Originally Posted by
Fiordland
There are three perspectives that need to be taken into account. The customer, the shareholder, and the government. For completeness the employee probably belongs in there.
I don't disagree with your observation on customer service. The level of customer service is fundamentally a marketing decision as AC figures out how to position itself in the market to maximize shareholder returns. It is figured out being a full service legacy with customer service on part with others is the place to be.
Shareholders want to make money. That is a given.
What is now unique is AC has the government as a shareholder (or holder of some weird debt that can be converted into shares). They have some other unique constraints to keep the tax payers happy. Refunds and limits on bonuses being two of these. It is going to be weird seeing how this shareholder plays with the others.
I don't disagree, for the most part, but I would like to stress that the government was not a shareholder when the decision was made on these bonuses.
They do, however, get a vote at the AGM in a few weeks, and they're free to vote against the say-on-pay resolution, and/or against the directors who approved the program.