Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Markets Podcast. I'm Paul Sweeney, along
Speaker 1: with my co host of Bonnie Quinn. Every business day
Speaker 1: we bring you interviews from CEOs, A, market pros, and
Speaker 1: Bloomberg experts, along with essential market moving news. Kind the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Markets Podcast on Apple podcast or wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to podcasts, and on Bloomberg dot com. Let's get straight
Speaker 1: to Lauren sour Johns Hopkins University System, Professor of Emergency Medicine.
Speaker 1: We're getting the numbers out of you know, you're right now,
Speaker 1: Italy recording a record new daily coronavirus cases of just
Speaker 1: more than ten thousand, ten thousand and ten people in Italy.
Speaker 1: On Thursday it was just eight thousand, eight hundred. We
Speaker 1: have England, you know, fighting in terms of Boris Johnson
Speaker 1: telling some of the districts to shut themselves down, places
Speaker 1: like Manchester, you know, really reacting to this. So it's
Speaker 1: it's causing a lot of trouble around the world again, Lauren,
Speaker 1: how much worse is this going to get? Once again?
Speaker 1: You know, I don't think we know, but I think
Speaker 1: all of the signals are indicating that we need to
Speaker 1: be prepared for it to be bad again. Um, even
Speaker 1: in places that we thought we had sort of passed
Speaker 1: the peak. I think a lot of us are starting
Speaker 1: to think that this is the second wave that we've
Speaker 1: been hoping we didn't see, UM, and that some people
Speaker 1: have dismissed as not coming, especially because it's aligning with
Speaker 1: respiratory viruses and more generally so UM, making sure that
Speaker 1: that we have a sense of what cases are COVID cases,
Speaker 1: what cases are flu and RSV cases, and really being
Speaker 1: able to manage those patients appropriately. I think we're going
Speaker 1: to continue to see the numbers take up across the globe. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and you have to worry about hospitals once again, you
Speaker 1: have to worry about senior homes and so on. Boris
Speaker 1: Johnson just saying about an hour ago that he doesn't
Speaker 1: want new national virus lockdowns, and and there's many countries
Speaker 1: that don't. But you do see the likes of France
Speaker 1: imposing curfews and the likes of Ireland saying that you
Speaker 1: can't gather in people's homes anymore. Um. Is that what
Speaker 1: it's going to take? More complete shutdowns? Yeah? I mean
Speaker 1: I don't think anyone wants to see these lockdowns. I
Speaker 1: think that they are really challenging to implement and enforce
Speaker 1: and have can have you know, dramatic impacts on people,
Speaker 1: and particularly on the mental health space, and and the
Speaker 1: idea that they impact the our ability to get people
Speaker 1: back into schools, back into jobs, back into the economy. Um.
Speaker 1: But we did see the efficacy of these control measures
Speaker 1: early in the pandemic, um, you know, and in the
Speaker 1: spring and summer, So they shouldn't be discounted for sure.
Speaker 1: And while I'm sure they'll be applied regionally based on
Speaker 1: the way cases are moving, Um, they we definitely can't
Speaker 1: discount them as a control measure at this point, Lauren.
Speaker 1: You know, after the President got sick and sort of
Speaker 1: you know, basically went on national television and radio for
Speaker 1: sort of four days straight and then appeared at a
Speaker 1: you know, a town hall last night and seemed to
Speaker 1: be in good condition. Does it mean that therapeutics have
Speaker 1: got that good that you could go immediately to hospital
Speaker 1: as soon as you feel symptoms and get these steroids
Speaker 1: and these drugs and be fine four days if you're
Speaker 1: one of the people that receives the virus in this
Speaker 1: for a fairly generic way. Yeah, I don't think that
Speaker 1: that's what it means at all. In fact, I think
Speaker 1: that the president received exceptional care as the president of
Speaker 1: the United States, and I think his case actually highlights,
Speaker 1: UM the disparities of care across the nation, across our nation,
Speaker 1: and across the globe. UM that that many people who
Speaker 1: had been infected with with oars kobe to like him, UM,
Speaker 1: but who are not the President, who don't, who won't
Speaker 1: receive these exceptional standards of care, UM did not do
Speaker 1: as well and continue to not do as well. And
Speaker 1: we still see people dying across the globe every day
Speaker 1: because UM, they don't have this access to care and
Speaker 1: they don't have this exceptional management. But also because it
Speaker 1: may be, you know, a one off case. We can't
Speaker 1: learn anything from a single case. You know, there's so
Speaker 1: many confounding variables in what happened to him and his
Speaker 1: course of treatment and how his case was managed that
Speaker 1: there's no way to infer that it's specific to one
Speaker 1: rug or one experimental therapeutic or one type one element
Speaker 1: of his care. UM, all those things combined probably created
Speaker 1: an environment in which he UM received the best you know,
Speaker 1: had the best possible outcome. Anyone of his stats could
Speaker 1: have expected. Yeah, and I think that bear is repeating.
Speaker 1: And Chris Christie spent a week in the hospital, for example,
Speaker 1: he also got all sorts of drugs that you know,
Speaker 1: we don't know about. Possibly not as well cared for
Speaker 1: as the president, but probably very very closely, you know,
Speaker 1: in terms of the standard. But if you look at
Speaker 1: England right now, we just heard that four thousand, six
Speaker 1: hundred forty seven people were hospitalized and new virus deaths
Speaker 1: were up by one thirty six the day before. So
Speaker 1: people are still dying daily from this virus. I think
Speaker 1: that needs to be underlined constantly. Is there any reduction
Speaker 1: in the fatality rate in terms of who's getting it? Yeah, UM,
Speaker 1: I can't speak to the actually like the specific numbers.
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of people working on understanding
Speaker 1: how we manage these patients and if mortality is decreasing. Um.
Speaker 1: I haven't seen the you know, the latest data on that,
Speaker 1: but I can say that I think we're getting better
Speaker 1: at managing, UM, how how we manage, how we ventilate,
Speaker 1: how we take care of these patients and so um,
Speaker 1: you know, we are able to get patients out of
Speaker 1: the hospital faster, which is always better. For people. UM,
Speaker 1: we're able to keep people off mechanical ventilation, which demonstrates
Speaker 1: that we're managing their respirations better. So we're learning a
Speaker 1: lot more about the patients and how to manage um
Speaker 1: these respiratory effects and that that always will lead to
Speaker 1: improved outcomes. If you can keep people off mechanical ventilation,
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's always better to keep people from
Speaker 1: being intubated. So I think we are getting better at
Speaker 1: caring for COVID nineteen patients. UM. I don't know if
Speaker 1: we if we can say that we've reduced mortality yet. Um,
Speaker 1: but we ventilate less and we um and we get
Speaker 1: people out of the hospital quicker, Lauren. Really just time
Speaker 1: for yes or no answer. But at the beginning, people
Speaker 1: were discouraged from going to hospital until they really felt
Speaker 1: like it was life and death. Now it seems like
Speaker 1: people are being encouraged to go immediately. What's your advice,
Speaker 1: I would say, get tested. That's step one. So get tested. UM,
Speaker 1: you know your status, and if you're feeling unwell, then
Speaker 1: it's time to call your doctor or go to the hospital.
Speaker 1: If you don't have a primary care doctor. Laurence, thank you.
Speaker 1: We put you on the spot all the time to
Speaker 1: try and give us answers. And we're fully aware that
Speaker 1: you all are learning about this day by day as well,
Speaker 1: and we appreciate that you keep up with all of
Speaker 1: the everything that's going on. Lauren sour Johns Hopkins University,
Speaker 1: Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine, delighted to welcome kids Juke's
Speaker 1: chief Global effects strategist for Associated General and so much more.
Speaker 1: In fact, that's just the beginning of what he does
Speaker 1: for Associate A General Kit. Let's get straight into it.
Speaker 1: The e C. S vonder Lyon is sending a team
Speaker 1: to London next week to intensify talks. Why why is
Speaker 1: the European Union being so nice if you like, to
Speaker 1: Britain when Boris Johnson gave himself a self imposed deadline
Speaker 1: of yesterday, um I look, I think in the end
Speaker 1: it's in the interest of both parties to get a deal,
Speaker 1: at least a deal, not to add further disruptions to
Speaker 1: their economies. Remember, you know, these are big trading partners
Speaker 1: for the EU as a whole. The UK is about
Speaker 1: number three or number two you know out there in
Speaker 1: terms of number three in terms of overall trade, So
Speaker 1: it's not it's not negligible even for them. It's a
Speaker 1: bigger relationship the other way around by without any doubt
Speaker 1: at all. But so they have an interest in getting
Speaker 1: something over the line. You wouldn't want the negative hit
Speaker 1: from a freeze on trade or a real major disruption
Speaker 1: on trade between the UK and the EU to happen
Speaker 1: in the middle of a pandemic. He wouldn't want to happen, ever,
Speaker 1: But it would be really dumb not to be able
Speaker 1: to get something cobbled together in the middle of a pandemic. Um,
Speaker 1: So I suspect that the EU will feel that they
Speaker 1: have to keep on coming at it and going at it.
Speaker 1: In my fifth suspect, but for all the rhetoric that
Speaker 1: the UK will have to stay at it as well, um,
Speaker 1: trying as hard as it knows how to try to
Speaker 1: make sure it gets you know, a better deal than
Speaker 1: the one that thinks it is inadequate. But but you know,
Speaker 1: clearly it's easy to make a mess of this from here. Yeah, no, absolutely,
Speaker 1: And I'm sure I hear what you're saying. But if
Speaker 1: Europe has already announced to it's sending a team next week,
Speaker 1: then what's the incentive for Boris Johnson to back down
Speaker 1: on anything or to reach some kind of compromise on
Speaker 1: anything before the weekend. I mean you say in your
Speaker 1: note that you say it seems unlikely the UK side
Speaker 1: will walk away. I guess that's something, But it also
Speaker 1: means that the UK doesn't really need to come up
Speaker 1: with some kind of solution. Well the UK, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean sort of. The facts are still that the
Speaker 1: UK has more to lose economically, um, and perhaps has
Speaker 1: you know, look the more difficult job given the starting
Speaker 1: point politically, that that the UK government may have a
Speaker 1: trickier task in terms of selling failure to negotiate something
Speaker 1: sensible to its own supporters. But um, you so the
Speaker 1: UK needs to save face. But the UK also needs
Speaker 1: to limit the economic damage because there's there's no getting
Speaker 1: away from fact that is that is bigger here. In
Speaker 1: that sense, the UK it still doesn't want to just
Speaker 1: walk away, but it does want the European side to
Speaker 1: understand we could. Um, the rest of us are looking
Speaker 1: there saying can you please all get you know, at
Speaker 1: least something that avoids this cliff edge disaster in the
Speaker 1: first quarter of next year. Little send the economy you know,
Speaker 1: straight back into a deep recession again at exactly the
Speaker 1: wrong time. Um, and and maybe that's still possible. I mean,
Speaker 1: I would say my my central assumption is that you know,
Speaker 1: at this point they're going to make a mess of it.
Speaker 1: But um, you know, at least, you know, while they
Speaker 1: still talk, maybe maybe sense prevails somehow. Yeah, Ki explained
Speaker 1: to us why Europe is not happy and why Britain
Speaker 1: is not happy. So on fisheries, for example, it's just
Speaker 1: one one example, but there's also that have a playing field.
Speaker 1: There's also other items on the agenda, and Europe wants
Speaker 1: to make sure that the UK doesn't leave clauses open
Speaker 1: such that it can decide on subsidies in the future
Speaker 1: without Europe's input. I mean that seems reasonable now, Yeah,
Speaker 1: So the I mean, I think this is the nature
Speaker 1: of of all trade deals is they're very complicated in
Speaker 1: terms of people looking forward and trying to prevent someone
Speaker 1: being able to cheat in the future. And part of
Speaker 1: the issue is that after you know, forty five years
Speaker 1: of a free trade area, neither side is very good
Speaker 1: at working out how you untangle it. Equally, the purpose,
Speaker 1: if you like, politically, was to be able to walk
Speaker 1: away from the EU from the UK government's perspective, and
Speaker 1: they're they're not going to interfere in our domestic business,
Speaker 1: so they feel bound to that statement, whereas in practice
Speaker 1: any trade deal involves a compromise on exactly that. Um.
Speaker 1: So again, you know, they have to find the way
Speaker 1: to swallow some pride but get most of what they
Speaker 1: want on both sides. And you know it's whether they
Speaker 1: have the political will to manage that. And of course
Speaker 1: all this is going on as lockdowns continue to increase
Speaker 1: in severity across Europe and in Britain as well, the
Speaker 1: House gatherings even in barred in London at the moment,
Speaker 1: and in other areas obviously across England. Kit what happens
Speaker 1: to Sterling and the euro and this environment, and does
Speaker 1: some of this depend on the dollar and what happens
Speaker 1: with general election here? Um it almost everything depends on
Speaker 1: what happens with the dollar as well. But look, I
Speaker 1: think the market I mean the last you know, I
Speaker 1: threw out a Twitter pole lunchtime today when when Boris
Speaker 1: Johnson made his comments and about sixty four think no
Speaker 1: deal is likely. So the market has something priced in
Speaker 1: for no deal. But if you if you do get
Speaker 1: a walk away, UM, I think we'll see, certainly we'll see, certainly, sir,
Speaker 1: Sterling lose UM five percent or so and more probably
Speaker 1: between five and ten percent against the euro, and the
Speaker 1: euro would lose something against the dollar as well, So
Speaker 1: O cable on that basis if we just walk away
Speaker 1: will be the wrong side of UM pretty quickly. I
Speaker 1: don't think it's you know, Sterling is so beaten up
Speaker 1: and historically so weak at these levels in trade weighted
Speaker 1: terms that I don't think it's it's it's going to
Speaker 1: send it dramatically further than that. I do think that
Speaker 1: the worst story will be, you know, we're we're likely
Speaker 1: to end up in a bad environment with negative rates
Speaker 1: sometime next year of the Bank eng and feels they
Speaker 1: need to do something that's not good for the currency.
Speaker 1: And we are likely to be the worst performer in
Speaker 1: terms of global growth of certainly of the kind of
Speaker 1: the G ten countries on the on the average growth
Speaker 1: of one and there's nothing, there's nothing terribly encouraging in that. Frankly, well,
Speaker 1: we will continue to watch the headlines as they come out. Again,
Speaker 1: it's still Friday, so something might still happen. Before the
Speaker 1: weekend or into next week. Kid, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining us this afternoon, London in time, Kitch you
Speaker 1: associated general now very happy to welcome Meshu, senior editor
Speaker 1: at the National Review and for Spoomberg opinion columnist. Mesh
Speaker 1: I want to ask you, obviously about the Scotus hearings
Speaker 1: this week, but first we have to have to mention
Speaker 1: the dueling town halls last night. I wonder if you're
Speaker 1: watching them in split screen and you know what your
Speaker 1: lasting impressions were. Well, I preferred to go to the
Speaker 1: transcript rather than watch it um to to compress the
Speaker 1: time commitment. And I think we got a pretty good
Speaker 1: picture of both of these men and what they're like.
Speaker 1: The voters were able to assess, for example, whether the
Speaker 1: story of cognitive decline that President Trump has been telling
Speaker 1: about Joe Biden UH is accurate or whether it's overdrawn.
Speaker 1: And I think that people could get a good perspective
Speaker 1: on that. And with Trump, we've all seen a lot
Speaker 1: of Trump philosophy years and he was the same as
Speaker 1: as usual. There was there and you know, and that
Speaker 1: includes the combativeness, it includes the conspiracy theories UM and UH,
Speaker 1: and and it includes the uh, the kind of uh
Speaker 1: rambling and disconnected sentences that we've come to expect, and frankly,
Speaker 1: we get a little bit from both of these candidates
Speaker 1: the whole Q and on stuff. Does he not know
Speaker 1: what it is? Is he lying to the public when
Speaker 1: he says he doesn't know what it is, except that
Speaker 1: he knows they battled pedophilia and are very against it,
Speaker 1: as if anyone in the world isn't. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: at a certain point you have to say, given that
Speaker 1: this has come up so frequently, um, maybe it's time
Speaker 1: he learned something about it. You know. The the explanation
Speaker 1: that he gives is not an excuse. And when you, um,
Speaker 1: say you don't know something about it, you don't then
Speaker 1: follow it up with praise, which is what he has done. Um.
Speaker 1: So you know, it's entirely possible that he is ignorant
Speaker 1: of it. But you know, I think at this point
Speaker 1: it's part of his job not to be All right,
Speaker 1: let's move to the course, because it's been a very
Speaker 1: very interesting week in terms of Scota's hearings, but also
Speaker 1: the idea that Democrats will want to maybe make changes
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court if in fact it becomes more
Speaker 1: plausible for the Democrats to do so. First of all,
Speaker 1: on the hearings, Judge Amy Coney Barrs is all butt
Speaker 1: in at this point, did you learn anything that you
Speaker 1: didn't already know about this candidate for the Supreme Court? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, these hearings are not designed to shed a
Speaker 1: ton of light on the judicial philosophy of the nominees.
Speaker 1: So uh so I can't say that I learned a
Speaker 1: lot in that respect. Um, I did get a good
Speaker 1: picture of somebody who is extraordin nearly adept, who was
Speaker 1: who was pretty quick on her feet, uh and extremely
Speaker 1: knowledgeable about Supreme Court case law, doctrines and so forth.
Speaker 1: This is what we'd expected, um. But but she was
Speaker 1: able to hold her own him, Etcender Feinstein, after asking
Speaker 1: her some tough questions about the Affordable Care Act, for example,
Speaker 1: pronounced herself impressed by Barrett's answers. Yes. And you have
Speaker 1: a great column out on this, Judge Barrett's best ally
Speaker 1: as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, And you point to the fact
Speaker 1: that not answering questions is a bipartisan tradition. But of
Speaker 1: course senators are always within their rights to try and
Speaker 1: change it, or try and you know, at least pressure
Speaker 1: the potential justice and see how they perform under pressure.
Speaker 1: It is, you know, one of the last times you'll
Speaker 1: hear from them publicly speaking like that, except the special
Speaker 1: events and so on. Biden said last night that the
Speaker 1: public with no around election time what the Democrats plan is.
Speaker 1: If they do have a chance to impact the court
Speaker 1: strategy around the country, what do you imagine the Democrats
Speaker 1: will come up with? Is an injustices really something that
Speaker 1: the public will want? So I think Biden has twisted
Speaker 1: himself and not a little bit on this question. So
Speaker 1: last night he said that voters deserved to have his
Speaker 1: answer to it before they voted before election day. But
Speaker 1: of course people are already voting, and Vice President Biden
Speaker 1: certainly knows this. Uh So there's no real good justification
Speaker 1: for waiting except to wait and see what the political
Speaker 1: winds um deliver. I think that there's gonna be a
Speaker 1: lot of interest on the part of the left wing
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party and expanding the Supreme Court and
Speaker 1: getting more reliable liberals on the bench if they're in
Speaker 1: a position to do that. That is, if Biden wins,
Speaker 1: and if the Democrats have the Senate UM so far
Speaker 1: that has been an unpopular position in the polls. There's
Speaker 1: a pretty long historical tradition of rejecting that kind of gift.
Speaker 1: But Franklin Roosevelt failed at this in the nineteen thirties
Speaker 1: after an election where he won forty forty eight states
Speaker 1: and his party had three quarters of the votes in
Speaker 1: the House and the Senate actually more. Um So, it's
Speaker 1: historically been a pretty fringe idea in a way it's
Speaker 1: been it's been an extreme and unpopular one. Uh So,
Speaker 1: we'll see whether Biden really decides that he wants to
Speaker 1: lead off his first year in office, assuming he wins
Speaker 1: with such an idea. Remess, I can't let you go
Speaker 1: without asking you a little bit about what you're making
Speaker 1: off some of the Senate races around the country. I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously we're watching the Lindsay Graham, you know, very closely
Speaker 1: that race. But also there was a very sort of
Speaker 1: odd and almost funny exchange between Mark Crk and Tommy
Speaker 1: duck Worth for the Illinois seat. What's standing out to
Speaker 1: you and what are you most keeping an eye on? Well,
Speaker 1: I think that we're at a moment air. These Senate
Speaker 1: races have very little independence from the presidential race, and
Speaker 1: the way people vote for the president is likely to
Speaker 1: be the way they vote for the Senate as well.
Speaker 1: So I think that a lot of Republican Senate candidates
Speaker 1: in a lot of states are looking at how the
Speaker 1: president's doing and uh and getting pretty nervous right now. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And of course I mean that duck Worth Kirk thing
Speaker 1: coming up again sort of this cycle, because we're seeing
Speaker 1: a lot of that around the country. And then finally,
Speaker 1: you know Ben sass comments about Trump and what they
Speaker 1: said about the GOP and the election outlook. Did did
Speaker 1: did that mean anything to you? Does it have any
Speaker 1: kind of wider implication or is it just the type
Speaker 1: of chatter that's happening, you know, and say Lincoln projects circles. Well,
Speaker 1: I am sure that Senator Staff was accurately relating his sentiments.
Speaker 1: I think that he felt kind of buttoned up and
Speaker 1: unable to express those kinds of view when he was
Speaker 1: facing the prospect of a Republican primary in Nebraska and
Speaker 1: didn't want to spend pro Trump voters. That once he
Speaker 1: won that primary, I think he's felt more liberated to
Speaker 1: express his views. Remesh, thank you, throwing a lot of
Speaker 1: topics that you want to get all of your opinions
Speaker 1: and your intelligence as we really head to the last
Speaker 1: couple of weeks in this cycle. It's it's a fascinating
Speaker 1: one and each time every four years there's always something
Speaker 1: new that really makes us glued to our media entrepreneurs
Speaker 1: with the National Review and of course at Bloomberg Opinion columnist,
Speaker 1: thank you for joining us on this Friday. Now another
Speaker 1: major story of the day, and for that return to
Speaker 1: George Ferguson of Bloomberg Intelligence. The Boeing Max has been
Speaker 1: judged safe to fly by Europe's aviation regulator. This is
Speaker 1: a serious, serious decision. It's been in the wings, no
Speaker 1: pun intended for a long long time, but it does
Speaker 1: like it might be a bit of a strange time
Speaker 1: to give Boeing the go ahead when account really put
Speaker 1: Max is in the air. Anyway, George, come on in
Speaker 1: and talk to us about this. What are your thoughts
Speaker 1: on the timing of this good morning it Yes, so
Speaker 1: our thoughts are that we actually thought the European regulator
Speaker 1: would come in after the US regulator approved the airplane
Speaker 1: to fly again. But look, I think it's all fine.
Speaker 1: I think it all of the information we're getting out
Speaker 1: of the f a A is that they're very happy
Speaker 1: with the process so far. There's a couple more there's
Speaker 1: a couple more parts of the process. The f a
Speaker 1: has two complete order to reauthorize the MAX to fly.
Speaker 1: But I think it's a it's a nice endorsement for
Speaker 1: the airplane that the Europeans feel it's safe enough to
Speaker 1: fly in their airspace. It looks to us, like you know,
Speaker 1: by the end of the year, early next year, the
Speaker 1: MAX will be clear to fly in two of its
Speaker 1: most important markets, Europe and the US. And so I
Speaker 1: think if you're bowing, this is great news, and we're
Speaker 1: seeing it in the share place right now. Yeah, you
Speaker 1: have to wonder about orders though, and how much they'll
Speaker 1: come back given the environment that we're in with pandemic
Speaker 1: and so on. George, we know that there were some
Speaker 1: some bumps along the way, if you like, and there
Speaker 1: were some setbacks, software setbacks and so on. Can we
Speaker 1: fully trust both regulators that they've seen everything, that they
Speaker 1: followed all the processes, and when we do finally hear
Speaker 1: from the f a A that the MAX is just
Speaker 1: absolutely pristine and in great condition. I do think that
Speaker 1: the airplane has been poured over extensively, and so um,
Speaker 1: you know, I think there's no such thing as any
Speaker 1: airplane being pristine, and that may may concerned some of
Speaker 1: your some of your listeners, but look, I think it's
Speaker 1: as looked over as any airplane has been in modern history.
Speaker 1: And I think you know, Bowing has been addressing the problems. Again,
Speaker 1: the regulators sound comfortable with it. Um. The airplane, I
Speaker 1: think had some challenge leunges with the MCAST system, which
Speaker 1: if you didn't follow procedures correctly, you know, led to
Speaker 1: the crash of the airplane. But I think the airplane
Speaker 1: still fundamentally is is a good airplane and these are
Speaker 1: indicators that they fixed that problem with the with the
Speaker 1: automated flight systems. Where will the max be flying if
Speaker 1: it is indeed in the air by the end of
Speaker 1: the year or early next year, who or what will
Speaker 1: it be flying? And how will order is rebound? Yeah,
Speaker 1: so flying the airplane is gonna take a little bit
Speaker 1: of time here, right once you get the new requirements
Speaker 1: on flight training, which the f A has out for
Speaker 1: commentary right now, you know, once once that's approved, the
Speaker 1: airlines that fly the airplane no big operators are our Southwest.
Speaker 1: They're gonna need They've already said they're gonna need a
Speaker 1: couple of months to sort of get all their pilots
Speaker 1: trained and flying the airplane again. Um. You know, I
Speaker 1: think we heard yesterday from the United the airplane is
Speaker 1: not even on the schedule through the end of the year,
Speaker 1: So it's going to be into next year before you
Speaker 1: really see it flown inside. You'll see it flown at again,
Speaker 1: United American Southwest, the big customers and Ryanair um orders. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's going to be a really rough year for order.
Speaker 1: We're not even we're more worried about how much of
Speaker 1: the backlog goes away than we are how many new
Speaker 1: orders come in the books. And some of the backlog
Speaker 1: has gone away because Boeing has been so long in
Speaker 1: fixing the problems of the Max. After you get past
Speaker 1: a year, adverse clauses set in on sales contracts and
Speaker 1: allows your customer to cancel the order. So we're more
Speaker 1: watching that. It was a really large order book for
Speaker 1: the airplane, you know, six or seven years large. We
Speaker 1: think that's probably dwindled and with the airlines that probably
Speaker 1: want deferrals, probably you know, there's probably not many airlines
Speaker 1: that want airplanes next year. It's gonna be a challenging
Speaker 1: year to get deliveries out. George, Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: George always keeping us honest on airline news. That's George
Speaker 1: Ferguson of BI. Thanks for listening to Bloomberg Markets podcast.
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts
Speaker 1: or whatever podcast platform you prefer. I'm Bonnie Quinn. I'm
Speaker 1: on Twitter at Bonnie Quinn, and I'm Paul Sweeney. I'm
Speaker 1: on Twitter at pt Sweeney. Before the podcast, you can
Speaker 1: always catch us worldwide at Bloomberg Radio