Union Pacific’s Performance

You cited Union Pacific’s congestion in your Nov. 28 editorial. We are chastened by the poor service performance you noted and regret the inconvenience to the shipping public. And we have learned from our mistakes. But not the lessons you suggest.

Yes, we did make a series of mistakes in the Gulf Coast. Those combined with adverse weather conditions and disrupted traffic flows on other railroads to slow Southern Pacific traffic. Please note that the merger did not cause that congestion. UP crews handled UP traffic and SP crews that of SP, because we had not yet signed the necessary amalgamating labor agreements. UP crews could not move over to help with the larger SP traffic flow. Next, the congestion crept to other areas on our system, including California, where we continue to have two separate crew lists.

Let me correct a few misstatements. First, all but 12 of 950 SP field officers received offers. Sure, SP officers did not get many of the best jobs, but the two top operating officials of UP for the western region (which includes California) did come from SP. Second, to say “even some of its shareholders are suing the railroad” is at best naive. A strike suit filed by an attorney in Dallas with only one client and a past practice of settling for large attorneys’ fees is far from what readers would imagine reading your words.

Most importantly, you failed to note that UP instituted a drastic and radical recovery plan Oct. 1, which included voluntarily handing off large blocks of lucrative coal and grain traffic to competing railroads. That has decimated the bottom line, but it was the right thing to do. Some credit, please.

ROBERT F. STARZEL

Vice President, Western Region

Union Pacific, San Francisco