 |
Re: The UP vs. BNSF Management Style
Author: S. L. Murray
Date: 02-02-2007 - 16:22
I also deal with both in a business relationshiop and will second the remarks that they're both totally disinterested in the opinions of railfans. Their objectives are to make money for their shareholders and serve their customers. That said, I generally prefer working with UP for several reasons.
First, UP is much more flexible in their approach to problems and more open to new ways of thinking. BNSF is VERY confident in their way being THE correct way to do things, so they're often somewhat inflexible. UP looks at other railroads and tries to find a better way of doing something, while BNSF is too often convinced it should be the one being studied.
BNSF is much more process oriented, which is often good, but again can sometimes lead to being totally captured by the process, and not the actual objectives. The folks at UP tend to not care so much how you get there, but just on what can be accomplished.
My feeling is that the UP is finally emerging from the old MoPac mentality where they felt they were God's gift to railroading. Ironically, I see this same attitude now more in Ft. Worth than Omaha. It can be just as irritating when they're correct in their arrogance, however.
As with anything, however, there really isn't much use in these broad generalizations. I know great, intelligent, and nice people at both railroads. I also know totally arrogant bone headed SOBs at both. So, I go with the fuzzy stuff. I prefer Omaha to Ft. Worth. I can't stand the silly "name" Matt Rose chooses to call his railroad and think UP has a nicer paint scheme. UP has nicer business cars and I think the heritage locomotives were a neat idea.
First, UP is much more flexible in their approach to problems and more open to new ways of thinking. BNSF is VERY confident in their way being THE correct way to do things, so they're often somewhat inflexible. UP looks at other railroads and tries to find a better way of doing something, while BNSF is too often convinced it should be the one being studied.
BNSF is much more process oriented, which is often good, but again can sometimes lead to being totally captured by the process, and not the actual objectives. The folks at UP tend to not care so much how you get there, but just on what can be accomplished.
My feeling is that the UP is finally emerging from the old MoPac mentality where they felt they were God's gift to railroading. Ironically, I see this same attitude now more in Ft. Worth than Omaha. It can be just as irritating when they're correct in their arrogance, however.
As with anything, however, there really isn't much use in these broad generalizations. I know great, intelligent, and nice people at both railroads. I also know totally arrogant bone headed SOBs at both. So, I go with the fuzzy stuff. I prefer Omaha to Ft. Worth. I can't stand the silly "name" Matt Rose chooses to call his railroad and think UP has a nicer paint scheme. UP has nicer business cars and I think the heritage locomotives were a neat idea.
