[Cabinanteerip]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Patroklos


What other airplane bombing/hijacking has prompted the majority of a continent to ground all its planes for a week?

I know of no other hijacking that resulted in much more than the loss of a plane and its passengers, as opposed to 3000 people on the ground, and a major office complex.


Is it your position that those who refused to fly after 9/11 were not making that choice out of a fear for safety/life? Seriously?

Explain why it is not irrational (even if understandable) for someone to forgo a method of travel because the already infinitesimal chance of death increased an irrelevant amount while at the same time using another mode of transport that is many times more dangerous.


My position is that folks added a fear of death or injury to an existing set of factors used to weigh mode choices. Also the impact of the inconvenience of the check in procedure.


Its not hindsight, it was obvious that to pull another hijacking off like that became immediately impossible. Grounding the planes was entirely unnecessary, especially once ever pilot, flight attendant and passenger was aware of a threat.

Ah, the "everyone will pull off a United Flight 93" argument. Of course the hijackers on THAT flight didnt realize THAT would happen, one presumes that any future hijackers will count on it, and will prepare accordingly. Look, I dont recall thinking at the time that another hijacking was impossible, and I am unconvinced now that short of the full panoply of measures taken, it would have been impossible.



Does the act of putting your seat belt on have any negative effect/cost what so ever?

For sure. Time, inconvenience, and discomfort. Im sure we could come up with other examples though, if that one is too trivial. Cost of insurance? Discomfort of bicycle helmets (when Ive never fallen on my head). It applies in general to ex post cost benefit of costly strategy to reduce risk.



Did I say it should have zero effect? In the end does the fact that the Schwab offices in NYC might have to relocate have any effect, or should it, on the operations of Church's Chicken in Charleston SC?

Huh??? I dont know. Whats your point?


Manhattan, but what about NYC. Was there a shortage or just a shortage because people didn't want to move to a medium wealth high rise in the Bronx?

There is very little office space in NYC outside Manhattan. Theres more in all of greater NY, but IIRC the entire greater NY market was impacted, if not as severely as Manhattan. And if youre gonna relocate to Stamford, youre going to have significant disruptions to youre labor force that will also be costly.



If I were really pursuing that line of thought I would have said something like losing a miniscule percentage of office space in NYC amounts to the damage of losing brain cells to a single bong hit.

Im not personally familiar enough with bong hits to judge the quantities involved. My point was about reductionism.