Return to Transcripts main page

Quest Means Business

Fed Raises Interest Rates for First Time Since 2023; E.U. Wants Canada to Become its First Associate Member; E.U. Proposes Social Media Ban for Children Under 13; Ed Sheeran's Opening Acts Drop Out of Tour; Saadia Zahidi Set to Become Director General of IATA. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired September 16, 2026 - 16:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[16:00:24]

RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": Closing bell is ringing on Wall Street, and you're just about to see trading come to an

end. Put us out of our misery. One and a two and a one, two, three, four.

And as you look at the markets, we are off the lows of the day, but it is pretty grim and the reasons are pretty obvious.

The triple stack shows how everybody else fared over the course of the day. It was the Dow that bore the brunt of it all. The reason? Well, those are

the markets and the events of the day tell the story.

The stocks are tumbling as the Fed raises U.S. interest rates for the first time in three years and signals more rises are on the way.

On tonight's program, the former Cleveland Fed President, Loretta Mester, will help me understand what it means.

The European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, has proposed Canada should become the very first associate member of the E.U. , whatever

that means.

And the World Economic Forum warns gender equality between men and women won't be reached for another 120 years. West managing director and the

incoming head of IATA, will be on this program tonight.

We are live in London, Wednesday, September the 16th. I am Richard Quest, a very busy hour. I promise you, because I mean business.

Good evening.

The U.S. Federal Reserve has renewed its fight against inflation by raising interest rates for the first time since 2023. The Fed unanimously approved

a quarter point increase. The target range for the fed funds rate now stands at 3.75 to four percent.

The Chair, Kevin Warsh, the Fed Chair, says the move will support a timelier move to Fed's two percent inflation target, which has been -- they

have missed for the last 60 odd months.

The Dow fell sharply during Warsh's news conference because the Chair was arguing the economy was running hot and can withstand the tighter policy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN WARSH, U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN: It will not affect any individual price, whether it be oil prices, whether it be foodstuffs at the

grocery store, but what we can do and will do is ensure that any change in relative prices don't broaden out, don't have second and third order

effects in the economy.

That's what we are tasked to do, and that's what we will do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: The Fed also released its dot-plot. It shows where members of the FOMC think interest rates are heading. Now, as you can see on the left,

most expect the rates to go to another quarter point higher this year, then remain above four percent through the end of next year as well.

Wall Street took the decision poorly. The Dow fell more than 600 points. The S&P 500 closed solidly in the red, and the NASDAQ was, well, as you can

see, it was flat.

Matt Egan joins me from the Federal Reserve.

Matt, there is an enormous amount being said about the angst, you know, going against Donald Trump's preferred. But my guess is that Kevin Warsh

had no problem today.

He sees the numbers. He sees the data. He has made his points very clear on inflation. He knew what he had to do.

MATT EGAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Yes, absolutely, Richard. Look, this is a big deal, right? It is the first hike in three years and it is really the

first concrete evidence that we have that the Warsh-led Fed is truly independent from The White House, and that, yes, Warsh is willing to back

up all of his tough talk on inflation with real action designed to fight inflation.

But, you know, as you mentioned, there has been a lot of talk about how Warsh is doing the exact opposite of what the President wants. Right?

President Trump has talked about how he doesn't want slightly lower interest rates. He wants dramatically to lower interest rates, the lowest

interest rates on the planet.

But, Richard, I would argue that the President actually wants an interest rate hike from the Fed, that this is actually helpful to the President,

because if the fed did not act today, bond markets would have really sold off. We could have seen the 10-year yield go dramatically higher and that's

not helpful to Wall Street, not helpful to Main Street, not helpful to The White House, it would have been more expensive borrowing for people who are

trying to buy a home, and more expensive borrowing for Washington itself.

[16:10:12]

And I think that the reaction today from the stock market and the bond market is telling. Yes, the stock market is down a bit. Most of that is in

the Dow. The S&P only fell about half a percentage point. NASDAQ was basically flat.

But what's interesting is the bond market reaction right. Because initially, we saw bond prices rally and that drove the 10-year down. But

then there was a reversal. Bond prices sold off and the 10-year is now above five percent again.

And so it kind of raises the question how high would the 10-year have gone, Richard, if the Fed took no action at all today?

QUEST: Now they have made their move. No Central Bank moves in one go. There is another to come, isn't there? When do we expect the next move? At

the next meeting before Christmas?

EGAN: The next meeting in October is a live meeting, right? So, yes, it is possible that the Fed officials decide that it is appropriate to raise

interest rates again. I think that could be decided in large part by what happens with the next inflation reading or two. And a lot of forecasters

think that inflation is going to stay relatively high, perhaps go even higher, in large part because of the war.

But the thinking is that the Fed is likely to raise interest rates at least one more time this year. They are penciling in one more hike. But I think,

it is interesting that the Fed, their projections that they just issued are signaling no more interest rate hikes next year, and that's telling because

it suggests that they think that maybe inflation will start to go back down by that point.

QUEST: Matt Egan at the Fed, I am grateful, sir.

In Washington, the vote was unanimous. All 12 members of the committee believe it was necessary to raise rates. That vote also, of course,

included the former chair, Jerome Powell, because he may no longer be chair, but he is still a governor and he elected to stay on the committee.

President Trump long pressured Powell to lower rates. Well, today, Powell voted to raise them, and that other Fed governor, Lisa Cook, she also voted

to raise rates. You'll recall President Trump tried and failed to fire her over allegations of mortgage fraud, which she denied.

The Chair, Kevin Warsh, was appointed by President Trump earlier this year. He also voted to raise rates despite the President's wishes. Warsh avoided

discussing the President directly.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: I have to ask, what is your message here to President Trump, who has repeatedly called to cut interest rates, not raise them?

WARSH: I've got nothing for you on a discussion with the President, so I won't make that count as your question.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: Loretta Mester is the former President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.

Loretta is with me from Philadelphia. Well, there we go. And we are off to the races now, aren't we? I mean, I am guessing when they all sat down, no

matter whether they - you know, they all just looked at each other and said, well, yes, this is what we've got to do.

Well, what do you make when you look at the unanimous nature of the vote?

LORETTA MESTER, FORMER PRESIDENT AND CEO, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND: Well, you know, the Fed's job isn't just to count votes, it

actually is to drive a consensus around a cogent case and I think he did that today, Chairman Warsh.

I mean, he had laid out a pretty good case for tightening at his Jackson Hole speech, which was just a couple of weeks ago and the data that came

in, in the interim meeting since that speech to the meeting didn't really change the outlook at all. So I think the key question everyone asks

themselves was, is the Fed Funds at the level needed to get inflation back down to two percent in a timely way? And the Fed answered today, no. So we

had to raise rates.

And I think that makes sense given where the economy is. So I think it was the right move.

QUEST: There is also this interesting question, which I think Chair Powell sort of sidestepped on the last mile, if you will, the last bit that was

the hardest part to get down, and it sounds like this -- that Warsh is determined to get rid of the last mile.

MESTER: Well, I think he is pointing out that even if you have supply shocks like an oil price shock, which is driving inflation up, it is the

Fed's job to make sure that higher oil price and the prices of, you know, the tariff effects don't get into underlying inflation.

[16:10:10]

So I think he sees a more urgency to take action to make sure that inflation gets down to two percent.

As it is, you mentioned, the summary of economic projections, they show that getting back to two percent is pushed out another year till 2029. So I

think this Fed is right to start moving the interest rate up, and of course, what they do from now on really will depend on how the economy

evolves, but I think it is pretty safe to say, and certainly the SEP, that Summary of Economic Projections suggests that most people on the committee

see another one or two rate hikes before they end that cycle.

QUEST: I know, forgive this next question, which might seem a little naive, but sometimes I think we are perhaps over assume knowledge from -- how does

raising rates by a quarter point here or even half a point, how will that stomp out this last bit of inflation? What does it do?

MESTER: Right. So the pressures on the prices are coming from the sense that -- from the fact that demand spending is strong and supply is

constrained. So, if you remember in the post-pandemic period, there was very strong demand. People were spending because they had the fiscal

stimulus, we had very accommodative monetary policy. That meant there was more demand for things than there was supply and supply was constrained, so

it was even a worse situation of imbalance, and that leads firms to start raising their prices.

Similar situation now, I think it is very reminiscent. We have very strong growth. We have investment demand doing, you know, very strong

increasingly. We have the household sector spending. We've got data this week that suggested they are doing more spending than expected. And you

have this constraint on the supply side of the economy where firms are having to pay higher prices.

They are going to pass those prices on. If the interest rate goes up, that helps to temper some of that demand and bring supply and demand back into

balance. That's why I don't think they are one and done. I think they are going to have to bring the level of the funds rate up a little bit more to

ensure that inflation gets down.

But the actual movement of the Fed Funds Rate doesn't counteract the fact that oil prices are higher. It is about what happens to the prices because

demand and supply are out of balance.

QUEST: Right now, finally, I just want a feeling for what these sort of days are like for the members of the FOMC. You all turn up on a day like

today, and you all sort of know because which way this is like. Is there a sort of a today is a special day feeling when you when you're about to

raise rates or you're about to do something quite dramatic in that sense. Does it feel different in the room?

MESTER: It certainly does, because, you know you're taking action, you know all eyes are on the Fed and there is something about the action itself

being different than just holding steady.

So certainly, I think everyone in that room was feeling that today and then of course they were very interested, I would think in how the markets would

react to the announcement. But then more importantly, since the, the statements are so short now, how Chair Warsh, what he said at the press

conference and how he handled the question. So I think they would be satisfied that the message they were sending got through and now, they just

have to go back to the everyday job of looking at the economy, evaluating what is happening in their districts if they are a Fed President and then

really using that information to determine what they will do at their next meeting in October.

QUEST: Loretta Mester, many thanks for joining us. I am so grateful to have your insight and wisdom on tonight's program on a big day when we have this

move. Thank you.

Now, the E.U. is proposing social media restrictions for children. It includes an outright ban for those under 13. Bans everywhere, but how

workable are they? Well, we will talk about it after the break. QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:17:27]

QUEST: As the trade war between the United States and Canada intensifies, there is an invitation on the table to Canada, this time from the European

Union. The E.U. Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, today proposed making Canada an associate member. She made the offer as the Canada's prime

minister, Mark Carney, was in the audience at her State of the Union Address.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

URSULA VON DER LEYEN, EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESIDENT: This is not a partnership against anyone else, but for our common strength. In short, we

want to bring the relationship with Canada to the highest level possible and dear, Mark, I said, we must urgently reimagine our partnerships. So I

would like to work with you on opening the door for Canada to being the first associate member of the European Union.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: Paula Newton is with me. What on earth? Let's not. into should they or shouldn't they? First of all, what is associate membership of the E.U.?

What does it give Canada? Or does anybody even know?

PAULA NEWTON, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Well, dear Richard, no, no one knows. There is no detail here.

Suffice to say, we will be served up a lot more in the next few weeks. Mark Carney actually addresses the E.U. Parliament itself tomorrow. There is a

Canada-E.U. Summit at the end of October. Carney and Macron meet on September 20th. I could go on. We might get more details then.

But the bottom line is that this is a never before translated type of association with the E.U., but it is very clear they want a closer alliance

on something that is very key.

Now stay with me here, Richard, because I've got a map for you and it shows Greenland.

QUEST: I not paying extra.

NEWTON: And Canada.

QUEST: I am not paying extra for the map.

NEWTON: Too bad it is already done. And yes, you're paying for it. There it is. So see -- so Richard, while everyone talked about trade. Look, Canada

has had a free trade agreement with the E.U., which a couple of important members, in fact, nine have failed to ratify, they already have a free

trade agreement with the E.U. It is not about that. It is about the map that you see there.

And the E.U. has determined that Arctic security is paramount for them, even when it comes to the United States. They do not trust a capricious

Trump administration.

[16:20:10]

They will not trust any American administration going forward, and in the words of Ursula von der Leyen, she says "This will be an Arctic project. It

will be a flagship joint project with Canada, among other things."

We will wait to see how many more details they will give us, though, Richard.

QUEST: Right, but of course there will. You know, this is an interesting -- it is an interesting construct because it could end up being all things to

all people, which would be a benefit. Look, where am I going with this?

Let's take the U.K. for example. If you were trying to get the U.K. back into some form of relationship with the E.U., associate membership. There

are a lot of countries that you might want to fiddle around. Ukraine associate membership. Theres a lot of little fiddling around that you could

do because it is so vague at the moment.

NEWTON: Yes, you're right and that is an interesting detour. I hadn't thought of it that way, but I do want to quote Canada's opposition leader

here, Pierre Poilievre, and the reason I quote this is that remember, Canadians as well are deeply steeped in the Brexit arguments of the last

decade.

And remember, Mark Carney himself was one that warned about economic catastrophe should Britain choose Brexit, which inevitably they did.

But from the leader of the opposition in Canada, that Canada would welcome a new union with the E.U., but no E.U. taxes, no E.U. laws and no E.U. open

border immigration policies should be imposed on Canadians. And there you have the crux of the issue. Mark Carney may be getting ahead of his skis

here. I am sure there is some support for this throughout Canada, but until we see more details, a lot of people will be pushing back, especially in

the places that Mark Carney knows well, which is the West in Canada specifically, where he grew up in the province of Alberta.

QUEST: Paula, I am so grateful having you with us tonight. Thank you very much, making sense and putting it into perspective.

Let's stay with the E.U. It is also proposing action on young people's access to social media. The E.U. is moving to ban the use of children under

13 and limit social media for older teens. The tech companies say they already prohibit anyone from under 13 from opening accounts. Authorities

are questioning whether the rules are being enforced.

Anna Stewart is in London with me.

Anna, look, I mean, we are at a point where I am wondering what the purpose of this ban is since, as the company say, look, most of what you're talking

about, we are already doing anyway.

ANNA STEWART, CNN REPORTER: And also, the E.U., for once, isn't the first to regulate in this space. Obviously, we had Australia banned social media

for young kids and it was a bit of a failure. A BMJ report showed that about 80 percent of those young people are actually still accessing social

media.

Some are using fake I.D.s, some are simply using a photo of themselves, and eventually it will say yes if it thinks it is old enough. Sometimes people

use VPN. So, there is a big question about how this will be enforced.

I suspect we don't have any of the details yet. A lot was announced today, details will come later. I suspect that E.U. will want to use their new age

verification app. But you know, are there ways around it?

We also don't know actually, Richard, what the fine will be for companies that flout these new rules if they come into force. I suspect it will be

like the other acts they have, The Digital Services one, which is a six percent fine on global sales. So, it could be quite big.

The question is about the kids themselves and whether or not they will just find a way around it.

QUEST: What happens next? The E.U. is very good at these proposals, you know, getting from proposal to law and then implementing, what are they

thinking in terms of time scale.

STEWART: So they need to get agreement from all of the E.U. member states. Then it has to go to the E.U. Parliament. It will be voted on. There will

be plenty said. So, it will take a long time probably I would guess years rather than months.

Already, some member states are already working on this. France voted on a social media ban. Lawmakers voted, it passed, but then they had issues and

the Constitutional Court actually upturned it. Spain, Denmark, Sweden -- they are all pursuing legislation around this. I guess, with the E.U., it

will be easier for all of these companies, and it is not just social media, but also A.I. companies to tackle it as one block.

But it could take quite a long time to get there.

QUEST: I am grateful. Thank you very much, Anna Stewart.

Now, some of the world's top shipping nations are warning that a growing shadow fleet is threatening the foundation of global trade. It is the

Consultative Shipping Group, and it includes 18 nations, and it has out an unprecedented warning about ships operating without standard insurance or

records. They are doing so in the service of sanctioned countries like Russia and Iran.

[16:25:10]

This chart from Marine Traffic shows oil tankers throughout the world. What you don't see are the shadow fleet, the aging ships, excuse me, whose

ownership and cargo are unclear sailing with their transponders off. One monitor estimates their number has risen to more than 1,400 vessels.

Brian Wessel is the Director General of the Danish Maritime Authority and Chair of the Consultative Shipping Group.

When I read this story, I thought, well, hang on a second. What are they getting themselves all excited about? Is this really such a big problem?

I did not realize that the shadow fleet was as big as unregulated and this is causing such concern.

BRIAN WESSEL, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF DANISH MARITIME AUTHORITY AND CHAIR OF CONSULTATIVE SHIPPING GROUP: Yes, we are were raising -- really raising a

warning sign in general about shipping rules, and I see the surprise because shipping has been living well off global rules, but we see a lot of

signs of not respecting freedom of navigation and the civilian fleet, a lot of restrictions of many kinds, protectionist measures, and then also, and

probably most importantly, as you say, a parallel fleet or a shadow fleet, where up to 20 percent of all tankers in the shipping community is outside

of the system.

And all of these things together, we fear risk undermining the system that shipping is built on and that global trade, in essence, is built on, so

that's why we raised this warning.

QUEST: You've got the Strait of Hormuz, you've got the Red Sea, you've got a blockade from the U.S. You have a sort of an almost anarchic in some

cases, environment for shipping, which is highly regulated in so many other ways.

If this continues, the shadow fleet and everybody doing -- what's the risk? What happens?

WESSEL: Yes, the risk is -- I mean, we depend on universally applied rules. So, we have a level playing field. We have rules applied for safety, for

the environment, but also for competition and fair competition in shipping.

And if they are no longer applied, then you get a very fragmented market. You get higher costs, you get risks for safety and the environment. And

then, in the end, if this goes on, this disrespect of the rules, then slowly you undermine the whole system. And yes, then you get a very

fragmented system which is not only a problem for shipping is our point; it is a problem for global trade.

QUEST: What do you do about it? Because at the end of the day, the sanctioning was put on for valid reasons. Admittedly, one of the arguments

against sanctions is always that people will cheat around it and have consequences elsewhere. And that's really shown by this, isn't it?

So what do you do if you have a shadow fleet? How do you bring them into the regulatory regime?

WESSEL: The whole regime of 176 member states in what we call the IMO, the U.N. organization regulating shipping is that all member states, we must

all enforce these rules and help each other enforce these rules. They are not stronger than the weakest link.

So what we can do is help each other enforce the rules in a better manner. So, all flag states take the responsibility --

QUEST: Right.

WESSEL: -- also on a shadow fleet and not register something that is not living up to standards and have the necessary certificates and insurance

and so forth.

So, this is a call from the 18 nations that I represent to work together more closely, also with the other member states in the IMO to help enforce

this in a stronger manner, to protect the general system in fact is our point.

So we call on all maritime nations to help us make sure that what goes on in the world doesn't hurt shipping.

QUEST: I am grateful, sir. Thank you for joining us tonight from Copenhagen.

In a moment, Ed Sheeran's concert line up, well, it is dwindling. More acts are dropping out now that Macklemore was removed for making pro-Palestinian

comments. We will explain in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:32:49]

QUEST: The international tour of the best-selling artist Ed Sheeran is in turmoil tonight. All of his opening acts, including his own band, have now

quit in solidarity with the rapper Macklemore. Now the rapper was dropped from Sheeran's tour in the U.S. earlier this week over comments he made on

stage.

This is part of what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MACKLEMORE, RAPPER: I wanted to stand up here on stages, in stadiums, across America and say two words that are very near and dear to my heart.

Free Palestine. I said free Palestine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: Well, that started it. Ed Sheeran posted online that it was the promoters' choice to pull Macklemore, not his, and that while he has his

own personal views on the war in Gaza, he chooses not to speak publicly because people who come to his shows do not expect a political forum.

Erika Schneider is with me. She teaches crisis public relations at Syracuse University.

This is different. You don't get this sort of thing happening very often. So who's -- when I say who's in the right, who's in the wrong, you know

what I mean.

ERIKA SCHNEIDER, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Yes.

QUEST: There's no rights and wrongs as such. But how did this -- should Macklemore have been let go? Should the others have not, you know, not left

as well? Should Sheeran have taken a stronger stand? Discuss.

SCHNEIDER: It's definitely an interesting situation because they're both stating that they're advocating for peace. But depending on the person,

they're doing the exact opposite. So it kind of comes down to two different issues about the situation. Did the initial crisis with Macklemore occur

because he used his platform, his musical platform, to create a public stance, or are they mad at that specific stance that he took?

[16:35:10]

And that's kind of where the issue begins. And it escalates in different ways where we have Macklemore communicating how he justified that, saying,

there is no neutral position when there's an oppressor and someone being oppressed.

QUEST: Right.

SCHNEIDER: So there's definitely two sides that are having great points.

QUEST: OK. Let's just take that further. So the question, of course, is Macklemore's First Amendment right to say what he likes, but of course it

has to be tempered by the fact he's at a commercial enterprise and he has to follow certain rules on that. But then all the other artists deciding to

leave and now you've got a PR crisis. How do you deal with it?

SCHNEIDER: That's kind of an escalator at this point. When the other acts start to leave and they kind of attribute it to different things. They

either say that it's because of being silenced about Palestinian human rights, or just because they feel that there are threats of a lack of

freedom of expression in these spaces, that they feel should be protected.

QUEST: Right.

SCHNEIDER: So that's kind of an escalating point here. And, you know, kind of the bottom line of it is we have Sheeran saying that I don't think this

is an appropriate place for these views to be expressed and that's not necessarily neutral.

QUEST: Now can I just ask you?

SCHNEIDER: Yes.

QUEST: No, but can I just say? Sheeran's answer, you know, position seems to be arguably, arguably, the weakest of all in a sense. Lily Livered,

let's sort of skate to the thickest ice and not take a position. He's neither supporting Macklemore for whatever reason, nor is he supporting the

others. He's basically saying, not me, guv. Nothing to see here.

SCHNEIDER: Which is interesting because they are friends. They go back over a decade and Sheeran knows how Macklemore aligns and how they're

fundamentally different from his own. So it's interesting how they got to this point, and the fact that Sheeran saying that I don't necessarily

believe it's my right place to use his platform for politics, but when he justifies that call, when the promoter actually eliminated that option for

Macklemore and said, you're cut, that kind of fact that he justified it and communicated why he aligns with that.

QUEST: Right.

SCHNEIDER: Kind of, you know, applauds that stance in some ways where you see that, you know, why do you think that was justified? Why did you

prioritize the promoters' authority over your relationship with this musician?

QUEST: I'm grateful for your time tonight. Thank you for joining us.

SCHNEIDER: Thank you.

QUEST: Coming up, a report from the World Economic Forum finds that gender equality between men and women won't be reached for another 120 years. I

discussed the report with Saadia Zahidi. She says the -- she's the outgoing managing director at the World Economic Forum. But Zahidi will soon become

the new director general of the airline association IATA. We discussed both.

On the issue of gender equality, Zahidi told me that the main barriers to achieving equality are complicated.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SAADIA ZAHIDI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM: So there has been progress, but that progress has been relatively slow. And if we project

that rate of change out into the future, it would take another 120 years to get to parity.

QUEST: What's the core problem?

ZAHIDI: It used to be that we didn't have enough investment in the human capital of women, so it used to be an issue related to health and education

and not going into universities and equal numbers, but it's actually been a couple of decades now that women are coming out of university in higher

numbers than men. So the question is no longer do they have the talent. The question is now are organizations are not designed to actually take them

in.

One is because of care. Women do still have, by and large, the majority of the caregiving responsibilities for childcare, for elder care. But it's

bigger than that even because even in industries -- so I'll give you an example. Education, health, and the nonprofit sector. Each of these has a

higher proportion of women in entry level positions than men.

QUEST: Right.

ZAHIDI: Unlike, let's say, oil and gas and infrastructure and other sectors. And yet even there, there is that massive drop to the top and you

don't get to parity at the top. So there is something there about how our organizations value female talent, especially when they return from

caregiving breaks.

QUEST: Let's get away from the C-suite and actually look at some core issues. Women's health, economic empowerment, all of those sort of things.

Now there it becomes even more difficult because there's just not the resources that are being given.

[16:40:04]

ZAHIDI: Yes. But let's go into a sector that is growing, booming, and is certainly part of news at the moment, artificial intelligence. Right? So

this is a sector that's been booming in the last three, four, five years. It is completely replicating the old patterns when it comes to gender

equality. A.I. engineers, 1 in 5 are female. When it comes to the data annotator roles, which is the lowest skilled role in that particular

industry, nearly half are women.

QUEST: That's depressing. That means you're making almost no progress.

ZAHIDI: That means that the new economy is again being set up with old systems, and that's where there -- I believe there is an opportunity for

change here, because if you can set up some of these systems differently, you can get much faster progress. So here's an example.

QUEST: Well, I would disagree because I would say that the fact that it has replicated in a new industry is evidence of failure of policies to put that

right. So really, this should never have happened.

ZAHIDI: So in the last 20 years, the first decade, a lot faster progress than in that second decade. We can see that pattern. And in part, that is

because every time there is a crisis or a setback of some kind, what people tend to do is revert to the mean and go back to what they're familiar with.

Familiar forms of leadership, familiar forms of workforces. And so the pandemic set back women. Now the geopolitics and geoeconomics of the world

and trade changes are setting back women again.

Artificial intelligence and the sectors that it's impacting are also starting to set back women. So there is this tendency for a shock to still

impact women and girls more than men and boys.

QUEST: In your last days at WEF as managing director, and you're going to - - well, you're only going across the road really. I mean, in a sense.

ZAHIDI: Across the lake in Geneva.

QUEST: Across the lake.

ZAHIDI: Yes.

QUEST: You're going to IATA as the first director general who has not been an airline CEO. Why did you want this job at IATA?

ZAHIDI: So the last few minutes of our conversation, we talked about geopolitics. We talked about technology. We talked about workforce related

issues. We didn't talk about sustainability. But that's another big theme that we've been working on for the last couple of decades at the forum. And

that's where -- this industry is kind of at the front lines of all of those issues. You know, the geoeconomics, the geopolitics, the sustainability

related issues, the workforce issues, the integration of technology.

So for me, it's a fascinating place where all of those issues come together within the industry, within its broader ecosystem. So I'm excited.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

QUEST: And the new head of IATA and the outgoing.

And that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for tonight. I'm Richard Quest in London. Whatever you're up to in the hours ahead, I hope it's profitable.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:45:48]

(MARKETPLACE ASIA)

END