Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear FM is still stuck on the whole cutting crews doesn't add to the top line... HELLO, it's not about the TOP line its the BOTTOM LINE that counts. Of course cutting costs goes to the bottom line. For a given top line revenue, subtracting costs is how one reaches the bottom line. Cutting off personnel that are not needed in the efficient operation of the railroad is the smart way of doing business. Locomotive Firemen were nice, the extra brakeman and flagman were nice too, but with the elimination of the caboose and advent of FRED to handle the rear along with auotmatic detectors and roller bearings the additional people simply were no longer necessary. Looking back farther, many more brakemen were eliminated by the introduction of the Westinghouse Air Brake. Employees are the number one cost on the railroad. Railroad employees are more expensive due to generally high wages in the industry plus generous benefits including Railroad Retirement and excellent health coverage largely company funded made necessary by, among other reasons the application of the Federal Employers Liability Act and its betheren. Cutting employees creates a significant cost saving. Of course, cutting employees is not recommended when such employees are necessary to the efficient operation of the railroad and cutting remployees should be accomplished by attrition where possible. Adding to the top line happens with continued marketing and efficient operations working hand in hand. The cost savings achieved by whatever means should be applied, at least in some part to increasing the efficiency of operations and system rehabilitation and expansion costs. By plowing some of the earnings back and making smart capital investments the value of the company to sharehaolders and management and the quality of service to customers increases. LC [/quote] Well, maybe if you understood the difference between cutting costs and cutting assets, you might understand what I am saying. Just lopping off labor and trackage without thinking through how and if such cuts will affect the ability to garner business is shear idiocy. Crew reductions did not do a thing for adding more business. It seems railroad management saw labor and operations as a constant rather than a dynamic. If it takes twice as long to walk a consist prior to departure because the railroad eliminated the tail end crewman, then that means the customer's car will also take longer to get to where it's going. If the lack of a tail end crew means a rearward derailment won't be noticed for the next 20 miles until something really bad happens e.g. the car goes jackknife off the track, then the customers will experience yet another delay as the line ends up blocked for the next 48 hours. I believe rail management made such cuts irrespective of any actual hands-on data to support such moves. It was more of a back-patting exercise for management to impress stockholders. Did anyone at those stockholder meetings ever ask why management wouldn't work harder to get those trucks onto TOFC rather than complaining ad nauseum about how the truckers were taking the railroad's traffic? Productivity gains occur through asset enrichment, not retrenchment.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag