Thomas Cook collapses, stranding 150k UK holidaymakers • Hacker News Board

Re: Thomas Cook collapses, stranding 150k UK holidaymakers

#281

Post by sprafa » Mon, Sep 23, 2019, 11:21 PM UTC

danjac wrote: post #157

sprafa wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most British companies I’ve seen operating appear to be an absolute mess from the inside. It’s funny that the British have the Northern European credibility in business but I don’t think they’re anywhere close as efficient or organised as the Germans or the Dutch. This is just personal experience but I’ve come to realise it seems to be the norm that British management is overall terrible.

This seems more like experience with certain kinds of companies - I've worked with companies around the world and there are certain anti-patterns I've experienced everywhere which really have little to do with the nationality of the management. For example, idiot CEOs, nepotism and micromanagement are, unfortunately, international phenomena.

That’s too bad. Being Portuguese for some reason I thought some countries would be better than others. The British tendency to be indirect and weird about being straightforward (people like that are called “rude” if they work in a majority southern English company) doesn’t help.

Re: Thomas Cook collapses, stranding 150k UK holidaymakers

#282

Post by C1sc0cat » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 8:47 AM UTC

gmueckl wrote: post #264

C1sc0cat wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has ever happened and does this also cover newspapers?

Yes, I remember a high profile German tech news site involved in at least one such legal battle. If memory serves, it revolved around a link to Alcohol 120%, a tool to rip copy protected disks. The news site lost the case, I think.

Well duh linking to software with an illegal use is not the same as linking to a site that sells freezer cabinets to super markets and comer stores.

Re: Thomas Cook collapses, stranding 150k UK holidaymakers

#283

Post by Mindwipe » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 11:19 AM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #257

Mindwipe wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix and WeWork are more pertinent examples tbh.

I was not aware Netflix had significant debt.

Netflix is basically sticking $4 billion a year in bonds at this point.

That's not necessarily a problem today. Debt is cheap. But they do have to slow that down at some point through lower spending or increased revenue, and if the cost of debt suddenly skyrocketed in the meantime, which is not impossible, that would be a big problem for them.

Re: Thomas Cook collapses, stranding 150k UK holidaymakers

#284

Post by jaclaz » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 5:52 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #171

gertrunde wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that this might be a varies-by-country thing, certainly in the UK 30 days is the norm, 90 days would be a bit odd. But I think Italy are mostly 90 days (apparently due to that being Fiat's terms, and everyone else followed suit).

No, it depends on the sector. Big supermarkets, for example, pay later, as do a lot of businesses where actual turnaround of goods is involved; but service companies typically have a more flexible cashflow and can easily do 30 days. In Italy the situation was so bad that it was not uncommon to get 180 days from big accounts. The State set an awful example by allowing 12 months on its own bills, and often wouldn't pay…

It depends greatly on the sector in Italy.

In construction I have seen more often than not the formula (jokingly) "180 days we'll see", meaning that for 6 months there is no way you'll get paid, then we'll see what we can do.

And the Law(s) do little about it (and no, these ones are not usually enforced).

But the issue is not actually the delay (for which - costly BTW - remedies exist) but rather the uncertainty and the time lost.

If we agree that you pay me after 60 or 90 or 180 days (talking of "continuous" work, supplies or services) it's ok, I can make a financial plan taking into account that delay, and include in my offer (at least part of ) the financial costs of that delay.

In the '80's and '90's I worked in a company that had "standard" payments terms for "large" suppliers set at 90 days, but then that actually meant that on the 90th day from the date of the invoice, a payment was made on the supplier bank account, always, sun, wind, rain or snow.

What happens often nowadays is that the agreement is actually 60 days, but after 60 days nothing happens, and so you have to call (and of course you can't ever find the right person) and then call again the day after, then you write an e-mail, then you wait, then you call again, then you write a letter and they tell you to have some patience as everything will be fixed next week, and next week you call again and there is a problem with the "system" (or with the bank's "system"), so you have a lawyer write a legal letter andm finally they pay with the 60 days becoming 90 or 120.

In the meantime you already delivered another supply, rinse and repeat.

Re: Thomas Cook collapses, stranding 150k UK holidaymakers

#285

Post by nevf1 » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 1:44 PM UTC

rwmj wrote: post #75

I guess as they've gone bust I can tell this story now ... I used to consult for Thomas Cook about 15 years ago, and they were a basketcase of a company even back them, so this doesn't surprise me. I feel sorry for all the reps and workers out in the field and on the planes who will lose their jobs because of the profligacy of the Peterborough head office. Two examples of stupidity stick with me. One was that at the…

Sounds eerily similar to the early days of Ryanair[1] which was a poorly managed basket case in an industry ripe for innovation of its time - managers caring about their looks more than their books, cost overruns and non ownership of key bases... It sounds like Thomas Cook didn't have their Michael O'Leary to swoop in and fix their problems.

Even Ryanair didn't value their website or online offerings at first but they valued something which TC obviously missed time and time again - their bottom line.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/aug/12/biography.feat...