Category: Big Business

Posted on

Leavin’ on a jet plane

There’s neat article in BusinessWeek this morning about the design of airports, accompanied by a gorgeous slideshow.

[Ron Steinert, principal at aviation architectural design specialist, Gensler, said,] “There has been a real sea-change towards this. In the old days, the airlines thought of airports as a service industry that provided space to them and their passengers. Now, airports see airlines as providing a service to their customers. It’s a total change in the way airports are looking at themselves. They’re realizing that they have to run themselves as businesses, to make money and provide a high level of service, or passengers will go elsewhere. Take the East Coast of the U.S.: There’s an airport virtually every 10 miles. If you don’t like one, you’ll go to another.”

Posted on

300 Pimps

I’ve never been a car aficionado. My brother seemed to inherit Dad’s Corvette-gene. Not that he would go off and spend big cash on a sports-car or anything, but he did go for a Mustang back when he was single. Me? I’ve owned three cars: a Hyundai Excel, a Saturn SL1, and a Honda Element. I’m not exactly stylin’ and profilin’.

That said, I admit that I once had a certain fondness for the Chrysler Crossfire. I think it’s largely because it looks like a coupe that a Micronaut would drive.

In the last year, I’ve become enamored of the Chrysler 300. I think it’s largely because it looks like something Batman would drive.

At first, I thought the 300 was a car for oldies, but then I noticed younger drivers in them, and started seeing tricked-out (sorry: pimped) models. Personally, the “black rims” thing always struck me as silly-looking, but it was a good indicator that the big-barrel sedan had crossed over. I found that I really liked the car’s lines, and wondered if it might be time to retire the Element of Style.
I was able to talk myself out of buying one because of Chrysler’s corporate ownership. Mercedes-Benz, which acquired (“merged as equals with”) Chrysler in 1998, employed Jewish slave labor during WWII. Around the time of the merger, economist Steve Landsburg wrote a neat article about the implications of “punishing the child for the sins of the father” when it comes to corporations:

Corporations can be punished for misdeeds in at least two ways. One is a consumer boycott and another is a (voluntary or involuntary) fine. Both kinds of punishment have been visited on Daimler-Benz (though arguably at levels that are small compared with the underlying offenses). In the 1980s, the corporation paid about $11 million to the descendants of its slave laborers.

Who exactly suffers from those punishments? You might think the $11 million came from the pockets of those who owned Daimler-Benz stock in the 1980s, but that’s not necessarily the case. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that in 1950 it becomes foreseeable that Daimler-Benz will eventually make reparations. Then every share of Daimler-Benz stock sold between 1950 and 1980 sells at a discount reflecting that expectation. Without the discount, nobody would buy the stock. So given sufficient foresight, the prospect of a 1980 punishment hurts the 1950 owners, even if they sell in the interim. And those who buy stocks after 1950 are not punished at all, because the discount compensates them for the fine.

He makes some interesting arguments in that piece. Lately, I’ve been rethinking my aversion to buying a sorta German car, and not because I wanna zoom around in that 300. It’s more a question of globalization, and the moral lines we draw in the sand. I mean, because I drive a car, I can’t help but prop up Arab dictatorships. That said, I can elect not to do publicity for a country that has a strict anti-Israel policy. But I don’t know how viable it is to protest so selectively.

For instance, my wife drives a Mini Cooper. The parent company is BMW, which makes it problematic for me. My knee-jerk reaction is not to support a German car company.

That said, the car is assembled entirely in the UK, and it seems to me that the British could hold an awful lot of resentment toward Germany. So, does the fact that commerce helps both nations serve to ameliorate some of the ill-feelings from from those nations’ past behavior?

I don’t think I’d ever buy a German-brand car (M-B, BMW, VW), but I can imagine that people whose family served in the Pacific theater consider me a traitor for buying a Honda. Any of you guys have issues about this sorta stuff? Are there nations/nationalities you wouldn’t buy from?

Anyway, all of that is a very roundabout way of posting links to a couple of BusinessWeek articles. The first is about how DaimlerChrysler’s CEO is under siege because of the company’s poor performance (and its avoidance of reality). The other is about Freeman Thomas, the guy who designed the 300. Both stories come with neat slideshows, including shots of two of Thomas’ new vehicles for Ford.

Thomas’ description of the philosophy behind The Interceptor (no comment) probably skewers my exact reason for liking the 300: “This is a car that is at once for the mature car buyer, but for someone who likes to stroke his bad boy side. He wants a grown-up car, but wants to feel fun.”

For the record, I would not ‘stroke my bad boy side’ with a German car.

Posted on

Mars, bitches!

Gregg Easterbrook writes about the incredibly misguided lunar base initiative:

In deadpan style, the New York Times story on the NASA announcement declared, “The lunar base is part of a larger effort to develop an international exploration strategy, one that explains why and how humans are returning to the moon and what they plan to do when they get there.” Oh — so we’ll build the moon base first, and then try to figure out why we built it.

Posted on

Pfailed

What a difference two days make. On Nov. 30, Pfizer gave an “R&D open house” event where it discussed its drug pipeline. The biggest drug in that pipeline is torcetrapib, a compound that raises “good” cholesterol. For years, Pfizer’s been developing it as a combo-drug with Lipitor (atorvastatin), which reduces “bad” cholesterol.

Prior to the meeting, Pfizer issued a press statement that included this passage about torcetrapib:

Commenting on torcetrapib/atorvastatin (T/A), Dr. LaMattina said, “We are first-in-class and we intend to remain best-in-class in a category that has the potential to change the face of cardiovascular medicine. T/A raises HDL and lowers LDL. We believe that the net benefits of the drug — characterized by significant HDL elevation and LDL lowering vs. the small elevation in blood pressure — will greatly benefit patients with CV risk.

“The development of T/A has required tremendous innovation on our part from the earliest stages of discovery through one of the most cutting-edge development programs ever carried out anywhere. At the end of this comprehensive program, we expect to have a medicine with unparalleled efficacy in raising HDL, lowering LDL and with an anti-atherosclerosis indication.

“We will learn of the top-line results of the three pivotal imaging trials during the first quarter of 2007. During this same period, we will also receive the results of some additional Phase III lipid studies. To obtain a reliable picture of the overall safety and efficacy profile of T/A, the results of all these studies will need to be analyzed and reviewed together, and this will happen in the context of the American College of Cardiology Meeting in March, 2007.”

Yesterday, Pfizer announced that its independent Drug Safety Monitoring Board discovered a significantly higher mortality rate in the torcetrapib wing of late-stage clinical trials. The results must have been overwhelming, because Pfizer said that it’s stopping the trials, canceling all development of the drug, and accelerating its restructuring plans. A few days earlier, the company announced that it would lay off 2,400 sales reps, as part of its reorganization. Torcetrapib’s failure means large numbers of people will be getting fired in the next few weeks.

If you follow the pharma industry, you already understand what a cataclysmic event this is for Pfizer. I don’t think it’s on the scale of a Vioxx, because there’s likely no legal liability issues, but the lost sales will be in the tens of billions. Beyond that, there’s the opportunity cost of the R&D that was performed on the product, as well as nearly $800 million in actual development costs.

I’m not trying to convey a “poor little Pfizer” impression here; I disagree with a bunch of the company’s practices (particularly its growth-by-acquisition model from the first half of this decade). What I’m trying to get across is that developing new drugs is a mighty risky proposition. I’m not sure that people who complain, “Drugs are too expensive; pharma companies are evil,” have much idea about the risks and the costs these companies incur.

Posted on

It’s a Rap!

(You know you wanna check out the pix from my meanders in Toronto on Friday)

Home from Toronto a lot easier than my boss, whose flight home on Friday got cancelled due to “the airspace over Boston,” according to his pilot. He asked if this meant the bad weather & high winds we had all over the northeast, and was told that it did not. So, after 4 hours in an Embraer 145, he was allowed to leave and headed back to our hotel, where he sat in the bar and watched hockey.

Meanwhile, official VM buddy Sam and I went to see the Raptors play the Celtics in what Sam called “battle of the worst coaches in the NBA.” Since the Raptors have a game tonight against the Knicks, we figured maybe it’s a round-robin tournament.

We had fun at the game, but it was despite the action on the court. Sam’s now been to two NBA games with me (we hit a Dallas game against Orlando in April 2005), and he’s convinced I have NBA-Tourette’s, in which a constant stream of analysis & invective pours forth from my mouth during professional basketball games. We joined up with my boss after the game for a drink or two. He seemed pretty exhausted by the hurry-up-and-wait. I admit: if I were stuck in an Embraer for 4 hours, I’d probably go bananas.

Earlier in the day, after I visited Sam’s company in Oakville and toured the company’s produciton facilities (not as heavy-duty containment suiting as I wore on Thursday), I wandered around Toronto a little, while the weather was clear.

Unfortunately, this wandering didn’t coincide exactly with the clear weather, and I was stuck in some darned cold rain for a while. Early in my meander, I stopped at the Roots store in the Eaton Centre to get a hat and gloves. But then I decided that they were kinda pricey and, besides, the weather was okay now, so it would stay that way forever.

From there, I exited onto Yonge Street, which I forgot was an interesting amalgam of high-end retail, good record stores, and low-rent strip clubs. I headed off from there to a used bookstore I remembered from a past trip, but didn’t find anything.

I decided I’d walk through the University district and visit the famed comic store, The Beguiling. I spent a while there, hoping the weather would clear again and trying to justify spending $240 (Canadian) for a limited print by Sammy Harkham of a golem walking in the forest. I held off (I’ll wait till the USD appreciates against Canada’s dollar, and I’d probably be fine with a panel from The Poor Sailor anyway).

One of the nice things about having started doing yoga is that rambling ambles like this one don’t seem to give me the slight mid-back pain I was getting the past few years. I’ve only been on it for a few weeks or so, so hey.

During this walk, I came across two things I didn’t take pictures of: the Bata Shoe Museum and the Robarts Library. The former looks entertaining enough, and I bought a postcard from there for Amy, to give us yet another reason to take a long weekend here in the springtime.

The Library, on the other hand, is one of the most overwhelmingly depressing buildings I’ve ever seen. It may’ve been worse because of the rain and gray skies, but I can’t imagine a scenario which the appearance of this building inspires anything but fear and dread. Don’t let 1970s architecture happen to you!

After I left The Beguiling emptyhanded, it was time for another overpriced cab ride back to the hotel. I was amazed by the cost of cab rides in this city, as well as the ones I had to take to the pharma companies, which were outside the city. The flat-rate limo-y cars were also awfully expensive, including $51 CAD for the 20-minute ride from downtown to the airport.

In keeping with my recent post about accumulating all sorts of change and foreign currency, I returned home this morning with about $47 in Canadian bills and change. I feel like George Soros.

Anyway, a really neat thing happened during the short (54-minute) flight today. We completed our initial descent through the cloud cover, and all I could see were brown-gray hills and a few houses and a winding road or two. I thought, “We’re only 15 minutes from landing, but I have NO idea where we are right now.” It looked like Pennsylvania farmland, or far western NJ.

Then I noticed the Sheraton Crossroads to port, and it hit me: I was looking down at my morning commute! Sure enough, Rt. 17 threaded away from the Sheraton, southeast to Ramsey. Our plane followed Rt. 208 for a bit, as I picked out landmark after landmark (the Nabisco plant, the Ikea across from Garden State Plaza, even the Lukoil I stopped in last week). I’ve only had this perspective from a plane once before. Usually, I come home at night, or on different flight paths.

It helps to see things from different angles. Except Raptors/Celtics games.

(check out a couple of pix from my Toronto walkabout)