Gerald:
I did not intend to create an arguement and 'slam; you. I merely
wanted to take a different perspective on how many fans vent
their frustrations at certain administrations.
Your reference to the data in the ARs is correct. 1966 was a good
year from a revenue standpoint, but consider that two anomolies
helped with those numbers, a nationwide airline strike and the
Vietnam buildup.
I do not want to continue the arguement, I merell wanted to give
Quinn and Menk their due. Nothing was intended personally.
Ed
--- In CBQ@yahoogroups.com, "gaedgar66" <vje68@h...> wrote:
> Ed - I hardly think my saying the issuance of calendars ended
as "victims of the Menk/Quinn era" is a "slam" - merely a
statement of
> fact just as use of steam for revenue frt hauling was victim of
the Murphy era and a number of branch lines were victims of the
Budd
> era. Stating that something ending during a CEO's era is a
victim of that administration is hardly a "slam". If I had said the
cal's were
> discontinued in a mindless vendetta by a heartless Pres, yes -
that would be a "slam". Lots of things 'fall victim' to mgt - good,
bad or
> indifferent. They also "fall victim" to competitors, business
trends, strikes, death, etc etc. Stating so is not a slam but a fact.
(our local
> weatherman tonight said an event dependant on snow [we
have none] was cancelled, "a victim of the weather"). I let the
reader decide
> if the discontuance of cal's was a good or bad idea - in any
case it was a victim of a mgt decision.
> By the way, to clarify matters in general as to Menk's
administration, I used the term Menk/Quinn as Menk was Pres.
of the Q for
> exactly one yr. That one yr is memorable to Q fans though (and
makes his presidency seem longer than it was) because 4960 &
> 5632 were victims of Menk's tenure. Murphy re'td. Sept 30,
1965 - Menk held office from Oct. 1 to Sept 30, 1966; Quinn took
over Oct
> 1, 1966.
> Cal's for any business are usually ordered by late
summer/early fall to give time for proofing, printing and
distributing on a timely
> basis. Thus its reasonably safe to say "66 cal's, the last ones
issued, were authorized by Murphy prior to his retirement.
Conversely,
> I assume Menk ended the practice although conceivably Quinn
did when he took over. Also, in "66 a new ad agency was hired
by the
> Q, whether at Menk's or Quinn's behest I do not know but
suspect it was Menk's. Also whether the ad agency
recommended the
> cal's discontinuance is unknown to me but its fair to say such
decisions would ultimately cross the Pres' desk. But lets look at
your
> other comments. (one major change with the new ad agency
was more print advertising including the "Burlington Wheel" ads.
These
> appeared in business mags but also TRAINS magazine which
then & now is geared to fans - NOT shippers!!!)
> The "66 cal featured a Q frt train with new frt cars of all kinds -
companies issue cal's for their customers - not their fans. The
idea is
> the more often would-be shippers 'see' your name, the more
likely they are to ship with you, all things being equal. Cal's
ended up in
> railfans hands, then & now, but the focus was to give to
shippers - current & prospective. I have spoken with re'td Q
sales people and
> cals and other 'handouts', then & now, are a common end-of-yr
rite. (for RR's, truckers, steel makers and cereal companies -
cal's are
> a common sales tool; popular because they 'speak' to the
prospect day, after day for an entire yr). My father in this time
period was
> VP-Materials for a division of a Fortune 500 Co in Dubuque - he
had a lot of raw mat'ls shipped in by rail - he regularly was called
on
> by reps of the Milw, IC, CGW (C&NW after "68) and Q/BN not to
mention a lot of truckers - nearly all offered cal's thruout his
career
> [he re'td in "84 with 35 yrs - thanks for saving them for me Dad!]
>
> However you say I should "put on my strategic planning hat"
so lets also look @ the figures from the "66 AR which may or
may not
> have influenced the decision by Menk or Quinn to end calendar
issuance. Quote: "Burlington freight revenue and volume set
all-time
> records in 1966." Also, "In the face of a national decline in rail
passenger traffic, Burlington passenger revenues INCREASED
> (emphasis mine) to $20,902,906, indicative of continued
agressive promotion, advertising and sales effort". As for trends,
pass. rev. in
> "66 was the 5th highest since 1948 & more than any of the 3
previous years. (and remember cal's were & are aimed for traffic
mgrs of
> shippers, not Mr. & Mrs. Zephyr traveler; I mention the
passenger figures just because you brought them up, not me).
> As for possible merger - the "66 & "67 AR's speak to the
possible merger w/GN&NP as well as competing mergers.
(interestingly
> GN & NP kept issuing cals right up to BN time and Menk
continued the practice by BN!!!! Only the Q went without for 4 yrs -
why??).
> How about other trends? Piggyback traffic was up 38% -
certainly a good omen. Division of rates in court had been
settled in the
> Q's (and other RR's that were car-rich) favor in "65. Grain traffic
was up (the Q had been allowed by ICC to adjust rates) and the
> economy looked good. NOTE: Murphy & for that matter Budd,
usually had their little message in the AR's giving their view for
the
> past yr & future trends/plans. Quinn did as well (and his in the
"66 AR is upbeat) but Menk, in the only AR he was Pres for
during
> time of issue ("65) made no comments. ;.
> So, assuming we agree that cal's were/are primarily for
shippers (as were the golf balls with BR logo, the knit covers for
'woods", the
> plastic mousetraps, etc etc etc), was the Q retrenching in "66 &
thus 'cutting' expenses? Well they purchased 350 acres of land
in
> "66 land for prospective industrial plant location. Quoting from
the "66 AR "(capital expenditures) reached an all-time high with a
record
> expenditure of $61M..." They also built 2 major frt house at a
time of declining LCL & express traffic - were they looking at
trends and
> cost containment, 5 & 10 yrs down the road (as you put it Ed)?
If so money spent on frt houses in hind sight, was not the best
idea.
> (for the record mail income did not take a big hit til "67 when
the RPO's cancelled). I'd say the Q was cautiously optimistic in
late "66
> & early "67 (dividends stayed @ $7.50 a share & remember
they did not have to satisfy individual stockholders or big
institutional
> holders - only GN & NP brass!). So what would a couple
grand for cal's add to revenue of nearly $290M in "66 (highest
ever) and
> advertising expenditures of $3/4M? Cals were dropped but if
for cost-cutting reasons, the stats are not there. A different ad
focus?
> Possibly, maybe even probably but why given NP/GN and
nearly every other major business, rail or otherwise still issuing
calendars?
>
> As for comparing what Menk did with BN vis-a-vis PC was
NOT the issue I made; my remark was on cals being
discontinued 4 yrs
> before. However since you brought it up, consider: PC was a
desperate merger of 2 losing RR's who were life long
competitors forced
> to take on an even bigger loser (New Haven) as a condition of
merger - BN was the partnership of 3 major & 1 minor RR's int
he black
> with the Q & SP&S being close "friends" with GN & NP and only
the latter being competitors but never, since Jim Hill's day, bitter
> ones as were NYC/PRR. Finally, some financial & business
analysts have said that Menk's success with BN was not so
much his
> management but the fact that he took over a bunch of winners,
at least as RR's go at the time, with a weak sister competitor to
the
> coast ((Milw) and weak competitors to the Q (Milw, Rock,
C&NW, etc) in granger country not to mention NP's vast holdings
of timber,
> silver mines, etc. Compared to PC, Milw & Rock, how could
Burlington Northern NOT look good??? Would Menk have
succeeded @
> PC? Would Saunders have done OK with BN???
> But to make you feel better about Menk, we will assume it was
Quinn who suddenly discontinued cals when he took over the Q
late
> in "66 inasmuch as Menk had BN print cals during his entire
time there! (does anyone know what Milw did with cals during
Quinn's
> presidency?). And very lastly to my original response as to
dates of Q calendars - what is the earliest date of a pocket
calendar
> anyone can document - thanks! Gerald
>
> And yes, model offerings are great - especially for a 34 year
fallen flag - that's over a 1/3 of a century!!! But then Burlington is
still the
> FIRST name of one of the 4 remaining mega-RR's - who would
ever have guessed (or bet that "Chicago" would not be part of a
> surviving mega RR's name?). Having "Burlington" survive
is/was very unlikely until you remember that it indeed was a very
great RR,
> even without calendars for its last 3+ yrs of existence..... :-)
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/8ZCslB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|