Perusing the USA Today earlier this week, one headline in the money section caught my eye:  “Heavy packers will have to pay.”  Now mind you that marrying a cheesehead has reformatted by brain to interpret anything “packers” to naturally refer to the Green Bay Packers, so the headline intrigued me.  Are the Packers on a health kick?  Won’t slimming down hurt their defense?  And why is this in the money section?  Reading further I discovered that rather than referring to the weight of players, it was instead discussing United Airlines new checked bag policy. 

In case you haven’t heard, United Airlines is implementing a new policy to charge passengers who aren’t their elite frequent fliers, and who buy their non-refundable tickets, a $25 fee to check a second bag.  In reading the article, my mind began sputtering with annoyed rebuttals around the logic the airline used in making this decision.  I could spell them out here, but comments and blogs of every variety have pretty much covered all my points and then some others I wouldn’t have come up with on my own.  If you want to check them out for yourself take a look at these two articles from USA Today online:

Fliers will have to pay to check a second bag

New United bag-check fee ruffles travelers' feathers

Allowing my reaction fester for a few days, as I have a tendency to do, I think I finally got to the root cause of why this new policy has so many people up in arms.

Consumers have reached the point with corporate America where we have a short fuse for short-term solutions.

What is the real issue?
United Airlines is couching this new policy as a way to recoup some of the expenses related to the increase in oil prices.  So for them, the issue is the fluctuation of oil prices.  Ok.  We are aware of that issue; we are all dealing with that to a certain degree in our own budgets.  But isn’t the real issue the airline’s dependency on oil? 

Wouldn’t it be nice if for once a company, rather than issuing a reactive policy to offset their woes, introduced their short-tem solution in conjunction with a long-term strategy?  Just so you know, United Airlines holding company (UAL Corp) announced their highest annual pre-tax income since 1999 just 2 days prior to announcing the new fee.  How about investing some of that income in the future? 

For me, if United had announced the new policy and at the same time announced an initiative to work with GM or Boeing or even Richard Branson to explore alternative fuel engines, or engines with improved efficiencies, or something that would indicate an attempt to address the root issue, well… then perhaps I could have accepted the $25 fee in the same spirit I would take medicine with a spoon of honey. 

Sound financial practices are form of corporate responsibility
I was taken by surprise last year when I got my water bill and there was a new $55 monthly fee to recover expenses associated with building an EPA mandated arsenic removal facility.  Now I don’t mind paying to support building the structure for arsenic to be removed from my water, but there was no indication how long this fee would be in place.  So I called the company and was informed that the fee would be “forever” and that it would soon be incorporated as just a normal part of the bill.  Forever?  Really?  How much did this facility cost?  Because won't it be paid off at some point?  At least, that’s how my construction loans have worked in that past.

I understand that capital expenditures can put a significant dent in operating income.  Again, it is something we all deal with to a certain degree.  But knowing that I need to purchase a new HVAC system next year, I put a plan in place to pay for it.  And my plan doesn’t include charging a fee to my friends who come inside to cool off in the summer – even if my utility rates increase. In that same spirit I have no intention of sharing the profits with them when it comes time to sell the house.  (Sorry guys!)  Isn’t that how ownership works?

I take responsibility for my financial health; I make decisions that will help me be strong in the future; I don’t expect others to pick up the slack.  And I think that is where the frustration sets in.  When we don’t see corporate leaders making the same responsible decisions in running their companies, it’s inevitable that you are going to get that short-fused response.

Reactive.  Proacitve.  Blah, blah, blah….
We have all been in those meetings where someone uses those million dollar buzzwords.  There is even a corporate bingo game you can play to keep you entertained.  But at the end of the day, how are you evaluating the long-term quality of the decisions made in those meetings?  Because truly proactive solutions address the root causes of organizational performance, not just the current causes.

In the words of Edwin Markham, “Choices are the hinges of destiny.”  And a lot of our destinies are hinging on the choices being made in the boardrooms of corporate America.  Perhaps when the public’s feathers are ruffled, it’s an indication that you might want to take a second look at your decisions. 

In the meantime, I will be reconfiguring my suitcases so that if by some misfortune I end up on a United flight, I will be prepared to carry-on my 2 bags that I usually check. Please save me some bin space.