This guy rocks!!! Frankly, I'd be surprised if he doesn't get picked up by Hong Kong's mainstream media in three months.

By Christopher Elliott
The New York Times
April 25, 2006

The airlines have come up with a new answer to an old question: How many passengers can be squeezed into economy class?

A lot more, it turns out, especially if an idea still in the early stage should catch on: standing-room-only "seats."

Airbus has been quietly pitching the standing-room-only option to Asian carriers, though none have agreed to it yet. Passengers in the standing section would be propped against a padded backboard, held in place with a harness, according to experts who have seen a proposal.

But even short of that option, carriers have been slipping another row or two of seats into coach by exploiting stronger, lighter materials developed by seat manufacturers that allow for slimmer seatbacks. The thinner seats theoretically could be used to give passengers more legroom but, in practice, the airlines have been keeping the amount of space between rows the same, to accommodate additional rows.

The result is an additional 6 seats on a typical Boeing 737, for a total of 156, and as many as 12 new seats on a Boeing 757, for a total of 200.

That such things are even being considered is a result of several factors. High fuel costs, for example, are making it difficult for carriers to turn a profit. The new seat technology alone, when used to add more places for passengers, can add millions in additional annual revenue. The new designs also reduce a seat's weight by up to 15 pounds, helping to hold down fuel consumption. A typical seat in economy class now weighs 74 to 82 pounds.

"There is clearly pressure on carriers to make the total passenger count as efficient as possible," said Howard Guy, a director for Design Q, a seating design consultant in England. "After all, the fewer seats that are put on board, the more expensive the seat price becomes. It's basic math."

Even as the airlines are slimming the seatbacks in coach, they are installing seats as thick and heavy as ever in first and business class — and going to great lengths to promote them. That is because each passenger in such a seat can generate several times the revenue of a coach traveler.

At the front of the cabin, the emphasis is on comfort and amenities like sophisticated entertainment systems. Some of the new seats even feature in-seat electronic massagers. And, of course, the airlines have installed lie-flat seats for their premium passengers on international routes.

Seating specialists say that all the publicity airlines devote to their premium seats diverts attention from what is happening in the back of the plane. In the main cabin, they say, manufacturers are under intense pressure to create more efficient seats.

"We make the seats thinner," said Alexander Pozzi, the director for research and development at Weber Aircraft, a seat manufacturer in Gainesville, Tex. "The airlines keep pitching them closer and closer together. We just try to make them as comfortable as we can."

There is one bit of good news in the thinner seats for coach class: They offer slightly more room between the armrests because the electronics are being moved to the seatbacks.

One of the first to use the thinner seats in coach was American Airlines, which refitted its economy-class section seven years ago with an early version made by the German manufacturer Recaro.

"Those seats were indeed thinner than the ones they replaced, allowing more knee and legroom," Tim Smith, a spokesman for American, said. American actually removed two rows in coach, adding about two inches of legroom, when it installed the new seats. It promoted the change with a campaign called "More Room Throughout Coach."

But two years later, to cut costs, American slid the seats closer together and ended its "More Room" program without fanfare. When the changes were completed last year, American said its "density modification program" had added five more seats to the economy-class section of its MD-80 narrow-body aircraft and brought the total seat count to 120 in the back of the plane. A document on an internal American Airlines Web site, which was briefly accessible to the public last week, estimated that the program would generate an additional $60 million a year for its MD-80 fleet.

United Airlines has also used the earlier-generation thin seats. But it held open the possibility that once its current seat stock needs to be replaced, it might try to squeeze in more seats. "We're always looking at options," Brandon Borrman, a spokesman, said.

Airlines can only do so much with their existing fleets to save space. The real opportunities, say seat manufacturers and design experts, are with the new generation of aircraft that are coming soon.

"People hear about these new planes, and they have bowling alleys and barber shops," Michael B. Baughan, the president and chief operating officer of B/E Aerospace, a manufacturer of aircraft cabin interiors in Wellington, Fla., said with a bit of exaggeration. "But that's not how planes are delivered. On a real airline, with real routes, you have to be economically viable."

Perhaps the most extraordinary example of a new jet that could accommodate features unheard of previously is the Airbus A380. There is so much available room on the superjumbo that Virgin Atlantic Airways is even considering placing a beauty salon in its premium-class section. (No final decision has been made, according to the company.) The first A380 is scheduled to be delivered later this year.

With a typical configuration, the A380 will accommodate about 500 passengers. But with standing-room-only seats, the same plane could conceivably fit in 853 passengers, the maximum it would be permitted to carry.

"To call it a seat would be misleading," said Volker Mellert, a physics professor at Oldenburg University in Germany, who has done research on airline seat comfort and has seen the design. If such a configuration were ever installed on an aircraft, he said, it would only be used on short-haul flights like an island-hopping route in Japan.

While an Airbus spokeswoman, Mary Anne Greczyn, played down the idea that Airbus was trying to sell an aircraft that accommodated 853 passengers, the company would not specifically comment on the upright-seating proposal.

There is no legal barrier to installing standing-room seats on an American airliner. The Federal Aviation Administration does not mandate that a passenger be in a sitting position for takeoffs and landings; only that the passenger be secured. Seating must comply only with the agency's rules on the width of aisles and the ability to evacuate quickly in an emergency.

The Air Transport Association, the trade association for the airline industry in the United States, does not have any seat-comfort standards. Nor does it issue any recommendations to its members regarding seating configurations.

The two Asian airlines seen as the most likely to buy a large plane for short-haul flights, All Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines, are lukewarm about the Airbus plan.

"Airbus had talked with us about an 800-seat configuration for domestic flights," said Rob Henderson, a spokesman for All Nippon Airways. "It does not fit with our present plans going forward."

A spokesman for Japan Airlines, Geoffrey Tudor, said Airbus had presented its ideas for using the A380 on short-haul flights, but added, "We have no interest in increasing seat capacity to this level."

Boeing is under similar pressure to squeeze more seats onto its newest aircraft, the midsize Boeing 787. Some airlines are planning to space the seats just 30 inches apart from front to back, or about one inch less than the current average.

And rather than installing eight seats across the two aisles, which would afford passengers additional elbow room, more than half of Boeing's airline customers have opted for a nine-abreast configuration in the main cabin, said Blake Emery, a marketing director at Boeing. Even so, he said, "It will still be as comfortable as any economy-class section today."

Indeed, it is possible to have it both ways: more comfortable seats that are also more compact. For example, the latest economy-class seat from B/E Aerospace, called the ICON, allows the seat bottom to move forward when the seat is reclined, so that it does not steal legroom from the passenger behind it. It also incorporates better ergonomic designs now typically found in the business-class cabin.

But the ICON and similar seats can cost up to three times more than the $1,200 that a standard coach seat costs. That may make them unaffordable to all but a few international airlines that would use the seats on long-haul routes, the experts said.

Some frequent fliers, asked about the slimmer seats, said they feared that the result would be tighter quarters. Some expressed concerns about sharing a cabin with even more passengers and increasing the risk of contracting a communicable disease.

Others were worried about even more passengers sharing the already-tight overhead bin space.

"It seems like every year there is less room for my long legs," said Bud Johnson, who is a frequent traveler for a military contractor in Scottsdale, Ariz. "I'm afraid that's going to continue."

Lately I have watched a bit more regular TV and have constantly been bugged by the level of shamelessly horrible and commercials. Two series of commercials often succeed it driving me away from the TV:

1. 白花油王子
Very well described here. I scream for my sanity every time this gentleman comes on screen with i) his ninth-tier actor / actress friends or poor Chinese athletic champion friends, ii) the freaky doll of a baby, which he reportedly made in his own image, who wears a red mushroom on its head and a leaf in front of its willie, and iii) a moronic song that he wrote and performed with an appalling lack of talent.

I suspect God permit his series of commercials to exist simply to remind us that rich perverts can do whatever they like with pure pride.

If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to.

~ Dorothy Parker(1893 - 1967), US author, humorist, poet, & wit

2. Hugo Boss fragrances
So far I've seen three on the telly.

A long time ago, probably the first product in this line, there was a woman crouching on a box or something, with a pair of lights dangling from her shoulder. Besides giving a Western interpretation of the Cantonese slang 車頭燈, I didn't see much of a problem with the spot.

Then a young man, deliciously naked in the upper body, keeps throwing a ball back and forth with - gasp! - another instance of himself. The spot itself is harmless. It's just that, when this fragrance was launched, they decided to make 古天樂 its spokesperson. In some promotion event, he, unfortunately, had to say the name of the product, and it was a ridiculously lazy Cantonese pronunciation of an already absurd name - "Bos in Moe-筍". Whenever we see this spot on TV, 銘漢哥 and I can simply never resist saying those same words and giggling at the innocent half-naked dude.

The one that really incurs my loathe and hatred, however, is Purple. A lanky, scantily clad lady, against the magnificent backdrop of NYC, suddenly flips out and starts doing some really stupid and DANGEROUS things. They include jumping into a muddy pond of water, in the middle of the street, and kicking it up onto unsuspecting fellow pedestrians, thrashing her blonde mane blindly in all directions, again in the middle of the street, and hopping in and out of a departing train.

Since when are these attributes of the Perfect Woman to which we're supposed to aspire? Why would any ad exec think that a freaky crackpot would sell a cheap, mundane fragrance? And how much damage do they intend to inflict upon the TV viewer by showing it every 8 minutes?

I was initially planning to compile something like a "Top 10 commercials that I absolutely hate", but in the process of research (i.e. watching TV) I was so constantly shocked and appalled by these two that my mind went blank. Any suggestions on additions to the list?

Woman: Look at all these rude motherfuckin' men! Can't get up and let none of these ladies have a seat.

Man: Having a vagina is not a disability.

– L train

Why hasn't anyone started one for HK already???

【明報專訊】中國股市今年首季升了一成，一洗5年頹風。股市回升卻帶來基金業的嚴冬，基金面臨大量贖回。局外人看中國，對這異象不得其解。

企業非法資金 有賺即套利

首季基金贖回估計高達600億元(人民幣‧下同)，佔中國開放式基金規模一成有多，有些基金(像富國天瑞)竟有過半基金單位被贖回。歐美成熟市場經驗是股市愈升愈能吸引基金投資者，不少學者研究亦證明升市有利基金銷情。緣何中國投資者卻市愈升愈要離場﹖箇中吊詭處，是中國基金集資額不少來自企業營運資金。企業挪用資金(不管是公是私)，不能承受虧損，一旦賺錢便鎖定利潤。另一原因是投資者對基金的治理(governance)沒信心，不願長期投資。小規模基金公司旗下基金贖回量特大，原因亦在此。

只重「首發」 忽視持續推廣

中國開放式基金另一異乎常規的現象，是強調「首發」而忽略持續的推廣。新發行基金出盡法寶，目的是要做大首發集資額。基金公司給予中介公司(如銀行及券商)大量優惠條件，包括佣金、管理費分成、基金的投資買賣量等等。反而首發後這些分銷優惠大減，中介公司當然沒興趣跟進推廣。而為了給首發造勢，不少投資者都只是「走過場」應付「交數」而已。首發凍結期一到，資金便大大縮水。

前兩年美國紐約市檢察官及證監會，起訴及調查基金公司優惠部分機構客戶捕捉市場時機(market timing)的買賣，不少大型基金公司上繳過千萬「自願性罰款」和解，並執行投資期至少90天的要求。但中國的機構客戶這種以大額資金速進速退的行為頗為普遍。券商利用自營買賣的資金買基金，根本不用付首購費及贖回費，白賺市場短期升幅，可憐原基金投資者的利益給沖淡了仍不知。

百億元以下基金公司多虧本

現時中國基金管理公司只能管理開放式基金，不能以獨立戶口管理機構客戶資金。這不單養成機構客戶以「財雄、勢大」之態欺負基金公司，亦令它們習慣短期炒作而忽視長期投資，更蠶食小投資者利益。此政策對基金長遠發展有弊無利，須盡快糾正。

中國基金市場規模超過4000億元，以1%管理費計算，每年收入40億，由不到100家基金公司瓜分，市場競爭不算熾烈。但不少基金規模在100億元以下的基金公司都在虧本。基金管理本是人力/智力密集業務，營運成本有限。但中國基金管理公司體現社會主義精神——利益均沾，分銷銀行、券商、機構客戶都要分享管理費收入，七除八扣後，基金公司所剩無幾，還要養一群後勤人員，不似海外同業般可以外判後勤工作，難怪所賺無幾。

中國資本市場發展過程中常出現不少怪現象，以前談過的基金分紅及今次的升市贖回，都是市場不成熟表現，是投資行為學的研究課題。

What often puzzles me about the political scene of Hong Kong is the utter lack of discussion on the philosophy of public policies. For instance, to take the easiest case, the motto of "small government" often chanted by legislators is not confined to governmental expenditure. Rather, it is the belief that the government's role should be limited to only where it is absolutely essential, that people should be trusted to live their life responsibly provided that the playing field is level and information for their decision-making is available. But I digress...

Here is an excellent article from the trusty Economist on an emerging trend of governance: Soft Paternalism.

The state is looking after you
Apr 6th 2006
From The Economist print edition

A new breed of paternalists is seeking to promote virtue and wisdom by default. Be wary

Liberals sometimes dream of a night-watchman state, securing property and person, but no more. They fret that societies have instead submitted to the nanny state, a protective but intrusive matriarch, coddling citizens for their own good. Economists, with their strong faith in rationality and liberty, have tended to agree. As many decisions as possible should be left in the individual's lap, because no one knows your interests better than you do. Most of us have gained from this freedom.

But a new breed of policy wonk is having second thoughts. On some of the biggest decisions in their lives, people succumb to inertia, ignorance or irresolution. Their private failings—obesity, smoking, boozing, profligacy—are now big political questions. And the wonks think they have an ingenious new answer—a guiding but not illiberal state.

What they propose is “soft paternalism”. Thanks to years of patient observation of people's behaviour, they have come to understand your weaknesses and blindspots better than you might know them yourself. Now they hope to turn them to your advantage. They are paternalists, because they want to help you make the choices you would make for yourself—if only you had the strength of will and the sharpness of mind. But unlike “hard” paternalists, who ban some things and mandate others, the softer kind aim only to skew your decisions, without infringing greatly on your freedom of choice. Technocrats, itching to perfect society, find it irresistible. What should the supposed beneficiaries think?

Choosing not to choose

Most people would accept that a healthy diet is hard to achieve, financial matters are confusing and cigarettes kill too many. The state is tempted to step in, not only because of the harm that smokers, lushes, spendthrifts and gluttons may do to others, but because of the harm they are doing to themselves. In Scotland last month the government banned smoking in offices, restaurants and pubs. In Massachusetts, the state legislature has passed a bill requiring everyone who can afford to buy health insurance to do so, on pain of higher taxes.

This is hard paternalism. The softer sort is about nudging people to do things that are in their best interests. The purest form involves setting up systems for sinners to reform themselves: in Missouri for instance, some 10,000 compulsive gamblers have banned themselves from riverboat casinos; if they succumb to their habit (and are caught) they face tough punishments. In most cases, though, soft paternalism means the government giving people a choice, but skewing the choice towards the one their better selves would like to make.

For instance, in many countries plenty of workers fail to enrol in pension schemes and suffer as a result. The reason is not that they have decided against joining, but that they haven't decided at all—and enrolling is cumbersome. So why not make enrolling in the scheme the default option, still leaving them the choice to opt out? Studies have shown this can nearly double the enrolment rate. Lord Turner, head of Britain's Pensions Commission, is the latest soft paternalist to recommend such a scheme.

Soft paternalists also want to give people more room to rethink “hot and hasty” decisions. They favour cooling-off periods before big decisions, such as marriage, divorce or even buying cigarettes. Some of them toy with elaborate “sin licences”, which would entitle the holder to buy cigarettes, alcohol or even perhaps fatty foods, but only at times and in amounts the licenceholder himself signed up to in advance.

If people want this kind of customised paternalism, why can't the market, in the shape of rehab clinics and personal trainers, provide it? Soft paternalists argue that, without the power of the state behind such schemes, they will often break down: the sovereign consumer can always veto his own decisions. He can fire his personal trainer or check out of the clinic. Long before the government took it upon itself to ban opium from general sale, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, a Romantic poet and drug addict, used to hire porters to bar his entry to apothecaries. But he would later threaten to have them arrested if they did not let him pass.

Letting the mice play

Soft paternalism has much in its favour. First, it is certainly better than hard paternalism. Second, a government has to provide information to citizens in order for them to make rational decisions on everything from smoking to breastfeeding to organ donation. Even a government reluctant to second-guess its citizens ends up advising them in one way or another. What people decide they want is often a product of the way a choice is framed for them—they take the first thing on the menu, or a bit of everything. Even a truly liberal government would find itself shaping the wishes and choices to which it earnestly wants to defer. It's surely better to lure people into pension schemes than out of them.

Yet from the point of view of liberty, there is a serious danger of overreach, and therefore grounds for caution. Politicians, after all, are hardly strangers to the art of framing the public's choices and rigging its decisions for partisan ends. And what is to stop lobbyists, axe-grinders and busybodies of all kinds hijacking the whole effort? There is, admittedly, a safety valve. People remain free to reject the choices soft paternalism tries to guide them into—that is what is distinctive about it. But though people will still have this freedom, most won't bother to use it—that is what makes soft paternalism work. For all its potential, and its advantage over paternalism of the hard sort, this is a tool that transfers power from the individual to the state, which only sometimes knows best.

Its champions will say that soft paternalism should only be used for ends that are unarguably good: on the side of sobriety, prudence and restraint. But private virtues such as these are as likely to wither as to flourish when public bodies take charge of them. And life would be duller if every reckless spirit could outsource self-discipline to the state. Had the government deprived Coleridge of opium, he might have been happier. Then again, there might have been no “Kubla Khan”.