Answer:
37,500 adults visits to break even
Explanation:
In this case, we don't need to cover the ntire fixed cost with adult visits, as some portion is cover with children visits:
500,000 fixed cost
40% cover by children
500,000 - 40% = 300,000
Then each adult contribution is 8 EUR so we calculate the Break-even point in adul visits:
300,000 / 8 EUR per adult = 37,500 adults visits
Answer:
$1,300 billion
Explanation:
total private consumption = nondurable goods spending + durable goods spending + spending on services = $200 billion + $400 billion + $700 billion = $1,300 billion
New residential housing spending ($500 billion) are considered residential investments, not part of private consumption.
The first three steps of the strategic management process involve planning, execution and monitoring of strategies.
Successful strategic management involves three steps namely planning, execution and monitoring of the developments & progress.
With the help of strategic management, actions speak more louder than the words. Effective strategic planning that yields the appropriate decisions which can come up even short on delivering performance improvements.
Strategic Management is a more powerful means of optimizing the long-term performance of an organization. The last key to success is repetition of the process of strategic management again and again.
To know more about strategic management process here:
brainly.com/question/28102251
#SPJ4
Answer:
The benefits of a High Speed Rail in California:
- It becomes a feasible alternative to air travel, because it can be either cheaper, or even faster, since passengers do not have to spend as much time on a train station as they do on an airport.
- If demand is high enough, state highways can become less congested, because many people who would otherwise travel by car, would take a high speed train instead.
- Because the trains are electric, they are likely to help reduce pollution.
The cons would be:
- We cannot know for sure how many people would take the high speed trains. Demand could not be high enough to justify the cost.
- The line would be very costly.
- It could end up benefit only a small section of the population who would take the trains, or who travel often.
I believe that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, as can be seen in most countries where high speed lines have been made between large cities. For example, in Spain, the line between Madrid and Barcelona is profitable. The same would likely happen for a line between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
What are the implications of starting a project based on tenuous projections that may or may not come true 10 years from now?
If demand projections are tenous, there is always the possiblity that the high speed line could not be profitable. However, this risk can be lowered if the line is made between highly populated cities.
Could you justify the California high-speed rail project from the perspective of a massive public works initiative?
Yes, a high speed rail would be a project that could massively impact California. The benefits of its operation could outweight the cost.
In other words, what other factors enter into the decision of whether to pursue a high-speed rail project?
As I said before, the most important factor is to construct line between highly populated cities in order to reduce the risk of not having enough demand. It has been demonstrated around the world, in Spain, in Italy, in Japan, in China, that high speed lines that connect very populated regions, can be profitable.