RE: A hypothetical exam essay question

[Cordell . Arthur]

IMHO, Sept. 11 marks the beginning of the 21st century.  Like the Titanic or WW1 marked the real beginning of the 20th century.  Just as with a kaleidoscope the landscape has shifted.  Will it shift back.  Unlikley.  It will shift. but not back.  "Can't step in the same stream twice and all that...."  Or maybe, can't step in the same paradigm twice.....   arthur     -----Original Message----- From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 6:44 AM To: Ed Weick; G. Stewart; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A hypothetical exam essay question   Apologies to the list.  It's not really silly.  It just seemed that way when I was in a cantankerous mood last night.  Its an interesting discussion.    When people say that "the world changed on Sept. 11", what they are really saying is that the social and emotional (for want of better terms) parameters which govern rational choices such as responding to cheaper tickets have shifted.  Uncertainty has moved in.  Choice has become less rational.  What is interesting, certainly from an airline perspective, is how long the shift might hold and what the airlines and the government can do to minimize its impact.  Will the President flying on Air Force One and Bill Clinton taking several trips across the country bring passengers back?  Personally, I rather doubt it.   Ed Weick      ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Weick To: G. Stewart ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 10:38 PM Subject: Re: A hypothetical exam essay question I repeat, this is all a bit silly.  As Arthur and I both pointed out, the demand for air transport has been rendered totally inelastic by the events of September 11th.  No matter how cheap the fares, people are now reluctant to fly.  It's about making a dramatic, emotional gesture.  Nothing is as reassuring to perceptions of American economic might as seeing those big silver birds up there, whether there are people in them or not.   If there is an economic component to it, it's probably more about the thousands of people who will lose, or have lost, their jobs because people won't fly.  Save the airlines and save a pretty hefty chunk of the economy.   Ed Weick   ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Stewart To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 8:15 PM Subject: Re: A hypothetical exam essay question A further contribution, from a friend:   "All of your questions (except the last one) imply a transfer of resources towards flying.  Why subsidize flyers?  If we're going to tax and transfer there are a lot of competing candidates! (as your last question implies - counter-terrorism is one possible direction.) Of course, it might be argued that flying is somehow essential and therefore 'something' must be done to preserve the industry but Landsberg would argue that nothing is the answer.  If it is argued that Landsberg is wrong, that private resources just cannot reallocate themselves fast enough to keep planes in the air and  that it is somehow critical that planes be kept in the air then I would prefer your solution to bailing out shareholders."     Gail Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]