Originally Posted by
Steph3n
TWA Fan,
I am not sure what kellner has done is much different than what Bethune would have done in the same climate, they are still good friends and no doubt Kellner takes Bethune's advice in many matters (in private). i am not saying Kellner is a Bethune in any way they had/have vastly different leadership styles, but in the end I am not sure the results would have been much different.
I do however think Bethune may have been able to get more concessions out of Boeing for the massive 787 delays that have plauged the program and messed up much of COs planning, or lack thereof. CO banked on the 787 program WAY too much without additional 777/767s in the fleet as a stopgap.
Agreed on the Boeing relationship with Bethune (for obvious reasons).
Had Bethune remained as CEO of CAL it is certainly not inconceivable that things would have turned out largely the same, I don't dispute that.
But what we do know, as you say, is that both men have a vastly different style of leadership, and style of management, as well. Bethune always believed in the value of product, that adding value should always result in adding profit.
Kellner, as befits his background as a accountant, believed that the bottom line should determine the product.
I think if you look at the tenures of these two CEO's that was the main difference. Bethune ran into a lot of hot water (including with Bonderman and TPG) for his steadfastness in maintaining the product, even if it cost $$$ in the short-term.
And that was one of the first things to go when Kellner acceeded to the top. Quickly, he put an accent on cutting costs and adding revenue by reducing the value to the customer.
On the surface, this strategy should have worked brilliantly, but CAL's financial performance has not improved substantially under Kellner's tenure, and its reputation as the exceptional airline has suffered mightily.