Richard Anderson should disclose if he hold any airline stocks or any Netjets (Private Aircraft Charter) stock or options

1233 views
22 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • 1,508 posts
Richard Anderson should disclose if he hold any airline stocks or any Netjets (Private Aircraft Charter) stock or options
Posted by CandOforprogress2 on Friday, June 22, 2018 9:45 AM

To see if there is a conflict of intrest. Same goes for the board members.

 

  • Member since
    August, 2004
  • From: NW indiana
  • 1,602 posts
Posted by n012944 on Friday, June 22, 2018 7:19 PM

Amtrak and Netjets don't compete in the same league, so there is no need.

  • Member since
    August, 2006
  • From: South Dakota
  • 1,587 posts
Posted by Dakguy201 on Friday, June 22, 2018 7:49 PM

Netjets is a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway.  However, they have several competitors.

  • Member since
    February, 2016
  • From: Texas
  • 884 posts
Posted by PJS1 on Saturday, June 23, 2018 9:30 AM

CandOforprogress2
 To see if there is a conflict of intrest. Same goes for the board members. 

Mr. Anderson retired from Delta Airlines in 2016.  According to the company’s 2017 Proxy Statement, which is filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission, as of April 2017 he had rights to 196,083 shares of Delta’s common stock. 
 
Mr. Anderson’s stock options vested on February 9, 2017 and February 1, 2018, with a third vesting on February 1, 2019.  Presumably he exercised the 2017 and 2018 options.  So, it appears that he still has some stock options that he can exercise on February 1, 2019.   
 
Just because a person owns stock or has the rights to acquire stock in a former employer does not mean that he will not act in the best interest of Amtrak's key stakeholders. 
 
The notion that senior executives only look out for themselves is wrong.  Some fit this description, but most of them are hard working, highly talented, dedicated  individuals who strive to do the right thing for their stakeholders.  Because they have so many different stakeholders doing the right thing by them is a balancing act.
 
It appears Anderson was brought in to clean-up or at least attempt to clean-up Amtrak’s act.  It needs it.  From its inception 47 years ago, Amtrak has lost $34.6 billion.  Whether Amtrak is supposed to make a profit or just run like a business, which assumes that it will cover its costs, its outcomes have been a wreck. 
 
By-the-way, you inspired me to change my avatar.  I am an unabashed cat lover.  I am owned by an eight-year-old Calico that I got at the local animal shelter.  She has a real attitude.  

Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII

  • Member since
    July, 2011
  • 245 posts
Posted by runnerdude48 on Monday, June 25, 2018 6:38 PM

CandOforprogress2
To see if there is a conflict of intrest(sic).

 Don't you love these conspiracy theories where railfans dream that the airlines are in "cahoots" with the oil and automobile lobbies to kill Amtrak?  The airlines could care less about Amtrak.  They carry more passengers during the Thanksgiving weekend than Amtrak does in an entire year.  Only in the NEC (and a few other corridors) does Amtrak offer any competition.  The 171 lonely, tired and bored passengers on the SWC running 4 hours late over Raton Pass don't offer any competition to the airlines.  The airlines didn't kill the passenger train the American people did, by choosing a quicker, cheaper, safer and more efficient travel option.

  • Member since
    September, 2017
  • 373 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Tuesday, June 26, 2018 7:47 AM

+1

  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • 1,508 posts
Posted by CandOforprogress2 on Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:00 PM

It was the US Post Office who in about 1968 or so decided that mail was to moved from passenger trains to airplanes and trucks. It took a couple of years for the ICC to approve abadonement of passenger trains that sometimes made money with passengers or at least broke even but with the mail gone now lost way more money then they made. Had IM Containers happened sooner then passenger trains mixed with mail intermodal  would have been the norm today.

  • Member since
    January, 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 10,984 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, June 26, 2018 8:11 PM

runnerdude48
The airlines could care less about Amtrak

LD trains, anyway.  Did a little back of the envelope calculation.  The Crescent might have 1/2% market share between Atlanta and Philly.

As Jim McClellan once said, the LD routes are irrelevant (but politically necessary)

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January, 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 10,984 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, June 26, 2018 8:13 PM

CandOforprogress2

It was the US Post Office who in about 1968 or so decided that mail was to moved from passenger trains to airplanes and trucks. It took a couple of years for the ICC to approve abadonement of passenger trains that sometimes made money with passengers or at least broke even but with the mail gone now lost way more money then they made. Had IM Containers happened sooner then passenger trains mixed with mail intermodal  would have been the norm today.

 

Flexivan and RoadRailers (the first incarnation) were around soon enough, but too little too late.  

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January, 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 10,984 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, June 26, 2018 8:21 PM

runnerdude48
The airlines didn't kill the passenger train the American people did, by choosing a quicker, cheaper, safer and more efficient travel option.

It was a triple whammy with the RRs the willing fall guy.

WWII airfields, pilots and planes got commercial aviation off the ground on the cheap.  That stole the businessman.

The Good Roads movement culminating with Parkways, tollways and finally Interstates,  allowed for suburban, auto-centric living.  Family vacations were now by highway to Holiday Inns built everywhere to accomodate (Kids eat free!) The leisure traveller was gone.

Railroads spend a bloody fortune on equipment trying to keep LD riders to no avail.  The splendid streamliners were a poor investment force to keep running by the ICC regardless of ridership or cost, sometimes "in case it snowed".

The game was over by the mid-1950s.  The mail thing was just the last blow.

 

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 10,635 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, June 27, 2018 6:49 AM

CandOforprogress2

It was the US Post Office who in about 1968 or so decided that mail was to moved from passenger trains to airplanes and trucks. It took a couple of years for the ICC to approve abadonement of passenger trains that sometimes made money with passengers or at least broke even but with the mail gone now lost way more money then they made. Had IM Containers happened sooner then passenger trains mixed with mail intermodal  would have been the norm today.

 
I can remember two trains for sure (Monon's "Thoroughbred" and EL's "Lake Cities") that had a fair amount of mail revenue prior to termination of the mail contracts.  Both trains had a substantial number of mail handling cars but only two coaches at most.  The passenger counts were still pretty low and management probably ate the losses since the mail haulage made them tolerable and discontinuance of the trains was a painful process.
The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    January, 2007
  • 223 posts
Posted by azrail on Wednesday, June 27, 2018 2:50 PM

CandOforprogress2

It was the US Post Office who in about 1968 or so decided that mail was to moved from passenger trains to airplanes and trucks. It took a couple of years for the ICC to approve abadonement of passenger trains that sometimes made money with passengers or at least broke even but with the mail gone now lost way more money then they made. Had IM Containers happened sooner then passenger trains mixed with mail intermodal  would have been the norm today.

 

It was actually the Kennedy Administration that decided to move mail shipments from rail to plane and truck.

  • Member since
    September, 2017
  • 373 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Wednesday, June 27, 2018 3:57 PM

azrail

 

 
CandOforprogress2

It was the US Post Office who in about 1968 or so decided that mail was to moved from passenger trains to airplanes and trucks. It took a couple of years for the ICC to approve abadonement of passenger trains that sometimes made money with passengers or at least broke even but with the mail gone now lost way more money then they made. Had IM Containers happened sooner then passenger trains mixed with mail intermodal  would have been the norm today.

 

 

 

It was actually the Kennedy Administration that decided to move mail shipments from rail to plane and truck.

 

 

No.  The cancellation of all "mail by rail" contracts occurred in Sept. 1967 when LBJ was president.  The decline had been going on since the 1940s.  However, the last RPO ran on June 30, 1977 between NY and DC.

  • Member since
    June, 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 3,079 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Sunday, July 08, 2018 11:24 PM

runnerdude48
The airlines could care less about Amtrak.

We had at least one HSR proposal in Texas overtly obstructed by the Southwest Airlines CEO.    The Airlines do care in markets where they might compete directly or markets where HSR might threaten flight frequency.    In the case of Southwest, prior to the lifting of the Wright Amendment.    DFW to Houston to San Antonio and Austin...........the so called Texas Triangle, represented a lot of traffic to the airline.    When a HSR was proposed over the same route to be built at state expense.    Southwest howled and launched a anti-HSR PR campaign.

In regards to Amtrak, if the airlines of the NE could kill Amtrak in the Boston-Washington, D.C. Corridor.......and bring back a profitable Eastern Shuttle service, they would.    Last guy to try the Eastern Shuttle on that route sits in the Oval Office and he did not do so well.

  • Member since
    June, 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 3,079 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Sunday, July 08, 2018 11:31 PM

CandOforprogress2
passenger trains that sometimes made money with passengers or at least broke even but with the mail gone now lost way more money then they made. Had IM Containers happened sooner then passenger trains mixed with mail intermodal  would have been the norm today.

Mostly false.    The reality is most passenger trains lost money even with the mail contracts by the late 1960's.   They continued to run some trains with a mail contract not because they were raking in the dough but because they had a contract to do so and no real alternate means that would be less expensive or would be legally tolerable (say if they shifted to trucks for example....think the Feds would get agitated over that based on anti-trust concerns).   

Very much doubt we would have private passenger trains today if the USPS held their rail contracts the way they were.    Certainly we would have more abandonment of the USPS though because the rails can't compete with an airliner over LD time wise.

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 911 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Monday, July 09, 2018 3:23 AM

CMStPnP
The reality is most passenger trains lost money even with the mail contracts by the late 1960's.

The revenue numbers I have start in 1936. Even then all passenger trains together made a loss of about $233,000. Only during the war years there were some profits.
Source George W. Hilton, Amtrak page 10: http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-hiltonamtrack-1980_09162912196.pdf
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    June, 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 3,079 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 8:08 AM

VOLKER LANDWEHR
Only during the war years there were some profits.

One could argue because that was due to gasoline and rubber being rationed by license plate number and so people could not purchase gasoline on specific days and since it was based on license number and calendar dates........easy to see if you were cheating.    So folks were forced out of their cars during the war years.    Additionally the DoD was buying train tickets like candy to move troops around the country.

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 14,116 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 8:35 AM

CMStPnP
 
VOLKER LANDWEHR
Only during the war years there were some profits. 

One could argue because that was due to gasoline and rubber being rationed by license plate number and so people could not purchase gasoline on specific days and since it was based on license number and calendar dates........easy to see if you were cheating.    So folks were forced out of their cars during the war years.    Additionally the DoD was buying train tickets like candy to move troops around the country.

And even during the war years - physical plant, passenger equipment, freight equipment and motive power for both were being used well beyond their economic replacement levels and depreciation values to the bottom line.

To steal the well known line from a advertisement - 'You can pay me now or you can pay be later.'  After the war the railroads ended up paying much more than if they had been able maintain themselves at proper levels during the war.  The war was a period of deferred maintenance that enhanced the bottom line.

         

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 10,635 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 9:57 AM

With a steep excess profits tax in place as a wartime practice, Im doubtful as to how enhanced the bottom line was.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    August, 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 9,321 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 11:07 AM

As I recall, during WWII, ability to purchase gasoline depended upon your occupation, which determined the class of permitssion to buy gasoline that you had. Someone whose work depended upon automobile transportation could purchase more gasoline than someone whose work did not depend upon automobile transportation, and thus such a depender had a different sticker on his windshield. I was unaware of limitation set by the calendar and license plate number, such as we had in the seventies.

Johnny

  • Member since
    February, 2016
  • From: Texas
  • 884 posts
Posted by PJS1 on Saturday, July 14, 2018 9:20 AM

Deggesty

As I recall, during WWII, ability to purchase gasoline depended upon your occupation, which determined the class of permitssion to buy gasoline that you had. 

During WWII motorists were issued a rationing sticker showing how much gasoline they could buy, which was based on their occupation.  They were required to place the sticker on the windshield.   Doctors, clergymen, etc. could get more gasoline than many others.  I can understand docotors; clergymen not so much.

But many people cheated.  My father, who was a lawyer, got more gasoline than many other people because he was counsel to the local Selective Service Board.  I suspect his sticker had more to do with politics than need.  

Civilians were not supposed to travel for pleasure during the war.  But I can remember my mother telling me about some of her acquaintances that ignored the restrictions and took the train from Altoona to New York to see a show or two.

Studies have found that there was a thriving Black Market in the U.S. during the war for people who knew how to find the stuff they wanted and could pay for it.

Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 5,672 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, July 16, 2018 8:15 AM

Deggesty
As I recall, during WWII, ability to purchase gasoline depended upon your occupation, which determined the class of permission to buy gasoline that you had.

Anyone who remembers Bugs Bunny and the Gremlin miraculously coming to a halt just above the ground will remember him pointing to the reason for the 'save'...

Someone whose work depended upon automobile transportation could purchase more gasoline than someone whose work did not depend upon automobile transportation, and thus such a depender had a different sticker on his windshield.

Interestingly enough, clergy had an unlimited ("X") priority.  Suspect this was sentiment more than objective 'best use' of domestic fuel.  Doctors only had a "C" priority (presumably to optimize making house calls more than 'getting to surgery quickly' although I do not know if the 35mph national speed limit was relaxed for doctors 'when required'.

I was unaware of limitation set by the calendar and license plate number, such as we had in the seventies.

Having lived through this, I remember the rigmarole. 

In almost all states, fuel was still State-regulated at the time, which meant that the price of a gallon was rigidly dictated, and this was not relaxed or adjusted depending on demand ... or supply.  Certainly there would have been political screaming if the price had been allowed to float up to accord with actual physical supply restrictions, as we are now familiar with outside New Jersey.  As a result, the only things that could be "controlled" were the amount that could be purchased, and the days that customers could go to stations.

Now, when this started, many cars had engines in the 440/455/460 range, and by the time you'd driven to the gas station, waited in what might be a very substantial line, and gotten your three dollars or gallons or whatever it was of gas, quite a bit of what you got to buy had essentially already gone up in smoke by the time you got home.  The odd/even plate restrictions were a (reasonable, I thought at the time) way to reduce the line traffic, waiting, pollution, etc. roughly by half while still preserving the artificially-pegged price.

This was the time I first saw artificial opportunistic price jacking with teeth for vehicles.  If you had a Volkswagen diesel Rabbit and a home-heating oil tank, you could easily bypass all the gas silliness (as well as theoretically driving coast-to-coast nonstop, which is another set of stories).  Perhaps unsurprisingly the sticker price of a diesel Rabbit at our local dealers in northern New Jersey went north of something like $9950 (in 1974 dollars!) which I still look back on with some wonderment.  Of course this appeared on the sticker as 'dealer price adjustment' just like the overage on a Buick GNX when a dealership had one.

 

 

[/quote]

  • Member since
    September, 2017
  • 373 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Monday, July 16, 2018 11:28 AM

PJS1
But I can remember my mother telling me about some of her acquaintances that ignored the restrictions and took the train from Altoona to New York to see a show or two.

This was the British poster designed to discourage rail travel 1939-45:
Image result for Is this journey necessary?

 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy