This is not my typical Ground Transportation Insights article. It’s a personal reflection I felt compelled to share, and I hope it encourages someone to have a conversation they’ve been putting off.

Last Saturday evening, my brother-in-law, Will, suffered a heart attack.

Over the next few days, our family lived on phone calls, text messages, and prayers. We waited for updates from thousands of miles away, hoping each one would bring better news than the last. We didn’t know what the coming days would hold or whether surgery would even be possible.

Tuesday night, he passed away.

He was in his mid-50s.

Adding to the heartbreak, his family lives in an area currently affected by severe wildfires. Even being together has been made more difficult by circumstances beyond anyone’s control. It has been an incredibly difficult few days for everyone who loved him.

This isn’t the article I planned to write this week.

In fact, it isn’t really a Ground Transportation Insights article at all. But sometimes life has a way of reminding us that some conversations are simply more important than the ones we had planned.

The truth is, this story didn’t begin last Saturday.

It began several years ago.

Like many people, life got busy. Over the past few years, I left Disney after a career that spanned more than two decades, accepted a new position in Texas, started my own consulting business, and eventually moved back to Florida. They were exciting changes, but somewhere along the way I kept telling myself I’d get back to taking care of my own health.

I wasn’t ignoring my health because I didn’t care. I was doing what so many of us do—I convinced myself there would be time later.

I have a bicuspid aortic valve with mild regurgitation that should be monitored annually. Instead, several years slipped by before I finally scheduled an appointment with my cardiologist.

Thankfully, I did.

At that appointment, my cardiologist updated my evaluation, performed an EKG, and recommended a more comprehensive workup because of my age and other risk factors. That included a coronary artery calcium (CAC) scan.

The scan found calcified plaque in my coronary arteries.

It wasn’t the news I wanted to hear.

But it was the news I needed to hear.

That one test changed the conversation.

My cholesterol medication was increased. We talked about diet. We talked about exercise. When I mentioned that I had noticed a decline in my stamina and was becoming more winded doing activities like yard work, my cardiologist ordered a nuclear stress test to make sure the plaque wasn’t significantly limiting blood flow to my heart.

Thankfully, those results were reassuring.

The stress test showed normal heart function and no evidence of significant blood flow limitation during exercise.

I don’t share any of this because I want sympathy.

I share it because, just a few months ago, I probably would have told you I felt reasonably healthy.

Would my brother-in-law’s story have been different if he had undergone the same testing?

I don’t know.

No one can honestly answer that question.

Heart disease is complicated. Every person is different. Every medical history is different.

But I do know this.

My calcium scan changed my story.

Not because it found an emergency.

Because it prompted a conversation...

...and that conversation led to action.

It prompted additional testing.

It changed my treatment plan.

It gave me an opportunity to make different choices before a problem became a crisis.

As someone who has spent a career in transportation, I’ve always believed in preventive maintenance.

We inspect buses before they leave the yard.

We monitor tire pressure.

We change fluids before engines fail.

We invest thousands of dollars preventing breakdowns because we know the cost of waiting.

Yet many of us don’t approach our own health with the same discipline.

We postpone physicals.

We ignore fatigue.

We assume getting older simply means slowing down.

We tell ourselves we’ll get around to it.

Sometimes we don’t.

It’s now been a little over two months since that appointment.

I’ve changed my diet.

I’ve become much more intentional about exercise.

And I’ve already noticed something encouraging.

My stamina has improved.

Activities that were leaving me unusually winded just a few months ago are becoming easier, even in the Florida heat.

I still have work to do.

But I’m moving in the right direction.

I don’t know what tomorrow holds for any of us.

What I do know is that this week reminded me how quickly life can change.

I can’t tell you whether a coronary artery calcium scan would have changed Will’s story.

I can only tell you what it changed in mine.

For me, it was a cardiology appointment. For you, it may be something entirely different. Whatever it is, don’t keep telling yourself you’ll get to it later.

If you’ve been putting off that physical...

If you’ve been ignoring symptoms...

If you’ve been telling yourself you’ll get around to it someday...

Make the appointment.

Have the conversation.

Ask the questions.

Then act on what you learn.

Your physician will help determine what screenings or tests are appropriate for you based on your age, medical history, family history, symptoms, and other risk factors.

Please don’t wait.

The people who love you need you here.

Author’s Note: A coronary artery calcium (CAC) scan may not be appropriate for everyone. Whether this or another screening test is right for you depends on your age, medical history, family history, symptoms, and other risk factors. My hope in sharing this story is simply to raise awareness that this screening exists and to encourage you to have a conversation with your primary care physician or cardiologist about what is appropriate for your individual situation. In my case, the out-of-pocket cost was approximately $100.

Subscribe now

In early July, I listened to a sermon by Pastor Andy Stanley of North Point Ministries. One observation, in particular, stayed with me.

He talked about the difference between being a believer and a behaver—someone who believes something intellectually but hasn’t yet allowed that belief to consistently shape their actions.

He shared the story of a man describing his own faith journey. At first, he didn’t think he had the discipline to make a lasting commitment. Rather than waiting until he felt ready, he simply kept showing up. Over time, his commitment deepened, and with it came the discipline he thought he lacked.

That story reminded me of something I’ve observed throughout my career.

Organizations can be believers, too.

They believe in accountability. They believe in leadership development. They believe in safety. They believe in operational discipline. They believe in coaching, communication, and continuous improvement.

But believing in those things and consistently behaving in ways that reinforce them are two very different things.

Later that same day, I read a thoughtful LinkedIn post by Michael Sprague, Chaplain at Capital Commission in Louisiana, about what he called having “faith in the middle.” His point was simple but powerful: it’s relatively easy to have faith at the beginning of a journey, when everything is new and full of possibility. It’s also easier at the end, when you can finally see the results of your efforts.

The middle is different. The middle is where enthusiasm fades. It’s where the work becomes repetitive, progress feels slower than expected, and the temptation to quit quietly creeps in.

As I reflected on hearing Andy Stanley’s message and then reading Michael Sprague’s post later that same day, I couldn’t help but wonder if it was more than a coincidence. For me, it felt like a gentle reminder that this was a lesson worth paying attention to. Two different people. Two different messages. Yet both pointed to the same truth: belief, commitment, and discipline are tested not at the beginning or the end of the journey, but in the middle.

As I read Mr. Sprague’s words, I couldn’t help but think about how this too can be applied to an organization.

They also experience “the middle,” too.

The kickoff meeting is exciting.

Announcing a new leadership initiative is exciting.

Rolling out new performance metrics, safety initiatives, or leadership expectations creates energy and optimism.

Everyone believes this time will be different.

Then comes the middle.

The twentieth leadership meeting.

The fiftieth review of performance metrics.

Coaching the same supervisor again.

Having another difficult accountability conversation.

Reinforcing the same expectations once more.

The excitement fades, but the work remains.

Read more

As I looked back over July’s articles, something unexpected stood out.

Each week began with a completely different story.

A World War II veteran recalling D-Day.

A controversy involving Major League Baseball.

A struggling transportation business.

A leadership document I wrote more than twenty years ago.

At first glance, they don’t seem to have much in common.

But as the month unfolded, I realized they were all pointing toward the same lesson.

Better leadership begins with greater clarity.

Clarity about what we’re seeing.

Clarity about what truly matters.

Clarity about the assumptions shaping our decisions.

And clarity about the timeless principles that continue to guide great leaders, even as the world around them changes.

Below is a brief recap of July’s articles. If one of these topics resonates with you, I’d encourage you to read the full article. Several readers shared that these pieces sparked meaningful conversations with their leadership teams, and I hope they do the same for yours.

The July Throughline

Looking back, I don’t think July was really about D-Day, baseball, Disney, or even leadership documents.

It was about clarity.

Great leaders see beyond today’s obstacles.

They distinguish between appearance and reality.

They challenge assumptions rather than accept them.

And they consistently return to the fundamentals when complexity threatens to distract them.

Perhaps that’s one reason leadership can feel so difficult.

Not because the principles are especially complicated, but because clarity requires discipline. It requires leaders to slow down, ask better questions, remain curious, and resist the temptation to react to the first explanation that presents itself.

When leaders see more clearly, they make better decisions.

And better decisions shape stronger organizations.

Looking Ahead to August

Coming in August, Ground Transportation Insights shifts from understanding leadership to practicing it.

The upcoming articles explore the difference between belief and behavior, the discipline required to sustain organizational change long after the excitement of a new initiative fades, the importance of remaining teachable throughout a leader’s career, and why many of the greatest transformations begin long before the opportunity to implement them ever arrives.

If July was about seeing leadership more clearly, August will explore what it takes to live it consistently.

A Closing Thought

One observation keeps coming back to me.

Leadership isn’t usually transformed by discovering one revolutionary new idea.

It’s transformed by seeing familiar ideas more clearly.

Sometimes that clarity comes from looking at a challenge from a different perspective.

Sometimes it comes from questioning an assumption we’ve carried for years.

Sometimes it comes from rediscovering a principle we learned long ago but needed to be reminded of.

That’s one of the reasons I enjoy writing Ground Transportation Insights.

Each article begins with a different story, but I’m continually reminded that the best leadership lessons often point back to the same enduring truths.

Thank you for reading, for sharing these articles with others, and for being part of the conversation.

Question for readers: Which article resonated with you most this month, and why? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

If your organization is working to strengthen leadership, improve operational performance, or build a stronger culture, I’d be happy to help.

Through executive coaching, advisory support, consulting, and fractional leadership engagements, I partner with organizations to develop leaders, improve performance, and create sustainable results.

To learn more, visit:

www.busbusinessconsultants.com or www.dicksonleadership.com

A few weeks ago, I came across a one-page leadership document I created for my Disney management team in June 2005.

At the time, I had already spent about nine years as a Disney leader and four years leading other leaders. Looking back, I expected to find something that felt outdated, overly simplistic, or reflective of a younger manager who still had a lot to learn.

Instead, I found something that surprised me.

While there are certainly things I would change today, much of the foundation still holds up remarkably well.

The document was called “The Five Things to Know.”

The five expectations were simple:

• Know Your Purpose

• Know Your Guests

• Know Your Cast (the Disney term for employees)

• Know Your Business

• Know Your Role

As I reread it, I realized something.

The reason those ideas still resonate isn’t that they’re particularly sophisticated.

It’s because they’re rooted in awareness.

Awareness of why you’re there.

Awareness of the people you serve.

Awareness of the people you lead.

Awareness of how the business actually works.

Awareness of the responsibilities you’ve been entrusted with.

Twenty-one years later, I still believe leadership failures often begin when leaders lose that awareness.

Read more

Part 2 of a Leadership Case Study Series

In Part 1, I shared how I assumed responsibility for Minnie Van just months before COVID shut down Walt Disney World.

As I immersed myself in the operation—training as a driver and shadowing the dispatchers and managers, it became clear that the challenges facing the business ran much deeper than guest demand.

At the end of that article, I shared the realization that changed everything.

The issue wasn’t demand.

The issue was the operating model supporting the demand.

Once I reached that conclusion, the obvious next question became:

If demand wasn’t the problem... what was?

My first instinct wasn’t to start changing things.

It was to understand why the business had arrived where it was.

That meant studying more than the operation itself.

It meant studying the decisions that had shaped it.

Smart People Had Already Been Working the Problem

One thing surprised me almost immediately.

This wasn’t an operation that had been ignored.

Quite the opposite.

Over the previous two and a half years, finance teams had analyzed it.

Industrial engineers had analyzed it.

Operational leaders had analyzed it.

Changes had already been made.

The business wasn’t standing still.

Yet, despite all of that effort, the operation continued to struggle financially.

What struck me wasn’t that people hadn’t cared.

They absolutely had.

Intelligent people had invested countless hours trying to improve the business. They had studied demand, analyzed costs, modeled scenarios, and implemented changes. Every recommendation had been made with the best of intentions.

That’s an important leadership lesson in itself.

Struggling organizations are rarely struggling because nobody is trying.

More often, they’re struggling because everyone is working hard to solve the same problem from the same set of assumptions.

Then a different thought occurred to me.

Everyone was looking for better answers.

The breakthrough came when we started asking better questions.

That led me to one question I couldn’t shake.

What if the answers we’d been finding were perfectly logical...

...but they were answers to the wrong question?

That became the turning point.

Read more

Recently, several San Francisco Giants players made headlines after writing Bible verses on their Pride Night hats. Major League Baseball responded by warning the players that altering uniforms violated league rules.

Predictably, the story quickly became another political flashpoint.

Some viewed the players as standing up for their religious convictions. Others viewed their actions as disrespectful to the LGBTQ community. Before long, the conversation became another battle in our seemingly endless culture war.

I’ll be honest.

My initial reaction to the story wasn’t particularly charitable.

As someone who has often questioned whether highly visible gestures achieve the outcomes organizations hope for, my first thought was that this was another example of symbolism taking precedence over substance.

But the more I thought about it, the more I found myself asking different questions.

Why did this story generate such strong reactions?

Why were reasonable people viewing the same situation so differently?

And what can leaders learn from it?

I’ve spent much of my career leading teams and organizations. Along the way, I’ve come to believe there is an important distinction between telling people how to act and telling them how to think.

Organizations have every right to regulate behavior.

In fact, they have a responsibility to do so.

They should establish expectations around professionalism, safety, ethics, performance, and respect.

If we ever worked in a place where people were excluded or denied opportunities because of who they were rather than their ability to contribute, shame on us.

But behavior and belief are not the same thing.

A leader can require respectful behavior.

A leader cannot require genuine conviction.

Organizations can require compliance.

Genuine belief is another matter entirely.

One of the earliest lessons I learned during my years at Disney involved something as simple as pointing.

Cast Members were taught to point with two fingers rather than one because a single-finger point is considered offensive in some cultures.

The lesson wasn’t really about pointing. It was about recognizing that intent and interpretation are not always the same thing.

Disney understood that people from different backgrounds could experience the same gesture differently. Rather than dismissing those differences, the company adjusted its standards accordingly.

Looking back, I’ve come to appreciate the lesson behind it.

Disney required the behavior, but the lesson wasn’t really about the behavior itself.

It was a recognition that people can experience the same action differently.

That reality didn’t require agreement. It required awareness.

It was a simple but important reminder that people do not all experience the world in the same way.

I’ve thought about that lesson often while watching many of today’s cultural debates unfold.

The rainbow controversy in Major League Baseball is a perfect example.

For some people, the rainbow represents inclusion, acceptance, and belonging.

For others, the rainbow carries religious significance rooted in the biblical account of Noah and God’s covenant with humanity after the flood.

Both perspectives are rooted in beliefs that people hold deeply.

The same symbol can carry very different meanings depending on who is looking at it.

If people come from different backgrounds, experiences, cultures, and belief systems, why would we expect them to interpret every issue the same way?

The goal isn’t necessarily to eliminate those differences.

The goal is to recognize that they exist and create an environment where people can work together effectively despite them.

Great leaders understand that people don’t have to agree on everything in order to treat one another with dignity and respect.

Read more

With Independence Day approaching, I recently read an account from veterans who participated in the Normandy landings.

What struck me wasn’t just their courage.

It was the lesson their stories revealed about perspective.

On the 50th anniversary of the invasion, two men were interviewed about their experiences on June 6, 1944.

The first was a soldier who landed on Omaha Beach.

He described the chaos as landing craft came ashore and soldiers charged the beaches under relentless German fire from the cliffs above. Surrounded by explosions, casualties, and confusion, he remembered thinking:

“There is no way we can possibly win.”

The second interview was with a pilot flying over the battle.

Unlike the soldier on the beach, he could see the massive Allied force assembled in the English Channel. He watched wave after wave of troops, ships, equipment, and reinforcements moving toward Normandy.

From his vantage point, he remembered thinking:

“There is no way we can possibly lose.”

Same battle.

Same moment.

Two completely different conclusions.

The difference wasn’t courage, intelligence, or commitment.

It was perspective.

Before going further, I want to be clear. Nothing I’ve experienced in business compares to what those men endured during the D-Day invasion and the long months of fighting that followed as Allied forces pushed across Europe toward victory.

Their sacrifices helped preserve freedoms that many of us enjoy today, and I am grateful for their service.

What struck me wasn’t the scale of the challenge.

It was the lesson.

Throughout my career, I’ve seen how people can experience the same situation and reach dramatically different conclusions based on what they can see.

When You’re Standing on the Beach

Many years ago, I was involved in a transportation operation that was struggling financially.

Revenue was declining. Costs were rising. Morale was suffering. Customers were frustrated.

For employees closest to the day-to-day operation, it often felt like the organization was fighting a losing battle.

And honestly, I understood why.

They were dealing with customer complaints, staffing challenges, equipment issues, and operational disruptions every day.

What they saw was real.

What they couldn’t always see were the contract negotiations, business development efforts, cost initiatives, operational changes, and strategic decisions taking place behind the scenes.

Their perspective was shaped by the challenges immediately in front of them.

Mine was shaped by a broader view of the organization.

Neither perspective was wrong.

One was simply wider than the other.

I’ve seen this same dynamic play out during turnarounds, start-ups, rapid growth, and periods of significant uncertainty.

I saw it while helping turn around operations in Orlando and Las Vegas.

I saw it while helping stabilize and improve a newly launched transportation operation in Austin.

And I saw it during the COVID-19 shutdown of Walt Disney World and the uncertainty surrounding when and how the resort would eventually reopen.

In each situation, people closest to the daily challenges often felt overwhelmed by the immediate reality they were experiencing.

Again, they weren’t wrong.

They were standing on the beach.

I remember seeing this firsthand while helping stabilize the operation in Austin.

Early on, the challenges seemed endless. We were addressing facility issues, refining processes, improving financial reporting, adding vehicles, and building organizational structure at the same time.

To many employees, it probably felt like there was always another problem to solve.

But by the summer, the broader picture was becoming clearer.

We had moved into new office space. New vehicles were arriving. Our maintenance facility was nearing completion. Financial performance was improving. Most importantly, we had greater confidence that our budgets, reporting, and operating processes accurately reflected the business's reality.

The day-to-day challenges hadn’t disappeared.

But from a leadership perspective, we could see signs that the operation was moving in the right direction.

The people closest to the work saw the obstacles.

We could see the progress.

Both perspectives were real.

Read more

If May focused on culture and reinforcement, June focused on something different:

What isn’t immediately visible.

The strongest organizations aren’t always the busiest.

The most popular services aren’t always the healthiest.

And the greatest risks rarely arrive all at once.

More often, pressure builds gradually beneath the surface—hidden behind growth, activity, familiarity, or assumptions that have gone unchallenged for too long.

This month’s articles explored that idea from three different perspectives.

Below is a brief recap, along with links to the full articles if you’d like to revisit them.

June 3

Much of the public conversation surrounding Spirit Airlines focused on fuel prices, economic conditions, and the failed merger with JetBlue.

But a review of the company’s filings revealed a much deeper story.

Declining revenue. Grounded aircraft. Lease obligations. Shrinking financial flexibility. Operational disruption. Rising pressure across multiple areas of the business.

The lesson wasn’t really about airlines.

It was about recognizing pressure before options begin to disappear.

Transportation businesses often operate with high fixed costs and relatively little room for error. When revenue declines faster than expenses can adjust, pressure builds quickly.

One of the article’s central themes was simple:

You can be busy—and still be in trouble.

The businesses best positioned to weather uncertainty are usually the ones paying close attention to profitability, utilization, debt, cash flow, and operational performance long before a crisis forces them to.

👉 Read the full article

https://www.groundtransportationinsights.com/p/what-ground-transportation-operators

June 10

The first installment of the Minnie Van case study series examined a challenge many leaders eventually face:

What happens when a service is loved by customers but struggles underneath the surface?

By late 2019, Minnie Van had become one of the most recognizable transportation services at Walt Disney World. Guest satisfaction remained strong. Demand remained strong.

Yet concerns about the long-term sustainability of the operation were becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

The issue wasn’t demand.

The issue was the operating model supporting the demand.

As I immersed myself in the operation through driver training, dispatcher training, and frontline observation, it became clear that many of the challenges had been building over time.

Then COVID arrived.

The shutdown didn’t create the underlying weaknesses.

It exposed them.

The article explored an important leadership lesson:

Growth can sometimes mask problems that become visible only when conditions change.

And sometimes the most important work isn’t growing the business.

It’s redesigning it.

Read the full article

https://www.groundtransportationinsights.com/p/the-service-was-popular-its-future

June 17

This article began with a question many operators have debated for years:

What role do brokers play in the transportation industry?

But the deeper issue turned out to be something else entirely.

Customer access.

Using Spotify and the music industry as a comparison, the article explored how leverage often shifts toward whoever controls access to customers—not necessarily the party delivering the product or service.

The lesson wasn’t that intermediaries are inherently good or bad.

The lesson was that customer access matters.

Market presence matters.

Relationships matter.

And operators who become overly dependent on any single customer, broker, contract, or channel may eventually find themselves with less influence over pricing, margins, and future opportunity than they realize.

In fragmented industries, the businesses best positioned for the future are often those that strengthen their visibility, diversify their channels, and become harder to replace.

👉 Read the full article

https://www.groundtransportationinsights.com/p/who-owns-the-customer

The June Throughline

Although these articles explored very different subjects, they shared a common theme:

Important truths often exist beneath the surface.

Spirit Airlines appeared to be fighting a fuel-price problem.

It was actually dealing with years of accumulated operational and financial pressure.

Disney’s Minnie Van service appeared to be successful and growing.

It was also carrying structural challenges that growth had helped conceal.

Broker discussions often focus on pricing and commissions.

But the deeper issue is usually leverage, customer access, and market position.

In each case, the visible issue wasn’t the whole story.

The lesson for leaders is straightforward:

Don’t confuse activity with health.

Don’t confuse popularity with sustainability.

And don’t assume that today’s conditions will continue indefinitely.

The most important leadership questions often begin by looking beneath the surface.

Looking Ahead to July

July continues several themes introduced in June while exploring them through a different lens.

In Seeing Beyond the Beach, I share a leadership lesson inspired by two veterans’ memories of D-Day. The article explores how people can experience the same situation and reach dramatically different conclusions based on what they can see—and why one of leadership’s most important responsibilities is helping teams understand the broader picture during periods of challenge and uncertainty.

July will also feature the second installment of the Minnie Van case study series. In Part 2, I’ll explore what happened when we began pulling apart the operation piece by piece, the assumptions we challenged, and the structural changes required to preserve the guest experience while creating a healthier and more sustainable business.

If June focused on recognizing pressure beneath the surface, July will focus on perspective, leadership, and the difficult work of helping organizations move forward when the path isn’t always obvious.

A Closing Thought

One of the easiest mistakes leaders make is focusing exclusively on what is immediately visible.

The customer complaint.

The staffing shortage.

The financial result.

The operational issue.

Those things matter.

But they are often symptoms rather than causes.

Strong leaders learn to look deeper.

To understand not only what is happening, but why it is happening.

Because the issues that ultimately shape organizations—culture, profitability, leverage, sustainability, and performance—usually begin beneath the surface long before they become impossible to ignore.

Thanks for reading and being part of the conversation this month.

And if your organization is facing questions around operational performance, leadership effectiveness, organizational alignment, profitability, or growth, I’d be happy to help.

Through executive coaching, advisory support, consulting, and fractional leadership engagements, I work with organizations to identify challenges, strengthen performance, and create sustainable results.

To learn more, visit:

www.busbusinessconsultants.com or www.dicksonleadership.com

Subscribe now

If you’ve spent any time in the motorcoach business, you’ve heard some version of this statement:

“Brokers are ruining the business.”

Usually followed by frustration about thinner margins, price shopping, shrinking leverage, and operators carrying most of the operational risk while someone else controls the booking.

Most operators already know this dynamic.

None of it is new.

What got me thinking differently was an article I recently read about Spotify.

At first glance, music streaming and motorcoach transportation seem unrelated.

But the more I thought about it, the more familiar the pattern felt.

Because the real issue may not simply be:

Who owns the customer relationship?

It may be:

Who controls access to customers?

And in fragmented industries, that question matters.

Because the party controlling access often has the leverage.

The Pattern

Years ago, the music industry controlled distribution.

If you wanted music, you had to go through the industry.

Then streaming arrived.

At first, it looked like a win.

Easier access.

More reach.

Instant availability.

The industry embraced it.

Over time, however, platforms like Spotify increasingly positioned themselves between artists and listeners.

Today, they influence discovery, listener access, and much of the customer relationship.

Artists still create the product.

But many no longer control access to the audience.

That’s why more artists are now investing in direct fan communities, subscriptions, email lists, and other owned channels.

In short:

They’re trying to regain influence over customer access.

That’s what felt familiar.

Because transportation isn’t that different.

How Transportation Got Here

To be fair:

Much of transportation was commoditized long before brokers began to scale nationally.

In many local markets, customers had already learned to compare:

• price

• availability

• equipment

• timing

Buying decisions often became:

Who can do it?

Who has availability?

Who can do it cheapest?

That reality existed long before today’s national booking platforms.

And once anything becomes easier to compare and contrast...

Someone eventually builds a business around simplifying access to it.

Brokers didn’t create this dynamic.

They stepped into it.

More importantly, they solved a problem.

There is no true national motorcoach brand, and while there are some larger multi-market operators, the industry remains highly fragmented.

So when an organization needs transportation in Orlando, Chicago, Dallas, and Phoenix, they face a choice:

Build and manage relationships market by market...

Or work through an intermediary.

That intermediary became the broker.

One point of contact.

One invoice.

One relationship.

And this is where I think many discussions miss an important point:

Brokers didn’t just compress pricing. They expanded access.

That’s why they succeeded.

Read more

Part 1 of a Leadership Case Study Series

When most people think about struggling operations, they picture unhappy customers.

Low satisfaction scores.

Declining demand.

Negative reviews.

This wasn’t that kind of problem.

Guests loved the service.

Originally launched in 2017 in partnership with Lyft, Minnie Van is Disney’s premium rideshare-style transportation service at Walt Disney World.

The service combines Disney guest experience standards with the convenience and flexibility of rideshare transportation.

One of its biggest advantages is that it delivers guests directly to the same front-door pickup and drop-off locations used by Walt Disney World bus transportation—including the parks and Disney Springs—but on demand.

Traditional rideshare services often require guests to use pickup and drop-off areas located well away from park entrances. Minnie Van eliminates much of that friction by integrating directly into Disney’s transportation ecosystem.

That matters more than many people realize.

Walt Disney World’s transportation system largely operates as a hub-and-spoke network. Depending on where guests are traveling, reaching their destination may require multiple transfers—sometimes between entirely different modes of transportation.

In some cases, transportation itself can consume an hour or more of a guest’s day on each end of the trip.

Minnie Van provides guests with a more direct, flexible, and personalized alternative within a transportation system that serves millions of visitors annually.

The service combines the flexibility and responsiveness of rideshare with Disney-level service standards and operational integration.

For many guests, it becomes more than transportation.

It becomes part of the Disney experience itself.

Guest response was overwhelmingly positive.

But popularity and long-term sustainability are not always the same thing.

Behind the guest experience, the business was facing growing challenges.

And most guests never saw them.

A Service Built Around Experience

Minnie Van was intentionally designed with convenience, accessibility, and the guest experience in mind.

But the operation itself was significantly more complex than many people realized.

Behind the scenes, the business relied on a dedicated vehicle fleet, a rideshare technology platform, complex labor scheduling, operational coordination, third-party maintenance support, and Disney-level service expectations layered across the entire experience.

The operation wasn’t simply moving guests from one location to another.

It was delivering a premium hospitality experience inside one of the world’s most recognized brands.

And in the early years, guest response reinforced confidence in the concept.

Demand grew.

Guest satisfaction remained strong.

The service became highly visible throughout the resort.

From the outside, the operation appeared successful.

But appearances can be deceiving.

The Problem Behind the Popularity

By late 2019, concerns about the long-term sustainability of the operation had become increasingly difficult to ignore.

The service was popular.

Demand remained strong.

But the business underneath the guest experience was struggling.

The challenge wasn’t attracting riders.

The challenge was turning demand into sustainable financial performance.

That distinction mattered.

Because growth can sometimes hide inefficiencies that become harder to ignore as an operation matures.

The question was no longer whether guests valued the service.

They clearly did.

The question was whether the business model itself could support long-term success.

That's when I was asked to add Minnie Van to my responsibilities.

At the time, I was already leading another transportation division at Walt Disney World. While I was familiar with Minnie Van operationally, I also understood that familiarity and understanding are not the same thing.

Minnie Van was a very different operation.

Different labor model.

Different operating rhythms.

Different guest expectations.

Different challenges.

Before making major decisions, I believed I needed to understand the operation from the ground level.

Learning Before Leading

So I went through Minnie Van driver training.

Dispatcher training.

And I shadowed opening and closing shifts alongside the managers responsible for daily operations.

I wanted to understand the operation as the frontline team experienced it.

Not through reports.

Not through presentations.

Through the work itself.

The deeper I immersed myself in the operation, the more I began to see things that weren’t immediately obvious from a spreadsheet.

There is a difference between reviewing performance metrics and understanding how an operation actually functions.

Some of the most important insights don’t appear in dashboards.

They appear in handoffs.

In delays.

In utilization patterns.

In scheduling decisions.

And in the countless small operational realities that shape performance every day.

But they also appear in the decisions that shaped those realities.

Decisions made months—or even years—earlier.

Assumptions that had become accepted as fact.

Processes that made sense when the operation launched, but no longer served the business as it evolved.

The deeper I immersed myself in the operation, the clearer it became that the challenges we were facing hadn’t emerged overnight.

They had been building over time.

And the deeper I got into the business, the clearer it became:

The issue wasn’t demand.

The issue was the operating model supporting the demand.

Then COVID arrived.

Read more

Much of the conversation around Spirit Airlines’ collapse has focused on fuel prices, the economy, and the failed merger with JetBlue Airways.

And to be fair, all of those things mattered.

Spirit itself pointed to rising jet fuel prices and instability in the Middle East as part of the pressure the airline was facing.

But after reviewing the company’s filings and restructuring history, it's pretty clear those issues were more like the final blows—not the root cause.

The problems had been building for years.

Much of this becomes clear when reviewing Spirit’s 2025 SEC 10-K filing and January 2026 operating results disclosed in its 8-K filing.

The filings paint a much more complicated picture than simply “fuel prices” or a weak economy.

They show a business that had been dealing with shrinking revenue, grounded aircraft, lease pressure, operational disruption, and tightening financial flexibility long before the latest fuel spike arrived.

Spirit’s collapse was really the result of several pressures hitting the business at the same time:

• shrinking revenue

• high fixed costs

• grounded aircraft

• lease obligations

• labor pressure

• operational disruption

• debt

• and failed strategic options

In many ways, Spirit became a case study in what happens when a company’s business model, cost structure, and operating realities stop lining up.

And there are lessons in that for ground transportation operators too.

The Problems Started Long Before Fuel Spiked

The easy explanation is to say fuel prices killed Spirit.

But the numbers tell a much bigger story.

Revenue dropped from about $4.9 billion in 2024 to about $3.8 billion in 2025 — a decline of nearly 23%.

That’s not just fuel.

That’s a business under real pressure.

Even worse, Spirit was spending about $1.20 for every $1.00 it brought in before interest expense and restructuring costs.

That’s almost impossible to sustain for long.

And while the company cut costs, many major expenses didn’t fall fast enough to keep up with the shrinking business.

Transportation operators understand this very well.

When revenue drops, the bills don’t suddenly disappear.

The payments are still there.

Insurance is still there.

Facilities are still there.

Leases are still there.

Payroll is still there.

That’s where businesses start getting squeezed.

The Fleet Problems Ran Deeper Than Overcapacity

At first glance, Spirit’s fleet problems looked like a simple overcapacity issue.

But the filings point to something more complicated.

Spirit had invested heavily in newer Airbus Neo aircraft that were supposed to improve fuel efficiency and support the airline’s long-term strategy.

Then Pratt & Whitney engine issues began grounding aircraft for extended periods.

Read more

If April focused on decisions, May focused on something deeper:

What those decisions become over time.

Culture doesn’t appear overnight.

It forms through repetition.

Through what gets reinforced.
What gets ignored.
What gets normalized.

Across this month’s articles, one idea kept surfacing:

Organizations become what leaders consistently tolerate and reinforce.

Sometimes that shows up in a facility's condition.
Sometimes it shows up in behavior behind the wheel.
And sometimes it shows up in the consistency of how an operation runs day to day.

Below is a quick recap of May’s articles, with links if you’d like to revisit them.

May 6

https://www.groundtransportationinsights.com/p/what-leaders-tolerate-defines-culture

This article started with an unexpected lesson from becoming an empty nester.

As my son moved into his new apartment, he explained that not everything could come with him because it didn’t fit the “vibe” of the next chapter. That moment led to a larger leadership question:

What are organizations carrying forward that no longer belongs?

Drawing from Disney’s idea of “show readiness” and an early experience walking into a neglected client restroom at my first executive operation, the article explored how standards quietly erode—not through dramatic failure, but through normalization.

Because once leadership accepts:

“It’s just a bus garage.”

The organization begins aligning around that belief.

The takeaway was simple:

Culture follows standards.

And standards follow leadership.

May 13

https://www.groundtransportationinsights.com/p/one-bad-decision-on-the-road-can

This article moved the conversation from facilities and internal standards to something much more public:

What happens when your brand is on the move down the highway?

A single decision behind the wheel—a risky maneuver, poor judgment, aggressive driving, or an avoidable interaction—can shape how people perceive a company they might otherwise never encounter.

Every vehicle on the road is surrounded by potential customers.

And every mile creates impressions.

The article reinforced a belief I’ve held for years:

Every driver is a brand ambassador.
Every vehicle is a rolling billboard.

The challenge for leaders isn’t simply reacting to complaints.

It’s creating visibility, accountability, and reinforcement before behavior becomes a pattern.

Because what gets ignored rarely disappears.

More often than not, it becomes the standard.

May 20

https://www.groundtransportationinsights.com/p/when-discipline-becomes-culture

The final installment of the ACLO turnaround series focused on something leadership teams often underestimate:

Stability.

Turnarounds rarely happen through one big moment. They happen through smaller disciplines reinforced consistently over time.

At ACLO, performance improved when:

• expectations became clearer

• supervision became more consistent

• accountability became predictable

• variability across the operation began shrinking

Pressure created movement.

Discipline created sustainability.

Over time, operational discipline changed the organization’s trajectory—improving performance, strengthening credibility, and creating the operational consistency necessary to support growth.

Because successful organizations don’t drift into excellence.

They operate their way there.

The May Throughline

May reinforced something leaders often know intuitively—but don’t always stop to articulate:

Culture is reinforcement.

Not slogans.

Not mission statements.

Not posters on walls.

Culture forms through what gets repeated and reinforced every day.

It shows up in:

• the condition of your operation

• the professionalism of your people

• the consistency of execution

• the expectations leaders actually uphold

Organizations learn quickly what is optional.

And over time, what’s optional becomes visible—in service, performance, trust, reputation, and results.

What leaders tolerate becomes normalized.

What leaders reinforce becomes culture.

Looking Ahead to June

June shifts the conversation from reinforcement to pressure, leverage, and reinvention.

Among the topics coming in June:

What Ground Transportation Operators Should Learn from Spirit Airlines looks beyond headlines about fuel prices to explore how shrinking margins, grounded equipment, fixed costs, and tightening operational flexibility can reveal financial pressure building beneath the surface.

Who Owns the Customer? examines what platforms like Spotify, brokers, and fragmented markets reveal about customer access, leverage, and why market presence matters more than many operators realize.

And in the first deep-dive Minnie Van case study, The Service Was Popular. Its Future Wasn’t Guaranteed., I’ll explore what happens when growth no longer hides operational weakness—and what reinvention looks like when a premium transportation service must evolve to survive.

If May focused on what organizations reinforce, June shifts to what organizations must recognize—pressure building beneath the surface, who controls access to customers, and what reinvention looks like when old assumptions no longer work.

A Closing Thought

Culture rarely changes all at once.

It shifts through repetition.

Through standards.
Through accountability.
Through consistency.
And through what leaders quietly decide is acceptable.

Organizations become remarkably good at reflecting what leadership reinforces.

The question is:

What are you teaching your organization to normalize?

Thanks for reading and being part of the conversation this month.

And if this month’s themes—culture, accountability, standards, operational discipline, or organizational consistency—sound familiar in your own business, sometimes an outside perspective helps clarify what’s being reinforced, what’s being tolerated, and what may be quietly limiting performance.

That’s the work I do through executive coaching, advisory support, operational consulting, and fractional leadership engagements.

If you’d like to have a conversation, you can learn more at:

www.busbusinessconsultants.com

Subscribe now

Part 3 of 3 — The ACLO Turnaround Series

In Part 1 of this series, I shared the moment I realized the issue wasn’t effort.

It was structure.

In Part 2, I wrote about the difficult alignment decisions that followed — redefining standards, rebuilding parts of the middle layer, and reinforcing accountability more consistently across the organization.

But alignment alone doesn’t improve performance.

The organization had to start operating differently — consistently.

The real question was whether we could sustain it.

When the Organization Starts to Stabilize

Turnarounds rarely happen all at once.

There’s no single meeting where everything changes. No dramatic moment where performance suddenly snaps into place.

What actually happens is quieter than that.

Small inconsistencies begin disappearing.

Communication becomes clearer.

Expectations stop shifting from leader to leader.

Supervisors begin reinforcing standards consistently across shifts and teams.

People begin understanding not just what is expected, but what will actually be reinforced.

And over time, the organization starts becoming more stable.

That stability matters more than most people realize.

Because organizations don’t perform consistently when accountability is inconsistent.

They perform consistently when discipline becomes part of the normal day-to-day operation.

The Difference Between Pressure and Discipline

Early in my leadership career, I believed urgency was enough to drive change.

It isn’t.

Pressure can create short-term movement. It can temporarily increase focus. It can force activity.

But pressure is difficult to sustain.

Discipline is different.

Discipline is what allows performance to hold over time.

Survival mode creates a reaction.

Discipline creates stability.

At ACLO, the turnaround accelerated once the organization stopped operating in a situational manner.

Standards became clearer.
Supervision became more consistent.
Expectations became more predictable.
Accountability became more evenly reinforced.

That reduced variability across the operation.

And when variability decreases in a thin-margin business, performance improves.

Not overnight.

But steadily.

Read more

A few weeks ago, I watched a box truck force another car off the road as it exited the interstate.

Traffic was backed up due to construction. Lanes were full.

The driver created a lane where there wasn’t one—and pushed another vehicle out of the way to make the exit.

It’s hard to believe it wasn’t intentional.

What stood out just as much was the box truck itself.

The company branding hadn’t been fully removed.

You could still see traces of the original logo—just enough to connect that behavior to a company that may no longer own it.

And once you see something like that, you don’t forget it—especially when the driver behaves that way.

Unfortunately, this wasn’t the only time I’ve seen poor driver behavior like this—and instantly connected it back to the company’s brand.

A while back, I was nearly run off the road by a branded roofing truck.

I saw the name on the side.

And I made a decision right there—I won’t be calling them if I ever need a new roof.

That driver didn’t just create a safety issue—they cost the company business.

In both situations, the outcome can be the same.

The people around that vehicle see the driver’s behavior—and may make a decision about the company.

That’s the part many operators miss.

Your vehicles aren’t just out on the road.

They’re surrounded by potential customers.

And every interaction—good or bad—shapes decisions you may never even know about.

There’s an adage in sports—the name on the front of the jersey matters more than the name on the back.

The same applies in ground transportation.

The name on the side of the bus—that’s your brand.

And it matters a lot more than whatever may be going through a driver’s mind in a moment on the road.

Because your brand doesn’t live in your marketing materials.

It lives out there—on the highway.

Every operator should remember:

• Every driver is a brand ambassador

• Every vehicle is a rolling billboard

• Every mile is a chance to reinforce—or damage—your reputation

Read more

Several weeks ago, my son moved out.

He’s 23. He graduated from college last fall. He’s engaged to be married later this year. He’s our youngest — which means we’re officially empty nesters.

As we packed, I noticed something.

He wasn’t taking everything.

When our daughter moved out, she cleared the room. When I left home years ago, I did the same.

Clean slate. Fresh start.

But my son was selective.

As we loaded his truck, I asked:

“Why not just take it all? It’s yours.”

He didn’t hesitate.

“I can only take what fits the vibe of our new apartment.”

“The vibe?”

“Our vibe is Boho. If it doesn’t fit, it doesn’t come.”

I didn’t know apartments had vibes. I wasn’t entirely sure what Boho meant. But I understood the principle.

As the room emptied, it began to resemble the abandoned houses I sometimes see in urban-explorer videos — furniture left behind, pieces of a past chapter frozen in place.

I said, “So your apartment is Boho. But your room’s vibe? It’s abandoned.”

From down the hallway, my wife chimed in:

“No, Babe. His apartment is Boho. His room is Hobo.”

We laughed.

But the moment stuck with me.

Because he was right.

Not everything belongs in the next chapter.

Subscribe now

The Vibe of a Business

At The Walt Disney Company, we didn’t use the word vibe.

Read more

Decisions, Standards, and What Leaders Reinforce

If March focused on ownership, April focused on decisions.

Not big, one-time decisions—daily ones that shape how the business actually runs.

Across this month’s articles, one theme kept showing up:

What you choose to do—and what you choose to allow—doesn’t stay isolated. It becomes the standard.

Below is a quick recap of April’s articles, with links if you’d like to revisit them.

April 1

When Businesses Stop Being Neutral

👉 Read the full article here: https://www.groundtransportationinsights.com/p/when-businesses-stop-being-neutral

This article looked at what happens when service businesses step out of a neutral position and take a visible stance.

Using real-world examples—from a restaurant situation involving a public figure to broader corporate decisions—it explored something simple:

Businesses don’t operate in a vacuum.

They operate in markets with customers, expectations, and realities that already exist.

When leaders choose to move beyond the core service and into visible alignment, that’s a business decision.

And like any business decision, it comes with consequences.

This wasn’t about politics.

It was about understanding your environment—and recognizing that every decision sends a signal.

April 8

When Standards Become Non-Negotiable

Part 2 of 3 — The ACLO Turnaround Series
👉 Read the full article here: https://www.groundtransportationinsights.com/p/when-standards-become-non-negotiable

This is where the turnaround moved from understanding the problem to doing something about it.

Once it was clear the operation was structurally fragile, the next step wasn’t more analysis.

It was tightening expectations.

Standards had to be clearer.
Supervision had to be stronger.
Consistency had to improve.

And as expected, that created friction.

Morale dipped.
Resistance showed up.
Some leaders adapted. Some didn’t.

Because once standards become non-negotiable, alignment becomes visible.

This is where leadership shifts from diagnosing issues to reinforcing change.

April 15

Fleet Readiness: What a Navy Example Reveals About Downtime

👉 Read the full article here: https://www.groundtransportationinsights.com/p/fleet-readiness-what-a-navy-example

This article started with a stat that’s hard to ignore:

Roughly 40% of the U.S. Navy’s fleet is out of service at any given time due to maintenance backlogs.

That’s a military example.

But the pattern isn’t that different in our industry.

We track utilization closely.

But we don’t always track what’s down—or why.

And over time, teams get very good at working around it.

Dispatch adjusts.
Drivers adapt.
Operations flexes.

And the problem becomes normalized.

Fleet readiness isn’t just a maintenance metric.

It’s a leadership metric.

Because when vehicles are consistently out of service, it shows up everywhere—cost, reliability, and ultimately the customer experience.

April 22

The Catalysts of Profitability

👉 Read the full article here: https://www.groundtransportationinsights.com/p/the-catalysts-of-profitability

The month closed with a practical reminder:

Profitability doesn’t come from one lever.

It comes from how multiple decisions—and the discipline behind them—work together.

Pricing.
Cost control.
Execution.

Not as isolated efforts—but as a system.

Operators often focus on one and expect it to carry the business.

It doesn’t.

Performance improves when those pieces are aligned—and managed consistently.

The April Throughline

April reinforced a simple reality:

Leaders don’t just run the business.

They define what gets reinforced.

We make decisions about:

• Where we position the business

• What standards do we enforce

• What we choose to measure

• What we’re willing to work around

And over time, those decisions compound.

What you tolerate becomes normal.
What you reinforce becomes expected.
What you measure gets managed.

That’s where culture, performance, and profitability come together.

Looking Ahead to May

May builds on this—but shifts from decisions to behavior.

The first article, What Leaders Tolerate Defines Culture, looks at how standards erode over time—not through big failures, but through what gets normalized. What’s allowed eventually becomes what’s expected.

Next, One Bad Decision on the Road Can Cost You Business moves to the frontline—where a single moment behind the wheel can shape how your brand is experienced by people who may never set foot inside your operation.

The ACLO Turnaround Series concludes with the final installment, focusing on what it takes to sustain change once standards are in place—and what happens when discipline holds over time.

If April was about decisions, May is about what those decisions become—over time and across the operation.

A Closing Thought

Leadership doesn’t show up in isolated moments.

It shows up in patterns.

In the decisions you make.
The standards you enforce.
The things you measure.
And the things you let slide.

Over time, those patterns define the organization.

Thanks for reading and being part of the conversation this month.

If you’re not already receiving Ground Transportation Insights, you can subscribe at:

👉 groundtransportationinsights.com

Most operators don’t lose money all at once.

They lose it a little at a time.

There’s a scene in Any Given Sunday where Coach Tony D’Amato talks about life being a game of inches. The idea is simple—those inches are everywhere. Every minute. Every second. And when you add them up, they make the difference between winning and losing.

I used to use that same idea with my teams.

Except instead of inches, we talked about dollars.

The point then—and the point for you today—is this:

I’m not going to sugarcoat this—some of this may be uncomfortable.

The decisions we make every day—pricing, operations, safety, and fleet and facility decisions—all add up.

And over time, those decisions make the difference between making money and losing it.

The dollars you need—and where your margins are really won and lost—are everywhere in your operation—
in how you price, schedule, maintain and invest in your fleet, and how you run your day-to-day business.

A former boss of mine used to say, “Drops make puddles, and puddles make lakes.”

Same idea.

Small decisions don’t feel like much in the moment.
But over time, they either build margin—or they erode it.

The decisions that consistently build margin are what I call catalysts of profitability.

Not because they’re complicated.
But because when they’re in place, performance improves.
And when they’re not, it doesn’t.

These aren’t theories.
They’re the things that show up in your numbers every day.

Catalyst #1: Understanding Your Costs

If you don’t know your costs, you don’t know if you’re making money.

Profitability starts with knowing your numbers.

Not estimates. Not assumptions.
Your actual costs.

That includes:

• Driver wages and benefits

• Other labor (operations, safety, training, admin)

• Insurance costs

• True maintenance costs

• Fleet costs (payments, depreciation, capital)

• Licensing and regulatory costs

• General & administrative expenses

But it’s not just about listing those costs—it’s understanding where they show up in your business.

For example, what percentage of your revenue is going to:

• Driver wages and benefits

• Other operating wages (dispatch, supervisors, etc.)

• Safety and training wages

• Administrative wages

• Insurance

• Maintenance (and do you know your cost per mile?)

• Fleet costs

• Licensing

• G&A

Most operators can answer some of these.
Very few can answer all of them.

If you can’t answer these questions, you’re not managing your costs—you’re reacting to them.

This is what it costs to run your business—before you ever price a job.

Catalyst #2: Well-Informed Pricing

If your pricing doesn’t reflect your costs, margin disappears—whether you see it or not.

Knowing your costs is one thing.
Turning those costs into the right pricing is another.

A lot of operators do one or the other—but not both.

And you need both.

Pricing starts with your cost structure

Once you understand your costs, the next step is to ensure they are reflected in your pricing.

Many operators use a proforma model to help build their pricing. Not necessarily for every quote, but on a regular basis—to:

• Set pricing

• Validate it

• Monitor whether it’s actually achieving the margins they expect

Because pricing isn’t something you set once.
It’s something you have to monitor over time.

Markets change. Costs change. Fuel changes. Labor changes.

And if your pricing doesn’t change with them, your margins disappear.

Once upon a time, many operators could review pricing annually.

Today, it’s better to review it at least quarterly to make sure it still reflects your costs, the market, and the margin you need.

And operators need to be careful about locking in commitments too far out if there’s a risk the work could become unprofitable.

Pricing is built on how the work actually runs

Pricing isn’t just a number—it’s built on the drivers of the work.

• Time drives how many drivers you need and how much labor you’re paying

• Miles drive fuel usage and, over time, your maintenance costs

• Trip specifics drive costs like tolls, parking, lodging, and per diem

And your pricing must include enough margin to make the work worth doing.

Just as important, your terms and conditions have to support it.

Because if they don’t, you can price the work correctly and still lose money.

You also have to understand the market

Well-informed pricing isn’t just about your costs.

It’s also about understanding:

• Who your actual competitors are (not every carrier is)

• What they’re charging for similar services

• Where do you fit in the market

We used to shop our competitors regularly—not to chase price, but to understand the market.

Because pricing in a vacuum doesn’t work.

A real example

We had a long-standing hotel shuttle that everyone assumed was a solid piece of business.

It ran consistently.
The relationship was good.
They paid on time—so from a cash flow standpoint, it looked like a win.

But when we actually broke down the pricing—factoring in the true labor, fuel, and maintenance tied to the miles—we realized something:

We weren’t making money on it.

We were paying to operate it.

That didn’t happen overnight.
It happened over time—through small assumptions that were never revisited.

And until you actually stop and evaluate it, those kinds of contracts can sit there for years.

The takeaway

Revenue is not the same as profitability.

And steady work that “feels good” can quietly drain your business if it’s not priced correctly.

Well-informed pricing means:

• Knowing your costs

• Building pricing around how the work actually runs

• Understanding your market

• And monitoring it over time

Because if your pricing isn’t built on reality, your margins won’t be either.

Read more

I read an article recently about wall-climbing robot swarms being introduced into the U.S. Navy’s fleet maintenance program—an effort aimed at reducing repair delays and improving operational readiness amid ongoing global threats.

One statistic in the article stood out.

According to the author, only about 60% of the Navy’s ships are operational at any given time due to maintenance backlogs. With a fleet of roughly 300 ships, that means approximately 120 vessels are out of service at any given time.

As a citizen, that’s concerning.

As an operator, it’s familiar.

And it raises a broader question—if an organization as sophisticated and well-resourced as the U.S. Navy is managing through this level of fleet downtime…

What does that mean for the rest of us?

It immediately got me thinking about fleet readiness in the ground transportation industry. While 40% out of service is a staggering number, I can recall periods in organizations I’ve led where availability challenges—driven by aging fleets, parts delays, and staffing shortages—combined with increasingly complex vehicle systems that require longer diagnosis times before a wrench is ever turned—created similar pressure.

And yet, here’s the question I kept coming back to:

Do we really measure this?

Fleet utilization—the percentage of vehicles in use on a given day—is tracked closely across most operations.

But what about the inverse?

• What percentage of the fleet is out of service?

• How long are those vehicles down?

• And more importantly… do we understand why?

In many cases, the systems in place don’t make this easy. In some organizations I’ve led, this data wasn’t available at all—or at least not in a way that was actionable.

So we built it ourselves.

Fleet Readiness Isn’t a Maintenance Metric—It’s a Leadership Metric

Too often, fleet readiness is viewed as a function of the maintenance department.

It’s not.

It’s a reflection of leadership.

The Navy example makes that clear. This isn’t just a maintenance issue—it’s a system-level challenge that requires visibility, prioritization, and alignment with leadership.

Because when vehicles are consistently out of service, the impact doesn’t stay in the shop—it shows up everywhere:

• Missed or delayed service

• Increased spare ratios and capital strain

• Dispatcher workarounds that introduce risk

• Driver frustration

• And ultimately, a degraded customer experience

And yet, many organizations don’t have a clear line of sight into the true health of their fleet.

They track utilization.

But they don’t always track availability with intent.

Read more

Part 2 of 3 — The ACLO Turnaround Series

In Part 1, I shared the moment it became clear that the issue wasn’t effort.

It was structure.

Margins were tight. Standards were inconsistent. And the operating model wasn’t aligned with the business's financial reality.

Once that realization set in, the next question wasn’t what needed to change.

It was how.

Because structure doesn’t change without people.

Where Execution Actually Lives

In most organizations, strategy is set at the top.

Execution happens in the middle.

That’s where expectations are reinforced — or quietly softened.
That’s where accountability is either consistent or conditional.
That’s where culture is either strengthened — or diluted.

And in our case, the middle layer wasn’t aligned with the performance level the business required.

Some leaders were capable but inconsistent.
Some were well-intentioned but overwhelmed.
And some were simply not the right fit for where the organization needed to go.

This wasn’t a matter of effort.

It was a matter of alignment.

The Hard Truth About Alignment

One of the more difficult realities in leadership is this:

Not everyone who helped build the organization is the right person to take it where it needs to go next.

That tension is real.

There’s history. There’s loyalty. There’s familiarity.

And in many cases, there are people who have worked hard and contributed meaningfully — just not at the level now required.

That doesn’t make them bad people.

But it does create a leadership decision.

Because when expectations change, alignment matters more than tenure.

Read more

Last week, I read an article about Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders being asked to leave a Little Rock restaurant because her presence made some employees uncomfortable due to her political views.

After digging into it, the situation was more nuanced. The party had already been there for over an hour, had finished their meals, and had paid. They were approaching the restaurant’s 90-minute table limit. The restaurant later acknowledged that allowing them to stay could be perceived as a lack of support for their staff, while also recognizing that asking them to leave could be viewed as denying service based on differing beliefs.

Where I come from, having the sitting governor of your state visit your place of business—regardless of political affiliation—would be considered a positive.

There are more than 700 restaurants in Little Rock. The fact that the governor and her party chose yours to patronize would have been viewed as a good thing—not because of politics, but because of what it represents: visibility, demand, and an opportunity to deliver a great experience.

And that’s where this shifts from a news story to a leadership decision.

Arkansas isn’t a politically mixed environment. It’s a deeply conservative state. Sarah Huckabee Sanders won her election by nearly 30 points. Republicans hold a dominant share of statewide offices, legislative seats, and the congressional delegation. A Democrat hasn’t won a statewide office there in well over a decade.

That context matters.

Because businesses don’t operate in a vacuum. They operate in markets with customers, expectations, and realities that are already well established.

That situation immediately reminded me of my time at The Walt Disney Company.

In 2022, then-CEO Bob Chapek shifted Disney from behind-the-scenes advocacy to a very public position on Florida’s Parental Rights in Education bill.

Having worked there at the time, I can tell you this firsthand: that shift didn’t solve the problem.

It may have satisfied some employees, but it did little to appease those who were most upset. Given his general unpopularity at the time, particularly among certain employee groups, the move didn’t achieve the internal alignment it was intended to create.

At the same time, it pulled the company into a direct conflict with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis—a move that carried real consequences both publicly and operationally.

And just like Arkansas, Florida wasn’t a neutral environment.

Governor DeSantis had strong public support, later reinforced by a decisive re-election victory. His position on the issue was well known and aligned with a significant portion of the state’s electorate.

That context matters just as much.

Because when Disney took a public stance, it wasn’t stepping into open space—it was stepping into an already defined political and market reality.

In both cases, the organization made a choice.

Not a neutral one—but a visible decision to align with one side of a broader issue.

And in both cases, that choice ran counter to a meaningful portion of the market they serve.

While the future impact on the Little Rock restaurant is unknown, in the Disney example, within weeks, Florida moved to dissolve its special taxing district—a structure that had provided a competitive advantage for more than 50 years.

The market response was just as telling.

The Friday before the controversy escalated, Disney stock closed at $137.48. One week later, it was down roughly 6%. Three months later, down 24%. Eight months later, after Bob Iger returned as CEO, it was still down more than 35%.

More notably, in late March 2022, the stock briefly rallied to around $139. That remains the high-water mark nearly four years later—despite leadership changes and significant investment.

Over that same period, the broader market—represented by the Dow Jones Industrial Average—is up more than 30%.

No single decision drives stock performance. But leadership decisions—especially those that shift a company away from its core business—do have consequences. And markets tend to reflect that over time.

Read more