Boeing's travails show what's wrong with modern capitalism

Matt Stoller in The Guardian

The plight of Boeing shows the perils of modern capitalism. The corporation is a wounded giant. Much of its productive capacity has been mothballed following two crashes in six months of the 737 Max, the firm’s flagship product: the result of safety problems Boeing hid from regulators.

Just a year ago Boeing appeared unstoppable. In 2018, the company delivered more aircraft than its rival Airbus, with revenue hitting $100bn. It was also a cash machine, shedding 20% of its workforce since 2012 while funneling $43bn into stock buybacks in roughly the same period. Boeing’s board rewarded its CEO, Dennis Muilenburg, lavishly, paying him $23m in 2018, up 27% from the year before.

There was only one problem. The company was losing its ability to make safe airplanes. As Scott Hamilton, an aerospace analyst and editor of Leeham News and Analysis, puts it: “Boeing Commercial Airplanes clearly has a systemic problem in designing, producing and delivering airplanes.”

Something is wrong with today’s version of capitalism. It’s not just that it’s unfair. It’s that it’s no longer capable of delivering products that work. The root cause is the generation of high and persistent profits, to the exclusion of production. We have let financiers take over our corporations. They monopolize industries and then loot the corporations they run.

The executive team at Boeing is quite skilled – just at generating cash, rather than as engineers. Boeing’s competitive advantage centered on politics, not planes. The corporation is now a political machine with a side business making aerospace and defense products. Boeing’s general counsel, former judge Michael Luttig, is the former boss of the FBI director, Christopher Wray, whose agents are investigating potential criminal activity at the company. Luttig is so well connected in high-level legal circles he served as a groomsman for the supreme court chief justice, John Roberts.

The company’s board members also include Nikki Haley, until recently the United Nations ambassador, former Nato supreme allied commander Edmund PGiambastiani Jr, former AIG CEO Edward M Liddy, and a host of former political officials and private equity icons.

Boeing used its political connections to monopolize the American aerospace industry and corrupt its regulators. In the 1990s, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas merged, leaving America with just one major producer of civilian aircraft. Before this merger, when there was a competitive market, Boeing was a wonderful company. As journalist Jerry Useem put it just 20 years ago, “Boeing has always been less a business than an association of engineers devoted to building amazing flying machines.”


High profits masked the collapse in productive skill until the crashes of the 737 Max

But after the merger, the engineers lost power to the financiers. Boeing could increase prices, lay off workers, reduce quality and spend its cash buying back stock.

And no one could do anything about it. Customers and suppliers no longer had any alternative to Boeing, and Boeing corrupted officials in both parties who were supposed to regulate it. High profits masked the collapse in productive skill until the crashes of the 737 Max.

Boeing’s inability to make good safe airplanes is a clear weakness. It is, after all, an airplane aerospace company. But because Boeing is America’s only commercial airplane company, the crisis is rippling across the economy. Michael O’Leary, CEO of Ryanair, which ordered 58 737 Max planes, says his company cannot grow as planned until Boeing, “gets its shit together”. Contractors and subcontractors slowed production of parts for the airplane, and airline customers scrambled to address shortages of airplanes.

Far from being an anomaly, Boeing is the norm in the corporate world across the west. In 2016, the Economist noted that profits across the corporate sector were high and persistent, a function of a lack of competition across swaths of the economy. If corporations don’t have to compete, they can raise prices to buyers, lower what they pay to suppliers and workers, and reduce quality.

High profits result in sloth and corruption. Many of our industrial goliaths are now run in ways that are fundamentally destructive. General Electric, for instance, was once a jewel of American productive capacity, a corporation created out of George Westinghouse and Thomas Edison’s patents for electric systems. Edison helped invent the lightbulb itself, brightening the world. Today, as a result of decisions made by Jack Welch in the 1990s to juice profit returns, GE slaps its label on lightbulbs made in China. Even worse, if investigator Harry Markopoulos is right, General Electric may in fact be riddled with accounting fraud, a once great productive institution strip-mined by financiers.

These are not the natural, inevitable results of capitalism. Boeing and GE were once great companies, working in capitalist open markets.

So what went wrong? In short, the law. In the 1970s, a host of thinkers on the right and left – from Milton Friedman to George Stigler to Alfred Kahn to the current liberal supreme court justice Stephen Breyer – argued that policymakers should take restraints off capital and get rid of anti-monopoly rules. They used many terms to make this case, including deregulation, cost/benefit analysis, and the consumer welfare standard in antitrust law. They embraced the shareholder theory of capitalism, which emphasizes short-term profits. What followed was a radical consolidation of market power, and then systemic looting. 

Today, high profit margins are a pervasive and corrupting influence across the government and corporate sectors. Private equity firms moved capital from corporations and workers to themselves, destroying once healthy retailers like RadioShack, Toys R Us, Payless and K-Mart.

The disease of inefficiency and graft has spread to the government. In 1992, Harvard Professor Ash Carter, who later become the secretary of defense under Obama, wrote that the Pentagon was too difficult to do business with. “The most straightforward step” to address this, he wrote, “would be to raise the profit margins allowed on defense contracts.” The following year Prof Carter was appointed assistant secretary of defense for international security policy in the first Clinton administration, which followed his advice.

Earlier this year, the defense department found that one defense contractor run by private equity executives had profit margins of up to 4,451% on spare parts it sold to the military. Consulting giant McKinsey was recently caught trying to charge the government $3m a year for the services of a recent college graduate.

The ultimate result of concentrating wealth and corrupting government is to concentrate power in the hands of a few. We’ve been here before. In the 1930s, fascists in Italy and Germany were gaining strength, as were communists in the Russia. Meanwhile, leaders in liberal democracies were confronted by a frightened populace losing faith in democracy. American political leaders were able to take on domestic money lords with a radical antitrust campaign to break the power of the plutocrats. Today we are in a similar situation, with autocrats making an increasingly persuasive case that liberal democracy is weak.

The solution to this political crisis is fairly simple, and it involves two basic principles. One, policymakers have to increase competition for large powerful companies, to bring profits down. Executives should spend their time competing with each other to build quality products, not finding ways of attracting former generals, or administration officials to their board of directors. Two, policymakers should raise taxes on wealth and high incomes to radically reduce the concentration of wealth, which will make looting irrational.

Our system is no longer aligning rewards with productive skill. Despite the 737 Max crisis, Boeing’s stock price is still twice as high as in July 2015, when Muilenburg took over as CEO. That right there is what is broken about modern capitalism. We had better fix it fast.

How Indian aviation was destroyed

Kingshuk Nag in Times of India

Have you read the history of India? If you have, you must be familiar with the conflict of the English and the French on the Indian soil in the 18th century. The fight was to seize control over the Indian markets. Now in an encore of sorts, two airlines from the Gulf region, but belonging to different sultans, are fighting for control of the Indian aviation sector. Help may have come to them, maybe inadvertently, from civil aviation minister Ajit Singh and former civil aviation mantra Praful Patel.

Ajit Singh is in the news these days for trying to ram down the Jet-Eithad deal, through which this Abu Dhabi-based airline will get access to the lucrative Indian market (Indian passengers going abroad) and enable the airline to boost its revenue.

The deal is being looked into, with the Prime Minister’s office having raised some objections, but Ajit is confident of pushing through the deal and has even called on the UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi to explain everything to her.

The deal was preceded by something unusual: at the end of April, the GOI (which means the civil aviation ministry, which essentially means Ajit Singh) suddenly increased the traffic rights with Abu Dhabi (number of passengers who could fly to Abu Dhabi from India through Indian carriers) to 36,670 per week. This raised eyebrows – including that of the Parliamentary standing committee on transport, tourism and culture which wondered why flying rights were being extended because Indian carriers did not have the capacity (in terms of fleet) to carry these many passengers per week to Abu Dhabi from India. But now with the benefit of hindsight, we are wiser. Under the Jet-Etihad deal, the latter company took up 24 per cent stake in Jet Airways. Incidentally, the Abu Dhabi-based company paid a premium of 32 per cent to acquire these shares. Although Jet will get Rs 8,574 crore in foreign investment due to this deal, analysts aver that the deal has clauses which will in effect turn over the management of the company to Etihad. Thus Etihad will ride piggy back on Jet to transport Indians.

Ajit Singh’s piloting the Etihad deal will have the effect of enabling it to catch up with Emirates Airlines (the official airlines of the UAE). Emirates Airlines dominates the market to the Gulf with 30 per cent of the passengers flying out of India to that area using Emirates to go there. Now Etihad will get a chance to capture part of this traffic and provide stiff competition to Emirates Airlines.

For those not well-versed with aviation matters, the fight between Emirates Airlines and Etihad will not be just for traffic from India to the Gulf but also for onward traffic to Europe and North America. Readers may have noted that a decade ago when Indians went to Europe and North America they often changed flights at Frankfurt. But nowadays, passengers mostly change flights at Dubai. Why? Because Dubai is the hub of the Emirates Airlines and this airlines flies passengers out to Dubai, from where they board onward flights to Europe and North America. This brings enormous business not only to Emirates Airlines but also to Dubai as a place (reason: duty free purchases at the airport and some passengers taking a break in Dubai for a few days, etc). Now within a year or so, Indian passengers will also fly through Abu Dhabi for their journey to Europe or North America and benefit the economy of Abu Dhabi. It is obvious that with its small population: the middle-east market (that is, local origin or Arab passengers flying out of the middle-east) cannot help to create mega hubs for neither Emirates Airlines at Dubai or Etihad at Abu Dhabi and bring tremendous benefits for their respective economies. Both of them can only grow if they can exploit the huge Indian traffic that flies from India to the Gulf and to Europe and North America.

Ajit Singh’s action may have the effect of providing level playing field for Abu Dhabi-vis-a-vis Emirates  But the man whose actions resulted in out of the ordinary benefits to Emirates was Praful Patel, who was civil aviation minister for seven years from May 2004 to January 2011. He is the man whose tenure, analysts say, saw the beginning of destruction of the Indian aviation sector. This is even as Emirates got empowered and Dubai became a global hub.

When Praful came to the civil aviation ministry with the formation of the UPA government, Air India was the market leader in India with 42 per cent market share. A proposal had been mooted by the earlier NDA government to augment the fleet of Air India by 28 but the deal had not been finalized. When the proposal came to Praful he raised the numbers to 68 with one stroke of the pen and raised the cost to Rs 50,000 crore. All this was done without any revenue plan or even a route map to deploy so many additional aircraft. The beneficiary was Boeing from whom 27 Dreamliners were proposed to be bought. The Dreamliner was then only on the drawing board. The additional secretary and financial adviser in the civil aviation ministry V Subramanian opposed the move but he was shunted off. Analysts also questioned why an airline with a turnover of Rs 7,000 crore should place orders of Rs 50,000 crore with no idea of how to use the planes. This would only put a huge debt burden on the airline and damage it badly. Interestingly the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), which looked at the deal later, reported: “The acquisition appears to be supply driven ... the increase in number does not withstand audit scrutiny, considering the market requirement ... or forecast of the future, also the commercial viability projected to justify the acquisition...”

Caught on the wrong foot due to this acquisition, Patel did something else which virtually rang the death knell for Air India. He merged Air India and Indian Airlines arguing that this would create a much larger aviation entity that could compete better and also utilize the new aircraft which had been ordered. But in the event, this has had the effect of creating a monstrosity and mounting losses. Even today the new entity – which is called Air India – is plagued by severe HR problems arising out of the merger.

As if this was not enough, the airline was forced to vacate (no one till day knows why) its lucrative routes where foreign airlines and even airlines like Jet stepped in. As a good example, in October 2009, Air India decided to opt out of the Kozhikode-Doha-Bahrain route. This was one of the highest-revenue-earning flights of the airline and it was a route which was 511 seats short per week. No reasons were given for the withdrawal and in a short while foreign airlines moved in to exploit the readymade market. The airline’s unions protested but to no effect. Interestingly as early as May 2005 in a confidential memo to the cabinet secretary, the then managing director of Indian Airlines (the merger had not taken place then) complained that the Indian Airlines was being forced by the civil aviation minister and his officer on special duty to take financially damaging and commercially unviable decisions. These included forcing IA to make way for other operators. The MD said that he was forced to seek flight slots for the airlines in the UK and USA during the winter schedule (when traffic was lesser) even as other airlines were allowed to fly to the destinations in summer. Nothing came of the complaints: the managing director made way but the minister continued.

Now we have come to a position that Air India is all but dead, groaning under a massive debt burden and huge losses. Air India has thus ceased to be a player and foreign airlines have captured the Indian skies. This is not the end of the story: with the actions of the Indian ministers resulting in establishment of aviation hubs in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, Indian airport operators are unhappy and rightly so. GVK and GMR, which operate airports in Mumbai and Delhi respectively, wonder why the airports in the two cities cannot be built as hubs. After all the entire Indian traffic that is going to the west through the middle-east can easily be sent to the final destinations through Mumbai or Delhi, if hubs are developed there. This is especially because the long-haul Dreamliner planes are now being inducted into the fleet of Air India. These planes can fly nonstop to any part of the globe. In this way they are a threat to the concept of mid way hubs.

For those who may not be aware, Praful Patel, who represents the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), comes from a beedi-manufacturing family. After his father died, Patel a product of Campion School and Sydenham College in Mumbai, took over the business and expanded it. The Mumbai schooling made him savvy, running the business from a young age made him street smart. He is popularly known as the beedi king of India.The family company, Ceejay group, rolls over 60 million beedi sticks a year. The beedi leaves are grown in central India, and Patel’s constituency in Bhandara-Gondia although in Maharashtra is not far from Chhattisgarh. Praful Patel’s father also doubled up as a politician and the son followed in his footsteps becoming an MP for the first time in 1991. The UPA government being a coalition government, Patel’s actions were tolerated for a long time. But in the end he was removed and pushed to the heavy industry ministry as full-fledged cabinet minister. All the while in the civil aviation ministry Patel, now 56, was a minister of state but with independent charge.

Seventy-four-year-old Jat leader Ajit Singh is the son of former Prime Minister Charan Singh. A product of IIT Kharagpur, Ajit worked in IBM in the US for 17 years before returning to India and jumping into politics. His Indian National Lok Dal (INLD) – with 5 MPs – became part of the UPA in 2011 and shortly thereafter he was made civil aviation minister.

India's invisible innovation