LONDON, England - I always look forward to interviewing British Airways CEO Willie Walsh. No matter how much doom and gloom there is in the industry, the Irishman has a smile on his face and also has a positive spin on his airline going forward.

That was the case again early Friday when he did his normal round of recorded interviews in London as BA announced their latest results.

Yes, BA recorded a record pre-tax half-year loss for the six months to September, yes the airline faces possible strikes by cabin crew, yes oil prices are going up again, yes premium traffic is being hit hard, yes airlines make little money from the majority of those passengers that sit in the back half of the airplane - but Walsh still appears more optimistic then the heads of the other European legacy carriers.

Why, you ask. And with good reason: BA is in the midst of drastic cutbacks. It's mothballing planes (if only temporarily), cutting thousands of jobs (3,000 more announced Friday), delaying the delivery of new airplanes, wringing out hundreds of millions of dollars in costs.

Walsh says these aren’t just steps to get through the recession. He says short haul premium traffic has changed, for good, and BA needs to make "structural changes" to reflect that reality. If you have ever flown from London to Edinburgh or Paris to Amsterdam and wondered why people paid triple for the privilege of sitting in a seat no bigger than those in the rest of the single-aisle plane, companies have asked the same thing and decided to cut back. BA says that will not return.

What seems to be on the rebound is premium traffic yields (average price per passenger per mile). That is where BA makes its money. Of course its just recorded a record loss, so there is a long way to go, but if companies are willing to pay just a little more for a flexible business ticket, then as Walsh says, BA may be "bottoming out."

This, of course, could all go horribly wrong if cabin crew go on strike just before Christmas, which is entirely possible. Walsh didn’t smile when he reminded me that the union has not yet even balloted for a strike, much less announced a date to walk out (all because, believe it or not, of BA’s plan to cut the number of cabin crew on long-haul flights from 15 to 14).

Walsh has a challenging time ahead.

BA is known for its decent service, great Web site and friendly enough staff, but has to compete with the incredibly well managed and well financed Middle East airlines that are ever expanding.

On the other side, Ryanair is driving hard towards its goal of being Europe’s biggest airline that charges peanuts for flights, many of which compete on BA routes.

Meanwhile, Walsh has to battle unions, cut more costs, and deal with a huge pension deficit while trying to grow the business through its never-ending attempt to merge with Iberia and by increasing an alliance with American Airlines.

Can he keep smiling?

LONDON, England –It's obvious General Motors is having second thoughts about parting with its European silver. For sure, it may still go through with selling a (large) stake of Opel to Canadian car parts maker Magna and Russian interests - but not on the terms that up to now have been reported in the press.

GM Motors has emerged from bankruptcy –- but what should it do about Opel?

GM Europe is really only Opel (and its much smaller re-badged Vauxhall brand.) Opel could have a bright future when economies recover, moreso now that GM has the power to close plants, move production and do all the things a car manufacturer does to cut costs following its emergence from bankruptcy.

If Opel starts to let in other major shareholders, then GM losses the ability to make those decisions on its own, missing all the potential ("potential" mind you) profits if it calls the market right.

GM would also lose some of its intellectual property, which would end up in the hands of a Russian car maker. Why would GM contemplate that?

Having said all this, GM no longer has the final word on what happens to Opel. Remember, Opel is run by a trust with two GM appointees, two German government appointees (German taxpayers put in billions of dollars to keep Opel operating while GM went through U.S. bankruptcy protection) and one independent member of the trust panel.

GM must be, and is, getting much smaller. But it's now out of bankruptcy, it's temporarily restored a few suspended factory shifts at North America plants (thanks to Cash for Clunkers) and now it's having second thoughts about Europe.

What do you think? Should GM sell a majority stake of Opel/Vauxhall? Or stick with it?

Last Friday, when it was announced that Volkswagen had agreed a takeover of Porsche, with a little help of money from Qatar, it seemed that this saga was nearing the end. No so.

After German prosecutors raided to Porsche offices in Stuttgart on Thursday looking for evidence of “market manipulation” and a violation of “disclosure rules” the whole thing now looks set to run and run.

So, what are they looking for? You may recall Volkswagen shares soared last October when the much smaller Porsche announced it had bought a majority stake, catching everyone off guard.

Many people in the markets had “shorted” the stock (basically a bet the shares would fall) and had to quickly try to buy shares, even as the price took off, in order to cover their exposure. Then, almost as quickly, the shares fell hard.

German stock market rules stipulate how many shares an entity can purchase (percentage wise) of another company before having to disclose that position to regulators. But apparently the same rule does not apply when it comes to share options (an option to buy shares at a certain price).

Porsche had built up a huge number of options, to the surprise of the market, and apparently to regulators.

No matter how this investigation plays out, some in Germany hope there will be a change in the law to cover options, to limit the chances of this happening again.

Of course, the Porsche position did not work. Volkswagen is going to gobble up the premium car maker.

(CNN) – The Quest Means Business team has been tasked to try and explain business jargon to its viewers.

We are often guilty of throwing terms around when talking about company results that are difficult to explain in a sentence or two.

EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization) is one of those for me.

So I was pleased to delve into it, not only to try and explain it, but also to really get my head around it. Why did companies publish EBITDA figures during the dotcom bubble era? Why do few companies use it now? Why is it not acceptable under so-called U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)?

Ok, I will try and explain it again. Basically (and really basically) it’s a way to express a company’s earnings (the same as net income or profits or the “bottom line”) in a given period. But it is a number that is expressed before the company strips out recurring charges or costs like taxes, interest paid on debt, the loss of value of assets etc. (If I write anymore, I will confuse myself).

Companies use EBITDA (and ITDA and other complication formulae) especially when the number is positive while all others may be negative: “Company X lost six billion dollars last quarter, but EBITDA grew 15 percent!”

To be fair it is a way to try and show a consistent number if a new company is growing fast and spending huge amounts of money so it has no hopes of turning a profit. That is why it became a popular number during the late 1990s.

Today, private equity likes to look at EBITDA figures during a potential takeover because it helps to clarify a company’s underlying ability to earn money.

Is it any clearer to you now?

If not, the video below shows me trying to explain it to a classroom full of children. They were enthusiastic to learn and were shouting “EBITDA” when we packed up to leave their London school.

LONDON, England - When I was offered the chance to drive a Tesla Roadster electric car around the streets of London, my first thought was why would I enjoy a souped-up golf cart? It was nothing like that.

The Tesla Roadster is an electric sports car with good handling and acceleration.

I am not an auto enthusiast (I drive a Vauxhall Zafira after all) but in this job I have the great privilege of driving (or being driven in) some great cars.

Last year, I took a Rolls Royce Phantom around the grounds of the company’s plant; Charlie Morgan took me for a spin through the Malvern Hills in one of his family-built cars; and now I have taken a trip in both seats of a Tesla Roadster.

There was no golf cart in site. This little sports car can move, and while we could not test the claim of zero to 60 miles an hour in under six seconds (the newest model claims under four seconds) on London’s back streets, it did handle well (I had to keep avoiding a Aston Martin and a Lamborghini parked on two of the corners) and the acceleration was smooth.

It can apparently go for more than 200 miles before having to be plugged in, though others who have taken it for a test drive say that drops if it’s aggressively driven.

Of course, it’s an electric car, so you lose some of the pleasures of a sports car. There are no gears, so no clutch, and of course you can't gun the engine at a red light.

I also realized quickly that I gauge my driving by the whine of the engine, so you have to lose that habit quickly. Finally, and maybe most crucially, people don’t know you’re there!

I saw a lady with a pram walking in the road, and she had no idea there was a little red sports car coming up on her. My Tesla minder said he hoped regulators did not mandate that electric cars add an artificial noise; drivers just had to re educate themselves. I begged to differ. Watch Jim Boulden's test drive

It is the first non-subsidized commercially sold electric car approved for driving on all roads (some little electric cars can’t go on motor ways for instance, others are just demonstration vehicles, built in collaboration with governments).

Tesla’s current CEO and principal owner, the young internet millionaire Elon Musk, said the California-based firm had delivered around 550 Roadsters, mostly to customers there.

He was on hand at the London showroom when the first two cars arrived for the European launch party.

Musk said the company decided that the first electric car launched had to be the $100,000 sports car, to dispel any thoughts that an electric car couldn’t compete with a petrol engine.

He insisted that the company would already be profitable but for investing in his much bigger ambition. A just-announced near half billion dollar loan from the U.S. government would largely be used to build the next car – a sedan (currently called the Model S).

It’s expected to cost half the price of the Roadster and travel up to 300 miles on a full charge (it can be plugged in for a top up that takes only 45 minutes, says Tesla).

Musk said this next generation would be the world’s first mass-produced electric car.

PARIS, France - There have only been two commercial orders of note so far for either Airbus or Boeing here at the Paris Air Show. One was Qatar Airways’ firm $1.9 billion order for 24 Airbus planes (new engines are included in that value) from the A320 family. 

The showpiece at Le Bourget is a major shop window for aircraft manufacturers.

Vietnam Airlines also placed an order for 16 single-aisle A321 planes and options on two A350 XWB - a plane not yet built and rival to the Boeing 777.

That's it. Nothing has been heard from Boeing yet, though it tends to lag behind the French plane maker when it comes to orders in Paris, where Airbus likes to make a splash in its own backyard.

Both aircraft manufacturers have barely made a dent in their order book this year because new orders are offset by so many airlines delaying - or in some cases outright canceling -  orders. Until the show Boeing had no new net orders and Airbus had more than 11 for 2009.

And yet in my interviews with the men who sell the planes, John Leahy of Airbus and Scott Carson of Boeing, show them to be in buoyant mood. One of them even joked to me that there is trouble if they are both of the same mind.

That's because they say new plane orders follow GDP growth - and it looks as if the economic tide is turning. It’s also the case that financing appears to be getting easier to source. Boeing says it has not had to finance as many of its customers as it was prepared to do. But it has been helping airlines find financing when they couldn't.

That too, is getting easier, and since the rationale for newer, lighter, more fuel-efficient planes has not changed, airlines are expected to pick up business replacing fleets once the credit crunch and recession ends.

LONDON, England – Before we get excited about the auto industry transforming under the Fiat flag, remember that the Italian automaker hasn't bought anything yet.

Its "alliance" with Chrysler is now before a bankruptcy judge and involves sharing technology. Fiat is not buying its proposed 20 per cent stake in Chrysler and will still have to deal with the unions, which will have the biggest stake in the U.S. automaker.

Still, one day it may mean small fuel efficient Fiat cars being sold as a re-badged Chrysler or Dodge car. Maybe.

One day, Jeeps and Dodge trucks may be sold through the Fiat supply chain to countries where it has strong links. Maybe.

Before that, Chrysler has to survive its bankruptcy protection process. Now Fiat's CEO Sergio Marchionne wants to negotiate with General Motors to potentially buy a majority stake in GM Europe - read Germany's Opel. But Fiat is billions of dollars in debt and Opel will need a cash infusion ($6 to $9 billion) probably from the German government as a short term loan. That has yet to happen.

Then there are the unions, the factories, political interference... It's all a massive task for Marchionne. On Monday he met with the German government. It's far from clear Berlin will back a deal with Fiat while there are other suitors out there. In fact, GM says it's in talks with a number of parties and it's clear GM wants to keep a foot in Europe for when things turn around.

So while Fiat may be the only automaker willing to take all this on, it is all talk for now.

Fiat has been transformed by Marchionne, that's for sure. Whether he can take all this on is certainly not a given. Some analysts believe his Plan B is to take on Chrysler or GM Europe. Until one or both of them is sewn up, a combination of the two leads to speculation that Fiat will transform the auto landscape.

LONDON, England – One of the five "pillars" of the G-20 meeting is protectionism. World trade has naturally fallen in this recession and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is worried politicians will start to build up import barriers to "protect" jobs at home.

In reality, of course, jobs are often lost when barriers rise for two main reasons; other countries retaliate, hurting exports, and also because nowadays many companies import raw materials which become more expensive during a trade spat. Mr. Brown calls the danger of protectionism "de-globalization."

Now, you might think this means countries are resisting protectionism; clearly not. The World Bank estimates that 17 of the 20 G-20 "countries" (The European Union is treated as one country in this group) have erected barriers of one form or another to protect certain industries.

The United States has its "Buy America" provision signed into law by Barack Obama as part of the stimulus package.

France appears to have succeeded in its bid to keep auto jobs at home when Renault created 400 jobs at a plant outside Paris to make the tiny Clio automobile, claiming its Clio plant in Slovenia was at capacity. France's auto bailout came with calls for the French automakers not to cut jobs at home.

Then there was Russia's duty increase for imported used cars, etc. etc.

Martin Brougton, the president of the UK's Confederation of Business Industry (CBI), told me that even a bank bailout can be protectionist if it helps a domestic bank compete unfairly. He says most companies don't want protectionist measures and says it is politicians who can't help but fiddle with trade rules to please voters.

Remember, at the last G-20 Meeting just a few months ago, the leaders pledged to resist protectionism measures and then did it anyway.

You might say these moves are symbolic or minor and that's probably correct. But what happens after this G-20 meeting could set the trade tone for years to come.

(CNN) – Mayfair has been the playground of London's super rich for centuries.

Berkeley Square, one of London's most exclusive addresses, has lost some of its luster.

Since the 1990s, it's also been home to the hedge fund and private equity crowd, joining the private banks dotted around Berkeley Square in Georgian townhouses or low key new buildings.If you've shopped on New or Old Bond Street or Savile Row, if you've stayed at Claridges or the Dorchester or just played Monopoly, then you know Mayfair; the ritzy area surrounded by Piccadilly, Regent Street, Oxford Street and Hyde Park.

The past decade, Mayfair's players have attempted to keep a low profile. You'd never know you were walking by the headquarters of Blackstone, Carlyle or, at No. 1 Curzon Street, AIG Financial Products where many of the losses occurred and where many of those infamous bonuses were paid.

And you certainly would not have known that the small townhouse known as No. 12 Berkeley Street was the London offices of Madoff Securities International Ltd.

Those offices are now up for rent. Someone I talked to recently said he had a good look around at place to relocate now that Mayfair has become more "affordable" but felt the place had bad karma.

He noted as well that the office had swipe card entry access to every cabinet which he thought excessive. That goes along with reports that Madoff had a camera installed in the London office so he could keep in better contact from New York.

Property group CB Richard Ellis estimates that rental prices in Mayfair have fallen between 25-30 percent since prices topped £120 ($173) per square foot in 2007, the most expensive place on earth for office space at the time. Now new rent prices have fallen behind rents in New York and Tokyo and likely Hong Kong.

Still, occupancy stands at 94 percent so it's not as if the property market has collapsed. After all, a hedge fund might be three people and a secretary in one small office. The impact would be much greater if a private equity group were to move out.

On the day I walked around Mayfair, there was a Rolls Royce and Maserati outside Gordon Ramsay's at Claridges. There were plenty of Bentleys roaming as well. No surprise really since one of the premium corner spots is filled by the Jack Barclay Bentley dealership (there is a Porsche dealer opposite).

And that seems to be the key to Mayfair; after private money flies into London and checks into Claridges or the Dorchester or the Hilton, it wants a private banker or wealth advisor within walking distance. Then it's lunch nearby at Ramsay's or Nobu and maybe a drink at Mayfair's most exclusive (and hardest to find) club, Annabelle's.

AIG, UBS and other big names all have big offices in the City of London or in the Docklands, but they want their private banking and alternative investments arms separate.

Whether its Mayfair or Greenwich, Connecticut, the super wealthy and those who cater to them like to be off on their own, tucked away from the day-to-day banking operations.

Yet, thanks to Mr. Madoff and those at AIG getting big bonuses, the spotlight is uncomfortably focused on them and the neighborhoods they like to walk around - usually without a tie.

Watch my report on how the financial crisis is hitting Mayfair.

LONDON, England - Have you seen the cover of this week's Economist with Brown, Sarkozy and Merkel having to pay the "dinner" bill to rescue Eastern Europe? If you did you would have seen the artwork of Kevin Kallaugher - or Kal as he signs his work.

An example of Kal's witty and perceptive cartoon talent.

American-born Kal has contributed more than 100 Economist covers during the past 30 years. He's also been published in my hometown paper; the Baltimore Sun. Kal was discovered during the recession of the late 1970s drawing caricatures on the streets of London and Brighton.

He has benefited from Reaganomics, Thatcherism, Bill Clinton (fish in a barrel all of them) but is now tasked with describing the "credit crunch" with pen and ink.

Some commentators speculate that the end of the Bush era might mean the end of cartoon satire to reflect today's news. Not Kal.

"Certainly it (the Bush presidency) was the golden era to a certain degree," he told me during an interview at the Political Cartoon Gallery in Central London last month.

"I mean also what we're seeing in Obama's case - although the satire may not be immediately directed at him as an individual - is that we're going through such historic changes, politically, economically, around the world, it's going to supply a lot of material."

The challenge for Kal and his contemporaries is to describe the credit crunch in one drawing. Kal hopes his craft actually helps people make sense of the global recession. "You not always just react to the news. I like to think that we're in the business of kind of clarifying the news," he said.

He is very busy these days trying to "draw" the recession and also the new president. "It's this early phase, where we as the cartoonists are helping to establish in the public's mind what these people look like, this is an interesting time for us."

Kal has drawn many a character during his career. He often has to hear their voice to capture their essence. If you want to hear his imitation of one famous voice (he says it drives his wife crazy as he talks to himself in character as he draws some people) and see his efforts to capture the character of a certain CNN employee, watch Quest Means Business on Thursday night or check out cnn.com/international on Friday.