Return to Transcripts main page
Quest Means Business
Harris and Trump on Blitz of US Battleground States; Harris: US Economic System Benefits the Rich; Georgieva: First Big Inflation Episode to End Without Recession; Interview with Polish Finance Minister Andrzej Domanski; Union Members Reject Deal with Boeing; Los Angeles District Attorney to Make Announcement in Menendez Brothers Case; Greenland Aims to Attract Tourists with New Airport. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired October 24, 2024 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:07]
RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": Closing bell ringing on Wall Street. The Dow is off just 140 odd points or so. So second
day of losses, but no nearly as bad as we saw the previous session. Time for a gavel, me thinks. There was the gavel. One, two, three strong gavels,
bringing trading to a close. Those the markets and the main events of the day.
Flooding the zone. Presidential candidates and surrogates galore in the final push so the US presidential election.
Boeing workers reject a new contract, staying on strike. So what happens next?
And more visitors, please. Greenland plans to open three new airports and expand tourism.
You and I together, live from New York, where at least I am, on Thursday, October the 24th, I am Richard Quest and I mean business.
Good evening.
It is an all-out blitz in the US presidential campaign, the final 10 days or so, both candidates, surrogates galore are fanning out across the
battleground states to win voters. There you see.
So Harris is in Georgia along with Barack Obama and Bruce Springsteen. She will have the star power with her behind her as well on Friday with Beyonce
and Willie Nelson who are going to appear on her behalf in Houston.
Donald trump, and his running mate, JD Vance have their own events in the swing states out west, so it is all to play for, but what has become very
clear besides the question of democracy and arguably whether the former president is a fascist, Kamala Harris says the economic system needs to
change to benefit the middle class. It is the economy, stupid 2024 version.
At the CNN town hall last night, she was very much talking about the economy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS (D), VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Part of the issue here is this, we cannot, and I will not raise taxes on anyone making less
than $400,000.00 a year, but we do need to take seriously the system that benefits the richest and does not help out working middle-class Americans.
I come from the middle-class and I believe that the middle-class needs tax breaks to be able to actually not just get by, but get ahead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Jeff Zeleny is with me.
Jeff is in Washington. I am grateful to you, sir, for joining us.
We looked at the map a moment ago. We can look at it again and you'll see where all the candidates are.
Whenever I look at these maps, I am reminded of the beauty of the Electoral College. Where is that map -- of where the other candidates are playing at
the moment. Thank you.
I am reminded of the beauty of the Electoral College because you wouldn't campaign in those places if it wasn't so tight.
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: You certainly wouldn't, and Richard, one thing that is interesting is we are now at 12
days before the election. This battleground map hasn't changed. It has been seven top battlegrounds ever since Kamala Harris rose to the top of the
Democratic ticket in late July.
At the time, some people have thought that a couple might fall out, North Carolina might fall out, or Arizona might fall out. That is not the case.
Donald Trump spent two full days in North Carolina this week, he won that state four years ago. So that is a sign when a candidate spends his time in
a place that they are not confident of a victory there.
So when you look at that, those seven states are going to be the roadway map for the next 12 days. But tonight in Georgia, it is so interesting,
that was the narrowest margin of victory for Joe Biden four years ago, 11,000 votes out of five million or so cast, that is why Vice President
Harris will be there making her first appearance with Barack Obama.
QUEST: Now if we -- again, back to the map. It is about the path to the White House, the routes that you can take. To a certain extent, Kamala
Harris' route is more difficult. Yes, there are a variety of combinations of those seven, but she has to get quite a lot of them.
ZELENY: Look, sort of think of it as a northern route and a southern route. And the best sort of route to winning 270 electoral votes, and thus, the
presidency for Vice President Harris is that northern route of Pennsylvania, of Michigan, of Wisconsin. And then she needs one more, that
is the blue dot. If this isn't confusing enough, the blue dot is the one electoral vote in Nebraska that also is contested.
[16:05:03]
Donald Trump is a little stronger perhaps on the southern route, the Sun Belt, if you will -- North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada. However,
every one of these states, all seven states, it is neck and neck razor-thin race all within the margin of error here. So yes, she may be a little bit
stronger on the northern route, if you will, but certainly nothing is guaranteed.
But the reason that Pennsylvania, where the town hall was last night is so important, that's the biggest prize of them all, 19 electoral votes, the
biggest battleground state.
QUEST: Jeff, as always, I am grateful. Thank you very much.
ZELENY: My pleasure.
QUEST: The economic plans of the two candidates, so we of course, as you would quite rightly expect, we have them here for you. If I didn't get the
stapler, I did, so they're all over the place.
Now this is the New Way Forward for the middle class, and this is the GOP platform, Make America Great Again.
The issues are everything from housing to energy to grocery costs, particularly in the vice president's case. Donald Trump's platform is 16
pages long. So we already told you that 23 Nobel Prize winning economists signed a letter in support of Harris saying this plan will support the
country's health, investment, employment, and fairness. They are vastly superior they say to Donald Trump's counterproductive economic plan.
Daron Acemoglu signed the letter. He won the Nobel Prize a few weeks ago.
Sir, good to have you. I am so grateful.
I haven't had a chance to speak to you since your win, so congratulations on that.
Now, let's get this down to the nitty-gritty. Do you think very long and hard before you essentially endorse one candidate over the other?
DARON ACEMOGLU, NOBEL PRIZE WINNING ECONOMIST: Well, thank you, first of all, Richard. Thanks. It is great to hear from you. It is great to be with
you.
No, I didn't actually think long and hard because I think in this case, it is quite clear and it is for two sets of reasons. One is about the nitty-
gritty of policies where I think Vice President Harris' plan is better, but more importantly, look, my research, my focus has always been on
institutions and there is a chance that the Trump presidency could damage US institutions significantly with a major cost to the US economy in the
medium run.
So those are the ones that worry me even more than his support for cryptocurrencies or tariffs on everything.
QUEST: You see, yes, this is -- that is a very, very distinct point there, sir, because we are getting well and truly bogged down in who is going to
raise the deficit more. The truth is they both will, Donald Trump will just raise it a bit more and we can arguably lose our way in the weeds.
It is the tariffs though, isn't it? We will be talking about tariffs a great deal tomorrow on this program. The tariffs. Have you ever seen a
tariff regime as brutal as the one that the president -- the former president will be offering up?
ACEMOGLU: Not for the last 50 years or so.
I mean, you know in the first decades after World War II, there were some countries that weren't really open to trade, but even those did not have
such steep tariffs, no.
QUEST: We talk about -- I remember when Donald Trump was elected last time, Barack Obama came out with a statement then that the US institutions were
about to be tested, like they'd never been tested before.
Kamala Harris' argument last night was without the guardrails following the Supreme Court decision, then it is a different ball game. That is what
you're essentially saying.
ACEMOGLU: I am saying that exactly. But also you know, Trump's team is much more sort of aligned with him this time than last time. So you have people
like John Kelly who is making, who is raising the alarm bells and he was in the room. He was the adult in the room, perhaps and there isn't that sort
of diversity in people who will check his instincts or plans and Trump himself sounds more extremist now than he did in 2016.
Add to that exactly what Vice President Harris said, which is Supreme Court and Congress seems to be more polarized, I think this is a more dangerous
time. I am not saying that if Trump is elected, US democracy will necessarily collapse. I don't think anybody can say that. But there is a
danger that there will be damage to institutions.
QUEST: When I looked at the letter, and I hope you'll forgive me a little journalistic hyperbole. When I looked at the letter that you had all
written, I thought, oh, I can see people dismissing it. Round up the usual left-wing suspects -- academics, Nobel Prize winners. Of course, they are
going to be against the more robust policies.
ACEMOGLU: Well, I am not against the robust policies.
Look, I actually think that some of the things that President Biden is such as the CHIPS Act can be justified. So that is another robust policy that
Trump himself could have done in his first term and I definitely don't want to come across as an ivory tower economist.
[16:10:19]
I am actually coming from the same point that you mentioned a second ago, which is that the US economy hasn't done well for the working people, it
hasn't done well for the middle-class as real wage growth in the US economy has been pretty slow if you look at it since 1980.
So I am actually worried about policies that would make that worse, like tax cuts for the rich or supporting cryptocurrency. I think those are the
policies in the Trump plan that worry me most and I am also worried about AI.
Look AI is a huge opportunity, but if it goes in an unregulated fashion, there are lots of risks and I prefer the Biden-Harris approach that is more
cautious, but still supportive of AI, than you know, the sort of the policies that are coming from the Trump side.
QUEST: The last point on a wider issue, are we seeing a sort of a fragmentation of global understanding? I am trying not to be portentous or
bumptious in the way I put this, but I think, you know what I mean, in a sense.
Let's say we've got the BRICS. We've got the BRICS meeting with a whole load of extra countries at the same time as Vladimir Putin is prosecuting a
war in Europe, the first of such a nature in nearly a century. There is no common ground now.
ACEMOGLU: Yes. I mean, look, I think the world has become more polarized. Within the United States, we've become more polarized. Democrats and
Republicans are not talking to each other and there are even sharper differences between countries.
You know, the hope of many people was there would be a world order and there would sort of, countries would get along in a sort of a peaceful,
modernized, that's absolutely not true and there is much bigger tensions between China, Russia axis and the US axis and we have to find some
solutions to that.
QUEST: I've just got to ask you though before I finish, what is it like when you win the Nobel? I mean, I know you don't go out to do it, and I
know your research isn't designed to it, but at the back of every top economists and peacemakers mind is that is the golden ring. What is it
actually like when you win?
ACEMOGLU: I don't know really. I mean, look, somebody else asked me that on Monday, a week ago when they first informed me and I said, you know, that's
the kind of thing you can dream about, but you should didn't expect and I didn't expect and it is like a great honor.
And once it comes, right now, I am in the middle of interviews. Many people congratulating, et cetera. So it is like I am not in the real world yet.
Once things settle down, okay. I can tell you better. Have me back and we can talk about it.
QUEST: Oh, you're good. Believe me, now you've got the Nobel, after then you will be on every other Thursday.
Thank you very much, sir. Good to see you. Good to see you.
ACEMOGLU: Thank you, Richard. It is great talking to you.
QUEST: Thank you.
And so, continuing our nightly chat on economics, the IMF managing director says that some people were hurt by globalization, but tariffs aren't the
answer.
Kristalina Georgieva sat down with Julia at the IMF in Washington, and Georgieva warns that tariffs are hurting countries that impose them.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KRISTALINA GEORGIEVA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND: This is first time when we have a big inflation episode that ends without a
recession, but you're not going to see champagne popped up this week.
Inflation is down, but the price level is still high.
JULIA CHATTERLEY, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR, "FIRST MOVE": Right.
GEORGIEVA: And people feel it in their pockets and they are angry.
We are faced with low growth high debt prospects for the next years. Trade that used to be an engine of growth is no more. So we have to concentrate
on how to lift the power growth prospects now to manage better our future.
CHATTERLEY: I mean, you've talked about all the big challenges there. You also suggested that your forecasts for growth over the next couple of years
could even be halved by tighter financial conditions, trade tensions, oil price rises, all the risks that we are potentially facing at this moment.
Is the most immediate one though political? Perhaps the US presidential election? Both candidates are talking about protectionist policies. One,
the former president could potentially cause a trade war.
GEORGIEVA: When we look at the prospects, we recognize that not just in United States, in many countries, there is popular support for
protectionism.
CHATTERLEY: Right.
GEORGIEVA: And it is very important, Julia to understand why, and the reason is during the heydays of globalization of a highly integrated global
economy, yes, the world benefited as a whole, but there were communities that lost from it, and they were not given any attention.
[16:15:18]
CHATTERLEY: But in a very simple way, tariffs aren't the answer.
GEORGIEVA: Look, facts.
CHATTERLEY: Yes.
GEORGIEVA: From history, what do they tell us? First, who pays for tariffs? It is the business and the consumers in the country that imposes them. They
get transferred by and large transferred to them. Two, in three out of four cases, when there is a tariff, there is retaliation and somebody else is
hit, a business is hit by it.
So, it is not the very best way to handle our economy, especially when growth is slowing down. I think we have to think of ways in which we can
respond to the reasons why people are anxious and also, we show respect for what we learned during the pandemic and what learned from Russia's war,
that supply chains are fragile and therefore, this notion of security, national security has to be taken into account.
CHATTERLEY: Part of the political football there is China and the United States and you've made some very pointed comments about China and their
outlook for growth.
GEORGIEVA: We have been very clear, China is faced with a fork on the road.
CHATTERLEY: Yes.
GEORGIEVA: They can continue to pursue the export-led growth model or they can push more for consumer-driven growth. We are telling China, take the
second route.
CHATTERLEY: Path, yes.
GEORGIEVA: Take the second path. And it is critical for China to take also reforms of state-owned enterprises, reform the debt at the local level,
because if they don't, that means that in not too far future, China would see a slowdown. Bad for China, bad for Asia not so great for the whole
world.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHATTERLEY: Julia, Julia, I mean, you don't get to be the managing director of the IMF if you can't do a nifty bit of footwork on tariffs, you know, I
mean, it is all the same as you heard the Nobel economist a moment ago. They are all the same.
They all know that this tariff proposal is an absolute blackeye for the global economy if it comes their way.
CHATTERLEY: It is the worst wild card and it is the most important thing that isn't on the agenda at the IMF and the World Bank meetings and
quietly, everybody is talking about it.
It is funny, they are talking about the resilience of the US economy today, but what does the future bring? And it feels very binary, as I mentioned
there. Both are talking about protectionist policies, support for the industrial sector, but I just think when you're the former president and
you're talking about blanket tariffs of ten to 20 percent, you're talking about 60 percent tariffs on China, which would kill that trade, and we are
talking about trade with what -- fifth of the global economy, that's what China represents. Their heads explode.
Then you layer on tax cuts for the richest members of society and their heads explode again. And that is what we get with the 23 Nobel Prize
winning economists, it is just --
QUEST: And you get nearly 50 percent in the polls on those seven swing states as Jeff Zeleny was talking to us this morning.
What is the mood at the fund?
CHATTERLEY: It is interesting. I think there is good and bad here. I think there is good in that we've gone through the fastest rate hike cycle for
the United States and for many other countries in what? Four decades. We've managed to get rising prices under control even if the shift -- higher
prices is very painful and you can see the impact on society for that.
So I think, a lot of people are quite surprised by how well that has happened and we have avoided for now a global recession. The problem is, as
we are discussing, the risks out there now or so huge, be they geopolitical, be they higher debt, be they, what happens in the US
presidential election.
QUEST: I am going to be in terrible trouble asking you this next question.
CHATTERLEY: Oh, I will try to make it quick.
QUEST: It is only you. Well you could try.
Why wouldn't China take the second road? Why wouldn't they go for increasing domestic demand over an export led economy when the rest of the
world is sort of a bit sclerotic?
CHATTERLEY: It takes time. Beefing up your pension system, beefing up your welfare state -- you have to make conscious decisions to do that. You have
to devolve certain degrees of power, of course. They've beefed up debt in some of the state-owned enterprises, that needs working out. It is just
very complicated.
[16:20:10]
But I mean, what the IMF managing director was talking about was China's growth below four percent in the not-too-distant future. And then you're
going to have societal issues because you can't create the jobs for the people who want them and we are already seeing that for the young people in
China, something has got to give.
QUEST: And I am to give a thank you to you. Thank you very much for that, Julia, at the Fund. Thank you.
QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. The Polish Finance minister, oh there he is, also in Washington. Sir, in a moment, we are going to talk about how you will
navigate potential tariffs and of course, the very serious issue of the war on your border. It is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS live from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Ukraine says it spotted North Korean troops in Russia's Kursk Region for the first time. Ukraine has maintained a foothold there since launching
an incursion in August. Kyiv and the US say thousands of North Korean troops have been sent to Russia for training and to fight.
Poland's president says it presents a global security threat.
This is the Polish Finance minister. He is with me from Washington, we will be talking to him any moment about the billions of dollars in aid being
sent to Ukraine in a moment. Minister, stay there and listen, please if you will on this question of the troops that are there.
Here's a report from Will Ripley in Taipei.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WILL RIPLEY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): At this remote Russian military base, a convoy of what appears to be in North Korean
troops training in a barren bleach stretch of wilderness deep in Russia's far east. CNN geo-located this video.
Sergeevka Training Ground near China and North Korea, the frontlines of Ukraine, more than 4,000 miles away.
Ukraine is where South Korean intelligence says these soldiers are going, 1,500 now, as many as 12,000 could be deployed South Korean media says.
Some seen here supposedly just days ago, getting their Russian military uniforms.
The audio muffled, the language sounds like Korean. We can't independently verify this video provided to CNN by the Ukrainian government.
They also shared this, a uniform sizing questionnaire dated last week in both Korean and Russian for hats, headgear, uniforms, and shoes.
RIPLEY (on camera): Why would Kim Jong-un be sending troops to Russia and to Ukraine?
DANIEL PINKSTON, LECTURER IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, TROY UNIVERSITY: So if Russia is successful, then, you know, the North Koreans could follow
suit and it could be a very dangerous situation.
[16:25:10]
RIPLEY (voice over): As Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin deepen their anti- US, anti-West military partnership, a terrifying scenario says Ukraine's president.
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: We know about 10,000 soldiers of North Korea that they are preparing to send fight against us and this is
the first step to a World War.
RIPLEY (voice over): At the United Nations, no comment from North Korea.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Such groundless stereotype, rumors aimed at smearing the imagery of the DPRK.
RIPLEY (voice over): They've been busy lately blowing up border roads with South Korea, just days after supposed South Korean drones dropped
propaganda leaflets on Pyongyang, North Korea's capital, almost at Kim's doorstep.
CAPT. CARL SCHUSTER (RET), FORMER DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, US PACIFIC COMMAND JOINT INTELLIGENCE CENTER: His regime is very -- even beyond normal
levels of paranoia right now.
RIPLEY (voice over): This week, Seoul summoned Russia's ambassador condemning what could be North Korea's largest ever overseas deployment,
bigger than the 1973 Yom Kippur War and Vietnam says this retired South Korean lieutenant general.
LT. GEN. CHUN IN-BUM (RET), SOUTH KOREAN MILITARY: So this could be a real serious problem for the entire world.
RIPLEY (voice over): A problem compounded by a massive influx of North Korean weapons into Russia. Reports of 70 shipments shells, missiles, and
anti-tank rockets since August 2023, not to mention North Korean ballistic missiles, which Ukraine says have killed civilians, including children.
Will Ripley, CNN, Taipei.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
QUEST: So to Poland, which is one of the biggest backers in Europe to Ukraine and Warsaw says it will spend 35 -- excuse me billion dollars on
its own military this year, the most in NATO as a share of the economy and is encountering Russia on the diplomatic front, too, the Prime Minister
Donald Tusk says, it will focus on expanding the EU when he assumes the presidency next year.
The finance minister is with me.
Finance Minister Domanski is with me.
Sir, you heard there, this is a very serious and deteriorating effect. Poland absolutely on the frontline and now, it seems Ukrainians also need
to be facing North Korean troops and you're going to be spending even more money on defense.
ANDRZEJ DOMANSKI, POLISH FINANCE MINISTER: We are ready to spend as much as necessary to defend our country. We currently, this year, we will spend 4.1
percent of our GDP, which is by far the highest share within all NATO members. And actually next year, we will spend even more close to 4.7
percent of our GDP.
And of course, we have to do that because the threat from Russia is very, very serious.
QUEST: That was going to be my next question. Is it paranoia or is it necessary that you have to spend those sorts of sums?
DOMANSKI: No, it is absolutely any kind of paranoia. We need to get ready and as I said, the threat from Russia is as serious and we just cannot
ignore it.
What we do need is more European solidarity in terms of common defense spending and this is what we are trying to tell our friends in Brussels.
QUEST: You see the reality is that Poland has gone in the opposite direction from that which was said in the last five years or so because of
the change of government. And you are much more Euro friendly than Euro skeptic, but you have to live with countries like Hungary that are still
maintaining the Euro skepticism and arguably the pro-Putin position.
DOMANSKI: Of course, there is -- there are countries that are very different positions within European Union.
Having said that, the majority of European Union members do support Ukraine and is willing to help.
And of course, Poland is seen avant-garde of that help, so our job is also to convince all other countries to do their job.
QUEST: The BRICS have been meeting, as you know in the far east of Russia, in Kazak. When you look at the BRICS and you see the way President Putin
was able to basically have this major international conference with many leaders, not BRICS members, whether it is Malaysia, whether it is -- you
know, they are overall -- Egypt, countries who are happy to cozy up to Russia at the moment and yet you're having to pay a fortune to defend
against possible Russian aggression.
How do you view those countries that are playing nice with Putin?
[16:30:10]
DOMANSKI: Well, we still don't know what is the outcome of this meeting. We know that Putin is trying to convince other countries to not to use dollar
in their transactions as often as they used to. But it's a very, it will be very difficult for them. And so what we can do, we can say -- we cannot
ignore the threat from Russia. We have to invest in modernization of our army.
And this is what we are doing in Poland. And this is what we are trying to convince our friends in Western European countries just to spend more on
defense.
QUEST: So one last question, and I may have to interrupt you because we're waiting for a news conference in Los Angeles. So I do apologize in advance
if I have to interrupt you. I'm not being rude. Finally can we say that Poland, there is a softer, gentler Poland now when it comes to things like
independence of the media, freedom of speech, LGBT rights, that the change of government is going to eventually translate itself into an easier
society than we'd seen.
DOMANSKI: I mean the change of the government that took place at the end of last year, of course, was dramatic U-turn for Poland. We came back to
European values and free media and the values of Europe are now represented in the Polish government and step-by-step we are also improving Polish
economy, which will grow this year by around 3 percent.
QUEST: An impressive performance, or it's as good of Spain. Thank you, sir. I'm very grateful to you for your time.
DOMANSKI: Thank you.
QUEST: We'll talk more. I'm looking forward to talking to you next when I'm in Warsaw. The Polish minister.
Now as we continue tonight, we're waiting for a press conference. It's going to take place in the West Coast, in Los Angeles. It's the L.A.
district attorney. You can read there, it's going to announce its decision on whether or not, well, what is the position of the D.A. on the re-
sentencing of the Menendez brothers as a result of new evidence, new claims. And this is not about whether they should be acquitted or the
conviction overturned.
This is about whether they've served enough time as a result of this new information concerning -- look, I'll go into it all in detail. We'll hear
the D.A. It'll all happen after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:36:05]
QUEST: You're very welcome. There's the scene in Los Angeles, at the waiting for the D.A. press conference that's going to take place. I'll go
into more details in a moment. It could have huge consequences for the Menendez brothers. They've been imprisoned for decades for killing their
parents three decades ago. And as soon as that press conference starts, we'll bring it to you and I'll give you some more information of what's
happening.
Let's talk about Boeing, which is back to the drawing board after union members rejected a deal to get 33,000 people back to work. It includes a 35
percent pay increase and retirement contributions. It fell short of the full pension plan, that contributory plan, a defined benefit scheme that
the workers were demanding. The CEO, Kelly Ortberg, it's clearly a blow. He wrote, "Boeing needs a fundamental culture change."
Well, clearly it's not (INAUDIBLE) so far. Vanessa is with me.
Vanessa, usual apology to yourself if I have to interrupt you because we go to Los Angeles. all right. What do they do now? I mean, the situation is
bad. They've had to refinance so much. And yet the unions knowing the bad situation still voted this down.
VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And we just got a statement with Boeing about last night's vote results saying
simply we are disappointed, and really that says it all. It's back to the drawing board and it's really over this defined pension plan, as you said.
So many members who lost that pension plan about a decade ago and even new workers at Boeing, they want to see that.
And unfortunately, though, we haven't seen a union in my recent memory that has given up a pension plan and then gotten it back. So ultimately,
Richard, they're going to have to work on other things. They're going to have to get the wages that may be closer to the 40 percent that the union
is asking for.
QUEST: Right.
YURKEVICH: Maybe some better work-life balance, maybe some more vacation days, sick days, and just more of a sort of a contribution from the company
in terms of meeting these union members where they want to be.
QUEST: You see, fascinating, isn't it? Because we'd all love to have the defined benefit scheme back. I had one once at a previous job. I've never
seen it since. But at the same time, the unions are in a unique position in this particular moment because they've got Boeing just where they want
them. Boeing is in trouble.
YURKEVICH: Yes. They are bleeding cash. Bleeding money. They wanted this vote to be a yes vote. We heard from Kelly Ortberg, the CEO of Boeing, who
just came on a few months ago, and he said in their earnings call that really the top priority is to end this strike because ultimately that's
what gets them back on track, not back out of debt, not back to where they want to be, but it's just the start of starting to build planes again,
starting to fulfill orders again. And if they can get back to that point, then maybe there's a conversation about Boeing's future.
The company, though, Richard, as you know very well, is not going to go away there. They're one of just two companies that make commercial
aircrafts for airlines. So they're not going away, but it's just, they're in such dire straits. They really need this strike to end, but I don't see
them getting to a pension plan for these workers.
QUEST: We'll talk more about it. I'd love to talk more, but we have a news conference in a moment or two. Got to have a great, you know how this thing
works. Thanks very much.
We'll take a break. I'm still waiting to see what's happening in Los Angeles. QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:42:08]
QUEST: The Los Angeles district attorney is about to speak about the Menendez brothers' case and a possible re-sentencing.
Elie is with me. This is all about new information concerning the sexual abuse that took place. And as I understand it and feel free to tell me, I'm
talking a little total nonsense, and a letter that one of the brothers wrote.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Right, Richard. So that's what's happening here. These two brothers, the Menendez brothers were convicted
back in the 1990s. They've been in behind bars for 34 years. And the impetus for what's about to happen is purportedly new evidence. There's a
couple of pieces of purportedly new evidence. There's a letter that one of the brothers wrote to a cousin saying that he had been sexually abused by
the father, and then separately, there's a letter written by another person, actually a member of the band Menudo, which the father managed,
saying that the father had sexually assaulted him.
So the question, first of all, is this really new evidence? There's some evidence, Jean Casarez of CNN just said on air, that it appears that first
letter may have been around as early as 2015 or really before that. And then second of all, is this new evidence sufficient to call for a re-
sentencing of the Menendez brothers that would quite possibly spring them from prison quite soon.
QUEST: Right. So how much of all of this is because of the more modern thinking about sexual abuse and the effect it has on people? Because at the
end of the day no one is suggesting that they didn't commit the murders and B, that they shouldn't have served time in prison. We are talking now about
the mitigating factor of the abuse.
HONIG: Exactly. And that's precisely the issue. The sexual abuse point was raised by the brothers at the trial, but the jury wasn't persuaded by it.
But think of how much our perceptions of sexual abuse, particularly of boys. They were young boys at the time, in their teenager years and before
that when it happened. And at the time, in the '90s, I can just say from my own experience, it wasn't really spoken out publicly and it wasn't fully
understood. And now of course we have much different understandings of what that can do to a person.
QUEST: Right.
HONIG: Now, legally, the argument that's going to be made is that this was what we would call imperfect self-defense. Like you said, there's no
question the Menendez brothers never contested the fact that they in fact shot their parents. So the argument would be that they perceive that they
were in imminent danger at the time. And if that was the case, the sentence they would have been given would probably have been around 15, 20 years,
and they would have been out a decade or more ago.
QUEST: All right. This is due to start very soon, Elie, so we'll stay with you for a moment or two more if we may. All right. If the judge -- sorry.
If the prosecution says there should be a re-sentencing, I accept it's up to the judge. Got that. Completely accepted.
[16:45:01]
But it's very difficult for the judge to say no, no, no, sorry, going to stick with the original. It was all there before, although I'm arguing
against myself now because of course we have had the death penalty case where the prosecutor said no, would you please, you know, take it away and
they still put the man to death.
HONIG: Right. So a couple of things are important to understand. Whatever the D.A. announces and it seemed quite clear the D.A. will announce that he
is in favor of a re-sentencing, that's not the end of the story. There's an appearance in front of the judgment on November 29th it is ultimately up to
the judge. I think you're right that it would be difficult for the judge to say, sorry, Mr. Prosecutor, I disagree.
But it's also important to note there are political winds blowing here, Richard.
QUEST: Right.
HONIG: First of all, this has been a massive groundswell in favor of the Menendez brothers. There was a number one documentary on Netflix that tens
of millions of people saw. There's a huge movement online, social media, TikTok in favor of the Menendez brothers. Celebrities have gotten involved.
Kim Kardashian, among others, vouching for them to get out. And it's really important to note, this D.A., who we're about to see speak, is up for
election in a week and a half.
And in fact, he suddenly felt the need to expedite this announcement rather than wait for the court appearance November 29th, three and change weeks
after the election. Just came out yesterday, he said, oh, I need to make an announcement tomorrow, meaning today. So we're definitely are --
QUEST: This is sleazy, Elie. It's sleazy. Sleazy.
HONIG: Sorry, Richard?
QUEST: It's sleazy. He's electioneering on the back of the case.
HONIG: I mean, look, there is little question that the reason he has a renewed interest in this case is because of the groundswell of support and
the -- you know, he's tried to explain. I think he anticipated, the D.A., that there would be precisely that criticism. And so we'll see what he says
about this in a moment. But yesterday he said, well, this was, you know, there is an urgency to this case.
I mean, look, the court appearance is going to happen November 29th. The D.A. makes his announcement today, or November 8th or November 28th, so
yes, there are clear -- I don't think we can ignore the fact that there's an election and the D.A. is mired in a very tight fight for D.A. and by
many polls is behind so there's a political element here.
QUEST: OK, so just humor me. Humor me. His opponent is a conservative. Does supporting the Menendez brothers' re-sentencing, would that be considered
liberal? Would it be considered conservative? Is it law and order? I don't know where it sits.
HONIG: To me, it sits much more on the liberal end of the spectrum and not on the strict law and order end of the spectrum. And look, I'll tell you, I
can see this both ways as a former prosecutor. I think on the one perspective you say, look, we have these new and I think better
understandings of the impact of sexual abuse particularly of boys that we didn't have in the '90s. If you look at the big picture, is 34 years behind
bars that these men who probably if they had been convicted of involuntary manslaughter, is that sufficient?
On the other hand, evidence of the sexual abuse isn't quite a perfect legal defense to what they did. And let me point specifically here to the mother,
the Menendez brothers' mother, right. Clearly the father was the one who was sexually abusing the boys. There's little question that the mother knew
about it and enabled it, but somebody knowing about abuse and enabling it and being a horrible person is not really a defense to murdering that
person.
It really does not make out a compelling self-defense claim. So if you were to mechanically apply the law here, I'm not sure that it fits. But on the
other hand, if you look at the bigger picture, I think there's an argument that in the larger interest of justice, it makes sense to let them out
after all this time.
QUEST: I got to ask you one more question, and I promise you, I promise you, I won't hold it against you in the final analysis. Well, not for very
long anyway.
HONIG: Yes.
QUEST: Is there going to be a re-sentencing?
HONIG: I think the D.A. is about to come out in favor of re-sentencing. And if I had to guess, and this is not the same judge who presided over the
trial in the '90s. If I had to guess, I think the judge would be -- would go along with this, will ultimately be on board. It may ultimately get
kicked over to a parole board who will have to sort of review the file, and make the ultimate decision.
There's going to be a lot of passing of a hot potato here. But ultimately would not shock me at all if the Menendez brothers make it out of prison at
some point before the end of their natural lives.
QUEST: I'm grateful. Good to see you as always. Thank you. Thank you very much, Elie Honig, putting it exactly as the situation is, as you would
expect.
We'll take a break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:52:23]
QUEST: So you want to go somewhere different. The search, the never-ending search to go somewhere that no one else has been. How about Greenland? Yes.
Yes. Look, I've flown over this place many times from between London and New York. You fly over Greenland, you see the glaciers. An old place, it's
only home to 56,000 people. So tourism is not exactly been the big hotspot. Well, I agree now that's going to change. 140,000 people last year. Now,
it's going to rise.
There's a new international airport opening this month. And international carriers are taking notice. For instance, United Airlines has announced its
first ever direct flight from New York. It's only about five hours, four or five hours flying, as you can see. And the flag carrier Air Greenland says
it hopes to expand its roots.
The chief executive, Jacob Nitter Sorensen, is with me now.
Are you ready? You've got a variety of small planes and helicopters, and you've got an A-330, but you must be retinue, but you must be ready to
grow.
JACOB NITTER SORENSEN, CEO, AIR GREENLAND: Yes, Richard. We're at the stepped-up of a new time period in Greenland. So these airports are a
bridge to the future for Greenland and we are opening up to something completely new. And that's very exciting. Are we ready? Well, we're as
ready as we can be. And we're just really, really pleased to see the opening of the new airport and the new opportunities that it brings with
it.
QUEST: All right. So you have a lot of internal flights within Greenland and across to some of the islands. And your long haul stuff, you go to
Iceland then you go to Denmark, which of course is the protector. Now, where would you fly to next? Because if United is coming in, even on a
seasonal basis, I mean, you don't want them stealing your passengers.
SORENSEN: Of course not. Of course not. And of course, we have been looking at the U.S. market for quite some time. I've been out in the media saying
that timing is everything and right now the worry on our end has been, you know, capacity, hotel rooms. So what Greenland is doing is actually
building more hotel capacity at our most favorite tourist destination in North Greenland to be ready to expand and get more aircraft, and hopefully
we'll expand into North America as well. Being the flag carrier of Greenland, I think that's just a normal thing to do. And the right thing to
do.
QUEST: How do you manage that growth? I know, you know, I know you want to grow and the people of Greenland have got just as much right to enjoy good
tourism growth.
[16:55:05]
But you will be roundly condemned by me, if by no one else, because you know what happens when you have unbridled tourism growth.
SORENSEN: Yes. You're absolutely right, Richard. And being from Greenland, in Greenland we've actually lift sustainability for thousands of years.
That's how Nuuk have survived under these harsh tough conditions for so many years. Never take more than you need and always take care of the land
and give back to the land. So sustainable tourism is very, very high on the agenda.
We need to take care of the environment. We need to take care of the society, of the culture, and we welcome the world to experience Greenland
but in a very responsible way. So we're looking very much at Iceland, you know, and the experiences that Iceland have had with tourism and especially
overtourism. Greenland is not a destination built for mass tourism. Greenland is a destination for adventure travelers.
QUEST: Right.
SORENSEN: Not in high numbers. Who are willing to spend money on a premium experience and thereby contributing also to the society.
QUEST: Right. I'm looking forward, sir. QUEST MEANS BUSINESS live from Nuuk. I'm looking forward to it once it opens up with the new airport.
Thank you for joining us tonight on the program. I'm very grateful for your time.
SORENSEN: Thank you.
QUEST: We will take a very profitable moment, a very profitable moment, after the break. QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Tonight's "Profitable Moment," I want to talk about Greenland. If for no other reason it's one of the places, a few places I haven't been to.
As I said earlier, I've flown over it a million times, going between London and New York and back again. I've seen it from the air. It is stunningly
beautiful and that's both its -- you know, it's both its praise and its curse, if you will, because I confidently predict that once Greenland opens
up, it will become the next Iceland, if you will.
The tourism levels will be extraordinary. The demand will be huge. If only just -- if only one because it's halfway between Europe and the U.S. and
then the way that Icelanders call that market in (INAUDIBLE) and elsewhere, so Greenland is a little bit further over. It's got Canada and all the
rest, you know, the math. And I worry about that. Not because I wanted to deny me or you or anybody the opportunity of going to see this magnificent
country or indeed to deny those people who live there the great benefits that tourism bring.
But we're talking about tens of thousands of people living there, 150,000 tourists, and the potential is vast. So how does that get managed? What
regulations have to be put in place? How do you prevent a Greenland Venice, Greenland Barcelona, Greenland Amsterdam, Greenland, whatever? It's not
going to be easy because hard choices are going to have to be made and when the golden ring of tourism dollars and euros is being dangled in front of
you, who really will have the power and ability to say no?
And that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for tonight. I'm Richard Quest in New York. What a wonderful hour it's been to be together. I'm so glad we made time
for each other.
Whatever you're up to in the hours ahead. I hope it's profitable. "THE LEAD" --
END
