>> welcome to bloomberg's netsuite on television. >> coming up this week, then that so friendly skies of united airlines. we will look at what happened. >> can high-tech influence the gun control space? smart weapons that could be a game changer. >> the challenges women directors face in hollywood. that is all this week on bloomberg television. ♪

>> another great issue. i have to say what struck me this week was an interesting article talking about the world economic forum in dallas and how they are looking at the fourth industrial revolution and how andficial technology other technology was getting a lot of excitement on how it will improve our life. >> i was stuck reading the article about how people think it will change people's lives. that is verything timely is what is going on in china in terms of we have been focused on that volatility in the chinese market, and we have been writing or figure this point in our finger. >> the circuit breaker. decline. been such a a very provocative piece saying that is not that is all at play here. >> also focusing on running an

airline. it has a pretty tough job. >> the ceo changes at american airlines have -- united airlines y frequent.creasingl in this week's cover story, we have been digging deeper into the troubled airline. we have some more horror stories. this is a company that was in after a colossal larger. it was not successful from the get-go. >> a lot of expectation. you take the size of united and ther wha network, and ofl-run business continental, and it was thought you would have a powerhouse. that has not happened. get all of the different ways you can measure of performance, and they have done poorly. >> you have had bad stories, and

i have had bad stories with united. have their problems. but with united, they are extreme problems. >> they were a lot worse. among non-discount airline can be look at the things that finish year after year and quarter after quarter, they finish at the bottom of the barrel. the planes are late, the banks do not show up on time, the customers are upset. customer service has been poor for a long time. somebody had cerebral palsy, and they do not have a wheelchair to get off the plane. a disability rights activist, unfortunately for united. he was coming home to d.c.. there was no i'll wheelchair, - wheelchair, because a misunderstanding. but it is just one more in inflict this were united seems to find these ways to very

vividly take off customers. how united hasat performed, it seems like there was a decline around the time of this merger. sit on the flank of the ceos talking about the airline is much better they are going to be doing. can you attribute it to this exclusively? >> it is clearly not all his fault. there was a lot of legacy issues from united and they had just gone through bankruptcy. they were a very embittered workhorse. they had not invested a lot in planes and infrastructure at things like that. but there were some poor decisions. if you look at technology, the decisions about how to merge the technology systems, this is not about how to handle labor issues. a real focus, people would say on cost-cutting. that is what they promised wall street, but it also ends up being unpleasant for consumers,

for employees, and ultimately for shareholders. >> was interesting is in terms of what brought down this ceo was not the problems going on at the airline. if you look at the fortunes of the erlang from a will be in point they had a turnaround last year. in the fall he had to step down and it was related to something bloomberg has broken the story about a. april. as a result of the investigation, and their own internal investigation, he had to step down. >> he is replaced by oscar, who is recovering from a heart attack. but reading your piece, i was struck by the stylistic differences between the two. >> from the get-go, he was

trying to change the public perception of the airline. both among consumers, and among employees he went out of his way to meet as a many of these as he could, wrote an open letter to consumers. beloved eeo a continental in the 1990's. they talked about how to rebrand this airline. , and underreal push the acting ceo now that has continued. >> but he had a heart attack. >> he had a heart attack, and lest we it turned out it was not just a heart attack, he had a heart transplant last week which is an incredibly serious operation. he is still recuperating. united is sticking to his return timeline, but we will see? >> what is the outlook for united?

there are still some problems. ? look at all of these things like time and mishandled baggage, they have full themselves out of the past. in terms of customer satisfaction, they are doing better, they are not people's favorite. over the course of the time when they were some pretty favorable factors, heading into the next year, it is going to be harder. delta just passed them to be the number two airline in terms of traffic. america is doing very well in spite of the fact that they had a more recent merger. it is going to be tough. >> you talk about how much united surveys and customers. perception that these airlines are totally tone deaf to let the customers like and do not like. >> it is ridiculous. >> are these airlines listening?

are they paying more attention to the customer experience? >> i think so. i think these changes are things, to be fair, that were put in place under him. these things do take time, these labor issues always take a while to work out. united does listen. they have this whole customer experience problem department that ask what they are thinking. >> they also looked at the boarding process. that is something they had done initially. >> i wrote a cover story three years ago about the merger, and the way i opened it was talking about coffee and the process of figuring out what coffee they were going to serve was very detailed. they settled on one, and only had to change it. three years later they are doing it all over again. there is a little bit of getting back to zero. going in the right direction. i'm not saying i have for

giving them, but any of those m&a processes, it is not easy. >> it is not. ceos always overpromise on these things. there's optimism of one's good come of these mergers. it is hard to deliver. we have to run. thank you so much. still to come -- >> gun owners have been leery of guns with some locks. we will look at them when we continue. ♪

>> technology how shapely good

control debate in the united states? >> president obama asked this question last week in the united states white house. >> if you set of earphones he cannot, the laquon unless you have the right fingerprint, -- if you set up your phone so that you cannot unlock it unless you have the right fingerprint, why not the same for guns? >> how complicated is it? not the technology that is complicated. we can put a microchip in a firearm. we have been doing this in the 1990's. is aan set it up so there biometric identification system so a fingerprint is the only way you can operate the irr or use a radio device. the tough part is politics. gun rights activists have been towardsg the move

this. this would behat a way for them to say this is a safer gun for those they are trying to reach. >> that is the argument that the arch menorahs have been having in mind. least inweighed, at the inner circles of the gun rights move it, the and are elsewhere, by the fear that a smartphones is the first step towards that. -- smart guns is the first step towards that. >> they just came out with this directive to do this research. will that make a difference? >> it may make a difference in that some money will be spent and some prototypes make it -- may get built.

but the prototypes are out there. so the question really is whether there is demand. whether gunowners really want to buy these things. that the biggest fans of smart guns are those who are gone skeptics. armwill more opposed to fire ownership. theseething you hear from rights groups is that we do have technology onnt our iphones at it is not work all the time. if you were buying a gun self-defense and is do you want to chance it is that fingerprints answer is not going to work when you want it? >> that is another argument that is offered. there is something quite unusual about the firearm, generally speaking. it works very well without to digital technology. unlike your phone, which has by the addition of computerization, unlike your

car, unlike your refrigerator or your dishwasher, a firearm still works to accomplish its lethal purpose with the same basic mechanics that have been used since the late 19th century. putting a microchip into the gun does not make it more deadly. that is the argument from the point of view of some people, that there is really no point in tinkering with success. guns work the way they are. >> after a rash of selling in the first part of the new year, chinese wanted to call the markets. a circuitthey have breaker to halt trading. we speak more about the circuit breaker. how did it get put in? >> last summer, investors in y the were very unhapp market was so vile tile. for our market stocks will go

down 5% in a day, almost weekly. that they decided will let people call down and think about it if stocks go down too much. --er five minutes we will after 5% we will take a 15 you realize iwhen do not want to sell it after all. stocks seem like a great value, time to buy. call down after that break, then they will continue to decline. that seven minutes they would hold stocks for the day. chinese equity markets have become front and center for once a that all this once again. we've been blending the figure -- some people said that the circuit breakers were designed poorly. that could be the case.

but really, managing the market is almost impossible because stocks have gone up so much in the last year. from last summer to the year before the increased 150%. valuations on the shanghai exchange are the highest in the world. the median is about 55. that is double or triple most exchanges around the world. this is like internet bubble level. >> if you look at some of the u.s. valuations of all established, that is what it is like. >> they are treating the average company like it was facebook or google. they are definitely not all future alibaba's. you have a lot of penny stocks. those who have said that we are now a tech company. we were a restaurant chain, now we are a tech company to make the stock go up. i do not want to present like this does not happen here. we know better than that. but over there there has been

the market manipulated very successfully. we have found one ipo that went months, and just a few months later said we are restructuring, we are going to halt trading. china, companies have the ability to suspend trading in their own stock in a c there is some bigger news to spend it in. >> thank you for joining us. >> we go back to our etc. segment. details when we return. ♪

>> theme of this year's world

economic forum meeting is the fourth industrial revolution. >> do cloud computing and driverless cars have the potential for this kind of growth? economists are worried this could cause economic harm. shoot out the contours of this debate for us. future whereant a robots are doing our dishes, clothes, and cooking dinner. others say it may not be the best ring. -- thing. >> it will automate a lot of low skilled labor. there is a lot of inequality that is happening across the world, especially when you look at the lower end of manufacturing sector for example -- example. if robots permeates this sector it will be the elimination of a lot of jobs that are quite extreme. 80 million is that

u.s. jobs might be destroyed in the next 50 years by robots. that is amazing. >> you kick off your story talking about robert gordon and northwest university. where is he in this argument? this he think that robots are hoping the way we live and be more productive? pessimistic.e he is of the notion that all of the productive gains of the past have been the low hanging fruit. he says that the next 100 years will be less productive. thisys despite all of excitement, it is quite difficult to teach a robot to do very basic tasks like falling laundry. he is definitely of the camp that there is far too much optimism about the potential for this fourth industrial revolution to really make a game the way that we

live and boost our productivity. steam engine, we had electrification, we have computers. i was struck by a line in this story. you said it took about 30 years when electrification started to get usage in factories. >> it takes generations, usually. history proves that. for these technological --ancements work there wh their way through the system. back to the records, and it took a generation of plant managers to realize that we need to reorient our plant around electricity as opposed to the steam engine. even those who were very optimistic about the impact that all of these digital technologies are going to have on our life think that we are still years away.

this is really affecting productivity. the data would back that up because the place that you would think this would hit the most, which is labor productivity, is nowhere to be seen. we are in a slump/ . >> we see all these gains from technology and advance it played out in labor productivity. not see these kind of returns when compared to the past, right? >> without a doubt. we have had to move over the past hundred years. from post-world war ii to the mid-seventies were you saw 3.5% will -- annual growth. then the i.t. revolution from about 1996 to 2003. he saw genvec up to 3.5%. since then we are back down to 1.5%. the would just it was not 1996 was the year we all have to raiders.

we had computers for a long time before that is the confluence of that and being connected through wayil and working in this to allow us to do more with less. i have a smart phone in my pocket, that did not have been 10 years ago. it is very difficult for that to translate into official statistics and boost productivity. there is hope that we might be seeing a boost in the next 10 years. right now it is nowhere to be seen. >> now it is time to take a look at the center part of the magazine. for that let's bring in the editor of the section for us. >> let's start with the woman who graces the first page. attentionted a lot of 20 years ago at a film festival. she might have had a big shot at success but has been under the decades. the last

>> it has taken a lot longer than some of her peers to make a career for herself. what she hasbout done over the last couple of years. herit has not been easy for to get the recognition that you see from a male director. >> exactly. she makes more intimate, quiet films that are not necessarily star driven, low-budget. to even get to that level of support has been hard. >> i was looking at her career track trajectory, thinking about about --ere talking jennifer lawrence making so much less than her male counterparts. >> we have it now on the forefront. it has started a national conversation. doesn't mind that

conversation but she does not want that to be the only talk about her. >> exactly. she just wants to make movies. >> i was looking at the stats of made last year. not a single female director in the mix. are we seeing hollywood do anything to change that? >> it is hard for any of us to say what can change that. to be an attitude shift, there needs to be systemic changes. >> thank you so much. that does it for bloomberg businessweek on television. >> a reminder, the latest edition of bloomberg businessweek is available online and on newsstands now. >> we will see you next week on bloomberg television. ♪

narrator: our world today is wealthier than ever. but not everyone shares in this wealth. today's young business leaders are challenging this. changing the way we think about money -- its power and its purpose. this is a new generation. this is the new philanthropy. ♪