Is anyone else’s baloney meter in the red?
I am talking about the same sensor that went off when O.J. Simpson flayed his fingers while he ‘struggled’ to put them in the glove, and said: “It doesn’t fit!”
The official government line is that American Airlines Flight 587, on Nov. 12, was ‘likely’ blown apart by the trailing vortex of a 747. Blown apart by a wake? Or was it a butterfly fluttering by? Come on.
The ‘conversation’ supplied below is, unfortunately, plausible. Reason being, American and Canadian governments, their free-market reputations notwithstanding, are notoriously protective of pet businesses.
FBI Director: “Mr. President. We have evidence that the airliner was shot down by a terrorist surface-to-air missile.”
U.S. President George W. Bush: “We absolutely cannot tell the public that. People will panic. No one will fly, and the airline industry will be decimated.”
FBI: “To save the industry, may I propose that we leave the cause of the accident as ‘unknown?’ ”
Bush: “Is that possible?”
FBI: “The only way to prove a missile was responsible would be through explosive-residue tests. We have control over those tests, sir. If we say there is no evidence of a missile, no one could confidently dispute it.”
Bush: “What kind of alternative explanation could you give?”
FBI: “We’ll come up with something. If we string out the investigation long enough, people will gradually lose interest. Investigations of this sort can take years (wink, wink).”
The above is highly speculative, but so is the official wake-turbulence theory. Unfortunately, the facts underlying my imaginary conversation are all true. Our leaders are fearful of unbalancing the entire airline industry, dozens of corroborating witness accounts are being ignored, residue tests are kept secret, the wake theory is flimsy and the investigation is expected to “take months.”
Moreover, there are alarming similarities between Flight 587 and TWA 800, which crashed six years ago and ever since has been plagued by groundless conspiracy theories. Both had recently departed from Kennedy Airport on clear days, many witnesses reported explosions before the planes hit the ground. Both planes reportedly had smoke trails associated with them, faced credible threats, suffered sudden, extreme demise, and involved secretive and prolonged investigations. Both are unsolved with implausible official theories.
But why do I propose that our leaders might be obfuscating? Because it would be consistent of them to protect us from such a harsh reality.
The record over the past 80 or so years indicates that federal politicians tend to favour fantasy over reality – protectionism over hard competition – when their ‘chosen’ businesses face threats.
To wit in Canada, the so-called flagship carrier, Air Canada, is getting pampered, via closed skies and government handouts to the tune of $100 million. Bush is doing the same thing with the major airlines south of the border (closed skies and $15 billion since Sept. 11).
This modus operandi poses a far greater threat to our economies than airline-industry collapse. Today, we are at risk of losing faith in our leaders. Compared to that, who cares about a few airlines?
Business owners, managers and visionaries face harsh realities every day, but we must have good intelligence to make our decisions. By sheltering the air industry with subsidies and such, our governments fall into a trap.
Unfortunately, in the long run, this ‘support’ will only make the problems worse.
An extreme example of protectionism gone wrong dates back to the Great Depression. The 1920s saw enormous growth in the tractor industry. From 30,000 in 1916, yearly U.S. tractor production mushroomed to about 220,000 in 1929.
Unfortunately, the so-called laissez-faire government of President Herbert Hoover focused instead on the concomitant declining price of wheat. Assuming the drop in price was temporary, his government decided to protect farmers from facing this harsh reality, which was forcing farmers either to cut costs or close shop.
After all, the reasoning went, if the price of wheat was allowed to stay so low, rural America was going to disappear. Who would feed the nation?
These fears prompted the American government to start purchasing the surplus wheat, effectively worsening the pending depression by pushing the price even lower long-term through increased surpluses, and the amount of bad debt higher through increased mortgages.
Tractor technology was driving wheat down, which in turn was driving workers out of the rural labour force. They were now largely redundant. But because Hoover couldn’t imagine what all those poor farm labourers were going to do for a living, he effectively pushed their plight further into the future, and deeper into the ground.
Which leads me back to North America, 2001. If we can’t imagine how our airlines will revitalize themselves, it is no reason to shelter them from what appears, on the surface at least, to be serious attacks on airlines. It will only make it worse.
If anyone thinks that fear is not governing official decisions regarding airlines, hear what Darryl Jenkins of George Washington University’s Airline Institute said to the Washington Post about Flight 587’s effect on the industry: “If management gets out front (to apologize for mistakes), they are OK. But terrorism would about put us all under. It’s much worse than anything else.”
Such assumptions about a panicky public and industry-wide demise discount businesses’ ability to innovate, and the public’s ability to intelligently handle bad news.
Look at Israel. Even after Sept. 11, it is the country most harshly affected by terrorism. In fact, with all the attacks, Israel has, arguably, the most vibrant economy in the Middle East and the safest airline in the world.
If Calgary’s WestJet has taught us anything, it is that good business will outsmart downturns.
And if history has taught us anything, it is that market “protectionism” hurts the protected.
No reaction to hijackings and bombings and possible missile attacks would mitigate the threats on the industry more than truly open skies, and a few fat airlines failing.
And if general panic worries Bush and Prime Minister Jean Chretien, nothing makes me panic more than official bailouts and baloney.
