Spirit Airlines CEO Got a $3.8M Bonus a Week Before Its Bankruptcy

Give me $3.8m and I’d be happy to.

Yea, I'll put my name on the absolute worst, most failing company on Earth for a sum of millions. This is their bonus from what I gather. Cherry on top.

I already have to act like a dog - and pretend I'm thankful - for considerably less. Woe be the executive that actually has to work for their food, I guess. Give me a break.

Imagine the sentiment of someone below the executive suite working for a bankrupt company. No golden parachute or nest egg. No influence. Now you understand everyone else.

How about if you could get $8m working at some other company? Or $3.8m working half as a hard?

The question isn't if you or I would do it - it's what does it take to get this guy to do it. The answer is the same as it is for you or I - what are the alternatives.

That's kinda the point of the bonus, isn't it? If you otherwise would not want to, they give you more money to make it worth your while to stick around.

There is some logic to retention bonuses at failing companies. The point is not to get "you" to work as CEO of the most failing company on Earth. It is to get someone that the board thinks is competent at rescuing the company to work there. If this person has such skills, they likely can go work somewhere less screwed up and make more money and/or have a less stressful job. Hence, you need to pay them to make up for the difference. You might argue with whether the CEO is the right person or is up to the task but if you do hire someone for the job, the compensation makes sense.

As for the non-executive workers, the more likely outcome is they get fired or lose benefits. This is because the company likely needs to shed costs really quickly and the biggest cost for most companies is payroll. This asymmetry of outcomes is stark and, quite frankly, sucks but the math checks out. Companies exist to create value and they will do what is needed to continue doing that. Compensation is not about fairness or putting food on the table. It is about what is required to help the company continue creating value.

The takeaway is to always have a sober assessment of your position. Take a look at the chessboard and figure out if you are a Queen or a pawn. Once you know where you stand, act accordingly.

Game theory is indeed a thing. Cool. Let's regroup: this thread started with 'no one wants to work at bankcrupt company as a CEO' - their spelling :)

Call it a strawman, but I'm absolutely certain plenty would be willing - if not thankful - for the opportunity. Even CEOs of successful businesses... if we want to reinforce systems. Nobody can until they get a chance.

Who doesn't love a good story, you know? Great risk comes great reward. Think of the type who becomes CEO, consider how they started. Where they may fall, either by grace or chance.

A company is about putting food on the table the moment it fails to, proverbially and not. I agree with you, we just play the game differently. Don't mistake my position for (in)experience or capability

Everyone has a plan until they get punched, some will do it for $20 million.

I think few interpreted it quite the opposite of what I meant. What I meant was if all things are equal no one would want to be CEO of a falling company. Clearly even the current CEO is willing to work for $3.8M.

Think of your job and imagine the same job at completely dysfunctional company or company with terrible engineering. It's a reasonable expectation to demand more in the second company.