Interesting...I wonder if it sells if a portion of the proceeds with go to (RED).
Coffee Soldier |
January 28, 2009 at 02:46 PM
Webmaster Jim: I'd like to suggest a new open thread. The reasons why are because the old one has well over 300 comments, and also because there *might* be important stuff that we want to talk about shortly from the 1st quarter conference call which is scheduled to start in just about an hour from now. Do you remember that a year ago this month, Howard Schultz told us that breakfast sandwiches were going away? LOL
Melody - @Webmaster-Jim |
January 28, 2009 at 02:47 PM
It's not uncommon for companies with PR problems in connection to corporate jets to announce they're up for sale, only to price them so high that no one will actually buy them. This allows them to continue using the jet while claiming a kind of moral victory in the fact that "Hey, it's for sale - we can't help it if nobody is buying it." I'm not saying that's the case here, but it will be interesting to see if either jet sells any time soon.
January 28, 2009 at 04:26 PM
Good move... I am confident that the company will be doing the right thing moving forward. I believe the previous double standards no longer exist. Thanks!
January 28, 2009 at 04:37 PM
Interesting take, K-Dog. That is a very adept PR move, and I would be suprised if that isn't happening here, at least to some degree. What would be a fair price? Certainly they don't think they'll get $45M for it, especially in this economy? Although...I do have space in the driveway for a new method of conveyance....if only the price is low enough. Seriously, if they do manage to sell it, can they at least give us our 401(k) match back?
January 28, 2009 at 04:46 PM
I'll give them a bottle of Mazagran, a set of mint-condition Chantico tasting cups, my Orin Smith "What matters most are the people" retirement party pen, and some "Clean Sweep"© tchotchkes for it.
If Howard acts within the next 20 minutes (because y'know we can't do this all day) I'll throw in my 1979 Seattle Sonics team-autographed pennant.
Soylent Green Apron |
January 28, 2009 at 04:54 PM
coffee soldier that was hilarious
Howard Goaway |
January 28, 2009 at 05:34 PM
Didn't they just buy one isn't this an admission of not making sound business decisions. This kinda reminds me of the bail out and then the Corporation threw their yearly big party.
January 28, 2009 at 10:02 PM
I hear Citigroup is looking for a new corporate jet. They backed out of a $50M jet, maybe they'll pick up one of Starbuck's for $25-$30M
January 28, 2009 at 10:23 PM
E-bay the jet! I'll start the bid at $500.
Barista Ben |
January 29, 2009 at 04:14 AM
Instead of buying jets and waisting money on all types of nonsense like splash sticks and special sleeves and cups and JETS...Give this money back to the people who are slaving in your stores, The Baristas...Without them there is no 3rd place or connection to the community. HOWIE you suck bad.
Best Barista |
January 29, 2009 at 08:49 AM
@coffee soldier: that post was funny as hell!
@K-Dog: ya know, the microscopic amount of trust I've place in the "The Suits" has been blown out the water now; suffice to say, I wouldn't be surprised in the least.
What I'd love to know is this:
OK, so there's CFO What's-his-Face, right? Wasn't he knocking down Howards door to communicate the recent financial downfall? Did they decide to buy the damn jet anyways, just to sell it later? Do they read the newspaper?
This reminds me of those old Sit & Sleep commercials: the ones with the accountact(Irwin, I think) turning to owner while pulling his hair out screaming, "you're killing me, Larry!!!" whenever there was a sale. Can't you see it?
January 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM
THANK YOU for putting the jets up for sale and for taking a SIGNIFICANT pay cut Howard.
January 29, 2009 at 08:40 PM
Howard took over $9 MILLION in total compensation last year.
The time for him to be taking a significant pay cut was about 3 years ago. Just something to remember before you get all misty-eyed over his recent pay-cut martyrdom. It's spin, and not very good spin.
Soylent Green Apron |
January 29, 2009 at 09:56 PM
Soylent Green Apron is one funny person. I especially liked the Orin Smith retirement pen.
Cut out the Heart |
January 29, 2009 at 10:15 PM
If its only made 15 flights, whats the f'n point in the first place? What's the cost of 15 first class tickets?
January 30, 2009 at 02:42 AM
There's a Dunkin Donut ad on the face page of this thread advertising their flatbread eggwhite sandwiches promotion.
Dunkin Dough Nut |
January 30, 2009 at 03:52 PM
Do you want to know WHY they bought a Gulfstream? Because their chief pilot was sick and tired of shlepping around in a Bombardier Challenger while all his buddies at Boeing Field have these new planes. If one guy gets a new plane at Boeing Field - THEY ALL DO. It all has to do with the chief pilot and how he feels. He can tell someone that knows nothing about aviation that "this plane is costing you more money in fuel and to fix than to buy a new one" and trust me, Gulfstream can help him (it's always a him) with his case.
I'm not defending the purchase of a new plane but I'm in aviation (my company fixes the Starbucks jet) and the people influencing corporate's decision are just in it for themselves.
expresso mechanic |
February 02, 2009 at 12:00 PM
I highly doubt from your uninformed comments that you're in aviation. If you knew anything about Starbucks OR Starbucks aviation *OR* Starbucks chief pilot you'd know several things: The chief pilot does not make decisions based on what others on Boeing field are doing, and Corporate does not decide to buy new airplanes just because the chief pilot wants one. Please!
Also, there is no "company" that "fixes the Starbucks jet." That job is done by hardworking, dedicated Starbucks partners, for now at least.
You're entitled to an opinion, but check your #$%@! before you post your ignorant thoughts. Notice I did not say "stupid," because there's a difference. Ignorant means lacking facts or knowledge about something, and that can be remedied. And we all know...you can't fix STUPID.
PS: Did you mean to misspell espresso? Or are you just stupid?
February 04, 2009 at 06:28 PM
Starbucks hires partners to fix there jets? If we didn't contract out cleaning crews(okay, clearly not anymore, but I am sure you get my point) in our stores, and use contractors to fix our fridges and pastry cases, I might believe that we hired partners for this as well, but it is a bit hard to swallow that partners are not hired on for jobs that would positively impact all stores but would hire on 1? partner to fix the jets. Unless the partners fixing the jets are cross-functional in the company. Is it something added on to other partners tasks. "R&D team, please check the engine before you leave for the day" or "barista, fuel the jet before you clock out for you lunch please". I am not saying you don't have valid points. I know NOTHING about aviation, but a little bit about business, and a touch of what I consider to be common sense. Are you sure we don't contract the jet issues out. I mean you mess up that job and people could die. It is not like having an RD work the espresso bar, amusing, but no one's life is at risk.
expired shot |
February 04, 2009 at 06:56 PM
@expired shot --
Oh, I know for a fact that SBUX has an in-house flight department, and has for several years. These partners (PLURAL: it takes more than 1 to maintain and fly an airplane) are highly specialized and licensed. As you say, they have the lives of key partners in their hands. They are NOT cross functional. Their duties are strictly related to aviation, though some of them do have to be able to make a decent bev for the boss!
The work load is MORE than sufficient to justify full time positions, and then some. These partners are basically on call 24/7, and their phones ring at all hours of the day and night. You're absolutely right about common sense, which is why it's done this way :o) Contracting is not the way to go, though it makes sense in lots of situations.
February 05, 2009 at 11:15 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Not affiliated with Starbucks Corporation (obviously)