I'm glad CMQ_9017 is on the forum because he's knowledeble. I'm not going to exactly agree with him all the time. But so what? I'm not always right and the discussions are interesting.
I said CSX has no "Common Carrier" obligation to supply the boxcars. He seems to agree with that. I did not say that CSX has no "Common Carrier" status. And he seems to agree with that.
CMQ_9017 disagrees with the CSX business decision. OK. It's fine to disagree and explain why. My opinion is that they have the right to manage their own business. They're not always going to be correct, nobody can always be correct. Government involvement won't help, because they're going to get it wrong too.
The way I see it is if things were 'this way or that way' or 'black and white' we wouldn't have jobs! Like most things, we live in the gray area, not two situations are the same and everything has layers of complexity. I'm just glad we have computer technology these days, it would be impossible to juggle all the balls in the air at once.
Also to note -- I don't work for the aftermentioned RR reporting mark in my user handle, I simply like that locomotive painted the old Bangor & Aroostook (a road I grew up with). Just wanted to clarify that point in case anyone were to try to draw connections with that particular outfit (who is very impressive by the way)
It used to be said the railroads thought along the lines, "If it didn't fit in a box car, it didn't belong on the railroad." Now I guess if it only fits in a box car it doesn't belong on the railroads.
It's fun to listen to current and former railroad management types talk the industry into oblivion. Eventually there won't be any business left because they'll have convinced themselves no business is worth persuing.
Jeff
In our business we've fired customers before. That's essentially what CSX is doing- firing customers. Sometimes it has to be done. But before we get to that point, we try to change things to make that customer worth keeping. The easiest thing to do is raise prices to a level that makes the business worth keeping or drives the customer off to my competitors- which is not all bad. The most common justification for firing a customer would be that there are other customers out there to take his place that are better. We would never wholesale fire the lower echelons of customers without their replacements in hand or almost in hand. Because of economy of scale, it would seem that firing a whole bunch of customers at once would lower the efficiency, and therefore profit, of your company. Does CSX have new business in the hopper to compensate, or is this move just to make the books look good for next quarter reports?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding In our business we've fired customers before. That's essentially what CSX is doing- firing customers. Sometimes it has to be done. But before we get to that point, we try to change things to make that customer worth keeping. The easiest thing to do is raise prices to a level that makes the business worth keeping or drives the customer off to my competitors- which is not all bad. The most common justification for firing a customer would be that there are other customers out there to take his place that are better. We would never wholesale fire the lower echelons of customers without their replacements in hand or almost in hand. Because of economy of scale, it would seem that firing a whole bunch of customers at once would lower the efficiency, and therefore profit, of your company. Does CSX have new business in the hopper to compensate, or is this move just to make the books look good for next quarter reports?
Why did you have to fire those customers? What were they purchasing? Why couldn't you make them worth keeping?
Why is CSX firing customers?
Euclid Murphy Siding In our business we've fired customers before. That's essentially what CSX is doing- firing customers. Sometimes it has to be done. But before we get to that point, we try to change things to make that customer worth keeping. The easiest thing to do is raise prices to a level that makes the business worth keeping or drives the customer off to my competitors- which is not all bad. The most common justification for firing a customer would be that there are other customers out there to take his place that are better. We would never wholesale fire the lower echelons of customers without their replacements in hand or almost in hand. Because of economy of scale, it would seem that firing a whole bunch of customers at once would lower the efficiency, and therefore profit, of your company. Does CSX have new business in the hopper to compensate, or is this move just to make the books look good for next quarter reports? Why did you have to fire those customers? What were they purchasing? Why couldn't you make them worth keeping? Why is CSX firing customers?
Murphy Siding Euclid Murphy Siding In our business we've fired customers before. That's essentially what CSX is doing- firing customers. Sometimes it has to be done. But before we get to that point, we try to change things to make that customer worth keeping. The easiest thing to do is raise prices to a level that makes the business worth keeping or drives the customer off to my competitors- which is not all bad. The most common justification for firing a customer would be that there are other customers out there to take his place that are better. We would never wholesale fire the lower echelons of customers without their replacements in hand or almost in hand. Because of economy of scale, it would seem that firing a whole bunch of customers at once would lower the efficiency, and therefore profit, of your company. Does CSX have new business in the hopper to compensate, or is this move just to make the books look good for next quarter reports? Why did you have to fire those customers? What were they purchasing? Why couldn't you make them worth keeping? Why is CSX firing customers? 1) If you have ever worked in the business world, you'll understand.2)Irrelevant3)See highlight in red above. 4)Ask them
1) If you have ever worked in the business world, you'll understand.2)Irrelevant3)See highlight in red above. 4)Ask them
“Firing customers” is an old fashioned idea. It reminds me of the “Soup Nazi.” It comes from the business mindset that mistakenly believes that the customers need the business.
The most progressive companies realize that their greatest cost is in obtaining customers, so they have figured out how to avoid the need to fire them and still make money off of their business.
Euclid“Firing customers” is an old fashioned idea. It reminds me of the “Soup Nazi.” It comes from the business mindset that mistakenly believes that the customers need the business. The most progressive companies realize that their greatest cost is in obtaining customers, so they have figured out how to avoid the need to fire them and still make money off of their business.
It's obvious that you don't now, nor have you ever worked in the business world. Progressive companies.... buzzwords.... blah, blah, blah….whatever. Every company handles it the same. If you have a customer that needs to change, like every other road bump in life, you have 3 basic options: 1)Live with it. 2) Improve it. 3) Get the heck away from it. Read the post from Bob Withorn above. He gets it. You don't.
Murphy Siding Euclid “Firing customers” is an old fashioned idea. It reminds me of the “Soup Nazi.” It comes from the business mindset that mistakenly believes that the customers need the business. The most progressive companies realize that their greatest cost is in obtaining customers, so they have figured out how to avoid the need to fire them and still make money off of their business. It's obvious that you don't now, nor have you ever worked in the business world. Progressive companies.... buzzwords.... blah, blah, blah….whatever. Every company handles it the same. If you have a customer that needs to change, like every other road bump in life, you have 3 basic options: 1)Live with it. 2) Improve it. 3) Get the heck away from it. Read the post from Bob Withorn above. He gets it. You don't.
Euclid “Firing customers” is an old fashioned idea. It reminds me of the “Soup Nazi.” It comes from the business mindset that mistakenly believes that the customers need the business. The most progressive companies realize that their greatest cost is in obtaining customers, so they have figured out how to avoid the need to fire them and still make money off of their business.
I have never worked in retail sales if that is what you mean by "Business world." Maybe your definition is too narrow. Every company does not handle it the same. If they did, nobody would be complaining about how CSX is managed.
Of your three choices, I can't imagine why anyone would "live with it" since that means losing money. "Get the heck away from it" is pure Soup Nazi thinking. By "Improve it," I assume you mean figure out a way to fix the problem without losing the customer, and continue to make money on the customer's trade. That is what the smart companies do. Those are the "progressive" companies. Perhaps it is all just buzzwords to you.
EuclidI have never worked in retail sales if that is what you mean by "Business world." Maybe your definition is too narrow. Every company does not handle it the same. If they did, nobody would be complaining about how CSX is managed. Of your three choices, I can't imagine why anyone would "live with it" since that means losing money. "Get the heck away from it" is pure Soup Nazi thinking. By "Improve it," I assume you mean figure out a way to fix the problem without losing the customer, and continue to make money on the customer's trade. That is what the smart companies do. Those are the "progressive" companies. Perhaps it is all just buzzwords to you.
Murphy Siding Euclid I have never worked in retail sales if that is what you mean by "Business world." Maybe your definition is too narrow. Every company does not handle it the same. If they did, nobody would be complaining about how CSX is managed. Of your three choices, I can't imagine why anyone would "live with it" since that means losing money. "Get the heck away from it" is pure Soup Nazi thinking. By "Improve it," I assume you mean figure out a way to fix the problem without losing the customer, and continue to make money on the customer's trade. That is what the smart companies do. Those are the "progressive" companies. Perhaps it is all just buzzwords to you. There's no way you will ever understand it so I won't even try.
Euclid I have never worked in retail sales if that is what you mean by "Business world." Maybe your definition is too narrow. Every company does not handle it the same. If they did, nobody would be complaining about how CSX is managed. Of your three choices, I can't imagine why anyone would "live with it" since that means losing money. "Get the heck away from it" is pure Soup Nazi thinking. By "Improve it," I assume you mean figure out a way to fix the problem without losing the customer, and continue to make money on the customer's trade. That is what the smart companies do. Those are the "progressive" companies. Perhaps it is all just buzzwords to you.
There's no way you will ever understand it so I won't even try.
You won't even try? No soup for you!
Some interesting ideas come to mind on this notion, I think what is important to remember here is that CSX, like all companies, is run by people just like you and I. Not every company handles pieces of business the same, its not an algorythm or equation that determines always whether or not you service a customer. Lets take for example the Steamship carriers, they are doing some particularly strange thigns now and they will give price business at a loss in order to 1.) perserve a relationship, 2.) build/bolster a reputation 3.) protect/expand marketshare (sometimes that looks better on a balance sheet) and 4.) External factors, mostly governmental, dictate it.
Back to the case of CSX, this effort is by and large an internal effort with external consequences. I've heard mixed reactions, obviously the folks-who-observe trains are quite upset, the people in the field that are losing jobs or work are upset, but some people have told me that the RR was simply too 'fat'. And with the associated health problems of that, CSX may actually be more so on a diet than anything more, shedding the unnecessary weight by giving up some things considered luxury, excess or even joyful on their part.
However, whatever the effort may be, my opinion is the largest issue being timing. CSX has been an an extremely agreessive timeline, where I've heard horror stories of customers given literally just a few days to come up with alternaitve supply chain solution. What should have been done over the course of years was literally done in just a few months. The language of business is spoken in numbers, and switching over to that language completely may have caught a few folks off guard.... some more tact and class would likely have been welcomed. But the past is just that, so hopefully CSX is off to a better footing and we'll put the dark days behind us.
I guess you don't subscribe to the policy of: "Give the lady what she wants!"
charlie hebdo Murphy Siding Euclid I have never worked in retail sales if that is what you mean by "Business world." Maybe your definition is too narrow. Every company does not handle it the same. If they did, nobody would be complaining about how CSX is managed. Of your three choices, I can't imagine why anyone would "live with it" since that means losing money. "Get the heck away from it" is pure Soup Nazi thinking. By "Improve it," I assume you mean figure out a way to fix the problem without losing the customer, and continue to make money on the customer's trade. That is what the smart companies do. Those are the "progressive" companies. Perhaps it is all just buzzwords to you. There's no way you will ever understand it so I won't even try. I guess you don't subscribe to the policy of: "Give the lady what she wants!"
Murphy Siding charlie hebdo Murphy Siding Euclid I have never worked in retail sales if that is what you mean by "Business world." Maybe your definition is too narrow. Every company does not handle it the same. If they did, nobody would be complaining about how CSX is managed. Of your three choices, I can't imagine why anyone would "live with it" since that means losing money. "Get the heck away from it" is pure Soup Nazi thinking. By "Improve it," I assume you mean figure out a way to fix the problem without losing the customer, and continue to make money on the customer's trade. That is what the smart companies do. Those are the "progressive" companies. Perhaps it is all just buzzwords to you. There's no way you will ever understand it so I won't even try. I guess you don't subscribe to the policy of: "Give the lady what she wants!" Yes, but...
Yes, but...
Pinning down Jello!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
So it is okay to fire customers as long as you are not CSX?
Anybody seen anything about what CSX is planning to do to grow their business? Or is the plan to keep shrinking it like what Sears is doing?
Retail businesses "fire" customers all the time but in a different way. I still take photos with a Canon A-1 film camera. Walgreen's, Wal-Mart and others have phased out their film developing and photofinishing service (the demand has shrunk) so I'm no longer a customer for their photo services. Fortunately, I've found a specialized shop that takes my business.
The other stores couldn't make enough money from film photofinishing so they dropped it. Some residual business was lost but not enough to hurt the bottom line.
Murphy Siding Anybody seen anything about what CSX is planning to do to grow their business? Or is the plan to keep shrinking it like what Sears is doing?
CSSHEGEWISCH Retail businesses "fire" customers all the time but in a different way. I still take photos with a Canon A-1 film camera. Walgreen's, Wal-Mart and others have phased out their film developing and photofinishing service (the demand has shrunk) so I'm no longer a customer for their photo services. Fortunately, I've found a specialized shop that takes my business. The other stores couldn't make enough money from film photofinishing so they dropped it. Some residual business was lost but not enough to hurt the bottom line.
This appeared some 40 years ago in a certain well-known men's magazine:
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.