<p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>REUTERS/Yuri Gripas</span></p><p class="caption">United Airlines president Scott Kirby.</p></div><p></p></div></div>Shortly after American Airlines announced the departure of company president Scott Kirby on Monday, United Airlines announced his arrival as <em>its</em> new president. </p><p>Kirby's move over to American's major rival aside, the long-time executive's departure breaks up one of the most successful airline management teams in recent history.  </p><p>"American Airlines CEO Doug Parker and Kirby are perhaps the defining airline executive team (CEO + right-hand man) of the modern US Airline industry," Airways Magazine senior business analyst Vinay Bhaskara told Business Insider. </p><p>The duo's ascent to airline industry rockstar-dom over the past decade is virtually unprecedented.</p><p>Parker and Kirby first teamed up more than two decades ago at Tempe-based America West Airlines. The highly respected duo helped engineer AWA's merger with US Airways in 2005 followed by US Airways' 2013 merger with American Airlines. </p><p>In the period between the two mergers, the duo turned US Airways into a financially successful airline under less-than-ideal competitive conditions. </p><p>"They built US Airways into a viable competitor in the US market when US Airways had by far the worst network conditions to build a viable business," Bhaskara said. </p><p>Following the formation of the "new" American Airlines, Kirby and Parker worked their magic again with the airline reporting an<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-american-airlines-beats-4q-profit-forecasts-2016-1" target="_blank"> adjusted profit of $6.3 billion in 2015</a>. Although that figure was helped by a significant drop in oil prices.</p><p>Kirby's move from the largest airline in the world to a major domestic and international rival is uncommon, even in the topsy turvy world of the airline industry.</p><p>The exact series of events that led to Kirby's defection to United remains unclear.</p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Alex Wong/Getty</span></p><p class="caption">American Airlines CEO Doug Parker.</p></div><p></p></div></div>Although it is believed that his ambitions to one day assume the top job at American - currently filled by 54-year-old Doug Parker who is expected to be in that position for the foreseeable future - played a role in his decision. </p><p>In a statement to Business Insider, American Airlines explained:</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">"T<span>he changes announced yesterday are the result of the Company's Board of Directors' ongoing succession planning process. As part of that process, and subsequent conversations regarding career expectations and the marketability of its executives, the Company concluded it would not be able to retain its existing executive team in their current roles for an extended period."</span></p><p><span>Regardless of what happened during Kirby's final days at American, Parker remains (at least outwardly) highly complimentary of his former colleague.  </span></p><p><span>"On a personal note, Scott and I have worked together for over 20 years, beginning back at America West in 1995," Parker wrote in a letter to American Airlines employees on Monday. "He has been both a great colleague and a good friend and we are going to miss him. We will be forever grateful to him for his leadership and his influence in making American what it is today."</span></p><p><span><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/aero_icarus/5424557674/in/photolist-9gmh1s-ebwkBb-8HCSyz-8HCX1x-amokxB-4Z791U-dXJMMs-dYLZo4-dr1SE4-9ibZ4j-agzBXT-8HCLzx-9ENpBs-8HG7nW-dNfB1b-8GQsYM-9ibYZC-e1Am6A-dvyKw5-8GQsAe-dkZSHL-dnP1Aj-dg55zE-8F3aH7-8BfUSU-dXJt7m-dYLBrg-e1uNTg-8HGfzw-8b8eYE-8eAgXE-yZCHeH-8BcFuv-8HGeHE-8BfJX5-7uQapE-7FTSyn-8HCK4a-8HGdis-9kFTcy-8eAd1L-8GTCEQ-8HCUt8-8HFZmf-8HCNqD-8HFVEh-7vq9Yb-8YTuW5-8YQrTM-8YTrEN">Flickr/Aero Icarus</a></span></p><p class="caption">America West Airlines Boeing 757.</p></div><p></p></div></div>In addition, American also paid its former president a severance package valued at $13 million, the <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/american-airlines-president-moves-to-united-continental-1472502904" target="_blank">Wall Street Journal reported</a>. </span></p><p><span>At United, Kirby will be tasked with improving an airline that's lagged behind rivals American and Delta in terms of product and financial performance.</span></p><p><span><span>"Scott is a proven leader, whose deep airline experience and expertise will further accelerate our efforts to build the best airline in the industry," United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz wrote in a press statement.</span></span></p><p><span>"Kirby brings a strong degree of credibility to United, which its current management team lacks," Bhaskara said. "He also brings a laser focus on revenue maximization and improvement, and I think he's going to give United a more aggressive and growth oriented bent."</span></p><p><span><span>Upon his departure, American named former COO Robert Isom as Kirby's successor. </span></span></p>    <div class="margin-top">        <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/safest-airlines-world-airline-ratings-2016-5">These are the safest airlines in the world</a></h3>        <div>            <div>        <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="JkN2FyMzE68AvWTrE7iMlqM45Zva-nzH" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div>        </div>        </div>            </div>

American Airlines just broke up one of best management teams in modern airline history

<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><div class="image-container float_right"><div class="image"><p class="source"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dgmckelvey/3719495479/sizes/z/in/photostream/">Ted Chi on Flickr</a></p></div></div>Business at <keyword id="294127" type="COMPANY" weightage="60" keywordseo="Costco">Costco</keyword> is thriving.</span></p>
<p>The retailer is <a href="http://www.trefis.com/company?hm=COST.trefis#">posting gains</a> even as competitors like Wal-Mart and <keyword id="6359938" type="CITY" weightage="60" keywordseo="Target">Target</keyword> have struggled to attract cash-strapped consumers. </p>
<p>Analysts at Trefis have pinpointed a few reasons for Costco's incredible success. </p>
<p><strong>1. Customers want deals.</strong> It's estimated that shoppers can save up to 55% on groceries from buying in bulk at warehouse chains, write the analysts at Trefis.</p>
<p>Costco also keeps prices low by keeping store displays at a minimum and offering fewer items. The retailer only marks up merchandise 15%, compared with a 25% average for most grocery chains. </p>
<p>"<span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Due to these bargains, the warehouse club industry sales have grown </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">at a higher rate than general merchandise store sales over the last decade," the analysts write. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><strong>2. Costco is hyper-focused on local markets.</strong> The brand "</span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">grants its local store managers some discretion over the products that are kept in stores," the analysts at Trefis write.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Demand for salsa is highest in the Southwest region of the U.S., so stores there are sure to stay stocked up, for example. </span></p>
<p><strong>3. C</strong><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><strong>ostco changes its brands often. </strong> "C</span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">ustomers always find something new at its stores and get a 'treasure hunt' </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">experience," say the Trefis analysts.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The retailer occasionally offers some high-end items like Coach purses and Dom </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Perignon champagne to further intrigue shoppers. </span></p>

Three Reasons Why Costco Is Beating Wal-Mart And Target

<p><em><div class="image-container float_right" style="width:400px"><div class="image"></div><p class="source">REUTERS/David Denoma</p></div>Editor's note: yesterday, we <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/u-haul-list-of-top-growth-cities-2013-4">published</a> new data from U-Haul showing <keyword id="50376" type="COMPANY" weightage="60" keywordseo="Pittsburgh">Pittsburgh</keyword> had the highest percentage of inbound to outbound moves in 2012.</em></p>
<p><em>We reached out to newly minted Pittsburgh resident <a href="https://twitter.com/dombeveridge">Dom Beveridge</a>, a multifamily real estate and lodging/travel industry consultant, to explain the incredible influx to the Steel City. </em></p>
<p><em>Here is an edited version of the note he sent us:</em></p>
<p>I recently moved here from California for my wife’s work — she's in the <keyword id="6359072" type="CITY" weightage="60" keywordseo="oil">oil</keyword> industry. That’s not unusual – if one half of a couple has a career in oil (where you have to move around in order to advance) then the other can’t have a location-bound job. Other oil companies are doing the same.</p>
<p>The energy boom here is real.  But in my view the important thing to understand is that it’s in its very early stages.  Production right now is tiny, given that the Appalachians sit the world’s second largest known gas reserve (after Iran/Qatar).  I think it’s because natural gas prices are very low in the US – which (bizarrely) means that supply doesn’t grow as quickly as it would if gas were as expensive as crude oil, for example.  But big oil companies have been buying up shale gas producers and are in it for the long run.  Over time demand will grow (frankly it’s ridiculous that the US continues to mine and burn coal given the abundance of gas), which will push prices and production up.  Which means that for the next generation or two wealth should accumulate rapidly in and around Pittsburgh.</p>
<p>There are a few other factors that – I think – set the city up nicely.  There was never much of a housing bubble in Pittsburgh.  House prices were relatively low both before and after the financial crash.  So I don’t think the city suffered that characteristic of lots of people suddenly being under water on their houses.  So local businesses probably came through the downturn relatively unscathed.  Further, prior to the invention of horizontal drilling (the technology that made the shale gas boom possible when it was invented about a decade ago), Pittsburgh’s economy was already growing, having re-invented itself as a center of higher education and medicine.</p>
<p>My wife (who actually grew up here) points to an event a few years ago.  The US Steel Building (the tallest building between NY and Chicago) became the UPMC building.  It felt like that change to the skyline signaled a change in the city’s economic fortunes.  Pitt and CMU are excellent universities.  UPMC is a world class medical organization.  CMU is a top engineering school, and produces an abundance of the skills needed in a knowledge-based economy.  It’s what made Google set up shop here.  Their presence – and presumably other, related companies – are changing the East End of the city (the area near the universities).  Folks that knew that part of town 10 years ago say that the transformation has been remarkable.  Neighborhoods like East Liberty, Lawrenceville etc, used to be rough and have little to offer culturally, etc.  Now they’re hotbeds of good restaurants, entertainment and culture.  Nobody could have said that a few years ago!</p>
<p>There are now more jobs of the type customarily found in SF and Silicon Valley in Pittsburgh.  I think that’s mostly to do with Google – and again, that’s not a reflection of Google moving lots of people from SF to Pittsburgh, rather the competition for talent in the Bay Area is so fierce right now – especially for Facebook and Google – that it makes sense to set up operations close to major engineering schools (like CMU) in a few different US cities.</p>
<p>So I guess the summary is, I think the city has been doing well for some time, mostly because of favorable underlying economics and the long-term growth in the education and medical industries.  But shale gas is changing the fortunes of the city and will continue to do so for a long time.</p>

Why I Moved To Pittsburgh - The City That Americans Are Flocking To Faster Than Anywhere Else

Singapore Airlines' luxurious new suites are like hotel rooms in the sky. Here are the strategies I used to score a $4,000 ticket with points.

<p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/flashcurd/8716946717/">Flickr/Dom Crossley</a></span></p></div><p></p></div></div>The rewards of being right about climate change are bittersweet.</p><p>James Hansen should know this better than most - he <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html">warned of this whole thing</a> before Congress in 1988, when he was director of NASA's Institute for Space Studies. At the time, the world was experiencing its warmest five-month run since we started recording temperatures 130 years earlier.</p><p>Hansen said, "It is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here."</p><p>Fast forward 28 years and, while we're <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/trump-says-nuclear-weapons-are-the-riskiest-kind-of-climate-change/">hardly out of the Waffle House yet</a>, we know much more about<strong> </strong>climate change <keyword id="41551" type="ENTERTAINMENT" weightage="100" keywordseo="science">science</keyword>. Hansen is still worried that the rest of us aren't worried enough.</p><p>Last summer, prior to countries' United Nations negotiations in Paris, Hansen and 16 collaborators authored a draft paper that suggested we could see at least 10 feet of sea-level rise in as few as 50 years. If that sounds alarming to you, <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/james-hansens-new-climate-study-is-terrifying-but-he-still-has-hope/">it is</a> - 10 feet of sea-level rise is more than enough to effectively kick us out of even the most well-endowed coastal cities. Stitching together archaeological evidence of past climate change, current observations, and future-telling climate models, the authors suggested that even a small amount of global warming can rack up enormous consequences - and quickly.</p><p>However the paper, publicized before it had been through peer review, elicited a mix of shock and skepticism, with some journalists calling the news a<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/sea_level_study_james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_warning.html">"bombshell"</a> but a number of <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/a-rocky-first-review-for-a-climate-paper-warning-of-a-stormy-coastal-crisis/">scientists</a> urging <a href="http://www.onearth.org/earthwire/james-hansen-sea-level-rise">deeper consideration</a>.</p><p>Now, <a href="https://app.box.com/s/i4u002tbpcvkamj9wq4n8t1u8wxsjhis">the final version of the paper</a> has been published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. It's been reviewed and lightly edited, but its conclusions are still shocking - and still contentious.</p><p>So what's the deal? The authors highlight several of threats they believe we'll face this century, including many feet of sea-level rise, a halting of major ocean circulatory currents, and an outbreak of super storms. These are the big threats we've been afraid of - and Hansen <em>et al.</em> say they could be here before we know it - well before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's sanctioned climate models predict.</p><p>Here we help you understand their new paper:</p><h2><strong>Sea-level rise</strong></h2><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/tsaiproject/7095237743/in/photolist-bNYWZe-fa5dY5-dd8MCw-cPgBpA-5Ma7aT-mnpEug-9TKLHR-LfudF-KGnRo-aTioJH-eHjdu2-4HNd4i-88RVR7-6usa9s-6QmLCy-b6mAUr-b6yioa-9QDiDF-7rXphu-4nHazH-6u9zVB-deDTP1-9JT7ii-9JT7Fv-dMSiLu-6FwTGu-9CX6B8-ad94TB-sWG64E-jxJmqv-7Bk3yF-pdbrvK-pJ7qmc-mnrdfE-9moaqm-rpEhAi-8NtWWr-6GHMP3-MoV5h-fesQ5X-7JDn2o-pygP1E-azose-d3zjnd-eH7FGi-9qAAPA-2zEmax-scz8ut-4Gv6W5-o9BbaG">Flickr/tsaiproject</a></span></p></div><p></p></div></div>The scientists estimate that existing climate models aren't accounting well enough for current ice loss off of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. Right now, Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets both contribute under or near 1 millimeter to sea-level rise every year; they each contain enough stored ice to drive up ocean levels by 20 and 200 feet, <a href="https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html">respectively</a>.</p><p>This study suggests that, since the rate of ice loss is increasing, we should think of it not as a straight line but as an exponential curve, doubling every few years. But how much time it takes to double makes a big difference. Right now, measurements of ice loss aren't clear enough to even make a strong estimate about how long that period might be. Is it 10 years or is it 40? It's hard to say based on the limited data we have now, which would make a big difference either way.</p><p>But then again, we don't even <em>know</em> that ice loss is exponential. Ian Joughin - a University of Washington researcher unaffiliated with the paper and who has studied <a href="http://grist.org/article/the-west-antarctic-glaciers-are-breaking-up-with-us/">the tipping points of Antarctic glaciers</a> - put it <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X51BLD6LQEA">this way</a>: Think about the stock market in the '80s. If you observed a couple years of accelerating growth, and decided that rate would double every 4 years - you'd have something like 56,000 points in the Dow Jones Industrial by now.</p><p>Or if stocks aren't your thing, think about that other exponentially expanding force of nature: bacteria. Certain colonies of bacteria can <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_growth">double their population</a> in a matter of hours. Can they do this forever? No, or else we'd be nothing but bacteria right now (and while we're certainly a high percentage of bacteria, there's still room for a couple other things).</p><p>Nature tends to put limits on exponential growth, Joughin points out - and the same probably goes for ice loss: "There's only so fast you can move ice out of an ice sheet," Joughin explained. While some ice masses may be collapsing at an accelerating rate, others won't be as volatile.</p><p>This means, while some parts of ice sheet collapse may very well proceed exponentially, we can't expect such simple mathematics to model anything in the real world except the terror spike of the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Emf0G8LN5bQ">Kingda Ka</a>.</p><h2><strong>Ocean turnover</strong></h2><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Getty/MKnighton/Abu Dhabi Ocean Racing</span></p></div><p></p></div></div>Mmm mm, ocean turnover: Is it another word for a sushi roll or a fundamental process that keeps the climate <a href="http://grist.org/article/climate-change-will-destroy-the-planets-circulatory-system/">relatively stable and moderate</a>?</p><p>That's right - we're talking the Atlantic Meridonal Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, and other currents like it.</p><p>As cold meltwater flows off of glaciers and ice sheets at enormous rates, it pools at the ocean's surface, trapping the denser but warmer saltwater beneath it. This can seriously mess with the moving parts of the ocean, the so-called "conveyor belts" that cycle deep nutrient-rich water to the surface. These slow currents are driven by large-scale climate processes, like wind, and drive others, like the carbon cycle. But they also rely on gradients in temperature and density to run; if too much cold water from the glaciers pools at the surface, the whole conveyor belt could stutter to a stop.</p><p>In the North Atlantic, this would mean waters get colder, while the tropics, denied their influx of colder water, would heat up precipitously. Hansen says we're already seeing the beginnings of AMOC's slowdown: There's a spot of unusually cool water hanging out off of Greenland, while the U.S. East Coast continues to see warmer and warmer temperatures. Hansen said it plainly in a call with reporters: "I think this is the beginning of substantial slowdown of the AMOC."</p><h2><strong>Superstorms</strong></h2><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Katrina-noaaGOES12.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span></p></div><p></p></div></div>Pointing to giant hunks of rock that litter the shore of the Bahamas, among other evidence of ancient climates, the study's authors suggest that past versions of Earth may have featured superstorms capable of <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/11/28/oceans/">casually tossing boulders like bored Olympians</a>.</p><p>And as the temperature gradient between the tropic and the polar oceans gets steeper, thanks to that slowing of ocean-mixing currents, we could see stronger storms, too.</p><p>This is surprisingly intuitive: Picture a temperature gradient like a hill, with the high temperatures up at the top and the low temperatures down at the bottom. As the highs get higher and the lows get lower, that hill gets a lot steeper - and the storms are the bowling balls you chuck down the hill. A bowling ball will pick up a<em>lot</em> more speed on a steep hill, and hurt a lot more when it finally runs into something. Likewise, by the time these supercharged storms are slamming into coasts in the middle latitudes, they will be carrying a whole lot of deadly force with them.</p><h2><strong>So what does it all mean?</strong></h2><p>Whether other scientists quibble over these results or not - and they probably will - the overall message is hardly new. It's bad, you guys. It might be really, truly, deeply bad, or it might be slightly less bad. Either way, says Hansen, what we know for sure is that it's time to do something about it. "Among the top experts, there's a pretty strong agreement that we've reached a point where this is truly urgent," he said.</p><p>So Hansen is frustrated once more with the failure of humanity to respond adequately. The result he'd hoped for when he released an early version of the paper online last summer was to get world leaders to come together in Paris to agree on a global price on carbon. As he told Grist's Ben Adler <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/james-hansens-new-climate-study-is-terrifying-but-he-still-has-hope/">at the time</a>, "It's going to happen." (It didn't happen, but <a href="https://grist.org/series/the-paris-climate-talks-yes-oui-can/">some other stuff</a> <a href="https://grist.org/climate-energy/green-groups-are-deeply-divided-on-whether-the-paris-agreement-is-a-win-or-loss/">did</a>.)</p><p>Still, true urgency would require more of us than just slowing the growth of emissions - it requires stopping them altogether. In a <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648">paper published in 2013</a>, Hansen found that we have to cut 6 percent of our use of carbon-based fuels every year, if we want to avoid dangerous climate change.</p><p>Carbon prices and emissions cuts are more the purview of politicians and diplomats, but if anything, Hansen has shown he is unafraid to stray beyond the established protocol of academic science.</p><p>"I think scientists, who are trained to be objective, have something to offer by analyzing the problem all the way to the changes that are needed in order to address it," he said on a press call. "That 6 percent reduction - that's not advocacy, that's science. And then I would advocate that we do that!"</p><p>And to pre-empt the haters, Hansen wants you to remember one thing. "Skepticism is the life blood of science. You can be sure that some scientists will find some aspects in our long paper that they will think of differently," he said. "And that's normal."</p><p>So while scientists continue their debate over whether the ice sheets are poised to collapse in the next 50 years or the next 500, the prognosis is the same: The future is wetter, stranger, stormier unless we make serious moves to alternative energy sources now. Will we? Maybe. We've started but we still have a long, long way to go. If it's a race between us and the ice sheets, neither I nor James Hansen nor anyone else can tell you for sure who will win.</p><p>Hey, no one said telling the future was easy.</p><p><em>This post was originally published at <a href="http://grist.org/">Grist.org</a>. Read the original <a href="http://grist.org/science/the-scientist-who-first-warned-of-climate-change-says-its-much-worse-than-we-thought/">article</a>.</em></p>    <div class="margin-top">        <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-nye-climate-change-deniers-2016-2">Bill Nye offers up one scientific fact to shut down climate-change deniers</a></h3>        <div>            <div>        <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="1rNDgzMTE6DyM7x_OLBbDQUY78-pXUgK" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div>        </div>        </div>            </div>

You Searched For "doms industries price" and got 5 results

American Airlines just broke up one of best management teams in modern airline history

Benjamin Zhang

Three Reasons Why Costco Is Beating Wal-Mart And Target

Ashley Lutz

Why I Moved To Pittsburgh - The City That Americans Are Flocking To Faster Than Anywhere Else

Rob Wile

Singapore Airlines' luxurious new suites are like hotel rooms in the sky. Here are the strategies I used to score a $4,000 ticket with points.

Eric Rosen

The scientist who first warned us about climate change says it's way worse than we thought

Amelia Urry, Grist