logo
India crash is fresh setback in Boeing's bid to restore its reputation

India crash is fresh setback in Boeing's bid to restore its reputation

Sky Newsa day ago

As hundreds lie dead following the latest tragedy to beset a Boeing passenger plane, is is too early to determine blame.
Pilot error, engine failure and bird strikes are among the theories all being banded about. Only the recovery of flight AI171's black box flight recorders are likely to provide the concrete answers.
What is inescapable though is that this is an air disaster the plane's maker, Boeing, could well do without.
Plane crash latest: 53 Britons on board
It sounds petty, in the midst of such a catastrophe, to be talking about the impact on a company but this has been an civil aviation giant left deeply scarred, in the public eye, through its attitude to safety in recent years.
While the 787 Dreamliner's record had been impressive up until today, the same can not be said for the company's 737 MAX planes.
The entire fleet was grounded globally for almost two years following the demise of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 outside Addis Ababa in March 2019.
All 157 people aboard were killed.
Six months earlier, a Lion Air 737 MAX, carrying 189 passengers and crew, crashed in Indonesia.
At fault was flight control software that has since been rectified.
That recent past continues to haunt Boeing.
It took those crashes to uncover a culture of cover-up. It amounted to not only a corporate failure but one of regulation and justice too, according to critics, as relatives were denied their days in court due to plea bargains.
1:31
Just last month, the US Justice Department and Boeing agreed a non-prosecution agreement over those two fatal crashes in return for $1.1bn in fines and an admission that it obstructed the investigation.
It raises several questions over the US legal system and its ability to police corporate activity and incentivise playing by the rules.
Would a British manufacturer have been offered such a deal by US prosecutors?
As for regulation, we're told oversight has been stepped up and the number of planes that Boeing makes is still subject to controls in a bid to boost quality.
Read more:
The company has long denied putting profit before safety but that is what almost every whistleblower to have come forward to date has alleged.
The production limits were implemented after a mid-air door plug blowout aboard an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 9 flight in January last year.
They are hampering Boeing's efforts to restore profitability.
A 5% fall in its share price at the market open on Wall Street goes to the heart of Boeing's problem.
That is every time a Boeing plane is involved in an accident or failure, investors' first instincts are to run for the hills.
Boeing says it is seeking more information on the nature of the Air India crash.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Multinationals cut back on support for Pride festivals
Multinationals cut back on support for Pride festivals

Times

timean hour ago

  • Times

Multinationals cut back on support for Pride festivals

Corporate sponsors are pulling back their support for Britain's Pride festivals amid President Trump's attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies. A number of multinational companies have decided not to renew their sponsorship of some of the UK's biggest Pride events, or opted for more low-key support. Sony and Reckitt Benckiser, which both sponsored Pride in London last year through their PlayStation and Durex brands, do not appear on the list of sponsors of the event this year. According to the website for Brighton Pride, Costa Coffee, owned by Coca-Cola, has also not renewed its sponsorship. Deloitte and Skyscanner, previous sponsors of Pride in Edinburgh, are also missing from the list of sponsors for the event this year.

Indonesia aims to seal EU free trade agreement in 2026, official says
Indonesia aims to seal EU free trade agreement in 2026, official says

Reuters

timean hour ago

  • Reuters

Indonesia aims to seal EU free trade agreement in 2026, official says

JAKARTA, June 13 (Reuters) - Indonesia aims to seal a free trade agreement with the European Union in 2026, Indonesian trade ministry official Djatmiko Bris Witjaksono said on Friday, after the two sides completed their latest round of negotiations. Indonesia and the EU have been in discussions on the agreement for about nine years, and are aiming to sign and ratify it by next year, Djatmiko told reporters, adding it could come into effect by late 2026 or early 2027. The EU has committed to provide market access to priority Indonesian products such as palm oil, textiles, footwear and seafood, Djatmiko said. Indonesia and the EU have previously clashed on tougher EU trade rules for products with potential links to deforestation, which could have an impact on shipments of Indonesian palm oil. In turn, Indonesia has also pledged to increase market access for agricultural and manufactured goods from the EU, Djatmiko said. EU ambassador to Indonesia Denis Chaibi said negotiations are ongoing and "substance will determine timing." The main benefits of the free trade deal for Indonesia include increased foreign direct investment from the EU in sectors like renewables, semiconductors, and mineral derivatives, a presentation slide presented by Djatmiko showed. The deal could increase exports by 5.4%, according to an internal benefit analysis, but senior economic minister Airlangga Hartarto said this was a conservative estimate and he targets a 50% increase in three years. In 2024, the EU invested $1.1 billion in Indonesia, a drop of more than 50% from the previous year. Indonesia's exports to the EU last year were worth $17.3 billion, while imports from the EU were worth $12.8 billion, Indonesian government data showed.

‘Tax the rich first': Readers demand fairer burden as Reeves faces fiscal squeeze
‘Tax the rich first': Readers demand fairer burden as Reeves faces fiscal squeeze

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

‘Tax the rich first': Readers demand fairer burden as Reeves faces fiscal squeeze

As Britain faces sluggish growth and rising fiscal pressures, Independent readers have been vocal about who should foot the bill – and how. A broad consensus has emerged: the wealthy must pay more. Rachel Reeves's £100bn spending plans for housing, defence, and the NHS were met with approval in principle, but there is concern over how they'll be funded in practice. Readers rejected the idea that taxing millionaires would spark a mass exodus, calling this a long-standing myth. Instead, many urged Reeves to shift the tax burden from workers to billionaires, property investors, and tech giants. Others argued that years of austerity, rising house prices, and privatised utilities have left the public footing the bill, while the richest accumulate wealth. Meanwhile, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that any further economic downturn will 'almost certainly' trigger fresh tax hikes, with council tax already set to rise at the fastest rate in a generation. Here's what you had to say: Trickle-down economics is a falsehood. 0.3 per cent of the UK's millionaires have left. A tiny proportion who probably didn't even pay the same rate of tax as a worker. They obviously don't care about the UK. I bet their assets and businesses still operate here, though. The USA has a capital flight tax, and China wouldn't allow someone to make millions in China while sipping piña coladas in Dubai without paying tax. Stop with the faux fear that millionaires are our saviours – they pay as little as possible, and trickle-down economics is a falsehood. Silvafox Sales tax on all foreign tech companies If Reeves put a 10 per cent sales tax on all foreign tech companies (Google, Amazon, Facebook and Twitter) we could not only afford the benefits and health bills, we could also afford to take the majority of workers out of Income Tax altogether. She CHOOSES not to. Pablo How will £100bn be raised? Tax hikes will come because Reeves has just announced over £100bn investment in housing, the NHS, defence and energy without saying how all this is going to be paid for. The 'spending review' is barely worth the paper it's written on without a detailed analysis of how this additional £100bn is raised. For me this spending is necessary and correct, but it has to be paid for. A responsible and sensible chancellor would already have plans in place, but so far Reeves has nothing to say on this. ChrisMatthews Tories added £1.6 trillion to the National Debt 2010–2024: the Tories add £1.6 trillion to the National Debt and the press barely raises an eyebrow. What do we get for it? Devastation of all our existing essential services, under-investment, a small number of new billionaires. 2025: Labour adds £194 billion to the National Debt. What for? Multiple long-term infrastructure projects. The press, orchestrated by the appalling 'Sir' Mel Stride, goes crazy. And we wonder why the place is falling apart. Carnabyswhiskers Things cost money Things cost money. If we want more things, we have to give more money Tax the rich first. Godricson82 Take it from the hoarded billions If you need the cash, then you take it from the hoarded billions that sit there doing nothing but gathering interest for the rich. That's what the post-war Labour government did. You don't confiscate their wealth – you merely make use of it while they don't make use of it. Donalds Troosers Handing debt straight back to the private sector All the money that would have gone to the Treasury via electricity, gas, water, etc. has all gone to shareholders. What a great idea – at the cost of the consumer. We're about to sort the debt out of Thames Water and hand it straight back to the private sector so someone else can rip the consumer off. It's called capitalism. LesMisrables The obvious only way to repair the economy is to reverse the damage done by Brexit – more than £100 billion and counting... Nicko Either rejoin or get over it The economy has been shrinking ever since we left the EU. Either rejoin or get over it and accept the inevitable. Boy from ceiber Taxing for public services is fundamental Tax those of us who can afford it already Taxing people (fairly) to fund public services is the fundamental point of the government. SkigtheRat Millionaire exodus is a long-standing myth The answer is simple: the super-wealthy need to start paying their fair share in taxes. The idea that fairer taxation provokes some kind of millionaire exodus is a long-standing myth. In reality, millionaires tend to be more immobile than the population as a whole, and there is no evidence that taxation has a significant impact on their movements. It is important to push back against the fearmongering and demand that the super-wealthy pull their weight. selkie Shift the tax burden As long as those tax hikes are on the wealthy side of the population, they are welcome. It's time to shift the tax burden from the bottom to the top. AndrewB Hoarding of wealth in housing The safest and best investment over the last 30 years has been housing... the wealthy have been making money hand over fist on rising house prices. Unfortunately, this has come at a price – young people and the poorest can no longer afford housing. Taxes should be raised on this hoarding of wealth in housing to redress the balance. Of course, it will never happen, but until it does, the UK economy will be a basket case as increasing numbers of people spend higher proportions of their income on accommodation, with £0 left to spend in the economy. ChrisMatthews Billionaires will be leaving for Trumpland Billionaires will be leaving the country and heading for Trumpland where their huge wealth will be better recognised as a great asset – to themselves. stillaardvark3 You cannot cut your way to growth Austerity being so effective. The national debt was hiked up during Cameron's austerity drive. You cannot cut your way to growth. You cannot sack your way to full employment. Economists have plenty of source data from previous economic crashes – they know what works and what does not. Cutting spending does not create demand. Jim987 You would be much better raising VAT and at the same time raising the tax threshold for the poorest to compensate. They spend their money promoting growth. The issue would be having strong government fiscal discipline to avoid stimulating the inflationary effect. Kwame Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day's top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click 'log in' or 'register' in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store