went off tangent writing yet another business entity essay,

thought it was a bit too good to just delete.

Assuming that there is not much difference in corporate tax rates and other basic employment entitlement requirements between Australia and New Zealand, Flywell’s new subsidiary is basically a new graft of a company planted in a separate plot (New Zealand) away from the parent plant to produce fruit and nourishment (Jetover’s own revenue) through creating more decay-able material (dividends) for the parent to benefit from.
If the companies were plants, then each of the Board of directors would be the individual farmers who make decisions for each of the plants because the plants do not have the mind nor the active will and strength to make and enforce decisions. Whatever cost the other farmer incurred in maintaining each plant would not be affecting the other farmer, plot and plant because of the separate growing plots (separate legal entity) and plants.
Since half the original parent plant was cut off (in the form of half its originally employed pilots) to create the new graft plant (Jetover), there was more space for the Flywell farmer to try out new plants (in the form of employing new pilots) that might need some help or incentives to adapt to the Australian “plot” (via 20% more pay and superannuation entitlements compared to the Jetover plant/pilots).





i'm actually frking explaining the shituation to the marker in plain gardening terms. wtf