CASE 3: GIANT AIRLINES (22 marks) Giant Airlines operates out of three main "hub" airports in the United States. Recently, Mosquito Airlines began operating a flight from Smallville into Giant's Metropolis hub for $360. Giant Airlines offers a price of $595 for the same route. The management of Giant is not happy about Mosquito invading its turf. In fact, Giant has driven off nearly every other competing airline from its hub, so that today 90% of flights into and out of Metropolis are Giant Airline flights. Mosquito is able to offer a lower fare because its pilots are paid less, it uses older planes, and it has lower overhead costs. Mosquito has been in business for only six months; it services only two other cities. It expects the Metropolis route to be its most profitable. Giant estimates that it would have to charge $380 just to break even on this flight. It estimates that Mosquito can break even at a price of $320. One day after Mosquito's entry into the market, Giant dropped its price to $300, which Mosquito then matched. Both airlines maintained this fare for nine months, until Mosquito went out of business. As soon as Mosquito went out of business, Giant raised its fare back to $595. Required: a) Who are the stakeholders in this case? Identify 3 stakeholders and explain how they are uniquely impacted by the actions of Giant and Mosquito. (6 marks) b) What are some of the reasons why Mosquito's break-even point is lower than Giant's? (3 marks) c) What are the likely reasons why Giant was able to offer this price for this period of time, while Mosquito could not? Offer reasoning unique from your response to part b. (3 marks) d) What are some of the possible courses of action that Mosquito could have followed in this situation? Describe two possible courses of action in detail. Explain what the likely outcome of each might have been and why. (4 marks) e) Do you think that this kind of pricing activity is ethical? What are the implications for the stakeholders in this situation? Explain and support your stance using external facts, examples, legislation, or guidelines. (6 marks)