Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Southwest Airlines sued by shareholders following operational meltdown
Southwest Airlines expects to lose upward of $825M due to its operational meltdown (www.foxbusiness.com) Más...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
On, I think the shareholders knew all along what the shortcomings of Southwest were.
Shareholders were happy for the last many years that the Board of Directors did not spend the money required to give them a computer system they needed. It was good enough!
The shareholders should sue themselves for placing accountants on the board. For electing board members that wanted quarterly results and would not waste money on operations and infrastructure required for long-term stability.
Southwest is not the only airlines that needs board members that care about airline operations and LONG-TERM viability. The longer you postpone needed investment in systems and infrastructure the more expensive it gets.
They got their large quarterly bonuses! Then demanded that employees work mandatory overtime.
The shareholders should sue themselves for placing accountants on the board. For electing board members that wanted quarterly results and would not waste money on operations and infrastructure required for long-term stability.
Southwest is not the only airlines that needs board members that care about airline operations and LONG-TERM viability. The longer you postpone needed investment in systems and infrastructure the more expensive it gets.
They got their large quarterly bonuses! Then demanded that employees work mandatory overtime.
If they lose, will they get sued again for losing?
possibly that computer relic system was good enough for a 400 or 500 aircraft fleet, but southwest has hundreds more than those numbers, and has had those numbers for a long time. These kind of major structural requirements are the domain of the board and the executive suite, both now unmasked as shortsighted.
I'm not a lawyer but I fail to see how a company can be sued by its own owners. That would mean they are suing themselves. They may well have cause for an action against its officers but surely not their own company.
