Air India crash is the latest test for new Boeing leadership
SEATTLE/BENGALURU: Boeing leadership was back in crisis mode on Thursday following the deadly crash of an Air India 787-8 Dreamliner jet minutes after take-off earlier in the day.
The planemaker's new CEO Kelly Ortberg had been set to head to the Paris Air Show, the industry's biggest event of the year, after several key accomplishments in recent weeks as he tries to rebuild public trust in Boeing following a series of safety and production crises.
But his plan to attend the show next week with Boeing Commercial Airplanes head Stephanie Pope has been scrapped, Ortberg said, as the company focuses on the investigation into the first-ever crash of a 787 jet, its most advanced model.
'As our industry prepares to start the Paris Air Show, Stephanie (Pope) and I have both canceled plans to attend so we can be with our team, and focus on our customer and the investigation,' Ortberg wrote in a message to employees on Thursday evening that was seen by Reuters.
The Air India plane bound for London crashed in the Indian city of Ahmedabad, killing nearly all of the 242 people on board, in the world's worst aviation disaster in a decade.
Air safety experts have said that at this time there is no reason to think a manufacturing or design problem was the cause, but the reason for the air disaster is not clear.
'Safety is foundational to our industry and is at the core of everything that we do,' Ortberg told employees. 'Our technical experts are prepared to assist investigators to understand the circumstances, and a Boeing team stands ready to travel to India.'
The biggest challenge for Boeing could be getting lay people to understand that while a jet it made crashed, it is unlikely that Boeing is at fault, said John Nance, an aviation safety expert and former commercial pilot. Of course, accident investigators will consider every possibility, he added.
With public perception of the planemaker still on shaky ground, that will fall to Boeing executives to address.
Ortberg has been trying to move the company past a series of regulatory and safety crises, and was heading into the Paris Air Show after a busy month that included more than 300 new orders and a ramp-up in 737 production.
'Previous production issues at Boeing will be very much on people's minds at the moment and the relatively new leadership at Boeing needs to be visible in the days to come,' said Paul Charles, CEO of the PC Agency, a London-based luxury travel consultancy.
Boeing shares closed 4.8% lower on Thursday.
Max problems
Boeing was deemed responsible for three high-profile accidents involving 737 MAX narrow-body planes in recent years, including two fatal crashes.
A January 2024 incident, when a door plug blew off a new plane mid-flight, damaged its reputation and led to the departure of then-CEO Dave Calhoun, as well as head of commercial planes and its board chair.
The Air India plane that crashed in the city of Ahmedabad was more than a decade old. It first flew in late 2013 and was delivered to Air India in January 2014.
Since then, it accumulated more than 41,000 flight hours, including 420 hours during 58 flights in May and 165 hours during 21 flights in June, according to Cirium, an aviation data analytics firm, and FlightRadar24, a flight tracking website.
Boeing shares fall 5% after Air India's Dreamliner jet crashes
Before the crash, airline executives had voiced greater confidence in Boeing's rebound in deliveries and in Ortberg's leadership after years of reputational damage for the planemaker.
The public has not yet caught on, however. Last month, the Axios Harris poll of 100 recognizable corporate brands by reputation put Boeing at 88th, same as in 2024.
The wide-body 787 planes have had a strong safety record. They were grounded in 2013 due to battery issues, but no one was reported injured.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
36 minutes ago
- Business Recorder
US says monitoring Israel-Iran attacks' impact on global energy supply
WASHINGTON: U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on Friday he and his team are working with the White House's National Security Council to monitor the situation in the Middle East and any potential impacts to global energy supply. Wright said on X, after Israel's strikes on Iran's nuclear sites and Iran's response of missiles on Israel, that President Donald Trump's policy of maximizing U.S. oil and gas output, which also involves slashing pollution regulations, has boosted U.S. energy security. Oil and gas sites in Iran, an OPEC member, have not been targeted, analysts have said. Global crude oil prices spiked on Friday, settling 7% higher at more than $74 per barrel on investor worries about conflict spreading to the wider Middle East. Iran strikes back at Israel with missiles over Jerusalem, Tel Aviv And U.S. gasoline prices could rise about 20 cents a gallon in coming days during peak U.S. summer driving season 'creating economic pressures and political headwinds for President Donald Trump, who campaigned on lowering energy costs,' analysts at ClearView Energy Partners said in a note to clients. ClearView said higher prices could push Trump to focus on tapping strategic petroleum reserves, seeking supply additions from the OPEC+ production group, and could complicate efforts to tighten sanctions on Russia, one of the world's top three oil producers. The U.S. Energy Department did not immediately respond to a question about the potential to tap the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), the world's largest, which currently holds 402.1 million barrels of crude. Fatih Birol, the head of the Paris-based International Energy Agency, said on X that the IEA oil security system, which includes the U.S. SPR, has more than 1.2 billion barrels of emergency stocks. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries slammed Birol's post, saying on X it raises false alarms and 'projects a sense of market fear.'
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Optical delusions
Listen to article Within the past thirty days, we have witnessed two wars waged to consolidate power and for optics. India tried to invade Pakistan for all the worst reasons imaginable. Shortly after the Pahalgam incident, when India failed to produce a smoking gun — some serious evidence to implicate Pakistan or even apprehend the actual perpetrators who still remain at large -—Indian client analysts in international think tanks, or those appearing on international news channels, tried to present war or strikes deep inside Pakistan as a political imperative. Modi had to maintain this image of strength, you know. That's why they had to attack Pakistan. And India was confident that, through back-channel pressures, it could compel Pakistan not to retaliate. That plan did not go well, and the overconfident Indian spin masters ended up presenting India as a state that can risk nuclear escalation for one man's image management. But look at the fallout. Since the early 1990s, India had somehow convinced the West that its cooperation was critical in containing China. As this image grew, it asked for Pakistan's head on a platter. While the West could not do that, it did the next best thing: wealth and unprecedented influence. India used both to isolate Pakistan. But with one irrational act, it ended up exposing its chinks in the armour. With one strategic blowback, the world now knew India was nowhere near there. It wasn't the West that needed India; it was India that needed the West. Who wants that kind of liability? Everyone will only look at the main asset the country has got: its wealth. All relationships will be transactional from now on. As for Pakistan, three decades of Indian blackmail against the country have ended, and the world is ready to work with Pakistan. Domestically, Modi's image has been badly shaken. The deep state and the hardliners see him as a liability and are counting the days till they get rid of him. To save face, Modi got the help of Niti Aayog (the body that replaced the Planning Commission), and through some numerical voodoo, the body declared that India's economy had beaten Japan to become the world's fourth-largest economy. Japan has been India's main benefactor. Imagine how these reports played out within the country. The world now knows that the Indian deep state knows that Modi has no value to contribute. Some optics. The second case is that of Israel's Netanyahu, who has been using political radicalism to offset three major corruption cases against him. As a result, the Israeli polity has constantly radicalised. In the aftermath of October 7's ghastly attacks, instead of prioritising the rescue of the hostages, he declared a forever war, which has exposed the sheer brutality of the regime. Meanwhile, he has used all elements to regularly manipulate political outcomes in the US and other Western democracies. This policy has been the law of diminishing returns. Only a day ago, Israel carried out a massive attack on Iran. Purpose? Optics again. The global outrage against Israel's genocide in Gaza is growing. In any case, the blood of the Gazans is not enough to indefinitely feed the tiger of political hate he rides. So, why not expand the war? I hold no brief for Iran, but this is too transparent to go unnoticed. Israel called these attacks 'pre-emptive strikes', and the US called them a unilateral action. Remember the days when the US used to carry out "pre-emptive strikes" on Israel's behalf? The law of diminishing returns, indeed. Meanwhile, the cases against Netanyahu are where they were. As Ta-Nehisi Coates once said: Your oppression will not save you. History has some lessons for these politicians. Four days after Pearl Harbour, Adolf Hitler made perhaps the most catastrophic decision in modern warfare - declaring war on the United States purely to maintain his image as a loyal ally to Japan. Despite having no treaty obligation and every strategic reason to avoid a two-front war, Hitler couldn't bear appearing weak or unreliable to his Axis partners. The declaration was born entirely from ego and optics, not strategy. In one impulsive moment, driven by his need to project strength, Hitler handed Roosevelt the perfect gift - a declaration that galvanised American support for the very strategy planners had envisioned: an enormous two-front commitment that would treat Germany as the principal threat. You know what happened next. Jimmy Carter was drowning in the polls when Iranian revolutionaries seized American hostages, and the pressure to look presidential became unbearable. Despite military advisers warning about the mission's complexity, Carter greenlit Operation Eagle Claw — not primarily to save the hostages, but to save his presidency. The mission was always more about optics than operations, a desperate attempt to project strength in an election year. When helicopters collided in the Iranian desert, killing eight servicemen and leaving classified documents behind, the rescue attempt became a symbol of American impotence. Carter, seeking to appear decisive and strong, instead looked more helpless than ever. The failed mission sealed his electoral fate, and Ronald Reagan rode the backlash all the way to the White House. Douglas MacArthur was a genuine American hero, a brilliant tactician who had saved countless lives through his strategic genius in the Pacific. But even great men can fall victim to the siren call of complete victory. After his masterful Inchon landing, MacArthur faced a choice that would define his legacy: stop at the 38th parallel or push for total triumph in North Korea. The general, having tasted success and facing pressure from Washington not to settle for half-measures, chose to cross the line. It was an understandable decision from a commander who had delivered miracle after miracle. Yet history had one more lesson to teach: China entered the war, forcing the longest retreat in American military history. The general who had never known defeat watched his forces flee south, and President Truman ultimately relieved him of command. MacArthur's pursuit of total victory cost him everything he had built. General Leopoldo Galtieri was a desperate man leading a desperate government when he ordered the invasion of the Falkland Islands. With Argentina's economy collapsing and massive protests filling the streets, the military junta needed a patriotic victory to survive. The Falklands seemed perfect — a beloved national cause that would unite the country behind its leaders. "We need this," Galtieri reportedly told his cabinet, and for a brief moment, it worked. Massive crowds celebrated in Buenos Aires as Argentine flags flew over Port Stanley. But history cared nothing for Galtieri's political survival. Margaret Thatcher dispatched a task force 8,000 miles across the Atlantic, and within weeks, Argentina's military was in shambles. From Delhi to Tel Aviv, from Berlin to Buenos Aires, history keeps repeating its lesson: optics may win headlines, but strategy decides legacies.
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
From forerunner to far-runner
Listen to article As Pakistan Petroleum Limited (PPL) marks 75 years of service with a ceremonial celebration at the Karachi Golf Club on 17 June 2025, it is not only a time to recognise longevity, but to reflect critically on what sustains corporate institutions — and what imperils them. Corporate history is filled with tales of giants that faltered. The East India Company, established in 1600, grew to dominate trade across Asia. For over two centuries, it enjoyed extraordinary power — military, economic and political. But in the aftermath of the Indian Mutiny of 1857, it was dissolved by the British Crown. A potent symbol of unchecked expansion, its fate remains a cautionary tale of what happens when institutions outgrow accountability. A more recent and instructive example is the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) of Canada. Founded in 1670, HBC was one of the oldest and most iconic companies in North America. Originally created as a fur trading business, it evolved into a vast retail empire, owning department stores, land holdings and financial interests. For over three and a half centuries, it adapted to changing markets and consumer needs. But cracks began to show in the early 21st century. Faced with mounting digital competition, shifting shopping behaviours and strategic indecision, HBC failed to reinvent itself fast enough. After years of losses and restructuring, the company filed for creditor protection in March 2025 and officially ceased operations in June. The fall of HBC underscores a central truth: legacy cannot be taken for granted. Even the most enduring companies must remain rooted in operational logic and responsive to change. This brings us to a decision that is currently casting a shadow over PPL's otherwise commendable milestone — the reported plan to relocate its head office from Karachi to Islamabad. This move raises serious concerns not only about efficiency but also about motive. PPL's operational backbone lies in Sindh and Balochistan. Its major gas fields - Sui, Kandhkot, Mazarani and many others - are located in these provinces. The company's ventures in lead, zinc and iron ore are Balochistan-based. Bolan Mining Enterprises, a 50:50 joint venture with the Government of Balochistan, produces barite from Khuzdar and is headquartered in Quetta. Most technical and operational coordination, along with joint ventures and field logistics, are centred in the southern region of the country. Above all, PPL's 8.33% share in Reko Diq gold mine, a game changer for the Company, is also situated in Balochistan. Thus, a shift to Islamabad appears neither administratively necessary nor economically sound. Rather, it seems to reflect parochial considerations, disconnected from ground realities. Such a move risks weakening the company's alignment with its core operations and alienating the very regions that support its business. Strategically, it would place management further away from operational hubs, complicate coordination and increase costs — without any clear upside. Symbolically, it risks diminishing Karachi's historic role as a corporate and industrial hub, and more critically, sending the wrong message about national cohesion and balanced development. At a time when PPL should be consolidating its position, investing in exploration and preparing for energy transition challenges, such a move seems both untimely and unwise. It is hoped that the Petroleum Minister, known for his energy and intellect, will examine this matter closely. Pragmatism, not symbolism, must guide policy. The story of corporate survival is rarely about grandeur — it is about good judgment. Hudson's Bay did not fall overnight. It fell by drifting away from its strengths and delaying key decisions. PPL has the experience and legacy to endure — but only if it avoids complacency and stays connected to its operational roots. Longevity in business is not just about staying alive — it is about staying relevant. Let us hope PPL chooses wisely as it steps into its next quarter century. My thoughts are best reflected in these verses by Iftikhar Arif: Yeh kya keh khaak huwai hum jahan wahin kay nahin; Jo hum yahan kay nahin hain to phir kahin kay nahin Wafa sarisht mai hoti to samnay aati; Woh kya falak sai nibhain gai jo zameen kay nahin
