Although it is the airlines" intention to attract executive passengers from their rivals, the airlines themselves would nonetheless like to change one bad habit of this kind of traveler--the expensive habit of booking a flight and then failing to turn up. The practice is particularly widespread in Europe, where businessmen frequently book return journeys home one on several flights.

词汇：

coincidence [kəu"insidəns]  n. 巧合          

jostle ["dӡɔsl] v. 争抢

cut-throat ["kʌtθrəʊt] adj. 你死我活的        

 headset ["hedset] 头戴式耳机

accent ["æksənt] n. 强调，重视             

versed [və:st]  adj.熟练的，精通的

pitch [pit∫] n. 空间，位置                 

sleeperette [͵sli:pə"ret] n. 可卧座位

注释：

1.Lufthansa and Swissair:（德国）汉莎航空公司和瑞士航空公司

2-…push some airlines into collapse and leave many others hovering on the brink.……迫使一些航空公司倒闭，把许多别的公司推到倒闭的边缘。

Which of the following is a bad habit of the executive passengers that frustrates the airlines?

A:They do not book their seats in advance B:They do not sit on the seats they are supposed to take C:They do not travel on the flight they have booked D:They do not pay in advance for the seats they book

After the terrorist attacks in America last September, terrorist risk became the pariah of perils. The airline industry was most directly affected by the attacks, and it was the first to find that no one wanted to insure terrorist risk. Insurance companies immediately increased premiums and cut cover for airlines’ third-party terror and war liabilities to $ 50m per airline, per "event". Under pressure from airlines, the American government and the members of the European Union agreed to become insurers of last resort for airlines’ war and terrorist liabilities, for a limited period. These government guarantees are due to expire at the end of the month.
The American government has already agreed to extend its guarantee for another 60 days. The EU’s transport ministers are meeting next week in Brussels to decide what to do. Insurers and reinsurers are keen for the commercial market to resume the provision of all airline insurance as soon as possible. No wonder: The premiums for such cover have inevitably increased considerably.
However, in the case of terrorism, and especially of terrorism in the skies, a number of special factors arise. Some are purely practical: a disaster as sudden and unforeseen as the attacks on the World Trade Center has had destructive effects on the insurance industry. The maximum cover for third-party terrorist risk available in the primary aviation market is now $ 50m, and that is not nearly enough cover risks that are perceived to be much higher since September 11th. Even if the market could offer sufficient cover, another catastrophe on such a scale would be more than the market could cope with.
In addition, a rare and devastating risk of a political nature is arguably one that it is right for governments to cover, at least in part. In the wake of attacks by Irish terrorists the British government has recognized this point by agreeing to back a mutual fund to cover risks to property from terrorist attack.
In the case of the airlines, the appropriate answer is some form of mutual scheme with government backing. In fact, under the code-name "Equitime", representatives of airlines, insurers and the American government are setting up an insurance vehicle to be financed by airlines and reinsured by the government. Governments would guarantee the fund’s excess. risk, but their role would diminish as the fund grew.
Setting something up will take time. So, to bridge the gap, governments will have to remain insurer of last resort for airlines’ war and terrorist risk for some time to come.
The writer argues that in the foreseeable future the insurer of last resort for airline’s terrorist risk will be

A:insurance companies. B:governments’ guarantees. C:airlines themselves. D:mutual fund schemes.

All big ideas start life on the fringes of debate. Very often it takes a shocking: event to move them into the mainstream. Until last year interest in climate change was espoused mainly by scientists and green lobbyists -and the few politicians they had badgered into paying attention. But since Hurricane Katrina, something seems to have changed, particularly in America.
There are plenty of anecdotal signs of change: Britain’s pro business Tories have turned green; AI Gore is back in fashion in America. Companies are beginning to take action and encouraging governments to do the same. Europe already has an emissions trading system (ETS) for its five dirtiest industries. In America, although the Bush administration still resists federal legislation, more and more states do not.
So far the political rows about global warming have centered on two polluters, smoggy factories and dirty cars. Next month the European Parliament will vote on whether to extend its emissions trading system to airlines. If it decides in favor, the whole industry will feel the impact, for it will affect not just European airlines but all those that fly into and out of the EU. Talk about this prospect soured the International Air Transport Association’s annual meeting this week in Paris. But whatever happens in the EU, the airlines look set to face vociferous demands that they should pay for their emissions.
In. some ways, the airlines are an odd target for greens. They produce only around 3% of the world’s manmade carbon emissions. Surface transport, by contrast, produces 22%. Europe’.,, merchant ships spew out around a third more carbon than aircrafts do, and nobody is going after them. And unlike cars -potent symbols of individualism -airlines are public transport, jamming in as many people as they can into each plane.
What’s more, many air travelers cannot easily switch. Car drivers can hop on the train or the bus, but transatlantic travelers can’t row from London to New York. Nor can aircraft fuel be swapped for a green alternative. Car drivers can buy electro petrol hybrids but aircrafts are, for now, stuck with kerosene, because its energy density makes it the only practical fuel to carry around in the air.
Yet in other ways, airlines are a fine target. They pay no tax on fuel for international flights, and therefore escape the "polluter pays" principle even more niftily than other forms of transport. Their emissions are especially damaging, too -partly because the nitrogen oxides from jet engine exhausts help create ozone, a potent greenhouse gas, and partly because the pretty trails that aircrafts leave behind them help make the clouds that can intensify the greenhouse effect.
Slowly, businessmen and politicians are coining to agree with scientists. If this generation does not tackle climate change, its descendants will not think much of it. That means raising costs for all sources of pollution. Even those deceptively cheap weekend breaks cannot be exempt.
The text suggests that the extension of ETS to airlines will affect

A:the whole aircraft industry. B:European airlines. C:all those airlines that fly into and out of the EU. D:the cost of emissions.

After the terrorist attacks in America last September, terrorist risk became the pariah of perils. The airline industry was most directly affected by the attacks, and it was the first to find that no one wanted to insure terrorist risk. Insurance companies immediately increased premiums and cut cover for airlines’ third-party terror and war liabilities to ＄ 50m per airline, per "event". Under pressure from airlines, the American government and the members of the European Union agreed to become insurers of last resort for airlines’ war and terrorist liabilities, for a limited period. These government guarantees are due to expire at the end of the month.
The American government has already agreed to extend its guarantee for another 60 days. The EU’s transport ministers are meeting next week in Brussels to decide what to do. Insurers and reinsurers are keen for the commercial market to resume the provision of all airline insurance as soon as possible. No wonder: The premiums for such cover have inevitably increased considerably.
However, in the case of terrorism, and especially of terrorism in the skies, a number of special factors arise. Some are purely practical: a disaster as sudden and unforeseen as the attacks on the World Trade Center has had destructive effects on the insurance industry. The maximum cover for third-party terrorist risk available in the primary aviation market is now $ 5Om, and that is not nearly enough cover risks that are perceived to be much higher since September 11th. Even if the market could offer sufficient cover, another catastrophe on such a scale would be more than the market could cope with.
In addition, a rare and devastating risk of a political nature is arguably one that it is right for governments to cover, at least in part. In the wake of attacks by Irish terrorists the British government has recognized this point by agreeing to back a mutual fund to cover risks to property from terrorist attack.
In the case of the airlines, the appropriate answer is some form of mutual scheme with government backing. In fact, under the code-name "Equitime", representatives of airlines, insurers and the American government are setting up an insurance vehicle to be financed by airlines and reinsured by the government. Governments would guarantee the fund’s excess risk, but their role would diminish as the fund grew.
Setting something up will take time. So, to bridge the gap, governments will have to remain insurer of last resort for airlines’ war and terrorist risk for some time to come.
The writer argues that in the foreseeable future the insurer of last resort for airline’s terrorist risk will be

A:insurance companies. B:governments’ guarantees. C:airlines themselves. D:mutual fund schemes.

A:the tourist industry is experiencing an all-time low. B:there is no increase in the number of passengers. C:there are more seats on the planes than needed. D:the competition between airlines is strong.

A:the tourist industry is experiencing an all-time low. B:there is no increase in the number of passengers. C:there are more seats on the planes than needed. D:the competition between airlines is stron