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 Feb. 23
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.
RE: the Boom / e-VTOL article above,
I find it remarkable how much good will / capital becomes avialable if another start up with great graphics, visionairy leadership, bold promises and forecasts pops up.
Soon Big Brands and (provisonal) orders are in, proving the viability of the enterprise. Specially when sustainability is part of the business case, even respected market voices become complacent / cooperative.
While every serious analyst / engineer can point out the technological / regulatory / operational risks and no-go’s.
I guess it is not helpfull for you if you tell an ambitious project to be irrealistic. You look old school, un-ambitious ,even a fossil energy lover. Better cheer along visionairy solutions you know will fail.
People/entities who are swimming in cash are often not the most astute spenders of that cash — particulatly in a hyped-up world full of FOMO.
Realists are quickly labeled as pessimists, and hot air vendors are revered as visionaries.
It’s a typical hallmark of times of excess, and it always ultimately ends in collapse.
We’re (literally) back in the Roaring Twenties.
From the LNA article you cite, I particularly liked the quote:
“eVTOLs, the perfectly mediocre over-priced helicopter.”
😉
How many want to invest in my advanced – trail blazing method of making
extra long power cords for sale to the military? Lightweight and high current capability can fully charge in 5 minutes ?
I’M naming my company Green Gotcha.
eVTOLs have a promise to offer a much higher level of safety and automation when compared to regular single turbine engine helicopters which have similar price range because the level of rigor in the certification is almost like Part 25 aircraft. For this reason it will be allowed to operate in dense urban areas. But the technological leap for an all electrical battery powered aircraft to vertically lift and operate for a reasonable time and range might be too hard to achieve. I understand the business case, but I am not so sure if the technology will be there for high power and light weight electrical vehicle to be commercially viable.
@keesje:
I don’t have any data to back it up, but my feeling/view is that people that made a lot of money fell into it.
Musk is a good example. [Edited.] And he hit into three home runs. Two and three funded by One. Without one, nothing because two and three were hail mary play (US Footfall description for a desperation pass). He is more compelled than smart.
As you noted, common sense people would not blow their money. If I had lucked into something big, never again, keep what I got and be grateful. But then I am a technician/mechanic/engineer (no letters).
I could see the possibility in Space X, but I would never have put money into it, at the time it was an insane concept. Right time, right place etc.
Ditto Tesla. Would a normal person, even a successful business person put a venture into that arena? I don’t think so. Again you can see the possibility so its not so far out it has no merit, but its a patch of previous failure and willing to loose the whole package. That is not conversation business.
So we get to Boom. Its not even Space X or Tesla class. Its got failure written all over it. The core idea is baseless let alone execution. Nothing is Sound about it (grin)
Its not that you can’t do super duper sonics, Concord proved that in a day of no Cad and computer design/engineering calcs. It took two nations full commitment and capable firms involved. Boom has none of that.
Its engines are a joke. GE/PW/RR have proven that good engine companies can lay eggs (and have on their recent engines). No engine, no boom. Not enough money and no capability for a sub sonic let alone sup[er sonic engine.
Worse maybe is the business case and concept. Far worse than BBD on the C series. They won’t even have a full scale article. No where near enough money. Add in there is no return. none. Its all sunk and will always be sunk.
Musk could probably get it across the line with all his money per flying, nothing he has or does makes a business case. There is not one.
On the Airbus/P&W dispute. You can often understand where the issue really lies from what corporations say, and more importantly don’t say, publicly. There has been as far as I know total silence from P&W/RTX in response to Airbus’ accusations. I expect a deal will be made.
I also suspect the A220 500 will include an upgraded PW1500 engine.
an upgraded A220 engine along the lines of the advantage would allow for regaining some of the lost range due to the simple stretch setup.
The other beeing Aero tweaks, assuming Airbus will allow its crew to gain as much as possible from tweaking the frame to gain a few %.
P&W should have a high interest, as the -500 has the potential to sell several hundred copies fast.
The funny thing is on the LCA, engines are a separate deal with the Airliner buying the aircraft. I can’t think of another endeavor that the mfg is not the full package deliverer and responsible
The engines are separate both in buy and warranty support which comes from the engine provider not the LCA mfg.
And then you get into a sole engine sources vs a two or three engine source (no long but……)
I don’t know that Airbus PW have to do a deal. PW obligation is to its customers and Airbus is not a customer (granted I don’t know what that arrangement is).
Sole source by definition means all engines so I also suspect a different contract setup[.
PW obviously would not want to tick Airbus off, but given a binary choice, you go with your customer and worry about the future latter.
I also do not think Airbus is getting a 2nd engine on the -500 if it comes out (I am less than convinced its this year). So yea, a PW that they will have a lot more reason to think its worked the kinks out, as bad as those have been.
Not sure about the arrangement either but think customers would be onto P&W very hard to give them the engines if they have to pay Airbus for a plane they can’t fly, because no engines.
At the end of the day Airbus needs P&W, but P&W needs Airbus even more. This encourages an agreement, I believe.
Pretty much they need each other for different reasons.
At least for now, PW has a customer issue and if the customers have an issue, PW has a big issue.
Say we have Whiz Air with a near term delivery and Indigo with no deliveries.
You would think Indigo wants its replacement engines worse than Whiz Air.
I think that is wrong. Whiz air wants those engines as well. Its near term delivery is a one off. It has a fleet of iffy GTF. So, they get a one off while the rest of the fleet is starved for replacement engines and they get a single aircraft from Airbus. Others get the 39 for that month.
They would be yelling at Airbus as loud as Indigo would be. They have 50 aircraft they need to keep flying. The ramp up can wait.
Long term? Airbus still has a customer base that uses GTF and now that engines is reliable and returning efficiency and getting better all the time.
Airbus cuts PW out of the picture, Airlines are mad. They shift to Boeing. Or they yell at Airbus all the time.
PW has its priorities right and Airbus knows it. That is why this went public, they are trying to leverage PW.
Its all PR spin. See, I am doing something
I think my previous post is relevant here in view of this discussion.
https://leehamnews.com/2026/02/19/airbus-fy2025-not-happy-with-pratt-whitney/#comment-560124
Can BA/BCA deliver what it promised?
Remind me in August how well does it go.
AW: Southwest Airlines Eyes Early 2027 Debut For Boeing 737-7
> The carrier, which once planned to have 72 737-7s in service by 2023, is confident that the long wait for its 737-700 replacements is nearly over. If certification and first deliveries come early enough in 2026—say, sometime around the beginning of the fourth quarter—Southwest would be on track to conduct its first 737-7 revenue flights in early 2027.
“If we get approval [in the] second half of this year, [entry into service] would be early 2027,” Barone said.
##########
The rollback is not in the plan, is it?
AW: NASA Targets Artemis II Rollback For Feb. 24
NASA is aiming to return the Artemis II Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft to its assembly hangar on Feb. 24…
> NASA on Feb. 21 decided to return the 322-ft. stack to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) to repair an issue with the rocket’s upper stage helium system, which stopped operating late Feb. 20…
> The agency’s first SLS rocket and an uncrewed Orion spacecraft launched on Nov. 16, 2022—eight months after its initial rollout to Launch Complex 39B (LC-39B.) Transported onboard its mobile launcher, the stack made three trips back to the VAB—twice for technical reasons and once to avoid a hurricane—and several launch attempts before lifting off…
Airbus A220-500: “LNA confirms that a simple stretch is the preferred option.”
I still believe a first application of “wing of tomorrow” on A220 is compelling.
1) Driving down cost of the wing of A220 with new tech
2) Adding some % of performance to an airplane that now is good but “not that good”
3) Testing the new tech on a low rate line before going full steam with the next single aisle
That means reducing costs, adding value and reducing risk for the “next thing”.
Wings are a high cost item. I just do not see it.
Airbus wants to make money on this and a new wing does not get you there, more and big costs and the wing is nothing in common with the wings you are making for it.
For best performance no question its the way to go. A new wing helps but its not the answer as its got a good modern wing already.
The program is not breaking even and Airbus was given the program (they are even getting paid by Spirit to take critical build stuff off their hands, that is wild.)
BBD was a build it and they will come. Then the shock that the planes don’t breed like rabbits and they have to keep building them.
Woudn’t the -500 wing just be a minor change of the existing carbon fibre wing. They only need to improve takeoff performance and some extra wing area for altitude cruise.
Of course it doesn’t make money, as Bombardier and Airbus ( apart from launch orders) don’t use program accounting.
I doubt the A350 made money on its first 500 planes either – but we never know as each product line isn’t separated out in Airbus Commercial division.
Dont believe the claim break even was reached at 350 plane mark, as that doesnt mean what most think it does. Just that the total production cost was from then decreasing rather than rising.
We dont know how many launch order planes were classed as program accounting rather than unit accounting either
Lax accounting standards doesnt help with transparency
A wing of tomorrow is big bucks and it would not be in the current plant.
UK is going to fiercely defend its franchise as part of Airbus.
Miner tweaking can be done in Ireland plant. It still cost money and do they have the plant space to do a 2nd wing?
UK would have to build space for a wing.
Those pesky costs don’t pay themselves.
Airbus has all the incentive in the world to calculate when they have to pay the piper.
Airbus has two black eyes still, one if free lunch money and the other is its murky build numbers before said free money has to be repaid.
Its like the Mafia (ahem) customer gets to set his loan terms. Right.
@All
The WOT is better posititioned to take the A320 to a higher PAX count than the A220. Ultimately, AIB will want the two aircraft to occcup complementary market positions. The A220-500 is a Max8 replacement.
A properly aligned A220/A320 will occupy the 130-240 PAX count. BA cannot start to counter this strategy unless it launches “two new” aircraft.
Trans.
I really think the WOT is a dead end. The process is all about using a pick and place machine to put large fabric chunks into the tool , then vac bag and RIM the parts with a low viscosity resin. This is heavier than prepreg of tape where the exact resin content can be controlled. The variability to flow with the liquid resin and its propensity to pool in corner radii during infusion is problematic. I think that the push to thermoplastic composites will get us away from the vac bag resin sucking system. Its GREAT for boats where added material and safety margin costs very little because there’s virtually no penalty to excess weight here and there, on aircraft, not so much.
Ten+ years of study, many high profile partners, three full scale prototypes.
Hint, it’s not the FAUB.
https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/one-piece-one-shot-17-meter-wing-spar-for-high-rate-aircraft-manufacture
A. Tabiadon wrote
February 23, 2026
Airbus A220-500: “LNA confirms that a simple stretch is the preferred option.”
I still believe a first application of “wing of tomorrow” on A220 is compelling.
The Airbus Wing of tomorrow is nothing too exotic. It is a large pick and place machine moving the flat dry carbon fiber fabric into a mold and then using the RIM process (Resin Infusion Molding) pulling wet catalyzed resin into the stackup using vacuum to move the resin. This isnt super high tech, the Boating Industry has been making one shot hulls of considerable size for a very long time. One of the biggest problems for Airbus and Boeing in the adoption of this process has actually been the navigation around pre-existing patent packages from boat manufacturers. Ironically Beneteau Yachts was an early adopter using Vinyl Ester resins. Not to badmouth the wing of tomorrow, but there is a tooling issue that makes this a difficult process for Aircraft. Its slow. It’s not as slow as tape laying, but the number of tools needed to make rate is not inconsequential… Also, the wing of tomorrow process will create upper and lower wing skins with co-cured stiffeners, but is not a panacea, you still need to put in spar webs, ribs and a bunch of structure between the top skin and lower skin. There are also weight considerations due to the need to carry extra resin in the laminate due to the inherent inability to precisely control post molded resin content.
The Parallel development to the Wing of Tomorrow, it the Thermoplastic Plastic Composite process where material is shaped into preforms, run through a thermal cycle to set the thermoplastic to end use shape. This is the quickest way to get high mechanical property components such as ribs formers stiffeners and the myriads of small parts that build the current composite wings. There is a lot of speed up available by combining small assembly’s into monolithic parts.
Now let’s talk about the A500 wing. LNA says the airplane is a simple stretch. It uses the same wing, weighs more and has a longer fuselage. This puts a premium on runway performance. I have a sneaking suspicion all you need to do to the wing is to go to slotted flaps to up the wing CL. That’s not a showstopper. Neither would be full span drooping ailerons. With FBW you can make things wiggle any way you want.
Trans is correct about building a new wing for the -500. It would be really expensive. Aero DooDads (a highly technical term) are a better way to get there.
Duke is far closer with his minor change thinking.
Now if you want to have some fun, learn about resin transfer molding, resin injection molding, preform creation with carbon thread stitching and all the fabric and glue manufacturing iterations, you should start reading PROFESSIONAL BOATBUILDER. Rag and glue products happen around the world by thousands of smart people. Aerospace parts do not corner the market on innovation. In many cases, boat parts are harder to make because design to cost is in many ways harder than design to performance where pricing insulation protects you.
https://www.proboat.com/
“To meet the growing performance and production demands of the next generation of fuel-efficient, low-emission aircraft, the aerospace industry must simultaneously decrease aircraft weight, lower costs, and increase production rates by a factor of ten beyond today’s state-of-the-art capability”
https://www.nccuk.com/insight-impact/wing-of-tomorrow-case-study/
The clue for the A220 here is “lower costs”.
An important part of the “wing of tomorrow” program, vital for the A220.
You do not lower costs by having a 2nd assembly operation for a totally different build of wing.
You pay out of the nose for that.
You can do it, then its, well, we have two wing plants, this one is better, we mod the wing that we made sure that could be modded for the -300, and build it in one location that knows how to build that wing.
Sorry NI, you loose again.
NI is going to fight tooth and nail to keep its wings. They don’t have the HP that UK does, but they are Airbus now and can raise a ruckus.
The WOT has been hand worked not production build and doing so is going to cost big wing bucks.
And you don’t see any return for 15 years.
Trans
in NI…building addition…for the second wing line….
Need to add some more wing assembly system for new size wing
https://www.electroimpact.com/products/drilling/shorts/
https://skiesmag.com/press-releases/new-bombardier-cseries-aircraft-wing-factory-taking-shape-with-installation-of-assembly-jigs-html/
The key for the new wing to be more cost effective is to automated the composite production from manual to automatic tape layer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDDrgGSiW3A
On a somewhat related subject, I could almost understand why Southwest would order the 737-7 when they had a different strategy to the other major airlines – offering frequent service to smaller airports – but given their history over the last 10 years or so, and more particularly with the latest changes which make them a me-too airline, I can’t understand why they would not up gauge those orders.
Why compete on a 1:1 basis with a higher seat mile cost?
@Phoenix
Maybe you are asking the wrong question. Southwest doesn’t need bigger planes for some of its routes. They already suffer from poor load factor recently.
If they are going to be a me-too airline then a pivot to the E2 or A220 makes more sense than the Max7. There is a reason nobody is buying that variant
Fully agreed
Southwest becoming a me-too airline?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HB8AslnWsAAFQgu?format=jpg&name=large
@Pedro
There is nothing particularly profoundly unique about Southwest any more. That is what I meant. I have a Southwest affinity…believe me they have gutted their offerings.
As it relates to your linked graphic…Baltimore is simply their hub. They dont call it a hub, but that is where a good chunk of their east coast traffic connects.
MTU has just released very good financial results for 2025, and a rosy outlook for 2026:
https://www.mtu.de/newsroom/press/latest-press-releases/press-release-detail/figures-for-2025-mtu-stays-on-course-for-growth/
More legal woes — and bad PR — for BA:
“Supreme Court won’t hear Boeing’s bid to end pilot union’s 737 Max suit”
“The Supreme Court on Monday turned away Boeing’s attempt to stave off a lawsuit over its 737 Max aircraft brought by the Southwest Airlines pilot union. ”
“The Southwest Airlines Pilots Association’s lawsuit claims Boeing made misrepresentations and fraudulently induced pilots to fly the aircraft without proper training. The suit seeks damages for lost compensation. ”
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5750647-supreme-court-rejects-boeing-appeal/
any autoclaves experts out there?
What type of composite material (e.g. fuselage) would be used in “Hot Air Autoclaves for Composites?
see link https://www.scholz-autoclaves.com/en/industry-solutions/aviation-industry
Hi Dave.
Hot air autoclave is a twist on words. All autoclaves making aircraft parts of consequence circulate heated air. In fact this circulation is a cause for concern with modern thermoset resin systems as the Tg temp target usually cannot be met uniformly inside the can unless the ramp rate is quite low. Ive seen ramp rates near Tg at 1.5 degrees f/min up and down. The so called hot air autoclave is a cross between the air fryer and an autoclave. It comes to temp very quickly and is made to support the use of thermoplastic composite material being swapped into existing tooling in place of thermosets. These resin systems do not cross link chemically as does a thermoset, instead softening to take a new shape and locking in as it cools. These cans ramp up and down in temp very quickly. Not as fast as induction heating of out of autoclave tools BUT they allow you to get into the rapid cycle times of thermoplastic composites without wholesale tooling changes.
thanks for the info….that said, for Carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) is there a certain type of autoclave for commercial aircraft structures. Jiangxi Hondgu recently purchased a “large autoclave” from Maschinenbau Scholz GmbH & Co. KG (Germany)
Connecting the dots using “online AI info”…looks like Jiangxi Hondgu will be doing the mid rear fuselage of C929…other “online AI info” for the autoclave “Key size/capability: ≥7.5 m diameter, ≥22 m length, ≥250°C, ≥1.0 MPa (typical of very large aerospace composite parts)”
Note is best available info from “AI”…so there might be some issues with it
That said, the question is does this indicate the type of composite material being used on C929 fuselage?
Just a note, on C919 Jiangxi Hondgu produces the mid front fuselage (metallic)
Hi Dave.
The size of the can does not indicate a specific material will be used. An Autoclave is just a pressurized can you may heat to elevated temperatures with process controls to make it repeatable. All cans are circular, with a major diameter, a length and 2 hemispheric ends. The internal volume doesn’t indicate a specific part will be run. Wings for example are long skinny things that go into a can who’s size is determined by the circumscribed circle containing the wing, the tooling and the carriage to load it from the end view. A fuselage may go in the same can depending on the circumscribed circle in the end view containing the part, tooling and carriage. But there’s another consideration, wall reflective heating. As the can comes up to temp, the can heat soaks and you may not have control of the ramp rate due to IR emitted from the can wall. you need space to allow shading if needed as well as a plenum to be created to route air through the can and to isolate the heaters, CalRods are the old school heat source, but there is chatter about hybrids using convection heat and high flow rates synonymous with air fryers, You are asking me the basic question, does the sale of this can to a Chinese fuselage shop MEAN that they are going to make a carbon/composite fuselage. They could. A large can is not product limited; you can make anything you can fit in it. Remember the 3 Cs. Can, carriage, component. If the 3 things are compatible, you can cook it. As an aside, I really suspect you are correct in your hunch, I really hope they build the fuselage as potato chips as the A350 instead of a monolithic barrel segment like the 787. Airbus learned so much about how to build composite fuselages by getting to play 2nd mover to the 787. The A350 whips the 787’s ass on can capacity utilization. The real question to be looking at would be to find contracts with resin suppliers and see if they are running thermosets or thermoplastics. China will probably play it safe with a thermoset.
C929 is following A350 composite panel system It seems Huarai Aviation (new player for commercial aircraft airframe production) is doing the C929 front mid section
“Brotje won the bid for the C929 fuselage wall panel assembly assembly line. According to the company, the gantry-type multi-wall panel automatic drilling and riveting equipment designed to meet the requirements of the C929 fuselage wall panel for large size, large arc and composite materials”
Zhejiang Huarui Aviation purchased a Brotje Automation MPAC in 2023 timeframe (see link for concept drawing https://www.jeccomposites.com/news/spotted-by-jec/broetje-won-the-bid-for-the-c929-fuselage-assembly-line/?news_type=announcement,business&end_use_application=aerospace
from AI “Key Composite Material Suppliers Used on C919 (including vertical stabilizer)”
from Solvay website (about C919)
“In 2012, Solvay – at the time Cytec – was awarded a long-term agreement to supply high-performance, structural composite and adhesive materials for COMAC’s C919 commercial aircraft via Shanghai Aircraft Manufacturing Company who is responsible for the C919 aircraft’s manufacture:
In total, nine prepreg specifications and seven adhesive specifications were qualified with Solvay products for the C919 program and were used across the aircraft’s structure. Solvay’s CYCOM®977-2 and CYCOM®X850 prepregs, toughened epoxy materials ideal for primary and secondary structure applications were utilized on the horizontal stabilizer, rear pressure bulkhead, aileron and flaps. CYCOM®970 and CYCOM®7701, two epoxy prepregs producing void-free honeycomb sandwich and monolithic structures were respectively used on the rudder, elevator, winglets, spoiler, wing-to-body fairings and on the radome.
Hi Dave.
it seems like there is sufficient materials of differing resin/fabric schedules to make a bunch of different components. If you say that the new entrants have contracts for aircraft sections, then I don’t see any real technical obstacles to building the status quo style structures. Im fairly convinced the resin systems listed are thermosets, so nothing extreme is needed tooling wise. It looks like status quo building. Safe and easy to do. I would be most interested in who is fabbing the wing. Thats the high zoot part.
C919 wings and center wing box…no announcement but based on Comac center of excellence model Xian Aircraft (they do the wing for C909 and C919 and other aircraft models
On another note, Airbus JV in for composite mfg in China…all western production equipment see video for A350XWB parts rudder and elevator HMC video A350XWB
http://alading.z25.cn/20251009.mp4
What does it mean?
“The WOT has been hand worked not production build”
Uhh, no…
https://www.nccuk.com/services/technical/engineering-services/manufacturing/manufacturing-capabilities/ultra-high-rate-deposition/
This is actually done in North Ireland by hand.
“China will order up to 120 additional aircraft from European aviation giant Airbus, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said, as he travelled to Beijing to deepen ties between his country and Asia’s largest economy.
“The Chinese leadership will be ordering a larger number of additional aircraft from Airbus. The total order will include up to 120 additional aircraft,” Merz told reporters after his meeting with Xi, adding that it “demonstrates how worthwhile such trips can be”.
> The chancellor touted the benefits from two of the world’s three largest economies trading with each other.
> China, the world’s number two economy, overtook the United States last year to become Germany’s biggest trade partner.
> “It would be a mistake for us to seek to decouple ourselves from China,” he said. “That kind of policy would only harm our own interests.”
> German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is currently (as of February 25, 2026) on an official, high-stakes visit to China, accompanied by a large delegation of German business leaders
> Merz concluded his statement by noting that it’s no coincidence that he, French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer are all visiting Beijing within the space of a few weeks and “before President Trump visits in April.”
“We are communicating the same message: we want a partnership with China that is balanced, reliable, regulated and fair,” Merz said. “That is what we are offering. And it is also what we hope for from the Chinese side.”
Full list of companies in Merz delegation (via @CCCEUofficial)
BMW
Mercedes-Benz
VW
Bayer
Siemens
Schaeffler
Airbus
EMAG Maschinenfabrik
CLAAS KGaA
Krones Group
Wilo Group
ULT
Elbe Flugzeugwerke
Stiebel Eltron
Interzero
Enpal
TÜV NORD Group
TRUMPF
Covestro
Josef Meissner GmbH
ROWE Mineralölwerk
Hankook Tire
Freudenberg Group
Beiersdorf
Adidas
Binder Optik
DHL
TRIWO
HPP Architects
Deutsche Bank
I hope Merz is not holding his breath.
Fair from China is like the truth from Trump (most of us try to keep it on the up and up)_
What?………… Politicians announcing orders?……… Never heard of such a thing………
There’s a difference between “announcing” and “coercing”.
No one is coercing China. In the end, its all the same.
Who launched a trade war? Who capitulated after discovering the other side had the upper hand with a chokehold?
China getting ready to order 120 Airbus planes per German Chancellor https://www.sinodaily.com/afp/260225133126.awjl90vu.html
RE: A220-500 wing.
I remember that during development of the program C130-C150 later CS100, CS300 at some stage around 2010, Bombardier introduced a significant MTOW bump to the program, signalling it’s intention to create higher MTOW variants in the future. I think it was called the CS300 ER variant that became the baseline before the first aircraft were build.
This resulted in the CS100 becoming maybe slighhtly overcapable / heavy, but made the wing, fuselage and landing gear structure ready for a stretch.
Apart from that, the CSeries wing is not a sixties / seventies design. It seems modern and efficient enough for some time.
If Airbus is all in on the A220, they should do 2 new iterations of the plane in the near future.
A) A simple stretch with the same wing.
B) A slightly longer stretch with a updated wing, and possibly engine option. Point to Point routing is coming. A plane that can haul 170 passengers efficiently in 2 classes 4500 miles is a game changer. It literally could be quite the disrupter.
More than agree. Its as updated a wing design as you would get short of coming out of Boeing.
Boeing does not need those wingy thingies Airbus relies on.
The C/A series has a bit of a wingy thingy so its more Airbus than Boeing.
Good news at Rolls Royce…..
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/26/rolls-royce-stock-sees-profits-hitting-4-billion-this-year-as-robust-growth-continues.html
“Rolls-Royce
said Thursday it expects profits of over £4 billion ($5.42 billion) this year as the aero engine and power systems maker banks on another year of robust growth.
The aerospace giant is targeting underlying operating profit of between £4 billion and £4.2 billion in 2026, above the midpoint of £3.65 billion as expected by analysts polled by FactSet. It expects free cash flow of between £3.6 billion and £3.8 billion this year, also above expectations.
It also announced that £2.5 billion of share buybacks would be completed this year as part of a multi-year buyback program of between £7 billion and £9 billion ($12 billion), citing a strong balance sheet.”
“The beat-and-raise quarterly report was described as a “high quality release” by Jefferies analyst Chloe Lemarie, who also noted that profits were driven by the power systems business.
The unit, which is benefitting from the mass build-out of data centers that rely on Rolls-Royce’s power generation system, generated £4.89 billion in revenue in 2025, reflecting an organic growth of 19% year-on-year.
Its civil aerospace business, which sells engines to Boeing and Airbus, grew 15% compared to last year, while defense grew 8%.”
Hmmmm sounds serious 😳
FAA issues directive to address Boeing 737 circuit breaker issue that could cause excessively high temperatures in flight deck and cabin
AI summary
> The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued an emergency directive addressing a potential cabin overheating issue on Boeing 737 MAX aircraft caused by a faulty circuit breaker that restricts cooling air, potentially leading to **passenger or crew incapacitation**. The directive requires immediate flight manual revisions for approximately 771 U.S.-registered planes, instructing pilots on procedures to manage the overheating condition while a permanent solution is developed.
Discovered only like nine years after certification?
PEDRO.
You may be missing the fact that components are subject to ageing. There are many cases of components having issues after years of use and sometimes thousands of cycles before the condition becomes problematic.
Here’s an example found 37 years after certification
EASA AD 2025-0237 addresses rack attachments on A320 series airplanes.
This directive issued October 27, 2025, and effective November 10, 2025, requires inspections and repairs for 80 VU rack attachments in the avionics compartment on various A320 family models including A318, A319, A320, and A321 (ceo and neo variants).
The A320 series received type certification in February 1988, making this AD over 37 years after certification.
It supersedes EASA AD 2022-0120R2 and incorporates updates from Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1BKJ (up to Revision 06, October 2024), addressing ongoing concerns with rack securement that could lead to unsafe conditions
Discovered only like 37 years after certification? 6 SB revisions and they couldn’t get it right forcing a New AD to supersede the first one.
SCOTT CORREA
Just curious, how serious is the AD you referred to?
How do you know the Boeing 737 circuit breaker issue is caused by component aging? Did Boeing say that? You have insider information?
And the A320 NEO has a blizzard of software and hardware failures as of late.
Kind of so what. It happens. As time goes by you find and fix things.
Granted Airbus created the software lithesome that caused some very serious and possibly fatal problems, Fantastic news it did not.
Pesky panels getting ready to blow out as well. That does sound familiar.
I wonder if people in the engine branch of the aerospace industry entertain the idea of Pratt Whitney combining with RR… The former is gaining momentum in the NB segment; and the latter has definitely posed a challenge to GE in the big widebody end of market.
Each engine manufacturer is owned by another bigger company, and the fact that they are from different countries are probably stumbling blocks. But GE did it with Safron, and by all means of analysis, that has been quite a success.
Just seems like a pretty good fit when you talk about next generation developments.
(1) P&W is already in bed with MTU Aero.
(2) GE doesn’t “own” Safran — they have a 50/50 JV for commercial engines.
(3) The RR jet engines division is already “owned by a bigger company”, namely Rolls Royce Holdings plc, which makes a wide variety of products.
(4) Why would RR possibly want to “combine” with a US company — particularly in the current geopolitical landscape?
this probably doesn’t help to increase jet engine output
“While shortages of yttrium and scandium have not weighed on production of jet engines or chips yet, a U.S. government official told Reuters some U.S. manufacturers now face “shortages” of certain rare earths from China.”
“China exported 17 tons of yttrium products to the U.S. in the eight months after controls were introduced last April versus 333 tons in the eight months before the measures.”
How long can the inventory on hand last?
Didn’t the US ban CFM engines export to China last year? So, at the end of the day, who is “in the driver’s seat”?
RR and PW were partners with MTU and 5 Japanese companies in the V2500 program.
RR did not like it so they sold out.
PW on the GTF is really the V2500 group sans RR. I don’t see them welcoming RR back in.
There is a natural conflict as each has their own variation of the GTF with PW much more advanced (flying, working, many hours behind it).
Any merge would be natural to give up the RR small GTF and go with RR big Jets.
V2500 was stand alone, they were never involved in RR bit jets. Kept totally separate.
There is the huge issue of competition with only two entities making jet engines for LCA.
“Italy’s Leonardo expects aerostructures joint-venture deal by end of June”
“The state-controlled group has been in talks for over 14 months with a financial and industrial partner whose identity has not been disclosed by the company due to confidentiality agreements, but which has been identified by media as Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund.
“The joint venture will initially be equally owned by Leonardo and the new investor, but over time the Italian defence and aerospace conglomerate is ready to give up part of its control, with the timing depending on results achieved.”
“He added that the long-term plan for the business would position the company “in the top three of the world”.
“The project will include new jobs, a much wider product portfolio, and envisages a new plant in the partner’s country, “transferring more and more (of aerostructures’) activities while developing brand new ones somewhere else”, Cingolani said.
“The long-delayed deal was supposed to be announced by the end of last year, but was postponed. It is now awaiting political clearance, with some incentives to soon be approved by partner’s home country, he said.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/italy-s-leonardo-expects-aerostructures-joint-venture-deal-by-end-of-june/ar-AA1X4q4r
interesting
I don’t hold much faith in this 2018 announcement but……”what if “with new Leonardo aerostructures project is for Comac 929?….if I recall right…8 years ago…Leonardo was doing “preliminary” design work for CR929 composite fuselage section above the center wing box
“In 2018, Leonardo signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Chinese partners including Kangde Investment Group to take part in the CR929 program. Under this agreement, Leonardo would help develop and supply composite fuselage components and leverage its advanced aerostructures expertise.
A joint venture called Kangde Marco Polo Aerostructures Jiangsu Co. Ltd. was planned, focused on producing parts for the aircraft”
I know this connecting the dots is a reach, but “what if” a Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund gets involved indirectly with C929 program? just saying
You need to remember the CR929 program was launched in 2017…but with sanction issues did this change the program development progress (e.g. engines to CJ2000)
Also, China “New Whole-Nation System” was formed in 2020…”The “new” version adapts this approach to modern high-tech competition—coordinating government, state-owned enterprises, private firms, universities, and research institutes to achieve breakthroughs in critical technologies.” which included aerospace and commercial aircraft
“The past doesn’t equal the future” so the C919 program western suppliers might not relate to the C929… China got a lesson learned from the Russian MS 21 wing program (Solvay Resin-out of autoclave progress) and impact of US sanctions and Russia needed to develop domestic source Note CR929 Russia was going to design and build the CR929 composite wing at the same factory MS 21…out of autoclave process?
maybe the Saudi Arabia group is…….
article 2021?
“SAMI announces launch of manufacturing facility to produce composite aerospace components
SAMI Composites LLC will drive innovation in Saudi Arabia’s aerospace and defense industry besides facilitating technology transfer and creating high-skilled jobs in line with Vision 2030.”
https://www.jeccomposites.com/news/spotted-by-jec/sami-announces-launch-of-manufacturing-facility-to-produce-composite-aerospace-components/?news_type=announcement,business&end_use_application=aerospace
> Boeing officer Todd Citron retiring effective March 31
> NTSB says ALERT Act falls short of fully implementing recommendations after AA 5342 mid-air collision
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HCHlHcqXIAAiPoh?format=jpg&name=large
https://x.com/davidshepardson/status/2027153231755800986
> Notable: all of the NTSB board members signed letter
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HCHlXI-WIAAKmmn?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HCHlXJlacAASgoe?format=jpg&name=large
Scary:
> A U.S. military anti-drone laser system accidentally shot down a friendly Customs and Border Protection MQ-9 drone, valued at over $30 million, near the Mexican border. The FAA has closed airspace over Fort Hancock, Texas. – Reuters
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Wasnt a MQ-9 large drone, thats high altitude/long endurance – which cant be lasered by a truck mounted system anyway .’
Likely a smaller quadcopter type at lower altitudes
https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/cbp-small-drones-program
Merz test drove a Mercedes S-class in China. Why?
> Mercedes-Benz will feature an advanced driving assistance system co-developed with Chinese tech firm Momenta in nine upcoming models this year
Merz also had a lunch with local business leaders.
After the visit by German chancellor, attention starts to turn to what follows
> Trump-Xi summit preparations falter as planning gaps unsettle Beijing
“You have a handful of people who have never done this before, putting together what may be the most consequential trip in the president’s administration on a wing and a prayer,” said a former US official close to planning details. “The Chinese are beyond worried. They’re apoplectic.”
https://t.co/OxB6WjDxeQ
PEDRO
The AIRBUS condition, looking at the record, is serious enough to have causwd Airbus to release a servive bulletin, revise the service bulletin all the way out to revision 6 causing an AD NOTE to be issued. Sunsequent to that, the first AD NOTE is being superseded by a second AD NOTE because the terminating action in the first AD NOTE failed to adequately address the cause of the problem. It is actually a low impact AD note and nobody is being alarmed by the issuance of the paperwork because thats how the system operates. Find a problem and fix it
The Boeing AD note is the same. A fleetwide condition was identified and tbere is a manual revision being made for continued safe flight pending a final action. This is also how the system works and is normal for aging aircraft issues. Its am ageing aircraft consition by definition as the length of service of the fleet removes it from an infant mortality timeframe.
Neither AD NOTE is really of any significance as both allow continued unrestricted aircraft operations. Your alarmist portrayal of business as usual is disconcerting so I pointed to Airbus handling fleetwide iasues on an aging aircraft issue without an alarmist headline to sho a you iys business as usual.
you asked and on questions…… Note that Boeing said nothing in the AD NOTE you quoted. Its an FAA Document and has no Boeing perspective in it. Who I know and what I have for sources is not within the scope of this discussion.
SCOTT CORREA
Did you read the report or the FAA AW??
According to the FAA: “This condition, if not addressed, could **lead to injury or incapacitation of flight crew and passengers**.”
Sounds serious to me. No need to underplay the seriousness even if it’s about the Boeing 737.
So there’s no evidence, and you have no info, that the Boeing 737 “faulty circuit breaker” has anything to do with an aging component issue, as you insinuated earlier. Thanks.
The AD relates to all 2119 in-service MAXs — including those recently delivered — and does not affect older-generation 737s.
So, not an “aging component” issue at all.
The root cause appears to be a grounding wire fault.
Pretty impressive that BA is in the news again with a serious wiring issue.
https://www.facebook.com/100090708210562/posts/on-two-recent-boeing-737-max-flights-cabin-and-flight-deck-temperatures-rose-sha/871567619210171/
ABALONE
The FAA AD note that PEDRO brought up is clearly an aging aircraft issue. You indicated it is a grounding fault. That virtually proves it. Grounding faults do not exist in aircraft at the time of delivery because all are screened by the WIT process. They evolve in service due to a number of things, vibration, corrosion are a couple of leading causes. The Wire Integrity Test ensures all wires are routed and bonded correctly. The fact that the bonding is in question after it passed WIT multiple times in the factory is indicative of an aging aircraft condition. That’s why this is being handled a fleetwide issue without a specific initiating event. The fact that the NG is unaffected is not relevant as it does not share electrical systems. The change in powerplant caused wholesale redesign of all the electrics.
The WIT system performs several categories of checks. For routing verification, it confirms that each wire within a harness is physically connected between the correct two end points, catching any crossed or transposed wires that could result in the wrong system receiving a signal or power. For termination verification, it checks that each pin is properly seated and making solid electrical contact in its connector — a poorly crimped or unseated pin will show elevated resistance or an open circuit. For grounding, the system measures the resistance of each ground return path against the airframe structure, confirming that bonding straps, ground studs, and chassis grounds all fall within the allowable resistance values specified in the Boeing wiring design standards.
On the Renton line, wire testing typically happens in stages rather than all at once. Early-stage tests are run after the major wire bundles are routed and clamped but before insulation blankets and closeout panels are installed — this gives mechanics easy access to re-route or re-terminate any discrepancies without tearing into finished areas. A second round of testing follows once systems are more fully integrated, verifying that nothing was damaged during subsequent assembly work. The trailer’s test results are logged against the aircraft’s traveler documentation, and any open discrepancies generate a defect record that must be dispositioned before the aircraft can advance to the next position or to power-on testing.
The grounding verification portion is particularly important on the 737 because the aluminum airframe serves as the common ground reference for nearly all aircraft systems. The trailer uses a four-wire Kelvin measurement technique to eliminate lead resistance from the readings, measuring the actual resistance between each ground point and a master reference stud. Values are compared against limits that are typically in the single-digit milliohm range, and any ground point that reads high triggers an inspection for corrosion, improper torque on the bonding hardware, or a missing bonding jumper.
That should make you smarter. Have a great day
PEDRO
Yes it read it.
You must live in a different world than the rest of us. The boilerplate comment “This condition, if not addressed, could lead to” blah blah blah is standard jargon used near universally in all AD notes. Your version of serious and mine are decidedly different. IF IT WERE SERIOUS, the aircraft would be parked, flight condition limited, require a recurrent inspection or one of many other actual actions to safeguard continued safe flight. Continued safe of the aircraft is the UNIVERSAL goal of the regulator. Continued safe flight in this case only needed a manual entry to make a minor change to the operating process of the existing aircraft in its unmodified state until such time as a change can be created and deployed to the fleet.
My noted AD note for the A320 family of aircraft addressing missing structural bolts and damaged mounting brackets holding the rack containing flight control Computers has been an ongoing problem for CEOs Neos going all back through 37 years worth of aircraft and continues to require attention today. The terminating actions have failed multiple times. The AD note repairs have repeatedly failed to resolve the problem and this AD is a supersedure of an older one. The AD note says that this unsafe condition may result in reduced control of the aircraft. Airbus needs to continue to remediate the problem as it has failed multiple times to get it right. Yet nobody is posting how SERIOUS this one is.
You say Boeing has a serious issue requiring manual revision and tiptoe around an AIRBUS FLIGHT CONTROL COMPUTER MOUNTING PROBLEM that may result in degraded flight controllability. Why didn’t you comment at all about this unsafe serious condition. I pointed it out to you. Did you read it? This problem required ACTUAL HARDWARE CHANGES to the aircraft structure. Why didn’t you treat them both the same way. Are you an advocate of safety or single brand product critics. I see that answer clearly. The superseded AD is so new the FAA hasn’t gotten its version out of comment period yet. I bet you dollars to donuts it will say This condition, if not addressed, could lead to” blah blah blah………..
FINALLY there’s no evidence, and you have no info, that the Boeing 737 “faulty circuit breaker” isn’t an aging component issue, as you insinuated earlier. Thanks.
SCOTT;
+1
SCOTT CORREA
Remind me what will happen as stated in the AD you referred to if “[t]his condition, if not addressed, could lead to”? Can you fill in the details instead of blah blah blah you forgot to include in your previous replies.
Remind me how often aircraft are grounded?
From what I recollect off the top of my head:
1) all MD-10, MD-11 and DC-10 since November 2025
2) all 737-9 in January 2024
3) all 737-8 and 737-9 in March 2019
4) all 787 in January 2013
5) for how many times have the DC-10 been grounded? Remember, McDonnell Douglas was merged with Boeing with Boeing as the successor.
Last but not least, since it’s you who insinuated about component aging in your initial reply, I trust the burden of proof rests with you, not me!
PEDRO.
Please get back on point.
1) We ARE speaking of an Aging aircraft issue as this is a wiring fault that was not present at the point of assembly. Professionals in the industry know this for an absolute fact. At Boeing, all wires and bonding points are individually inspected in the WIT process. The Wiring Integrity Test is run on each and every aircraft that Boeing assembles. Surely you are familiar with this test. Every wire bundle in the airplane is “rung” looking for continuity, bonding and crosstalk. Since the incident aircraft, both for that matter, passed WIT at point of assembly the degraded connection BY definition this is an ageing aircraft issue as it occurred over time.
2) Neither AD note in this thread resulted in a grounding, so dragging the discussion off topic introducing groundings is meaningless, but you already knew this.
What is meaningful in this thread is your refusal to engage in conversations about UNIVERSAL CONTINUED SAFE FLIGHT of commercial aircraft. Based on your actions as a manufacturer specific safety critic, I must conclude that you have no real interest in advocating for universal continued safe flight. Instead of being constructive, you use this forum as a sounding board to cloud reality with seriously misstated opinions masquerading as facts. If you actually cared about safety, all manufacturers would be scrutinized in the same manner. Your inability to do so speaks the volumes you fail to actually put to pen. No need continuing your misdirection, it will achieve nothing..
My reply is solely in response to what you raised:
1) You said: ‘The boilerplate comment “This condition, if not addressed, could lead to” blah blah blah is standard jargon used near universally in all AD notes.’
I seek further information from you about the AD you referred to repeatedly;
2) This is what followed in your post: “IF IT WERE SERIOUS, the aircraft would be parked, flight condition limited, require a recurrent inspection or one of many other actual actions to safeguard continued safe flight.”
Everyone is able to read the conversation who first raised such points, not me. I was only responding to what you posted (in reply to me). It doesn’t look you intend to engage in any serious discussion about the FAA AD. You repeatedly raised it’s component aging, without any backing. Anyway, even component aging doesn’t look good since an aircraft should be designed and engineered to fly for many decades.
Let me go back to my what my OP is about:
The issue is serious enough that: the FAA issued an order that takes effect immediately, bypassing the typical process of proposing rules and accepting comments prior to making them final.
> “The risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule.”
I believe that’s unusual, reflecting the seriousness of the issue despite persistent intention to underplay by some.
Boeing describes the issue as a “ground wire fault”. That’s all we know, no mention of any component aging.
> An investigation into the two events traced the problem to a tripped circuit breaker in the jets’ standby power control unit. That circuit provides power to air conditioning and cabin pressure functions, the FAA’s order says.
The tripped circuit “causes an unintended erroneous electrical ground signal” that commands actuators to close both the 737 Max’s “ram air deflectors doors”. Those doors cover inlets that funnel cooling air to the jets’ air conditioning heat exchangers.
When the doors close, the 737’s air system can “supply excessively hot air to the cabin and flight deck”, possibly leading to “uncontrollable, excessively high temperature”, says the FAA.
“This condition, if not addressed, could lead to injury or incapacitation of flight crew and passengers,” it adds.
There’s no indication that’s possibly caused by “component aging”. Without any substantiation, that’s just wild guess — which is unscientific and quite unhelpful in a discussion
> “We are advancing an engineering solution to eliminate the possibility of this electrical fault,” Boeing says. An “engineering solution will be incorporated into the 737 Max 8 and 737 Max 9 and [be] ready for the 737 Max 7 and 737 Max 10 prior to certification,” Boeing adds.
It looks like Boeing won’t incorporate any changes of components, software fixes only.
I’ll stop responding to you since you are circling for excuses; raising *your* hypothesis repeatedly, without any substantiation provided; shifting from “boiler plate comment” to “IF IT WERE SERIOUS, the aircraft would be parked”, you don’t like the result of what you raised, that’s why you lashed out.
Very disappointing for a veteran who worked in the industry.
Pedro.
Go read enough AD notes, and you will see the usage of this verbiage. You are free to do so.
I have not discussed the specific merits of the AD or the methodology of the continued safe flight actions per se. WHAT I HAVE DONE, and I say again now, is illustrate that you actually have no interest in UNIVERSAL CONTINUED SAFE FLIGHT. Your post merely criticises a Boeing product. The proof of this is your complete dismissal of any meaningful or substantiative discussion of the AIRBUS AD NOTE I brought into the discussion.
You tried to steer the conversation towards aircraft groundings.
You grab my comment that decaying bonding over time are not aging aircraft issues despite the industry recognizing them as such. Bonding jumpers and ground studs ARE components despite your protests. You want me to dig up endless boilerplate references you can easily find yourself. All of this because you refuse to acknowledge one thing.
You are a single product critic and have no interest in Universal Continued Safe Flight. Your actions and even more importantly, the lack of them, demonstrate this.
@Pedro
Further evidence that the wiring problem in the MAX is a design error rather than an “aging aircraft” issue:
Boeing: “We are advancing an engineering solution to eliminate the possibility of this electrical fault.”
“Boeing told Reuters that it expects the permanent fix to reach the 737 Max 7 and Max 10 before certification, stating that it does not expect the issue to affect the certification timeline. ”
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/aa-orders-737-max-procedures-cabin-overheating
So, an engineering re-design is needed — not just for aircraft delivered days ago, but also for models that haven’t yet been certified, yet alone flown.
Not an “aging aircraft” issue at all 🙈
+1
ABALONE
Even though the specifics of the AD note discussion with PEDRO was focused on HIS policy of being a single product critic, Ill address your wiring comments even though they were dragging that thread off my main course of discussion.
Wiring changes to address aging aircraft wiring faults require Manufacturer Design Changes. Nothing unusual with that. Thats the approved process. The discovery of a wiring fault as the aircraft ages is also not unusual. Sometimes inadequate estimation of the environment the electrical system lives in combines vibration, heat and corrosion exposure among a long list of causes slow degradation of the system to occur. When you find them, you make a change and incorporate that change as prudent. Nothing unusual in that. This is business as usual. Find a fault, fix a fault, prevent the fault.
The FAA has studied the aging of wiring and electrical bonding in aircraft as they age and a quick look finds 3 ADVISORY CIRCULARS on this subject. ALL were products of the FAA’s studies on how to maintain wiring in aging aircraft. Delivered aircraft are aging aircraft some are just newer than others. Note all 3 of these ACs were the product of aging aircraft studies.
FAA Advisory Circular AC 25.899-1 – Electrical Bonding and Protection Against Static Electricity (October 22, 2007) This AC arose directly from the ATSRAC process and references the “Task 6 Final Report” (October 29, 2002) of the Aging Transport Systems Rulemaking Advisory Committee. FAA It establishes certification guidance for bonding as part of the broader EWIS/aging aircraft regulatory initiative.
FAA Advisory Circular AC 25-26 – Development of Standard Wiring Practices Documents This AC is derived from maintenance, inspection, and alteration best practices identified through extensive ATSRAC research, and was produced at the conclusion of the FAA’s Aging Transport Non-Structural Systems Plan Phase I.
FAA Advisory Circular AC 120-94 – Training for Aircraft Electrical Wiring Interconnection Systems This AC is based on recommendations from ATSRAC and addresses EWIS certification issues, the development of a standard wiring practices manual, enhanced EWIS maintenance requirements, and EWIS training for aging aircraft.
Have a great day
SCOTT CORREA;
+1
I like to call it “Selective Deflecting”, or just stirring the pot with biased derogatory remarks, oblivious to others meaningful commenting.
Abalone
Found this:
> This AD was prompted by reports of in-flight events of excessive cabin and flight deck temperatures that *could not be controlled by the flightcrew using existing procedures*. The FAA is issuing this AD to address a tripped BAT BUS SECT 2 circuit breaker that could lead to an air conditioning system malfunction causing an uncontrollable, excessively high temperature in the cabin and flight deck.
> The FAA has already issued several ADs concerning Standby Power Control Unit (SPCU) *electrical flaws* on MAX airplanes. This latest AD includes a lengthy and potentially infeasible new emergency checklist (“non-normal checklist”) that pilots are required to follow based on a subjective assessment that the flight deck or passenger cabin temperature is excessively hot. *There is no automatic alert for the pilots*. The first step is to determine if the BAT BUS SECT 2 circuit breaker on the SPCU has tripped. The SPCU is located behind the first officer.
The FAA also determined that two environmental control system circuit breakers located downstream of the SPCU may also trip. The FAA believes this unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop in other 737 MAX airplanes and is serious enough that it requires an immediate adoption of the AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to its adoption.
Not to worry — it’s just an “aging aircraft” issue 😉
It seems that, for the MAX, aging occurs *very* quickly…even occurring for frames that haven’t been delivered yet!
Not only that: whereas normal aging would simply require an affected component to be swapped out, this particular type of aging requires a re-design.
===
Always beneficial for a flight crew in an emergency when one of them has to get out of his seat to check the status of a circuit breaker behind the FO 👍
And no automatic alert that cabin overheating is occurring?
Looks as if more Post-Its are going to be needed 🫣
ABALONE
From the AD note quoted by your buddy PEDRO. “The FAA believes this unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop in other 737 MAX airplanes and is serious enough that it requires an immediate adoption of the AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to its adoption”.
IS LIKELY TO EXIST OR DEVELOP………..
That means something is going bad as it gets older. Some may be bad today; some may fail in the future. This is the very heart of the Aging aircraft issues.
Have a great day.
It’d be more useful if one would dive into the SPCU “electrical flaw” mentioned above, rather than empty speculation of component aging, especially without any basis.
> The FAA traced the problem to a circuit breaker called CB3062 inside the SPCU. It could send an *unintended* electrical signal that forces two ram air deflector doors to close, cutting off cooling airflow to the a/c system’s heat exchangers.
Curious why the boeing 737 MAX is more susceptible to this than earlier 737 NG and Airbus A320/321 ceo/neo family.
##########
BTW I never mentioned anything about “bonding” or decay! 😭
I didn’t “steer” the discussion to aircraft grounding. The poster who started that is the one who mentioned: “IF IT WERE SERIOUS, the aircraft would be parked…”
PDRRO
THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY POINT.
The FAA said, as you quoted “The FAA believes this unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop in other 737 MAX airplanes and is serious enough that it requires an immediate adoption of the AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to its adoption”.
IS LIKELY TO EXIST OR DEVELOP………..
That means something is going bad as it gets older. Some may be bad today, some may fail in the future. This is the very heart of the Aging aircraft issues.
So with that trip down the rabbit hole settled, you still refuse to comment on CONTINUED SAFE FLIGHT and Airbus Airworthiness Directives when pointed out to you. Your failure to support discussions about CONTINUED SAFE FLIGHT show you to be a SINGLE PRODUCT CRITIC.
And since you have taken multiple shots at the accuracy of my postings and you still can’t make headway against them. I guess were finally done here.
As happened during chip shortage in 2020-2023 it’s really hard to ascertain your exposure multi-layers below until it hits you in the face.
> Pentagon Asks Defense Contractors About Reliance on Anthropic’s AI Services, Source Says / Pentagon asks Boeing, Lockheed Martin about their exposure to Anthropic, Axios reports
White House Official Vows ‘New Interest’ in Airline Industry After Flight Woes
> Deputy White House Chief of Staff James Blair vowed on Thursday to take a “new interest” in the U.S. aviation industry after he and his wife experienced issues with separate American Airlines flights.
“Today, American Airlines delays me 2.5 hours because someone failed to notice empty hydraulic fluid before it was time to go down the runway. Yesterday, they apparently forgot to BOOK A PILOT for my wife’s flight,” Blair said on X. “I’m going to take a new interest in the airline industry.”
> Since President Donald Trump began his second term last year, his administration has taken a series of steps to reverse aviation consumer proposals by the administration of former President Joe Biden.
In December, the Transportation Department moved to reverse some penalties imposed on airlines during the Biden administration, including waiving $16.7 million in fines imposed on American Airlines in 2024 as part of a settlement over the carrier’s treatment of disabled passengers.
The department also waived the remaining $11 million of a fine imposed on Southwest as part of a $140 million settlement over operational problems that stranded more than 2 million passengers during the busy holiday travel period in December 2022.
In November, the department withdrew a proposal issued under Biden that sought to require airlines to pay passengers cash compensation when carriers are responsible for U.S. flight disruptions.
https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2026-02-26/white-house-official-vows-new-interest-in-airline-industry-after-flight-woes
😄
” Deputy White House Chief of Staff James Blair vowed on Thursday to take a “new interest” in the U.S. aviation industry after he and his wife experienced issues with separate American Airlines flights.”
James ask Kristi Noem for a lift on one of her new million luxury jet fleet! You are above flying commercial anyway thou Joe Biden former President flew on commercial flight this past week
> Delta Orders 34 More Airbus A321neo Jets in Fleet Renewal Push
Have I posted this before??
> Delta Orders 34 More Airbus A321neo Jets in Fleet Renewal Push
Decisions have to be made before opportunity vanishes
#########
I think this is relevant under current circumstances
> Due to multiple regional airspace closures, Emirates has temporarily suspended operations to and from Dubai.
https://x.com/EmiratesSupport/status/2027702568928088268
This is both serious and hilarious!
> Hegseth ordering all companies with any business at the Pentagon to do zero *commercial* business with Anthropic.
Will contractors, which include most of the big tech companies, all comply? And what happens if they don’t? If Microsoft ever buys a $20 Claude subscription, would Hegseth turn off all of the Pentagon’s PCs?
>> Looks like everyone is going to have to learn Linux!
> Qatar Airways has cancelled 219 flights, Emirates 197 and Etihad 90 on Saturday due to airspace closures following the US and Israeli attack on Iran.
https://bsky.app/profile/byerussell.com/post/3mfwpmidha22k
https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:t2rloykje2a4vwe6yorlmk7q/bafkreieq7s6lhe5mvjp3ivmxxfzsw5bet2sbriugtjjiydo5i5tr5uxrqi@jpeg
Great start to the year Airbus.
I see delivery doldrums continuing into February.
Looks like they finished the month with a woeful 36 aircraft handed over.
Not so great to meet those lofty unattainable deliveries of 870 targeted for the year. Let’s see how many times that number gets revised.
Can they average 82 a month from here on to meet their year-end goal !!
DOUBTFUL..
STOP making unrealistic delivery promises you obviously cannot
keep.
Even your competitor met their 737 Delivery targets ..(in a shortened month no less) with 42 max deliveries!!
Qatar, Emirates, Etihad, FlyDubai and Air Arabia have now suspended all operations.
https://gulfnews.com/business/aviation/uaes-etihad-emirates-flydubai-air-arabia-flight-cancellations-latest-updates-all-you-need-to-know-1.500459401
Emirates alone carries 100,000 passengers per day, so this is going to result pretty quickly in more than a million stranded travelers.
“Qantas’ second Project Sunrise jet enters final assembly”
“Qantas’ second Project Sunrise A350-1000ULR has entered the final assembly line in Toulouse as the first continues its testing.
“In a post on LinkedIn, the Flying Kangaroo said fuselage sections and wings have now been joined on the aircraft, with the tail also installed this past week. It comes after the first of the new aircraft left the initial assembly line in November.
““The first Project Sunrise aircraft is in the advanced stages of ground testing, preparing to take to the skies for its flight test programme in the coming months,” the airline said.”
“The first Qantas A350-1000ULR is slated for delivery in late 2026, ahead of the launch of non-stop flights from the east coast to London and New York in 2027.”
https://australianaviation.com.au/2026/02/qantas-second-project-sunrise-jet-enters-final-assembly/#:~:text=Qantas%27%20second%20Project%20Sunrise%20A350,also%20installed%20this%20past%20week.
Is Airbus the next Boeing?
This is an interesting Vid from Mentour Pilot exploring recent Airbus Quality Failures and how the culture at Airbus may be changing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xftd6yXOm9g