Hip Hop Culture Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 10750 words

Hip Hop Culture - Research Paper Example In order to begin to explore the history of the development of hip hop, it would be appropriate to familiarize with such a direction in music, like rap, which is translated literally and means - rhythmic poetry (rap with a stick). First, it would be appropriate to discuss how all this happened in America – motherland of hip hop, and then look at this event in Russian culture. The history of hip hop began in 1969 in South Bronx - the black ghettos of New York. However, the word â€Å"hip hop† itself did not exist yet - DJ Africa Bambaataa invented it five years later when this culture had required a general title. And in 1969 another legendary DJ, Cool Herk, coined another word: â€Å"b-boys† - short for â€Å"break boys† – â€Å"the boys, dancing in the breaks.† So, Cool Herk invented the word â€Å"b-boys†. Its original content was innocent, but society, as always, deciphered it in its own way, assuming the young shoots disco as â€Å"bad boys† – â€Å"hooligans.† Their girlfriends were named as â€Å"flygirls† – â€Å"fly†, pretty, outdoor shots dressed girls. As always, young people proudly raised the banner of these names on - and the culture of hip hop hatch to the world. Cool Herk moved to the Bronx from Jamaica - and brought the tradition of the Kingston street dances to which the DJ turns on the plate with reggae, and poets start their recitative. But it was not music, but in the street, the independence of these events and the leading role of the DJ. Prior to this, the American DJ was a hired ‘horse’ in the big clubs and put what the owners wanted it off.

Personal Ethics Statement Essay Example for Free

Personal Ethics Statement Essay The ethics that I am personally living with revolves on how I deal with my life, with other people and with the world per se. Some of them are anchored on my childhood years and learning which definitely reveals my becoming and upbringing. Some have developed and came up during my college years due to the fact that my eyes have become open towards different perspectives. Ethics deals with personal philosophies in life. What I believe in certainly reflects the ethics that I am living with and upholding. For me, if a person is to make one lie to me, he or she needs to add ten more. He or she needs to add more lies in order for his or her lie to be consistent. That reality has something to do on how I trust a person; it has something to do with relationship and friendship because trust is one of the vital components of establishing ties and relationships. â€Å"To refuse an offer is more than an insult. † I usually state and utter these words among my friends whenever they refuse something that I have given them because for me, it is unethical to decline one’s offer especially if it comes from the bottom of the giver’s heart. However, everything still depends on the circumstance because some offers are worth refusing especially if it is beyond your limit or beyond your belief. There are also things to consider when declining one’s offer. â€Å"Love is universal. † And I strongly grasped this philosophy. I do not believe that it is wrong to love a person of the same sex or to discriminate those persons who are involved in homosexuality. I am not gay but I believe in human rights and equality. If it is unethical for the church and for the society, for me it is not. I may evolve as a deviant on that but certainly, I, definitely, am not alone. Some of my personal ethics that are indeed of great help to my life, how I live with it and how I fight and struggle on life’s challenges focus on the following: (1) positive vibrations, which means that I have to get away with negative thoughts; (2) never manipulate a person, instead motivate them; (3) learn to fight; (4) be aware and sensitive of other’s feelings; (5) if a person or thing is not meant for you, it is not really meant for you; (6) forgive; (7) do not hold back and cling on to the past and; (8) if a thing is needed to be done, it should be done.

Clothing and Darkness in Shakespeares Macbeth :: GCSE English Literature Coursework

Use of Imagery in Macbeth  Ã‚   In Macbeth, William Shakespeare uses many forms of imagery, including the forms of clothing and darkness. Each detail in his imagery contains an important symbol of the play. These symbols that must be understood if one is to understand either the passage which contains it or the play as a whole. In Macbeth, the image of clothing is used to suggest that throughout the play, Macbeth is seeking to hide his "disgraceful self" from his eyes and from others. Shakespeare wants to keep alive the ironical contrast between the wretched creature that Macbeth really is and the disguises he assumes to conceal that fact. Secondly, honors are thought of as garments to be worn; likewise, Macbeth is constantly represented symbolically as the wearer of robes not belonging to him. He is wearing an "undeserved dignity." A crucial point in describing the purpose of clothing in ‘Macbeth' is found in the fact that these are not his garments. Therefore, Macbeth is uncomfortable in them because he is continually conscious of the fact that they do not belong to him. In the following passage, the idea constantly recurs that Macbeth's new honours sit ill upon him, like a loose and badly fitting garment, belonging to someone else:    New honours come upon him,    Like our strange garments, cleave not to their mould,    But with the aid of use.    (1.3.144) The second, most important chain of imagery used to add to the atmosphere is that of darkness. In a Shakespearean tragedy, a special tone, or atmosphere, must be created to show the darkness and blackness of it. In Macbeth, Shakespeare uses the design of the witches, the guilt in Macbeth's soul, and the darkness of the night to establish the atmosphere. The most remarkable scenes take place at night or in some dark spot. For instance, the vision of the dagger, the murder of Duncan, the murder of Banquo, and Lady Macbeth's sleep-walking all occur at night. Darkness is when the traveler hastens to reach safety in his inn, when Banquo rides homeward to meet his assassins. Furthermore, it is the time when the wolf howls, the owl screams and murder steals forth to his work. The darkness symbolizes many things. First, and most importantly, it stands for the death and evil in the play. The darkness could partially block out all of the horrible things that occur in the night.

Political Message

Nearly a quarter century ago, Denmark broke down barriers to become the first nation to legally recognize same-sex couples through registered partnerships. Same- sex marriage Is currently legally recognized nationwide In eleven nations – Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden (The Economist, 2012). In the united States, the decision is made at the state level. After the 2012 elections, there are now nine states (Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont andWashington) and the District of Columbia who permit legally binding marriages between same-sex couples (The Economist, 2012). The Working Group, appointed by the PAP Council of Representatives, stated ‘The PAP recognizes the Importance of the institution of civil marriage which confers a social status with important legal benefits, rights and privileges (PAP, 2004). † Statues and Bates (2010) surveye d couples, both homosexual and heterosexual, on what words define marriage. In the surveys, the biggest theme, with 79%, was that marriage is â€Å"contractual. Another ajar theme was the Idea of â€Å"love† as being an Important part of a marriage – almost half of the respondents agreed. Additionally In the surveys respondents were asked about their stance on same-sex marriage – over half, 55%, were against a same-sex marriage but acknowledged the loving bond that comes from the relationship. Card (2007) contends that â€Å"the laws should no more declare which durable intimate sexual unions between freely consenting adults are legitimate and which are not than it should declare which newborns are legitimate and which are not. The language of he Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) does not specify the genders of the partners ? â€Å"Man and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and f ound and family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage, and at its dissolution. † But with the rights and privileges of marriage also come hardships and legalities if the union wishes to be dissolved. In heterosexual marriages the solution is easy. Show residency in the state where the divorce wishes to be granted and begin the legal proceedings.In homosexual marriages, the process Is fraught with complications. Even In states that do recognize gay marriage, gay divorce can soul be a legal mess because gay marriages aren't recognized by the federal government – or the IRS (Smith, 2011). Missouri was the first state to pass a referendum for a constitutional restriction limiting marriage to one man and one woman (Cooperate, 2004). The struggle continues with 31 states in agreement with an affirmative vote on a referendum. Additionally same-sex couples cannot get a divorce In over 80% of the nation and couples are not bound to live In the same s tate In which they married.Must the couple stay married since there is no clear avenue for dissolution? Should a state allow divorces when it does not allow marriages? What happens to the assets and dependents in a same-sex divorce? What are some precedents other countries have put into effect and could this work for the United States? This paper will address the conundrum of marriage equality at the beginning of a marriage and the limbo Same-Sex Divorce and the Legal System In 1942, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that â€Å"marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival† (Mourn, 2012).In landmark cases of the asses, including the watershed case of Loving v. Virginia in 1967, the court applied this line of thinking to interracial marriage and the subsequent legal acceptance nationwide, overturning a court decision held for 84 years. Almost a half century later, states are coming under the microscope with their Defense o f Marriage Acts, or Dooms, which detail how each state recognizes a legal marriage and its benefits, and the relationship of a DOOM to same-sex marriage and divorce requests.The birth of the DOOM began in Hawaii in 1991 when, in Hawaii, three same-sex peoples filed a state court civil lawsuit claiming that they were denied a marriage license based on discrimination of sex, in the case Baber v. Lenin (Thornton, 2009). While the trial court sided with the Department of Health (the department responsible for marriage licenses) the case was appealed to Hawaii's Supreme Court for further review, who eventually overturned the decision. The case sparked an interest in the federal House Committee on the Judiciary who were debating H.R. 3396, the proposal of DOOM, and considered that the Hawaii issue was â€Å"legal assault against traditional heterosexual marriage laws. (Thornton, 2009) DOOM passed in September 1996 with two purposes – â€Å"to defend the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage† and â€Å"to protect the right of the States to formulate their own public policy regarding the legal recognition of same-sex unions, free from any federal constitutional implications that might attend the recognition of one State of the right for homosexual couples to acquire marriage licenses. (Thornton, 2009) From an outsider's perspective, it could be perceived that the federal government was supporting heterosexual marriage (and, by default, not supporting same-sex arraign) but at the same time supporting a state's ability and responsibility to make a decision on the issue. This contradictory stance was positioning the DOOM to become a conflict-builder in the coming years after adoption. In 2008, then- presidential candidate Barack Obama, when he supported a full repeal of the DOOM act, stated that â€Å"Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOOM does† (Mourn, 2012).Yet it is in the power of each state, not federal law, to determine what is and what not a marriage is. Some courts have asserted that they do not have subject-matter Jurisdiction over same-sex divorce (Byrne and Holcomb, 2011) while other states Justify their legal stance thusly – since they do not recognize same-sex marriage in that state, they cannot grant a subsequent same-sex divorce if the marriage in question is not recognized as legal. This unique situation is becoming commonly known as â€Å"wed- locked† (Landau, 2012).When a same-sex former couple is wed-locked, they cannot divide property and debt legally, have child custody and visitation issues, cannot marry and are deprived of psychological resolution of the former marriage. All fifty states have no-fault divorce options and cannot force couples to stay married (Brand Holcomb, 2012). Under this line of thinking, a same-sex divorce should be considered the same as a heterosexual divorce but there are vast differenc es and asserting that there were three reasons that led into the final decision that the â€Å"categorical denial of access to divorce is constitutionally suspect† (Byrne and Holcomb, 2012).The first reason is that couples who wish for a same-sex divorce are being denied access to courts. Secondly, couples cannot dissolve their legal marriage because of a court's monopoly on divorce (since marriage is a legal proceeding, a dissolution of such is also a legal proceeding). Lastly, since the same-sex former couple cannot be granted a legal divorce they therefore cannot remarry, which is Bodied acknowledged is a fundamental right. States have equal protection jurisprudence, or the requirement that people who are in a similar situation will be treated similarly (Byrne and Holcomb, 2012).So if a Judge denies a same-sex divorce, he is making a decision against constitutional rights that are protected. It is only institutional if the situation passes an equal protection review (Byrne and Holcomb, 2012). Prohibiting a same-sex divorce violates both substantive due process and equal protection under Bodied. Currently only the state of Georgia explicitly states in its constitutional Defense of Marriage Acts that it has no Jurisprudence in same-sex divorces (Byrne and Holcomb, 2011).Therefore the other 49 states should have subject matter Jurisdiction over same-sex divorces – but not all acknowledge as such. Over two decades ago a company began called Collaborative Practices, to offer an alternative to legal divorce for same-sex couples (Sacking, 2006). The company works together with the couple and a team of family law specialists, psychologists, financial advisors and more to work with the separating couples on non-controversial options to their ending relationship.Marietta Goldenness, a Collaborative attorney who specializes in LEGIT family law, states â€Å"to have to rely on a court system that doesn't protect your rights or legally recognize your iden tity is scary – very scary' (Sacking, 2006). The company currently practices in ten countries and in some U. S. States where a same-sex legal divorce is a hindrance. The problem with a state's Defense of Marriage Acts is that it was created for protecting marriage rights, and not necessarily the right to divorce. Yet a court does not need to recognize a marriage in order to grant the relief of a divorce.Divorce is not a â€Å"benefit of marriage† because a divorce is not asking for the rights and privileges of marriage – instead it is asking for the removal of such. Currently same-sex couples cannot be married in one state and presume that they'll receive or demand the marriage and divorce rights in their home state. There is no language in any state's DOOM that explicitly states that it provides relief of a same-sex divorce. Yet there is also no divorce statute that asserts that the marriage needs to be valid in the state in which the divorcing couple files. By rne, 2012). Stark Jokes that â€Å"gay divorce will lead to a change in the meaning of ‘gay divorcee'. No longer will it mean fun and carefree. Instead gay divorcees will be grouped together with the straight people who [hopefully] escaped bad marriages. (Stark, 2011)† Couples who are unable to divorce under these DOOM restrictions and limitations may also have their income h/she earns, while searching to secure a divorce, be regarded as â€Å"marital income†, which in some states have strict guidelines n how to divide it.A same-sex marriage partner may be forced to split his/her income earned months or years after the initial separation. Some states, such as Pennsylvania, have the authority to issue a declaration to void a marriage (Mourn, marriage with copious amounts of income, savings, real estate or possessions, might go about this option. Others, who feel as if a declaration negates the realness of a marriage (similar to an annulment) and who have material and immaterial goods shared throughout their relationship, may view the declaration as taking away each ember's marital rights to the other.If the marriage wasn't real in the court's eyes, then the division of property cannot exist. Yet courts regularly provide property division, custody orders and spousal support to same-sex couples (Byrne, 2012), so why can courts not grant a legal divorce or separation as well? An additional problem is that there is no guarantee that a declaration from one state will be upheld in another state that has a different standpoint on same-sex marriage and divorce. In contrast , all Nordic countries now have the term ‘registered partnership' to define a same-sex marriage.These registered partnerships are not part of the Marriage Act. Anchorperson, Knack, Asserted and Wooden-Faker(2006) states that â€Å"one reason was purely pragmatic, as it was easier to introduce a new law than to alter the existing one†. Another argument presented in the debate before Norwegian law was passed, was a fear that modifying the existing marriage code might be perceived as a threat towards marriage as a social institution and its unique position on society' (Anderson et al, 2006).However couldn't this be seen as a cry of support for heterosexual marriages if they are the standard for the social institution? Registered partnerships are given the hazy veil of marriage but not the symbolic Justifications. Yet where Norway registered partnerships stand out from U. S. ‘s same-sex marriages is the ease of the dissolution. Ending the relationship is very similar to the process of conferring the relationship. One, or both, partners file for a separation license and must be separated for at least one year before filing for divorce.Tax laws are also more lenient with the addition of four key statues – registered partner, separated partner, divorced partner and surviving partner. In comparison, in 2003 Canada's Divorce Act stipulated t hat legal separation would only be recognized as between â€Å"a man or women who are married to each other† (Hays, 2004). That changed in 2005 and again in 2012 with an amendment to the Civil Marriage Act with Bill C-32 (House of Commons of Canada, 2012). Bill C-32 is specifically for divorce of non-resident spouses.The former spouses must be living separate for at least one year before a couple can seek a divorce as well as be residing in a state (or country) â€Å"where a divorce cannot be granted because that state does not recognize the Aladdin of the marriage† (House of Commons of Canada, 2012 Another issue brought forth by Afar is what does it really mean to be a â€Å"man†, a â€Å"woman† or â€Å"opposite sex† in the legal system? (Afar, 2010) He questions what happens to the status of transgender people who legally change their identifying documents from â€Å"man† to â€Å"women† after a sex change, etc.If a former male, no w a legal woman, enters into a marriage and subsequent divorce with a male, what rights does the transgender person have in the divorce? Which matters more – the way a person was physically born or the body parts a person now possesses? The U. S. Supreme Court will hear challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act and Californians Proposition 8 ban this year (Grossman, 2013). Rulings in those cases, likely by late federal benefits and protections as opposite-sex married couples and whether a state can ban gay marriage. If the U. S.Supreme Court redefines legal marriage, a state that recognizes same-sex marriage might have to recognize a declaration of judgment from a non-recognizing state as terminating the marriage effectively, and vice versa. Also, redefining legal marriage will also affect the legal rights of parents and the definition off parent. Same-Sex Divorce and Children With same-sex commitment ceremonies, marriages, separations and attempts at divorce running parallel to those of heterosexual couples, one may ask – what does it really mean in this modern age to be a parent?Grossman (2013) visualizes: The Florida Supreme Court recently heard arguments in the case of a lesbian couple in which one of the women's eggs, fertilized with donor sperm and nurtured in vitro, was implanted in the birth mother/partner. The egg donor parent could not adopt their baby because Florida does not recognize same-sex marriages or permit same- sex adoption. Nine years later, the birth mother took off with their daughter. The original Judge in their custody battle granted custody to the birth mother. An appeals court overturned that Judgment, granting parental rights to both women.If the donor mom's rights are upheld by the state supreme court, the decision could redefine Florida law. Which of the mothers has more claim to the child – the one whose egg was used or the one who nurtured and gave birth to the child? Additionally, what assurance do the mothers have that their insurance company Coin policy if available, or separate) will carry the dependent of same-sex partners on the policy? Card (2007) writes that the denial of auxiliary benefits such as this is both an injustice and an arbitrary unjustified inequality to the dependent .In the absence of legal protections, lesbian co-mothers, if they are not the biological mother, are likely to lose access to the child they helped to parent (Abram, 1999). What happens to the child of two (or one, if one partner carried the child) non-biological parents during a divorce? If a presumed parent, one who has been in the child's life on an ongoing basis, is not legally recognized as the parent, due to the laws of same-sex marriage ND divorce in that state, does the parent have legal parental rights or visitation to the child?Allen (2007) relates a personal experience of ambiguous relationship. When one of the partners ends the relationship, all the so-called legal safeguards are nu ll and void except property rights, such as home ownership) because the law, the society, and the culture define former LEGIT partners and their children as legal strangers (Allen, 2007). The biological child of one partner and the biological child of the other partner (already born when the relationship began) do not have contact anymore since the family unit is now two separate family units.Thus when a same- sex marriage ends, there is cause for thought to gain the same legal benefits as a heterosexual divorce in terms of child custody and visitation rights. Summary The stance on marriage issues is currently both a unifier and a divider in political, social, economic and religious platforms. The same holds true for divorce and the roadblocks in obtaining a legal divorce – including vague laws, the interpretation of laws or code and child custody or visitation rights.

Collusion Between British Airways and Virgin

The tacit collusion case to be discussed involves the illegal collusion and setting of fuel surcharges to commercial and cargo transatlantic fares between British Airways (BA) and Virgin Atlantic Airways (Virgin). The factors which contributed to its success will be discussed, as well as why, and its implications, of becoming public. To begin with, it would be beneficial to define both collusive behaviour and the nature of the competition involved in the aviation industry. Collusion is the act of a number of firms within an industry agreeing to set a certain price, output or another parameter and is almost always against the law.This is as they all compete in the given industry, with the setting of prices or outputs done in favour of the companies, and is therefore anti-competitive behaviour, as this moves the outcome away from the market equilibrium. The generated inefficiency is considered illegal by The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) within the UK, who’s mission is to protect consumer welfare whilst ensuring businesses remain competitive and fair (OFT,2011). A brief overview of the UK aviation industry will help in explaining and justifying certain factors which led to the successful collusion.Aviation is key not only for transportation purposes but for commercial flights, employing around 234,000 staff and contributing ? 18. 4 billion to Gross National Product (GNP). The industry is not only essential for global business and trade, but 75% of all visitors to the UK travel by air and adds a further ? 14 billion towards GNP (BATA, 2011). The USA and the European Union have signed an ‘open skies agreement’ allowing full access to all routes between the two continents, although is more restrictive to EU airlines (IACA, 2007).In the specific case of BA and Virgin, oil price rises based on the price of barrel oil as shown in ‘Appendix 1’, created rising fuel costs and uncertainty over future profit levels. Several airlines in the UK and global aviation industry brought in flexible fuel surcharges for passengers and cargo planes. The tacit collusion case of Virgin and BA showed that through communication, and agreeing to certain price rises at a given date, the negative impacts on production costs can be in part offset direct to the consumer. Through the formation of such an agreement, a ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ game scenario is formed.This game revolves around joint outcomes based on individual actions, and the payoffs which are created from this. The choice to co-operate in decision making proves to be more beneficial than the absence of any collusive behaviour, although there is always the threat of deviation to add even more uncertainty to the question. Carlton and Perloff (2003) describes how in such a game, both firms must consider each rival’s actions when making their own, and relate the combination of actions to determine best policy. Airline Market – Transatlantic flights | | | | Virgin Atlantic| | | | High surcharge| Low surcharge|British| Higher surcharge| 25,25| 15,30| Airways| Lower surcharge| 30,15| 10,10| | | | | | | Profit from Cooperation = 25 + Profit from deviation= 30 + Note: ? D > ? C if r > 1 will prove that deviation from collusion unlikely This constructed game holds several assumptions which may be of use to explain the relative success of the collusive agreement. To begin with, it involves the firms meeting and setting prices more than once, in a repeated game, as fuel surcharges are relatively flexible prices which were changed to relate to the price of fuel, which was extremely volatile as shown in Appendix A.Following on from this repeated game, it is also for an undefined period. As the price rises came very suddenly, it created an uncertain future with no foreseeable end. Carlton and Perloff (2003) agree with the theory that in a multi-period game, deviation becomes much more costly, and through signalling can lead to suc cessful collusion to benefit both parties. Edgeworth (1897) touches upon capacity constraints which are relative here in the theoretical success of this collusion, when based around the residual demand faced by both firms when looking at its pricing strategy (Carlton and Perloff, 2003).As the nature of the good is a seat on a plane, clearly capacity constraints are present in the form of the limited seating on aircraft, as well as the inability to in the short run increase output beyond full capacity. During the setting of price, clear communication will most likely result in a non-static equilibrium. As well as this, the symmetry in terms of the market and cost structures has played a part in creating a successful cartel. Each firm produces a relatively homogenous good in terms of economy, business or first class, with a limited amount of features it can differentiate itself from its competitors.As well as this, using Figure 1, which will be discussed later on, demonstrates that th e main costs to an airline are those which cannot be easily reduced or offset, most notably the cost of fuel and aircraft maintenance. Therefore both firms have near perfect knowledge of the cost structure and revenue through observing prices, and will aid in choosing a certain pricing strategy. What follows will be a detailed discussion of the specific market conditions which lead to the successful collusion between BA and Virgin.The UK Transatlantic Flight market as a whole can be said to hold many key factors which have led to successful collusion. The first is due to the high levels of barriers to entry; the level of costs specific to new entrants in the market. Barriers to entry show that new entrants find it extremely difficult to raise the financial capital needed to establish themselves as long term competitors. The nature of these costs also plays a part, with a high amount resulting in ‘sunk costs’ which are not transferable to any other industry such as an ae roplane and machinery specific to air travel.Emphasis also has to be placed on barriers to entry which do not take a physical form, with the restricted capacity of many major airports and regulation within the aviation industry significantly limits the ability to expand operations. An airline company needs to purchase several assets in order to offer the product of a transatlantic flight to a HUB in the USA. The first begins with the licence to operate in an airport and the parking/docking bay such as Manchester or Gatwick. With limited capacity at many leading airports both in the UK and the USA, they become extremely costly.With Heathrow being used as the main airport for comparison, due to the fact both BA and Virgin primarily operate there, Appendix B shows the extensive capacity constraints for all slots throughout each day. The purchase and maintenance of aircraft is clearly an essential fixed cost, and with strict litigation procedures meaning that there is little opportunity to save costs. The last main fixed cost is in the form of landing fees and en route charges, which each airline needs to pay. Figure 1 (British Airways, 2010)Figure 1 attempts to demonstrate these barriers to entry, which prevents new firms from entering the market after the monopoly pricing of fuel surcharges sends a signal to potential competitors for the opportunity of supernormal profits. The largest growth in the cost structure for British Airways has been in the sections discussed which pose the biggest barriers to entry; fuel and oil costs at 44. 5%, landing fees at 14. 2% and engineering and other aircraft costs at 13. 1%, placing ever more emphasis on the difficulty for new firms to compete in this market (British Airways, 2010).Another key factor which contributed to the successful collusion was the weak buyer power in the demand for air travel, and in this specific case for transatlantic flights. The nature of the good is long distance travel, both for leisure and busine ss with no other direct substitute in terms of time and comfort of travel. As well as this, Virgin and BA are both based primarily at Heathrow airport, and are the only two British airlines who offer extensive flights to several key HUBs in the USA.Along with three U. S airlines they make up the total flights offered to the USA from the busiest airport in the world in terms of international passengers (ACI, 2011). The two combined impact upon the price elasticity of demand, a key concept which may help illustrate why the collusion was a success. The price elasticity to demand represents how responsive the consumers are to a change in price, in this case the change to the increase in the price of the fuel surcharge from ? 5 to ? 0 between the period August 2004 – January 2006 (OFT, 2007). The nature of the good is relatively price inelastic as no low cost airline or competitor can offer the same flight schedule to the important airports in the US, such as New York (JFK). Going hand in hand, this type of travel cannot simply be postponed or chosen differently, especially for business people who have little power over the price they will pay but quite significantly have less financial constraints than those travelling for leisure.There have been many cases of tacit collusion which have been broken down within the UK, through the act of the Competition Commission (CC) and the OFT investigating what it deems could be found to be collusive, illegal behaviour. The case of BA and Virgin is a unique one as to how it was broken down. The agreement ended directly through Virgin Atlantic Airways admitting to the collusive behaviour directly to the Office of Fair Trade. There may be both relevant theoretical and practical explanations as to why Virgin deviated from co-operation, which will be outlined briefly.Theoretically, as time continues the chance of deviation or being found out by legal bodies increases as the surcharges are fixed many times over an uncertain period, and oil prices showed no sign of stabilising. With no foreseeable end to the game leaving both firms with an area of uncertainty, and the threat of punishment playing an ever more important role, certain strategies in the game may have been altered. However, practically it may prove to offer a more credible reason as to why Virgin ended the collusive agreement by going to the relevant authorities.With the fine by the OFT standing at ? 121. 5 million, and the Department of Justice fining BA ? 148 million as the case was co-ordinated between both countries, the cost of colluding was severe (OFT,2007 BBC, 2007). As well as this, the timeline constructed in Appendix C highlights the previous hostile relationship of the two parties. Even though Virgin cannot compete financially or in number of flights/routes, a fierce rivalry and competitive relationship has always existed with Virgin Atlantic being the only British non-flag carrier to survive the transatlantic flight market.This collusive agreement then goes exactly to the contrary of what has just been set out, so it may lead to one believing Virgin set out with this goal from the start, or once it became clear a court case would mean the parties involved would financially suffer, Virgin used the immunity clause to allow the collusion became public knowledge. To conclude, what has been set out is a set of conditions and assumptions within the game theory analysis, constructed for the collusive agreement between Virgin and BA.It aided in discussing the collusion itself, and the nature of which resulted in its success. Following on, the most significant market structural conditions were discussed relating to how they facilitated the successful collusion between the two parties. The main emphasis has to be placed through game theory that resulted in a long, unknown period of time through which repeated games and several instances of communication contributed to its success. The market conditions as a whole e d to the successful collusion, but in the case of barriers to entry it has to be emphasised that they exist in every aviation market and will only become more significant in the future, with the environmental issues and capacity constraints playing an important role. The weak buyer power of consumers contributed hugely, to not only the surcharge actually being introduced, but following on to at least 6 occasions of joint price increases. The amount BA was fined is a clear signal to all other firms that collusive behaviour will be punished severely, and therefore promotes its own punishment strategy.References ACI, 2011 – ‘Year to date International Passenger Traffic December 2010’, Airports Council International accessed from http://www. aci. aero/cda/aci_common/display/main/aci_content07_c. jsp? zn=aci&cp=1-5-212-1376-1379_666_2 as of 22nd March 2010 BATA, 2011 – ‘Welcome to the British Air Transport association’, British Air Transport As sociation accessed from http://www. bata. uk. com/Web/Default. aspx as of 21st March 2011 BBC, 1993 – ‘1993: BA dirty tricks against Virgin cost ? 3m’, accessed from http://news. bc. co. uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/11/newsid_2520000/2520189. stm as of 24th March 2011 BBC, 2007 – ‘BA's price-fix fine reaches ? 270m’, British Broadcasting Association accessed from http://news. bbc. co. uk/1/hi/business/6925397. stm as of 24th March 2011 British Airways, 2010 – Chief Financial Officer’s Report, 2008/09 Annual Report and Accounts, Table from page 14 accessed from http://www. britishairways. com/cms/global/microsites/ba_reports0809/pdfs/CFO. pdf as of 22nd March 2011Carlton and Perloff, 2003 – Modern Industrial Organization, Chapter 6: Oligopoly, pages 160-192, Pearson Education; 4 edition (1 May 2003) Europa, 2000 – ‘COMMISSION DECISION of 14 July 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty (IV/D-2/34. 780 . Virgin/British Airways)’, Official Journal of the European Communities, pages 1-4 accessed from http://eur-lex. europa. eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. do? uri=OJ:l:2000:030:0001:0024:en:PDF as of 24th March 2011 IACA, 2007 – Press Releases: ‘EU-US Open SkiesDeal – Not So Open for European Airlines’, International Air Carriers Association accessed http://www. iaca. be/index. cfm? 79FD0308-BDBE-2776-0614-E6942D8F1AB5 as of 26th March 2011 Mongabay,2009 – ‘10-year commodity price chart for Crude oil’, Compiled by mongabay. com using figures from World Bank Commodity Price Data, accessed from http://www. mongabay. com/images/commodities/charts/crude_oil. html as of 11th March 2011 OFT, 2006 – Report on Transport, ‘UK airports: Report on the market study and proposed decision to make a market investigation reference’, page 139 accessed from http://www. ft. gov. uk/shared_oft/reports/transport/of t882. pdf as of 23rd March 2011 OFT, 2007 – The Office of Fair Trading, Press releases 2007: ‘British Airways to pay record ? 121. 5m penalty in price fixing investigation’, accessed from http://www. oft. gov. uk/news-and-updates/press/2007/113-07 as of 23rd March 2011 OFT,2011 – The Office of Fair Trading, ‘Making markets work well for consumers’, accessed from http://www. oft. gov. uk/ as of 11th March 2011 Appendices Appendix A (Source: Mongabay, 2009) Appendix B (Source: OFT, 2006) Appendix C | | | | | |