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 March 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: Airbus’ A330neo gets better and better.
I have two comments to make:
1. The latest iteration of the Trent 7000 powered A330-900 takes the MTOW to 253 tons, yet has the same engine thrust as the Trent 700 powered A330-200 that entered service with a 230 tons MTOW. Even if the A330neo has a few tweaks here and there (modified wing, aggressive use of bleed off or packs on APU for takeoff, soon to be delivered ETOC and ALGDO) did the APCM consider takeoff performance limitations like 2nd segment and obstacle clearance? From colleagues flying the A330neo I gather that even the 251 ton MTOW is only achievable under benign conditions, let alone a 42ºC and a 992 hPa day (typical summer conditions for Dubai and Abu Dhabi).
2. You may have addressed that in one of the four parts of the article, but hidden behind a paywall I cannot tell.
Would you consider making individual articles available for a fee for those inside (and sometimes outside) the aviation industry that cannot justify an $1632 individual annual subscription?
Kind regards,
Kurt Koerfgen
We sell the individual articles for $100 each. Email info (at) leeham.net for instructions.
Once the OA cost reduction plan kicks in, I will have a lot of spare cash and can afford that easily.
Like the proverbial carrots in front of the donkey, it never closes the distance sadly!
I’m curious:
> Dubai handles most long-haul flights in the evening/overnight
Can’t vouch for it. Interested if someone knows better.
Anything leaving Europe in the late morning or afternoon arrives in Dubai in the evening or late evening.
And the Asia flights departing in the late evening arrive in Dubai in the late night.
I have never arrived into Dubai or Qatar — from any direction — during the morning or afternoon.
I also have never arrived in the ME during the Morning or afternoon.
Keep in mind I am not an international jet setter so I have never arrived evening or night either!
Pedro
DXB international arrivals, M-Thurs, Average of last 30 days.
12am……22
1…………..28
2…………..32
3…………..26
4…………..18
5…………..12
6…………..14
7…………..20
8…………..28
9…………..34
10………….30
11………….22
12pm…….18
1…………..16
2…………..20
3…………..26
4…………..32
5…………..36
6…………..34
7…………..30
8…………..28
9…………..32
10………….36
11………….30
The hub system that the local incumbents operate depends to a large extent on night arrivals from the east to depart to Europe and the Americas in the morning, as well as night arrivals from Europe to depart to the Indian Subcontinent/Far East/Australia/New Zealand in the morning (‘first wave’). In particular departures to Australia/New Zealand are prevented from departing earlier due to strict nighttime curfews in Australia (e.g Sydney). Secondary waves from the hub operate at other times. Gulf carriers depend heavily on transit traffic through their respective hubs as their local bases alone do not support their extensive networks.
With respect to my original question regarding aircraft performance, even night temperature lows hover around 30ºC/86ºF.
NYTimes @X:
> Tom Homan, President Trump’s chief border official, confirmed that ICE agents will be deployed to U.S. airports on Monday, casting the operation as an effort to ease TSA lines during a partial government shutdown.
I didn’t get it how it should work. TSA as well as ICE are unfunded right now. TSA have to work but do ICE agents also have to work unpaid? How long will it take to get the security clearance to work inside an airport?
WaPo @bsky:
> ICE agents have arrived at airports to assist with staff shortages, a day after President Trump threatened he would do so unless congressional Democrats agreed to a GOP-backed funding deal to end a partial government shutdown.
It turns out that Sen Majority Leader Thune went to Trump that Republicans agreed to fully fund DHS (TSA included) excluding ICE, which would be taken up separately–and Trump refused.
Trump is also holding out for passage of the election reform bill (“Save America Act”) before agreeing to DHS shutdown deal. So if anyone is causing this TSA funding issue, it ain’t the Democrats.
I must admit that I thought the airlines would have more success lobbying the current administration than they have had. I wonder wny they have so little leverage.
Looks like Delta has taken some action with respect to Congress’s inaction on TSA funding.
“Lawmakers flying with Delta will no longer receive VIP perks, such as expedited screening, airport escorts and priority customer service, as the airline’s resources are stretched to their limit.”
https://simpleflying.com/delta-ceo-strips-congress-vip-perks/
> “2 pilots killed after Air Canada plane collides with vehicle at New York’s LaGuardia Airport”
“Air traffic audio indicates the fire truck was cleared to cross the runway before the collision. ‘I messed up,’ a controller can be heard saying afterward.”
> “We went down for a regular landing, we came in pretty hard. We immediately hit something and it was just chaos in there. About five seconds later, we had come to a stop … everybody was screaming pretty quickly. We didn’t have any directions because the pilot’s cabin had been kind of destroyed”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/livestory/air-canada-crash-la-guardia-airport-9.7138217
CBC video clip
> Who controls the runway? A retired air traffic controller explains
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.7138289
A video of what happened
https://x.com/BNONews/status/2036119859260531059
Is this the second time a commercial aviation accident with fatality in the US this year?
I think Pedro is conflating the Jan 2025 DCA midair and/or the Nov 2025 UPS accidents.
Sorry.
Interesting when Scott calls them on an item, its sorry.
Anyone else and its denial.
PNWgeeek needs to change his name to Scott!
@TW: PNWGeek’s first name is Scott.
Hamilton
Trans really wants to reopen that can of worms: once and for all, you have the opportunity to prove your point.
> A flight attendant on the Air Canada Jazz flight that collided with a fire truck at New York’s LaGuardia airport on Sunday survived in what her daughter called a “complete miracle”, when she was ejected more than 100 metres from the plane while still strapped to her seat.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/23/canadian-flight-attendant-survives-new-york-plane-crash-laguardia
#########
LaGuardia pilots raised safety alarms months before deadly runway crash
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/24/laguardia-airplane-pilots-safety-concerns-crash
It’s like we are becoming a third world nation right before our eyes. The linked guardian article states what the conditions are truly like and absolutely nothing is done about it.
> Homendy adds that the firetruck did not have a transponder, a key surveillance tool that could help surface awareness technology generate alerts
>> NTSB CHAIR JenniferHomendy: INITIAL ANALYSIS SAYS CRITICAL SURFACE AWARENESS TECH IN ATC TOWER DID NOT GENERATE AN ALERT BEFORE FATAL CRASH B/W AIR CANADA JET AND FIRETRUCK
https://x.com/willguisbond/status/2036511239346483360
> NTSB says there were other vehicles at LGA behind the firetruck that did NOT begin crossing the runway when the accident vehicle did
https://x.com/willguisbond/status/2036508789885612263
Video
> NTSB Senior Aviation Accident Investigator Doug Brazy delivers preliminary findings on leadup to deadly LaGuardia Airport plane crash.
https://x.com/Breaking911/status/2036516451461325229
from Simple Flying
“An Emirates Airbus A380 was among two commercial aircraft damaged during Iran’s initial drone attacks on Dubai International Airport (DXB) in the early stages of the ongoing 2026 Iran Crisis. The superjumbo suffered an unspecified level of damage while parked at DXB, while a Saudia Airbus A321 was also reportedly damaged around the same period”
The Australian: End of line: Australia’s ability to pay high oil prices may not secure supply
> Australia should expect further cancelations and diversions of refined oil shipments from key Asian suppliers as the fuel shortage deepens…
> Australia sources more than 80 per cent of its petrol, diesel and jet fuel from Asia, mostly from South Korean, Singaporean, Malaysian and…
UA plans a media event for tomorrow? Some new seats, or a new interior?
The wisdom of betting the farm on premium seats.
#########
> Can we talk about just how unusual it is to have the DOT Secretary and FAA Administrator holding the first presser on a crash? NTSB normally leads all communications.
https://bsky.app/profile/byerussell.com/post/3mhqkqdq2lo2y
1) United unveils the CRJ450: a modified CRJ200 with just 41 seats, including 7 in first class, to serve “smaller cities” from Chicago and Denver.
The move is part of the larger premiumization of the airline but high fuel costs raise questions of the economics of a 41-seat RJ.
https://bsky.app/profile/byerussell.com/post/3mhsp2v3pzo2a
PEDRO ET ALL.
The reason the RJ450 is happening is due to UALs scope clause capping their 76 seat aircraft count. In order to sustain viability of the 50 seat aircraft, they have been forced to go to premium seating to keep the airplane competitive in the markets they serve. They are installing starlink in addition to the seat changes.
This actially works on the RJ550s which are based on the RJ700. In the RJ space, the RJ550 is at the top of the list customer satisfaction wise and the premiumization has worked well with these aircraft generating better per flight revenue.
The RJ450 or RJ550 are both products of tight scope clause at UAL and are probably best viewed as the best poor choice available for the airplane
Does/doesn’t the CRJ550 count as 50 seat aircraft?
Also for how much longer can these CRJ450 (CRJ200) fly? They aren’t getting any younger.
Why don’t airlines convert Embraer for similar applications??
Pedro
1. The CRJ-550 counts as a 50-seat aircraft under UAL’s scope clause, not a 76-seat aircraft — which is exactly why it was created. It’s a CRJ-700 (a plane physically capable of carrying 70–76 seats) that has been reconfigured to carry only 50 seats (10 First, 20 Economy Plus, 20 Economy). Because the plane has 50 seats or fewer, it falls outside the 76-seat cap — and per United’s contract, up to 90% of United’s narrowbody fleet can be flown by 50-seat regional jets. United’s scope clause limits it to 255 large regional aircraft (aircraft with up to 76 seats), and United was already up against that 255 figure. UAL being unable to add more 76-seaters, they needed a creative workaround so United is taking a CRJ-700 that could have 70 seats and converting it into the CRJ-550 capped at 50 seats — it’s the same airplane, just reclassified. It’ll be more expensive RPK wise to fly a CRJ-700 with only 50 seats onboard, but United doesn’t have another good option to get three-cabin airplanes into smaller markets to generate premium revenue. The bet is that premiumization will increase total revenue for flight. So far it appears to be working as the customer satisfaction surveys are best in class.
2. Ask an MRO expert.
3. Ask Embraer
👇👇👇
> **The CRJ-200 airframe it uses is among the costlier and least fuel-efficient for airlines to operate.**
2) United Coastliner & A321XLR
> Both Coastliner and the A321XLR will feature 20 Polaris mini-suites and 12 Premium Plus seats on board, a very premium configuration, but also in line with others in the market lately.
> The new A321s will have a relatively spacious economy class cabin and a snack bar in the back. Coastliner cabin is 20J/12W/36E+/93Y while the A321XLR is 20J/12W/34E+/84Y.
https://bsky.app/profile/wandrme.paxex.aero/post/3mhsjrce7sc2l
Media blackout is over
Bloomberg
> CEO Scott Kirby has made bold bets about sustained consumer demand, even as some analysts question the longevity of the premium trend if geopolitical or economic risks deal major shocks to the industry.
https://theedgemalaysia.com/node/797218
> United said the first Coastliners will begin flying this summer and it will have 40 of them by the start of 2028.
> [Delta] said last month that starting in May, the first of seven of its new Airbus A321neos will have 44 seats in first class, more than double the 20 it usually has.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/24/united-airlines-premium-seats.html
Hey who said the A321XLR has to make do with fewer seats?
Wizz Air A321XLR 239 seats
#########
> The chairwoman of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, the agency investigating the crash, says the full team is still not yet on scene.
In a news conference here at LaGuardia airport, Jennifer Homendy said some of their investigators were delayed getting to New York because of ongoing security delays at airports around the country.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/livestory/air-canada-crash-la-guardia-airport-9.7138217?ts=1774305816002
Wizz Air;
Are we talking the same airline who slashed their A321 XLR order from 47 to just 11 units?
I’m sure that’s working out just swell for them .☺️
Wizz Air executives also stated the XLR is heavier and much more expensive to operate on short to medium haul routes than the standard 321 neo on their existing route network.
Unless their planned network expansion doesn’t come to fuition, look for XLR to be nothing but an afterthought for the carrier’s needs.
ICYMI:
Qantas flies the A321XLR in domestic service.
United can’t get the A321XLR fast enough, what does that tell you?
BTW just curious where is the 737-10 United ordered almost a decade ago?? Kirby must be glad that United has ordered the A321XLR and A321neo back in 2019 and 2021 respectively.
As Airbus continues to deliver aircraft ordered by its customers, it can start to deliver aircraft from more recent contracts that better reflect today’s higher cost environment while the prior contracts are fulfilled — unlike the other major airframer!
United can’t get the XLR fast enough!!
Should be plenty of openings with JetBlue deferring to 2030 at the earliest for their eagerly anticipated XLR debut.
Or the 10 airframes American quietly removed from their backlog earlier this year.
Or just cancel them outright like Aegean did this month.
Air India converts 15 order to A321XLR
“Single product criticism!”
Nice!
China Eastern Airlines bets on A321XLR in new deal with Airbus
What would naysayers say now?? 😭
See my post below for further info
That was because Wizz’s plan to operate a longhaul hub in Abu Dhabi was impeded by UAE authorities. No hub means no longhaul network, which attendantly removes the need for XLRs.
Wizz’s subsequent efforts to open a hub in Tel Aviv haven’t been fruitful, either.
According to the former NYT reporter in one of his books, Chris Hedges states the fabric of society is being altered. I paraphrase: “As the middle class or lower class shrinks or is stress, there is more resources in the upper classes.”
Hence, if the major airlines increase cabin seats for first class passengers, and reduce seats for lower paying passengers, then they know exactly what they are doing. They see the trend and are responding to it.
Agreed.
Absolutely on point
United A321XLR N64322
MSN12820 👇
https://x.com/Tobias_Gudat/status/2036115001149141128
A versatile tool for every application, where is the competitor??
FG:
> The new A321neo layouts mean United will have an aircraft for just about every mission in its schedule. The standard layout with 200 seats flies high-demand routes within North America, the Coastliners premium routes of 4-6h, and the XLRs thinner long-haul routes to Europe and South America of 6-8h.
It’s Kirby again:
> United CEO skeptical of eVTOL airport shuttle operating model
I’m curious has UAL written off its investment(s) in eVTOL(s) and canceled its order of Archer and Eve?
Its because for airport shuttle its payload of pilot and 4 passengers doesnt include luggage.
Maybe another decade down the road they have better numbers
No. According to those who were present at the media event:
> [United] CEO Scott Kirby opposes eVTOL (electric vertical takeoff and landing) aircraft at major airports citing safety concerns
https://x.com/ByERussell/status/2036557263905960283
Battery tech in many places is like a decade behind! Haha
That was my reasons , the payload problem is there none the less
FG:
> Kirby’s comments are a marked shift in opinion on eVTOLs. United was an early airline investor in the technology signing deals with Archer Aviation in 2021 and Embraer spin-out Eve a year later. The tentative commitments for hundreds of the four-seat aircraft were pitched as a way to link the airline’s hubs to nearby destinations.
Another C-130 crash:
“Colombian military plane with 125 on board crashes after takeoff, sources say 71 rescued”
“Defense Minister Pedro Sanchez said earlier on X the accident happened as the Lockheed Martin-built (LMT.N), opens new tab Hercules C-130 was taking off from Puerto Leguizamo on the border with Peru, as it transported troops.”
“Hercules C-130 planes were first launched in the 1950s and Colombia acquired its first models in the late 1960s. It has more recently modernized some older C-130s with newer models sent from the U.S. under a law that allows for the transfer of used or surplus military equipment.
“At the end of February, another Hercules C-130 belonging to the Bolivian Air Force crashed in the populous city of El Alto, barely missing a residential block.”
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/colombian-military-plane-involved-accident-had-110-soldiers-onboard-media-2026-03-23/
Last I checked, the C-130 is a military transport built by LM which is a military defense company. Not that I am against discussing them, very interesting area of aviation much closer related to Civie Aviation than fighter jets!
A-400 is actually a Civilian Project out of Airbus not their defense side (not that it helped the ensuing over cost debacle).
Its also interesting that modern military transports go with Jet Engines vs those old school Turbo Props the A-400 and C-130 have stuck to.
Note Japan has a fine Military Transport (C-2?) that is Jet engine powe4rd.
Of course the fine C-17 is not just jet powered, its got 4! (Happy P&W!)
I think Russia and China tend to Jet powered as well but I don’t follow them that much.
The first run for F117 or PW2000 on C-17 was in 1981 while first run for TP400 on A400M was in 2005. I also can’t see a big difference between a TP400 and a propfan. CF6 engines on the Kawasaki C-2 had their first run in 1971. The A400M is certified according to civil aviation standards (EASA). What does make an aircraft modern?
The plane involved in the crash was a C-130H Hercules, an older variant of the C-130 series. This particular airframe first entered service in March 1965, according to manufacturer Lockheed Martin. It had been donated to the Colombian Air Force by the US Air Force in September 2020. Its Colombian military designation was FAC 1016. Lots of these are being passed on to second operators
This looks like a normal attrition event.
“American Aviation Is Near Collapse”
“Fatal crashes, overstressed controllers, and endless security lines reveal a system teetering on the brink of failure.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/2026/03/aviation-failures-tsa-dhs-shutdown/686505/
“United Airlines will reduce its summer flight schedule to offset an estimated $11 billion in additional fuel costs.”
Finnair will renew its European fleet with an order for 18 E195-E2 narrow-body aircraft from Brazilian manufacturer Embraer it said on Monday, as it moved away from its current supplier Airbus
The order – the Finnish flag carrier’s largest investment in over two decades – deals a further blow to France’s Airbus, after Embraer’s E2 outsold the Airbus A220 three to one last year. Finnair said it also plans to acquire up to 12 Airbus A320 or A321 from the used aircraft market.
> NTSB Chair Homendy says that the DHS shutdown, which has slowed many TSA security lines at U.S. airports, has complicated the arrival of her board’s investigators to LGA to complete their work.
> BBC: Slovenia becomes first EU country to introduce fuel rationing
> JUST IN: Explosion reported at Valero refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. Nearby residents told to shelter in place
That news about the Valero Port Arthur explosion is interesting: although we have no information yet as to the cause, experts have been warning that it’s only a matter of time before Iran brings the war to the US. It’s actually relatively easy to do something like this, e.g. using a simple quadcopter drone and a small package of high explosives, launched over a perimeter fence and on target within seconds. A skillful software hack can also be used.
One way or another: the Port Arthur refinery has a capacity of 380,000 bpd, whereas the US imports about 7 million bpd of crude and petroleum products. So Port Arthur has a significant effect. The price of WTI cude has gone up relatively sharply in response.
Its not an issue. They just have to as DHS for one of the Noemes luxury jets, She is not allowed to fly Cheat Air anymore.
> A deadly crash could accelerate the MD-11’s retirement, leaving an unexpected hole in the cargo market that Boeing may struggle to fill.
> “It was the McDonnell Douglas way of cheaply doing another airplane, … and it never lived up to its promises,” Hamilton said.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/could-the-ups-crash-mean-the-end-of-the-boeing-maintained-md-11/#comments
PEDRO WROTE
March 24, 2026. A deadly crash could accelerate the MD-11’s retirement, leaving an unexpected hole in the cargo market that Boeing may struggle to fill.
MORE SINGLE PRODUCT CRITICISM EASILY CORRECTED
Pedro, by inferring that Boeing has an unexpected hole to fill in the market, deflects away from Airbuses’ complete inability to successfully deliver a high tonnage freighter of any kind. History Clearly shows that Airbus has had its ass kicked in the High Tonnage Freighter market. Let’s look at the numbers.
Airbus Freighters
Aircraft………..Pallets…Payload
A321F…………….14……~27 tonnes
A330-200F…….22…….70 tonnes
A330-300P2F…26…….~62 tonnes
Boeing Freighters
Aircraft……….Pallet……Payload
737-800BCF…11/12…..~23.9 tonnes
DC-10/30F……23………~50.8 tonnes
767-300F………24………~52/58 tonnes
MD-11F…………26……….~90.8 tonnes
777F……………..27……….~103.9 tonnes
747-400F………30……….~124 tonnes
747-8F…………..34……….~140 tonnes
It sure looks like Airbus ALSO has an opportunity to plug the hole in the freighter market made by the MD11 grounding but lacks anything close to being usable. Perhaps Pedro could speak why he fails to acknowledge the market opportunity this presents Airbus.to the numbers completely
Excuse me. It’s apparent I’m quoting an article i linked.
Quite obvious you’ve never bothered to look deeper beyond your single product defense.
Anyone who has been following the current market and orders placed is aware that after decades of dominating the freighter market — the situation is so desperate that BA has resorted to asking FAA for an exemption to make the 777 freighter below 2027 as picked up by LNA and the A350F has a bigger backlog than the 777-8F. Shocking. While some here can’t get away from focusing on the past, others like me have their eyes trained on the present and future. The emperor has no clothes.
** The whole list you made contains only products of the past or about to sunset by 2027 and misses the one that proves the emperor has no clothes. Telling! 😅
Clarification:
contains only products of the past (except aftermarket 737BCF & A321F)*
What I see is a spiral of facts off into a space of oddity.
Why would Boeing not want to keep making a perfectly great Freighter? In fact it wold be malfeasance not to.
The term we now use is Trumpian Logic, which is a twist on the Lack of Any logic.
A lot like Walking the Laplacian Trail has to come to have its own meaning.
A future LNA article talks about Boeing’s freighters.
Want =/= able!
Haha the cupboard is bare
Pedro,
It’s worth noting that the MD-11’s retirement also highlights Airbus’s consistent absence from the high tonnage freighter market — a segment where they’ve never successfully delivered a competitive product. Any market gap discussion probably needs to account for that history.
Also Pointing out that someone has a known advocacy position is legitimate in a technical/enthusiast forum where objectivity matters because an Airbus advocate sharing a story about a market gap, without mentioning Airbus’s absence from that segment, could reasonably suggest selective framing
Do I have to repeat what I posted above?
> While some here can’t get away from focusing on the past, others like me have their eyes trained on the present and future.
What about the present and the future? What does BA offer that can be delivered in 2028???
@ Pedro
Exactly!
Prior to 1987, Airbus didn’t have a narrowbody offering.
39 years later, it’s the narrowbody market leader.
The past doesn’t determine the future.
Nice past. What about the future? The only cause for huge 767-300F sales were favourable offers to keep the 767 somehow busy until the 767-2C would take over. Due to ICAO emission rules 767 can’t be delivered after 2027. About 18 civil freighters are left for delivery and no new orders. 7478F – Will we see any new Boeing freighter delivered in 2028?
That only applies to UPS which was massively downsizing anyway – as it was “”gliding down”” on its previous reliance of Amazon package freight.
2024 12,000 job cuts, 2026 a further 30,000 job cuts.
New 767F are the new UPS mid size cargo plane
Fedex is keeping on flying its MD11s, as its not doing the major downsizing, when changes come through
from your link
Boeing must be convinced to continue supporting the plane. The last thing it wants is another MD11 accident. It’s Boeing’s name on the side of the airplane now, and Boeing doesn’t need another accident that raises questions about its safety.
I don’t see Boeing not supporting it as long as FedEx wants it.
While the final determination is a year off or better, the reality is they know what happened and why.
Equally they have other background on that situation.
There is not an inherent fault with the design or mfg. If there had been this would have occurred a long time ago.
It may be an RR like situation with the Trent 1000 when they built a predictive program for when to ground an engine and were wrong.
It may be that the right process and procedure was not followed per the Aloha blow out where there was a process and procedure in place that was pencil whipped.
There may well have been a Space Shuttle O ring/Foam break off factor ythat, its not happened there fore it won’t.
It may well be a combination of those things.
Boeing is not looking at stopping 787 production because a pilot turned the fuel swishes off.
Boeing is fully aware that crashes can and will happen. As long as its not an aircraft/bui9ld deficiency, its accepted. No that is not a pretty fact but all aircraft have had crashes.
Even MCAS was not fatal until combined with pushing pilots over the task edge.
There is not that much support FedEx needs, they do a lot if not all their own stuff (they were the ones that Hush kitted 727s and did the MD-10 conversions).
In theory Boeing could offer a better deal on 777F, but that would not be done by 2027 and FedEx still needs the lift in the meantime.
Mr Hamilton is on point.
This is a very accurate assessment of the MD-11 program.
They did 2 big things that worked great in the tunnel, but not so much in real life. Everybody knows that Tail Volume Coefficient of the MD11 is low because they made the Horizontal Tail smaller than the DC-10 and it has a disconcerting handling quality when landing with a forward cg. This results in a condition where an aircraft in a stabilized approach has insufficient pitch margin to flare. If you understand the issue its perfectly flyable, if you get caught napping, you make a 3 wire pass. If you get behind the airplane and establish a PIO with insufficient pitch margin to flare you can actually hurt the airplane.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih9CwilLIaM
The second issue not normally seen in print is the Wedge Fix. Early MD11 flights showed a huge performance shortfall. The root cause was aerodynamic. The MD-11’s wing, derived from the DC-10, suffered from boundary layer separation near the trailing edge — a problem sometimes described as the “failed” blunt trailing edge wedge, where the upper surface flow was detaching prematurely and creating a large wake drag penalty. The wedge worked in the tunnel and was cleaning up flow, but was a complete failure in real life, The WEDGE FIX was a thin composite strip — the t angle was added to the trailing edge of the wing along almost the entire blunt trailing edge span, extending beyond the original blunt edge and creating a slightly faired in profile rather than the paper-thin trailing edge typical of most airliners. They got almost all of the big flow drag penalty back and it was installed on all airplanes. I can’t find a decent photo but I worked flight line planning at the time and we installed many shipsets. they were held on with screws engaging rivnuts and glued in with Loctite. They were also bonded with IIRC EA934 adhesive and were not safety wired. They were vulnerable to fingerprint loads. I really liked the MD11, it’s a lot more capable than the DC-10 and IIRC, every one ever built went to the fly cargo.
“It was the McDonnell Douglas way of cheaply doing another airplane, … and it never lived up to its promises,” Hamilton said.
Quite right, and that cheaply doing extended not only into payload/range guarantees, but into cabin interiors as well.
When trying to demonstrate the MD-11 to one of the Gulf carriers (essentially only one at that time, you guess which one…), which traditionally are big on fancy cabin interiors, MD told them when they inquired about cabin interiors to just imagine a bigger DC-10.
The competition had more imagination and got the contract…
With respect to MD-11 replacements, if a carrier can live with a reduced 60 ton payload (and maybe shuffle their 777F fleet around a bit), A330-200 in particular may have fallen out of favour with passenger airlines but are available and make reliable A330-200P2F workhorses.
FedEx has focused on the 777F which is a very close to direct MD-11 replacement. That is a bit odd sounding but FedEx has a network that was shorter range and it works. So the 777F drops a bit of fuel, probably is a bit light but links into Asia, Europe and the US returns nicely.
Anchorage did a lot of gas and go with the MD-11F. Same with 777F. Europe to the US is shorter, I only h know of one Anchorage fly by and that was a premium cost freight flight (saves 4 hours or some such).
I don’t see FedEx buying another old ariframe just to have it retire (and how worn out are those A330?)
The -200s look to be non starters with the -300 preferred.
Still its a lot short of the bulk size FedEx requires.
For freighters from North America (or even Central and northern parts of South America) to Asia the Anchorage tech stop is here to stay. Even if the plane has nonstop range, it saves tankering fuel and in many cases avoids needing a relief pilot. The only extra cost is landing fees and hotel rooms and 2-3 hours transit time. I don’t know about fuel prices at ANC though but I presume it’s competitive.
Anyhow ANC leverages geography well in the case. Does anyone know whether FAI haa much tech stop business?
US Treasurys no longer considered a safe haven:
“2-year Treasury yields surge after poor U.S. bond auction”
“Analysts noted that conflicting headlines have reinforced uncertainty, keeping both energy and rates markets sensitive to developments. Easing tensions and lower oil prices had briefly supported Treasurys earlier in the week, but renewed uncertainty is once again weighing on sentiment.
““Headline risk remains particularly elevated as the war continues without a clear off-ramp,” BMO’s head of U.S. rates strategy, Ian Lyngen, wrote, adding that U.S. rates are likely to take their primary cue from swings in energy prices until there is greater clarity on the conflict.
“Meanwhile, an auction on the 2-year Treasury also disappointed investors. Yields surged following the event, with those on the 2-year and 10-year reaching their highest levels since July.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/24/treasury-yields-oil-price-middle-east-risks.html
Rick Santelli on CNBC gave today’s auction a “D” grade…and said he was actually being generous.
Easy to imagine that foreign appetite for US bonds — particularly in the Middle East — has weakened significantly.
Look at the chart:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HEMUDYdaAAAcHza?format=jpg&name=large
> “Today’s 2 yr auction was terrible:” @pboockvar The bid-to-cover ratio was the weakest since May 2024 and dealers got stuck with the largest amount since October 2022. Traders are having a hard time pricing Fed policy as oil prices swing higher.
https://x.com/lisaabramowicz1/status/2036493743499649349
Interesting!
> While most increases in maximum take-off weight (MTOW) typically require (or already include) structural reinforcements to the airframe, Airbus achieved an interesting exception in 2008 with the A320ceo.
Through a simple software upgrade to the aircraft’s existing Load Alleviation Function (LAF) in the flight control system, Airbus raised the A320’s MTOW to 78 tonnes – an increase of roughly 1 tonne. This provided operators with approximately 150 nautical miles of additional range without any hardware or structural modifications.
The upgrade reactivated and refined the LAF, which uses the ailerons and outer spoilers to reduce wing loads during manoeuvres and gusts. This demonstrated just how sophisticated and capable the A320’s fly-by-wire computer systems already were, allowing meaningful performance gains purely through software.
https://x.com/chainsawrocks/status/2036364337770799224
Remind me if an aircraft from the 1960s can do the same??
PEDRO.
It is another SINGLE PRODUCT CRITISCISM to infer that Aircraft designed or made in the 1960s should be compared Heads Up against the Airbus A320 that first flew in 1988. The A300 was first delivered in 1971, without gust alleviation or FBW controls. That would be a more logical comparison.
But to directly answer your question, The B-47E was the first aircraft to incorporate a “fly-by-wire” primary flight control system in which the pilot’s command controls are transmitted to the control surfaces by electrical wires rather than by cables and mechanical linkages. It used programming to reduce wing flex, It first flew in 1947 and the E models in the 1950s. So that actually is the answer to your question.
Quite incredible to totally
missed/misinterpreted the point of my post.
Is BA’s 737 able to utilize FBW to increase MTOW? Is it achievable?
As I recall it does have some FBW elements in the ailerons or the spoilers.
That said, its a dangerous businesses particularity with Airbus and their software failures.
MAX (pun) an A320 out, then break it when the software fails. Not a good idea.
Obviously its moroe complicated than meets the eye with stuff like Speed trim.
PEDRO.
Before I answer a quite different question from your first one, I need to remind you of what you were saying. You said the Airbus 2008 MTOW upgrade was a software only change
That’s not exactly the correct story history tells us……. You are trying to pass off as magic, a software reinstallation as being the sole enabler of an MTOW increase. You said, “This demonstrated just how sophisticated and capable the A320’s fly-by-wire computer systems already were, allowing meaningful performance gains purely through software.”
Purely through software? Airbus essentially “re‑rated” certain A320ceo airframes so they were officially allowed to take off 1 metric ton heavier, but only for jets that had a structurally stronger tail produced after a specific serial number (MSN 1903) MSN 1903 is essentially a “design block change” line in production, where the rear‑fuselage/tail structure was manufactured to a newer structural standard (thicker skins, extra doublers, or other detail changes), even if the aircraft looks the same from the outside. When the aircraft is heavier at takeoff, the tail has to work harder during rotation and climb (higher loads from elevator deflection and higher bending loads on the rear fuselage).
The reinforced tail structure can handle these extra loads with enough safety margin over thousands of flights, which lets Airbus legally raise the certified weight limit for those specific airframes.
Now to answer your specific question.
Is BA’s 737 able to utilize FBW to increase MTOW? Is it achievable?
If your question meant that FBW ALONE to increase MTOW, probably not.
This answer is the same for Airbus that demonstrated in 2008 that they cannot do a software only change and needed structural updates to make it happen. If it was possible to do it software only, A320 aircraft prior to MSN1903 could also get the update, but they aren’t strong enough to have the MTOW increase without structural mods…….
Your distorted reporting on this subject reinforces the fact that you remain a SINGLE PRODUCT CRITIC.
Reread what i posted above: it’s apparent I’m quoting a post reposted by Jon Ostrewer. It’s not *my reporting*. I wonder what’s the cause of your frequent biased take and distortion of what I posted??
“Your distorted reporting on this subject reinforces the fact that you remain a SINGLE PRODUCT CRITIC.”
Second warning to Pedro and PNWGeek: Knock off the personal tit-for-tat stuff. A third violation will result in suspension for you both for 30 days.
Hamilton
PEDRO
Forgive me for being so bold as to answer EXACTLY the question you asked. If you want “better answers”, consider constructing better questions
B737 max has FBW spoilers…checkmate
Improved Load Management: The system facilitates smoother, more rapid, and precise deployment of spoilers, which inherently assists in mitigating unexpected lift surges during turbulent, gusty conditions (a form of active load alleviation).
Reduced Wing Bending: During high-speed flight, the system optimizes spoiler deployment to minimize the stress on the wing structure
Its oftern forgotten that the 737 in its NG clothes had a completely new wing design with changed profile and greater fuel volume than the other plane which has had no wing profile or fuel volume change except to wing flaps- where theres is now 3 types
Dule
THANK YOU.
It completely slipped my mimd that the Max did indeed go to FBW spoilers….There was no reason to design mechanical spoilers on the MAX to account for the wing structure cjanges, so they didnt.
GREAT CATCH.
See my post above 👆👆👆 😂
Ditto
“Chinese Publication Claims U.S. Has Two Months of Rare Earths Left”
“Reports from the South China Morning Post and Reuters indicate Washington could have only weeks or months of certain rare-earth inventories available for defense manufacturing if supply disruptions deepen.
“Rare earth elements are embedded throughout modern military systems—from missile guidance and drone propulsion to radar systems and fighter aircraft electronics.”
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Chinese-Publication-Claims-US-Has-Two-Months-of-Rare-Earths-Left.html
Also of critical use in commercial aviation.
A330neo High-Altitude airport flight test campaign in Mexico and Bolivia
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7xxL2s1o2Nc
Airbus flight test team flew Airbus’ #A330-900 to Toluca in Mexico, and then to La Paz in Bolivia where they conducted a fortnight long ‘Hot and High’ flight test campaign
Been there;done that .
A right of passage for any widebody test aircraft..
Routine nowadays..
The 787 tested there like 15 years ago..
BTW;
Your link is a bit dated !!!
The A330 is able to fly successfully under “hot and high” conditions
Has any aircraft failed to pass those tests?
Put enough power into a brick and it can do it as well (or use foam for the other side of the equation aka reduced weight, ie less fuel or pax left behind)
One needs to be careful how one defines ‘able to fly successfully under “hot and high” conditions’.
There is a) the flight test campaign that looks into the technical ability (APU AIR engine start pressure, no unscheduled passenger OXY masks drops, etc.) as part of the certification effort and there is b) the ability of an operator to carry a meaningful (= profitable enough) payload with an airplane model on a particular route.
Ethiopian, for example, is forced to operate some Addis Ababa (elevation 7,625 ft) flights to North America via intermediate points, while the return flights can operate non-stop.
Not all airplane types are created equal in this respect.
Even within the same model, some may have higher thrust engines (or thrust bump) fitted and others do not.
Sometimes, an airplane where in the name of economy the installed thrust has been pared down to the minimum that meets certification standards is at a disadvantage compared to an airplane where the manufacturer accepted a drop in engine economics for the sake of a more robust payload protection at hot and high airports.
P.S. For Boeing or Airbus haters: this affects both manufacturers. 😉
Starting to see a 737 delivery pace picking up..
As of the 24th ..
16 – 737’s
21 – 320-321’s.
6 – B787
2 – B 777
1 – B767 (USAF)
8 – A350
2 – A330neo
4 – A220
Ov-1
Thanks for this specific reference to deliverys speeding up. This is clearly a byproduct of the fact that the AT BOEING, the production rate and the delivery rate are not necessarily the same. In Boeings 3 step process of creating aircraft, step 2, production runs like a metronome locked to the the MRP schedule. The 3rd step, post production, delivers as product is complete NOT linked to MRP….. The number of aircraft in the post production queue ebbs and flows depending on any number of variables. The nicked wire rework added another twist to delivery timing. This is why Boeings production rate and delivery rate are not always equal. Thanks
A lot like Airbus putting on thin panels atop the A320s!
As I recall that was used against Boeing with its shim issues. IE they all have to be fixed.
Boeing in fact did the math and determined only if both were out of tolerance did they need a fix (or a near or mid term one, ie wait till its in a D check – which was approved by the FAA)
So Airbus determine that some of those panels can be too thin and fine as well. Have they learned nothing from Aloha Air?
“Boeing advances first 777-8 Freighter assembly in Everett”
“Boeing has reached a key production milestone on the first 777-8 Freighter, with the aircraft entering final assembly at its Everett facility in Washington state.
“The company confirmed that the wing-body join has been completed, bringing together the composite wings and the mid-fuselage section of the aircraft. At the same time, teams have begun installing systems and wiring in the forward and aft fuselage sections, marking the transition from structural assembly to systems integration.
“The 777-8F is the cargo variant of the 777X family and is intended to succeed the current 777 Freighter. Boeing has secured 68 orders for the model to date, positioning it as its next-generation widebody freighter offering.”
“Boeing has not disclosed a firm entry-into-service date for the 777-8F, but the program is expected to follow the certification of the passenger 777-9, which remains delayed.”
https://www.airdatanews.com/boeing-advances-first-777-8-freighter-assembly-in-everett/
===
That big Atlas defection to the A350F last week seems to have prompted the BA PR department to try some damage control…
Abalone.
Probably right àbout Boeing. The 777xf will eventually be a great freighter and I expect its main deck capacity to greatly exceed the A350f BUT Im convinced the A350x will be an outatanding performer for its operators. Ive always thought that these 2 airplanes arent actual competitors as they are different enough to each sell to different market segments.
@PNWgeek:
I will be interested to see how the two programs fall out.
The only market differences would be the Package Freight Companies (FeDex, UPS, DHL) vs the heavy freight group (Atlas).
None of hte PFC have made a move yet. The 777-8F would seem to be the logical choice there but have to see of course.
Even within the PFC there are major differences. UPS runs the 747s and FedEx stops at the 777F. DHL runs a bit of everything!
Atlas may be a hint that the A350F is better in the heavy freight market arena.
You have to wonder if Atlas has lost its 747 Dreamlifter franchise. Boeing pulled it from Evergreen to give it to them as bait, now? Not a huge loss but prestigious never the less.
I don’t see Atlas ordering 777-8F and run a co fleet, not with 20 firm and 20 options.
“China signs $15.8B deal with Airbus to procure aircraft”
“China Eastern Airlines to get 101 A320NEO series aircraft with delivery to be completed in 2032”
“According to the airliner, the aircraft are scheduled for delivery in batches between 2028 and 2032,…”
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/china-signs-158b-deal-with-airbus-to-procure-aircraft/3878661
This brings the total number of AB narrowbodies ordered by China in the past 3 months to 249.
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3338237/airbus-scores-major-win-china-orders-145-a320-aircraft
The long-rumored 500 aircraft order goes out the window?
Nice! It’s magical that AB can always find slots for near-term deliveries of highly sought-after aircraft!
> According to the detailed schedule [of this order], the company will receive 9 aircraft in 2028, 19 in 2029, 30 in 2030, 27 in 2031…
Furthermore, MU has 58 outstanding orders of A320/321.
“30 in 2030,
not a real big deal, less than 1/2 month production of single aisle at that time
More info on this order:
“China Eastern Airlines has placed a $15.802 billion Airbus order for 101 A320neo family aircraft, comprised of A320neo, A321neo and A321XLR single aisle jets.”
“The Chinese-owned carrier said that nine planes will be delivered in 2028, followed by 19 in 2029 and 30 in 2030. In 2031, 27 aircraft would be delivered and finally 16 would arrive with the airline in 2032.
“China Eastern Airlines added that between 2028 and 2032 at least 53 Airbus A320 aircraft would be retired due to leases expiring or age.
““Therefore, the 101 aircraft purchased this time will partially serve as replacements for the existing fleet,” said China Eastern Airlines’ filing.”
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/china-eastern-orders-airbus-a320neo-family-aircraft
===
This may be the pipeline order to which Germany’s Chancellor Merz alluded in February:
https://www.euronews.com/2026/02/25/china-to-buy-up-to-120-airbus-aircraft-germanys-merz-says-during-beijing-visit
I wonder how that “imminent, massive Boeing order”
from China is coming along.
Indeed.
China Eastern has 69 737s in its fleet: 2 MAX and 67 NG. One wonders what will be replacing them, seeing as the NGs are even older than the A32x in the airline’s fleet.
Of note: China Eastern also flies 14 C919s, out of an order of 100. Once the CJ-1000A engine gets greenlighted, that C919 fleet will rapidly swell.
China Eastern does not order aircraft. The Chinese governemtn orders aircraft.
The State owned airlines divvy up what the Central Committee provides.
ICYMI
This is not a mass order divided up by airlines.
> Several Western governments have been seeking to boost trade ties with Beijing following sweeping global tariffs imposed last year by US President Donald Trump. China is a key export market for European aircraft, machinery and cars.
Airbus Lands Fifth Big Chinese Order in Four Months
> After winning four large orders with Chinese carriers last December, Airbus has now secured a major deal with… China Eastern Airlines
I can’t wait for IT!!! Lol
The beauty of dual-source engine strategy?
> United CEO, with little leverage over engine OEMs, says it won’t buy future airplanes without a propulsion choice
So, that rules out the 737 MAX, 777X, A220, A350, A330neo and Embraer E2.
A320/321 and 787 are all that remains.
Pretty drastic.
Looks like United is stuck with an A320 and 787 fleet then!
@Pedro
I hope United is happy with a A32x and B787 fleet. Good luck with that. United is still a blue chip airline, but they hardly dictate industry standards.
Sign of the times 👀
Just received this message from Qatar Airways:
“Remember us? We remember you! We’ve actually been thinking about you and how long it’s been since we’ve seen you. To put it bluntly, we miss you – a lot.
Why don’t you come back and use your Avios points on a new adventure?”
Load factors must be very, very low 😒
“TSA chief says nearly 500 officers have quit, warns travel problems will outlive any shutdown deal”
“The top official at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) said on Wednesday that more than 1,500 of her agency’s officers have quit amid recent government shutdowns — including around 480 during the current 40-day standoff.
“It’s the latest evidence that labyrinthine airport security lines — which have topped 4.5 hours at some airports recently — and other travel woes are unlikely to fully bounce back even when lawmakers reinstate funding.”
“”We fear we will continue to lose talented and experienced employees to other jobs that can provide a steady paycheck,” Ha Nguyen McNeill, a senior TSA official who is currently performing the duties of the administrator, told Congress.
“She noted that the effects of the departures will play out for months, given that the onboarding process for new hires includes four to six months of training.”
“That timeline means any new TSA officers hired after government funding is restored won’t be able to begin work at security checkpoints until after the 2026 FIFA World Cup, scheduled to begin in June across the US, Canada, and Mexico.
“She called it a possible “perfect storm of staffing shortages.””
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tsa-chief-says-nearly-500-officers-have-quit-warns-travel-problems-will-outlive-any-shutdown-deal-172502954.html
Trump has re-scheduled his meeting with Xi Jinping in China to May 14.
Interestingly, it’s around that time that the US will begin to run out of certain Rare Earth minerals (see link posted above).
It will be interesting to see what Trump thinks he can offer China to broker a rare earth deal…
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/25/trump-xi-beijing-china-summit.html
===
Meanwhile, China is enjoying/flaunting its “VIP pass” to sail through the Strait of Hormuz:
“China Shipping Giant Cosco Resumes Bookings to Some Gulf Countries”
“Chinese shipping giant Cosco said on Wednesday that it was resuming new bookings for container shipments to some Gulf countries, after a three-week suspension in response to the Middle East war.
“The state-owned, Shanghai-based firm was among several major shipping groups to pause operations in the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway through which one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas passes normally.
“Tehran has said several times it was not targeting friendly nations, but transits through the Strait had nevertheless largely ground to a halt.
“Iran said in a statement circulated by the International Maritime Organization on Tuesday that “non-hostile vessels” would be granted safe passage through the waterway.
“Cosco “resumed new bookings for general cargo containers for shipments” from the “Far East” to the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and Iraq “with immediate effect”, according to a company statement.”
https://english.aawsat.com/business/5255063-china-shipping-giant-cosco-resumes-bookings-some-gulf-countries
“In times of war, the first casualty is truth.”
curiouser and curiouser..
And China and Russia don’t even need to be at war to warp the truth out of all factual content.
Granted I grew up in an era where the Soviets wanted to destroyed us and I am suspicion of the type.
Yes the US is in a really bad place but unlike the citizens of Russia and China, we are resisting and we will win.
“Regional push: Now, Airbus mulls ATR final assembly line in India after Embraer.”
http://m.timesofindia.com/articleshow/129811148.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
don’t count on 100 new airports….the real question can the population afford airfare compared to rail in India
Google AI
“Budget Travel: Sleeper and Second Class rail travel is vastly cheaper than air travel. A 350 km trip costs approx. ₹121 in non-AC Class, whereas airfare for similar distances is often multiple times higher.
Mid-to-High End: A 3AC/2AC rail ticket on long-distance, high-demand routes can be competitive with low-cost airfares, which often range between ₹3,000–₹5,000 if booked in advance.”
Keep an eye on the Gulf countries, millions are working there providing the necessary workforce. Dubai is also a major financial hub acting as an offshore financial centre for India. I heard hot money is flooding out to the East to HK.
Google AI
“The average monthly salary in India is approximately ₹32,000 – ₹32,840 as of early 2026, which is roughly $385–$400 USD. “
Don’t underestimate the rapidly growing Middle Class in India.
Excerpt from a World Economic Forum article: “The growing middle class.
Who exactly are these consumers filling India’s expanding cities? By 2036, India’s middle class and affluent consumers will account for 93% of all spending, up from 80% in 2026. By 2035, over 20% of each key generation in India (baby boomers, Gen X, millennials and Gen Z) will spend $45 or more per day. This creates opportunities for businesses to develop products and services that appeal to a wide range of age groups.”
AI Summary:
The Indian rupee hit a record low, closing at 94.8125 against the U.S. dollar on Friday, March 27, 2026, driven by intense energy supply disruptions from the Middle East conflict, a strong dollar, and consistent foreign capital outflows. The currency has dropped 11% this fiscal year, marking its worst performance since 2011-12.
Fresh Record Low: The rupee hit an all-time low of 94.84 on March 27, 2026, before ending at 94.8125, passing the 94-per-dollar mark.
Drivers: The sharp depreciation is primarily due to rising oil prices and supply chain disruptions caused by the war in the Middle East.
Fiscal Impact: This represents the worst fiscal-year drop for the INR in over a decade, with a total depreciation of about 5% against the U.S. dollar in 2026 alone.
Future Outlook: Analysts suggest the rupee may see further pressure and weakness until the conflict deescalates.
The decline has caused concern regarding rising import costs, particularly for oil, and increased inflationary pressures on the Indian economy.
Look for China to announce a substantial 787 order soon .
Considering several are currently undergoing final assembly from all the big 3 carriers, yet as usual, neither of those airlines (Air China, China Southern,or China Eastern) are showing any 787 orders in their backlog…
Re-allocation of old orders from other carriers.
Chinese carriers Okay and Ruili ordered 5 and 6 787s, respectively, way back in 2016.
That totals 11 frames that are still in the 787 order book, but not in production.
Now, count the 787s that are currently being produced for Air China (3), China Eastern (1) and China Southern (6)…and you get a total of 10.
What makes you think those orders were cancelled?
If they’re still in the books, they’re still valid..
Afriqiyah Airways,Libyan Airlines,SriLankan Airlines,and Yemenia, are all showing A350 orders in the books, going all the way back to 2007, but not in production.
Do you consider those cancelled as well?
A bit more research please!!
“What makes you think those orders were cancelled?”
I didn’t make any reference to cancellation — go back and re-read.
A bit more reading, please!!
I don’t disagree but keep in mind China orders these not the airlines so look at the governemtn orders and then what airline has picked which model.
TRANS
Where can I find this info from BCA orders and deliveries reports???
It’s getting worse. Who said there’s strategic reserve for 90 days?
> Australia fuel shortages worsen as over 500 stations run dry
“Iran war is a ‘catastrophe,’ G7 ministers warn — but there’s little they can do to stop it”
“”Today, 30 to 40% of the refining capacity in the Gulf is damaged or destroyed. I spoke with the Qatari Minister of Energy [Saad Sherida Al Kaabi, who said] 17% of gas production capacity is destroyed following attacks on these facilities, which will take years — we’re talking about three years — to restore.”
“Even so-called Trump whisperer Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on Wednesday described the crisis in the Middle East as one which “involves everyone and that, if it were to continue over time, could clearly cause economic and social consequences that would end up affecting more nations, the most vulnerable nations, starting with the African continent.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/26/g7-summit-iran-war-europe-us-marco-rubio-ukraine-strait-of-hormuz-shipping-energy.html
> Bloomberg: Trump administration officials are examining what a potential spike in oil prices as high as $200 a barrel would mean for the economy, according to people familiar with the matter, a sign senior officials are studying the possible fallout from extreme scenarios for the Iran war.
> Source tells me that Naval Special Warfare teams were also given deployment orders yesterday, as well as a bunch of Tier 1 operators. That plus the 82nd Airborne deployment plus Netanyahu’s obvious feint that he expects a ceasefire agreement this weekend suggests all the pieces are in place for a ground operation within day.
We are now down to specific details on military ops?
I have to pose the question to Scott if this is open area?
I love discussion military aspects.
One of the top ones is why is Europe scrambling to build simple artillery shell lines? Where did that $6 a gallon gas money go to?
Is the Leopard A8 better than the M1E3 Abrams? Does Europe need a bigger cannon or should they use DU? And yes, thank you Rheinmetal for the Smoothbore cannon, its a huge leap.
Use the longer 120 with a DU round and Katey bar the door.
I’m allowing most but not all discussion of military matters because the Iran War and Strait of Hormuz clearly has affect on the airline industry. But don’t wander too far into the Ukraine War. This is not especially relevant to the airline industry.
Hamilton
Trans
Aren’t you aware boots on the ground means the 777X and the rumored/confirmed 777-9 stretched are toast??
PEDRO
The past matters.
The past shows that Airbus has NEVER delivered a main deck high tonnage freighter while Boeing has done it for decades. You are skewing the discussion to the future completely ignoring the fact that the as yet unflown A350 is not certified. I personally love the A350 as I repeatedly post here, but your not recognising that Airbus is about to dance on a stage theve never stepped on. That is the result of biased thinking . Theres a lot to like about the A350F, but its not here yet to be proven in service. Thats the same for the 777-8F. Its not here yet either despite the fact that half their order base is sitting in post production awaiting initiation of change incorporation. We will have a lot more data available for tbe -8F before the A350 because there should be approx 30 of them flying in service 18 months after certification. Airbusses production rate of 6 per month combined with the fact that they are now loading ship 2 into the tools means that they will need a few years to get that many into the fleet. Thats neither good or bad, it just is.
I dont understamd your insistance that these 2 airplanes are direct competitors. They arent, in the same way the A380 and 747-8 werent, yet some here always made the argument that the A380 was better. Both were solid airplanes that got to market late and ultimately were not big sales sucesses.
Perhaps when asking yourself why you need to repeat yorself, some truth lies in your inability to accept the writings of others.
@Pedro: We’ve written a ton of stuff about the A350F v 777-8F. Maybe instead of citing other sources, you might read LNA.
@Scott
Excuse me. Where did I compare the A350F with 777-8f citing other sources??
I did a quick search and found none.
Could it be @pnwgeek?
PNWgeek wrote:
“Perhaps when asking yourself why you need to repeat yorself, some truth lies in your inability to accept the writings of others.”
So, despite Mr. Hamilton’s warning above, it looks like the bickering is going to continue unabated…
🙈
===
PNWgeek wrote:
“I dont understamd your insistance that these 2 airplanes are direct competitors”
From Google AI:
“The Airbus A350F and Boeing 777-8F *are direct competitors* in the next-generation freighter market, designed for high-efficiency, long-haul cargo operations. The A350F offers earlier entry (planned 2027) and better fuel efficiency, while the 777-8F (expected 2027-2028) provides slightly higher payload capacity and greater main deck volume.”
===
How about commenting on subject matter, rather than commenting on other commenters?
How exactly is the 777X-F going to be ready in “2027-28”,
when not even Boeing is making that claim?
“AI” is not to be trusted, despite its always-authoritative tone- which is trained in.
yeesh.
That would depend on the definition of “ready”, wouldn’t it?
First frame rollout?
Certified?
EIS?
The purpose of my quote was to show that @Pedro isn’t the only one who considers the A350 and 777-8F to be direct competitors.
That’s a hallucination. It’s gonna be a long time before anyone can cite Google AI as a primary source.
Indeed, and as the training models get larger, the hallucinations are getting worse- not better.
@Bryce:
I know you like to be the self appointed hall monitor, I don’t think its a good career for you. Least in this case as its Mr. Hamiltons place not yours.
Laying out your view that counters another assertion in fact is not bickering.
Now I do think PNWgeek in fact has some logic busts, and those are as follows. And no I am not bickering with him, I do think he has some aspects wrong.
The worst is what I think is convoluted. Airbus in factt has A350 flying in some numbers and baseline of the ops and costs and performance. Boeing is in test phase vs production.
In either case, both have a good idea of performance and its not going to be far off in either the 777-8F or the A350F.
Airbus clearly has missed markets in the F models, but that is not a performance aspect, its a marketing problem. Clearly Airbus has hit a good spot for their first major offering (sans the failed A330-200).
Build wise Airbus has built F models in the A300/310, small numbers of the A330-200F as well as designed the A380F. I don’t see that as any impediment. Its not design or experience, its knowing the market and addressing it with the right product they failed at (clearly it would have been an A330-300 not the 200)
I would argue tech wise its simple relatively and they have had their own experience as well as all these years to study what
The A330MRT has proven they have very capable design people in areas that was not their norm. All Boeing so called experience with tankers was a flop and Airbus put out a very good product that worked (as far as fueling goes). Boeing in its newest offering in fact did not and was inept.
The A380F and the 747-8F are also not comparable. Worlds apart in bulk vs weight carry . The A380F only market was bulk carriers (FedEx and UPS).
The 777-8F and the A350F in fact are pretty close. Either can operate in the Bulk and Heavy markets. There may be a bias to 777-8F in the bulk arenas, hard telling how much that matters, no orders yet for either in Bulk market.
Keep in mind the bulk market is also not identical. UPS and FedEx operate both very differently. FedEx dumped 747s early on, UPS has kept using them through all modern iterations. Its possible UPS buys 777-8F and FedEx does not.
It should be noted that UPS operates 767F across the Pacific and FedEx does not. Same market with two different models of how they go about it.
Atlas has clearly made a statemtn with their 20 firm and 20 options. That is not a tip toe in the water. Atlas has a few 777F but not whole hog. they did go whole hog on the A350F. That speaks volumes to me as virtually their entire fleet is Boeing.
That does not mean the 777-8F is doomed. Its got good orders and clearly you can now get one sooner than an A350F.
More intere4sting is the slow progress on the A350F that Leeham has covered (note that Pedro).
I do agree with PNWG that both look to be excellent birds and I am an admirer of the A350. Its clearly a success and with a build method that works well.
Boeing is clearly roaring along with the 777-8F and will be close to the A350 into service. At the slow Airbus rate and the faster Boeing movement maybe at the same time.
“Airbus in factt has A350 flying in some numbers…”
FYI Airbus has delivered more than 700 A350s, several times more than the order book of the 777X, which is still undergoing certification tests and suffered from repeated delays.
So, no, it’s absolutely not true that: “both have a good idea of performance and its not going to be far off in either the 777-8F or the A350F.”
No one here is comparing the A380f with 747-8f. That’s a strawman argument.
“The A380F and the 747-8F are also not comparable.”
One of the reasons Atlas cited for picking the A350f is the early availability IIRC.
“That does not mean the 777-8F is doomed. Its got good orders and clearly you can now get one sooner than an A350F.”
A lot depend on how FedEx restructure its plan if the MD-11F aren’t coming back.
“It should be noted that UPS operates 767F across the Pacific and FedEx does not.”
No doubt I read about delays and issues of the 777X here frequently. (eg: https://leehamnews.com/2025/12/19/boeing-seeks-icao-exemption-for-777-200lrf-to-offset-777-8f-delays-md-11f-grounding/) And if I recall correctly, I might be the first one (not only here) that raised the implications of the war with Iran and the backlogs of 777X.
I have difficulty to find any objective analyst saying this:
“At the slow Airbus rate and the faster Boeing movement maybe at the same time.”
Lol.
TRANS
Let me remind you LNA talked about: “[c]ertification of the 777X has also been an arduous process, delayed for years” barely eleven days ago!
Note that.
[Too bad I can’t reply to or edit my previous post.]
What is “a main deck high tonnage freighter “? Definition?
What do you mean with this:
“We will have a lot more data available for the -8F before the A350 because there should be approx 30 of them flying in service 18 months after certification.”.
As far as I know the 30 planes built are 777-9x not any 8x.
There are far more A350 -900 and -1000 flying than the 30 you mention above so I think Airbus has a lot more data than Boeing.
👇👇👇 Hallucination?
“Thats the same for the 777-8F. Its not here yet either despite the fact that half their order base is sitting in post production awaiting initiation of change incorporation.”
Rusolph. That was clunbsy of me.
Data is important. The A350F is benefitting from literally hundreds of PASSENGER VARIANTS in operation today. We know runway performance, cruise drag, how it flys and how it handles on the ground. We know what breaks and what doesnt.
None of that 3rd party data exists for the 777x. Operators will be adding over 30 aircraft to the fleet in a short time after certification and a lot of data will become available that does not exist today.
That said. I expect the A350F to be outstanding. Ive always liked the way its put together. It should be a slam dunk success as Airbusses first large main deck freighter.
In the 777x I see things that concern me. Im hoping it works out well. Its supposed to carry more and the predictions in my hands say it carries more with shorter legs. That remains to be seen. Sales are a problem when you have half the total orders sitting in the post production queue awaiting change incorporation after cert
Make up a definition and then…?
“The past shows that Airbus has NEVER delivered a main deck high tonnage freighter while Boeing has done it for decades.”
What is a high “tonnage freighter”? More than 100 t cargo capacity and of course not more than 70 t.
The past also showed before 1972 there were no Airbus aircraft in the air; before 1987 no single aisle Airbus, before 2005 no real full double-deck aircraft, … That shows change can happen.
That point scared me: “[…] the fact that the as yet unflown A350 is not certified.” – Did I just dreamed flying on an A350 on my last holidays or just an “F” missing? What is missing for an A350F certification: the aircraft in total or just some minor changes? Can Airbus get certified a cargo floor and a cargo door for a widebody aircraft? The already did.
“[…] these 2 airplanes are direct competitors”
A350F can deliver 111 t of cargo while 777-8F has a (Net) payload of 112 t. Boeing will be the only freighter aircraft available sooon over 111 t. No one can compete on that point.
Airbus new production freighters were the A300-600, A330-200 and maybe a few A310s (I’d have to check the latter). All medium-tonnage freighters. We’re publishing a piece next week focusing on the A350F.
Yes, A310 cargo versions were produced in minuscule numbers and A31o-200F and -300F freighters were conversions.
Martinair operated the A310-200C from 29 November 1984.
Thanks. My addled, aging brain isn’t that addled after all….
Yes, there was the factory-built A310-200C (convertible) that was built in minuscule numbers and entered service with Martinair in November 1984.
The better-known A310-200F and A310-300F were all conversions.
“A350F can deliver 111 t of cargo while 777-8F has a (Net) payload of 112 t. Boeing will be the only freighter aircraft available soon over 111 t. No one can compete on that point.”
but wait…what about C929 freighter by 2040?
Chat GPT
“If a C929 freighter is built, expect a payload around ~50 tonnes, comparable to mid-size widebody freighters like the 767F or smaller A330F.”
“Since the C929 is in the same class (similar size and MTOW ~245 tons), it would almost certainly fall in that same 50-ton-class freighter category.”
“A C919 freighter would likely carry ~20 tonnes, comparable to an Airbus A320 or slightly below a 737-800 freighter.”
“COMAC has already converted the smaller ARJ21 into a freighter”
from 2024 Comac 20 year market forecast
Section 7.5 Historical Development of Chinese Freighter Fleet by the end of 2023..there were 254 freighters in China..159 narrowbody and 37 medium size widebody and 58 large widebody freighters
section 7.7 Forecast of Global Freighters by 2043 China will have 391 freighters enter the market and the number of freighter fleet to 444
so that’s a net increase of 190 freighters for China by 2043
As always, I’m thinking about how COMAC will support their product in markets outside of China.
Will those COMAC freighters be limited to domestic and regional routes to and from China or will they develop an international support organization so they can successfully market their aircraft outside of China?
Maybe the product will be so compelling that COMAC could partner with (or buy) an existing support network like Embraer or Mitsubishi? Or, in a totally alternate reality, Airbus or even Boeing?
Chat GPT
“Overseas maintenance hubs (MRO network)
COMAC is building partnerships with MRO providers (Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul companies) in other countries.
They aim to set up regional service centers in:
Southeast Asia (first priority)
Middle East (longer-term)
Likely partners include state-backed or friendly-country airlines”
David Pritchard:
“If a C929 freighter is built, expect a payload around ~50 tonnes, comparable to mid-size widebody freighters like the 767F or smaller A330F.”
The A330-200F is 70 tonnes and it is larger than the B767F.
Building the BelugaST and BelugaXL must also give some experience.
October 2024
FG: Emirates nears decision between 777-8F and A350-1000F for future cargo fleet
It must be Emirates didn’t read the memo that these two aren’t competitors.
Pedro.
I said they are not not DIRECT competitors and you are free to disagree, {Edited]. The fact is that they were designed to do different things and because of that I think they arent direct competitors.. Here’s why, the 777-8F trades range for payload, and the A350F trades payload for range. That isn’t just a spec difference — it dictates entirely different route networks for the operator.
The 777-8F is a High-Density Hub-to-Hub airplane.
The 777-8F is optimized for maximum tonnage moved between major hubs on established, high-volume lanes — think Memphis–Cologne, Louisville–Tokyo Narita, or Shanghai–LAX — where Ground time, turnaround efficiency, and cost-per-ton dominate economics.
Routes are well under 4,400 nm or have intermediate tech stops factored in and cargo is dense and heavy (auto parts, industrial goods, e-commerce pallets, machinery)
The A350F is more of an Ultra-Long-Haul airplane. It should like Thin and Fuel-Sensitive Routes
The A350F is optimized for routes that are either too long for the 777-8F at full payload, or where fuel burn economics dominate — think Singapore–Amsterdam nonstop, Nairobi–Chicago, or secondary Asian cities to European hubs without intermediate stops. This matters enormously on routes where cargo density is lower (pharmaceuticals, fashion, perishables, high-value electronics). Frequency matters more than bulk per flight and landing fee structures penalize heavy aircraft or
the airline operates a mixed passenger/freighter A350 fleet and wants commonality.
The bottom line is that these two aircraft will coexist because they solve genuinely different problems. The 777-8F is a bulk freight mover for the world’s busiest cargo corridors and the A350F is a precision, long-reach instrument for routes where range, fuel cost, and fleet integration matter more than raw lifting power. An airline trying to choose between them isn’t really deciding between two equivalent products — it’s deciding what kind of network it wants to run.
They arent direct competitors in my mind, ypu are free to think differently, Just as you think differently about my use high tonnage freighters like the 747, 777 and An124 where I even went so far as to put up a chart. Enjoy the weekend
@PNW, @Pedro:
The A350F and the 777-8F are competitors. There have been several public reports of airline and lessor sales campaigns between these two airplanes. Saudi, Atlas Air, and Emirates are three such campaigns. We have evaluated the two aircraft as they compete against each other. We have evaluated the information from both airframe and engine OEMs involved and routes on which the aircraft would operate. The A350F and 777-8F are roughly the same physical dimensions and generally have similar payloads. LNA has written many articles about these two aircraft and one article comes up on April 2.
In our view, and in the view of the industry, these directly compete. End of story. Move on.
“The past matters.”
Yes, it does.
But we also may also want to keep in mind the mantra of fund managers “Past performance is no guarantee of future results.”
The term “main deck high tonnage freighter” is also fairly meaningless, unless there is a universally accepted definition what such a freighter actually might be (50 tons, 60 tons, 70 tons, 100 tons, or more?).
Be that as it may, it’s ultimately the airlines that decide which airplane fulfills their specific tonnage needs and which one becomes a success and which one doesn’t.
Undoubtedly, Boeing has been more successful in the wide-body freighter market than Airbus ever was, but Airbus has been inching their way up, just like they did with the A310, A330/A340, A350 and now the A330neo passenger aircraft where the latter – according to Leeham News and Analysis – “gets better and better”.
While factory-built A310C and A330F aircraft barely raised an eyebrow, conversions had a bit more success and the A350 may turn out to give the 777-8F a good run for the money – or the other way around.
While early Airbus wide-body freighters may have fallen short of competing Boeing products, the distance has been shrinking all the time.
And “mind Jedi games” or hubris from ANY aircraft manufacturer has never done them any good in the long run.
“British Airways pilots could earn bonuses for flying more efficiently to cut costs and emissions”
“The move, reported by Bloomberg, comes as airlines intensify efforts to lower costs amid surging fuel prices and ambitious environmental targets.”
“Under proposals reportedly shared with flight crew at the airline, pilots would be eligible for a bonus worth up to 1% of base pay if the airline achieves a collective reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 60,000t beyond 2025 baseline levels.
“The scheme is expected to come into force next year, subject to approval by members of the British Airline Pilots’ Association (BALPA).”
https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/british-airways-pilot-bonus-fuel-savings/#:~:text=British%20Airways%20is%20reportedly%20considering,prices%20and%20mounting%20environmental%20pressure.
I this is gonna be easy money for those pilots once the unofficial policy which emphasizes avoiding low fuel diversions is changed. Captains order ‘extra contingency fuel’ because they don’t want to be called into the chief pilot’s office asking them why they had to divert because destination weather got worse than expected and they only had enough fuel for a single approach. Those cases are few and far between, but if they could be tolerated better every single flight could operate with less fuel, because the pilots know they will be supported in case of diversion.
This reminds me of my days in airline operations in the late 1980s. There were two captains who always reduced the fuel order that dispatch had prepared for their flights. They were flying 727-200 transcon (SEA-CLT) always at MTOW so their rational for less fuel was focused more around being as light as possible at take-off, which they felt was their biggest risk. They wanted best possible performance in case of an engine loss on takeoff and 1,000 pounds of fuel could make that difference. And if the destination weather changed enroute they would deal with it These were very senior captains and had full support from the company if they ultimately had to divert and they were willing to make diversion decisions earlier than they might if the plane was carrying more fuel. Anyhow, when these captain were flying we always held off refueling until they had reviewed the dispatch release. Every other captain wanted fuel ‘uplift’ but these guys were always ‘downlift’;)
So, my point is that if the organization can change the norms around the special case of low fuel diversions, which happen relatively infrequently, they can carry less fuel for the normal cases which happens day in and day out.
There are lots of variables and viewpoints and a whole pile of operational experience that go into formulating fuel policy. And there have also probably been some changes in the industry since I was in it 40 years ago.
“Easy money for those pilots once the unofficial policy which emphasizes avoiding low fuel diversions is changed.”
I can’t say what airline(s) that might be.
My outfit always stressed the importance of not carrying too much extra fuel while giving pilots the leeway to carry extra fuel if the situation demands.
It’s a training and education effort, where we moved away from the old “plus 5000 for the wife and kids” (Line check captain reply: “You have to be more specific.” Answer: “3000 for my wife, 1000 for each of the kids.) to assessing in pre-flight briefings en-route conditions (weather and ATC), likely destination and alternate holding delays, and statistical route performance of a particular flight number, as the morning flight from A to B might statistically use a different amount of contingency fuel than the midday flight.
For an airline, it’s a balancing act: You don’t want to seem too lenient with respect to extra fuel, but neither do you want to put too much pressure on flight crews and risk low fuel diversions or emergencies.
My airline already factors in route performance at the planning stage, and also publishes regular extra fuel uplift comparisons, where a pilot’s individual ranking (sorted by least extra fuel to most extra fuel) is shown (e.g. number 174 out of 2400) by fleet, but all names except one’s own are blanked out.
You know where you stand and it provides food for thought.
Conversely, paying pilots a premium for minimizing extra fuel uplift was always frowned upon, as it might unnecessarily encourage risk taking.
Which is the leader in premium products in US commercial aviation? Delta or United?
“United Airlines and its flight attendants’ union announced Thursday that they reached a new tentative agreement’
“The new contract will include immediate raises, top wage rates of up to $100 per hour by the end of the agreement, boarding pay, pay for long gaps between flights and a signing bonus worth a total of $740 million”
Good for them! It’s about time FAs got decent wages. Even though $100/hour sounds like a lot, that rate is for the top of scale employees (more than 6 years of service) and that rate is reached by the end of the 5 year contract in 2031. So a senior top of scale UAL flight attendant will make around $100K per year in 2031. That will put them solidly in the middle class.
It doesn’t bother me, I don’t fly United Airlines
just as point of reference
Chat GPT
“A nurse practitioner (NP) in the U.S. typically makes about:
Average: around $55–$60 per hour
Common range: about $53–$60/hour for most people
Lower (entry-level): around $50/hour
Higher (experienced/specialties): $65–$80+ per hour”
So a veteran flight attendant on United Airlines will be making about twice as much as nurse practitioner that requires 6-8 years of education
But the work hours are calculated in vastly different ways.
>So a veteran flight attendant on United Airlines will be making about twice as much as nurse practitioner that requires 6-8 years of education
Flight Attendants, and pilots, are generally paid by flight hour, while most of the rest of us, including nurse practitioners, are paid by the clock hour. Flight/cabin crew flight hours are typically in the 75-85 hour per month range while the rest of us hourly folks work around 170 hours per month.
You have to normalize the ‘hourly’ pay rates otherwise you’re comparing apple with oranges. A flight/cabin crew member making $100/flight hour working 75 hours per month comes to an annual pay of $100x75x12 = $90,000. A nurse practitioner making $60/clock hour comes to $60x170x12 = $122,400.
Keep in mind that flight hours are very different than duty hours. Most flight/cabin crews have duty hours which approach 170 hours per month. Duty hours include pre and post flight duties as well as delays, rerouting time etc. So when your flight departure is delayed, the crew is delayed too, and not getting paid.
Typically flight hours start when the door closes or when they push back from the gate (off the blocks), but some airlines, like Southwest, pay cabin crew by flight segment. Kind of a flat rate system. I don’t know much about it though.
Flight crew also get compensation for per diem expenses since the nature of their work takes them away from their home base. That pay is usually by duty hour and can be in the $2-$3 per hour range.
Chat GPT
“Typical Work Hours
Most U.S. flight attendants work 65–90 flight hours per month (time spent in the air).
When you include boarding, delays, and prep time, that usually equals about 80–120 total duty hours per month”
90 hours x $100 an hour $9k a month..$108k per year divide by duty hours of 1,440 (120 x 12) is $75 an hour.
$108k is a good gig for working 1,440 hours a year…chat GPT”when Full-time workers: typically around 40 hours per week (standard full-time schedule)”
“U.S. Security Guarantees Under Scrutiny in Gulf States”
“Gulf states may renegotiate U.S. defense arrangements, pursue strategic autonomy with diverse military suppliers and domestic defense industries, and strengthen regional institutions like the GCC.
“To safeguard economies and influence, Gulf nations could diversify investments, expand trade/delivery routes, cautiously engage Iran, and leverage sovereign wealth funds to pressure the U.S. and other partners.”
“UAE businessman Khalaf Ahmad al-Habtoor, a former business partner of U.S. president Donald Trump, publicly castigated Trump, “You have placed the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council [GCC] and the Arab countries at the heart of a danger they did not choose…Who gave you permission to turn our region into a battlefield?” If Habtoor represents elite thinking in the Gulf, and local sources confirm he does, Gulf countries will reduce their future exposure to the U.S.”
https://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/US-Security-Guarantees-Under-Scrutiny-in-Gulf-States.html
Gulf countries have no US security “”guarantees”” in the sense that Nato has
Its more partnerships.
Qatar has the strongest deal as they were attacked by Israel in 2025 who killed Hamas negotiators and Trump issued an executive order rather than formal treaty guaranteeing its security – to prevent more Israeli attacks I presume
Ahem
> New Trump executive order guarantees Qatar security after Israeli attack
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/1/new-trump-executive-order-guarantees-qatar-security-after-israeli-attack
> On September 29, President Trump signed an executive order entitled “Assuring the Security of the State of Qatar” that recognizes the “enduring alliance” between the United States and Qatar and provides Qatar an explicit security guarantee in the event of “external attack.”
https://www.csis.org/analysis/why-trumps-executive-order-qatar-marks-historic-shift
OTOH there’s no security guarantee regarding NATO!
Quid pro quo for a gifted Boeing 747-8 jetliner!
Ya gotta think the Qatari officials are revisiting that decision!
NYT: “Sucked Into War, Gulf Countries Face the Limits of U.S. Security Guarantees”
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/17/world/middleeast/iran-war-gulf-saudi-arabia-qatar-emirates.html
Washington used to sell it as a “guarantee”…but the cat’s now out of the bag.
The Economist:
> “The closer someone sits to the commodities desk, the more freaked out they tend to be. But everyone—whether they deal in energy, bonds or stocks—seems to say the same thing: market pricing betrays a staggering optimism about a bad situation that could get an awful lot worse.”
https://t.co/aCZulmi9Qr
#########
> Senator Blumenthal on CNN right now:”the dynamics are for boots on the ground now” in the Iran conflict. He believes that President Trump was probably told he needs more troops to do it and the troops there at not enough, which could explain the delay till they have the forces on the ground there.
#########
> Signs Iran may be holding its best missiles in reserve. – FT
#########
> Video
> US Ambassador Chas Freeman:
“The success of war cannot be measured in terms of damage inflicted on the enemy… We are seeing a repeat of a lesson we should have learned from Vietnam.”
“The United States is destroying itself as a global power.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3J53lNJiFk
Methinks that blowback may resurface just 25 years of 9/11. “What fools these mortals be”.
AP:
> BREAKING: U.S. stocks have their biggest loss since the war with Iran started as the S&P 500 drops 1.7%.
Wall Street has its worst day since the war with Iran started and crude oil prices rise
https://t.co/9aYmGb4uX3
#########
Delta canceled all flights to Tel Aviv (?) til September
“Washington Stress-Tests $200 Oil as War Risk Mounts”
“The U.S. federal government is modeling a scenario with crude oil at $200 per barrel to see what the potential fallout of such a price surge would be for the U.S. economy. The news, reported by Bloomberg and coming from unnamed officials, comes on top of contradictory messaging from the Trump administration, with the latest signals pointing towards a push for a ceasefire.”
“Analysts started talking about the potential rise of Brent crude all the way to $200 earlier in March when it became clear the Iran war was not going to be over in a few days. In that worst-case scenario, the impact on the global economy would be devastating, with developing nations bearing the brunt of the crisis due to their lower financial reserves. Yet wealthy nations are also in for a lot of pain should oil prices move a lot higher, especially in Europe.”
“The conflicting messages coming out of the White House are not exactly helping. President Trump has been causing market swings with his social media posts, the latest messaging containing both reports of a ceasefire plan, negotiations with Iran—which Iran has rejected as untrue—and reports of more U.S. troops being sent to the Middle East, suggesting preparations are underway for a prolonged conflict and possibly a ground offensive.”
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Washington-Stress-Tests-200-Oil-as-War-Risk-Mounts.html
“FAA Probing Close Call Between Black Hawk Helicopter, Boeing 737 Operated By United Airlines”
“The agency said it will probe the incident, which took place on Tuesday when the jet was approaching the John Wayne Airport in Santa Ana at 8:40 PM, when the Sikorsky Black Hawk passed in front of the plane. Data from Flightradar24 suggested that the two aircraft were separated vertically by a distance of over 500 feet.”
https://www.benzinga.com/news/travel/26/03/51502996/faa-probing-close-call-between-black-hawk-helicopter-boeing-737-operated-by-united-airlines
@ Mr. Hamilton
Today’s new LNA article states:
“Some countries, such as Japan and China, obtain more than 90% of their oil via the Strait.”
China gets about 40-45% of its oil from the Strait.
Perhaps you meant South Korea?
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/03/strait-of-hormuz-closure-which-countries-will-be-hit-the-most.html
Other information indicates China gets more than 90% of its oil via the Strait.
Chat GPT
“How much oil?
Roughly 40–50% of China’s imported oil travels through the Strait of Hormuz.
That equals about 4–6 million barrels per day (varies by year and demand).”
China doesn’t get “more than 90% of its oil” through the strait, not even 90% of its imported oil.
• China is (also) a major oil producer itself (Production rose from 3.8 million b/d in 2020 to ~4.3 million b/d in 2025)
That’s likely more than 10% of its oil consumption!
• The Strait of Hormuz is open for ships that are allowed to pass through
• China imports oil through pipelines from Central Asia and other countries
• China imports oil from Africa, Latin America, around the globe for diversification.
According to the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University: at least over half of China’s oil import doesn’t have to go through the Strait of Hormuz **in addition to China’s domestic production**.
Chart:
https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/China-oil-imports-blog-Figure-1-FINAL-1.27.26-1024×839.png
> China significantly increased its oil reserves in 2025, with estimates suggesting the country added between 73 million and over 100 million barrels of crude oil to its strategic and commercial stockpiles…
“The Cushion Is Gone and the Oil Market Is Now Exposed”
“The oil market initially absorbed a historic supply disruption thanks to surplus, floating storage, and policy interventions.
“Those buffers are now largely depleted, leaving the system structurally fragile and highly sensitive to new disruptions.
“With spare capacity constrained and inventories falling, even minor supply shocks could now trigger disproportionate price spikes.”
“Another crucial variable that explains why prices have not moved further is the length of the supply chain.
“The Strait of Hormuz throughput has been lost for nearly four weeks now, but global oil arrivals only showed the first meaningful decline last week, of about 7.0 million bpd below the three-year average.”
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Cushion-Is-Gone-and-the-Oil-Market-Is-Now-Exposed.html
…and new disruptions have already started to kick in:
“Russia Warns of Force Majeure on Oil Cargoes After Port Disruptions”
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Russia-Warns-of-Force-Majeure-on-Oil-Cargoes-After-Port-Disruptions.html
Not much oil relief coming to/from US domestic production:
“US Drillers Pull Back As WTI Soars Past $98”
“The total number of active drilling rigs for oil and gas in the United States fell this week, according to new data that Baker Hughes published on Friday, bringing the total rig count in the US to 543, down 49 from this same time last year.
“The number of active oil rigs fell by 5 to 409 during the latest reporting period, according to the data. This is 75 below this same time last year. The number of gas rigs fell by 4, sinking to 127, which is 24 more than this time last year. The miscellaneous rig count stayed the same at 7.
“The latest EIA data showed that weekly U.S. crude oil production fell for the fifth week in a row during week ending March 20. US crude oil production averaged 13.657 million bpd during the reporting period—a 11,000 bpd dip from the week prior, and 205,000 bpd under the all-time high.”
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/US-Drillers-Pull-Back-As-WTI-Soars-Past-98.html
The war in Iran was already curtailing supply of oil, gas, urea/fertilizer and helium…but we can now add aluminum to that list:
===
“UAE Global Aluminum’s Taweelah Plant Was Attacked and Severely Damaged”
“The Taweelah complex of Emirates Global Aluminium (EGA) in the UAE sustained severe damage in Iranian missile and drone attacks.
“Damage assessment work is currently ongoing at the complex, which is located in Khalifa Economic Zones Abu Dhabi.”
https://news.metal.com/newscontent/103830605-UAE-Global-Aluminum%E2%80%99s-Taweelah-Plant-Was-Attacked-and-Severely-Damaged
This was a (first) retaliation for Israel’s attack yesterday on 2 Iranian steel plants.
…and the Israeli/US side has now escalated attacks to include an important water source in Haftgel, Western Iran.
So, we know that desalination plants in the GCC region will now be targeted in retaliation by Iran.
“How the big oil and gas CEOs think the Iran war supply disruption will play out”
“Oil industry executives painted a grim picture of the Iran war supply disruption at S&P Global’s annual CERAWeek energy conference in Houston.
“They warned that the disruption is bigger than the markets understand and prices are unlikely to return to pre-war levels soon.
“The disruption to jet fuel, diesel and gasoline is even bigger. Shortages are rippling through Asia and will hit Europe by April, they said.
“Security experts said escalation of the war is likely. The conflict could break the Gulf Arab nations economies.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/28/iran-war-oil-companies-price-gas-diesel-strait-hormuz.html
CBC: Flight simulator recreates final moments before LaGuardia runway crash
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.7142596
I viewed it, but while it may satisfy the curiosity of viewers outside commercial aviation, it doesn’t really add anything new of value, does it?
As an (mainly international long haul ops) airline pilot I still ask myself
1) Why did the Runway Status Lights – that are supposedly fully automated – not prevent this?
2) While there may be no need to equip all ground vehicles that may cross runways with ground ADS-B, shouldn’t at least the lead (or only) vehicle that crosses a runway be required to be equipped with ground ADS-B?
In a dark wet night, with many different lights at an airport competing for a pilot’s attention, it is exceedingly difficult to spot an individual vehicle about to cross a runway.
PNWGEEK
“The past matters.
The past shows that Airbus has NEVER delivered a main deck high tonnage freighter…”
Sounds to me no different than the argument that once was popular: the US housing market hasn’t declined nationwide since the WW II, which proved tragically delusional during the 2007/8 mortgage-backed securities/CLO crisis which led to the 2008/9 GFC. Is this time different?