Originally Posted by us2

It's one thing to add a route as part of a corporate contract. That's simply business and there are a lot of legitimate reasons why one would add or guarantee a route in order to ensure getting/keeping a corporate contract.

Adding a route to satisfy the whims of a public official is unethical on every level and legally dangerous. At worst, you open yourself up to charges of bribery of a public official; at best, you are the victim of extortion who played along to cover the tracks of a corrupt public official. While such arrangements may seem as though they are in the interest of the business, and it is probably pretty easy to convince yourself that it is, you are really up a creek if it comes to light.

There is nothing so far that indicates that Smisek himself or anyone else received any direct personal benefit from this arrangement and you would have to really dig to discern whether any material indirect personal benefit accrued as a result of their compensation package. Most CEO compensation is incentive based and if any corrupt dealings lead to higher incentive pay, you are open to the charge that you were personally enriched.

While I'm probably in the minority in this opinion, Smisek and crew were caught between a rock and a hard place here. Play ball with Samson and you get public capital improvements that are clearly in the company's interest at a major hub where the benefits will outweigh by far the cost of whatever this person wants. Fail to play ball and who knows what happens. You may wind up with a situation in which a corrupt public official goes out of their way to screw you at every turn.

What surprises me is the utter lack of finesse that was at work here in granting this "favor" to Samson. You would think they would do a better job of justifying the route in some fashion and not be so stupid as to drop it within days of the man leaving his job.

I'll leave it to prosecutors to decide whether any of this is criminal, but it is clear that all of it is highly unethical and has damaged the company's reputation.

I have a feeling that this one will be taught in business school ethics for years to come, for it illustrates very nicely the ethical quandaries that come with running a large public corporation that has to contend with corrupt officials.

In any case, I suspect this story will be around for awhile as it wends its way through the courts.