Many American companies moved operations to Europe and China. By doing this, employees had an option to move with the company or be laid off.
Could many of these employees be commuting back and forth over the oceans just to save their jobs?
The pay would have to make it worthwhile, however.
What do you think?
2007-09-28 02:12:41 · 6 answers · asked by Yafooey! 5 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Aircraft
A very good and relevant question indeed.
Those employees who opted to move with the companies would be commuting back and forth, but not frequently. They would travel either on holidays (annual or bi-annual) or for official work. These trips, for each individual, would be spaced far apart and would not impose a heavy load on the air traffic. It may end up with aircraft carrying a greater number of passenger but nothing more. Further, those people who get contracts on a 'married basis' will move their families to their new postings and may not even need to travel more frequently. Perhaps they may encash their leave and enjoy spending the cash on personal purchases or go on holidays to other destinations. People generally on such postings tend to save as much as possible so that they can use the cash back home when they return.
2007-09-28 06:46:00 · answer #1 · answered by al_sheda 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your kidding right? Those companies moved over seas because the employees they had here are less productive and more expensive to employ. So they found a bunch of folks willing to work harder for less money. Turns out those people live in Europe and China and many other countries. Why the hell would they even want the former employees back no matter how far they commute? We live in a global economy. Business has figured that out and until the rest of us, especially the labor force in this country figures it out too, there's going to be many more jobs leaving. Companies don't go into business to create and retain jobs for people. They go into business to make profits. As it happens, the more profits they make, the more quality jobs they create and the longer people stay employed. Quite simple really.
2007-09-28 02:35:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not possible unless you have a supersonic jet travel time to europe is 7 hours ish depending on where you are going even longer across the pacific. Heavy traffic is usually caused by a delay at any of the major airports in North America. The traffic in Canada and the US is so integrated that if there is a delay for any reason at JFK it will cause a delay at LAX which causes a delay at ORD that compounds the delay at YYZ. Its like a row of dominoes one falls the rest start tumbling down.
2007-09-29 02:54:33 · answer #3 · answered by Dangermanmi6 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would just be impossible. You can't fly back and forth every day over that distance, it takes too long.
So at best you'd be home on the weekends, and if you're only home two days of the week, you might as well move, it'd be a lot cheaper than maintaining two homes and an expensive weekend commute.
2007-09-29 10:25:09 · answer #4 · answered by rohak1212 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not possible. the reason most of these companies outsource is because they don't have to pay employees as much. so the pay would not make it worth while. what i don't get is why people blame the airlines...they want to get in the air just as bad as the passengers. a plane needs to be in the air to make money. to me its poor airport design. if every airport designed the same runway plan, we could get a max/min number for air traffic...then we could solve the any problems that arise.
2007-09-28 02:18:05 · answer #5 · answered by Liberal & Proud! 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
not real sure of the outcome
2007-09-28 02:21:07 · answer #6 · answered by ღOMGღ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋