COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY: EMIRATES AND THE OPEN SKIES
To learn more about current events, I decide to attend the Emirates and the Open Skies forum sponsored by the Center for International Business Education and Reasearch (also known as CIBER). I thought this event would be a great opportunity to learn more about a current business issue that is impacting a region to which I will be traveling. I have filed this entry both under the Beyond the Classroom and the Course Archive section of my portfolio because, while this session was not mandatory, it was recommended for students to attend. Further, in listening to a debate and gaining an understanding of a multi-faceted international business issue, this event helped me to build by cognitive complexity, a component of global intellectual capital.
The event began with Professor Martin Dresner, Chair of the Logistics, Business and Public Policy Department, who provided context to the debate Basically, the debate stems from the open skies agreement, which gives
carriers the right to compete freely on international routes, provided that they do not receive governemnt subsidies. The U.S. perspective is that Middle Eastern airlines like Emirates, Qatar Airways and Etihad Airways are receiving these subsidies, and thus, an unfair competitve advantage.
Will Lofberg, Vice President of International, Government and Environmental affairs at Emirates Airliens, then presented the counterargument. He argued that Emirates was not posng unfair competition to the U.S. legacy carriers, for the following reasons. First, he stated that being government-owned isn't the same thing as being government-subsidized. Further, he argued, legacy carrier are not flying the routes that Emirates is offering; since the carriers are offering different products, there isn't really the possibility of unfair competition. One could argue that although U.S. airlines may not be flying these routes, their partners are. To that point, Lofberg countered, is protecting the interest of foreign partner carriers really the work of U.S. policy makers. Finally, Lofberg pointed out that if the U.S. is unwilling to have an open skies agreement with the United Arab Emirates, it should hold the same stance for all state-owned airlines.
After Lofberg spoke, I was confused that the event was over because I expected a representative of the U.S. airlines to present the counterargument. I didn't realize that Dresner was advocating for the U.S. perspective rather than exclusively providing context for the debate. However, both men ultimately agreed that the true advantage of the Middle Eastern airlines was their geographic location. Being located between Europe and East Asia, the Middle Eastern airlines serve as a hub for transatlantic flights.
The Takeaways
This event educated me on a current issue in global business. Prior to attending this event, I had only a cursory familiarity with the "open skies agreements" (I had heard of them previously in my International Supply Chain Management course). I had no idea of the current tactical issues surrounding the agreements. Learning about these boosted my global business savvy.
Additionally, this event highlighted the importance of geopgraphic location as a potential source of strategic competitve advantage. I look forward to learning more about how other firms are using their location to their advantage on my study abroad trip to Dubai this winter.
Finally, this event truly helped me to develop my cognitive complexity. In listening to the debate, weighing two bodies of evidence and drawing my own conclusions, I practiced ability to "grasp concept concepts quickly" and analyze an issue. This definitely contributed to me developing my in
