If you base it purely on materials, then it does appear to have a substantial margin. There are labour and distribution costs also.
Items have to packed into special trays, go through security checks which involve more handling, loaded on and off the plane, delivered to the person, money collected and processed,....
There is a price/principle objection. On some flights on the same airline, economy passengers get a similar but "free" sandwich. Most people seem to take and eat them. As soon as they have to pay separately, few buy.
I'm not confusing the two at all. Thatcher whooped up selfish action to the extent of severely (and possibly permanently) damaging whole swathes of society. We live in a poorer place because she existed (and continued to exist despite the IRA).
You clearly did *not* have a mortgage in the 1980s. I did. :-(
Exactly. To put you in the picture I had to deal with the results of some of them as a civil servant and had to calculate some of the unemployment statistics. Pre-Thatcher they were (mostly) fair and their limitations well known. Thatcher repeatedly massaged the figures - and all in the same direction. The published figures need to be increased by at least 50% for chunks of her time in order to allow comparison with previous years.
The vast majority of people aren't. I know very few reasonable people who are. The fact that you consider yourself so capable says much about you.
Yeah. Right. Would you dispute that? Want to check the figures for 1970 to
1974 again and see their knock-on into the late 70s. Want to compare that with the trend before Thacher got in? Or are you suckered by all the Press lies that the Tories bought?
Sounds like the firm is about to go into liquidation. Arranging a 'strike' is one way of trying to avoid paying statuary redundancy payments. Hope they don't succeed.
Err, surely they'd be delivered in the packaging they're sold in? After all, the reason for outsourcing is to end up with no labour costs? And all aircraft have trolley dollies for security, etc, reasons. They come free for dispensing food and drink?
Well, yes. But an efficient airline will have ordered their stocks with this in mind?
I take it that was tongue in cheek? I was referring to his wish for harm to come to members of the Conservative government of the time. There is no need for that sort of attitude, but I do find it typical of hard lefties. They have little argument, so rely on violence, both real and implied to make their point.
That would either be at the choice of the shareholder (presumably parent company in Switzerland or U.S.) if they choose to cease funding the losses, or if the company becomes insolvent in which case the directors legally have to cease trading and proceed from there.
If this is the situation, then usually the only creditor who gets some pickings is the tax man.
The most sensible outcome would be for the workforce and the union to wake up and smell the coffee and realise that there have to be some changes. There's really no point in arguing about how the company arrived at this point (e.g. should management have done something else) because the clock can't be wound back and today's economic situation has to be faced.
Yes I did in fact. However, for a variety of reasons which can in different ways be attributed to the more favourable business climate in the 80s and early 90s, I no longer do.
Ah... That explains everything....
All successive governments have massaged unemployment figures - none more than the present one.
You must move in very limited circles. This is the typical rhetoric that is used to justify state intervention in people's lives and the bureucracy to make that happen. There's a big problem with it. It doesn't actually produce anything to benefit the economy.
There is no exclusivity on looking after oneself.
I'm not suckered by very much at all, least of all the press, and especially not by disgruntled civil servants.
Well.... what I do notice each time I am on a departing aircraft (several times a month) is that there are a lot of people involved in the handling of food and other supply trollies on and off the aircraft.
I didn't necessarily mean the flight waitresses themselves in terms of money handling, but the processing of it afterwards. That's an incremental cost.
Probably. THe point was really that people don't seem to want to buy food on board, but will accept and eat it if given to them for "free". Perhaps this has been used to justify one aspect of cost cutting on the part of the airlines - i.e. to say that people don't value getting food, therefore don't bother to provide it in any great way included in the fare.
Having said that, I've been travelling for long enough and on enough different airlines to have noted that these things go in cycles. At a certain point, the airlines decide that outdoing each other on service rather than price is a good idea and improves their margins. If the caterers are lucky, that may be about to happen.
Scargill did make a mess of his actions and argument - though I don't know how he could have got it right - but all he did was correctly state the plans that the government already had for closing down the industry. If anything he badly underestimated the damage that the government intended, the illegal acts they were prepared to take, the illegal funding they were willing to put into it, and the damage they were willing to inflict in order to get their way.
But then no one expected any of that and some obviously still continue to deny the obvious.
The first necessary step is actually to sack the incompetent managers who allowed (or possibly arranged for) this situation to arise. The first to go should be the Directors. With the same bunch in charge in the future no plan is going to work.
Having got some managers in who can manage then the way the company works can be considered. If you keep a workforce informed and have sound leadership situations like this simply don't arise.
You start reform at the top - not the bottom. Perhaps now is the time for some of people who have claimed inflated pay for the "risk" they are taking as managers and directors to find out what the word risk means.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.