Next Boeing CEO should understand past mistakes, airlines boss says

 The next CEO of Boeing should have an understanding of what led to its current crisis and be prepared to look outside for examples of best industrial practices, the head of the International Air Transport Association said on Sunday.

U.S. planemaker Boeing is engulfed in a sprawling safety crisis, exacerbated by a January mid-air panel blowout on a near new 737 MAX plane. CEO Dave Calhoun is due to leave the company by the end of the year as part of a broader management shake-up, but Boeing has not yet named a replacement.

"It is not for me to say who should be running Boeing. But I think an understanding of what went wrong in the past, that's very important," IATA Director General Willie Walsh told Reuters TV at an airlines conference in Dubai, adding that Boeing was taking the right steps.

IATA represents more than 300 airlines or around 80% of global traffic.

"Our industry benefits from learning from mistakes, and sharing that learning with everybody," he said, adding that this process should include "an acknowledgement of what went wrong, looking at best practice, looking at what others do".

He said it was critical that the industry has a culture "where people feel secure in putting their hands up and saying things aren't working the way they should do".

Boeing is facing investigations by U.S. regulators, possible prosecution for past actions and slumping production of its strongest-selling jet, the 737 MAX.

'RIGHT STEPS'

Calhoun, a Boeing board member since 2009 and former GE executive, was brought in as CEO in 2020 to help turn the planemaker around following two fatal crashes involving the MAX, its strongest-selling jet.

But the planemaker has lost market share to competitor Airbus, with its stock losing nearly 32% of its value this year as MAX production plummeted this spring.

"The industry is frustrated by the problems as a result of the issues that Boeing have encountered. But personally, I'm pleased to see that they are taking the right steps," Walsh said.

Delays in the delivery of new jets from both Boeing and Airbus are part of wider problems in the aerospace supply chain and aircraft maintenance industry complicating airline growth plans.

Walsh said supply chain problems are not easing as fast as airlines want and could last into 2025 or 2026.

"It's probably a positive that it's not getting worse, but I think it's going to be a feature of the industry for a couple of years to come," he said.

Earlier this year IATA brought together a number of airlines and manufacturers to discuss ways to ease the situation, Walsh said.

"We're trying to ensure that there's an open dialogue and honesty," between them, he said

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/BOEING-4816/news/Next-Boeing-CEO-should-understand-past-mistakes-airlines-boss-says-46882584/

Korean Air Mulls 30-Strong Boeing Jet Order as Early as July

 

• Carrier now deciding between 787 Dreamliner; additional A350s
• ‘I believe in Boeing management,’ Korean Air CEO Cho says

Korean Air Lines Co., a big buyer of Boeing Co. aircraft, is planning to order up to 30 new jets from the US planemaker as soon as next month.

Fresh from ordering almost three dozen rival Airbus SE jets, the Seoul-based carrier is now deciding between Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner and additional A350s, Korean Air’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Cho Won-Tae said in an exclusive interview with Bloomberg on Sunday in Dubai.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-02/korean-air-mulls-30-strong-boeing-jet-order-as-early-as-july

ASCO: Gilead sifts lung cancer data for efficacy crumbs

 Gilead Sciences’ bid to extend the uses of TROP2-directed Trodelvy into lung cancer currently rests on the results of its EVOKE-01 study, revealed for the first time at this year’s ASCO.

The company said earlier this year that the trial had missed its primary objective, failing to achieve a statistically significant extension in survival in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor immunotherapy, compared to second-line standard docetaxel.

At ASCO, oncologists were able to get a look at the actual data, which showed a 16% reduction in the risk of death with Trodelvy (sacituzumab govitecan), with a median overall survival (OS) of 11.1 months compared to 9.8 months with docetaxel. The OS trend was consistent across both squamous and non-squamous patients, according to the data.

Despite that, Gilead had previously said it believed that the totality of evidence could throw a lifeline to Trodelvy in lung cancer, and it has highlighted an improvement in OS in a subgroup of patients whose tumours did not respond to their last immunotherapy-based treatment.

The difference in that group – which accounted for around two-thirds of the study population – was around 3.5 months, with a median OS of 11.8 months for Trodelvy and 8.3 months for docetaxel.

However, EVOKE-01 wasn’t powered to deliver a verdict on whether that 25% improvement was statistically significant, and the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) was also linked to reduced OS in patients who responded to their last anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment.

Given that, it looks like the company will have a tough time convincing regulators to extend the label of Trodelvy from its current uses in locally advanced or metastatic breast and urothelial cancers into NSCLC, at least with the current dataset.

Last year, Gilead reported what it said were promising topline results from the EVOKE-02 study of Trodelvy in combination with MSD’s PD-1 inhibitor Keytruda (pembrolizumab) and chemo in patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC without genomic alterations that make them candidates for targeted therapy.

It is also running the EVOKE-03 study of Trodelvy plus Keytruda versus Keytruda monotherapy for previously untreated patients with PD-L1-high metastatic NSCLC, giving it another potential shot on goal in lung cancer.

In the meantime, however, direct TROP2 competition is looming from AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo’s ADC datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd), which was recently filed for approval in NSCLC – for non-squamous tumours only – as well as breast cancer.

Dato-DXd was also unable to achieve a significant improvement in OS in the TROPION-Lung01 trial but did improve progression-free survival (PFS) and AZ and Daiichi Sankyo are hoping for approval based on the whole dataset. PFS was a secondary endpoint in EVOKE-01 but Trodelvy was unable to show a benefit on that measure.

AZ and Daiichi Sankyo have also filed for approval of the drug in unresectable or metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer who have received prior systemic therapy based on the TROPION-Breast01 study, challenging Trodelvy in that indication, while Gilead’s ADC is also facing competition in breast cancer from the partners’ HER2-directed ADC Enhertu (trastuzumab deruxtecan) in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

On top of that, Gilead reported just ahead of ASCO that Trodelvy had flunked the confirmatory TROPiCS-04 trial in bladder cancer, putting its accelerated approval in that indication under threat.

For now, it looks like Trodelvy may not be the force that Gilead is hoping for in its ongoing effort to make one-third of its revenues from cancer drugs in 2030.

Gilead’s chief medical officer Merdad Parsey said the company will be “investigating how these data may positively impact patients in the second-line setting.” The data have been simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

https://pharmaphorum.com/news/asco-gilead-sifts-lung-cancer-data-efficacy-crumbs

OpenAI And Political Bias In Silicon Valley

 by Kalev Leetaru via RealClearPolitics,

AI-powered image generators were back in the news earlier this year, this time for their propensity to create historically inaccurate and ethically questionable imagery. These recent missteps reinforced that, far from being the independent thinking machines of science fiction, AI models merely mimic what they’ve seen on the web, and the heavy hand of their creators artificially steers them toward certain kinds of representations. What can we learn from how OpenAI’s image generator created a series of images about Democratic and Republican causes and voters last December?

OpenAI’s ChatGPT 4 service, with its built-in image generator DALL-E, was asked to create an image representative of the Democratic Party (shown below). Asked to explain the image and its underlying details, ChatGPT explained that the scene is set in a “bustling urban environment [that] symbolizes progress and innovation . . . cities are often seen as hubs of cultural diversity and technological advancement, aligning with the Democratic Party’s focus on forward-thinking policies and modernization.” The image, ChatGPT continued, “features a diverse group of individuals of various ages, ethnicities, and genders. This diversity represents inclusivity and unity, key values of the Democratic Party,” along with the themes of “social justice, civil rights, and addressing climate change.”

In contrast, the image below shows the Republican Party, with ChatGPT explaining that “the serene rural setting represents traditional values and a connection to the land . . . associated with the Republican Party’s emphasis on rural communities and agricultural interests, highlighting a respect for tradition and simplicity,” and notes the “stereotype that the party only represents a specific segment of the population” and that the “core principles of the Republican Party, focu[s] on conservative fiscal policies, a robust approach to national security, and the protection of personal liberties.”

Asked to create an image of “liberal and progressive values,” ChatGPT explains that they include a “vibrant urban environment,” “the inclusivity and openness of liberal ideology,” “equitable social policies, environmental care, and the advancement of civil rights . . . environmental stewardship and technological progress . . . hope, diversity, and the pursuit of a more equitable and sustainable future.”

Asked to represent “conservative and traditional values,” ChatGPT summarizes its image as capturing “heritage and simpler times . . . conservative values emphasiz[e] a return to traditional lifestyles and a slower, more grounded way of life . . . farming, community gatherings, and family events . . . maintaining established social norms and cultural heritage . . . reverence for history and the foundations of society . . . stability and order . . . importance of upholding long-established societal norms . . . [and] resisting rapid change.”

What does a Democratic voter look like? According to ChatGPT, the “key values” of Democratic voters are “diversity, education, technology, inclusivity, and a focus on environmental and social issues,” with the image centering on “a young African American woman in professional attire and a Hispanic man in casual attire. The woman’s professional attire and the book and digital tablet she holds symbolize the Democratic values of progressive ideals, education, and technological advancement. The man’s casual attire represents inclusivity and grassroots activism.”

A Republican voter emphasizes “patriotism, family values, and a focus on local and national issues,” with the image centering on a “middle-aged Caucasian man in a business suit and a Caucasian woman in a smart casual dress. The man’s business suit symbolizes professionalism and traditional values, while the woman’s attire embodies family values and community involvement.” The setting “focus[es] on suburban voters and highlights the importance of housing and local issues in the Republican platform,” with the flag representing “patriotism, a core value often associated with the Republican party.”

ChatGPT appeared incapable of creating imagery critical of electric vehicles, with the following image showing its representation of a “voter campaign criticizing clean energy due to the lack of energy storage technology, the limited range of electric vehicles, the expensiveness of it.”

Its image for a campaign to “promote continued fossil fuel use” similarly appears to be an ad for precisely the opposite.

Told explicitly to “criticize clean energy due to the challenges and complexities,” ChatGPT produces an image that does precisely the opposite, featuring a cluster of windmills bursting through thick pollution to lead the way to a brighter future.

ChatGPT encounters no such problems promoting clean energy, even going so far as to emphasize that the image features a “diverse group of people” that shows “clean energy is accessible and beneficial for all segments of society.”

Similarly, asked to promote careers that don’t require higher education, such as the trades, ChatGPT steadfastly features an image of a graduate at its center.

Its image for a campaign to “promote gun ownership” yields a dystopian view of a fenced-in classroom, militarized guards, and unsafe gun handling, complete with the instructor’s finger on the trigger.

At the same time, the future of image generators as campaign-ideation tools is clear. For topics that Silicon Valley views as less politically sensitive, the full potential of the models is clear. For example, an image for a campaign to promote fast affordable fashion looks like this:

And a campaign criticizing it:

Here’s a campaign poster promoting an incumbent and his policies as a tremendous success:

And here’s one condemning him as an abject failure whose policies are ruining the nation:

In the end, AI image generators remind us of the enormous potential of AI for political campaigning, both in ideation and in rapid mass production of highly customized (and potentially individually tailored) imagery. At the same time, the current models’ refusal to produce imagery on certain topics, and the stereotypical (and partisan) representations of Democrats and Republicans that they have internalized in their code reminds us of Silicon Valley’s enduring biases.

Kalev Hannes Leetaru is an American internet entrepreneur, academic, and senior fellow at the George Washington University School of Engineering and Applied Science Center for Cyber & Homeland Security in Washington, D.C.^[1][2] He was a former Yahoo! Fellow in Residence of International Values, Communications Technology & the Global Internet at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University,^[3] before moving to George Washington University.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/openai-and-political-bias-silicon-valley

Is Ukraine Going Rogue Or Did It Attack Russia's Early Warning Systems With American Approval?

by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Russian-US relations deteriorated further than ever in late May as a result of three developments.

First, the US set the ball rolling by more openly allowing Ukraine to use its arms to strike targets inside of Russia, then Poland said that the US will hit all of Russia’s forces in the special operation zone if Moscow uses nukes, and finally, President Putin signaled that he expects NATO to majorly escalate the conflict by sometime this summer. All of this is bad enough, but it’s made even worse by what Ukraine just did.

Russia confirmed that Ukraine hit at least one of its early nuclear warning systems, while Kiev claims to have targeted a second one deeper inside its opponent’s hinterland that hasn’t (yet?) been confirmed. These structures detect incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles of the sort that could be launched by the US in the scenario of a first strike, thus enabling Russia to prepare for an inevitable second strike. They have nothing to do with the Ukrainian Conflict and everything to do with strategic stability.

Both reportedly remain operable, but this nevertheless represents an unprecedented development since never before has any country ever targeted another’s such systems, which could partially blind them to a first strike in the worst-case scenario and thus give the attacking party a huge edge in that event. The further deterioration of Russian-US relations that occurred independently of this development raised tensions to their highest level since the Cuban Missile Crisis so this couldn’t have come at a worse time.

The most important question in the world right now is whether Ukraine is going rogue, perhaps to provoke a crisis like the aforesaid one in the expectation that it could force Russia to withdraw from at least some of the territory that Kiev claims as its own, or if this was done with American approval. The Washington Post’s report about how US officials are concerned about what Ukraine just did lends credence to the first view, but that might just be disinformation for plausible deniability purposes.

At the same time, however, it’s worth remembering how Ukraine defied the US’ public demands not to target Russian oil refineries. The Biden Administration doesn’t want that commodity’s price to spike ahead of the November elections, yet Zelensky still ordered his forces to hit refineries anyhow. That also came amidst the Congressional deadlock over more Ukraine aid that was resolved shortly after those strikes became problematic. It therefore wouldn’t be unprecedented for Ukraine to go rogue yet again.

On top of that, the Financial Times reported that “some Ukrainian officials say (ties with the US) have hit their lowest ebb” due to the abovementioned restrictions on targeting Russian oil refineries and Zelensky’s “paranoia” (as one of their alleged Ukrainian insiders described it) of the US’ intentions. He’s also offended that Biden won’t participate in the upcoming Swiss “peace talks” after snubbing them for a fundraiser, which reportedly prompted him to send a memo ordering officials to criticize the US leader.

Nevertheless, the best approach would arguably be for Russia to assume that America at the very least tacitly approved Ukraine’s strikes on its early warning system(s) since this train of thought aligns with the escalatory trend of the past week. After all, if NATO as a whole or at least a “coalition of the willing” from that bloc commence a conventional intervention in Ukraine, then it could prompt Russia to use tactical nukes in self-defense to stop this invasion force if it crosses the Dnieper and threatens its new regions.

In that event, the US might either conventionally strike all of Russia’s forces in the special operation zone like Poland claimed that it would do, or just cut to the chase by launching a first nuclear strike that could be facilitated by its Ukrainian proxy carrying out more attacks against its early warning systems. There’s also the chance that more such attacks could simply precede a first nuclear strike by the US before any conventional NATO intervention if decisionmakers conclude that an exchange would then be inevitable.

It therefore can’t be ruled out that Ukraine was probing the security of Russia’s early warning systems at the behest of its American patron in preparation of that worst-case scenario, hence the wisdom of Dmitry Suslov’s advice for his country to carry out a “demonstrative” nuclear test. This influential expert from the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy had his policy proposal translated and republished at RT here, which brought it to global attention with the intent of signaling to the US.

Readers might also remember that RT published the proposal by Suslov’s colleague Sergey Karaganov last June where he explained why Russia should nuke Europe in order to deter the US in Ukraine. This latest proposal is much more practical and carries with it no risk of sparking World War III, plus it could represent a fitting finale to Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons exercises that were just carried out. Those were ordered to deter the US, but given its continued escalations, a stronger signal might be needed.

Russia’s answer to the question of whether Ukraine went rogue when attacking its early warning system(s) or if this was done at America’s behest will determine its response to any conventional NATO intervention in Ukraine. The first could see Russia wait until a large-scale force crosses the Dnieper to use tactical nukes, while the second might push it to launch a nuclear first strike against the US before that intervention begins so as to preempt the nuclear first strike that Russia might believe the US is planning.  

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukraine-going-rogue-or-did-it-attack-russias-early-warning-systems-american-approval

GSK blood cancer drug nearly halves risk of death in late-stage trial

 GSK's multiple myeloma drug Blenrep nearly halved the risk of disease progression or death compared to standard-of-care treatments for the incurable blood cancer, according to data from a late-stage study presented at a medical meeting on Sunday.

In the trial of 302 patients with relapsed or difficult-to-treat multiple myeloma, 71% of those who received Blenrep in combination with the steroid dexamethasone and pomalidomide were alive without their disease worsening at the end of a year.

That compared with progression-free survival (PFS) of 51% of those who were treated with pomalidomide, dexamethasone and bortezomib. Pomalidomide is a generic version of Bristol Myers Squibb's Pomalyst, while bortezomib is the generic of Takeda Pharmaceuticals' Velcade.

"The ability to be able to offer a drug like Blenrep potentially that is administered on an outpatient basis, does not require hospitalization, can be available in a community setting and is not restricted by manufacturing challenges, like cell therapies, is really important," GSK oncology executive Hesham Abdullah said in an interview.

Detailed data from the trial was presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting in Chicago on Sunday.

Blenrep has had setbacks over the last couple of years, including being pulled from the lucrative U.S. market in 2022 after it failed to show superiority over an existing treatment in a separate late-stage study.

The top-line data from this trial released in March showing it had met the main goal of significantly improving PFS over a current standard treatment regimen appeared to signal a comeback for the drug.

More than half of the Blenrep patients were alive without disease progression after a median follow-up of 21.8 months compared with 12.7 months PFS for the standard of care, the company said.

"The PFS benefit seen in the trial shows the potential of the Blenrep combo, if approved, to redefine the treatment of multiple myeloma for these patients," GSK said in a statement.

The British drugmaker plans to file marketing applications with global regulators in the second half of 2024.

Treatments for multiple myeloma include Johnson & Johnson's Darzalex and other generic cancer drugs. The U.S. FDA in April approved two cell therapies - J&J's Carvykti, and Bristol Myers' Abecma - as earlier lines of treatment in less severe multiple myeloma.

Eye-related side effects led to a 9% treatment discontinuation rate from the study but were generally reversible and manageable through dose modifications, GSK said.

Multiple myeloma, the world's second-most common blood cancer, starts in plasma cells in bone marrow and ultimately disrupts production of normal blood cells.

Roughly 35,780 new multiple myeloma cases are likely to be diagnosed, with 12,540 deaths expected to occur in the United States this year, according to the American Cancer Society.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gsk-blood-cancer-drug-nearly-120338528.html

'Boeing executives unlikely to be charged over 737 MAX crashes: source'

 Boeing executives are unlikely to be criminally charged over fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019 that killed 346 people as the statute of limitations has likely passed, U.S. Justice Department officials told victims' family members in a meeting.

Details were corroborated by a person familiar with the gathering on Friday and correspondence reviewed by Reuters.

The deadline for prosecuting most federal crimes is five years.

The Justice Department found in mid-May that Boeing violated a 2021 deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) that had shielded the company from a criminal charge arising from the fatal crashes.

Officials agreed to ask a judge to dismiss the charge of conspiring to defraud the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as long as Boeing abided by the terms of the agreement over a three-year period ending Jan. 7, 2024.

But an in-flight blowout two days before the agreement expired exposed ongoing safety and quality issues. A panel blew off a new Boeing 737 MAX 9 jet during a Jan. 5 Alaska Airlines flight.

Boeing has until June 13 to outline any disagreements with the department's finding that it violated the 2021 agreement. The Justice Department has until July 7 to inform a federal judge in Texas of its plans.

Boeing has said it believes it has "honored the terms of the agreement" and looks forward to responding to the Justice Department.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The department is weighing several options, including whether to prosecute Boeing or extend the DPA by a year. Officials could also enter into a new DPA or reach a non-prosecution agreement that does not involve court supervision.

Officials could also seek to negotiate a plea deal with Boeing over the 2021 fraud charge or take the company to trial over it.

Boeing could also face charges over its behavior during the three-year term of the DPA, though officials have not found evidence of any felonies committed during that period, prosecutors told the victims' families, according to the source familiar with the meeting.

Victims' family members are discussing asking officials to seek an enhanced sentence should Boeing be prosecuted and convicted, the source told Reuters.

In the meeting, Justice Department officials said they believe they are unable to prove cases of federal manslaughter or fraud involving aircraft parts beyond a reasonable doubt, the person added.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-executives-unlikely-charged-over-223448246.html