HOTR: Norwegian claims $1bn+ in damages from Boeing


By the Leeham News staff

July 21, 2020, © Leeham News: Norwegian Air Shuttle said June 30 it canceled orders for 92 Boeing 737 MAXes and five 787s.

The orders still appear on Boeing’s Unfilled Orders website, which is updated monthly.

In a lawsuit filed June 20 in Cook County Circuit Court (Chicago), NAS claimed breach of contract for failure to deliver the MAXes due to grounding. It claims breach of contract for failure to delivery 787s due to the long-running issues with the Rolls-Royce engines.

Returning airplanes

NAS also wants to return its 18 737-8s that were delivered but which have been grounded since March 2019 in the wake of two fatal MAX accidents with Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines.

Norwegian filed claims for “in excess of $1bn.” It seeks court authority to rescind contracts for 110 MAX aircraft (including ones already delivered) and an unspecified number of 787s, including some already delivered.

Boeing on July 13 asked that the case be moved to the US District Court for Northern Illinois.

Norwegian named The Boeing Co. and Boeing Commercial Aviation Services-Europe as defendants. NAS signed up for BCASE’s Gold Care service on the MAX and 787.

The Boeing Co. wants BCASE separated from the lawsuit because it is a UK company.

Norwegian claims fraud, breach of contract and gross negligence by Boeing. It claims BCASE is charging for maintenance services not delivered.

The claims are common to others that MAX customers made: Boeing produced an airplane that was unsafe, covered up design issues and claimed the MAX is virtually identical to the 737 NG, requiring no unusual transition training would be needed.

Norwegian revealed that it paid more than $1bn for 18 MAXes delivered so far, or more than $55m per plane.

“Boeing engaged in similar conduct in connection with the 787,” NAS alleges. The 787, it claims, has been “an operational disaster.” “Shoddy manufacturing,” foreign object debris and poor engine performance marred NAS’s operations, the airline claims.

Lease, Valuations update

Ishka, the UK appraisal and consultancy firm, last week issued is weekly update of values and lease rentals.

New Fad

For the longest time, super sonic transports received a lot of news coverage.

Then, even longer, was the fad coverage of electric or hybrid aircraft.

Now the rage is hydrogen powered aircraft.

Just sayin’.

146 Comments on “HOTR: Norwegian claims $1bn+ in damages from Boeing

  1. Norwegian does not have the Money to pay for ordered Aircrafts. Hence the CEO taking Boeing to court to solve that problem instead of working out a solution with Boeing/RR makes them loose one of their last friends.

    • Norwegian would have had a lot more money if the ordered aircraft had been delivered on time and to specification: it missed out on a huge amount of revenue before the CoViD grounding ever started.
      Only a matter of time before similar suits are filed by other carriers.
      Interesting times for Boeing!

      • Norwegian was entitled to compensation from Boeing, as all affected airlines are, but it wouldn’t have been enough to solve their business issues. So the lawsuit is a survival tactic.

        They had $8B in debt heading into May. They were able to partially rearrange that, by transferring most shares of the company from stockholders to bondholders and lessors. The deal was accepted only because the alternative was bankruptcy. At that point they were operating 7 aircraft with 200 employees.

        But they still have a large debt load and not enough business to manage it. They would need significant growth but that will be difficult in the months ahead. Even if they were to win this lawsuit, they still face significant financial problems. But it would buy them a little more time, and provide needed cash.

        • Regardless of Norwegian’s situation before Covid-19, it’s clear on the MAX side that Boeing is in breach of contract, so cancellation is easy plus refunds of all deposits and progress payments (plus interest) could reasonably be expected.

          • I agree if that is specified in the contact, but then why the lawsuit? None should be needed. And why wait until they are desperate in the COVID crisis? More going on here, I think.

          • Boeing’s custom answer for a complaint used to be “if you don’t like it – sue us”. So Norwegian did it. They decided not to wait anymore – they need cash to survive, among others, the big problem that Boeing caused, and to develop later. I’m surprised rather they waited so much time. Probably they wanted to be polite with Boeing.

          • Valid case on the MAX, what they get for a law suit vs settlement is pretty bizzaro.

            Norwegian sunk themselves, they not only ordered the MAX they ordered a bunch of A320 (or variants ) and had no use for any of them. Big scam to lease to others.

            As for the 787, Norwegian lusted after them and they were the ones who picked the RR engines. They can sue themselves and RR.

          • Norwegian were not wrong to think that software only would not fix the issue, of course hardware changes are needed on the MAX.
            No wonder EASA wasn’t allowed to flight test.
            If there were evidence from another regulator that the MAX is not stable airlines would even get more money.
            I still hope there is one regulator from a country without aviation industry who will flight test without MCAS. Ethiopia?

          • “Norwegian sunk themselves, they not only ordered the MAX they ordered a bunch of A320 (or variants ) and had no use for any of them. Big scam to lease to others.”

            Well – that seemed… odd indeed. But that’s not what is at stake in the case of NAS against Boeing.

            “As for the 787, Norwegian lusted after them and they were the ones who picked the RR engines. They can sue themselves and RR.”

            Never mind whether you agree with Norwegian’s long-haul strategy, they *did* operate the 787 and had to repeatedly lease in Hi-Fly A340s and even Hi-Fly’s A380 to stand in for their 787s.
            This happened not just shortly after first 787 delivery, but as recently as as late 2019. Considering their extra gold care support package, this does indeed seem… below par service on Boeing’s part. In the lawsuit, they cite quality issues and foreign object debris against the 787 – and those are points that RR is definitely neither responsible nor accountable for.

          • Obviously Norwegian don’t want to keep their used MAX, that’s why they need to go to court.
            You think Boeing would like to take the trash back?
            Boeing said they don’t have space to park them, right LOL.
            But Norwegian is a Gold customer and paid extra for that.

    • Boeing being Norwegian’s “last friend” ?

      Boeing sold Gold Care with the 787 to NAS and delivered something equivalent to “cat gold” afterwards.

      Boeing sold a “better than A320NEO by magnitudes product named MAX” to the worldwide customers and delivered POS.

      If anything is linked to love in respect to Boeing it must be a narcissistic context.

      • Re: Norwegian Gold Care. It seems that Norwegian EASA Part-145 mechanics are doing the maintenance on most of its fleet as a supplier to Boeing Gold Care. So if they cannot deliver all maintenance per spec in time it is Boeings fault.
        Without ordering RR powered 787’s Norwegian would not got special treatment in the UK at Gatwick to grow its operations that fast. So if Norwegian goes after RR it will eventually effect its UK operations, especially now with its T1000 Engines updated and ready for operation as soon as the UK/US agrees on a new vaccine it will open the floodgates of trans Atlantic traffic probably around new year.

    • Norway should have enough money to bail them out. Boeing got money too, right.

      The MAX case is very easy and that’s on Boeing alone.
      The 787 had additional recent problems too. The FAA didn’t care about foreign objects of the first 500 produced 787 and that are mostly 787-8.

      I would agree that NAS is a greedy airline but they still signed for GOLD CARE and now try to survive.
      Boeing was even more greedy, no gold care, only a stupid buletin after JT610.

      I expect that MAX carriers will lose pax. There is zero advantage the MAX has for airlines.
      I think more airlines will follow to get rid of the MAX. And now airlines can make use of the situation to get Airbus slots if they want new planes.
      Sad situation for 737 pilots, but if the elevators are not working and the garbage trim wheel is the only way to survive – that’s on the FAA too.

    • With friends like Boeing, who needs enemies?

      Norwegian, under its founder, pursued a strategy that was super aggressive, to say the least. That said, there’s no doubt that the MAXes were delivered defective and then not delivered at all. I can’t speak to the legalities of the contract Norwegian signed with Boeing, but it’s hard to argue that Boeing provided a useful aircraft for Norwegian.

    • @claes

      Boeing and Bjørn Kjos (founder of the airline) had a long amicable relationship. However, Norwegian’s lenders and creditors are now its largest (majority) shareholders — and they are obviously not going to prioritise the airline’s relationship with Boeing.

      Since Norwegian is now accusing Boeing of gross negligence and even swindle related to its acquisitions of 787s and 737 Max jets, the airline is seemingly banking on fulfilling part of its A320neo orders and becoming an all Airbus operator before the end of the decade.

      • This unfortunately sounds like the end. IIRC Boeing fast tracked their compensation claims for the MAX based on their business conditions and relationship. To go this vengeful at a supplier is a move indicating they don’t have longer term prospects since Boeing will no quote future business and Airbus would charge list prices. Likewise didn’t they get a sweetheart deal from RR to upgrade all their frames to TEN units due to the fiasco? They’ve been struggling for awhile, this is likely because they can’t pay passenger refunds and is the last hope. Has any other airline done something similar and survived (making bold accusations at A/B)? They seemed to have the best LCLH product, it’s sad to see this state of affairs but I’d struggle to see their harm outside of what they’ve already received compensation for.

    • I wouldn’t call Boeing a friend of Norwegian. Rather a false friend who intentionally drew Norwegian in big problems.

      • Norwegian has something like 200 MAX on order and options and another 150 Airbus.

        They only have themselves to blame for their problems.

        Warnings were out well before MAX and COVD they were circling the drain.

        • Well, Norwegian Air Shuttle won’t take delivery of any more MAX jets. In fact, the airline also wants to return the 18 737-8s that have already been delivered.

          Norwegian Air Shuttle is pretty fortunate, though, to have 88 firm orders for the A32Xneo family — 58 orders for the A320neo and 30 orders for the A321LR.

          The A321LR (A321XLR ?) will, in all likelihood, replace Norwegian Air Shuttle’s fleet of 787s.

          • I guess there is a reason why Delta didn’t order XLR yet.
            Delta might not need the additional 4t of MTOW and can buy the new fuel tanks separately.

          • @Leon: The A320LR, with extra (removable) tanks, has a shorter range by around +/-600nm. The XLR is a much more reliable trans-Atlantic, 757 replacement airplane.

          • Thanks Scott,
            of course the range should be less with 4t less MTOW.
            There are two different 97t A321neo versions,
            – one with 3 new ACT which is the LR
            – and another version with 2 new ACT. If these tanks are replaced with the very new RCT of the XLR it should be better than the LR. I think this is what Delta could be doing.
            If Delta needs more range they have their 767 with much more range than the XLR. Some of their 767 will get a cabin refresh and fly for years.

          • We will see how much money Norwegian will have to purchase Airbus A321LR Aircrafts or if they negotiate a switch to A321XLR’s with deliveries leter on. The risk is that they will shrink constantly with no new 737’s and retire 737-800’s as they are out of lease or too expensive to keep. They can maybe compensate the loss of 737’s with single class 787-8 flying trunk routes in Europé.

        • Norwegian obviously overdone aircraft orders and both N like B most probably took into account possible defers or partly cancellations. It was manageable.

          But MAX flaws drew Norwegian in very big problems.

          • I don’t see that. They were so vastly overextended beyond belief, selling stuff off as fast as they could.

            And they had plenty of the NGs to carry through, if there is anything amazing is that withi Covd hit they are still breathing at all.

    • They don’t have money due to Boeings failure to provide aircraft that are actually safe to fly in

  2. Did Norwegian pull any punches? They don’t exactly sound like they are looking for a long term friendly relationship.

    Any chance of adding in the prior Ishka chart (to see at a glance how things have changed in the interval) please Scott?

    Agreed, definitely something of a fad about it, and something to grasp as future promise amid C19 economic woes. A slight difference with Hydrogen though being the geo-politics due to a) China’s current dominant position in electric materials means there is a genuine possibility material supply could be hampered as China’s relations rapidly deterioirate, and b) it being early stage in Hyrdogen means countries are fighting to become the centres/leaders in development, which would have caused a bun fight anyway but post C19 economic distress has added claws and hunger and speed.

    • Re: Did Norwegian pull any punches, My thoughts exactly. Those are some seriously harsh wordings to use publicly. Those statements seem rather ill-conceived to me. ‘Where do you go from here?’

      • The statements are meant to win in the court of public opinion. That kind of language is used when the case is based on animosity rather than contractual agreements.

        They’re asking for more than the contractual compensation would allow. So it could be effective in getting Boeing to settle at a better outcome than compensation would yield alone. As I mentioned, the goal here is debt relief as well as compensation.

        • Fair assessment. All the caterwauling will not win them anything in court.

    • “”They don’t exactly sound like they are looking for a long term friendly relationship””

      Who is looking for a long term relationship with Boeing?
      Everyone who took the time knows that it was a crime what Boeing did.
      EASA wanted to flight test and were not allowed to – nothing changed!!!
      Sure the MAX is still not fixed. Otherwise why would FAA accept everything else what EASA and Transport Canada asked for.
      Norwegian is a gold customer.
      Ask Boeing employees what they think about a friendly relationship. I read many would not fly on a MAX or 787, they must be proud about these planes.

    • Just look at how electrical Power and hydrogen can be taxed vs. JET-A1 and you understand the EU goverments apetite for it.

  3. With regard to the “fad” comment at the end: at least hydrogen has an energy density compatible with practical commercial aviation…something which batteries don’t have, and almost certainly never will have. In Europe, hydrogen-powered buses and trains are becoming a more common occurrence, and hydrogen-powered cars are starting to make an appearance: every day that this continues, the traditional fears about the safety of using hydrogen fuel in (high-speed) traffic situations continue to abate. Extension to aviation is a natural evolutionary step, despite the considerable challenges involved.
    Remember that the CoViD lockdown “aviation-less” period has only emboldened Greenies, who romanticize about the clear skies and lack of noise of the last few weeks. Meanwhile, the Dragon in Sweden has re-awakened, and has started screaming her anti-aviation rhetoric again. Biofuel (from waste products, such as cooking fat) is a great first step to counter the increasing clout of the Greenies, but hydrogen would be even better.

    • ” .. such as cooking fat ..”

      you’d have to super size the worlds population with fries to have enough waste cooking fat to make an impact in the green fuels domain.
      Now other green stuff like palm oils appear to be an environmental disaster from the get go.

      • The worldwide consumption of vegetable oils is 200 million metric tons per year. A lot of that is used as cooking oil, which eventually ends up as waste.
        KLM have already started a joint venture to produce jet fuel from used cooking oil: it’s a simple matter of survival in a society that’s increasingly anti-aviation.

      • The combined impact of aircraft CO2 emissions and contrail-related warming is estimated to be 5% of the human impact on global warming.

        The focus on this small percentage is based on the premise that it will eventually become dominant, as terrestrial sources are eliminated. That will require a 90% reduction in terrestrial sources.

      • Most of the clear skies experienced during the lockdown were due to a huge reduction in road traffic…not a reduction in air traffic.
        As regards contrails: they’re white, so they increase the Earth’s albedo…a useful countermeasure to atmospheric warming.
        The situation is always more complex than the simple picture adopted by Greenies.

        • Actually it’s known that the high thin clouds caused by contrails have a net warming effect on the earth, whereas low thick clouds do the opposite. So the science is good, but the relative contribution is quite small.

          • So is the noise made by the greenies against contrails.

    • The advantage for goverments are that they Control the electrical Power generation and taxation in most countries that will be part of making H2 for Aircrafts.
      They can tax it the way they want and control landing fees at Airports for Aircrafts not fueling up H2.
      France could pretty easy build 10-25 Nuclear reactors and sell the juice to the H2 producers. The loophole is those making H2 from Natural gas cheaply.

      • France can not and will not build any more nuclear power plants. Use Google and you will easily find out why. But they can and will build wind power plants up and down their long Atlantic coast. And thus can and will produce plenty of green H2.
        It is really weird to see that there are apparently quite a few people contributing here that still need to learn the very basics of Biology, Ecology and their decisive impact on our economy and , actually survival.
        I’m a member of the Green party in Germany for decades, and I won’t quit preaching to denialists and selfish ignorance until they lay me down.

        • There are also lots of Greenies that urgently need to start reading mainstream scientific and engineering published material, and not just swallow the highly one-sided data published by environmental lobbying groups.

          Perhaps a little less absolutism would also go a long way: there’s absolutely no objective reason why France “can’t and will not” build new nuclear power plants, if it needs them in the future. Today’s sentiment doesn’t necessarily serve tomorrow’s needs. The mob is fickle.

          If you really want to do something about species survival, start preaching population limitation! Let’s see how well that sits with the average Greenie.

          • I guess Greenie is meant to belittle all people that are more concerned with our future than with current profits. So great, I will enjoy wearing that label, as I have for the past 40 years. Besides, I am owning and running a profit oriented company.

            In which compartment may I file you? As an oil industry lobbyist, a climate denialist, or just not interested in the future of your kids and grandchildren?

            You obviously don’t know what Google is. It is a search engine, with which you can search for information. When you employ it you will find plenty of information such as this:

            There is also wikipedia, which I can strongly recommend.

            Should you be interested in economics, you will find out that cost for renewable energy is constantly falling, while cost for nuclear power is constantly growing. Already nuclear energy in much more expensive than renewables, even without the cost for “safe” depositing of nuclear waste. Besides, there is still not a single final deposit for highly radioactive material on this planet. Right now the only reason nuclear reactors are operated or built is to build nuclear weapons.

          • If you’re looking for a label for me, try “realist”.

            Since you’re so adept at using Google, you can perhaps do a little research into the problems that arise with renewable energy on windstill and/or cloudy days. Oh, and, before you start talking about battery storage of renewable power to be used in such “down periods”, don’t forget to do some Google research on the huge environmental load associated with battery production and disposal. If you have some spare time, do some Google research on the “landscape pollution” associated with wind farms.
            If you find all that to be too much, perhaps you can ask your warren of children and grandchildren to help you do some multitasking. While your at it, calculate the CO2 footprint associated with your progeny 😉

            In the meantime, the rest of us (I’m and engineer) will busy ourselves with finding real and implementable solutions to problems, rather than hugging trees, smoking pot and worshipping Greta.

          • I’m also an engineer, but not one with a mono-railed brain, but one who is looking in all direction, not only the one my professors have taught me or the company that I’m working with in heading towards.
            Breaking the absolutism of the oil business, which is wreaking our planet is exactly what me and many other people are at now.

            Have you ever been to Germany? Many people who come here like the landscape, very few have a wind power allergy like you appear to have. This year renewables make more than 50% of our electricity. Lots of clever engineers at work, by the way. And no lights out. Ever. Come storm or winter. Very unlike in the US, by the way.


            I have not hugged a tree in my life and never smoked pot, nor am I worshiping Greta. Are you trying to discredit me like your president does with all the people around him that are not only smarter and more educated than him, but also more intelligent and especially less narcissistic and egoistic?

            My children, by the way, have been on the Fridays for Future rallies. Not because I asked them to go, but because they are very afraid of what our generation is leaving them.

            (On a little side note – did you notice that the wind blows in the night same as during the day? But energy consumption is actually much lower, so the “missing” solar power during the night is just perfectly matching demand. Oh, and we do have water power too, which is very useful to manage peaks. Oh, and I forgot to mention that more and more gas and coal plants are shut down, simply because they can’t compete in price any longer.)

          • Quote: “My children, by the way, have been on the Fridays for Future rallies. Not because I asked them to go, but because they are very afraid of what our generation is leaving them.”

            Everyone reading this, please be careful. Painting a doomed future to children has real life consequences to the psychological health of children.

          • Julian, you may not want to hear this, but this is not about painting pictures. It is about real stuff. Things that are happening, not fantasies. I’m not sure if you have noticed, but there is no other planet in our vicinity to which we can move once we have made this one uninhabitable for homo sapiens.


            We are aiming at 2.6° to 3.9° C global warming and we are already experiencing extreme weather around the world. Maybe you don’t want to hear this from a freak like me, or some weirdo UK newspaper, but from the holy grail of aeronautics etc.:


            I hope this helps.

          • @Gundolf
            You’re mistaking me for someone that’s discussing global warming being real or not.

            I’m trying to warn people about potential damage being done to children. It doesn’t matter if the idea of the doomed future (whatever that doom is) is real or not.

          • “”There are also lots of Greenies that urgently need to start “”

            They are part of the problems.

          • Poor Julian, you weren’t actually under the impression that Greenies are interested in what others have to say, were you?
            Not at all: Greenies are programmed to proselytise, by screaming whatever message has been fed to them by the Greenie Central Committee. No other points of view will be tolerated. No discussion on environmental issues will be allowed: it’s the Greenie way or the Highway.

            Greta had told them to obsess about aviation’s 1.8% contribution to global CO2 production, and they follow her lead like drones. They plant themselves on aviation forums so as to promulgate her message. I’ve seen intelligent engineering discussions on other fora (e.g. concerning hydrogen propulsion, electric aircraft and/or biowaste fuels) vehemently hijacked by Greenies because, in their world view, aviation — in any and all forms — must be stamped out. It’s that simple.

            As for Greenie kids: they’re brainwashed from an early age, so there’s no point in worrying about physchological trauma…

          • “Painting a doomed future to children has real life consequences to the psychological health of children.”

            Could you kindly expand on the massive downsides of applied ignorant bliss?

          • Bryce, I feel really sorry for you, everywhere around you there are these Greenie Monsters popping up, trying to get into your brain with their stupid ideas, this is really sooo sad.
            You are so right, let’s just carry on with burning fossil fuels as fast as we can and lots of uranium on top of it. Damn future generations, to hell with our environment, lets kill all these ugly bugs and hairy and feathery things that don’t pay any rent anyway.
            And while we are at it, let’s just kill off any good relationship with those crazy Europeans. They are getting greener by the day, joining more and more governments everywhere. Who needs that? Reason? Tolerance? Piece? Goodness me! We should better put more money into our military and invade some countries and create some chaos. But let’s do it mostly in Asia and Africa, so those refugees can’t come to America.
            I adore your wise world view and your mature communication like I couldn’t say. Keep going and be a happy man.

          • @Gundolf: Ratchet back the personalized comments, please.


          • Nuclear is evolving too, the fuel seems to be able to be processed and reused several times and new smaller solid reactors are in the works. So hard to predict the future if Airports will have 1 small reactor per terminal to produce H2 fuel in the future. Most goverments are hooked on energy tax incomes and the hydrogen fuel systems opens that possibility on a massive scale.

      • Yes, they control (largely) taxation decisions and so could probably quite easily mandate meters on H2 pumps, and may attempt to introduce a tax on eg area of privately owned panels or kWh generated. And, as you point out, can selectively tax aiport usage by fuel type.

        But they no longer (at least at the moment) control the actual electrical power generation and distribution. Strongly influence yes, and have a monopoly on for a majority of domestic users yes, but control no.

        Distributed, partially privatised energy harvesting/generation has been one of the points of solar/wind all along. So long as planning rules allow it an airport would be free to establish their own privately owned solar/wind farm and H2 converter and then tank it to site.

    • The problem peaople have with Greta is similar to Joan of Arc is that they are mainly right. The western world is slowly reacting and goverments want to go green and make money in the energy switch. One have to wonder if house loans and carrer women who has fewer babies are the saivour of the planet by reducing the worlds population.

      • Try telling Greenies to have fewer babies, and see how far you get 😉
        Greenies are required to produce progeny, so as to perpetuate the Greenie world view. The environmentally adverse effects of producing even more humans are, of course, conveniently forgotten.
        It’s hilarious! It’s like advocating alcoholism in order to promote sobriety 😉

  4. “The orders still appear on Boeing’s Unfilled Orders website, which is updated monthly.”

    While this is true, Norwegian’s cancellations were added to Boeing’s ASC 606 numbers at the end of June, so Boeing clearly thinks the orders are dead, just admin/paperwork to be completed. Oh, and maybe a court case.

    • Thanks Stealth. After the foregoing comments I was beginning to think I had been reading an article on green energy!

  5. Scott, two mistakes, maybe Ishka mistakes.
    5 year numbers were reported on May 18 with the January 1 numbers too.
    Then on Jan 1 the 787-8 was worth 95m, now 92m
    and the 350-900 was 117.4m, now 114m for the same date.

  6. Boeing will drag this case until NAS is no more. NAS waited too long to file this case.

    • That won’t matter, the case won’t just disappear even if Norwegian is bankrupt. The Norwegian courts would still pursue it on behalf of Norwegian’s creditors.

    • Even if Norwegian went belly-up, a Receiver/Liquidator is entitled to continue a lawsuit on behalf of a corporation’s creditors / shareholders. The legal fees will be small in relation to the damages sought, and can be paid for out of the company’s assets.

  7. Wasn’t Norwegian Air in major trouble long before the Max problem and Covid-19? If so, it appears their leadership is looking for a scapegoat for poor decision making and bad management.

    • Yes, their backs are against the wall. My guess is they hope to get more than the typical Boeing compensation negotiated with other airlines, and lower their debt load at the same time. But it may not be enough anyway.

    • @sam

      The Norwegian Government will help Norwegian Air Shuttle to survive — i.e. state takeover (etc.). What they will not do is to help its shareholders.

      • The government aid is only about $300M, I think. May not be enough.

        I doubt Norwegian government would want to own two airlines. And SAS is likely much more important with its domestic and business routes.

        • @thysi

          According to the Norwegian Government, it’s important for Norway to have competing airlines. Airlines also play a very important part of Norway’s transportation infrastructure.

          While the sympathy is minimal for Norwegian’s leaders and shareholders, it’s “great” for the employees.

          Hence, $300 million is just the start if things are going further downhill.

          Flights cover relatively short distances along the coast of western Norway and northern Norway. Here fjords and mountains make land-based transport incredibly arduous. For this reason, the state purchases air route services for journeys of relatively short distances because of their importance to people and business alike. Even for short journeys in southern Norway, the proportion made by air is high. A journey between Stavanger and Oslo takes one hour by air and a total of an hour to and from the airport. Travelling by car or train takes between seven and eight hours.

          As for your last point; the Norwegian State’s remaining 37.8 million shares in SAS were sold off in 2018.

          • Two different airlines , Norwegian Long Haul ( or NAS) is an Irish registered airline and of no interest to them, serving cities throughout Europe and other destinations such as US

          • Same airline using Ireland as a dodge.

          • @Dukeofurl

            We were talking about the $300 million in support from the Norwegian Government to the parent company Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA. Since Norwegian Long Haul AS is still a subsidiary company of Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA, one could say that they are receiving indirect support from the Norwegian Government.

          • OV, thanks for the clarification.

            But should the state decide to take a stake in NAS, might they not insist on divesting/shutting down NLH as a condition?

          • @thysi

            If the Norwegian State should decide to take a stake in NAS they wouldn’t neccessarily insist on divesting/shutting down NLH as a condition, if they would deem it to be a potentially viable/profitable enterprise. If such a course of action would turn out to be successful, the Norwegian State could always sell off their shares in NAS at a later date — like they did with SAS.

          • “
            “Following a chaotic few days for Norwegian Air including a major restructuring, a share issue and a share price collapse, the struggling airline has a whole range of new owners. Through a long list of subsidiaries, one of these is the Chinese state.”

            It seems the plane lessors including BOC Aviation have converted their leases into equity, although registered in Singapore it is an arm of the Bank of China which is state owned.

            “The Irish leasing company AerCap also emerged from the restructure as a major owner, holding shares representing 15.9% of the share capital and voting rights. Aercap owns many of the Dreamlier aircraft previously used by Norwegian on long-haul routes between the U.S. and Europe”

            If you think American is playing hard by wanting Boeing to give it sweetheart leasing deals for new planes. At least they arent yet telling the lessors , to turn their leases into equity….Not yet anyway.

          • “”china-takes-stake-in-new-look-norwegian-air””

            Thanks Duke,

            China could use Norwegian instead of its regulator.
            Why not start with some flight testing to provide real data in court.

            If this was last Monday, Trumps reaction could be to close a Chinese embassy.

    • Oh baring a settlement the case will go on even if there is nothing left of NAS but a shell.

    • The fact is, that Norwegian Air normal operations prior to the COVID-19, could not be realized due to having most on its B787 and B737 MAX grounded, due to BOEING’s Gross and Penally Liable Negligence, for publicly known criminal actions in core-ups.

    • That Norwegian made poor decisions does not mean that Boeing did not also screw up on a grand scale.

    • That really doesn’t matter – Boeing is clearly in breach of Norwegian’s MAX contracts (by RTS, deliveries will be running at least 18 months behind schedule). Norwegian, just like all other MAX customers, is also entitled to compensation for the grounded MAXes already delivered. Boeing has been paying such compensation to other customers.

      • Yes, exactly. Other airlines have negotiated compensation and Norwegian is entitled to do the same. But they are pursuing this route because they also need to unload debt to survive, and that is mainly due to the COVID crisis. That is the key difference.

        • Obviously during negotiations Boeing did’t want to give Norwegian a proper compensation, for all troubles caused by MAX. So what to expect? They don’t want to have a flawed plane anymore, and Boeing wants something contrary.

          • Norwegian was sinking like the Titanic well before any of the MAX or COVD took place.

            It does not absolve Boeing for the MAX area, but, other than letting out of the contract and the minimal money back what is the damage?

            They have plenty of -800s for wheat flight can go right now due to COVD, nothing t0 do with MAX. Miner fuel burn difference, big whoop at $1 a gallon for Jet A.

            They get more money out of compensation.

            And the 787 issue were the RR Trent 1000 and that is between them and RR. 60% of the buyers did not like what they saw even before the Tent 1000 meltdowns.

            Issues became clear and they could have switched and did not.

          • Except that other airlines did negotiate fair compensation. Norwegian is the exception here, and the reason is their independent financial crisis, which was pre-existing but dramatically worsened by COVID.

          • @TransWorld

            It appears that you’re really getting worked up about all this.


          • “”Except that other airlines did negotiate fair compensation.””

            It’s like someone is printing his own counterfeit money, 100 dollar bills. Then admits that mistakes are made but wants to change one fake $100 into one original $50 as fair compensation.

            Same as recently. The lightning protection on the 787 were not installed. After 100 of these faked planes are in service, Boeing tells FAA to certify it.

            Same as before. Boeing wanted bigger engines but only the engines not bigger gears despite the MAX will stall. Then put MCAS in and produced 800 planes. Now Boeing wants the stalling MAX to be certified claiming they paid so much corruption fees and will pay more in future. And EASA isn’t allowed to flight test.

            NOTHING has changed

            FAA isn’t even checking all Boeing documents.
            Now FAA wants to give a 45 days comment period. But for what if they won’t read the comments.

            After the crashes Boeing and FAA were accused of criminal actions. And now both “criminals” proceed same as before, flight test alone and EASA isn’t allowed to test.
            I wonder who trusts the criminals and wants to pay for faked planes when elevators don’t work and the trim wheel can’t be safely used, or would you say JT043 was a safe flight.

          • @TransWorld

            Before MAX affair Norwegian wasn’t sinking. It was manageable even with 787s RR problems. It started after.

          • @Rob

            Most probably for Norwegian that “fair” compensation, wasn’t so fair. They wanted full compensation.

          • Pablo, these statements are just not true. Norwegian was in trouble pre-COVID, with several subsidiaries going bankrupt, and having a heavy debt load. This is well documented.

            Has nothing to do with the MAX, for which compensation (fair = full) was available for the substitution of other aircraft. COVID pushed them over the edge. That will not be difficult to show in court, if it gets that far.

          • @Rob

            “Norwegian was in trouble pre-COVID”

            787 delays
            RR problems
            MAX grounding

            And after all that Covid-19 came.

            The debt you are mentioning was manageable, until MAX fiasco came.

          • Lets see, they had on order at one time 300 aircraft?

            Collapsing the time line on Norwegian does not change they were in way over their heads.

            The 787 was a mess to start with, Boeing supported it well and cleared up well before Covd or MAX.

            Norwegian was selling stuff off left right and center and dumped their management.

            Ordering Airbus along with MAX made no business sense when they were already floundering.

            You can try to re-wrie hisory all you want but that does not change they were in trouble (that was noted by Leeham as well as many other by the way)

          • Nothing wrong with having a 2 type fleet. Plenty of airlines do , eg Qantas has 737 for full service carrier and A320 for its budget arm.
            For the Norwegian carriers the Airbus ordered is the A321LR, a very suitable plane for Europe-US service.
            There was an issue previously after one of its 737s had to make a unscheduled technical stop in Iran after flying from Dubai, parts were prohibited by US sanctions to be sent , so the plane was stuck for 70 days.

          • Duke:

            The A321 is the order NOW. It was not the order before they canceled the bit mother order.

            I have not disagreement with split fleets, AK is there with their A321 orders they inherited and will see how it works for them.

            Boeing has nothign to compare to the A321.

            That does not change the fact that Norwegian was not after A321 nor the fact they were sinking fast well before MAX and Covd nor the fact that Boeing did a good job on support of the 787 issues

            Boeing has NO control over the RR engines. That was purely a Norwegian decision and they had the data everyone had it was not as good as the GE. Why they choose it (better up front cost?) no one but NAS knows.

            The only meltdown similar was the original P&W 747 engines and that was a huge leap back in that day.

            Don’t try to re-write the facts.

  8. Some good news.
    5y old ATR 72-600 did not lose value the last 2 months.

  9. What happens when Norwegian has to start paying for the A321s they have ordered ?

    I guess they could sue because they don’t like the look of the new managers.

    • They won’t take those A321 same as many others.
      If they need planes they will likely buy or lease used ones.

    • Why would Norwegian need to sue Airbus?
      Are the ordered A321s 18 months late, and still not delivered?
      Are the A321s the subject of a worldwide grounding, and a horrendously damaged reputation?
      Is there an FOD issue with A321s?

    • Well, it looks like the A321LRs are scheduled to be delivered from 2025 to 2027, and “the financing of those aircraft is expected to be secured according to the Group’s financing strategy at that time, subject to market conditions and delivery schedule.” **

      Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA



      Norwegian is an award-winning airline that has built a leading position in the European short-haul point-to-point market, with a stronghold in the Nordics, and a recognized position in the long-haul market with a clear competitive advantage on cost efficiency, particularly over the transatlantic. Since 2018, Norwegian has been well on-track with shifting the strategic focus from growth to profitability and taken major operational and financial measures that allowed the Company to guide on a positive net profit in 2020.

      As society, and in particular the aviation industry, suffers from the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, Norwegian has gone into hibernation after taking drastic measures to preserve liquidity. The Company has seized this time as an opportunity to restructure and develop a new strategy and business plan for a strengthened airline to re-emerge. This new airline is built on the pillar of delivering attractive returns to investors supported by plan “New Norwegian” with the following core elements:

       A complete financial restructuring to ensure a robust capital structure for the long-term that is critical to allow the Company to access the State Aid Package. The restructuring will additionally seek to lower financial and ownership costs and create a sustainable platform for the Company for the benefit of all stakeholders.

       An economic rightsizing of the network and fleet consolidating to a portfolio of proven routes with implications on the future fleet requirements.

       The short-haul network is optimized based on already re-engineered network over the past two years and is focused around a core short-haul footprint in the Nordics. A more efficient and rationalized production but retaining scale to maintain clear cost advantage versus peers in primary markets.

       The long-haul network is much reduced on capacity to better match demand under the clear principle of retaining a strong position in the transatlantic market where Norwegian has established strength in terms of scale and recognition. To prioritize top-tier cities in Europe and the US to connect large demand flows with a more resilient, efficient and seasonality-focused operation.

      9.14.2 Principal investments in progress

      The Company plans to right-size its operations and the fleet plan will be dependent on the market after COVID-19, with route profitability being key. Currently, the Company estimates a fleet of 110-120 aircraft in a normalized situation. The Company is in ongoing dialogs with OEMs, including both Airbus and Boeing regarding fleet orders. No material capital expenditure related to any aircraft deliveries will be incurred until Q2 2021, which require discussions and agreements with OEMs.

      The Group will pursue financing of its deliveries of Boeing aircraft upon more clarity on the revised delivery schedule and according to the Group’s financing strategy, subject to market conditions and delivery schedule. The Group’s next 27 Airbus A320neo deliveries will be financed pursuant to the recently announced joint venture arrangement with CCBLI, which will cover all deliveries of Airbus aircraft from 2020 until 2023. The remaining A320neos are scheduled to be delivered in from 2024 to 2026 and the financing of those aircraft will be secured according to the Group’s financing strategy at that time, subject to market conditions and delivery schedule. The A321LRs are scheduled to be delivered from 2025 to 2027, and the financing of those aircraft is expected to be secured according to the Group’s financing strategy at that time, subject to market conditions and delivery schedule.

    • Reuters is reporting that this wreck won’t be in the air again before October…

      • FAA is allowing 45 days f0r comment on the MAX RTS AD, instead of the required 30. There are enough other on-going requirements & activities that this won’t delay RTS. They want to have full participation.

        At least we’ll finally be able to see the AD itself, and know for sure what has been mandated, and the comments will be public, so those should be interesting.

    • It seems FAA still didn’t check all Boeing documents. If they didn’t check how can they know what to flight test.

      The article describes MCAS as an anti-stall system.

      Again, FAA said that they will certify only if all regulation standards are met. How can a “novel” solution be a regulation standard.

      DeFazio and Larsen want a safety survey of FAA employees. Stupid too, as if police asks the criminal if he is still criminal.

      • No question you could have not written a worse piece of code per MCAS 1.0 if you tried. A bunch of monkey on the code keys could have done better.

        And withing this is another bizzare logic flaw in that it violated Boeing’s claim that the pilot could override the automation (which was a feature of the Column switch)

        Computer trim on speed is not new, but with the insane authority of the stabilizer, it became stall protection. Or stall stop though not what it was supposed to address.

        But we have the comment period, then assess responses and all parties with interest will weight in and we will get a better picture.

        Bizarre that it was a safe airplane before the software idiots got their code into it.

          • MAX is about to be certified as safe. We would not have come this far if there were significant doubts about that, at least in the minds of those that are responsible for safety.

            The comment period will allow remaining concerns to be aired and addressed. The main issue now will be how much of the order backlog is realistic, in light of COVID.

          • “MAX is about to be certified as safe”…
            How many times have we heard that in the last 15 months?
            I’ll believe it when I see it….ESPECIALLY outside the USA.
            When you have a cupboard full of skeletons, a new one can pop out at any time…

          • “”at least in the minds of those that are responsible for safety.””

            We know where that led to last time.

            At least we know now how they are doing business.

          • “to be certified as safe”

            Certified as safe. Would be funny if not circumstances.

          • I understand that many here will not accept the outcome of a safe MAX returning to service. I wrote about that in a previous thread. Fortunately the factual, investigated, proven view is likely to prevail.

          • Gundolf:

            You said you were an engineer?

            As a pilot I can tell you that the pitch up was not a safety issue, stick shaker kicks in and the action for a stall is the same, dump the nose.

            So, unless the pitch up is such a severe magnitude as to do a loop, no, it was not an issue. Aerodynamically it was deemed not acceptable per the regs.

            What we do know is neither crash would have occurred if it was not for MCAS 1.0.

            That is bogus software and bogus logic issue in a computer, not an aircraft safety aspect.

            A while back the reactionaries decided that Herd immunity was achieved by infections (Coved). Its not, Herd immunity per medical is achieved by vaccination. Infection is a Pandemic with huge loss of life.

            Just like the pitch up, taken out of context we get the sky is falling when in fact it was not and is not.

            An engineer should be able to understand that.

          • @TWorld

            I know a lot of people are hoping for a ‘safe’ and effective vaccine as soon as possible quickly

            This looks unlikely – see Lazard’s Healthcare Industry Survey


            You may say that big pharma is discredited – still they have reason as well as self interest to encourage caution

            The various Health Organisms, Governments, and other so call authorities have the opposite motives and requirements – they need to impose their authority, they need to pacify increasingly disobedient rebellious and cynical populations, they need a magic rabbit to save their jobs

            Which will come first, a vaccine or, in the prolonged absence of a vaccine, ‘herd immunity’?

        • Don’t slag the coders. Nothing has come out suggesting MCAS did not work as designed throughout both accidents. The issue was in the failure analysis. No one caught that if an AOA vane is faulty and the pilots don’t disable MCAS within a few seconds then the aircraft will quickly be out of trim down. More-over after a few seconds MCAS will re-activate and the out out trim situation will accumulate till the aircraft is un-flyable.

          • jbeeko,

            I agree. As far as I’ve heard, the code was written correctly according to the requirements laid down. The problem, like you said, is a faulty failure analysis, which led to ill-conceived MCAS requirements. The requirements did not reflect the hazards associated with bad input from broken sensors, nor the increased response times of typical pilots in identifying and countering MCAS malfunctions in a confusing environment.

            A point of clarification. Original MCAS only activated once unless the pilot counter trimmed. Then MCAS would activate again 5 seconds after the pilot finished trimming. So, the very thing a pilot should do to correct the mis-trim caused by malfunctioning MCAS is also the very thing that would cause another activation leading to a much worse situation if the pilot didn’t fully correct the first MCAS action. Also, manual electric trim applied opposite to MCAS trim would halt the MCAS trim. So, MCAS could always be countered by the pilots using manual electric trim. However, Boeing totally failed by not informing pilots of the existence of MCAS and by not giving pilots clear instructions on how to counter MCAS malfunctions.

          • Also it was believed that pilots would intervene as a memory item, within the first 10 to 15 seconds, if not sooner. But Boeing should not have relied on that as a safety measure, as it was proven in the subsequent pilot testing that some pilots would respond this way, and some wouldn’t.

            So now we have the forthcoming AD which will address both issues. MCAS will have built-in safeguards and pilots will have a chance to practice their memory responses in the simulator (including trim wheels). These two changes should mitigate the risk of a similar accident occurring in future.

          • Pilots were expected to react within 3 seconds.

            As to the code, it depends on the structure of how its created as to who is responsible.

            If you have a coder who has not a clue on how an aircraft flies you have another problem.

            Regardless, you can say the logic was insane if you prefer.

            Mike: MCAS did not activate when pilot counter trimmed, it activated on a single input (AOA)

            The major Stab movement was for a low speed accelerated stall, they did not even tie it into a speed curve (per speed trim)

            Boeing also changed the Column switch logic and never told anyone even with so called amended notification.

            When you have a system that is defying logic of how to deal with it you have confused pilots.

            Kind of like LHD-6 (Bon Homme Richard) , lets open the hatches doors, spread debris everywhere, leave trash everywhere, leave cables so you can’t close the hatches, remove almost the whole crew and oh by the way, lets turn the Fire Systems off to.

            What could possibly go wrong?

          • Mike is saying that MCAS was interrupted and reset when the manual electric trim buttons were pressed, thus enabling it to be triggered again. That is true.

            Also on reset, MCAS had no limit on total stabilizer deflection (it used relative motion rather than absolute).

            Also on the speed trim table, it did account for speed, but that effect was outcompeted by the extreme AoA value. And we know that airspeed was unreliable and reading low on the left side

            So I think there were flaws in the safety analysis, but also flaws in the software design. The two are inter-related, and one compounded the other.

          • “” there were flaws in the safety analysis, but also flaws in the software design””

            Of course.
            Boeing should be happy that Norwegian wants to keep the 737 NG. Maybe Norwegian holds this Joker in their hands till Boeing tells crap in court.

            We all know that the 737 NG never had an independent software audit. Mistakes were found in the first software audit with the MAX, so there should be mistakes found with the NG too.

            And on top of this, I expect that there is another system which doesn’t follow regulations!
            FAA was just not very interested to find mistakes and we know about granting exceptions and keeping them secret instead of making them public.
            Which airline wouldn’t be happy to get rid of the pickle fork issue.

          • The biggest NG/MAX common aspect was some wild dual fault that has never occurred. That is acualy a radiation zark not a code issue.

            FAA wanted it totally avoided (though I am not sure that all these years of safe flying with the system does not do that). So they mandated a change and end results was a cross linked computer.

            Now that is an all new system and who knows what may have been missed (I have worked with coding and most coders will throw their hands up rather than try to follow someone else code and re-write it) – breaking it down, assessing and knowing what its doing are extremely hard tracks to follow.

            Keep in mind that due to the nature of certification’s (at lease prior) two different groups worked on code for the two different computers.

            While I suspect the linked computers are safe, I also suspect there will be some surprises that occur (non fatal).

            Its the reason you have software updates, they constantly find minder and sometimes even significant faults in code.

  10. Looking at the timing (45 days of comments, then assessment) as well as training setup and then training.

    Pushing to back in service late 2020 at best, early 2021 more likely.

    • Which leaves plenty of time for CoViD-stricken airlines to cancel more and more of their orders for the wreck. In that way, CoViD may yet turn out to be the greatest catalyst ever for safe aviation!
      Regardless of what the FAA does, the EASA will want to walk an independent path…they did, after all, have problems with the strength required to operate the trim wheel under critical circumstances. And as for the CAAC: the increasingly sour relations between the USA and China will probably see them dragging their feet for a LONG time.
      This may yet turn out to be a USA-only plane…for a time, at least.

      • Whether airlines will cancel their MAX orders depends on the extent of airline business recovery, which in turn depends on responses to COVID worldwide.

        The FAA has gone far out of it’s way to include other regulators such as EASA and TC in the recertification. They’ve had input all along and will continue to have it. The 45 day period is mainly to ensure that continues. There is no evidence that they will not follow the FAA’s lead at present. That was the goal of the FAA’s process with the MAX.

        China is a different matter, their response is likely to be political. The FAA could not overcome that in the present political environment. So CAAC will do what their government asks.

        • I think its a mistake to think that Covd non issue reverts to normal.

          There are going to be permanent system changes, how large those are of course are unknown but its a different world now and the airline growth may never be the same.

  11. Some good news. I mentioned it few months ago. Heard it today again.

    Dogs can sniff Covid.
    They can sniff it fast with 94% certainty.
    They only need one week training.

      • I heard it on the radio so I don’t have a link.
        Tests were made with German military dogs.
        It wasn’t said how early Covid can be sniffed but I guess if Covid is there it can be sniffed and results of 94% are good.
        Imagine to have dogs at the airport entrance and exit, how much safer flying would be.
        Problem might be to have enough dogs and they might not be able to sniff for hours but imagine if this is multiplied in every country and every city. It will be fast and cheap.

    • Stupid idea, the dog could become an animal reservoir and potential spreader.

    • Yes, I saw that yesterday.
      Hardly surprising.
      Boeing probably sees the writing on the wall: behind-the-scenes discussions with airlines are probably revealing an upcoming surge of cancellations. Cathay will probably be first. Qatar, SIA and the European carriers will probably be next. And then Emirates will deal the final blow.

      • On the bright side, it will be a mature airplane when it goes into service!

        Of course the A350 is moire versatile and that 777-300ER was a hot slot.

        Much like the 747-8, limp along for a while and then see.

    • For the NG: First the pickle forks, and now the risk of dual-engine shutdown in flight.
      For the MAX: More-or-less guaranteed uncontrollability, followed by more than a year on the ground…with expired financing and FBI/Congressional investigations thrown in for good measure.

      Boeing really does give return on investment these days!

      • “”MAX: More-or-less guaranteed uncontrollability””

        I wonder how stable the NG is without STS.
        STS has two modes, slow and fast.
        Fast for stall prevention?

        And of course it can be altered, same as MAX with MCAS1.0 was altered, from 0.6 (certified) to 2.5 (not certified).

        Now MCAS2.0 is said to be less aggressive, but as stall prevention Boeing could make STS more aggressive 🙂

        Trusting pax will test it.
        Only the MAX-7 was tested, right?

    • Just to clarify, the issue found on the NG was a sticking bleed air valve, due to exposure to corrosive environments, followed by extended storage time where the corrosion could develop to the point of interference.

      Due to the potential for controlled engine shutdown, all valves will be inspected. Most airlines are reporting few if any problems found.

      • No clarification needed: we’re able to read the AD ourselves 😉
        Point in hand: no such problems reported for all the other makes of aircraft in storage.

        • Corrosion can occur for any equipment, after being operated in a corrosive environment, then put into storage, and especially if the storage is in a non-ideal location. So many aircraft were taken out of service, that not all could be ideally stored.

          This happens for vehicles in storage as well, it’s not a cause for derision of the manufacturer. Nor did it happen for 737’s taken out of storage when the MAX was grounded.

          Reading the AD is not the same as understanding. There’s a lot of information on-line about the extensive requirements for storage, and how lack of use can introduce unexpected issues. This would be an example. There may be others as well.

  12. Rob: This is a direct quote from the analysis of the Boeing assessment on pilot reaction.

    “Boeing assumed that the 737 MAX pilot would not only pull the column back but also, within three seconds,”

    You need to stop using that 10-15 seconds you have been inaccuracy quoting, it never was there. And its either X second or its Y seconds.

    There is NO range.

    I give you the benefit of the doubt on if its deliberate on your part, I don’t think so but stop using it and acknowledge you are wrong.

    • TW, the design assumption for pilot response time was 4 seconds, and I’m not challenging either that or your quoted 3 seconds, at all. The source of that assumption was discussed in the JATR report.

      However in terms of the actual behavior during flight, MCAS moved the stabilizer by 2.5 degrees within 10 seconds, as it was programmed to do. The pilot could intervene at any time during those 10 seconds. We also know that with a 2.5 degree deflection, the MAX was still controllable, although with heavier control column forces estimated at 50 pounds.

      Then if the pilot did nothing, MCAS was finished and would do nothing more. If the pilot used the electric trim switches (as would be expected), MCAS would pause 5 seconds and then begin another 10-second cycle. That re-triggering by use of electric trim was one of the major flaws in MCAS programming.

      So this meant if the pilot used the trim switches to correct for MCAS within 10 to 15 seconds, the MCAS input could be corrected without a catastrophic event, but it would also result in another MCAS cycle. We know this is true because it was done by the captains of JT043 and JT610. This is clearly shown in the accident data. In JT610, the cycle repeated over 20 times because the captain kept correcting fully. The situation became dire when the first officer did not perform the same correction.

      Also as in JT043, the cycle could be stopped with the cutoff switch, which was done after a few MCAS cycles, for which the captain did apply correction.

      So I stand by my statement, it’s true and correct, and it doesn’t contradict either the design criterion or follow-on statements by Boeing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *