Odds and Ends: ExIm Bank, 777X, Winglets, 737 MAX

ExIm Bank: The fight between Delta Air Lines and the ExIm Bank continues.

As readers know, Delta is behind the move to block ExIm Bank financings of wide-body airplanes to international customers. We’ve a link to a Wall Street Journal article that gives another take on the controversy, so we won’t repeat the details here (which we’ve written about on several occasions).

Then last week, ExIm approved a guarantee with the Brazilian airline GOL for CFM 56 engines on Boeing 737NGs, with a proviso that GOL send the engines to Delta TechOps (a subsidiary of DAL) for maintenance. This caused quite the kerfuffle, as noted in the Politico article (also linked below).

Finally (actually not, but it is for today’s post), there is an editorial in the Washington Post that Delta really likes and sent on to us. That link is also below.

Readers know that we think the effort to block the ExIm Bank is stupid. Delta takes pains to say it is not against the Bank, only against funding international wide-body sales that compete with US international air carriers (and most specifically, Delta).

We understand Delta’s position but largely disagree with it. Delta does have a point when healthy carriers like Emirates Airlines use below-market rate ExIm funding. But Delta is off the mark when it comes to objecting to the concept that ExIm supports funding to foreign companies that are financially unable to commercial lending without the government guarantee. This is precisely why ExIm was created in 1934–to boost US sales to these companies.

Nearly $12bn in Boeing airplane sales (most equipped with GE Engines) were backed by ExIm guarantees last year and it will probably be a similar number this year. It’s anybody’s guess how many of these sales would not have happened had ExIm not stepped up.

We fully concur that it makes little sense for carriers like Emirates to qualify for ExIm. And international parties agreed last year to set market rates for ExIm services (replacing below-market rates), beginning January 2013. Delta remains skeptical that this solves the problem and that it will take years to see the results. It’s correct on the latter point and cynical on the former.

Delta wants wide-body support banned, period. We disagree. And we especially disagree because the European credit agencies support Airbus and its wide-body sales. Boeing will be put to a major disadvantage if Congress follows Delta’s lead.

We appreciate Delta’s self-interest, and Delta is right to looking out for itself. But as we’ve pointed out previously, Delta and its merger partner Northwest Airlines each went through bankruptcies and used the courts to slash pensions, wages, debt rates, lease costs, airport costs and more. These efforts put other airlines that had not sought bankruptcy at a cost disadvantage (see: American Airlines). Way back in the 1990s when 40% of the US capacity was operating under bankruptcy, American’s CEO Bob Crandall wailed about this unfair competition. Some foreign carriers also complained about competing against bankrupt US airlines. Frankly, we find Delta’s complaints to be rather hollow, having used the courts to slash costs as it and Northwest has.

The larger problem for Delta and other US carriers is that they are competing against airlines owned by governments that tolerate incompetence and inefficiencies and pour endless dollars into a bottomless pit (see: Air India)–not ExIm Bank.

Boeing 777X: Having dodged the bullet of the prospect of the 737 MAX being built outside Washington State, some officials are raising concerns whether the 777X will be built in the State. An article in the Everett Herald raises the concern. This is based on the prospect that the more new materials used in the 777X, the more the prospect arises that Boeing might build the airplane elsewhere.

We are skeptical. Boeing has spent years “leaning” out the 777 line, converting it to a moving line and this was finished only recently (last year, we believe). The line is efficient and it would make little sense to put this airplane elsewhere. (That’s not to say a second line might not go elsewhere, should market demand ever require one.)

We duly note that Boeing is acquiring another 200 acres next to its 787 plant in Charleston (SC). This makes sense, since Boeing’s facilities at Renton and Everett are pretty much maxed out. But what will the 200 acres be reserved for? That’s anybody’s guess.

Winglets: Our affiliate, AirInsight, has an interesting analysis of the benefits of winglets here.

737 MAX: Aspire Aviation has a new update on the 737 MAX program here.


41 Comments on “Odds and Ends: ExIm Bank, 777X, Winglets, 737 MAX

  1. Interesting information on winglets and fuel efficiency. What is the cutoff efficiency point for distance presuming a typical flight plan in the US ie 500 nm at x, y or z altitude? 800nm at x,y, or z altitude? 1000nm at x, y, or z altitude?
    Does this hold true for raked wingtips also?

  2. What a pack of BS- the article on winglets is essentially backwards regarding high altitude vs low altitude effects. I suggest someone talk to SW airlines, or alaska airlines, or the german local airline that first ordered them in quantity over a decade ago.

    years ago, I had a casual conversation with a now deceased Boeing Engineer who had facts and data on the trials of the winglet on a 737 (BBJ ) , and was quite familiar with the then ( internal ) arguments within Boeing Aero group against the McDouglas aero types who had been inserted into that group. The arguments postulated in that article sounded almost identical to the arguments made over a decade ago. The McDouglas types were pushing the trailing edge ‘ wedge” effect as used on the DC-10-11 as a corrective measure for the pooorly designed wing aero- so bad that they had to subsidize a few empty seats on long range flights at/near max loads.

    I believe a close exam of the FACTS would show that at high altitude- long range – the raked tip has an advantage over the winglet- and at lower altitude- then improved takeoff and shorter range flights- the winglet is more effective.

    The Navy opted out of the winglet as I’ve heard for a reason relating to low altitude- iceing issues unique to thier mission.

    BTW- another rarely discussed feature of the winglets has to do with the reduced trailing vortex of aircraft so equipped, which would allow closer airplane spaceing on approach then currently required- thus improving thuput into many airports.

    Somewhere – there is a white-paper published describing that.

    MY guess is that article was pushed by the ongoing battle between airbus and av partners as to who copied whom- and deflecting the arguments relating to the NACA/NASA research on same done many decades ago.

    A note to Scott- if that outfit is an affiliate of yours, you might want to take a closer look at the so called facts described- and offer to publish a rebuttal by aeropartners- Boeing- SW airlines, etc.

    • “I believe a close exam of the FACTS would show that at high altitude- long range – the raked tip has an advantage over the winglet- and at lower altitude- then improved takeoff and shorter range flights- the winglet is more effective.”

      Where did you get those ‘facts’ from?

      • Can you spell dreamliner ? Winglets were looked at according to some knowledgeable friends of mine- and result is what you see. Also, SW and Alaska airlines are for the most part short range fights, and they didn’t buy or retrofit winglets for the ” hype” factor. Nor does the longest range new 747 use winglets, but instead appears to have a version of raked.

        To get the ACTUAL facts- ask aero-partners or boeing,

      • “Can you spell dreamliner ?”
        Really Don?

        “To get the ACTUAL facts- ask aero-partners or boeing”
        I asked you for specific proof of…

        “… at high altitude- long range – the raked tip has an advantage over the winglet- and at lower altitude- then improved takeoff and shorter range flights- the winglet is more effective”

        But instead you have resorted to giving a lesson on airlines’ buy habits and finally telling me to talk to Boeing. Ohh well, there I was thinking you will be quoting some aerodynamic equations….

        Just to be clear, since you have evidently misunderstood my position, I have nothing against the winglet concept and do not doubt it’s positive value to the a/c in drag reduction. However, there is also a place in this debate to say that having a great looking winglet on the a/c, just looks ‘cool’. This drive for ‘coolness’ came directly from the CEO of Jetblue who paid part of the development cost of the A320 winglet in 2006, not necessarily chasing the savings it brought.

        Going back to my original point, the final selection of the ‘device’ is a result of multiple trade studies. You can design many shapes giving the same cruise performance but they will come with their own baggage. Therefore I questioned the simple equation you have presented. I would happy if you provide a link explaining your point better.

        • It is imposssible to provide a link to a discussion and viewing of comparison data re the aeropartners winglets as used on the BBJ which happened about a decade ago with several then Boeing very knowledgeable employees- since retired or deceased. In addition, the rest of my story re BBJ was partially told in local news.

          And as I subsequently posted, and people like KC135topboom have verified, plus the obvious use of raked instead of winglets on long range versions of 787,747, mayn provide a clue.

          In addition, suggest you go to aeropartners website and read some of their “PR”

          BTW- if one looks up the author of the article on winglets/sharklets, you would find he is supposedly an expert on certain avaiation issues, plus proudly involved in aviation litigation issues. has a degree in industrial engineering, is a CPA, and a privagte pilot.

          Doesn’t mean he is wrong – or right for that mattter.

          Asw to FACTS – dozens of planes flying long range with raked tips instead of winglets should be considered- including why Boeing went that way ( raked ) vs winglets on shorter range.

      • Sorry, you are way over simplistic with this. Just because 787 and 748 have them, does not show a trend. As I said this approach to the device selection depends on many variables, design constraints (structural or gate, for example) and is very much aircraft specific. In addition, it depends on company design philosophy, cost of manufacturing or integration (structural and systems). Everything is playing a role. I guarantee you that, one can design a winglet to give you the same performance in cruise drag improvement as a tip extension. Aircraft successfully flying long range missions with winglets:
        757, 767, A340/330, IL-96-300/600, MD11.

  3. Sorry, but your friend is WAY off base on the winglet thing. His whole premise is that winglets are just marketing hype, and that is just flat out wrong. And to say that winglets make an airplane less safe? Not only is that wrong, that is a reckless claim. Not a good job.

  4. As to my previous comments on the winglets. About the marketing hype thing- It IS true that the initial discussions at Boeing evolved around a marketing issue, and the BBJ ( version of the 737). The arguments- or forcing factors went something like this ( not quoted- but paraphrased ) BBJ customers may not have been too enthused about buying a plain old 737 for personal/corporate use. They may have preferred something with ” chrome wheels- speerd stripes’ etc. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the founders of aero partners, being old BA aero types were pushing winglets. So eventually, the BA brass involved sort of relented and said – as long as then winglets do NOT compromise safety or efficiency, eg neutral regarding flight issues, we will consider them. Then evolved a series of flight tests to get facts and data on structures effects, aero effects, etc. Also some comparisons with the McDouglas ‘ wedge ‘ . And what to their wondering eyes and slide rules should appear, but a several percent improvement in short range savings, climb performance, and a few other issues. And the ‘ chrome wheels and racing stripes’ hype turned into a differentiation between a plain old 737 and the BBJ.

    Also at that time- Boeing had spent BUCU bucks on a new wing- which while adding a few percent to the basic airplane, wound up being a competitor to the winglet, which was considerably cheaper for a significant improvement in aero. Additionaly, the NIH effects were considerable.

    So yes- the winglets on the 737 started out as ” hype” for the BBJ-

    And the rest is history.

  5. I will agree with the majority here on the winglets. If it was just a marketing scheme that AP and Boeing have been playing on customers since 2000, then Airbus wouldn’t have begun offering the sharklets, as they already had wingtip fences.

    The story on the B-737MAX is interesting, but not much that is really new that we didn’t already know about. It did confirm some of the comparisons between the B-737MAX and A-320NEO. Like the MAX will maintan a (slight) range advantage for the -7MAX and -8MAX, and a (slight) disadvantage for the -9MAX. The weight increase issue is about 2 tonnes to 2.5 tonnes per MAX model vs. the 1.8 tonne increase for the NEO (GTF). That still leaves the B-737MAX with a weight advantage over the A-320NEO.

    The battle over where to put the decimal point advantage for the MAX or NEO continue with Boeing and Airbus. Neither will do a direct apples to apples comparison. Instead they fight over the B-737-8MAX having 162 seats, or 157 seats compared to the 150 seat A-320NEO. They also fight over a 500nm mission, or an 800nm mission. Come on now, that isn’t even 1 hours difference in flying time. The 500nm mission is about 1:20 while the 800nm mission is about 2:05, considering time to fly the SID and the STAR.

    • The pressure can be very high for using hyped items even if their factual gains are marginal or detrimental.
      See the Dreamliner / A350Mk1 combo. CFRP hull? The Joneses have it too 😉

      This is probably aggravated by Boeing’s carefull guidance to appraisers ( Scott mentioned that and please compare to the rating agencies complicity in the “innovative financial products” rush ) to overvalue certain products/accessories.

      If it actually is hype it is a well crafted concerted ( and seemingly successfull ) effort.

  6. We would point out that (1) Airbus and Boeing have been quite open in saying that the benefits from winglets are greater with long-range cruise than with short-range flights and (2) the 787 and 747-8 have raked wingtips and that’s generally what Boeing is talking about for the 777X.

    Shupe, APB and Boeing are as welcome as you and anyone else to submit comments.

    Although we don’t have the particulars, we are broadly aware of Arvai’s basis for his analysis and rest assured, he didn’t pull it out of thin air.

    • Uhh Scott ? IF winglets were better than raked tips for long range- high altitude flight, then WHY would BA have chosen to use the raked tips for the long range 787 and 747 ? I suspect if you check some Boeing types off the record- you would find that early design parameters for Dreamliner seriously considered winglets for the ‘ shorter’ range version 787. I dont know if that is still on the ‘ table” for future 787-??

      • Yes, the B-787-3 had blended winglets. But Boeing has for a number of years now used raked wingtips on their very long range models, the B-77L/F, B-77W, and B-748F/I, even the B-788 has them. They only offer blended winglets on shorter ranged models, like the B-737NG. There are retrofit kits for the B-767, but I don’t believe Boeing has offered them as a factory istallation. They have even deleted the blended winglets from the KC-46. I am not convinced, yet they will continue to offer blended winglets on the B-737MAX. Boeing has put raked wingtips on the P-8, so they may consider them for the MAX, then again, maybe not..

        • The reason I heard for raked tips on the P-8 ( navy 737) had to do with the need to fly at low altitude in icing conditions for extended periods as part of their mission.

      • I think that another factor is Wing-span, 737’s and the 787-3 have to fit in smaler gates, adding raked tips will increase the much more wingspam than a winglet

  7. Looking at the numbers becoming available on the enhancements of both the 737 MAX and A320 NEO families I think we’ll see a growing consensus on the differences in performance and fuel efficiency.

    The performance differences no doubt can be bridged by pricing, financing, fleet commonality and capacity as we saw with the MAX orders sofar. A GTF option for the MAX could also help decrease the sfc disadvantage the MAX endures compared to the NEO because of its low to the ground design.

    The 737-800 has a seatcount advantage. It’s no secret airlines like Ryanair, Jetblue and Easyjet urged Airbus to stretch the A320. A low risk exercise it seems, but obviously Airbus feels little competitive pressure at this moment, so a A320 NEO Plus seems years away.

    http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/AirbusA320NEOPlusConcept.jpg?t=1334097227

  8. Daniel Tsang is one of fleetbuzzeditorial preferred posters, due to the fact, as far as I can see, that he is as subjective about Boeing vs. Airbus as Topboom, Keesje and so on is. I will leave it to you to figure out which side of the fence he sits on. A hint: in the first paragraph, he points out how Boeing had 100 firm MAx orders from Norwegian Air Shuttle, while the Airbus order for 100 NEOs was incorrectly called a MOU (source before Topboom demands it is the NAS website press release for the order). That would, coincidentally, increase Airbus’ first quarter firm orders, no commitments there folks, just orders, to 243. We all know how many “orders” both companies garnered last year for these products. Suffice it to say, MAX is still way behind in the curve.
    Based on that objectivity, the rest of the article seems litte more than a pr piece for MAX, and not an objective journalistic article.

    Re the winglet article:Like many others here, I don’t have a very detailed background in aerodynamics but I must admit my skepticism. It is also based on the fact that one would expect airlines not to fall prey to hype concerning fuel and cost saving enhancements.

    If accurate, it is rather disturbing, to the point of being quite funny (although the safety implications are not that humourous).

    It is interesting to note that Don believes this article to be the result of Airbus trying to defend itself against a lawsuit while one comment on the Airinsight site accused it of being a pr hack to counter the fact that Airbus now has winglets (sharklets) for the A320. Funny how things can be twisted one way or another.

    Don: “and people like KC135topboom have verified, ”

    Could you tell us Don, if KC135topboom ranks up there with your “Boeing very knowledgeable employees”? Just trying to judge how I should rank this information.

    • If the AI:Tsang article is linked to the initiation of some strategic campaign we will see in scope postings from other sources in the very near future.

      Lets sit back and watch 😉
      Strategic objectives will become visible shortly.

    • Aero Ninja, you are incorrect about Tsang vis-a-vis fleetbuzzeditorial. It was true at one time but Daniel has long since broke with fleetbuzz over facts, style and philosophy.

        • If the weight gain for the MAX is sigificant enough, I could see Boeing wanting to eliminate the API blended winglets, and some of the structure that supports them. It would seem the Boeing designed raked wingtips of the P-8 would do just as well and at a fraction of the weight.

      • Sorry Scott,
        I admit that this impression I had came from about 2 years ago and since fleetbuzzeditorial made it a private party, I have not been aware of what is happening there.

  9. We have been tolerant of some of the comments’ tone because we are a colleague of Arvai and don’t want to appear overly sensitive to the hostile tone of some of the comment. We remind the readers of our comment policy to avoid personal attacks, which some comments have come close to and may have crossed the line of our standards. We remind readers to stick to issues, not personalities.

  10. leehamnet :
    We have no clue what you are talking about, Uwe.

    hehe.

    I have the impression that this type of article : questioning out of the blue some
    strongly held and generaly accepted marketing position : is precessor to some
    Ministry of Truth style change of direction.

    “We have always been at war with Eastasia” 😉

    This could be something like Boeing dropping winglets or the API patent on
    winglets imploding ( or something entirely different).
    This type of article tends to have not yet visible roots.

  11. jd :
    I think that another factor is Wing-span, 737′s and the 787-3 have to fit in smaler gates, adding raked tips will increase the much more wingspam than a winglet

    jd, that is precisely the point. Both 320 and the 737 have winglets because they are limited by the gate width of 36m, with winglets on and fully fueled. For example, 738 has a span of 35.8m. This is the basic geometric constraint and has nothing to do with winglets being more efficient at low altitude/short range that Don was spinning.
    Clearly, P-8 does not have to worry about that problem and can afford to have a bigger span (37.64m), loading the outer wing for a better drag performance, particularly for long flights. They obviously had to cope with higher loads in that area but that’s another problem.
    This answers TopBoom’s clever idea of putting P-8 style extensions on the Max, unless it is going to be flying into a smaller number of airports = not going to happen.

    The Dreamliner (that Don can spell very well) does not have a gate limit like that and hence can have the extensions, which can be loaded much better than the winglets for a better performance. However saying that it may have other constraints, such as FAL span limit, manufacturing considerations or installation. This brings me to my original point that everything to do with a tip device is a game of trades, which is exactly what Boeing is going through now.

  12. I guess SW airlines is still in the winglet PR mode ?

    http://www.southwest.com/html/southwest-difference/southwest-citizenship/environmental-initiatives/index.html

    Winglets

    Southwest operates one of the most efficient fleets in the world, comprised of Next Generation Boeing aircraft (737-700) and the Boeing Classic fleet (737-300 and -500). Our fleet of Boeing 737-700 aircraft are equipped with winglets, and approximately 90% of our Classic fleet are outfitted. Winglets save on fuel consumption by an estimated 2.5 percent.

    Likewise Boeing PR

    http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_03_09/article_03_1.html

    Blended winglets are wingtip devices that improve airplane performance by reducing drag. Boeing and Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) began making them available on the Boeing Business Jet (BBJ) and Next-Generation 737-800 in 2001. Flight test data demonstrate that blended winglets lower block fuel and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by up to 4 percent on the 737 and up to 5 percent on the 757 and 767. Blended winglets also improve takeoff performance on the 737, 757, and 767, allowing deeper takeoff thrust derates that result in lower emissions and lower community noise.

    Boeing offers blended winglets as standard equipment on the BBJ and as optional equipment on the 737-700, -800, and -900 Extended Range (ER). Blended winglets also are available as a retrofit installation from Aviation Partners Boeing for the 737-300/-500/-700/-800/-900, 757-200/-300, and 767-300ER (both passenger and freighter variants) commercial airplanes. More than 2,850 Boeing airplanes have been equipped with blended winglets.

    The carbon-fiber composite winglets allow an airplane to save on fuel and thereby reduce emissions. The fuel burn improvement with blended winglets at the airplane’s design range is 4 to 5 percent. For a 767 airplane, saving half a million U.S. gallons of jet fuel a year per airplane translates into an annual reduction of more than 4,790 tonnes of CO2 for each airplane. The addition of winglets can also be used to increase the payload/range capability of the airplane instead of reducing the fuel consumption. Airplanes with blended winglets also show a significant reduction in takeoff and landing drag.

    This article provides background about the development of blended winglets, describes the principle behind their operation, and outlines the types of performance improvements operators can expect from them.

    Goes on with the background

    Of course everyone knows the PR people never have to support their hyperbole with FACTS and DATA… thats why airlines use winglets- cuz they look cool ?

  13. UKair :
    Thanks for the link, Don, very good read.
    However what point are you trying to support contrariety to what I was saying?

    It wasn’t necessairily contrary to what you were saying – but instead MY attempt to bring a few facts and data into the whole thread. Depending on how or IF one reads not only the graph, but the other data on that link , the basic issue was/is still about ” blended winglets ” being only effective at long range and high altitude and only ‘ hype ‘ for the public, versus my contention that the article/opinion presented was NOT supported by any credible source or industry experience.

    • Your arguments seem to be confused from the start to your last post.

      “…but instead MY attempt to bring a few facts”
      I questioned your ‘fact’ in my very first post, which was:

      “… then improved takeoff and shorter range flights- the winglet is more effective”

      It is there not because it is effective for short range flights but because the aircraft is largely span limited. The last page of the pdf you linked is very good at explaining what drives the winglet choice and supports what I am saying in that the whole exercise is a trade and cannot be simply put into two equations, as you have done.

      “… long range and high altitude”
      Why are you so fixated with that? ALL devices are designed to give the drag improvement at cruise point, by definition high altitude, and that is their only purpose. There is no such thing as a mid altitude or short range winglet.

      As for the rest of your post, I struggle to understand what you are trying to say.

      • Geeeze- Did you read the link-post to which my first post was made ? as in ” Winglets: Our affiliate, AirInsight, has an interesting analysis of the benefits of winglets here.”

        His premise was essentially two fold – winglets were hype- not fact re fuel/cost savings, and at best ONLY effective above FL 270 . . .

        And BTW- your comment ” …ALL devices are designed to give the drag improvement at cruise point, by definition high altitude, . . ”
        is not supported by Boeing or aeropartners from what I can read or find or have provided links to . .

        As in

        I guess SW airlines is still in the winglet PR mode ?

        http://www.southwest.com/html/southwest-difference/southwest-citizenship/environmental-initiatives/index.html

        Winglets

        Southwest operates one of the most efficient fleets in the world, comprised of Next Generation Boeing aircraft (737-700) and the Boeing Classic fleet (737-300 and -500). Our fleet of Boeing 737-700 aircraft are equipped with winglets, and approximately 90% of our Classic fleet are outfitted. Winglets save on fuel consumption by an estimated 2.5 percent.

        Likewise Boeing PR

        http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_03_09/article_03_1.html

        Blended winglets are wingtip devices that improve airplane performance by reducing drag. Boeing and Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) began making them available on the Boeing Business Jet (BBJ) and Next-Generation 737-800 in 2001. Flight test data demonstrate that blended winglets lower block fuel and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by up to 4 percent on the 737 and up to 5 percent on the 757 and 767. Blended winglets also improve takeoff performance on the 737, 757, and 767, allowing deeper takeoff thrust derates that result in lower emissions and lower community noise.

        ++++

        Now match the above with the initial article referenced

        Nuff said – give it a rest- !!

  14. “Geeeze- Did you read the link-post to which my first post was made ?”
    I did but I was specifically commenting on one of your ‘facts’. I have plenty of thoughts on the linked article but I just want to ‘give it a rest- !!’ 🙂

  15. Regarding the efficiency and operational conditions of winglets, i wish I knew the “truth” – but I don’t.

    AI spent a ton of money unsuccessfully trying to get them on the A32-2 wing a few years back, before they got serious about sufficiently modifying that wing.

    I asked Boeing back then which was better, winglet or raked tip.

    The answer from a B Cap exec who used to be a BCAC aero wizard was, “You use winglets when you are given a wing design, and raked tips when you are not.”

    To me that implies raked tips are better, ALL ELSE EQUAL.

  16. Might I suggest that everyone take another look at the article which started this thread re3 winglets- a recent ( today 18 april ) post by ‘ a satisfied user ” of winglets should puty to bed all the suppositions- [ and 😉 ] basically support my initial response

    http://airinsight.com/2012/04/10/winglets-a-triumph-of-marketing-over-reality/

    starts

    SEQU on April 18, 2012 at 1:25 pm said:

    Dear Mr. Arvai,

    I have been lucky enough to have operated the B767 for the last 9 years. 5 of those on aircraft without APB winglets, and the last 4 years, with them installed. I believe that you are using unsubstantiated rumors to formulate your piece. . ..

    and goes on . . .

    Don

    • The B-767 spends more of its time in high altitude cruise than the B-737NG or A-320Sharklet does/will.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.