around.

I think the anti-beancounter comments are more aimed at the weight beancounters carry in decisons made at some of the areas at the company. In maintenance, it is necessary to "count the beans" but sometimes those decisions don't translate into real savings. Only savings on paper.
 
Ah, hindsight. Love it.

I remember under Crandall when JJ boasted of paying cash for his new Cadillac he parked in front of the DFW hangars. Management was getting their bonuses, even back then.

And Crandall was known for putting his stockholders and board first, never employees. The only difference is he was a very strong competent leader. But we never had industry leading pay under him, he starved us and then gave large pay bumps. But in the end, going that long before each raise only lined the companies pockets.
 
All an undergraduate degree says....

If there was were ever a business that required MBAs to the max, it's the airline industry.

Between the government regulations, union contracts, maintenance issues, fueling, pricing, capacity and more in the most turbulent of industries in the most turbulent of times it's the airline business.

Yet MBA graduates generally shun this business because it's one of the lowest paying of industries.
 
You so-called "business" people will never get it.

Bob Crandall was a son-of-a-#### in his position but he was our personal son-of-a-#### that, when all was said and swung, had his peoples' backs. That is the difference betwixt Horton and Crandall and why, in spite of his toughness re: business decisions, Crandall is revered. He lived the thought his people were the strength of the corporation as opposed to the BS put forth in the weekly issues of PrAAvda with no real action to back up the words.

Loyalty to fellow workers is not a strong point for one whose purposes in life and obsessions are maximizing their bonus and gaining the "respect" of their peers, sometimes measured in the number of lives severely disrupted. I'll leave the speculation re: what causes this aberrant behaviour to the psych majors out there.
No, Frank, we do get it. Crandall was a great leader... in his time.
But it doesn't change that Crandall and every other successful leader thrived in a specific environment and they wouldn't necessarily succeed in others. That is why Crandall hasn't accepted the challenge to come back... because Crandall didn't succeed at rebuilding a broken organization but instead to build one based on alot of strengths that had defined AA for decades.
It takes a very different skill set to rebuild an organization after a period of great difficulty, including where AA is right now.
There are people who can rebuild AA and make it great again after a restructuring, but the chances are high that person is not at AA right now because AA has not been at that point in its organizational life up to this point.

You won't find the leader that AA needs based on their resume... you will find that person - or team of people - based on what they have accomplished, and their resume may or may not include a bunch of letters after their name. Leadership is not limited to people w/ one type of education or one title.
True leaders come from all walks of life, all professions, and have all types of education and formal training.

The airline industry is defined by many challenges but it doesn't take an MBA to lead thru difficulties....and an MBA doesn't necessarily mean that one will succeed in the airline industry - or any other industry for that matter. An MBA does provide the resources that a natural leader should be able to use to manage enterprises of various types... but those skills are not exclusive to those who have MBAs.
 
. but those skills are not exclusive to those who have MBAs.

Still the industry that attracts the lowest crop of MBA graduates is the airline business.

Can you guess why ?

I'm sure the few MBAs that AA had already jumped ship as soon as they heard the word - bankruptcy.
 
All this talk of how revered Crandall and Herb were... it's revisionist history in a way.

Nobody really cares too much who the CEO when if the company is growing. It's easy to appear to have the employees' back.

But almost without fail, everyone hates the CEO when the company stops growing. Doesn't matter if they're a bean-counter or a pilot-turned-CEO. They're the bad guy.
 
truth.

And it wasn't hard to like your leader when the company was doing well and MOST employees benefitted.

Airlines are not the high-finance organizations that require a lot of MBAs... and it is probably precisely because airlines are not high growth businesses so they don't take on a bunch of people who have expectations that can't be met.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top