Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
There's more to real news than a news release.
Open Forum Week of Jan. 26
Jan. 26, 2026: LNA’s Comments Open Forum allows Readers opportunities to comment about any post (note, we said “Post”, not any “Topic”). All comments will be held for review and Moderation per our new policy. The Open Forum enables Readers to Comment on paywall articles (to the extent the paywall preview is open to all readers).
Maintain civility and follow Reader Comment rules.
A new Open Forum will be posted weekly.
Since a recent NTSB update on the UPS engine departure & crash, YouTube aviation experts / professional pilots are all reciting it as gospel. 95% of comments on those videos express gratitude for explaining things so clearly, while the other 5% looking at the diagram and failed spherical bearing pieces are questioning how that bearing was ever assembled, if, as NTSB claims, the race is one piece? The NTSB update claims the failure of the bearing happens as the race fractures into 2 near perfect halves. Boeing inspection procedures regarding the bearing race protruding from the lugs & why that condition is not a safety of flight issue, seem to assume the bearing race always remains in one piece.
The 5% of commenters pointing out the spherical bearing race has to be made in 2 pieces, or possibly 1 piece then intentionally fractured in half to allow the ball to be inserted, seem to have a legitimate point. If they are correct, then Boeing inspection procedures may be ineffective, and NTSB claims that the race failed by splitting in half, thus contributing to the accident, are based on incorrect information. The YouTube experts will not even acknowledge the apparent conflicting information. Does anyone here have an opinion on the spherical bearing construction & failure? Is the race one piece, or two?
A somewhat similar puzzle for you:
– Take a 787 fuel switch in the “run” position, and put it in a metal box containing various other objects — some nuts and bolts, metal sheeting, plastic parts, glass, etc.
– Now, seal the box and hurl it at 320km/h into the side wall of a concrete building.
– Search through the wreckage to recover the switch, and note what position it’s in, i.e. “run” or “cut off”.
– Repeat experiment 100 times so as to compile some statistics on the rate at which the switch position post-impact corresponds to that pre-impact.
I don’t have any 737 parts to work with. If you disagree with my point, explain where I’m wrong. “Attacking the messenger” is for politics. You’re either not reading or not comprehending what I’m saying. Look at the failed parts in the NTSB update, read it, look at the colored diagram that shows the race as one piece. Then tell me how the ball section of that bearing is installed in the race. Don’t generalize and assume it’s like swapping self aligning ball bearings in a pillow block bearing. Are you going to turn it sideways like Transworld says? If so, look again at the failed parts.
I have accurately read what you’re saying, but you haven’t accurately read what I said.
I’m giving you another example — from another NTSB report — that chimes with the apparent discord that you’re pointing to.
Abalone,
If the example of the 787 fuel switch parts in a box being hurled at a wall was from an actual NTSB report, I apologize for not taking it seriously. It sounds nonsensical on its own without context. I have nothing to do with airplanes or airlines, and have no idea what incident or situation that might be referring to.
I’ve never worked in aircraft manufacturing or maintenance, only repair, and rebuilding of ground based mobile & industrial equipment. It’s often the case that failing parts get run until down day, or they bring everything to a halt, whichever comes first. But of course none of it is flying. Following NTSB investigations sometimes show similar things happening with aircraft, and I may add my layman’s perspective. YouTube comment streams seem pointless. If I do post here, it’s after some thought and effort, not necessarily with answers, but maybe a good question or two.
I learn from all of it, and appreciate responses.
One piece
I did a lot of bearings. A spherical bearing can be inserted into a race sideways, then turned and slips in with the correct fit.
Frankly they also miss the point. Any system is designed for the forces its tasked to work with (and they have a safety factor of at least 30% )
The important aspect is, why was this not found during inspections? Clearly the design and materials do the job. MD11s have been flying for hours into the 60,000+ numbers.
Equally enormous numbers of cycles.
Obviously there are corrosion factors that can cause a failure. It does not happen over night. So this would have had a history.
If the inspection interval is too long and corrosion can get int, then that is an issue even if it does not happen to all of them.
If the inspection procedure does not detect corrosion, that is an issue.
The MD-11 in question was pulled out of storage and had some corrosion in the frame. Is that where it started?
The list 4 other failures. How they concluded it was not a safety factor is truly nuts.
Not listed was if they were found on inspection failed or they failed in service and did not let go.
You should never get to failure, if you do then you have failed to create the program needed to catch it well before it fails.
Boeing can recommend anything they want, the FAA should assess and reject that recommendation if its wrong. Its what they are supposed to be doing.
If the materials did not fail and its not a stated cause, then going down that patch is a total waste. All it amounts to is nattering to natter without any purpose other than to natter.
“MD11s have been flying for hours into the 60,000+ numbers.”
Time to send them home for rest since BA was unable to ensure the safety of the aircraft.
“The MD-11 in question was pulled out of storage and had some corrosion in the frame.”
Where do you get such info???
Clearly better informed than you.
The MD-11 is far from the best aircraft in the world, its had far too many crashes .
FAA shares blame if not responsible as they are the ones reviewing the details and did nothing.
Its a good example of “Its Good And Safe.”
After all, if that is Airbus criteria to meet cert, why should it not be Boeings as well?
TW can’t provide his sources, so I guess what he stated above is questionable.
I provide a high quality supported link and then on no basis of fact, you discount it. Usually with a falsehood.
So no, I am not going to provide you anything YOU ask for.
I do provide links for those who do want to be informed and the facts.
You? not so much
“The MD-11 in question was pulled out of storage and had some corrosion in the frame.”
Where? Where is your “high quality” link to support your claim??
No claim, facts.
Look it up like I did.
Proof that there’re no “high quality link” you posted in the first place.
The burden of proof lies on the one who made the claim, and you failed to do so.
Are the spherical bearings you describe rotating ball bearings with a spherical shape on the outer surface of outer race? That fit into various cast iron mounts like the universal farm equipment ones at Tractor Supply? I have a few of those on hand and have replaced countless bearing inserts in the housings. They considered “self aligning” or pillow block bearings. The spherical bearing in these Boeing pylon mounts is entirely different and will NOT turn sideways and come out.
This.. maybe that commenter will explain further.
John Dunn:
The design does not have to be in a cast iron mount.
This is just a different application of the design type.
Bearing races are not welded together in general.
Another commenter provided a link to a publication on spherical bearing construction from New Hampshire Bearing co. I spent time digesting it and learning, 10+ different types. The “loader port” design does indeed assemble like the ordinary pillow block bearings with cast iron housings. The failed race in this case would show the large recesses / ports to allow inserting the ball so it must be one of the other types. Some do use softer materials that are swaged around a ball, some are 2 piece races, some are one piece but intentionally broken & assembled around the ball. I can now accept the idea that the failed race in this case was one piece to start with. Maybe the final report will better explain what happened here.
Yea, most of those I had not heard of either.
I was an expert user of the type I workede with, for sure not general.
I had one case where I was told I was trying to order the wrong bearing!
Uhh that is what the mfg of the system provided. Do you know that they would cut off my head if I changed that? Yea I see your reasoning and yes it looks like the exactly wrong bearing type, but I can’t just change it on my own. I got to get an approval. I will work on it and will call you back. If they say no (and on a spec part they always say no) then we go with the wrong one as its better than the system not working at all.
Amazing, the manager approved the change.
In that case the system provider was not an expert on bearings. They had picked a radial load design (same housing) vs one that could take axial loading which was the stress direction.
Why they picked the wrong bearing? Not a clue. The bearing guy knew immediately what was wrong when I described the application. Low use like you have an they should never wear out and all of yours are trashed.
The funny part was I still had to use our wrong bearings for a time as it was a European supplied only bearing and the wait time was months. Yes they would expedite at the costs of several thousand dollars. Darned Europeans, you need to get with the program.
My job was not to re-desing things, it was to fix it when it broke and boy were those broken, shedding needles and races out (Aircraft calls up and says, some look at this door, all sort of stuff is coming out of it!
I had one occasion to go looking for a bearing problem solution and found they had ceramic balls that was a direct replacement. Wow, cost a ton but it did solve the problem. 24 hours a day running fan motor and 3 months wear out.
So yea, sometimes I got off into those weeds but only when there was a design failure.
The door bearings lasted for 10 years but as noted, low rate of use so even the wrong bearing lasted and the install of the system was iffy so it could have been that as the root cause.
The door system (hangar) itself was fantastic. European, nothing else like it and for hangar doors, it solved all the problems of fold up or slide open doors.
Sadly the Alaska rep was only that, we were the 2nd and only other one installed in AK and they did not know what they were doing. Messed a lot up.
The US office did replace all the IECC contacts with the vastly better NEMA spec. The only issue the first install had was the contactors . IECC is built to exact amp draws, if you use those you want to go up at least one size. NEMA is built to worst case and stands up to anything you throw at it. You could go down a size and they would still work (managers would yell at you and make you change it if they saw it, that business about your judgement replacing a spec type of gear)
The bearing race would be one piece construction…guessing the bearings are press-fit into place. The race fractured circumferentially and there would have been nothing holding the bearings in place at that point.
I ask again, look at the failed pieces and the diagram in the NTSB update. Then tell me how you put that ball into a one piece race. You are just repeating the same nonsense.
Also- When you look at those 2 failed halves of the race, note the little flanges at their outer edge. Tell me what those flanges do, what they can’t do, and what they prevent. Then speculate a bit about what’s missing from the photo entirely, and what that missing piece does. All the clues are there.
Assuming single piece race:
The bearing is set up to accept lubrication via greasegun, nipple.
Where is the groove for distribution along the gliding surfaces?
in the race or in the “ball” ?
if it is in the race that is the circumferential point of minimal thickness. Potentially the start of a circumferential crack.
assuming a split outer race:
with gunked up gliding surfaces applying grease pressure could dislocate the race halves.
Not a ball bearing (fig. 4, page 4 of the report) https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Documents/DCA26MA024%20Investigative%20Update.pdf
Assembly of full pieces is done in many ways: https://www.nhbb.com/knowledge-center/engineering-reference/rod-end-spherical-bearings/bearing-types
A. Tabiadon’s reply below with the link to New Hampshire Bearing company document shows many ways of assembling, including several ways of intentionally breaking the race to install the ball. Also swaging around ball that some have mentioned, which tells me that the metal used is not the hard steel of bearings I know. So a whole new ball game I’ve never encountered. Still not clear which method was used for the failed bearing in this case, but the circumference groove in the race, right at it’s weakest point, and nothing to retain the 2 halves of race in the lugs if & when the race does fracture like that. Seems like a failure waiting to happen.
John.
I have installed this bearing early in my career. The race is 1 piece. Interestingly, the aft pylon bulkhead is 2 parts huck bolted together. This puts a seam in the middle of the bearing race to bulkhead contact patch. The bulkhead was 2 pieces because the technology of the time did not guarantee mechprops to be consistent through a single billet of material at that thickness post heat treat, so they used 2 pieces at half thickness to avoid the issue. The measurement of the bearing seating depth wasn’t to check the bearing condition, because it was never suspect, but instead it appears it was to make sure the bearing transmitted its load through both bulkhead components in an even manner. If the bearing is excessively displaced, the load becomes non symmetrically dispersed and one lug will be exposed to overload conditions and fatigue crack and the other will then suffer an overload failure, as the accident artifacts show. The bearing itself failed first in this case. The circumferential cracking is clearly caused by under greasing the bearing and the subsequent contact and galling at the grease groove bearing race interface. These would never touch with sufficient energy to cause damage is the grease film was maintained. The circumferential cracking around the bearing followed the contact interface of the grease groove in the ball. Once the race fractured and moved, the ball then migrated down the bolt to a clearance location and hammered the mounting lug wall. The clearance allowed the movement to generate sufficient energy to crack and ultimately fail the aft mounting lug. As Far as how the bearing go’s together, I am fairly certain the race is heated and the bearing is cooled in Liquid Nitrogen at -320F. a 4 inch steel ball will shrink .031 inches. Heating the race to 400F would allow you to create another .0085. This looks like enough room to expect that the parts are assembled with differential temps in addition to the benefits of off axis insertion. Hope that helps
Pbc76049,
Thanks!
I wondered from the start why the lugs were 2 pieces vs 1. Interesting about checking bearing protrusion not being about the bearing, but rather the potential for uneven loading on the lugs. I don’t know if visibility sight lines allow checking both ends of bearing? Of course if both ends are protruding, the race is split, halves are separating, and it’s a failed bearing with the ball now hammering away at lugs. I have to believe that 11 year old memo about bearing protrusion not being a concern for flight safety assumes the bearing is intact. If the bearing is found to be migrating out of bore, does adjusting the thrust link between front & back pylon bulkheads correct it? Seems that thrust link has barely been mentioned, but it must play a critical role in centering the lugs in clevis.
The cracked & fractured area on lugs seems like an inherent weak point. Somebody mentioned it’s by design, a sacrificial link to allow engines to break away in a water landing. If it saves the fuselage & passengers, it’s hard to argue that one. A contingency plan for a rare event I guess.
I followed a link in a different reply to the New Hampshire bearing company literature showing how they make spherical bearings. The basic question of how to get the ball inside the race has many solutions I never imagined possible, including finish grinding the race then intentionally breaking it to install the ball. Either on circumference or crossways at one point and stretching race enough to allow the ball to enter. Also the use of softer metals for the race that can be swaged into shape over the ball. I still can’t see heat & freezing changing parts enough to slip ball in. The ruler in pic of failed bearing had me guessing the ball was 2-1/2” to 3” diameter, so .030”- 040” total change by your numbers. It seems like it would need ten times that?
Also agree on lack of grease where it needs to be. I have no experience on aircraft, but plenty with a grease gun and bearings in extremely dirty conditions, log & waste converyors in sawmills, farm machinery, etc. So many people will put a grease gun on a zerk & pump away, not understanding that grease squirting out somewhere it’s not supposed to, is doing zero good. They grease zerks but they don’t necessarily lubricate bearings.
John.
Continuing to answer your new questions. The thrust link is non adjustable and is located on the aft side of the “Ironing Board”. This is the major bulkhead that supports 2 spherical bearings, from memory, one was approx 10 inches ID and supported the vertical hang loads. There was another spherical bearing below it that was 5 inches-ish, it was there to restrict the rotation degree of freedom about the large bearings centroid, The thrust link was on the back side of the ironing board and had a large beamlike thingee that connected the ironing board to the fitting on the bottom of the front wing spar. The ironing board bearings attached do the front face of the wing box at the front spar. I never saw the mating structure as I worked in an assembly shop not final on the line. Also, the aft lug was a fuel tank structure failsafe that had to do with gear up landing fire protection. The idea is that when the airplane go’s gear up, you don’t want to have the engine ripping the tank open feeding a fire. In a normal gear up scenario, the engine will stay attached-ish to the front spar as the fwd. pylon attach structure fails as the crush weight of the airplane breaks the aft attach lug as the engine is forced up and it moves in a semicircular path upwards in front of the wing front spar preventing to the greatest extent possible, the rupture of the tank. The ditch loads on this part of the airplane are somewhat immaterial as the probability of post impact fire are quite small. Now we answer the question you didnt ask. Why did the galling of the aft bearing occur circumferentially……. Well if you look at the engine hanging out in front of the wing cantilevered in space, it will generate a fairly significant impulse load as the aircraft gos thru turbulence and its moving in pitch and yaw. The aft bearing sees these impulse loads as they react out thru the aft bearing and the bearing will be subject to 360 degrees of load impulses as the engine bounces in all directions dur to turbulence, hard crosswind landings or just cratering a landing . Does that get you up to speed?
Pbc76049,
Very good, thrust link is non adjustable! Some old engineering humor was “if you can’t make it right, make it adjustable”. It’s often true, so most likely the thrust link is good to go.
I’ll never be “up to speed” on aircraft, all my experience is fixing ground based stuff, in situations where industrial production demands often override maintenance issues and support equipment, even with failing bearings etc, is forced to run until a catastrophic failure stops everything. Of course, none of it is flying with people on board, so the stakes are different. Then we do emergency fixes to get the line moving again. I know what ungreased & failed bearings look like! I didn’t expect to see them causing airline disasters.
“Strength of materials” principles tell us some are strong in compression, but weak in tension. Parts can be designed with the same characteristics. With no for / aft thrust in play, the aft lugs certainly are strong in compression (when plane is sitting on the ground with engines off) and weak in tension (when engine is producing max thrust, like at rotation during takeoff) It seems their design is intended to act as a fail safe mechanism, either to prevent fire in a wheels up landing, or maybe catastrophic fuselage destruction in a water landing. Given how much time planes spend over water it seems a legitimate concern. Suffice to say the aft lugs are a weak link designed to fail under certain circumstances.
My first thought when looking at those failed bearing pieces, was lack of lubrication lead to galling & seizing. A seized spherical bearing is a solid bushing and with all the engine movement & shaking you reference, that seized bushing instead of just 360 degree impulse loads, also transmits some torque loads to the bearing housing in the lugs. Loads they were not intended to take and something that would contribute to fatigue. The considerable length of the potential torque lever being at the front of the engine, or at least from the forward pylon mount. After it was clear that the race had separated, the bearing was no longer seized even if it was at some point. I dismissed the seized bearing idea. The problem now becomes excess bearing clearance hammering away at the lug bores.
Whether it’s torque from a seized bearing, or pounding from a loose bearing, the lugs, being weak in tension are not intended to take those forces. 5 years between inspections seems to ignore how critical it is that the spherical bearing function as intended. If it’s not doing so, it’s creating unplanned forces and concentrating them on the weak link in the chain, that being the lugs. If they fail while in tension, as we saw, the engine goes up & over.
My only initial question was about the bearings construction, specifically, was the race 1 piece or 2. By recognizing the grease groove in the race as a place likely to fracture, and an updated bearing issued that eliminates that feature in 2011, it says to me that somebody somewhere suspected that a split race, no matter if it was made that way or fractured, saw a potential problem. Was the potential severity of that problem maybe underestimated or misunderstood by accountants acting as engineers? I’ve seen that happen.
Pbc76049:
Well Done. Great info.
Like JD my work was with the cast iron type, but the area in general aka ball bearings do not generally use any split type assembly. None of the ones I worked with were split.
We could get a split type if we needed to, expensive and the only reason we would have used one would be that mid bearing you could not get to if it failed.
When I say could not get to, with a fan on each end and a corroded shaft, you are not getting a fan off.
In theory you could pull the whole fan assembly and replace it. I have pulled small fans but a big fan, no way.
With special tooling maybe but at that point, cheaper for a new assembly.
Here on page 3 is the defect bearing: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Documents/DCA26MA024%20Investigative%20Update.pdf
In figure 2 you can measure that diameter of ball part is about 10 mm wider than the holes at both ends of the spherical element. Notice in figure 4 that there a light blue kind of bracket fixing the blue spherical bearing.
I guess heated metal is flexible enough to squeeze the ball into the bearing. To keep the ball from falling out the yellow lugs and the light blue brackets are required.
Here is a photo of the broken bearing still in place:
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aerospace/2025-11-20/fatigue-pylong-structural-failure-found-ups-md-11f
The bearing failed and than the lugs couldn’t handle the force of the free moving rod.
How unique is this design to the DC-10/MD-11?
I’ve looked around.
One way of making these items
with a one piece outer race is
producing the inner ring in “finished”
and then forming the outer race from a
cylindrical bore prefab into a clamped final form.
work the outside to fit spec.
Reuters: “Airbus’ incoming commercial-division CEO said he will prioritise higher production rates — including increased A350 throughput — and supports development of a larger A220 variant.
“The comments coincide with Airbus delivering 793 aircraft in 2025 and closing the year with a record 8,754-aircraft backlog driven by the A320 family and widebodies.”
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/new-airbus-commercial-ceo-focused-output-backs-bigger-a220-2026-01-26/
+1
Really?
How long has Airbus been focused on increasing production?
Their eyes must be really tired from squinting.
AB has better results and a higher chance to meet its objective than its main competitor which chased $10 billion FCF to return to shareholders, isn’t it?
AB’s early prediction was 820 aircraft would be delivered in 2025; their actual deliveries were 793, or 96.7% of their prediction.
How’d that other, US-based outfit do? Did they make a profit from their efforts? We should know more tomorrow (Boeing 4Q 2025 earnings report).
😉
“How’d that other, US-based outfit do? Did they make a profit from their efforts? ”
No, they didn’t.
They delivered 600 aircraft worth $41.494B in revenue, and generated a loss of $7.079B in doing so.
That’s a 17.1% negative margin.
Compare BCA 2025 with 2024:
Deliveries 600 / 348
Loss from operations $(7 079) / (7,969)
This is how far BA has progressed in the last year, a slight improvement of losses even though deliveries have almost doubled! How much further it has to go before *true* turnaround happens?
From the quote above I see that they are “prioritizing” production which is different to “focusing”.
One interpretation of that would be where they are choosing to make capital investments.
I imagine that there are two main possibilities there. Increasing volume or reducing the cost of production. Sometimes it can be a bit of both, where a new line incorporates newer equipment.
On the other hand, if production gets the priority then new products will have less attention.
What new products?
Same oH same Oh
As the reports say, Airbus is experience headwinds in increasing its production.
Its not a knock on Airbus other than a repeat of a mantra going back maybe 3-5 years.
Boeing gets knocked but Airbus is not meeting their goals.
So, despite the pundits, its harder than someone comment understands even for a well run company.
Airbus had a rather smooth production increase from 1995 until 2019. Since 2020 the production again increases very smoothly and was last year close to the rate of 2018. I would say Airbus focused on increasing production since 1974.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing#Orders_and_deliveries
Hire and fire isn’t the best way to get a reliable product.
Never really realized till now that Boeing lost more than 1k orders in 2020.
looking at Airbus delivery numbers the gradient past 2019 drop is slightly lower than before. Note that there is no strong dip around 2008 and limited impact post 911.
@TW
This is exactly why i find announced sales mildly interesting.
Market share is more on how much either OEM can produce…not sell.
I would be interested to see how the net sales prices are faring in light of this reality (you might be able to see that in the spot rate for leases as a proxy).
@Casey:
I have often made that same point.
Sales are an interesting indicator, but unless you produce more, sales sitting there are a marketing ploy.
In the real world, the original Ford Mustang was a stellar example.
People wanted the car but production was not setup for the numbers they could have sold. Sold out the first year with people in a Que.
Unlike Aircraft, auto makers have a quick production shift ability. Ford saw what was happening and they began to shift major resources into the Mustang production.
While the demand was far in excess of any ting seen before, a surge was not. Some models always became hot ticket items. The auto mfgs knew how to respond. People wanting the Mustang did not put money into Fords pocket, increasing build rate would and did.
For all the years Airbus has been outselling Boeing, the build rate is not anywhere near the backlog, so its taken a long time to catch up with the 737 numbers. They have headreached Boeing now.
They will slowly forge ahead. Probably 2040 before they reach the theoretical 70% numbers flying.
So no, sales is not market share. Production is market share. Its not sexy or sensational but its the reality.
Wondering if/when this is going to produce some interesting results in the aerospace landscape:
===
“India and the European Union on Monday closed a “landmark” free trade agreement, touted as the ‘mother of all deals,’ Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said during a speech at the India Energy Week on Tuesday.
“The FTA with the EU, which represents about 25% of global GDP and about a third of global trade, will also complement India’s deals with Britain and the European Free Trade Association, Modi said.
“The agreement will forge a market of 2 billion people at a time when trade ties are being tested amid rising geopolitical tensions.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/27/india-eu-trade-deal-trump-tariffs.html
According to another source (aero.de) air and space related items from EU were relieved of Indian taxes of 11 %.
Trump going to 50% to 100% Trump tariffs. His favorite and only tool.
BA Q4 results are out.
Another operational loss — though masked by a one-off boost of $11.83 per share due to the sale of DAS; without that, the Q4 loss per share was ($1.60) — 4 times bigger than analyst consensus.
Losses for both BCA and BDS.
Q4 FCF was barely positive, but this was thanks in part to allowing a significant increase in accounts payable and accrued liabilities — to the tune of about $5B. Even with that boost, FCF for the full year was a burn of ($1.87B).
Negative Q4 operating margins of 5.6% at BCA and 6.8% at BDS.
I heard BA that “had reached breakeven” more than once here, seems it remains illusive though some triumphantly advocated that great progress was made for quite some time.
No one said Boeing was out of the loss column.
Leeham has noted 10 years before and if they return to former results.
A factor in break even at all is it cost money to buy
Spirit, it cost money to increase production and it cost money to build new lines (Everett and Charleston which needs a 2nd building when they have a fine one in Everett not being utilized)
Ironic that the union busting McNenearney (yes I did not bother to try to spell it right) cost Boeing 10x what a contract would have.
BA also benefited from sale of Jeppesen for ~$10.6 billion in Q4, otherwise the FCF would have been a cash drain of over $10 billion.
amidst the back and forth at ORD between aa and ua, has there been a recent analysis of route, gate and airport concentration around the globe and it’s effect on frequency, fares/fees and facility taxes to the traveler?
Somewhat channeling O’Leary here.
UPS has expedited the retirement of the remainder of its aged MD-11F fleet:
“In its full-year earnings report on Jan. 27, UPS announced it “accelerated its fleet modernization plans, completing the retirement of its MD-11 fleet during the fourth quarter of 2025.” The disclosure included an after-tax charge of $137 million due to a write-off of the model, which has been grounded by the Federal Aviation Administration since Nov. 4 when one of the company’s aircraft crashed on take-off from Louisville International Airport, killing the three crew and 12 on the ground. The accident, which was not mentioned in its earnings release, is still under investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board. UPS was the second largest operator of the aircraft after FedEx Express, with 26 aging MD-11Fs at the time of the crash that made up 9% of its fleet.”
https://theaircurrent.com/intel/ups-airlines-has-retired-the-grounded-md-11-freighter-from-its-fleet/
Goodbye MD-11. Sadly this is how you’ll be remembered, let down by the airframer.
Which would be MD.
Boeing is clearly responsible for it now (or was, its grounded) but they did not design it. So no, they are not the air framer.
Its always had issues. Its a tragedy this late in its existence it took lives that it should not have.
+1 TW…
You have forgotten everything? It’s not even a fortnight!
BA issued a SB like more than a decade ago:
> Boeing had documented in 2011 that there were four previous failures of a part that helps secure the MD-11’s engines to the wings… the plane manufacturer “determined it would not result in a safety of flight condition.”
> … former FAA and NTSB crash investigator Jeff Guzzetti said that a service bulletin McDonnell Douglas issued in 1980 did identify failures of the spherical bearing race as a “safety of flight condition,” so it’s surprising that Boeing didn’t call it that in 2011.
Note BA merged with MD and took up the business of MD, so now BA bears all the responsibilities. You better get the facts straight: **Production of the MD-11 continued until October 2000 under Boeing**.
TW
Remember that after the merger, it’s those from MD who took over BA. One can almost draw a line from what’s happening today back to the fateful merger. I’m not kidding: one can consider today’s BA more or less a continuation of MD.
@Abalone
Not entirely surprised. I have a feeling that any fix to the fleet was going to be long enough that they were going to be retired anyways.
UPS needs these planes now, 9% of a fleet is not an insignificant quantity to go poof.
UPS made the decision to stick with an old bird.
They could have bought 777F like FedEx did.
Using converted aircraft is always a risk.
Oddly UPS was late to the MD-11F.
I would like to know who the other failures occurred with.
Also its obvious that no crashes resulted and what was the flight profile difference?
Was this a case of the checks were right but like the PW 4000s, the people doing the inspections did not know what they were looking at or for.
FedEx will have to make that same decision.
And what do you buy to pick up the gaps? 767? Maybe a call to Ortberg and, could you hold off on the shutdown, we need some more of those.
Ahem
1. UPS was the second largest operator of the aircraft after FedEx Express;
2. In other words, *FedEx is the largest operator* of the MD-11 before the grounding. [Lmao]
Ackhually it’s FedEx that decided to postpone the retirement of its MD-11 fleet:
The MD-11 fleet, previously set to retire by 2028, is now planned for phase-out by the end of 2032.
It’s FedEx that should be called out!! Proof that we live in an upside down world.
> United Parcel Service to eliminate up to 30,000 jobs and shut another 24 facilities in 2026…
In 2025, UPS eliminated 48,000 jobs
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/27/fatal-american-airlines-jet-army-helicopter-collision.html
The (continued) weakening of the USD is making aircraft significantly cheaper for buyers outside the US.
One wonders if this will precipitate an uptick in orders.
Concurrently, one wonders if/when AB will switch to pricing in euros.
Background info:
“More than 75% of Airbus’ revenues are denominated in US dollars with approximately 60% of such currency exposure ‘naturally hedged’ by US dollar-denominated costs. The remainder of costs is incurred primarily in euro, and to a lesser extent, in pounds sterling.
“As Airbus intends to generate profits only from its operations and not through speculation on foreign currency exchange rate movements, Airbus uses hedging strategies solely to manage and minimise the impact on its EBIT from the volatility of the US dollar.
“Airbus manages a long-term hedge portfolio with a maturity of several years covering its net exposure to US dollar sales, mainly from the activities of Airbus Commercial Aircraft and, to a lesser extent, of the Airbus Helicopters and Airbus Defence and Space Divisions. The net exposure is defined as the total firm audited currency exposure (US dollar-denominated revenues), net of the part that is ‘naturally hedged’ by US dollar-denominated costs. The hedge portfolio covers nearly all of the Airbus hedging transactions.
“In parallel, Airbus is proactively increasing the number of euro deals wherever suitable.”
https://www.airbus.com/en/investors/hedging-debt-information
[Deleted as irrelevant to the post.]
@Abalone
Inflation is a double edged sword. Ultimately the sales price is going to be for a future year and all of these contracts will have an inflation index of some kind, perhaps with a cap that limits any one single year to a maximum escalation. At the basest level it will be indexed against CPI, but perhaps against a ratio of labor and material indices as well.
Inflation is not the same as currency fluctuation.
Inflation last year was 2-3%, whereas the dollar index went down more than 9%, and USD/EUR was down ca. 13.5%.
The only way to address this is via hedging, but that has a limited effect.
@Casey:
Inflation is a strange beast. Kind of like election poles
For Aircraft prices of food are irrelevant but price of aluminum, titanium etc are very relevant.
Its an interesting area of data and relevance and I agree fully that there will be adder clauses but not sure what they would actually base it on.
Delta grows Airbus widebody fleet with new order
https://news.delta.com/delta-grows-airbus-widebody-fleet-new-order
Yea that is more like the Delta I know.
Kind of makes you think it was purely political for the 787 buy.
The Delta executive stated it did not want a single supplier for its WB needs. They bought an aircraft that is a CASm king and the family has sold into the thousands. No need looking for conspiracy theories.
Bet that Airbus order gained a couple of extra percentage points off though.
I would call it facts no conspiracy theories, but of course you get to view it from your lens.
Delta has keep a finger in the Boeing pie in Single Aisles (to a degree) but not the wide body at all in (20 years?)
I agree the 787 is a great aircraft and wildly popular. It beats the A350 and the A330 combined.
The last dealings Delta had on wide body with Boeing was to use the 787 as a foil to get better prices on the A330/350.
There was a lot of hoowah that Boeing would win (certainly against the A330) but I am looking at it with a jaundiced eye, I don’t see it. It goes against the consistent pattern.
As a factual ride along, I have seen Airlines order A330 because that is what they wanted then the orders got turned into A350. Hmm, so, they are willing to take a too large and emptier aircraft in exchange for staying with Airbus?
For me, that puts into question the contention that its all economics and not preference (and they are free to go with Airbus if that is what they like, but its not economics driving it). Delta clearly like the A330 and they bought A330NEO as well as the A350.
I see no shift that says that Delta has changed its view but suddenly they put in a 787 order.
A few years back Georgia was trying to claw back a discount at Atlanta over some political nonsense (DEI or some such). That is a market you can then use as a rotation point for changing policy (forget how it turned out).
If you are tracking a criminal and you get a report of a crime that is not inside the MO you are looking at, your question have to be, has th perp changed his MO or is this a different perp and not part of what I am pursuing?
Delta just changed their MO that has been the MO for a long time. Its not a conspiracy theory to believe that they shifted for a reason. I can have suspicions of what that reason is (political being the top dog there) but I don’t know for sure.
Is it the sudden competition form Alaska Airlines 787s that is driving this and oh goodness, we can’t compete with direct 787s, we have to get some ourselves? Possibly. I doubt it but its in the possibles pile.
And then we get a re-up of Airbus orders. Ok, hint to Airbus, we still love you, don’t sweat the small stuff.
“…the 787 is a great aircraft and wildly popular. It beats the A350 and the A330 combined.”
No contest that the 787 has caused more damages to BA while current AB aircraft are contributing to AB’s bottom line.
Look at BCA’s results using unit cost accounting that reflect the true reality.
If Delta worries about AS’s 787, why the hell would it order more a350 and a330neo? How does what you said make sense? Remember Delta ackchually ordered more a350 + a330 in one go than it has ordered all the 787s.
“Russia’s UAC and HAL formalize SJ-100 airliner production talks in India”
“United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (UAC) have signed a joint venture agreement outlining cooperation to manufacture the SJ-100 regional jet in India, formalizing discussions that began with a memorandum of understanding signed last year.
“The agreement was signed during the Wings India 2026 air show in Hyderabad by Vadim Badekha, chief executive of UAC, and D.K. Sunil, chairman of HAL, in the presence of Gennady Abramenkov, Russia’s deputy minister of industry and trade. The document establishes a framework for licensed production of the SJ-100 in India and sets the stage for further negotiations on a future master agreement.”
“According to the terms disclosed, HAL is expected to support the certification and validation of the SJ-100 in India and would be licensed to manufacture and sell the aircraft locally, including parts and spares for maintenance and repair. UAC would assist HAL in preparing production facilities through consulting, design support and technical assistance.”
“The joint venture follows an MoU signed in Moscow in October…”
https://www.airdatanews.com/russias-uac-and-hal-formalize-sj-100-airliner-production-talks-in-india/
Well as I said, they can import all the Western gear and try to make it work.
Other wise you have a Russian crudely finished aircraft that is overweight and can’t get out of its own way.
Its not a bad design, not as good as an E1 or 2. It was badly supported and would be far worse in Russian replacement guise.
Its going to fail. It will be fun to see how it fails.
Per the Bjorn article on the Trent 1000 issues.
I think the early issues is a bit broad in details.
The fan blades were what suffered the corrosion. That was amazing as RR has built long distance over water RB211 forever.
While ANA was the first to report it, all Trent 1000 had to have those blades replaced as they all fly over water (salt issue but the 787 is a salty kind of aircraft so you are going to be over oceans……….)
The next part was separate In the end it was caused by a harmonic. That is also puzzling as harmonics are solidly understood back to the Jumo 004. It can happen but its always been easily identified.
It was not until the Trent TEN that RR figured it out. They did all sorts of other replacements only to have them fail as well as the RCA was lacking.
We have seen how hard series problems are in the PW1000 and LEAP are. PW oil seal fix was a worst bust than what it was supposed to solve (saw that happen on a differential seal design change, huh, seals are nothing new)
Technically I wold be fascinated to see have the how and why RR went down the wrong patch.
As noted, the Trent 700 dominated the latter A330CEOP market.
Bjorn gave us a detailed assessment of the Trent 1000 problems in this article from 2024.
https://leehamnews.com/2024/09/27/bjorns-corner-new-engine-development-part-26-new-versus-old-trent-1000-vs-xwb/#more-45396
It covers all the issues that RR faced in developing the engine for Boeing and contrasts that with the TRENT XWB development for Airbus. You had numerous comments posted under the article.
Currently like all the new engines on the market that includes the GEnX-1B the real problem is durability. All the reports we have access to, tells us that in terms of fuel efficiency the GEnX-1B , Trent 1000 (in all its iterations including the 7000) are currently pretty much the same with variation in efficiency occurring with each PIP insertion.
I will have to disagree with currents status.
Trent 1000 has durability issues, NZ is still suffering from the impact of the 1000. You not only have your current engine to work through but your spares as well.
GenX had no durability issues, it did have a fail to deliver on SFC (which the 1000 was worse on and was sold as better to account for higher price and maint on the RB211 3 spool type)
GE did PIP its way up through most of the fuel SFC shortfall, then kept inserting upgrades to where its now better than contract.
RR has not. They did two PIPs and then did the TEN which if my info is right, meets the SFC but does not match GE.
I doubt anyone will buy a RR for a 787 again. The ones that have them will live with them as the cost to convert is double (loose the engine investment you bought and the cost for the change over and a new GE engine)
I know some take it personally as an attack on RR, its not. The facts speak for themselves. The Trant 1000 is failed, the TEN was not a fix (harmonics ID was the fix) and the other Trents and or XWB have all reported problems.
PW has had different but as bad on its GTF. That seems to be getting corrected. RR is getting the 1000 and TEN corrected and are working on the others.
Anyone that has the PW engine is stuck with them as there is no change over for a GTF to LEAP nor any engine on the A220/E2.
GE has yet to prove the GE9X, so its stay tuned on that one. Problems are not exactly show stopper but of concern as its had a lot of time to be developed and they are still finding issues.
“IL-114-300 Enters the Indian Market with a Preliminary Agreement for Six Aircraft”
“United Aircraft Corporation (UAC, part of Rostec) and India’s Flamingo Aerospace have signed a preliminary agreement covering the supply of six Il-114-300 turboprop aircraft, UAC’s press office reported.
“The signing ceremony took place during Wings India 2026 at Begumpet Airport in Hyderabad. The document formalizes the parties’ intent and предусматривает переход к финальным контрактам after commercial terms are finalized and regulatory approvals are obtained.
“The agreement is viewed as the first step in introducing the Il-114-300 program to the Indian market, with initial deliveries targeted for 2028. The Indian side has emphasized an accelerated timeline, which places strict requirements on completing certification activities, final development work, and the ramp-up of serial production and industrial cooperation.”
https://ruavia.su/il-114-300-enters-the-indian-market-with-a-preliminary-agreement-for-six-aircraft/
https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/united-aircraft-agrees-to-supply-il-114-300s-to-indian-aerospace-firm/166117.article
https://victortangoaviation.in/india-flamingo-aerospace-il-114-300-turboprops/
Lets see, lets buy a badly built poorly supported Russian TP when you have a proven supported ATR available?
All those used Dash 8s looking for a home.
As with any Russian deal, squint hard and believe it after you see results.