Broadband Access on Planes

Should we be rejoicing? Or, should we worry about things like privacy, etiquettes and intrusive conversations. I think there’s a happy middle ground. I had recently gone to Yosemite National Park with a few friends. I wanted to get in touch with the outside world via cell phone. The argument that I got was that it was better we didn’t have cell phone access and that we were cut off from the rest of the world. Why does it have to be a forced seclusion? If I wanted to be out of touch with the rest of the world while I was there, couldn’t I just switch off my cell phone?

That we have the ability to send/receive e-mails and phone calls, surf the Net, possibly make important financial decisions via our online brokerage accounts is such a conservation of time. If I wanted to talk to my fellow passenger on the plane, I’d do so even if I did have broadband access. Now if I didn’t have broadband access, does it necessarily imply I’d be having a conversation? I could meditate w/ or w/o broadband access. I could read a book w/ or w/o broadband access. I could get a shuteye w/ or w/o broadband access.

Hell and then some deals..

A book titled Deals from Hell by Robert Bruner assigns one or more of these as reasons for a deal to earn the title of a deal from hell: Destruction of market value; financial instability, impaired strategic position, organizational weakness, damaged reputation, or violation of ethical norms and laws. So, looking at these parameters, we would have the highly publicized deals that we know have gone bad and it would be a no-brainer.

What about the deals that have worked well at the start and then faltered along the way? Since the global business environment is constantly changing, will a deal that looks good today also continue to look good in the near or far future? That raises the questions of the time horizon that we would have to look at before rendering our decision. Another question would be the change in management. If a senior executive, who was championing the deal leaves after a few months, would we call it a deal from hell or would we classify it as a leadership issue?

I like the idea of standardization and the classification of aspects that would help us declare a deal a collosal failure. I am just not sure though if it would be a measured objectively if a deal works but circumstances have changed and it’s clearly an issue of mismanagement regardless of the prior deal.

Contestable Markets

A key characteristic of a contestable market is low barriers to entry and exit. These markets with only a few competitors maybe more competitive than they appear to be. An example would be starting an airline route from one city to another. If the route is not profitable, the airline has the option to delete the route.

In trying to understand this concept, I did a little research on the airline route from Cincinnati, OH to Los Angeles, CA. There are very few flights that serve this route and the prices always seem to be way higher than the rest of the country. It has a few competitors and seems to be profitable. If it is truly contestable, other airlines besides Delta should claim stake. If it is not, then it is an oligarchy, in which case the airline regulators should do something.

Either ways, CVG does not seem to be a very airline friendly airport and I for one would like to see that rectified.