Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
It’s official: MTU’s engine leader named CEO of Airbus Commercial from Jan. 1; future of Open Fan and A220-500 shifts to him
The future of the CFM RISE Open Fan on the Airbus A320neo successor family loses its biggest proponent within Airbus with the retirement of Commercial Aircraft CEO Christian Scherer. His successor is CEO of MTU Aero Engines, a big supplier to CFM’s rival, Pratt & Whitney and the PW1100 GTF engine. Credit: Leeham Co.
By Scott Hamilton
July 10, 2025, © Leeham News: It’s official: Lars Wagner becomes CEO of Airbus Commercial Aircraft on Jan. 1. He will succeed current CEO Christian Scherer, who will retire after 40 years at Airbus.
Word of Wagner’s appointment leaked months ago.
Lars Wagner, CEO of MTU Aero Engines. Credit: MTU.
Wagner joins Airbus on Nov. 1 to begin a two-month transition. He is currently the CEO of MTU Aero Engines, a position he assumed in 2023. He joined MTU in 2015. Before that, he held various positions at Airbus. He is an engineer.
Wagner’s appointment may cast a question over GE Aerospace’s campaign with Airbus to choose the RISE Open Fan engine for the latter’s new single aisle aircraft intended to replace the A320neo family.
During the Paris Air Show last month, Airbus Group CEO Guillaume Faury said Airbus plans to decide on the engine to be selected for the A3XX around 2027-2028. A program launch target is 2030 with an entry-into-service target of 2038.
Future of A220-500, Open Fan shifts to Wagner
The Commercial Aircraft’s new CEO will heavily influence the future of the Airbus A220-500 stretch model and the Open Fan. Scherer is the leading proponent of the Open Fan and the A220-500. Wagner’s views on the Open Fan, according to an Airbus insider LNA spoke with at the air show, is aligned with Pratt & Whitney’s that an evolutionary Geared Turbo Fan is a better path than the radical new Open Fan design. MTU is a major supplier to PW on the GTF.
Even so, Pratt & Whitney has a “Plan B” development of an Open Fan engine in under study. PW’s sibling, Pratt & Whitney Canada, revealed development of an Open Fan engine for start-up company Maeve, which is developing a 70-100 seat regional jet airliner.
GE Aerospace, which believes the Open Fan is the best technology for the next-generation single-aisle aircraft, also has a Plan B engine, a conventional turbofan, under study. LNA was told at the Paris Air Show that Airbus is in discussions with PW and GE about their Plan B engines in addition to their respective preferred Plan A choices.
A220-500
The development of the A220-500 remains open to debate within Airbus. Bombardier designed the C Series before the program was purchased by Airbus in 2017 and renamed the A220. A CS500, now unofficially called the A220-500, was part of the design. The stretched model will compete directly with the Airbus A320neo and Boeing 737-8.
Bombardier put the design on the shelf to avoid direct competition with the heart-of-the-market Airbus and Boeing aircraft, focusing instead on the smaller CS300 (vs the 126-seat A319 and 737-700) and CS100 (a 100-seat model). Development cost overruns, poor strategy, development costs of two corporate jets, and losses in its train division drove Bombardier to the brink of bankruptcy.
A trade complaint by Boeing over sales of the C Series to Delta Air Lines and an effort to sell the airplane to United Airlines prompted the sale of the C Series program to Airbus. Airbus today says the A220-500 will appear in the early 2030s. However, Scherer is the biggest booster of the -500. Wagner’s position is unknown.
Wagner need to wok for Airbus, not MTU. If he can’t, he should decline.
Scott, do you have a link for a place to buy your book in EU that is not Amazon or US?
@Halken
I’m afraid not.
I fail to understand the widespread aversion to Amazon.
Why are people so adverse to placing an incidental order with that company? We’re talking about a $25 book here — not a $50k car.
Last I checked people were allowed to determine things like that for themselves.
Businesses are extremely sensitive to loss of market share. They get very anxious if their business volume drops 5% in a year. If a lot of customers move 25% to 50% of their purchases from Amazon to other vendors, Bezos will take notice, I promise. It certainly has happened to Musk.
And why the particular aversion to Bezos?
I understand the aversion to Musk, but what has Bezos done to justify forgoing a $25 book rather than purchasing it on Amazon?
I have already helped Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amz, Nvidia, Meta, to become ultra rich. No need to continue. The world has become run by broligarchs & the ultra rich, where many are Americans. This while ordinary people who work for them esp in non-unionized US cannot afford their rent & food.
So I make informed choices with my money. You do you.
Recognizable sentiment. Some sympathy for Gates not so much for the rest.
Wagner is going to bring his background with him. Airbus is going understand that and he will assess choices appropriately I am sure.
In this case Airbus has to weight risk of Rise vs the certainty of a GTF.
For better or worse, RISE commits you to a path that does not allow engine options.
So you are stuck with it vs being able to use different jet engines. There is no way to factor in public view of a prop job. You can guess and I do have mine, but unless you do the prop job and it succeeds or fails you have no data for that class aircraft.
That is aside from the tech risk aspects.
I do not work for any jet mfg and I think the GTF route is the better choicer. Not that I am going to be CEO of Airbus or anything else.
I also come from a prop background, those were our way of life when I was growing up and Alaska was known as the Air Crossroads of the World (more accurately Anchorage.
We are still on the routes, see the contrails overhead all the time though pax bypass us now of course and freight ops are what lands.
We have more prop jobs than any place in the US by orders of magnitude as well as numbers. People fly those because there is no choice.
Where they did have a choice or influence was the Anchorage -Fairbanks route and they kicked Alaska Airlines repeatedly until they put jets back on the route vs the Turbo Props they had shifted to (formally it was a jet route)
Its the ideal Turbo Prop route at about 350 miles direct. People did not care, so now its a Embraer 175 route.
You see routes like that in the US, pretty short and very short for a jet to start with and some point they make a big jump. So short Fairbanks to Anchorage and then 1500 miles to Seattle.
On a technical basis (my background is in machinery repair and maint) I would go the GTF route. You never go all in on one direction unless you are forced to in my former world.
Cutting edge tech always has its drawbacks as they found with LEAP and GTF. That is now settling out. Nothing about RISE in overall improvement if its true is far enough above GTF as better or worth the pain (pax issues aside).
What RISE does not discuss (vested interest and I get that) is GTF is also improving and can make further jumps. Those are available now, not 2035 with engine they could start building given the release.
Around the world, over 1,700 ATR-42/72 are delivered, in addition to over 1,200 DHC-8 delivered.
Outside the US, how many E175 are delivered??
The world is diverging into two. Within the next 20 years, North America has a smaller market share than China in NB. Time to make the bet for the future.
I’ll be very, very surprised if the next AB narrowbody doesn’t have a purely European engine.
The RR Ultrafan 30 looks good in terms of timing:
https://www.airdatanews.com/with-the-ultrafan-30-rolls-royce-wants-to-power-narrow-body-jets-again/#google_vignette
The aviation industry is too important to be making (continued) unnecessary use of critical components from non-sovereign suppliers.
The aviation sector is global. All engines rely on European technologies to a larger og lesser extent.
RISE
The open fan and the low pressure system on the RISE-engine is designed and patented by Safran, France/EU. GE is responsible for the high pressure system. This is the same work share as on the LEAP and CFM56. Neither GE nor Safran can build one of those engines on their own, and each retain their own IP. Final assembly is done in both Safran and GEs factories. CFM is an empty shell. All the work is done 50/50 Safran and GE.
GTF
PW and MTU are not equal partners. MTU has about 25 %. Assembly is done in both Germany/EU and in the US.
Trent
Most work is done in the UK, with some work, design, manufacturing and assembly in Germany/EU.
“The aviation sector is global.”
And that’s its current Achilles heel, in view of recent geopolitical developments.
LEAP-1Cs are made by Safran in France. And, yet, Safran was recently unilaterally banned from delivering those engines to China, based on whim of the US administration. Totally unacceptable for Safran.
What happens if Trump tries a similar trick with LEAP-1As?
This is the age of decoupling.
Just because things have been done a certain way up to now doesn’t mean that that same construct will be used in the future.
China has gotten that message loud and clear — hence its push to develop its own powerplants.
Same with Russia.
Aerospace companies can’t afford to be dependent on unpredictable and unreliable supply channels.
@Abalone
Even within modules, you still have international content. Sometimes parts cross over for something as simple as coating application.
In your scenario…the only way this works if this is a RR led-engine selecting share partners without US content. While a new Euro-consortium (or Safran) led engine is possible…you are probably hard-pressed to produce a viable option in the next two years.
“…you are probably hard-pressed to produce a viable option in the next two years.”
It doesn’t have to be ready in the next two years — it has to be ready in the next ten years (2035).
It only has to be a convincing paper option in the next three years (2028).
The CJ-1000A is expected to be ready this year or next.
The PD-14 and PD-8 are already ready.
If the Chinese and Russians can do it, are you suggesting that the Europeans can’t…?
So, does RR mine all its materials used in the engines in the UK? Europe? Or do they to have those materials coming from unfriendly and or unstable areas?
One of the things these days is “Food Security”. Nice buzzword, lots of warm fuzzy.
Apply it to Alaska and its absurd. Well even for regional US its absurd. Food is on an industrial scale now. It does not exist.
How do you get the tens of thousands of acres in Alaska, the mills to proves grains let alone cattle, pigs and chickens?
We are on the far end of a supply chain. Lack of other items will kill us as surely as no food. Gasoline, oils, pharmaceuticals let alone all the machinery parts that keep our turbines spinning are from elsewhere.
Russia no more than anyone else can have all Russian content in their aircraft. They will beg borrow or steal the chips and caps and resisters and diodes from someplace else.
TW
No problem. Trump levies 50% tariffs on Brzailian coffee and OJ, oh also made-in-Brazil Embraer aircraft, too.
There’s also 50% tariff on copper. Great time to be a manufacturer in America! 😅
The US has FTA with Canada, Mexico, S Korea, Japan and other countries, but these don’t seem like worth the paper they’re on.
Sport on both Meg and Casey.
I do think both Safran and MTU could build jet engines from the ground up and in fact they do. GE and PW could as well. PW still is deep in the LCA arena with its legacy products as well a fighter engines.
PW also is like 5 Japanese mfgs of turbines involved. Its the IAE V2500 group sans RR who sold out.
PW group is a lot of risk sharing on the GTF even if its not the IAE structure.
Ultimately having a nut job come along and disrupt things is a bizarre event that has almost never if ever happened.
Its virtually impossible to isolate out from the global supply chain.
Do you start a hugely costly program that will never see completion vs waiting things out?
“PW also is like 5 Japanese mfgs of turbines involved.”
It’s IAE engines, not P&W’s; they were not P&W’s partners since it’s not P&W that got them involved in the project in the first place.
Last but not the least, there aren’t five. So the only conclusion I can draw is everything above is plain wrong.
Who supplies the engine for Rafael? American or the Brit? 🙄
Oops. Thanks to what TW sloppy writing, it’s P&W but their partner is JAE.
*to TW’s*
Indeed the aviation business is global, but the current US administration has decided that’s no longer the case. EU, Canada and pretty much every other country now understands that US is not a reliable trading partner and is actively decoupling their fortunes from US. The tariff threats and sovereignty threats have not yet had their full effect but when they eventually do it will be ugly.
From personal experience I can tell you that Trump is not a reliable trading partner. I wouldn’t say that about the US in common.
A man who ruined several casinos now tries to ruin the biggest casino of all: the US economy.
“I wouldn’t say that about the US in common.”
Not sure about that.
This whole circus started 8 years ago. Trump’s successor continued it to a certain extent (e.g. semiconductor restrictions). Now we have Trump 2.0.
And who’s next? Vance?
MAGA still has quite broad popular support 🙈
This doesn’t appear to be a short-term thing: it looks structural.
American elected that tariffs guy not once, but twice. Not a coincidence. America is becoming more inward-looking. I can see the US pulls out of the international stage, from Europe to East Asia because it’s overextended.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GvbWCewWYAAVKv7?format=jpg&name=900×900
But certain parts you only get from certain suppliers and all OEM depend on the same few casting houses for example, most of the in the U.S. Then there are suplliers like the (burnt down) SPS, supplying such “no-brainers” as nuts and bolts, but the whole industry is relying on them. I doubt that the next RR engine can be a pure european product.
Things change.
China was a relatively insignificant industrial player 20 years ago — but look at it now.
The A320 family was only introduced in 1984 — but it now has the largest share of the market.
The lithography industry used to be dominated by Japan — but it’s now dominated by Europe.
The world’s industry isn’t stuck in a rut.
@Aero
When it comes to major components, there are generally only a handful of companies with established history of making those parts (major cases and airfoil castings). There simply is not enough work for there to be more players. Moreover, the size of the NB market is big enough that you likely need to have two suppliers to hedge against production issues.
Some of these same parts (and forgings) require industrial machines that are only made to order with multi-year lags to deliver.
Of all the industries to have a bunker mentality, aerospace seems like a poor choice. You are producing parts and assemblies in the hundreds (low thousands) per year not millions.
Apparently there is/are alternative(s) for SPS. Production of AB/BA is not effected.
SPS is not making “profound” parts as a general rule. While they do make some very specific parts are difficult to transer…SPS is the Ace Hardware of aerospace…commercially saleable nuts, bolt, rivets that are used across multiple installations.
Trump is putting 50% tariffs on Brazil — meaning that US carriers (e.g. Skywest) won’t realistically be taking delivery of Embraers.
Brazil has promised similar reciprocal tariffs — meaning that Embraer will face a 50% levy on the US engines that it imports.
One can imagine that Embraer will aspire to remove US content from any future product that it introduces. Luckily, it has various options among its BRICS friends, aswell as in Europe and Japan.
And to think that Trump assumes that tariffs are going to boost US industry?
🙈
Embraer will be able to import US engines without tariffs because the engines will be re exported. Only if the planes were sold in brazil the engines would pay tariffs. They probably already do that. All export industries do that, it’s very common, it’s allowed in the tax code.
Tariffs don’t work the same way as VAT — there’s no export rebate.
It depends on the government.
Embraer could still deliver aircraft to Europa without paying fictional “Brazilian” tariffs on engines : fly the aircraft to Europa with existing engines and swap them out against new ones over there. Ship the old engines back to Brazil. This would just hurt Embraer a little. So why should Brazil hurt Embraer?
How many 737 Gol has on order?
The Brazilian government wants to make a tit-for-tat point: if it’s on the receiving end of blanket tariffs, then it’s also going to be on the giving end.
Of course it’s possible for foreign governments to give back collected tariffs via a back door, e.g. a grant or subsidy. That’s probably what will happen in most/all countries outside the US. But the underlying point remains: if you can source from a country other than the US, then you avoid the tariff circus altogether.
Decoupling is a two-way street! Who is the unreliable trading partner?
> President Lula said Brazil can survive without trade with the US and will look to other partners to replace it, a sharp response to Donald Trump after the American leader threatened 50% tariffs on the South American nation
Brazil has a huge potential market in BRICS, and elsewhere.
And, seeing as the BRICS block has a larger PPP GDP than the G7, why should Lula not just do business with his friends?
Voilà:
“China deepens economic ties with Brazil and Indonesia through trade and industrial cooperation”
https://tvbrics.com/en/news/china-deepens-economic-ties-with-brazil-and-indonesia-through-trade-and-industrial-cooperation/
“Brazil plans retaliation to Trump tariffs as analysts predict growing China ties”
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3317774/brazil-works-develop-response-trump-tariff-hike
“India, Brazil to boost trade to $20bn and increase defense cooperation”
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/India-Brazil-to-boost-trade-to-20bn-and-increase-defense-cooperation
Who is going to foot the bill? Unsurprising.
FG:
> “Should the higher tariffs come into force, airlines will be left with few options, none of them particularly palatable given the complete lack of alternatives to the E175 on the market, US-built or otherwise.
US operators have already had to absorb the 10% increase on Embraer jets from the initial baseline tariff, which has likely been passed on to customers through increased ticket prices.”
I heard that a bigger concern is spare parts from Embraer Brazil which would have a more immediate impact: some will try to postpone or replace with “aftermarket”/used parts — a known murky marketplace.
“Airbus marks 40 years in China with commitment to deepened industrial integration”
“According to the CEO, Airbus has established comprehensive industrial facilities in China, including an engineering center in Beijing, a composite materials manufacturing center in Heilongjiang Province, and an aircraft Final Assembly Line (FAL) in Tianjin Municipality.”
“Currently, around 200 Chinese suppliers support Airbus’ commercial aircraft production, covering the entire industrial chain from upstream raw materials to downstream fuselage equipping. All Airbus commercial aircraft models now incorporate components manufactured in China. The annual value of Airbus’ industrial cooperation with the country exceeds 1 billion U.S. dollars.
“The second A320 family FAL project in Tianjin serves as a cornerstone of Airbus’ five-year development plan and marks the next major milestone in its growth journey in China.”
https://english.news.cn/20250711/dbc5af97fa204a4f8df42b689ef20e7c/c.html
Seattle Times: “Boeing work instructions inadequate for years before blowout, NTSB finds”
“Because Boeing’s instructions for employees lacked “clarity and conciseness,” workers missed opportunities to note that the panel had been removed during the aircraft’s assembly, the NTSB said. The panel was incorrectly reinstalled but, without a record of the work being done, it was not reinspected and left the factory with four crucial bolts missing.
“Boeing knew of the deficiencies in its work instructions for a decade, the NTSB said in its report, but both Boeing and the FAA failed to fix the flawed process. ”
“The blame for the panel blowout, then, did not hang on the shoulders of workers who failed to install the four bolts that would have held the panel in place, but instead on Boeing and the FAA, the NTSB said. ”
“…the board made it clear in its final report that the incident was not the result of a single worker or group of workers who missed a crucial step in Boeing’s process. Instead, it was the result of a companywide problem that had long been identified.”
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-work-instructions-inadequate-for-years-before-blowout-ntsb-finds/
Any time you have a process failure its the system.
I this case changes have been made and how effective Boeing is getting it corrected going forward only time will tell.
The process failure is the result of greed of the management. It’s not recent. The CEO was planning to increase production in Q3 without waiting for the result showing how effective recent reform is.
“AI 171 crash: ‘TCMA failure may have caused Boeing 787 crash”
“TCMA is the Thrust Control Malfunction accommodation, and FADEC is the Full Authority Digital Engine Control. The TCMA tells the FADEC, which controls airspeed and thrust on the engines, whether it is on the ground or in the air.
““If the TCMA senses it is on the ground, it throttles back the engines without pilot input,” she further said, before adding, “On the Air India flight the fact that there are known computer problems causes me to suspect the Thrust Control Malfunction accommodation (TCMA) and the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC).”
“Schiavo based this possible explanation for the Air India plane crash on two previous incidents, one of which involved a Boeing 787.
She added, “In early 2025, a United Airlines flight from Nigeria to Washington, DC experienced uncommanded dives (meaning the pilot did not do that). The USA NTSB is still investigating, but we know there was a computer or software problem on that 787.”
““The reason for my suspicion is yet another accident with the 787. In 2019, the TCMA malfunctioned on an ANA (Japan) flight. The USA NTSB concluded the TCMA failed,” she told FinancialExpress.com, before adding that the Flight Data Recorders will reveal if this happened.”
https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/ai-171-crash-tcma-failure-may-have-caused-boeing-787-crash-says-us-aviation-attorney-engines-throttled-back-after-take-off/3911076/
The plot deepens…
One wonders who “leaked” to TAC to frontrun their version of story.
The article I read today seemed to report the pilots shut off fuel to the engines instead of raising the wheels…
And how likely is that, seeing as the fuel cutoff switches (2) are in a totally different location to the landing gear handle (1)…in addition to having a totally different form?
Looks like the “foreign pilot blaming faction” is getting desperate 🙈
Twisting the facts only makes you look incredibly wrong.
Foreign pilo0ts have nothing to do with this. We had a dead head US pilot who tried to bring down an E175 who was having a psychotic episode post Psycho Mushroom ingestion (deliberate but egged on by his so called friends)
If one of the pilots did it, we need to know that and not hide behind false accusations. This is a huge tragedy. A human being looks to have gone over the edge and its an edge that anyone can go over regardless of anything.
You can understand the India Authority shock. You can also see why no alerts from Boeing or GE.
It has nothing to do with nationality. It has everything to do with human beings. There have been roughly 6 of this cause across a variety of nationalities.
You will note China will not release any findings on the 737-800 crash due to national security issues. India in this case if facing up to the cause as horrible as that is.
Its also obvious why they did not put out anything, none of us wanted it to be pilot caused. But like the A320 into the Pyrenees, if it is we have to face up to it.
“U.S. aviation safety expert Anthony Brickhouse said a key question is why were the switches moved in a way that is inconsistent with normal operations.
“”Did they move on their own or did they move because of the pilots?” he asked. “And if they were moved because of a pilot, why?””
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/india-finds-engine-switch-movement-202918762.html
@SamW:
We will know on the post lift off actions, but, there is a strong indication the gear started its retraction.
That is in 3 stages.
The Bogeys tilt forward which looks like happened aka the Video.
The gear doors would open next, that did not happen.
It appears the sequence got stopped after 1st stage. Ergo, both engines off.
And you could not begin to confuse the two. Gear handle is mid panel ahead of the throttles and a simple up or down.
The Shutdown switches are pull up out of a mechanical lock that are spring loaded. Ergo, they won’t be moved unless the system can activate or a pilot did.l
As I have written before and its proven correcdt.
Either the thrust was commanded to roll back on both engines, or the Engine Shutdown was activated.
Both those involve either the computer system or the pilots.
What is not presented so far is are the Shutdown switches direct or do they go through a computer? On position is it direct, we know some of it goes through computer as that does the start sequence and on a jet engine that means spin imparted, igniters going and a ramp up to idle.
The Engine shutdown switches are in focus because its immediate and direct.
People are forgetting that this aircraft was also transmitting data. Odd ops would have triggered a send if it was not already flowing.
Ergo, there was no engine failure on takeoff until both shut down.
Its now a matter of unraveling is the system could do a shutdown or one of the pilots did.
“The plot deepens…
One wonders who “leaked” to TAC to frontrun their version of story.”
Yep, blame TAC. The only so called plot is that Jon published what he knew because nothing was coming out when they knew what had happened.
Sometimes that is the way to get the truth of the situation out.
If it had been a Boeing or GE failure, we need to know that as well and how dire the situation is.
There is still engine roll back that looks to be ruled out. Keep in mind the A220 has also had this occur.
One huge advantage of mechanical systems is there are not the innumerable failure paths that are in software.
Like the 737 Rudder issue, it does not prevent failures, it does make them far more likely to be understood.
UK F35 costs: £71B instead of £18.76B (for 48 frames):
“MoD must address deficiencies in F-35 fighter jet programme to strengthen the UK’s warfighting capability”
“”Aircraft availability, pilot flying hours and overall UK F-35 capability are currently lower than expected due to MoD and global programme failings.
“£18.76 billion whole-life cost forecast by MoD is considerably lower than the NAO’s £71 billion estimate, which factors in aircraft, personnel and infrastructure costs.”
https://www.nao.org.uk/press-releases/mod-must-address-deficiencies-in-f-35-fighter-jet-programme-to-strengthen-the-uks-warfighting-capability/#:~:text=The%20NAO%20has%20also%20estimated,the%20MoD%20has%20publicly%20reported.&text=Committing%20early%20to%20the%20global,UK%20industrial%20and%20other%20benefits.
> Grim reading from the NAO on the F35 fleet – short of people, infrastructure and weapons – not remotely reassuring to read.
The Statement is that the Switch Position (not the shutdown circuit) was moved within seconds of each other.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/11/india-finds-engine-switch-movement-in-fatal-air-india-crash-no-immediate-action-for-boeing-or-ge.html
Both the specific ref to Switch as well as the timing.
In order to do a Shutdown, you have to pull up against a spring and it has a mechanical detent you have to clear by moving it up.
Its a horrible tragedy that it looks deliberate. IA may have cockpit video, the CVR if it picked up should tell us which pilot was most likely to have done it.
I am not saying it was deliberate, its where the evidence says. Its remotely possible a system zark did it but that is a very small possibility that looks to be virtually zero.
This is an excellent summary.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/aaib-releases-preliminary-report-on-air-india-plane-crash-in-ahmedabad-report-101752263646478.html
A key for those who do not delve into this area, if the throttles had rolled back, you can only roll them back to idle. This is a complete cutoff.
That is the string of confirmation we look for. Shutdown Switches were moved, engine shutdown was taking place, switches moved back to run.
Obvious the actions of shutdown are deliberate. Why we do not and may never know.
I don’t know if they can suss out which pilot did it. Both have access and normally the Captain would have been focused on flight and the PM would be watching the instruments. The PM would have seen it first and the PF would have seen the alarm but slower due to his attention.
Only the pilot that moved the switches would have expected it.
Once the Shutdown Switches are in run, the rest of the system is automatic.
Battery backup and RAT would be supplying the power at that point.
“…Only the pilot that moved the switches would have expected it.”
—
“U.S. aviation safety expert Anthony Brickhouse said a key question is why were the switches moved in a way that is inconsistent with normal operations.
“”Did they move on their own or did they move because of the pilots?” he asked. “And if they were moved because of a pilot, why?””
“One pilot can be heard on the cockpit voice recorder asking the other why he cut off the fuel. “The other pilot responded that he did not do so,” the report said.”
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/india-finds-engine-switch-movement-202918762.html
You need to understand how those switches work which I have explained a number of times.
As it stands and facts line up, the Shutdown/Run switches were moved to Shutdown.
Time timing shows it was a one two action step with a short time in between which is in line with having to lift and then move. No, they do not move on their own.
Unless there is a jump seater in the cockpit, only two people could have moved the Switches .
Those Shutdown switches have a mechanical lock on each one, you have to overcome spring force to lift up, then move.
Its entirely possible we will never know why. We probably will know who from the voice, hopefully there is video (apparently it is a feature that can be turned on).
The guy experiencing his Psychotic t episode did not understand what he was doing.
What we can understand is it was done deliberately and likely who did it.
Egypt refused to accept that 767 was crashed deliberately, the recorders refute that completely.
The US has the fully independent (so far) NTSB. Some countries are not as fortunate though India while slow on info has done a great job here.
“The US has the fully independent (so far) NTSB.”
Lmao. Who were the “US investigators” that tried to protect Boeing? Why were they so powerful that the Dutch copied and pasted American statements into their report of TK1951 without attrition? Of course, if the investigation were more thorough and the report were impartial, the 737 MAX crashes might not have happened and close to 400 lives could be saved.
“One of them, David Woods, a professor at the Ohio State University who has served as a technical adviser to the Federal Aviation Administration, said the Turkish Airlines crash “should have woken everybody up.”
Some of the parallels between that accident and the more recent ones are particularly noteworthy. Boeing’s design decisions on both the Max and the plane involved in the 2009 crash — the 737 NG, or Next Generation — allowed a powerful computer command to be triggered by a single faulty sensor, even though each plane was equipped with two sensors, as Bloomberg reported last year. In the two Max accidents, a sensor measuring the plane’s angle to the wind prompted a flight control computer to push its nose down after takeoff; on the Turkish Airlines flight, an altitude sensor caused a different computer to cut the plane’s speed just before landing.
Boeing had determined before 2009 that if the sensor malfunctioned, the crew would quickly recognize the problem and prevent the plane from stalling — much the same assumption about pilot behavior made with the Max.
And as with the more recent crashes, Boeing had not included information in the NG operations manual that could have helped the pilots respond when the sensor failed.”
“Egypt refused to accept that 767 was crashed deliberately, the recorders refute that completely.”
Cite your source or you’re, as happened many times, writing fiction here.
@Pedro
There’s an engineering principle that goes something like you can design against stupidity or carelessness, but it’s very difficult to design against malevolence
This is another quote. I thought it had been established the Captain was PF but this says otherwise.
“The first officer was the pilot flying at the time of the crash, according to investigators.”
It needs to be confirmed
Where’s the source(s)? Or hearsay?
Bloomberg:
> Delta Air Lines Inc. has been cannibalizing new Airbus SE jets in Europe by stripping off their engines and using them to get grounded planes in the US back into service, as it seeks to overcome a shortage and avoid aircraft import tariffs.
Trump has just slapped 30% tariffs on the EU, after slapping 35% on Canada yesterday.
The EU has vowed to retaliate in kind.
So, major upset coming for US carriers with foreign aircraft orders (from EU, Brazil and/or Canada).
Less so for EU carriers: apart from Ryanair, there’s very little interest in the MAX here, though the Lufthansa group has widebodies still on order. IAG is UK.
PW engines will probably be tariffed.
LEAP-1As are made in France, but contain US parts — so it’s unclear what will happen there.
Looks like LH won’t be the launch operator of the 777X after all — assuming it gets certified in the next 3 years. It’s bad enough that it’s 30 tons overweight — adding a 30% price hike will kill it.
U.S. tariffs take center stage but China and the EU are quietly clashing
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/11/us-tariffs-take-center-stage-but-china-and-eu-are-quietly-clashing.html
Yeah, I read that article yesterday.
“Clashing” is overly dramatic — quibbling is more accurate.
There’s some back-and-forth over imports of Chinese EVs and solar panels. The Chinese are coutering by bitching about imports of European alcoholic beverages.
The reality on the ground:
“EU-China trade continues growing trend in Jan-Apr 2025: GAC”
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202505/1333672.shtml
***
I’ve noticed a pronounced pro-US bias at CNBC.
The news source can’t seem to process the fact that foreign markets have outperformed US markets this year, that the dollar is tanking, and that US bond yields continue to climb. There’s also a tendency to push a narrative that positive effects from US deregulation will outweigh negative effects from tariffs.
Some articles contain outright falsehoods, whereas others are more subtly misleading.
One wonders if the news source is politically motivated, or just out of touch.
Some here are wilfully oblivious, more than the others. One can pick a single article, or read widely.
> “American Allies Want to Redraw the World’s Trade Map, Minus the U.S.”
Facing growing chaos, the EU and numerous other countries are seeking to forge a global trading group that is less vulnerable to Trump’s tariffs.
> “Under Attack by Trump’s Tariffs, Asian Countries Seek Out Better Friends”
And on that note:
“China Emerges From Trade Chaos With Record Exports, Surplus”
“Shipments to the US fell 16.1% from a year earlier after slumping by over 34% in May. Chinese firms were able to increase their sales in other markets to compensate for the drop to the US, with exports to the 10 Southeast Asian nations in the Asean group soaring 17% from a year earlier.”
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-export-growth-picks-fragile-040846901.html
Tarriffs might help RR in getting spec’d in on new Airbus aircraft, that seems clear.
Also Airbus might have an advantage selling aircraft to Asia, them being entangled in trade wars with US/ Trump. Won’t help Boeing.
Maybe going solely RR on the A350 & A330NEO wasn’t such a bad idea after all.