Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 June 11

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 11

Succession plan

Is Succession plan a panacea for management crisis?

Yes. --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No. --Sean 13:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Livewireo (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

All of the above. --Tango (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Mu. -- kainaw™ 21:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone above is wrong. However, this sounds like a homework question. Another way of phrasing this odd question is, "If there is a management crisis of any sort, would a succession plan be sure to fix it?" I think you can probably step through the logic needed to come to a good answer. Tempshill (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)In all seriousness though, I hate to bite, what kind of answer were you expecting? I'm not even sure how a "succession plan" is a panacea for anything or what it could do to specifically resolve any issue. Having plans certianly will guide you out of a crisis, but I wouldnt call it a panacea. Also, Tempshill is right, this sounds like a essay question. Livewireo (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Successing planning and crisis management are two entirely different concepts, and shouldn't even be on the same page. Succesion planning is ensuring that key people in an organization are not indispensible. The main scenario is, "If Joe gets hit by a bus tomorrow, how do we cope?" Management crisis, on the other hand, involves quickly identifying the key issues, ensuring personnel / public safety (or, reducing financial loss, saving the reputation), managing public relations and (probably several left out) cleaning up the mess afterwards. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

How big is the world energy market?

How big is the world energy market? Both in terms of sales and profits. To my surpprise I can't find the answer on Wikipedia.
Of course, I can make an educated guess. I know the total world energy consumption is 15 TW and I believe 1 kWh of electricity costs about 20 eurocent. So at that price, one hour of world energy would cost 0.2 * 15 giga-euro and one year would then cost 3 * 24 * 365 = 30 trillion euro. (That's about 5000 euro per person per year, which sounds about right for rich countries, but not the poor ones, which form the majority.) So that's the sales. Assuming profits are around 3%, that would mean about 1 trillion euro profits per year. However, the Royal Dutch Shell article says they make a profit of about 20 billion euro per year. That's 2%, which seems a bit low.
But that's just very rough guesswork. Does anyone know a good source? DirkvdM (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The 15 TW, does that include people burning wood that they collect? That would be nearly free for the user aside from the labor input. Also, where I live in the US, 1 KW is only 9 cents US (6-7 EUc) so that would shrink the market as well. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting an exact number for this will be impossible, since so much of the world's energy (specifically oil and gas) is produced by national oil companies that in many cases (like Saudi Aramco, the biggest) do not report their earnings like public corporations. For oil and gas specifically, we can perhaps extrapolate from ExxonMobil earnings: the article claims they produce 3% of the world's oil (and, since it's worded as BOE, apparently gas as well). Their revenues were $477 billion last year and their profits were $45 billion. So presumably, the entire oil and gas industry's revenues would be on the order of $16 trillion and profits would be on the order of $1.5 trillion in the last year. The profits calculation assumes that Exxon has industry average profitability, which isn't the case, in fact for much of the world it may not even be comparable since often oil is not sold on "the open market" in countries with a lot of oil but rather discounted/subsidized for their consumers. Also note that last year had record high oil prices for much of it. It's also unclear if Exxon is 3% of the gas market and oil market. The gas industry is much more regionalised than oil since transporting it across oceans is much more difficult, this will also likely throw off the calculations. Another way to get a rough estimate would be to look up oil production last year as well as average oil price and multiply the two. That will give you the revenues expected if it were all sold on the open market, which again, it isn't. Electricity is a whole other kettle of fish - big government utilities dominate much of the world's generation and cost of generation varies hugely from region to region. Your calculations may be appropriate but I don't really know. They may be further complicated by the huge capital costs involved in many power projects. Hydro dams, for instance, are relatively cheap to operate year to year, but cost billions to build. However, different forms of energy are available at very different costs and can't really be compared as you did above. Electrical power generated by a coal power plant is not worth the same per kw-hr as the chemical energy contained in a tank of gasoline (I believe the gasoline is still much cheaper, kw-hr for kw-hr). Shell makes the vast majority of its revenues off of oil, not electricity, so at a guess I'd say your $.20 per kw-hr is not accurate for it or other oil companies. TastyCakes (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Slightly OT, but might help with a guesstimate: Primary energy consumption in 2008 was 11,294.9 million tonnes oil equivalent. Electricity generation (not the same as consumption) was 20,201.8 terawatt-hours. http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/2009_downloads/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_report_2009.xls#'Primary Energy - Consumption'!A1. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Airline pilots

I read somewhere that airline pilots actually only manually control the plane for a few minutes in every flight, the rest being done by autopilot. My question is, what do they actually do during the rest of the flight, particularly long-haul flights? Read a book? Play I spy? Sleep? It must be a really boring, but well-paid, job. 84.13.53.223 (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget playing cards. Vranak (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

They do have some jobs to do, they remain in radio contact with HQ, they ask for permission to enter every country's airspace they pass through and they monitor everything, making sure nothing is happening that shouldn't. Other than that, I assume they chat, take a good book and take turns sleeping. Prokhorovka (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In the olden days before 9/11 when they left the cockpit door open, you could often seem them reading a newspaper. APL (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not even really all that well paid. You have to pay for your education and qualification flights yourself, which in the UK is at least £50,000 (sometimes you can persuade an airline to sponsor you for some of that, but that's getting rare). The industry has moved heavily toward budget airlines which don't pay well; getting into long-haul on flag carriers needs a decade of experience and often good contacts (it's still greatly an old-school-tie / ex-military shop). The money isn't bad; it probably scales favourably to engineering or accountancy, but lags medicine or law, and because of the medical requirements you have a pretty high chance of being forced to take early retirement. Hopper Mine (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth [1], here is up-to-date American salary information. As an example, American Airlines will give $35-$199 per hour depending on plane and seniority, with 64 hours per month guaranteed; that's $26880 - $152832 per year for the minimum hours; if they do more hours they will earn more. Regional airlines (where most pilots start out) pay less, a few airlines pay more. More information here[2][3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltelauridsbrigge (talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that those are, I believe, flight hours. Actual "hours at work" will be higher, especially for pilots flying shorter routes. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, pilots are legally (imposed by the regulators and unions) forced to fly no more than a maximum number of hours each year, thus capping earnings. Prokhorovka (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If they only spend a few minutes per flight in control, and if modern autopilots can both take-off and land, is the manual control bit just taxiing to and from the run-way? 78.146.54.88 (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am under the impression that while the autopilot can land the plane, usually the pilot prefers to do that bit. I am not seven sure the autopilot can get the plane into the air, so the pilot usually does both of those. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm told that many pilots spend most of the flight using their laptops. Tempshill (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because the autopilot is turned on doesn't mean the pilot doesn't have work to do. While a pilot may not actually have a hand on the stick, they are doing a lot of work and paying very close attention during the takeoff, landing, climb and descent phases of the flight, and at plenty of other times too. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Except for possibly overseas flights, the pilot is in pretty regular contact with various traffic control facilities, being handed off from one to the next. Dismas|^(talk) 13:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Depending on what equipment the airplane has on board and how well the airport is equipped, the plane can take off and land automatically. However, for less-well equipped airports, or in case of inclement weather, the pilot may choose to do it him/herself. During cruise, the autopilot does most of the flying, but the pilot is there to check everything is working properly, and to communicate with air traffic control. — QuantumEleven 09:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't it illegal to sell concert tickets at more than face value?

I'm getting seriously irritated by people buying up tickets for concerts they have no intention of attending then listing them for sale on Ebay for X times face value. Why isn't it illegal for re-sell a ticket for more than face value? This would allow more genuine fans to buy tickets at uninflated prices, destroy the ticket touts overnight (who are seriously unpleasant people - I have personal experience) and not hurt genuine resale of tickets due to unforseen circumstances (illness, double booking) but would stop people gouging fans for profit. Why isn't there legislation? Exxolon (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It is illegal in some places; see ticket scalping. In places where it's legal I presume it's because the default situation for any property is that you can buy and sell it, and those jurisdictions have not seen fit to give tickets a special status. Nobody is forced to attend an event, so I don't see how the scalpers can "gouge" people for more than the actual value (not face value) of the ticket. --Sean 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Free market enthusiasts would be one group that would denounce such legislation. The band, venue, ticket agency, and scalpers are all out to make money in this situation. In a society with a free market, as a general rule, people and companies are not restrained from maximizing their profit. If the band has chosen to charge lower ticket prices than the market will pay, that is their choice; but as Sean said above, the actual value of the ticket will differ, and so some other party in the chain will be able to increase their profit. Rather than legislation, the band should somehow be incentivized to add extra dates to their stay in town. Tempshill (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Such legislation (which on the face of it does seem tempting, as it's difficult to see what value-add the touts provide) may have drawbacks (it's very difficult to draft effective legislation that doesn't also stop beneficial behaviour). Such laws risk inhibiting a free market, as Tempshill says, which may have unforseen consequences. Objections include:

• It erodes the concept of ownership of property. If I own a car or a cd or a house I can sell it to someone for however much I like, so long as they agree to pay. Even if it's unique - if I own a Vermeer I can't I sell it for a huge amount of money, even though there are only a handful in existence?
• It erodes the concept that parties in a contract are responsible for negotiating the contract terms and ensuring they're satisfied with the terms before committing to it (so long as goods are advertised correctly). Concert tickets are not a necessity; no-one needs to go to a concert (it's not like buying milk or bread), so no-one is forced to deal with the touts. If you don't want to pay $500 for a Celine Dion concert, then don't.
• It allows the concert promoter and his agents a monopoly, and allows them to stifle value-add 3rd party services. Say, for example, that I ran a small company that provides full-service corporate entertainment packages. If you wanted to impress some clients and host a Calcutta Cup event, we'd pick your clients up at the airport in a limo, wine and dine them at Claridges, provide rugby shirts with your company logo for each, then drive everyone to Twickenham where they get nice seats together, then more dining, engraved corporate gifts, spearmint rhino, and then limo back to gatwick, all for £800/head. To do that I'd need to have someone from my office go down and buy tickets, and I have to hold the tickets in the hope that I'll be able to sell the event to some corporate clients. An anti-ticket-tout law would outlaw this business too; that means if you wanted to buy corporate entertainment that included the Rugby you'd have to buy from the Rugby people themselves (and take an expensive box package) - they have no competition, so they can charge what they want. And, as a big supplier, they won't tailor the package to meet your individual needs - it's take it or leave it.
• The way tickets are sold discriminates in favour of those who have the time and the health to sit in days long queues. If the Katherine Jenkins concert is very popular, it is essentially impossible for an elderly person to brave the queues, so they're precluded from going.

Of course you can construct a law that takes the above cases into account, but it'll be a complex beast that's difficult for the honest to follow and full of loopholes for the unscrupulous. Good law is hard to write, and frankly I think lawmakers often think "it's only concert tickets, why waste our time with something we don't think that important".

Note, incidentally, that in the UK touting (and really any reselling) of tickets for professional football games is illegal (recently they added internet sales to that); this was passed to prevent co-mingling of fans from opposing teams, who are strictly segregated to prevent violence. Hopper Mine (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I too find this frustrating, but it is easy to ban ticket resale... Every ticket is associated with some ID - the credit card used to buy or a recognised ID (passport, drivers license, national identity card, etc.) - and that same ID must be presented to enter the venue. The only way the ID can be changed is by the venue or its authorised ticket agent(s). The only difficulties I can see is group ticketing, gifts, and the fact that venues might have to consider offering refunds on unwanted tickets (see my previous question on the subject) but I'm pretty sure something could be worked out. It is not major corporations who are running a ticket scapling business so I think various "corporate function" providers could have exemption so long as their clients enter the venue together. The same could apply to group tickets. As for gifts, the ticket buyer might have to apply to the venue to change the ID, or the name of the gift recipient could be added to the ID record associated, or ... Astronaut (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the objections to this proposal are technical; I think they are philosophical and ethical objections. Tempshill (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Are most kids in China taught English?

Question as above. Vranak (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Our article says that in about the third grade a foreign language is introduced to all children, and it is normally English. Since China has primary school enrolment at over 90%, it is safe to assume the most kids are, if by no means all. Prokhorovka (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The quality and quantity of English education varies greatly between regions, and even between schools in the same city. Generally, in urban areas on the east coast (which uses the "Developed Coastal Region" curriculum), English is introduced in first grade, then taught more systematically from the third grade, and is a compulsory subject through high school. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

But, every kid over the age of 5 yrs knows how to scream "Hello!" to at foreigners. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Vranak (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)