Was He Any Good?
At All? Ever?
My backlog is large with more things that should be in here but remain in ‘drafts’, but this one is time dependent. The subject matter might seem odd to the vast majority of my readers (which according to Substack live in lands thousands of kilometers away, but it does all connect.
BTW, it's not hard to live thousands of kilometers away from my current hang because the 'hat is currently hung' in New Zealand … which is 2,155 kilometers (that’s 1,339 miles) away from our nearest international neighbor.
Anyway - to the point.
It all started with this .. to save you the click through, this is what I saw on my phone.
The essence of the piece is the retelling of the latest Luxon proclamation that everyone should get back to work - perhaps his update on Norman Tebbit’s clunker ..
My dad didn't riot. He got on his bike and looked for work.
If you have spent time in this newsletter, or my blog, or listening to my podcast, or … you will know that I think and write and talk about The Future of Work a lot. You’ll also know that I think that idea above is a crock - but that is not why I am writing this.
Telling New Zealand to get back to work presumably meaning you to get out of your house and commute to your workplace - and then back home again at the end of the day.
The newsletter that the headline emerged from was written by who delivers her opinion and ends with ..
New Zealand doesn’t have a Prime Minister. New Zealand has CEO.
Later: Sapphi published a follow up newsletter referencing my comment on her newsletter about Andy Jaffy - he that is the leader of the juggernaut called Amazon and again - IMHO - has it wrong - but that’s a different newsletter.Meanwhile, that last line got me to thinking …
One of the things that fans of Luxon espouse is that during his time as CEO of Air New Zealand, the stock did very well under his management (and that’s why he will make a good PM). Now, personally I am in the camp of great CEOs don’t necessarily make good politicians - because a country is not a business! But let’s not go there - let’s talk about how well he did. Was he really a great CEO?
Stock Price During Luxon Tenure
In short the stock price grew from 0.55 to 1.71 (slightly over a three times multiple). Not bad? Good? Let’s go a little deeper.
CAVEAT - To be real clear - I am NOT an Airline Analyst. I haven’t even played one on TV. But I do tend to look around and question claims that seem spurious. (And in my time down here, I do hear a large number of claims made that do not seem to add up). If the following analysis is wrong, I am all ears. Set me right - and the internet version at least will be adjusted. If I am really wrong - I will send out a ‘corrections’ missive.
American Airlines (AAL) ✅
2013 bankruptcy, restructured and merged with US Airways. Emerging from bankruptcy - significant stock growth, peaking in 2015. (Look at the graph - so did Air New Zealand.) BUT on the other side of the 2015 dip, rising fuel prices, labor costs, and heavy debt, gave them a weaker performance compared to Air New Zealand in the same time period.
Delta Air Lines (DAL) ❌
Delta’s stock price surged between 2012 and 2019 (they) say because of ‘operational efficiency’ and international growth resulting in strong profitability, Delta outperformed Air New Zealand, particularly after 2016.
Qantas Airways (QAN) ❌
Qantas faced challenges early in the period but executed a significant turnaround starting in 2014 with its “Transformation Plan,” which boosted its stock price They performed competitively with Air New Zealand, especially in the second half of the decade.
Southwest Airlines (LUV) ❌
Southwest had one of the strongest stock performances in the U.S. airline industry, growing steadily from 2012 to 2019.
British Airways (IAG) ✅
Outperformed Air New Zealand due to its larger network and transatlantic dominance. It faced challenges (and still does) after Brexit.
Lufthansa ❌
Mirrored Air New Zealand’s pattern of strong early growth followed by decline in 2018–2019 but had a larger European market to buffer some of the impacts.
It seems to me that Air New Zealand performed well from 2012 to 2016 but declined after facing challenges similar to global airlines, including rising fuel costs and international competition … and ultimately, Air New Zealand’s stock performance was initially solid but really trailed behind larger global players. In fact given that they only out-performed
an ex bankrupt airline that had struggled for decades (in this ex AA frequent flyer’s mind)
an airline that served a nation on the other side of the world that got hammered by the existential crisis that is impacting the entire nation
I would question just how good he was. Is?
All the usual metrics of profit and market cap that CEOs get measured by we’re good. But …
A rising tide lifts all boats.
Not only that - and keeping the ocean metaphors going (sorry - I paraphrase) ..
A strong wind makes for an easy voyage, but the storms shape the strongest captains.
I have this nagging feeling that the man experienced both in his time at New Zealand Air, and in part two he demonstrated that he might not have been the strongest captain.
But wait, there’s more ..
One reason a CEO does not a Prime Minister make is that historically, the single focus of ‘the market’ on an organization and its leader is whether the financial results are enough to make a CEO a rock star. A PM however, needs a few more dimensions. A lot of it is to do with people and empathy and caring and - oh you know all those soft and fuzzy things that so few CEOs grok - and yet if they did - oh how much improved would their organization be?
Three Links For You
Over on Stuff : Former Air NZ CEO Christopher Luxon showed 'enormous' intellectual capability but rarely met with 'ordinary workers' (Stuff)
Here on Substack : From ‘our very own’
.. and what would such analysis be without a Reddit link.
To me there is a consistent message running through all of these links … all the things that seemed to fail under his Air New Zealand tenure (and continued to fail after he left) are exactly the things you need to be a good leader in government.
And In Conclusion
Finally, there’s one more thing I wonder about .. and only time will tell.
I am old enough to remember Jack Welch’s tenure at GE .. which at the time was hailed as a mighty success .. only later did we learn of the missteps and fails that weren’t spotted at the time because of substantial financial engineering. I’m not sayin’ - I’m just wonderin’ … aloud - because it’s allowed.
You know what I am talkin’ about.
What do you all think?
A good analysis, very salient points. Luxon didn't become PM because he was a good CEO, he became PM because he had been AirNZ's CEO and that's what John Key had been before becoming Prime Minister. National did not select a candidate and then pick him to become leader because of Luxon's record or ingenuity or competence or intelligence or people skills or charisma or any of the things John Key had (for all I don't like the guy). He was selected because he was similar enough to John Key that this reputation had rubbed off on him.
Luxon in every sense of it was placed to win this election for National, not to lead the country afterwards.