Jump to content

Should executive salaries be suspended until Princess is able to refund her loyal passengers


Recommended Posts

It would generate some much needed goodwill.  These executives are in a much better position to personally get through the coronavirus than passengers who may need their money for rent or mortgage payments.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing how many cases of the "poor" pointing to the "rich" can be cured with a moment's reality check. The executive compensation is in the SEC reports. The back log of refunds has been in the discussions here. Without even looking I suspect that the monthly salaries are in the area of 1% or less of the refund backlog. Would 1% of your refund fix your mortgage this month? Sorry to be blunt but we need those executives to stave off bankruptcy or the refunds will be 0%.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you implying that the executives would stop working if their compensation was suspended for a few months?  Why?  Is money that important to them.  But it is not important to their passengers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't think their salaries should be changed.  They're probably working harder now than they ever have.  I do wonder though if they've been asked to reduce them and maybe that's why so many execs are leaving top positions right now?  I know they recently cancelled the 401K matching for employees, which seems only natural under the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Loreni, would you keep working if your salary was cut off or would you quickly look for another source of income for your house? Their money is of the same importance to them as yours is to you. Likewise as an individual their obligation to look out for your wallet is exactly the same as your obligation to look out for their wallet IE nil. If you want the company to survive so that it can pay its obligation to you then don't hobble the people trying to fix it.

Let's keep sight of the basic point, diverting the salaries won't solve the refunds.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Two4Sea said:

Loreni, would you keep working if your salary was cut off or would you quickly look for another source of income for your house? Their money is of the same importance to them as yours is to you. Likewise as an individual their obligation to look out for your wallet is exactly the same as your obligation to look out for their wallet IE nil. If you want the company to survive so that it can pay its obligation to you then don't hobble the people trying to fix it.

 

Let's keep sight of the basic point, diverting the salaries won't solve the refunds.

 

Bill

Actually having been an executive on a fortune 500 company, I would say that senior executives taking cuts, or even declining compensation  during periods of extreme duress in the companies they are heading, is far more the rule, at least as far as the good executive and companies go.

 

Actually you are wrong they do have an obligation to look out for and make sure that they operate ethically and efficiently when it comes to their financial dealing with customers, both as a group and as individuals.

 

Their salary won't solve the problem, but their willingness to own the problem would go a long way to restoring credibility for their companies.

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-a-list-of-ce-os-taking-pay-cuts-amidst-the-coronavirus-crisis-171206258.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Loreni said:

It would generate some much needed goodwill.  

 

I can't see that reducing the 'why haven't I gotten my refund' threads here.

 

People care about their refunds, not how much Arnold Donald makes...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If downsizing happens what is going to happen to a lot of the ships. Usually after a period of time (25 years or so) the mainstream lines sell their ships to the smaller European lines, my guess is they are not going to be in the market in buying ships with the industry in limbo right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These executives could easily afford to have their compensation cut and still survive quite well.  They make grossly inflated salaries compared to the regular workers who are doing all the work and taking all the grief from those of us who are not getting refunds.  While the executive compensation reduction would nowhere near cover refunds that need to be issued, it would sure buy some great goodwill for those of us waiting for our refunds.  Many other large companies have done this and CCL needs to follow along.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, leck57 said:

If the Execs have delay in paying refunds as one of their KPI's many of them will be getting huge bonuses.

it would go a long way or  "generate some much needed goodwill "  to forgo bonuses over salaries.  however; I don't see that happening.  Better to start at the beginning and ask the Wuhan executives to forgo salaries . 

Link to post
Share on other sites

NPCL: "wrong" -where did I say they were operating unethically? Voluntary actions are fine but not at someone else's demand. I see the pay cuts as being the same as those practiced at all staff levels when a business is in trouble. I wonder if there is a conditional pay (bonus) system here, if so that's pay that has already gone to zero.

 

Actually there is a fine point about how ethical it would be to feed false breadcrumbs and let the customers continue to look in the wrong direction. Look at the amount of misdirected upset being vented on these boards because of people not appreciating that prepaying for a service may work 99% of the time but it is still a gamble. Look at the effort they are wasting because they are not being pointed towards factual information. There is no bucket of cash being held back greedily. The best overall refund is going to come from taking the time to maximize the funds available and distributing them evenly. Rushing will underuse the cash flow and credit, squeaky wheels will bias the payouts.

 

TM: -"grossly" -would you invest your 401k in the company with the poorest paid executive suite in its class? Or even better in one with no executive suite seeing as you don't think they do necessary work?

 

Focus on facts that will hold up, folks.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Two4Sea said:

It's amazing how many cases of the "poor" pointing to the "rich" can be cured with a moment's reality check. The executive compensation is in the SEC reports. The back log of refunds has been in the discussions here. Without even looking I suspect that the monthly salaries are in the area of 1% or less of the refund backlog. Would 1% of your refund fix your mortgage this month? Sorry to be blunt but we need those executives to stave off bankruptcy or the refunds will be 0%.

Bill

 

It is not the fact that the lines might or might not save a significant amount of money by cutting or eliminating executive salaries.  It is whether they should be punished financially or be fired for mismanaging the companies and also being at least partly responsible for the deaths of so many people.  As an alternative to be fired to perform some sort of penance for killing so many people,  they could be required to perform a whole lot of a high health health risk community service. 

 

DON

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Two4Sea said:

NPCL: "wrong" -where did I say they were operating unethically? Voluntary actions are fine but not at someone else's demand. I see the pay cuts as being the same as those practiced at all staff levels when a business is in trouble. I wonder if there is a conditional pay (bonus) system here, if so that's pay that has already gone to zero.

 

 

 

Actually there is a fine point about how ethical it would be to feed false breadcrumbs and let the customers continue to look in the wrong direction. Look at the amount of misdirected upset being vented on these boards because of people not appreciating that prepaying for a service may work 99% of the time but it is still a gamble. Look at the effort they are wasting because they are not being pointed towards factual information. There is no bucket of cash being held back greedily. The best overall refund is going to come from taking the time to maximize the funds available and distributing them evenly. Rushing will underuse the cash flow and credit, squeaky wheels will bias the payouts.

 

 

 

TM: -"grossly" -would you invest your 401k in the company with the poorest paid executive suite in its class? Or even better in one with no executive suite seeing as you don't think they do necessary work?

 

 

 

Focus on facts that will hold up, folks.

 

 

 

Bill

You had said " Likewise as an individual their obligation to look out for your wallet is exactly the same as your obligation to look out for their wallet IE nil."

 

That is where I said you were wrong.  As the executive of a corporation that is doing business with customers of that corporation they do have the obligation to look out for their customers wallet, as far as it is impacted by their failure to deliver the product you purchased and to return those fund in a timely manner.  That is what a well managed and ethical company and executive team would do.

 

Considering the recent funding by CCL 6.25 billion they actually do have the cash on hand to repay the 38% that they say are asking for refunds  4.6 bill X .38 =1.78 billion leaving them over 4 billion after their recent funding round.

 

If they do not have the cash to refund that money after that funding round then I can doubt that they will have the money to survive, since it will be much harder to raise any more.

 

Better to invest in the most poorly paid exec team if they are qualified and good at what they do, then an over paid exec team that is more focused on lining their pockets.

 

 

Edited by npcl
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Two4Sea said:

NPCL: "wrong" -where did I say they were operating unethically? Voluntary actions are fine but not at someone else's demand. I see the pay cuts as being the same as those practiced at all staff levels when a business is in trouble. I wonder if there is a conditional pay (bonus) system here, if so that's pay that has already gone to zero.

 

 

 

Actually there is a fine point about how ethical it would be to feed false breadcrumbs and let the customers continue to look in the wrong direction. Look at the amount of misdirected upset being vented on these boards because of people not appreciating that prepaying for a service may work 99% of the time but it is still a gamble. Look at the effort they are wasting because they are not being pointed towards factual information. There is no bucket of cash being held back greedily. The best overall refund is going to come from taking the time to maximize the funds available and distributing them evenly. Rushing will underuse the cash flow and credit, squeaky wheels will bias the payouts.

 

 

 

TM: -"grossly" -would you invest your 401k in the company with the poorest paid executive suite in its class? Or even better in one with no executive suite seeing as you don't think they do necessary work?

 

 

 

Focus on facts that will hold up, folks.

 

 

 

Bill

Is it ethical for the cruise lines to continue to collect payments on cruises that they know will not be sailing?  And then delay the repayment of those funds for long periods of time?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, npcl said:

Is it ethical for the cruise lines to continue to collect payments on cruises that they know will not be sailing?  And then delay the repayment of those funds for long periods of time?

 

 

 

No and I think it is probably about as bad as it gets in terms of unethical business behaviour.

Our media here has concentrated on the delays in refunds - the issue about taking payment for what will be, non existent cruises, should be the next area they target.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect executives to get raises.  This is the way executives are often ‘incentivized’ to stay with a company rather than abandoning a sinking ship.  SEC disclosures should be interesting over the next few months.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, aimhigh said:

Not really any of our business.

i f you a shareholder you could propose a motion at the agm, but otherwise as a customer your only choice is to buy or go elsewhere.

Those executives primary responsibility is to the shareholders not the customer.  Do the car manufacturers or real estate developers show any responsibility for the consumer's wallet?  I don't think so, corporations have the attitude that if you can't afford their product, move along.  That said, I don't think any of the cruise lines voluntarily suspended operations so they could hang onto pre-payments.  I'm sure they all would rather be sailing with happy customers but that's not in the cards right now.  Are the banks and localities required to refund mortgage payments and taxes on second homes that governments prohibit travel to?  These are tough times for vendors and consumers as well.

Edited by Daniel A
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • SPECIAL EVENT: Q&A with Barbara Muckermann, CMO Silversea Cruises
      • SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT: Azamara Voyage - We are back with New Greece Voyages
      • ICYM Our Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Explore the Remote World with Hurtigruten!
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...