[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: PC: What If

     OK, I did some research and checking with people who more about the 
merger than I do, mainly my father.  From his POV and the book (Wreck of 
the PC) it seems that there is almost nothing right with the merger.  
Both Saunders and Pearlman were pri madonnas.  Saunders was a lawyer.  
He distained RR's and RR operations.  He wanted to use the RR and the 
merger as a means (deep pocket) to continue his hair-brained investment 
schemes.  Pearlman was interested in railroading, his way. He went to 
MIT and hated anything old (steam inc.)  He thought that everything 
could be solved by new, shiny stuff.  Pearlman thought that his way was 
better than anyone eleses and wanted to use the merger as a means to 
spread his way of doing things to the PRR.  The CFO Bevans was just a 
crook.  Before the merger he used creative financeing to make the PRR 
look better than it was.  Durring the PC days he did the same.  The PRR 
men thought the road to riches was through diversifacation and 
investment.  They thought that funding the RR was a waste of money.  Two 
of Bevans' mistakes that come to mind were, heavy investment in a 
company that then went belly-up (sorry I forget which one, do you know) 
and the other was an executive jet service.  This service lost millions, 
but Bevans kept throwing money at it, RR money.  Both Saunders and 
Pearlman coundn't get along because they both thought they were better 
than the other.  You can't completly blame the employees on the 
seperateism problem.  There was no effort from the top down for the two 
groups to get together.  The PC didn't even try to combine opperations 
to become lean and efficient.  For example they kept 2 seperate 
accounting depts. instead of 1 with 1/2 the workers, the best 1/2.  As 
was said before they had redundant routes.  Did they cut costs by 
chosing one or the other?  Here we have two brutal competitors, both 
looking for a deep pocket in the other, both with completly different 
ideas of management, both unable to change or even talk with the other.  
Sure the operating rules were draining and there was a drop in traffic, 
but the management didn't even try to make the merger work.  I don't 
maintain that what I wrote is the end all and be all.  This is what I 
concluded after reading and talking to people.  Any facts you have are 

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Home | Main Index | Thread Index