Dr. Ernest Madu runs the Heart Institute of the Caribbean in Kingston, Jamaica, where he proves that — with careful design, smart technical choices, and a true desire to serve — it’s possible to offer world-class healthcare in the developing world.
Increasingly it seems fat people are being discriminated against. Fat people are people too. Why should they have to pay more to travel on United Airlines?
BU in a previous blog declared our position on the issue of fat people. A significant percentage of the population worldwide is fat. This is especially true in North America and the Caribbean attributed to lifestyle behaviour. In the news recently Minister of Health Donville Innnis has been rattling off the statistics on the state of non communicable diseases released from The Barbados National Registry for Chronic Non-Communicable Disease Disease Control. The fact that Minister Donville Inniss and many of his colleagues cannot offer themselves as examples of healthy living given their ample physical display is fodder for another blog.
For many people the battle of the bulge is an every day task. While we agree that to be fat and unhealthy usually go together, we are not so sure if it is right for United Airlines to charge fat people higher fares.
80 responses so far ↓
John Da Silva // April 18, 2009 at 12:49 AM
Well, think of it this way. Skinny people basically subsidise the cost of air travel for fat people by bearing more than their fair share of the cost of the flight. It is not so much that fat people should pay more, but skinnier people should pay less. Also, if you have ever sat next to a very fat person (as in morbidly obese) on a flight, you know that they can make the flight uncomfortable for you.
The Scout // April 18, 2009 at 7:53 AM
I once flew into St.Lucia sitting next to a VERY fat lady. It was good that it was only a 35 mins flight. The worse part of it was that I was on the inside and half of my seat was taken by her. I almost had the same problem on a flight to JFK but fortunately for me the flight wasn’t quite full and I requested that I re- locate. The flight attendant smile and said “of course.” I don’t mind a plump person but a 300 hundred pounder is unbearable. I agree, if persons allow themselves to get like that, then let them purchase a double seat, they should not be allowed to make some-one else uncomfortable.
JC // April 18, 2009 at 9:52 AM
ha ha ha this excerpt reminds me of a time when I went to Trinidad to watch cricket and the lady I was sitting next too had to ask for an extra piece of seatbelt cause it was too short ha ha ha lord havest mercy eeeewwww! lol
JC // April 18, 2009 at 9:56 AM
i now myself getting fat!
Nothing th gym wont fix in a month or two …..
David // April 18, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Are you guys not being harsh? Why can’t the airline shift people around to fit the fat people in? Why don’t we charge more on the buses? If people have offensive odours do we charge them more for making us uncomfortable? Why pick on fat people?
bunny // April 18, 2009 at 12:33 PM
@ Jc not all fat people are that way because they eat too much or exercise too little. It may an underactive thyroid gland
or genetics
bunny // April 18, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Wanna just being unreasonable , what next after fat people ? Bullers or disabled people?
I was very over weight , I lost about 70 lbs so I know how it feels to be verbally targeted. Fat people need support and motivation to get themselves fit. Its not easy but we need to go back eating ground foods and concentrate on getting fit, the weight would eventually drop in time.
Asiba-The Buffalo Soldier-'why should I wear a jacket and tie' // April 18, 2009 at 12:46 PM
My response to this thread
JC // April 18, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Oh Lord bunny I dont have anything against fat people!
Asiba-The Buffalo Soldier-'why should I wear a jacket and tie' // April 18, 2009 at 12:54 PM
here some exerpts from my previous posts: important enough to repeat
Hurrah !!
Some ignorant uniformed people feel that what I am doing with my songs is some kind of a joke but I know that are equally honest and sensible persons who know better.
One significant thing about the FAT thing is that in many cases, it is the indiscipline of excesses. It is gross indiscipline. We need some discipline.
There are so many issues around the FAT thing -social and otherwise that it remains a challenge and as an artiste I will continue to write and sing about FAT.
check the link
or -copy and paste
http://www.imeem.com/people/ag1vkwe/video/xN6zrBTo/asiba-the-buffalo-soldier-too-much-fat-on-de-road-music-vide/
Asiba-The Buffalo Soldier-’why should I wear a jacket and tie’ // April 4, 2009 at 8:57 am
Funny enough Bush Tea. I do refer to these foods as poisons. I cant believe that someone else actually sees it that way too. -Glad that I am not alone. Sometimes I feel that way though.
I totally agree with you that there needs to be a war on bad food and this is part of my fight also.
I put my money where my mouth is and I have written and recorded a song entitled -”EATING RAW’ which some individuals at first mistakenly interpreted as a sexually overtoned” song which it definitely is not. The song actually refers to eating food in its natural state-.
The thing is that I have spent my hard earned money and money gained from royalties to pay to record these songs but the radio stations play foolishness from Jamaica and America and refuse to promote local music.The radio stations do not play a quarter of the music produced by Barbadian artistes.
So the WAR is on and I have appointed myself the chief executive officer of MAF——MOVEMENT AGAINST FAT.
This will manifest soon when I record another FAT song to add to the list that includes :-
(1)”TOO MUCH FAT ON DE ROAD”; (2) “STILL TOO MUCH FAT ON THE ROAD” ;
(3)”EATING RAW”
Asiba-The Buffalo Soldier-’why should I wear a jacket and tie’ // April 4, 2009 at 9:19 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYz7ee2KOIM
Here is the youtube link for the song TOO MUCH FAT ON DE ROAD
Asiba-The Buffalo Soldier-’why should I wear a jacket and tie’ // April 11, 2009 at 9:48 am
Definitely a FAT problem in Barbados
It is hurting my eyes when I see FAT overweight individuals who seem to over indulged in the eating thing.
Something has to be done and done quickly. It is a national problem
ON WINGS OF SONG // April 18, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Fat people have the same rights as thin peeps. If you occupy one airline seat, you pay for one seat. If you occupy two, you pay for two. If you occupy three, you pay for three. Etc.
Asiba-The Buffalo Soldier-'why should I wear a jacket and tie' // April 18, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Further response to this thread
http://www.imeem.com/people/ag1vkwe/music/b_TQLyua/asiba
livinginbarbados // April 18, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Let’s not confuse size with poor health or bad life styles. The airlines have a load dispersion problem so need to deal with weight. But, the policy just announced can create a bunch of unseen problems, including people who feel that they are underweight will ask (justifiably for discounts). If airlines have an implicit or explict scale (pun) of ideal weight then people can and should use that: average = base price; under = discount; over = surcharge. How, they will deal with this at check i, Lord alone knows. You will have to check people into a size frame as now done for on board luggage?
From another perspective, for tourists destinations such as Bim, take a look at the average European or North American visitor. If these people are to be disadvantaged or charged more by airlines, think whether they will bother to fly here or stay home.
If you have booked your flight and show up, and are deemed overweight, and have no money for the extra seat, then what? Talk about airline rage. If you are in a group and one is average, one underweight, one overweight, does that even out?
It could all get wonderfully ridiculous.
David // April 18, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Isn’t this matter rearing its head because of narrowing magins in the airline business? Another instance when economic trumps what is right?
RE Engineer // April 18, 2009 at 3:15 PM
I think some persons are missing the point. The issue is not about weight. It is about being able to fit comfortably and securely in an aeroplane seat made for an average person. If you cannot and must occupy another seat then you have to pay for that seat. It also goes for persons who are very tall, have physical disabilities or even post surgery persons who have to keep a leg or arm elevated and may require more than a single space. All of the above have to pay extra to be properly accommodated in first class (which tends to be roomier) or use more than one seat or even an entire row.
I do not believe this has anything to do with picking on fat people or tall people or disabled people. It is a matter of comfort and safety. I agree it is not some persons’ fault that they are obese, it is not the person’s fault they are very tall, or disabled or had an accident that required surgery. However, what is an airline to do? For me personally I would give them the extra seat at half price. However in these trying economic times I can understand why airlines would take such a stance.The laws of business economics have dictated this move not any form of discrimination.
On another note, from watching the above video I was very impressed with the efforts in terms of providing expert healthcare at a lower cost and the utilisation of technology to bridge the gap in developing nations. Its connection with obesity was quite minimal in my eyes but it was very informative none-the-less.
Straight talk // April 18, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Who cares bout weight. in two years nobody can afford to fly,
Jes wait til Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley really pull the leash on oil prices.
You sheeple aint seen nut’n yet.
08 was but a trial run, the real thing coming.
David // April 18, 2009 at 3:27 PM
@RE
Glad you found the video instructive but surprise you saw a low level correlation between obesity and good healthcare narrated by the good doctor in the vid : – )
RE Engineer // April 18, 2009 at 3:55 PM
@Straight Talk
We all should care what is going on with air travel, any significant issues could put an abrupt halt to tourism and life as we know it. Even with increasing oil prices there needs to be more work in making air travel more affordable and there has been.
@David
Don’t get me wrong I see the correlation, just I did not think it was the main focus of the video. Or maybe it caused by my bias towards the promotion of more affordable healthcare.
Straight talk // April 18, 2009 at 4:02 PM
David:
Thick, thin, black,white, polka dot it don’t matter once oil goes above $100 a barrel again, forget air travel.
Sub-prime mortgages …. rubbish.
Oil prices supercede national economies.
Straight talk // April 18, 2009 at 4:07 PM
RE Eng.
Check it out boy.
We’re in the end game now.
livinginbarbados // April 18, 2009 at 4:16 PM
It’s ironic that the new push by airlines comes at the same time as Susan Boyle put the case for ‘big’ people and treating them without prejudice, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPZh4AnWyk. Of course, if she becomes a mega millionaire, she can have her own private plane and not have to be subject to a public weigh off at check in.
Straight talk // April 18, 2009 at 4:25 PM
LIB:
Much as i enjoy your contributions, both here and on VOB, I feel you are thrashing about in the swamp of the old economics, which are inapplicable to a world of negative growth.
How say you?
RE Engineer // April 18, 2009 at 4:27 PM
@Straight Talk
So what do you say about contingency plans to ensure that rising fuel prices do not impact or have reduced impact on our current way of life? Increased fuel scarcity can only affect us if we let it.
Straight talk // April 18, 2009 at 4:34 PM
RE Eng.
What contingency plans you talking about?
The figures I read say peak production passed last year.
As far as I can see we are on the downward slope to despair.
Please provide contradictory data, so we might all sleep easier.
David // April 18, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Listening to a debate in the Senate recently we were pleased to learn that the government is currently working on a policy document to regulate standards for alternative energy. They expect this to take about two years. There was also criticism directed at the last government regarding its lack of leadership in the area of wind energy.
It appears PM Thompson is an admirer of Obama RE strategy. What can we but hopeful ST?
Straight talk // April 18, 2009 at 4:44 PM
David:
Two years policy document!
Give me two weeks, it’ll be on their desks.
Long talk until the crunch comes.
But hey that’s Barbados, we like to swing between panic and complacency.
RE Engineer // April 18, 2009 at 5:06 PM
@ST
There are many figures out there about peak out, some say it is true we have passed some say it does not exist. Some say with the increasing use of advanced technology to increase the efficiency of extraction of fossil fuels it will be overcome. However for many years there have been alternatives to fossil fuels for some energy related tasks and these do not run out. Namely renewable energy sources, which has had increasing focus over the last decade. Obama has made it extremely clear the direction in which the US is going in terms of that. Hopefully that can assuage your fears a bit.
@David
I find it interesting the debate about legislation towards sustainable energy sources in Barbados. We will see if the current stance is backed up. Two years is a mighty long time, and most countries are light years ahead of us. It is almost like introducing information technology to developing African states, there are so far behind that it can become quite overwhelming. We will have a mighty tough road ahead when it comes to that. I was (and still am) shocked by the difficulties that are encountered here. However, I believe it is a case of ignorance and lack of genuine interest. We’ll just have to wait and see what happens. Though I think government’s approach is a bit misguided. At least from what I have seen and experienced so far. Maybe there is more going on in the shadows than I really know.
Straight talk // April 18, 2009 at 5:32 PM
RE Eng.
I would have expected more from a trained engineer than mainstream platitudes, however that is the current zeitgeist.
I feel that David has the same frustrations.
If our trained academics are so blinded by the propaganda promulgated by a subservient press what hope for our people, dependent as they are on your scientific advice.
Considering that energy usage equates directly to GDP growth, someone , somewhere ought to be telling us to wake up,,,, and quick, before the “trust us” brigade lead us all into a world of harm.
RE Engineer // April 18, 2009 at 6:08 PM
@ST
I do not own any oil wells, I do not know if the reserves they say they have are actually real or created. I cannot see the future and tell you if they will discover more. The fact of the matter oil prices are very seldom determined by the simple laws of supply and demand. I have read most of the reports from the International Energy Agency, Energy Information Administration and OPEC and the price of oil has been mainly spurred by speculation and political ploys from most of the data they have produced. And we all must be realistic here. Some of the best economic minds did not see this meltdown. I had the fortune of meeting Fadel Gheit one of the best and most experience energy analysts/consultants in the world and the first thing he would tell you is he has no idea where energy prices are going and cannot even guarantee that world reserves are stated correctly. My training does not make me a fortune teller. All I can tell you is I have deployed wind turbines, solar panels, hydropower units and even wave energy converters that can power homes, cars, planes and all sorts of devices without the need for oil or other fossil fuels. It is technically feasible and with proper legislation it will be economically viable as well. That is the only guarantee I can give you. World fossil fuel energy futures are way too steeped in politics and propaganda for me to even try to foretell where things are going.
I fight every single day to get Bajans to wake up it is not only my job but my passion. I have no idea if you have noticed, but engineers are not always well heard especially when they go against a typical political agenda or show loopholes in legislation that persons with limited technical experience or know-how have drafted. The Barbados government has in the past spent millions for external consultants to come and tell them what internal engineers have been saying for years. And then they still do what they want anyway. That is the reality of the situation!
Bush Tea // April 18, 2009 at 8:24 PM
@ST
Man why you don’t rest you’self nuh?
You can’t see that nobody wants to face up to reality.
Everyone is focused on Peter Wickham, Guyanese and fat people – while the sky is clearly falling….
What end game what!?? , the end game started with 911…. we are now approaching the end of the endgame.
To be honest with you, I am now seriously wondering if it is not actually better to be blissfully ignorant…
..but unfortunately for me, I am already fully aware of just how bad it is going to be…and how soon.
Straight talk // April 19, 2009 at 5:06 AM
BT:
Missed you, buddy.
I too decided to take a break from banging my head against the brick wall, and, yes, the pain did lessen for a while.
However talk of cheaper gas and air fares, stimulus packages and green shoots of recovery is all that is needed to get my head shaking again in disbelief at the state of denial we are dished up, and so the headache returned.
If ignorance is bliss, why don’t our politicians seem happy?
RE Eng:
Apologies for blowing off a bit, and I share your respect for Fadel Gheit, particularly his thinly veiled opinion that the oil futures market is being manipulated by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
To counter the OPEC, IEA and EIA propaganda, how about this guy’s in depth analysis of the oil spike?
http://www.brookings.edu/economics/bpea/~/media/Files/Programs/ES/BPEA/2009_spring_bpea_papers/2009_spring_bpea_hamilton.pdf
David // April 19, 2009 at 6:44 AM
@ST and BT
You guys posit arguments which challenge historical behaviour/trend yet you expect ordinary people to depart from known positions with ease?
It is like asking the atheist and the agnostic to believe because someone shouts at them to believe.
Bush Tea // April 19, 2009 at 10:02 AM
@ David
“…there is none so blind as those who will not see…”
Can you point to anything important in the last decade that has indicated that ‘historical behaviour/trend’ or ‘known positions’ continue to hold any sway in today’s world?
My friend, we now live in a world of completely new realities.
…here comes Bush Tea’s latest parable…
An old man lays on his sick bed lamenting the increasing number of ailments facing him. Many of them seem to be overwhelming and terminal, but he is optimistic and he has great faith in modern medicine to be able to extend his life.
He contemplates ‘historical trends’ – when he overcame illness and other setbacks in his youth and so his mental focus is on matters like having to pay for an extra aeroplane seat if too fat; which shirt to put on tomorrow, and how to pay the utilities.
Compare this to scenario 2, where another old man lies on his sick bed. He reflects fondly on his past life; says goodbye to his family and friends and graciously moves into the next INEVITABLE phase of his existence here on earth – the phase of death.
He has accomplished his purpose in life, is pleased with the results and has finished the course….
The earth is an old man with all the terminal ailments that WILL lead to imminent death.
We can spend the family fortune on medical bills to enrich the doctors -and leave the family broke when we die anyway…(otherwise called stimulus packages).
… or we can accept reality and prepare ourselves for a graceful exit.
…I know!! Most of us will mortgage the house for the (10% chance) operation that may give us another 2 months…
What a great blessing for those humans who have come to understand the purpose of our existence, and who have finished the course and who need not fear the future.
David // April 19, 2009 at 10:16 AM
@Bush tea
You belief gives rise to a very foreboding spectre. Whether true are not the point we are making is that your position runs counter to the greatest quality of all which has driven mankind for generations…HOPE!
This goes to explain the scepticism at play.
Yardbroom // April 19, 2009 at 10:39 AM
@ Bush Tea
“What a great blessing for those humans who have come to understand the purpose of our existence, and who have finished the course and who need not fear the future.”
The above is so profound that on this blessed Sunday one cannot but be pleased to have read it, however, BT please indulge me and explain…make it simple…what is the purpose of man’s existence?
Thanks
Yardbroom
Bush Tea // April 19, 2009 at 10:45 AM
@ David
…matter of perspective my friend.
‘Foreboding’ is the word that I would use to describe the majority situation that you seek to explain.
A situation where the purpose of our existence is to live here on earth and seek temporary comfort in the accumulation of goods and to enjoy a relatively ‘peaceful’ three score and ten.
This situation has always been challenging at best, but of late, we have seen unprecedented threats and clear indications that it is not sustainable -even in its flawed state. – now THAT is foreboding.
HOPE, however seems far more appropriate in a situation where one understands that this ‘life’ has merely been a temporary crucible, specially designed to engender a characteristic that really could not be created in any other way.
Something called CHARACTER.
As the process draws to an inevitable end, those ‘in the know’ must be eagerly looking forward to the next phase where this developed character will undergo the next exciting phase of development…. Talk about ‘HOPE’…
David // April 19, 2009 at 11:16 AM
@Bush Tea
You admit its all a matter of perspective, subjective even, not empirically substantiated. If this is indeed the case what makes thin people right and fat people wrong?
RE Engineer // April 19, 2009 at 12:23 PM
@ST
Thank you for the link, It was very interesting to say the least. I had not seen that approach before and it makes good sense. It sparked me to think about the price elasticity of demand of most things here in Barbados. Because it seems the cost of just about everything goes up without any or little proportional reduction in demand. Especially in the energy sector, we heard terrible cries of high prices from the public, but very little change in behaviour and no significant fall in demand to my knowledge. I would like an economist or psychologist to explain the reasons for this to me.
@David
Reverting to the principal contribution. I am yet to see this fat vs slim person face off. How does this infringe on the rights of an obese person? The airlines are not saying don’t fly it is just saying to do so safely and comfortably you need to get an extra seat.
Micro Mock Engineer // April 19, 2009 at 12:36 PM
BT,
The universe was created 13.7 billion years ago, followed by earth 4.5 billion years ago, followed by abiogenesis about 4 billion years ago, then hominids 0.006 billion years ago and man around 0.00015 billion years ago. Old man indeed! :-)
Lots more evolving (improvements and accomplishments) to go BT. Hold strain… don’t rush the brush. I have to say though, it takes some measure of arrogance for MMEs to conclude that our 1/100,000th time spent in this creation represents any sort of accomplishment.
Bush Tea // April 19, 2009 at 12:39 PM
David, No one in their right mind would see this as a matter of fat people being ‘wrong’ and slim people being ‘right’.
…more like fat people being big and slim people being smaller… with the natural consequences. If you take up two or three seats, how can you reasonably expect to pay for one?
If you eating all the food in the house how you expect to contribute the same as a bone shaker? LOL
Just like fools are more easily separated from their money than the wise, and just like most women prefer taller men etc etc … there are consequences for our various conditions – even if we are ‘not to blame’ for that condition.
…so this is just another non vital issue that distracts our attention ….while Rome burns.
Micro Mock Engineer // April 19, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Straight talk, Straight talk, Straight talk… back at it again I see :-)
I just read the report you linked. It is well researched and written, but IMHO the Professor makes two fundamental errors in his analysis. The first relates to oil pricing, which we have cleared up before on the Submissions thread last year. Oil prices are NOT determined by negotiations between the seller (e.g. Saudi Arabia) and the buyer (e.g. refiners) as he implies on page 17. Prices are determined by the average futures prices for the particular reference crude… Px = Pr +/- D remember? Some big investors (henceforth referred to as manipulators), who have no intention of ever receiving or refining a drop of oil, have far greater influence on oil futures prices than do the refiners.
The second error in my opinion is one of omission. I agree with the Professor that low demand elasticity is a factor in the upward pressure on prices, but this is only part of the picture. Low supply elasticity is a far greater contributing factor in this instance… and whether you believe that oil has peaked or not, refining capacity cannot respond in the timeframe required to meet the speculative demands of market manipulators. These market manipulators are very aware of this, and have the deep pockets to take advantage of lax regulations. I do agree with his (and your) view that the oil price bubble precipitated the economic collapse… the question is, was this economic collapse (as opposed to profit) the real motive of the manipulators? (Thought I would end on a note that would satisfy your conspiracy bent) :-)
David // April 19, 2009 at 1:15 PM
@BT @ RE
For years regular passengers had to tolerate smokers in the back cabin.
We still have to tolerate the crying babies.
We still have to tolerate passengers with weak bladders.
Is it not reasonable to extend the argument to ’space’ instead of localizing to a ’seat’?
BTW MME are we to believe that Sarena Willians has dropped to #2 even though the #1 has not won a major championship?
Micro Mock Engineer // April 19, 2009 at 2:07 PM
I know David, it does seem odd but its based on the points system of the WTA. Maybe they should have a higher points weighting on grand slam titles… I don’t know. But remember it is not only about the grand slams. Also, this is not the first time… Kim Clijsters, Amelie Mauresmo and Jelena Jankovic achieved #1 in similar fashion.
Safina has won 4 tournaments and placed runner-up in five (two of which were grand slams) over the past year.
Straight talk // April 19, 2009 at 2:11 PM
MME:
Thanks for your semi endorsement of market manipulation being the trigger for the market crash.
I’ll be equally gracious and not mention your stock tips. LOL.
It may be that Goldman Sachs realised their manipulative power whilst destroying Semgroup ( see below) and collapsing the stock market was a price worth paying.
Straight talk // April 19, 2009 at 2:19 PM
MME:
Thanks for your semi endorsement of market manipulation being the trigger for the market crash.
I’ll be equally gracious and not mention your stock tips. LOL.
It may be that Goldman Sachs realised their manipulative power whilst destroying Semgroup ( see below) and collapsing the stock market was a price worth paying.
Goldman Sachs Caused Oil Price Spike Last Summer – SemGroup CEO Alleges
March 27, 2009 by Adam
Filed under: News Articles
“When oil prices spiked last summer to $147 a barrel, the biggest corporate casualty was oil pipeline giant Semgroup Holdings, a $14 billion (sales) private firm in Tulsa, Okla. It had racked up $2.4 billion in trading losses betting that oil prices would go down, including $290 million in accounts personally managed by then chief executive Thomas Kivisto. Its short positions amounted to the equivalent of 20% of the nation’s crude oil inventories. With the credit crunch eliminating any hope of meeting a $500 million margin call, Semgroup filed for bankruptcy on July 22.
But now some of the people involved in cleaning up the financial mess are suggesting that Semgroup’s collapse was more than just bad judgment and worse timing. There is evidence of a malevolent hand at work: oil price manipulation by traders orchestrating a short squeeze to push up the price of West Texas Intermediate crude to the point that it would generate fatal losses in Semgroup’s accounts. . . .
Some answers may emerge in late March when former FBI director Louis Freeh releases a report on the trading surrounding Semgroup’s demise. He was hired by Semgroup and given subpoena power by the bankruptcy court judge in Delaware. Meanwhile the Securities & Exchange Commission is investigating, and lawyers involved in the bankruptcy say that Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau’s office is looking into the actions of New York firms in the collapse. His office declines to comment.” Click for ARTICLE
* Did Goldman Goose Oil?
* Christopher Helman and Liz Moyer
* Forbes Magazine
* April 13, 2009
We have never alleged manipulation in any of our reports or Congressional testimony because we never had any firsthand knowledge. But there has always been a sneaking suspicion that where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Seems like somebody with firsthand knowledge is now coming forward and just might blow the lid off what the Stock Jockey calls “The Other Crime of the Century.”
By the way, when the ivory tower academics talk about how futures prices must reflect physical market supply and demand (not realizing that the futures price IS the spot price) they assume that physical market players that think prices are too high will sell futures and drive the price back down. But here we see that SemGroup a physical player who believed prices were too high (and was right!) actually got squeezed out of their short positions (which were 20% of U.S. physical inventories) by speculators which made oil prices spike even higher.
The Scout // April 19, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Getting back to the issue of fat people and aircraft seating, it is the right of a passenger to be comfortable in the seat that person pays for. Some fat people sitting next to an average size person, usually lifts the centre bar and this allows them to invade the other persons space hence inconviniencing that person. then fat people are usually restless and each time they move they are squeezing the person next to them especially if that person is on the inner seat. Imagine sitting there for a 8 or 9 hrs flight? Don’t even talk about wanting to go to the toilet!!!! that is a disaster. I’m not comdeming fat people but one must realise that average people have rights too
Micro Mock Engineer // April 19, 2009 at 2:55 PM
LOL ST. It sounds like we are on the same page for now, so I should probably ignore your swipe at my stock tip.
But, for benefit of amnesics and new ‘BU’ initiates… between May 15th and 30th 2008 that tip provided returns of 9.45% (or $9,450 for two weeks of ‘work’). I pointed this out at the time (http://bajan.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/oil-increases-challenges/#comment-28186), but since you, BT and David made mock sport at the earnings, I stopped providing you with portfolio updates LOL
David // April 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM
@MME
At our twilight stage in life we will stick with blue chip investments thank you :-)
Take your point about the WTA rankings but we see the F1 people have made a similar change. Wonder if it has something to do with a Black driver winning the way he did last year?
livinginbarbados // April 19, 2009 at 4:17 PM
@Straight Talk
I have no idea what your comment means. What “old economics”? Wasn’t the Great Depression part of some old economics? In any event, there is not one universe of ideas in economics, but certain things like supply and demand dont get reinvented with the seasons.
The piece on Goldmans and Semgroup is a classic example. Take a big bet when you cannot control the game and you are more likely to lose; even Bank of England found that out with Soros and the pound.
The airlines have a range of problems, but their pinching at the edges do not change those fundamental problems. The industry is in various stages of chaos but does more to dissaude travel the encourage it (don’t know if that is old economics).
David // April 19, 2009 at 4:27 PM
@livinginbarbados
Have to agree with you. A google will support your point that airline load factors have been decreasing in 2009 and the industry is projected to lose 2.5 billion. Why would they roll out measures to discourage travel? Makes you go heh?
Micro Mock Engineer // April 19, 2009 at 5:06 PM
David,
I know that they changed the ranking system in January, but I never really paid much attention as they didn’t affect the rankings at the time. I don’t think the change was racially motivated, but the fact that Safina’s performance at Indian Wells in March (a venue that the Williams sisters have boycotted for the past 8 years after being racially targeted by fans) would have played a part in her ‘squeezing’ into top spot, does leave a sour taste. I like Safina, but she is definitely not in Serena’s league yet. Once she gets over that injury to her left thigh, Serena is likely to regain the top spot in short order. Safina’s efforts to justify her #1 ranking and hold off Serena should make for good tennis (and gate receipts) this year. Venus is still my #1 though :-)
Not a fan of F1, but from what I have read I think you may be correct about the motivation there. I understand they have reinstated the old rules for 2009.
Bush Tea // April 19, 2009 at 5:38 PM
@David
Is the attempted point by LIB not to suggest that there is no such thing as ‘old economics’?
Everyone knows that the airline industry is in deep recession, even without google.
The concept of ‘old economics’ as hinted by ST, (I would suggest,) is one that focusses on the completely warped economic conditions that has enveloped our world in the last 18 months.
NO ONE (and that includes my friend MME,LOL) has been able to conceptalize an economic theory to explain the frustrating confusion that presently reigns.
Clearly the supply and demand relationships that dominated the thinking of economist until recently has not been applicable of late.
….so I do not understand what you and Livinginbarbados are talkin about…
…by the way, Bush Tea has offered the actual explanation for the current confusion (death bed convulsions) , however I expect that BU members are waiting for the fat lady to sing first….
….let’s see if Susan Boyle’s role is recognized….
livinginbarbados // April 19, 2009 at 6:49 PM
@Bush Tea
Thanks for trying to interpret Straight Talk. He ought to clarify for us, though.
Your point that “Clearly the supply and demand relationships that dominated the thinking of economist until recently has not been applicable of late.” is not a new thing in economics, but happens all the time. While you are moving through changes in old relationships, it’s hard for anyone to say that they understand, but we each still have to go with our best understanding of how things worked in the past and if past relationships will be re-established–they often are, but with different time lags.
This is not something peculiar to economics, though. People thought the world was flat. Time was that medical thinking was that all diseases needed was treatment with leaches. Who would have thought that injecting people would a virus would produce cures?
livinginbarbados // April 19, 2009 at 7:04 PM
…injecting people WITH a virus would produce cures…
Straight talk // April 19, 2009 at 7:13 PM
LIB;
I think you make my point far better than I ever could.
Lamont relied on traditional Keynesian philosophy to defend the pound, and he lost, big style.
Any true market, besides supply and demand, needs information freely available to both parties to settle the fair price.
In today’s scenario, we have Geithner picking his winners and losers seemingly ad hoc, Bernanke the expert on 1929 printing money like there is no tomorrow for our kids, and Obama, smiling all the while, with pithy soundbites as if he knows what the hell is going on at the Treasury and Fed,
With this skewed market in panic mode, can you Denis with your classical training tell us poor ignorant Bajans what is to become of our tied in currency.
Can your old economics answer just three ofour basic questions?
At what point will China and Saudi call a halt to the printing of dollar bills?
What are the implications for the BDS$ of the PPIS’s open ended commitment?
When should we decouple from the doomed dollar?
livinginbarbados // April 19, 2009 at 8:44 PM
@Straight Talk
I’m still unclear on “old economics” but let that pass.
I don’t see “market in panic mode”. Sorry, it’s just not true.
I’m not going to assume that “poor ignorant Bajan” is the right description of most of this country. I think the answers to your question are not straight forward, because the links are at the least very unclear. I personally am not someone who believes the US dollar is doomed, as far as I can see (which may well be only over a two year horizon).
Anyone (old or new economics, whatever those are) can proffer a view on the three questions.
The Chinese and Saudis will put on the pressure whenever they feel they need to, but would you want to talk down the value of many of your assets? But neither is ready to assume a leadership role, so cannot really dictate economic terms.
The Public-Private Investment Program, PPIP, designed to buy bad assets from banks, is not open-ended to my mind. Banks cannot declare all their assets toxic.
Decoupling is to do what? Float freely. Managed float? Link to something else?
Dark Knight // April 20, 2009 at 9:17 AM
@ David // April 18, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Listening to a debate in the Senate recently we were pleased to learn that the government is currently working on a policy document to regulate standards for alternative energy.
They expect this to take about two years. There was also criticism directed at the last government regarding its lack of leadership in the area of wind energy
………………………………………….
I hope you know that this is froth. But no one challenged what you wrote.
I can only express regret at the level of ignorance in our society. But why should I be surprised.
Christopher Sinckler said that Barbadians do not understand politics and parliamentary procedure or how a government works: a diplomatic way of saying that people who do not have a clue – changed the last government.
Why should anyone be surprised when – despite all the warnings and the threat to lost of life – people still have unprotected sex with total strangers?
This topic speaks to two important issues: wellness promotion and the absence of leadership in this area presently and Barbados’ National Energy Policy.
Here is something else to consider!!!
This topic highlights the fact that Barbadians are being price-gouged on petroleum products and that this country’s Offshore Oil Exploration Programme has been derailed by an intellectually weak DLP outfit.
We now see the folly also of the DLP scrapping plans for a sugar cane industry.
At this point is should be clear that agriculture is about more than African snails; rat poison, 4H and sweet peppers.
David made a baseless allegation as regards an alleged lack of leadership by the BLP in the area of wind energy.
The facts do not support that slip of the fingers!
Here is the truth: The same National Strategic Plan 2006-2025 that the DLP refused to debate. ( Pg. 213 and 214)
By the way, it was the BLP that passed a National Energy Policy in Parliament as well as a comprehensive policy on the Green Economy – the same policy the DLP mocked but now seeks to steal as DLP innovation.
Here is page 214 of the National Strategic Plan:
“As an alternative to oil base energy products, the use of wind, solar, photovoltaic, landfill gas and sugar cane, as renewable energy source, will increasingly be pursues.
Acting as a buffer against unforeseeable shocks, the alternatives will serve to ensure a continuation of Barbados growth and development, benefiting both the commercial and household sections of the economy.
Strategies
1.1 Develop a 50-megawatt (MW) wind energy capacity.
1.2 Expand the installation of solar water heaters
1.3 Establish a commercial solar photovoltaic (PV)
1.4 Establish landfill gas to energy plan
1.5 Use sugar cane as a fuel for the production of ethanol and electricity.”
That these plans have now been abandoned by the DLP because oil prices are a third of what they were – should be considered an un-patriotic act of treason.
I am beginning to see why the BLP was voted out of office.
Forming a government has nothing to do with being bright**. If that was the case the DLP would never win.
It has nothing to do with having superior plans or the best and most noble intentions.
None of the above is in the DLP’s manifesto on any document published by it.
I must therefore thank BU for constantly reminding the world of that fact.**
Foolbert // April 20, 2009 at 10:33 AM
@Dark Knight
You should have realised that by now more people choose to identify with not
being bright. The DEMS exploited this to their advantage. People seem to think that striving for the best results should be scorned rather than practised. Yet the Early DEMS touted education as a means of uplifting the lower social group. How unfortunate that the majority does not make full use of education. The statistics from poverty bear out the fact that the lower social groups do not take full advantage of their education and use it as a tool to better themselves. We should seek to emulate what is good and not settle for mediocrity and not envy and despise those who seek to strive for higher standards.
No wonder that the minister of education recently hinted about cuts in spending on education.
Just imagine what would happen if ther are severe cuts and bruises to the education budget.
Dark Knight // April 20, 2009 at 10:48 AM
@ Foolbert
You are right old chap.
The world has passed the DLP some years ago. It is today a mere shell of what it was under the Rt. Excellent E.W Barrow.
Look how the DLP won the government: 90 and 100 day promises!
The DLP is of the view that anyone can be bought once the price is right.
In Opposition, the DLP said that the economy was in shambles – yet promised Barbadians the sun and the moon, and – along with the $15 million in campaign funds from Clico – the rest is history.
But what sweeten goat mout does….!
In any country that values edcuation and rewards being bright – the citizens would have spotted a trademark DLP scam.
3000 have so far lost thier jobs and the list is growing. The cost of living has doubled and the DLP blame the global financial crisis: of course too stupid and intellectually weak to know that the global financial crisis is really a blessing for Barbados and the DLP.
Having de-railed Barbados’ Offshore Oil Exploration Programme and messed-up Barbados National Energy drive – I could not believe my ears when I heard Thompson say that he is wishing for the US Economy to get back on track real soon.
David Thompson serves as a reminder that you do not have to be bright to be Prime Minister of Barbados.
Friend, it is not you whose call-sign should be Foolbert!!!
Inkwell // April 20, 2009 at 3:57 PM
I can understand you ignoring me, Bush Tea, but when a BU family member of Yardbroom’s stature asks you to explain for him the purpose of our existence, which you have clearly indicated you know, and you ignore him even after he so graciously genuflected to your profundity, I am left in a state of open mouthed astonishment, not to mention disappointment.
Come on, BT, I am holding my breath in anticipation, and I know Yardbroom is too. You wouldn’t want to be the cause of our untimely demise, without ever finding out our purpose, would you?
livinginbarbados // April 21, 2009 at 7:13 PM
@Bush Tea
“Can you point to anything important in the last decade that has indicated that ‘historical behaviour/trend’ or ‘known positions’ continue to hold any sway in today’s world?”
September 11, 2001. A group of people sought to attack another group with terrificly fearsome weapons, namely by flying jet planes into buildings where civilians were working in a major city in the United States of America (USA). The attackers, Muslims, argued that they have unleased a holy war against infidels.The USA, mainly, but not wholly Christians, then sought to unleash a wave of reprisals against those whom it thought were the perpetrators of this violent act. That sounds like a variation of the time worn adage ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. Plus ca change, plus la meme chose.
Bush Tea // April 21, 2009 at 8:39 PM
@ Inkwell /Yardbroom
I am surprised that you two could have missed -what may have been the longest thread ever on BU- when the topic ‘What is the purpose of our existence’ was fully ventilated (over 1000 posts).
My summary of that purpose;
“‘Life on earth’ is a phase of the process of procreation among the spiritual beings that we refer to as God.”
@livinginbarbados
I have to tell you that your logic continues to elude me.
The ‘established realities’ of the last 10 centuries was centered around the golden rule.
i.e. he who has the gold, rules.
911 was a clear case of a minor miscreant, hiding in a cave in a poor failed country setting the agenda, creating fear, and creating a watershed event in global realities.
Did you not see the greatest military power EVER to have existed, then go into another ragged country (Iraq) and be humiliated?
Does that sound like business as usual to you?
Is a black man not now president of the USA?
Is a small ‘resourceless’, powerless island not near the top of the the human development index?
….my friend, the ‘established realities’ are all upsided down…. or as was said of the final days of this phase of life on earth, “the first shall be last and the last first….”
@MME
I just saw your comment about the age of the planet etc….
I remind you again, that time is a concept that has been created to constrain the temporary beings called MMEs (mankind).
In the REAL (read spiritual) realm, it matters not if we are talking 1 day or 20 billion years – or even light years….
….see therefore, if you can deduce why questions such as ‘who created (and therefore preceded) God are invalid questions…
Time is but a prison wall for MMEs. It is not a factor in spiritual equations…
Iain Edghill // April 23, 2009 at 6:54 PM
This string has gone waaay off topic. To get back to the issue of obese people and airlines, if you can’t fit into the economy-class seat, you can either:
1] Buy 2 economy-class seats and raise the arm rest and ask for a seatbelt extension, or
2] Buy a business-class seat, which is wider.
The airlines use 180 lbs as the average weight for a male, and 140 for a female. At 180 lbs, on a 4 hour flight, a male passenger will cause the aircraft to burn 28.8 lbs of fuel or 3.69 imperial gallons or 16.78 litres of fuel. A 300 lb passenger will require 48 lbs of fuel, 6.15 imp. gal, or 27.97 litres.
Do the math. Seems pretty simple to me. 4% of the additional weight X length of flight = surcharge.
Anonymous // April 24, 2009 at 4:49 PM
OR YOU COULD LOSE SOME WEIGHT
HOW ABOUT THAT
me // April 24, 2009 at 5:31 PM
I dont know but It seems to me that that being morbidly obese means that you wont fit into most spaces…
So either
1. the Airplines to make FAT -FRiendly seats. Have a few dedicated FAT seats
2.Fat people have to lose some weight
3. Give anorexic people discounts
4. Make bigger planes
5. have McDs and burger king work with them to reduce the fat in the american diet..
Yardbroom // April 24, 2009 at 5:38 PM
@Inkwell
Thanks for the prompt to Bush Tea.
@ Bush Tea
I do not wish to stray from this tread, so please forgive me.
Thanks again.
Micro Mock Engineer // April 25, 2009 at 7:50 AM
@BT,
“Time is but a prison wall for MMEs.”
I agree.
“It is not a factor in spiritual equations”
I disagree.
Time is an essential ingredient in this “temporary crucible, specially designed to engender a characteristic that really could not be created in any other way.”
Micro Mock Engineer // April 25, 2009 at 7:54 AM
… the spiritual equation is influenced by how you spend your time in the crucible.
Bush Tea // April 25, 2009 at 9:04 AM
…You have lost me MME!! All I was saying was that …
Spiritual equations (matters related to and pertaining to BBE) are time independent.
Human matters (crucible stuff related MMEs) are totally time dependent.
How an MME spends his /her time in the crucible determines their eligibility to move into the ‘time independent’ realm.
….apologies to those not up to date with the technical language LOL.
Micro Mock Engineer // April 25, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Man BT… would you design a hundred-year lab if you expected the experiment to last one millisecond? :-)
J // April 25, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Iain Edghill wrote on April 23 at 6:54
“The airlines use 180 lbs as the average weight for a male, and 140 for a female.”
But surely aviation is based on FACTS and on SCIENCE. The fact is that the average Bajan, or American or Canadian does not weigh 180 for a man and 140 for the woman. The average weights are higher, much, much, much higher. We may argue that the average weights ought not to be so high. But surely the airlines have a responsibility to use scientifically accurate average weights, instead of some averages that they pulled from a long ago fairy land.
Bush Tea // April 26, 2009 at 10:07 AM
@MME
Think about it…
If time was meaningless to me, I may design it to last a million years – or a trillion even, – for the 1 millisecond experiment…
Micro Mock Engineer // April 26, 2009 at 11:58 AM
@BT,
I can’t argue with that logic. I agree… we have been provided infinitely more time and physical resources than we need to successfully meet the objectives of this phase. :-)
Asiba-The Buffalo Soldier-'why should I wear a jacket and tie' // April 28, 2009 at 8:23 AM
The Thread has destroyed by nonsense
Iain Edghill // April 28, 2009 at 11:06 AM
J, that is a very good question. Please allow me to answer that.
“But surely aviation is based on FACTS and on SCIENCE. The fact is that the average Bajan, or American or Canadian does not weigh 180 for a man and 140 for the woman. The average weights are higher, much, much, much higher. We may argue that the average weights ought not to be so high. But surely the airlines have a responsibility to use scientifically accurate average weights, instead of some averages that they pulled from a long ago fairy land.”
All commercial aircraft use accurate weight-and-balance figures for the safe dispatch of the flight. What happens is that when flight dispatch is calculating the fuel required for a particular flight, e.g. Barbados-Toronto, they first take the OEW [operational empty weight] of the aircraft, and add to that weight the PLANNED passenger and cargo load using those pesky average weights of passengers. That is done to come up with a ZFW [zero-fuel weight: weight of aircraft, passengers, baggage and cargo]
Once the ZFW is established [and for estimates each passenger is assumed to have the maximum allowable baggage allotment], environmental factors are applied. This is called WAT [weight, altitude and temperature] calculations. By way of a simple example, the higher the temperature, the higher the elevation, the more runway required for take-off. And because all runways have a finite amount of asphalt [e.g. Runway 24R in Toronto is 9500 ft. long], all calculations have to cater to this prime constraint.
All this will have an impact on the allowable MTOW [Maximum Take-Off Weight]. Each runway at every airport in the world has pre-calculated WAT data. So when planning our theoretical flight from Barbados to Toronto, the dispatcher knows that he will be using Runway 09 at GAIA, and he knows what the WAT restrictions are. So all this information goes into the flight planning computer [when I started out in civil aviation, we had to do it manually] and it spits out a fuel clearance [the amount of fuel required for the flight, plus alternate airport fuel, plus reserves]. The idea is, in these tough economic times, with the cost of fuel being as high as it is, is to plan the flight using the minimum amount of fuel required for the safe completion of the flight, bearing in mind all the constraints I have previously mentioned. Remember also that it costs 4% per flight hour to carry extra fuel [see my earlier post], In other words, you will burn 4% per hour of all the extra fuel you carry [extra 2,000 lbs over 5 hours is 400 lbs of fuel burned to carry that fuel].
But this is where it gets tricky sometimes. Depending on passenger loads, destination weather and many other factors, the flight may be what we call “WAT limited.” So that is when the passenger load is further broken down into what is called “male-female-child” breakdown and those figures are somewhat higher, 188 lbs for male, 145 for female and I forget what it is for children [these numbers are based on statistical averages taken from official sources]
All possible variables are tried and if the numbers still don’t add up [after all the #1 constraint is getting the aircraft off the ground safely within the available runway length], then cargo has to be reduced, or passenger load limited.
All passenger bags are weighed and the weight is automatically entered into the load-planning computer. But can you imagine the outcry J, if the check-in agent asked every passenger to step on the scale? Infringements of human rights, lawsuits for invasion of privacy, especially in the Lawsuit-addicted USA, fights at the check-in counter by embarrassed obese passengers. No, sorry, can’t do that, so the best alternative is the use of average weights.
It usually all works very well without having to embarrass over-weight passengers, especially if the aircraft is a high-performance jet like a B767. There is almost always enough fudge-space to get it done. Having said that, I can remember having to delay take-off in Delhi until the temperature dropped to 34C because we were WAT-limited, passenger-load restricted, cargo-restricted, simply because Delhi only had 12,000 ft of runway. And I can tell you that when those main-gear wheels left the pavement, there wasn’t a whole lot of asphalt left.
So J, I hope that explains things a little better, and rest assured that these calculations are based on scientific data and are not numbers that are just pulled out of a hat to irritate already-irate passengers.
Best Regards,
Iain.
David // April 28, 2009 at 11:19 AM
@Iain
The point you should address if you can is the significant reduction
in baggage allowable per passenger. Was there a corresponding increase
in the statistical average per passenger?
Iain Edghill // April 28, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Hello David!
As far as I know, the reduction in allowable baggage per passenger was brought on by the increase in the cost of aviation fuel, which was caused by the oil-price rise. All airlines tried desperately to reduce fuel costs by reducing aircraft weight [remember the 4% rule? That applies to baggage as well], and the less baggage weight on-board, the less fuel burned. They couldn’t very well ask passengers to reduce their personal weight so they took the past of least resistance and the most expeditious route by reducing baggage allowances. Now that oil prices have retreated, airlines have kept the reduced baggage allowances in order to further maintain their lowered fuel bills.
As far as I know, there was no increase in the statistical average weight per passenger. Interestingly, back in the 1960’s and 70’s the allowable weight per passenger bag was 44lbs, exactly what it is today, 20 kgs [44 lbs].
The thing about this is that it applies to all airlines equally. The 4% fuel burn rule doesn’t just apply to Air Canada, or Virgin, or Cathay Pacific: it applies to all airlines and they all followed suit once one airline instituted the baggage-weight allowance reductions.
What is interesting is that the reduction in allowable baggage weight has been followed by a corresponding increase in the amount of carry-on luggage. In Europe, carry-on luggage can not weigh more than 5 kgs. The next step will be the weighing of ALL carry-on luggage.
Best Regards,
Iain.
David // April 28, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Not sure if our resident engineers would want to quiz you on this point. One would have thought, given the chest beating from MME et al that the engineering design of the jet plane would have improved to make a few pounds mute :-). But we take the point, the airlines have retained the reduced baggage allowance to try and recoup!
Iain Edghill // April 29, 2009 at 12:34 PM
David, BU’s resident engineers notwithstanding, one thing that has never changed, and will never change, in aircraft design is the fact that weight = fuel burn. Engine technology can improve, the advent of “super-critical wing technology” can increase the specific range of aircraft, but the inescapable fact remains constant: the heavier the aircraft the more fuel it will burn. It’s like 60 m.p.h. will always be 88 ft/sec: immutable. Boeing, for example, introduced recirculation fans on its aircraft in order to save on fuel consumption.
This is why the main issue with aircraft design today is weight and the increasing use of composite materials to reduce aircraft weight. This was the main issue which caused production delays with the Airbus A380, and is holding up the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner, among other issues of course.
So the phrase “make a few pounds mute” is rather naive and places more faith in engineering than even I, as a former airline pilot, have. I am reminded of the saying, “By making technology our THEOLOGY, we have managed to raise our standard OF living while lowering our standards FOR living.” But that is a philosophical question and for another thread.
Best Regards,
Iain Edghill.
Iain Edghill // April 29, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Hello again David. With the greatest of respect to MME and his colleagues, one of the constants in the aviation business is that weight = fuel burn.
Even with the tremendous modern innovations and advances in aircraft design, including super-critical wings, winglets and high-bypass turbofans, all of which are designed for one purpose only, to enable aircraft to fly further on a litre of fuel, the one variable that has not changed is the maxim, “It costs fuel to carry payload.”
This is why all the newer airliners have faced such design problems in keeping weight down so that performance guarantees will be met. Tinkering with designs to further increase specific range, such as installing winglets and recirculation fans can go only so far. The only sure way to reduce fuel burn is to reduce the weight of the aircraft.
Engineering design can go only so far. What will never be a moot point in civil aviation is the 4% rule that we’ve discussed. And there’s nothing that MME or any other engineer can do about that. Physics and gravity have seen to that.
All the Best,
Iain.