There is no difference between a machine gun and a robot.
A person designs a machine gun but does not pull the actual trigger. There is an army officer that orders the weapon be deployed and the rules of engagement for when it can be used.
A person designs a killer robot but does not activate it. There is an army officer that orders the weapon be deployed and the rules of engagement for when it can be used.
There is always a person that is responsible for the use of a munition. Maybe that person is higher up the chain with a killer robot than a machine gun. If you want to launch a nuclear bomb then it goes all the way to the top of the chain. But there is always a person that is responsible for the death caused by the munition.
Sit down with your business partner and tell them what you are feeling. Indicate you are burnt out/bored with the current situation and scale of revenue. You need significant change to occur in the future to remain engaged in the work. Give them time to think about this, they might come up with a plan for making a big change that you can both then can implement. If not, then at least they had some heads up that you were ready to move on and will not feel they were blindsided with your leaving.
An MBA will not suddenly give you more ideas on strategy. It will help fill in gaps in your knowledge about other areas of business. But they rarely actually teach you how to come up with a better/superior strategy.
I think you need to begin by understanding why you are having the problems that you are in job performance. Otherwise, you will just repeat the pattern with the next job and end up quitting fairly quickly. Is if a feeling of pressure, the tasks are too difficult, you are naturally an anxious person around new people etc. Then find a strategy for trying to work around the issue. I cannot recommend a strategy because we don't know the specifics of the source issue.
Why do these travel companies always go bust in a way that leaves people stranded?
Surely the management must have known a week or two ago that the company was about to go under. In that case, stop anyone flying out but still bring people back. By the time they actually cease trading there should be few people left abroad. Some managers in Thomas Cook must have known that people flying out were going to end up stranded and they just let them go.
The moment they stop accepting reservations for new travel outbound is the moment they are commercially dead.
Agreed, if you knew there was 0% hope (say, of flying anyone back a week hence) it would be unethical to keep it going. But if you were trying to keep things afloat and thought you could do, it would be unethical to do otherwise, since stopping new outbounds would 100% doom the firm and strand the overseas travelers.
I'm sure you read the article, which mentions that there were negotiations up to the last minute to raise the last 200mm pounds on top of the 900mm pounds existing rescue package.
In general I think companies have a duty to their shareholders to fight to stay in business until it's literally impossible to do so. As long as there are resources left, those would have to be allocated to preserving the business, rather than to smoothing the process for their customers.
Exactly, they should have stopped flying people out when they were within two weeks of closing. If they had secured the funding needed to continue then all well and good and then start flying people out again.
The instant the airline says "We're no longer accepting bookings because we're working to figure out a cash situation." you've got to believe everyone else who is still booked will pull their ticket for a refund of any form. I would be.
There would be a massive outflow of what little available cash exists.
The announcement whether early or late is the immediate death knell of the company.
I do agree at face value this seems terrible, but I honestly don't see a better course of action given they were waiting for a bailout and then didn't receive it.
One could imagine a travel company that operated like a financial services firm - if you pay $3000 for a package holiday they put your money in a ringfenced client money account and contract with an airline and hotel to provide the services with payment in arrears.
That way if the travel company or airline or hotel goes out of business, the holidaymaker hasn't lost any money (although they might face the cost of buying a last-minute flight from a different airline, or similar)
Of course, you could argue consumers who want such peace of mind can already approximate such an arrangement by combining a package holiday with travel insurance.
And plenty have insta-shutdown and said “ooops, sorry about all your data. We regret not telling you sooner (not that we would have). Here’s the address of our $350/hr insolvency firm (which will be deducted from any compensation). Good luck!”
This didn't come out of the blue. Thomas Cook is known to have problems for years and an impending collapse has been rumoured since months ago. Why did all these traveleres choose them is a better question
Completely playing devil's advocate - continuing to operate whilst knowing there is a high risk of them going bust gives the CAA more time to put in contingency plans, rather than going bust _now_.
The moment they stop flying out, they collapse. In that case they leave people behind and sink the company actively. Not a situation any manager wants to end up in.
If only you'd put as much effort into reading as you put into your condescending tone, then, just maybe, you'd notice the part where I mentioned we wanted to "pass by", and not "sit for hours just to take a picture".
Those 400-500 people were just staying there, with many blocking the street – you know, the thing people walk on?
The time he took to publish is not because he was a 'slacker'. British society was very religious at the time and coming out with evolution was going to cause quite the controversy. Which it did. So he wanted to gather as much evidence as possible and maybe shied away from the attention it would gather from religious leaders.
> 'Watch the Bugatti Chiron smash through the mythical 300 mph barrier'
There is nothing mythical about a car travelling at 300mph, it has been done before and nobody I know thinks that it is a myth. Going 300mph is not breaking a barrier, there is nothing fundamental about ticking over to 300 that is a barrier. It is a milestone.
> 'how did they do it without just completely flying apart?'
Why would it fly apart? It was designed to travel that speed and other cars have travelled that speed without flying apart. Aeroplanes travel much faster and do not fly apart, why is it a question you would even ask?
