tv Charlie Rose PBS November 27, 2014 12:00am-1:01am EST
>> welcome to the program. tonight the parents of michael brown, michael brown senior and lesley mcspadden join us along with their attorney benjamin crimp. >> how you can become whole again? >> rose: we're different now. just have to keep the faith. that hole will never be filled. we have other children that we love but, you know, i think that actually broke me. kuz my first, you know. spent a lot of time together. it just-- just broke me. >> rose: we conclude this evening with richard anderson, the c.e.o. of delta airlines.
>> you've got three big, big carriers, american, united and delta. you've got a really big supernational carrier that is the largest domestic carrier which is southwest. then you've got some majors. you've got alaska and jetblue who all call large national carriers. and then there is spirit and frn tear and sun country and allegiant. so you have a really nice competitive, contested line-up of carriers. >> rose: ferguson, missouri, and the aftermath and richard anderson when we continue. funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: a dition-- additional funding provided by: and by bloomberg, a provider of
multimedia news and information service its worldwide. from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: michael brown senior and lesley mcspadden are here. they are the parents of michael brown. he is the unarmed teenager who was killed by a white police officer, darren wilson, on august 9th. also here is their attorney benjamin crump. this week the st. louis prosecutor robert mccullough announced a grand jury decided no the to tin diet officer wilson. n -- -- fro tests grew nationwide, the case has come to symbolize issues of race. president obama addressed the nation shortly after the grand jury announcement on monday evening. >> we need to recognize that this is not just an issue for ferguson-- this is an issue for america. we have made enormous
progress in trais relations, over the course of the past several decades. i have witnessed that in my own life and to deny that progress, i think is to deny america's capacity for change but what is also true is that there are still problems and communities of color aren't just making these problems up . separating that from this particular decision, there are issues in which the law too often feels as if it is being applied in a discriminatory fashion. i don't thinks that tea the norm. i don't think that's true for the majority of the communities or the vast majority of law enforcement officials. but these are real issues. and we have to lift them up and not deny them or try to tamp them down.
what we need to do is to understand them and figure out how do we make more progress. and that can be done trz the president spoke again at a chicago event on tuesday. >> the problem is not just a ferguson problem, it is an american problem. and we've got to make sure that we are actually bringing about change. the bottom line is nothing of it significance, nothing of benefit results from destructive acts. i have never seen a civil rights law or a health-care bill or an immigration bill result because a car got burnt. it happened because people vote. it happened because people mobilize. it happened because people organized. it happens because people look at what are the best policies to solve the problem. that's how you actually move something forward.
>>. >> rose: i am pleased to have michael brown senior, lesley mcspadden and benjamin crump. i think you know that the country and people at this table understand and appreciate your grief as well as your anger having to do with the decision at the vote at the grand jury. i want to take this opportunity in a sense to hear you at this table, and try to understand what it is that you agree with in terms it of events unfolded. and where there is dramatic disagreement, always understanding it that you both have experienced a tragic loss, you know. and anyone who has lost a child or not appreciates that. and out of that comes a sense of a cry for justice, as you see it and out of that comes anger that this could happen. tell me what your understanding is because we heard from officer wilson in
an interview with george stephanopoulos which we'll see a clip of later, of what happened between officer wilson, your understanding. >> my understanding. officer wilson was driving down canfield where my son was walking. said some vulgar things to them about getting out of the street. >> rose: he was walking in the street. >> he was actually coming across the street. it is a two lane road. and he told him well, i'm almost home. and from there officer wilson turned his vehicle as if he was blocking traffic, screeching tires it, trying to get to my son, opening the door, hitting him with the door and then attempting to grab at him. and making contact to the
point where he's pulling him towards it him. and my son is trying to get away. >> rose: he's still in the car. >> he's still in the car. >> rose: and then. >> and as he tries to get away, and get him off of him, he tells him i'll shoot you. and does just that trz and there are a couple of shots. >> i believe so. >> rose: at that time. >> how many, i don't know. but i believe that is when my son was shot. >> rose: you also, i assume, base this on what witnesses may have told you. >> exactly. >> rose: that you knew in the community. >> exactly. >> rose: people you knew and other people that might have come forward. >> people that come forward. there was a lot of people that it i didn't know, that i still don't know. but they saw things it. and they was just compelled to let us know what they saw. kuz they knew that this kid did not deserve what happened to him. and they didn't know my son from tad am. >> rose: well, we'll talk
about your son as well, and who is the son that you knew and loved so then what happened? because your son walked away. >> my son was running for his life. and as his father had said before he had a conversation with him about how to deal with the authorities if you are approached. >> rose: which was? >> which was to obey, basically. if they ask you to do something, you are to do it. and i believe that he was asked to stop. that is what he did. he stopped. he turned it around torque get down on his knees, like the officer asked him. >> rose: you believe he was on his knees. >> i believe so. >> rose: and then he was shot. >> i believe he was shot close up. and i don't think my son was lunging at him in any kind
of way. because the way the bullet entered his body and the things that they were doing inside his body while he is constantly shooting him, there's no way he had any strength or energy to lung at him at all. and for him to say that when he looked down the barrel of his gun to fire what he would say is the last shot, it hit my son's head, explain that to me. explain that to me, how was my son down on the ground, with his hands up, begging you, basically, for his life. he's begging you. he's begging you. >> rose: and then in the grand jury there were conflicting it testimony. >> well, i would say that they are tea conflicting opinions which means factual dispute. and when you have factual dispute, that's when are you to have a trial, a
transparent trial. fanned there is anything --. >> rose: and the ability to cross-examine the witnesses. >> the ability to cross-examine the witness and the ability for it to it be transparent. so the community of ferguson, people across america, can see it it and if we can see it, we can accept it more. but when you do it in secret, a grand jury proceeding where it is only one side being presented, you can't be surprised when the people reject the decision that you came upon. >> rose: as painful as this might be, i'm not sure whether you have heard or seen this yet, this was on abc and courtesy of abc. we show you now an interview with officer wilson-- i mean-- yes, and george stephanopoulos, our colleague at abc news it. here it is. >> i used pie door to try to push him back and yell at him to get backment and again he just pushed the door sht and stairs at me. as i lack back at him, puncheds started flying. >> rose: he threw the first within. >> yeah, he through the
first one and hit me in the side of the face. >> some of the witnesses say they saw you trying to pull him into the car. >> that would be against any training ever taught to any law enforcement officer. i don't know what or how many hit me after that i just know there was a barrage of swinging and grabbing and pulling for about 10 seconds. >> and then what? >> i reached out my window with my right hand to grab on to his forearm. because i was going to try to move him backnd get out of the door. when i fell it, i felt the immense power. it was like a five-year-old on to hulk hogan. that is how big in man was. >> he was very large, very powerful man. >> are you a pretty big guy. >> yeah, i'm above average. >> so you try to grab him but you feel that force. >> yes. >> pretty of the same size. they are both big guys. an when he says hulk hogan, was like hitting a five-year-old, he being the five-year-old, where is the evidence of that, charlie. you saw the pictures. america saw the pictures. he just had like blush on
his cheek so why didn't the prosecutor cross-examine him. why hasn't the killer of their unarmed son ever been cross-examined. he wasn't made to give statements to the police. he didn't write it out as customary. so you look at the first statement from the detective to the testimony in a grand jury, and see how the story continues to just evolve. >> rose: when you hear that officer talk, what does it is a to you? >> lies. >> it disgusts me. he doesn't have-- he has-- he has no sympathy for the family. he just looked like he's just going around it, just lying, you know. i have heard that he had apologized for what he has done.
it didn't sound sincere to does. it just sounded like something 245 just rolled off his lips. >> rose: have you heard from the mayor of ferguson. >> no, sir. >> rose: anybody in the-- any police official at all? >> not at all. >> rose: no sense of reaching out. >> not one person. >> the police chief apologized a couple months later, but that was their television trz this is part two of the conversation, george stephanopoulos interviewing officer wilson. here it is. >> i take it out and i come up, a point it at him. when i do this i say get back, i'm going to chute. his response immediately he grabbed the top of my money gun, when he grabbed it he said you are too much of a [bleep] to shoot me. when he does that i feel his hand come over my hand inside the trigger guard and try and shoot me with my own go up am that is when i pulled the trigger.
>> what happened. >> it didn't go off. the gun was being jammed by his hand on top of the firearm so i tried again and again another click. and this time i-- this had to work or i'm going to be dead. will get this gun away from from me, something is going to happen and i will be dead. so i pull a third time tand it finally goes off. >> rose: i think my impression is that it was at the car, is that right? >> right. >> that was not when he had left the scene. he was walking away. >> look at the statement that he gives the dect difficult, initially versus what he just said. that's all we're saying. >> so let's talk about the grand jury. here is jeffrey toobin, look he evidence that they saw and heard. you know t charlie, i think so. >> i don't-- i think other prosecutors and other grand juries might well have come out differently. might well have pursued this whole case in a different way. but do i think this grand jury made an irrational choice based on the evidence
before it? no t i don't. i think they made a reasonable conclusion to the evidence. >> so what he is saying based on what that grand jury saw and that's the crucial thing. and your quarrel is what that grand jury might have seen. >> and the way it was prevented, charlie. remember this is a prosecutor that they objected to from the beginning. they always said a special prosecutor needed to it be brought in, because the whole system needs to be indicted. >> rose: and you had questions about this particular prosecutor? >> yeah. >> rose: which were? >> was it just that you didn't want him or because you just simply believed that this was the circumstances as called for a special prosecutor. >> we didn't want-- both, both, basically. we have seen him to the do his job for almost 20 something years now. >> rose: so he was-- you knew of him in that community. >> yeah, been?
st. louis my whole 24 years. >> rose: dow believe he was racist? >> you know, we think, you look at his history, and he is never prosecuted a police officer for killing a person of color. >> rose: his father was a police officer. >> i believe his father was a police officer. and you know, i heard that from the family about the history. but i think it goes farther than that when you look at how he changed the procedure from what-- i've never seen in my 20 years of practicing law, charlie, i don't know if you have ever seen a procedure like this where the prosecutor doesn't recommend charges to the grand jury, says i'm just going to put it all out there and i want to it be fair. i'm to the going to recommend, look at it. >> tell me about your son. >> like i said before, you know, he was our first born. he had just graduated in may. he was a big brother,
grandson, a nephew, pleasant, humble, quiet. and i could not-- i just can't understand it it because this does not fit his character at all no one will-- no one has ever seen or heard of him acting out in a way. >> there's nothing about him that you know that he would react the way the officer described. >> not at all. >> rose: not any instance or circumstances or -- >> it is just for you, totally unimaginable? that he would behave as the officer suggested. >> yes, i don't believe it. >> rose: so why do you think the officer is saying this. >> to make him look good. >> to cover himself.
>> well then make a report. if you didn't do anything wrong, what are you hiding. >> make a report like every police officer is required to do in those 48 hours. you have to look he stuff and see what he said to the detective, charlie. but you know, the gun accidentally came out of his holster. the gun accidentally went off. but now that story has evolved. and so we asked america to look at it and to see if they believed the prosecution really went after an indictment or not.
because that's why people are so heartbroken. >> rose: has the prosecutor spoken to this question? as to what he was seeking and what his motive was with respect to the grand jury? >> only what we know from the beginning where he said he's going to do this unusual process of putting it all out there and i'm to the going to recommend any charges. >> rose: but would you applaud him having all the conversation come out, i would assume. >> you know, my clients told all the lawyers they wanted equal justice. they didn't want anything less. they wanted a trial as the constitution about united states says. when there are fact all disputes and there's probable cause, the killer should be charged. there should be a trial. the witness and the evidence against him transparent. >> rose: so he can argue at that trial self-defense or what have you. >> absolutely. he with get all his constitutional rights, mr. rose. nobody doubts that the police officer wouldn't have gotten every benefit of the doubt.
we have got all his due process. the question is would michael brown have gotten his due process. >> rose: let's talk about that in terms of what we know. there was some cigars, were there? >> yes. >> rose: and a videotape. >> video tape, yup. and videotapes there was one camera, one videotape. and your son was identified there. >> and i think mismcspadden can speak to that. >> and my response to that was that is an 18 second clip. you can not judge my son off 18 second clip for 18 years of his life. >> rose: your son would not have done what they assumed he had done there and stolen -- >> well, no one has said that he stole. this is all an assumption. >> let's assume a kid stole cigarettes. >> rose: right. >> is that justified the death penalty. >> no. >> rose: nobody.
>> nobody. >> rose: would believe that. >> nobody. >> and then even after that t erode past t you know. they say he just came from a call from a child choking. you know. >> why -- he stop -- >> why do you think? >> i want to know. i want to know. >> you really have to go back to the beginning about all the stuff the police chief said he didn't know about the incident at the store. look at what he told the detective when he first asked about the incident at the store. so this is the stuff you try to figure out, why wasn't this asked during the examination of a killer of an unarmed teenager. you know, just one tough question. it was almost like you give a speech to this jury for four hours and we're going
to accept it as the gospel. a first year law student would have cross-examined him harder. and that's what is troublingment because we don't think they got equal justice during that grand jury prosecution. >> rose: at the heart of your argument is the grand jury and what you believe or the grand jury that was presented evidence in a way that was unlikely to lead to indictment. is that a fair characterization of what you believe. >> that is fair, charlie. and i often wonder, and i don't know if we know how the vote went, but i do know this. certain people see our children differently than we see our children. and that is something we have to address in america. because you can't be allowed to demonize our children and ville i few our children when you-- vilify our children when you kill them and-- expect us to be okay with it. that's why people are protesting. >> rose: speak to that. this is not the first
incident, obviously, as we mentioned in the beginning. what is at the core here in your judgement as someone who has been so brutally-- to us through your son that way and to know that his body lay there for four hours on the street what is at the core here? >> respect, is definitely at the core. and we deserve equal amount of respect. and we're not getting it. and that was all that we wanted was equality for what happened to our son. and i think it's a very unfair and i'm just, like, i never knew that this is how things it would go.
this is how things it operated. that the system could fail you so much when everything is right there in your eyesight. you see it all right there. we all see the same thing. i know we all see the same thing. so why are we having this conversation? why didn't he do his job right. the same as for darren. same for jackson. why is it so important to cover this up for this man? he's wrong. what does this do for ferguson? really? we have done nothing but ask for peaceful process-- protest but look at what they're doing to their community. ferguson is doing this to ferguson. >> why. >> i want to know why. why is one of those questions you never get to answer to. but we know who.
>> who? >> darren chief jackson. bob mccullough, governor nixon. >> rose: they're doing this to ferguson. >> they are doing this to ferguson. and it has expanded outside of ferguson. >> rose: you know what else is happening in ferguson is that since this grand jury announcement was announced, the verdict judgement decision was announced by mccullough, on monday night at 9:00, monday night at 9:00. >> we don't understand many things it, why they were doing. and it's like mismcspadden said, why, some things it we'll never get an answer to. >> rose: there is also this. the notion is that in the beginning they were criticized for preparing for the worst, it was said. the reaction might be. and some people have argued that they didn't do enough
because a lot of people's businesses were burned down. and jobs were lost. and it dealt a terrible fwlo to the city of ferguson. they also argued that, you know, they didn't do enough as i said. and then, but what was created was a kind ling. >> you but you know what, mr. rose f you look at michael brown's tragic killing, if they were would have just did what they did for everybody else and simply charged the officer, i honestly believe, and you have a trial by jury, more people would have been able to accept it, just like with trayvon martin. if he would have just simply did what you would do if the facts were reversed. if the facts were reversed, mr. rose, don't you believe that fros cuter would have did everything, used all his resources to prosecute the heck out of michael brown. so why is it different when it's our children. why is it different when we
reverse it? we have got to change this system to say we can't have these local prosecutors who have this symbiotic relationship with, prosecute and the police officers because they're never going to do it and we said over and over again, whether it's in cleveland with a 12-year-old kid is shot, whether it is here in new york whether it's in california where they kill african-american woman. what scenario can we present where the police will actually be held accountable. >> if, in fact, beyond your own imagination it would be an injustice to prosecute this officer, you would not want to see him prosecuted? >> if the facts were that clear, no. but the facts are not clear. you have seven eye witnesses, you have conflict and testimony. that's a fact. >> there is too much dispute. >> yeah. and you know, when you got people who can't agree, we don't want them selling their differences in the
street. we want them to come to the court of law and have trust that the court is going to be equal to everybody. and when that happens, everybody can accept it as tough as trayvon was, everybody accepted it when we saw the transcripts. we didn't like it. >> when he was acquitted. >> yeah. we didn't like it. we accepted it, america accepted it. his parents accepted it it michael brown's family, everybody in america accepted it. it was-- and it was transplant. we thought things could have went differently. people argued about style and technique. but it was transparent. there was nothing about this transparent lz how can you become whole again? >> we're different now. just have to keep the faith that whole will never be
filled. we have other children that we love, but you know, i think that actually broke me. that was my first. you know, sppbt a lot of time together. -- spent a lot of time together it just-- it just broke me. it broke me. >> rose: so what happens legally. >> legally and moving forward, we look at all of the potential tiefs from the civil arena from the federal government in hopes that they may give the family the justice that we all want. and more importantly, his legacy in trying to not just make noise but make a
difference, charlie. the proposal for the michael brown law that they have been asking all the supporters is for a video body cameras. all plifers. so this won't continue to play out the way it had played out here. and so many other times. and we'll finally have transparency. >> rose: i thank you for coming here. as i said at the beginning, there is no parent that doesn't understand the anger and the pain and the grief and the loss and what it does. no parent wants to bury their child. so i thank you for coming. be right back, stay with us. richard anderson is here. he is c.e.o. of delta airlines. delta was named airline of the year for 2014 by air transport shall transport world magazine, the carrier serves over 160 million
customers and pets around the globe each year. its merger with northwest in 2008 propelled further consolidation across the industry. american, united, southwest and delta have all merged with other carriers in the past six years. the combinations control more than 80% of u.s. domestic capacity. i'm pleased to have richard anderson back at this table, welcome. >> thank you, charlie. it's nice to be here. >> we're on the oof of the holiday season beginning with thanksgiving. are you ready? >> we are ready. i don't know whether the weather is going to cooperate here in new york but we are as ready as we'll ever be. >> its he coming up from the south towards us. >> it is coming up from to the south and incense-- intensifying a bit so it should hit here in the new york metro area sometime in the morning. and freezing precipitation is never a good combination with airplanes. >> rose: what's the giggest, i want to talk about economics later. but in terms it of what you have to do, a promise that if you pay for a ticket we
will get from you a to b on time. what's the biggest challenge to that? >> the biggest challenge to that is making all the pieces and parts, all come together in union i son at the same time. -- in tonison at the same time so the crew scheduling, crew planning, maintenance, having the airplane ready and ready to dispatch on time is literally a thousand moving pieces. and when you think about the sheer number of passengers and operations we have at delta, it is a very large operations research problem. because if the airplane isn't maintenance ready or the crew is going to run out of time or the gate's not available or the catering didn't get on board or the lavatory truck didn't empty the lavs or the cabin crew didn't get a clean cabin. >> it screws up the gig. >> the schedule has got -- all those pieces have to sit.
>> a thousand moving parts coming all on time. >> that's the most fun about the job. >> is it really if. >> it is. >> i thought the most fun about the job was saying how do we come up with new, you know, wonderful creative solutions to make this travel experience better. >> well, they are one and the same. because that's really, when you have all those pieces work in unison and people can rely upon the schedule and know they're going to get there on time with their baggage and friendly, courteous service, and we do that consistently day in, day out for all 100 and next year hopefully 170 million plus passengers. >> rose: what do you know. you must know a lot about why people choose the airline they close if they have a choice. >> if they have a choice, i think the defining factor is going to it be the quality of the operation and the friendliness of the service is so a lot of what we have done at delta in terms of
bringing delta back to the forefront of the industry is, i like to think of it as restoring humanity or working at air lines and restoring humanity to working on airlines. >> some kind of human relationship takes place on-line. >> because you think about the implicit trust you have in the company when you get on an airplane and fly across the country or fly to your grand moth errs or fly to europe or fly to asia. you put a tremendous amount of implicit trust in the brand and in the people. and so you want to both professionally deliver for them but you also want to do it in a courteous and friendly way. and delta has great roots in that regard. >> rose: if you look at most crashes, what percentage is pilot error? >> well, unfortunately, i would put it in a broader category of human error. >> rose: okay, human error. >> and human error if you look, boeing has done a very good job for the industry over the years of tracking. so that we know what to work on as an industry. >> rose: they want to make
sure it is not a mechanical error. >> they want to make sure it's not a mechanical error. but boeing also has a deep engineering focus on just the safety of flight. and so if you look at the database that they've assembled over time t ends up being human error. and what we have spent a lot of the last 20 years is taking way the opportunity for human error with technology, with better training, with better cockpit resource management. and we have unusual tools in this country, probably different than, and i say this that if other industries had this kind of a focus we would probably have better safety records than some of the other industries that match ours. we have a no no fault system with our pilots and technicians and flight attendants where they can treely speak up about challenges in the operation. and we randomly sample on an anonymous basis our
flight-data recorders, so we have continuous-- . >> rose: you randomly sample what is going on in the cockpit. >> yes. the flight parameters it of the airplane. and we do that in close cooperation with our pilots. and it's a no fault system. because the ultimate goal is to learn as much about the operation. >> rose: you mean if they screw up they will not hold you responsible. >> well, if it's obviously criminal or gross negligence or alcohol, you're going to be held responsible. but in a normal operating day, if one of our flight crews misses an altitude call because there's chatter on an airway or a miscommunication from air traffic control, we're going to work with them to redefine our procedures, or put other recommend des in place to respond to what the data from our operation is telling us about what is going on. and every airline does this. american does it well. united does it well, southwest does it well. in the industry does it as a
group. and we share information both on the maintenance side and operating side in order to continuously improve the quality of the operation for the whole industry. we have a very much a shared goal in that regard. >> rose: what do you think happened to the malaysian airlines? >> you know, i don't know what happened to the malaysian airline accident. >> rose: i know you don't know because would you on lease-- obviously tell me. >> i would tell you if i knew. the only thing i can say about that is the one thing you learn from the ntsb, the national transportation safety board and the discipline of accident investigation is not to speculate. because-- . >> rose: i hear you, you don't want to suggest, speculate when you don't really know. >> because then-- . >> rose: is this phenomenal, this plane disappeared with no, nothing. >> it is, it is phenomenal that it disappeared. and i think everyone in the industry would like to know why. because it gives us opportunity to put in place measures and steps to make sure that whatever the
root causes were, don't repeat themselves again. >> rose: as you know, air france went down in that long flight. >> correct. >> rose: and went to the bottom of the sea. >> correct. >> rose: and people always say well look, they didn't find that, what was wrong there, for i don't know how long. >> it took a couple of years. >> rose: how did they finally find it? >> i think they found it with a submarine of some sort. >> rose: knowing the general area. >> right. and once they found that, then they could get to the cockpit voice recorder and the flight-data recorder and pull the information from the wreckage on the bottom of the ocean. and it was human error. >> rose: it was human error. >> very serious human error. >> rose: what was the human error. >> improper inputs to the flight controls and some improper de-icing. >> rose: what is that. >> well, you push the-- you know, the airplane was receiving signals from th the-- pito tubes which tell what its pitch is, that it was actually in a stall and the pilots put some commands into the airplane that
caused the airplane to stall further. and when in fact it wasn't in a stall. so much of what happens on airplanes is the basic law of the airplane is allowed to work. which would have been the case in the-- . >> rose: he would have done nothing that would have been all right. >> correct. there is actually a very good report on it and a good article in vogue magazine about it recently that laid out, in pretty good detail, what happened. and it's human error. >> rose: you mentioned boeing but you just bought a whole bunch of planes from airbus. >> we did. >> rose: new planes. >> we did. >> rose: i thought your philosophy was to only buy old planes. >> no, we like to buy economically sound airplanes that fit with our mission. >> rose: and most of them have been used. >> no. we have-- we just in the last two years bought 100 brand-new boeing 737 900s. >> rose: how many. >> 100. we have 100. we've taken delivery of about 28 of them. we have 71, 72 more of those to comement and we just placed an order for 50 wide
body airbus airplanes. >> rose: made in europe. >> made in europe and around the world. airplanes, the component parts of the airplanes are made all around the world and they end up being assembled either in the u.s. or in europe. a lot of the technology is made by united technologies here in the u.s.. >> rose: why didn't you buy boeing? >> economics. and delivery slots. boeing did not have delivery slots that we needed. we needed about a dozen airplanes by the end of 2017. >> rose: is the dream liner a big success or you can see-- is it even a success? >> i mean, i know the 787 800 is not a success. the first version of the dreamliner. >> rose: then later versions there are. >> the 787 900 say good airplane. very good airplane. they worked out all the bugs. now i think there is still a lot of talk on wall street about whether that airplane will be profitable, the 787 900. and i think the 787 1,000 will be even better than the
900. >> rose: because of new materials it and-- or what? >> you know, it's so much technological advancement. that-- what people really i do not think fully appreciate, the challenge that boeing and airbus and the engine manufacturers have is they are on the very cutting edge of invention. >> rose: yeah. >> it's the cutting edge of invention in this country and for mankind if you think about it it. the technology that goes into that airplane, so the 787 900 does not use bleed air so every other airplane before this takes hot air off the engine to run certain systems on the airplane and run the air conditioners and keep the anti-ice systems working. and in the case of boeing, boeing in order to achieve higher fuel efficiency revolutionized that part of what has been always the way airplanes were manufactured. >> speaking of economic efficiencies did this oil
refinery purchase work for you? >> well, with crack spreads the way they are today they work quite handsomely. so yes, it has. and ear's the reason why. a couple of points. one, we spent 11 to-- 12 billion dollars a year on carbon molecules at delta. >> rose: how much? >> 11 to $12 billion a year depending on what our level -- >> carbon molecules. >> just carbon molecules. >> call it what it is. we're buying carbon. >> right. and we have to it be, we cannot leave the-- that inpaut cost tosomething that is quote not tund our control because that's how the industry got in trouble. we believe everything is under our control in our business. so buying the refinery which at the time was a very low price, 150 million, 160 million dollars, did something we didn't really expect. which it made us much better at buying, transporting, hedging, refining and-- .
>> rose: it made you learn the oil business. >> i call it boots on the street it we got boots on the street. and now we have a whole group of people at delta that we hired, most of them from houston, texas. and they're experts in buying crude. >> rose: so the other airlines rushed in to copy mr. anderson? >> no. they haven't rushed in to copy delta. i don't think, we just happened to hit the price of the refinery on the east coast of the united states at the all-time low point. and i think today-- . >> rose: refineries were cheap at the moment you bought. >> they were closing right and left. and the second great thing about the refinery is this refinery is perfect for light sweet crude. so we're going to get 100,000 barrels a day of light sweet crude from the batchen play in north dakota. >> rose: that is my next question. >> and we did a long-term lease. we now are probably the only airline with a tanker. we have a jones act tanker, delta does so, that we can
transport crude from the-- down on the texas gulf coast. >> rose: speaking of those kinds of issues, you spoke out about immigration policy. not without some controversy. >> a lot of heat on that one. >> rose: what did you exactly say. >> well, we just came out in favor of getting a solution to the immigration challenges that we have as a country. now remember, that the senate passed immigration reform. and president bush, 43rd president of the united states was a big advocate of immigration. so you have people on both the republican and democratic side of the aisle advancing immigration reform. and you know, like we've discussed before. we carried an extra 170 million people. and we carry a huge diversity of people from places all over the world. we have very large investments in mexico. we have large investments in brazil where we own airlines,
own big chunks of airlines. and when you think about it from an employee perspective or a kurs mer perspective at delta, we need to solve immigration in this country and it would, it's good for bus and-- business and it's a pressing problem. >> rose: it sounds reasonable to me, so why did you run into some flack? >> well, because it's one of those issues in our society that people have very strongly held views. >> so you also have an opinion on the keystone pipeline? >> i think the keystone pipeline should be built. >> rose: you're in favor of that. >> i am, here is the reason why. >> rose: even though we have all this new oil being produced in north dakota. >> but you want the keystone pipeline for two reasons. one, the state department has come out and the executive branch has said that the pipeline will not have a negative impact on the environment. and number two, instead of using a pipeline which if you looked at a map of the united states of all the pipelines in the united states, would you see more pipelines than interstate
freeways. we have pipelines everywhere that run the economy and heat our homes and instead of using and hooking into this big system which is the safest way to transport farmers in the upper midwest, can't get their grain to market because you have-- you do not have enough train capacity. instead we're pulling 125 car unit trains all through the midwest, pulling oil instead of taking grains and corn and wheat and soybeans and canola beans and sun flower banes to market to be crushed and used for food and for animal nutrition. >> and that's an interesting argument. and we'll see what comes out. how do you expect the payoff to be for you as a consumer carbon-- molecules with respect to the shell oil
explosion. >> well, the shell oil explosion is producing oil at much lower cost than brent so when you think about how oil is priced and you see the ticker run across the bottom of whatever business show or television show you are watching, west texas intermediate crude is pretty much trapped. an airline has to price off brent because we-- it's more of a world market. >> right. west texas intermediate crude is generally cheaper than clearbrook minnesota which is where it comes off the bachen and it gets priced at a lower price. i think that you will continue to see a differential where you-- u.s. domestic crude is going to be less expensive than brent. and where the opportunity lies for the american consumer or for delta airlines is hopefully we have over time more moderate input costs. >> here's the questionment and you heard that this morning when you were at
cbs. people wonder if oil prices are going down, why aren't planes, why aren't ticket prices going down? >> well, but you've got to start-- . >> rose: because when oil prices go up, ticket prices go up. >> think about it from this standpoint. if you just think very simply about what the real price of an airplane ticket with fees is today, we see that data, everybody follows that data with dot. it's still an incredible bargain. and ultimately. >> rose: but that's not the question, it is an incredible bargain. the question is if you charge more, if oil prices are up, why don't you charge less when oil prices are down. >> well, you're going to-- there will be some impact by in terms of input prices over the market. over the long run we've got to be able to have the cash flow to be able to invest. >> rose: you're stock up on this money that you are making when oil price goes down so that you can use it on a rainy day? >> my view is that oil prices, and i don't think is
prudent for delta to plan for long-term low oil prices. i think that if you look at the last-- . >> rose: you have your own refinery. >> even with our own refinery, one penny, one penny increase in a gallon of jet fuel for our whole system in a year is $40 million. so volatility in fuel prices is quite-- . >> rose: so it if it goes down a time for goodness sakes. >> but you can't lock it in, you can't lock it in without significant hedge premiums. when you look at what it takes it to us get it in the plane with taxes it. >> rose: why shouldn't i simply believe that the answer to my question is you simply want to, you know, maximize your earnings. >> of course. >> rose: that is what drives an industry. it is not a question of what you can do for the consumer. >> no, we create tremendous value for the consumer. but at the same time we have-- . >> rose: but it is not a price point. >> ultimately it will be reflected. >> rose: ultimately is how long. >> i don't know. butity mately if you talk to
any good economist, if i good economist will say that input prices if you are at the department of justice or the anti-trust section, input prices ultimately get reflected, are input efficiencies get reflected in price. >> rose: i said this to you before. you really are an interesting guy because you are a trial attorney it who got in the airline business because you had a neighbor who was in the airline business. and he brought you there to work with him. and then you took over when he left and became c.e.o.. was that northwest? >> that was actually at continental. >> rose: continental. >> then i went to northwest. >> rose: and then northwest is to you part of diltee. lay out to me where it's all going. because we now have four major carriers as i said. are we going to see two major carriers? >> i don't think so. >> rose: is delta going to merge with united and then we'll have delta and united and american will merge with southwest and all of a sudden there are two? >> no. i think you've got pretty good equilibrium in the industry. so if you think about t you've got three big, big carriers, american, united and delta. you've got a really big
supernational carrier which is southwest. then you've got some majors. you've got alaska and jetblue who i will call large national carriers. and then there is spirit and frontier and sun country and allegiant. so you have a really nice, competitive, contested line-up of carriers. and there's tremendous contest ability. i still have to go back to the data it you always want to make these arguments on the dayment back to the point about fuel prices, if you take the real price of airfares in 2,000, adjusting for inflation and compare them to today based on the dot data, you're still about 10% lower today in terms it of the efficiency of the system versus where it was in 2,000. if you go all the way back to regulation, we're probably 30% lower and tremendously more efficient. >> i always ask this because i realize it's not very important in terms of the airlines. i love wifi on board. >> i do too. >> and you have it in most
planes. >> we were the first to really do it across a large body of airplanes. >> rose: is that going to get better? >> it will. there another way. >> i flew on an international flight from jerusalem to new york. >> you sent me a note. >> and it had wifi all the way across. >> wasn't it awesome. >> it was amazing. for me because i was working all the way. >> i just flew on delta from shanghai to seattle. >> which is terrible about me. >> i was wondering actually halfway through the flight whether i really did love i would few internationally. because that is usually the one time where you can get day novel out and-- and you can-- . >> rose: i try do that too. i take naps well and do all those kinds of things. but it's nice to have it there because you can access not-- information. >> right. that is what the internet is for me. the ability to access information. >> on realtime. >> rose: right. >> and it's going get better. there is another wave of technology it i think the interesting one for you 20 do a show on is i read
recently about an entrepreneur who didding to make a very simple low-cost satellite. and i actually think in some respects this the next real wave is a very simply launched very low cost satellite where you can pro live rate the satellites are that necessary in order to have the bandwidth from the sky. you think about advancements in foreign countries, developing nations, where you can have networks at a very low, inexpensive cost. and that will ultimately come on to airplanes. the next wave is something called ku band which is a much wider bandwidth satellite wifi. >> rose: that would be great. finally this, there are so many, if you travel around the world as much as i do, you travel on all kinds of airlines. and in certain countries, in the middle east, in brazil, in, they are -- they seem to be doing really well because
i read the stuff in there own countries. these start-up airlines. i don't know whether they are going to last a long time but some of theme seem to be real success stories. is that ryu or not true. >> well, it depends upon the extent of government intervention. >> so some have an advantage because they have the government on their side. >> well, they are the government. >> oh, i see. >> they are the government. >> oh, that. >> think of amtrak. >> yeah. >> so-- i think of amtrak all the time. why does nobody fix it? >> well, what you have going on in a lot of countries is they are state-owned enterprise. and they are really just governments. >> and they had an advantage. in china what you are seeing now, i know a little bit about this. they are sensitive to the fact that the state-owned enterprise had an advantage and they are beginning to allow a more but not total-- tom knew all about this, a more level playing field. >> if you look at what the president has really focused on in the free trade negotiations in the pas civic has been the influence of state-owned and state
subsidized enterprises. and how do you get to day level playing field for manufacturing and ore industrial companies and industries in the u.s. >> thank you for coming. >> always good, charlie. happy thanksgiving. >> for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us on-line firstname.lastname@example.org and charlie rose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications
>> hi. i'm rick steves. today we're heading off on a very special adventure, traveling to three of the most exciting cities in europe: florence, rome, and venice. italy's my favorite country. these are my favorite italian cities, and you're about to see why. i'll be with you during each intermission sharing special tips on traveling smartly as together we celebrate the value of public broadcasting right here in our communities. if you've got any friends bitten by that travel bug, give them a call or text them right now, because we've got a wonderful itinerary planned for you. in the next two hours, we'll share not only the marquee attractions of these great cities, but we'll get to know the back lanes, the edible delights, and the locals, so proud of their heritage. now raise your travel dreams to their upright and locked positions, because together, we're heading for italy's cities of dreams. our first stop: florence-- birthplace of the renaissance.