[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PC: What If
- Subject: Re: PC: What If
- From: "Evil Mike" <evillmike@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 18:55:31 PDT
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
welcome.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index