A new aviation safety report from Embry-Riddle shows why fear of flying often outpaces the data, especially in the age of social media.
If recent aviation headlines have made you more anxious about flying, you are not alone.
In this day and age, aviation incidents do not stay local for long. A mechanical issue, an engine failure, a rejected takeoff, a runway go-around, or a close call can be clipped, posted, reshared, and stripped of context before the aircraft has even taxied back to the gate. Social media has made the average traveler more aware of every little aviation mishap than ever before.
Being more aware can help, but it can also make normal flying procedures seem scary, especially for people who don’t know much about the rules and science behind commercial aviation.
For example, a go-around is a safe and routine maneuver. Pilots practice it, air traffic controllers expect it, and airlines plan for it. But if someone sees a shaky phone video with dramatic captions and music, it can look like a near-disaster. And once that video is on social media, the details often get lost.
That is the problem with aviation in the algorithm age. Drama creates clicks. Fear spreads faster than context. And because aviation accidents and incidents are so visible, it can create the impression that flying is suddenly getting more dangerous.
A new report from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University’s Boeing Center for Aviation and Aerospace Safety offers a much-needed reality check.
The report, titled Comparative Risk Metrics for U.S. Commercial Aviation, looks at U.S. commercial airline safety under Part 121 operations and compares it with other forms of transportation, recreational activities, household risks, and common occupations. The main takeaway is clear: by any measure, U.S. commercial aviation is still one of the safest activities in modern life.
“Across all metrics considered, airline travel consistently emerges as the safest mode of transportation,” said Robert L. Sumwalt, executive director of the Boeing Center for Aviation and Aerospace Safety and former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board.
Looking at Risk More Than One Way
Dr. Mihhail Berezovski, associate professor of Mathematical Sciences and director of Undergraduate Research at Embry‑Riddle, is the lead author of the new aviation safety study | IMAGE: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
One of the most important ideas in the report is that risk can’t be summed up by just one number.
Someone who is nervous about flying probably doesn’t think about passenger miles. Instead, they might wonder, “What are the chances something will happen on my flight?” Regulators or safety experts might look at risk per hour, per mile, per trip, or over a lifetime. All of these are valid, but each needs a different way to measure risk.
That’s why the Embry-Riddle report uses several risk metrics, including risk per passenger mile, risk per trip or event, risk per hour of exposure, annual risk, and lifetime odds of death.
Dr. Mihhail Berezovski, an associate professor and director of Undergraduate Research at Embry-Riddle, led the report. He said the goal was to help people understand aviation safety in a clearer and more logical way.
“We want to give people correct, thorough, and broad information so that they can assess risk rationally,” Berezovski said. “By looking at multiple complementary measures, we can conclude that aviation’s safety performance is not an outcome of one assessment methodology. Rather, it is a consistent result across distance, time, and event-based perspectives.”
Aviation’s safety performance is not an outcome of one assessment methodology. Rather, it is a consistent result across distance, time, and event-based perspectives.
Comparative Risk Metrics for U.S. Commercial Aviation
This is important because aviation accidents are incredibly rare…but they get a lot of attention. The report points out that people’s views are often shaped by the emotional impact of big events, not by the actual risk. In other words, flying can feel dangerous because the rare accidents are so memorable.
But the data shows something different.
Commercial Aviation Stands Apart
Photos in and around Terminal 5 at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport; June 2022.
Using multi-year data, the report found that U.S. commercial aviation produced roughly one fatality per 90.9 billion passenger miles over the analysis period. That places it well ahead of other transportation modes in terms of distance traveled.
That is an enormous number, and it helps explain why aviation remains such a powerful outlier in transportation safety. For comparison, traveling by highway bus has about 9 times the fatality risk per passenger-mile. Cars, SUVs, pickup trucks, minivans, and vans have more than 600 times the risk of flying the same distance. Motorcycle travel is even riskier, with a risk over 22,000 times higher per passenger mile.
This doesn’t mean airline travel has no risk. No form of transportation can promise that. But it does show how advanced, regulated, and data-driven the U.S. airline system is today.
The report also looks at the risk of a single airline boarding, which may be the more intuitive way many passengers think about flying. On that basis, commercial aviation again performs exceptionally well. The report estimates one fatality per more than 97 million airline boardings.
When you compare flying to other single-event activities, the difference is clear. A day of skiing or snowboarding is about 73 times riskier than boarding a commercial flight. Scuba diving is about 180 times riskier, running a marathon is about 200 times riskier, and skydiving is more than 400 times riskier.
If you’ve ever worried about your flight while driving to the airport, these numbers are a good reminder: the flight is usually the safest part of your trip, even though it often feels the scariest.
The report also compares aviation risk to everyday dangers, even those that don’t usually cause as much public worry.
Each year, the chance of dying in a U.S. commercial aviation accident is described as “vanishingly small.” The report compares this risk to things like falls, car accidents, drowning, heat, household injuries, and more.
For example, the yearly risk of dying in a car accident is over 5,800 times higher than in a U.S. commercial aviation accident. The risk from falls is more than 5,600 times higher, and preventable deaths at home are over 14,000 times higher.
Even risks that seem freakishly rare, like being struck by lightning or bitten by a dog, are higher each year than dying in a commercial aviation accident.
This isn’t meant to make light of aviation accidents. Every accident is serious, and every loss matters. But the report shows that the emotional impact of a tragedy can make us misjudge the actual risk.
“This report helps people place aviation risk in the broader context of everyday activities and occupations,” Berezovski said. “It’s natural to feel fearful or worried after an accident, but decisions, both personal and policy-related, should be based on reliable data, not just fear based on a single event.”
Rare Events Need Careful Measurement
A new FAA helicopter aircraft separation rule aims to prevent another tragedy, such as the midair collision near DCA in January 2025
One reason aviation safety can be so difficult to discuss publicly is that fatal commercial airline accidents are now extremely rare in the United States.
That is good news, obviously. But statistically, it also creates a challenge. In many years, there may be no fatalities at all. In another year, a single accident can distort the way people perceive the trend. A zero-fatality year does not mean the underlying risk is literally zero. And a year with a rare fatal accident does not necessarily mean the entire system is suddenly unsafe.
To deal with that, the Embry-Riddle report uses multi-year aggregated data. That approach helps mitigate the instability inherent in rare events and creates a clearer picture of long-term safety performance.
That is especially important in the current media environment. A single frightening video can make it feel like a pattern exists, even when the underlying data says otherwise. The full report is a reminder that aviation safety should be judged by disciplined analysis, not by whichever clip happens to be circulating online that day.
That does not make viral videos meaningless. Sometimes they capture serious events. Sometimes they raise valid questions. Sometimes they lead people to pay closer attention. But they are not a substitute for data.
One of the most important things about the report is its careful approach.
This report isn’t meant to celebrate or suggest that the work is finished. In fact, the experts behind it say the opposite.
Sumwalt pointed out that today’s aviation safety comes from decades of worldwide standards, careful oversight, better technology, training, rules, and lessons learned from past accidents. These improvements took time and often came from difficult experiences.
“Low risk does not mean no risk,” Sumwalt said. “The aviation community must continue to learn from every accident, incident, and near miss. This analysis gives us a clearer baseline from which to measure progress.”
That’s the right way to look at a report like this. The data should reassure passengers, but it shouldn’t make the industry complacent. Aviation’s strong safety record exists because people kept asking tough questions, investigating problems, improving systems, and never settling for “safe enough.”
Embry-Riddle President P. Barry Butler said the university’s role is to help advance that conversation in the public sphere.
“For over a century, Embry-Riddle has acted as a leader in aviation and aerospace safety,” Butler said. “By integrating academic analysis and industry partnerships with public outreach, we’re committed to advancing the national conversation on risk and to providing the data and tools that regulators, airlines, and the traveling public need to keep improving safety.”
For travelers, the main point is simple but important. Fear of flying is understandable. Aviation accidents are rare, but they have a big impact when they happen. And in the age of social media, even routine or safely handled events can be made to look dramatic.
But the actual numbers tell a much calmer story.
Measured by mile, by trip, by hour, by year, and across a lifetime, U.S. commercial aviation remains extraordinarily safe. It is not risk-free. Nothing is.
But compared to the risks people face every day, flying is about as safe as any way humans have ever traveled.
Although the short-range, low-capacity segment of the market was saturated with twin-jet designs, inclusive of the Sud-Aviation SE.210 Caravelle, the British Aircraft Corporation BAC-111, the McDonnell-Douglas DC-9, the Boeing 737, and the Fokker F.28 Fellowship, Dassault-Breguet believed that a larger twin, accommodating at least 150 passengers and operating over sectors no longer than 932 miles, was needed to fill the gap between these other designs and the 336-passenger Airbus A300.
Market studies conducted in 1968 indicated the need for as many as 1,500 aircraft in this category during the next nine years. Of the existing types, only the Caravelle 12 and the DC-9-50 accommodated 130 single-class passengers in high-density configurations, while the others carried considerably fewer. The BAC 1-11-200, for instance, had a capacity of only 89, and the F.28, even in its ultimate stretch as the F.28-4000, accommodated five fewer. Dassault-Breguet’s intended airliner was seen as an early Airbus, economically operating short-range, high-density routes, such as those between France’s major population centers.
Unlike four of these five other twin-jets, its own configuration, resulting from several sizes and design solutions, was a conventional low-wing monoplane with a fuselage wide enough, like that of the 737, for six-abreast coach seating, two pylon-mounted engines, and an equally conventional tailplane. Its overall appearance, in fact, was very much a mirror image of that 737, except that its turbofans were hung lower and ahead of the wing, as opposed to Boeing’s underside attachment arrangement, and its fuselage was longer to permit six additional six-abreast seat rows to be installed.
Project go-ahead was contingent upon receipt of at least 50 firm orders for the eventually named “Mercure,” or “Mercury,” but only Air Inter, the French domestic carrier, committed itself to ten on 29 January 1972. So convinced was Dassault-Breguet of the integrity of its design and the world market’s need for it that it launched the program on the basis of a single airline order.
The French government covered 56 percent of the launch costs, with 14 percent borne by Dassault-Breguet itself and the remainder by its five risk-sharing partners, which included Aeritalia of Italy, Canadair of Canada, CASA of Spain, the Eidgenössisches Flugzeugwerk of Switzerland, and SABCA of Belgium. Each was responsible for parts and systems manufacture: Aeritalia, the tail unit and the tailcone; Canadair, the wing panels, the leading edge, the flap tracks, and the engine pylons; CASA, the first and second fuselage sections; Eidgenossisches Flugzeugwerk, the engine air intakes and the cowling panels; and SABCA, the flaps, the spoilers, the ailerons, and the airbrakes. Final assembly would take place at the Bordeaux-Merignac production plant in Southern France.
Mercure Design Features
Air Inter Mercure landing at Paris Orly (ORY) | IMAGE: simon butler from halesowen, uk, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
The Mercure 100 in its initial—and, in the event, only—version featured an all-metal, five-section, semi-monocoque fuselage of circular cross-section wide enough for six-abreast coach seating and measuring 112.11 feet in length, giving the aircraft an overall length of 114 feet 3.5 inches. Of the five other low-capacity, short-range twin-jets, only the Boeing 737 offered sufficient width for this configuration.
The airframe was designed for 30,000 flight cycles and 40,000 airborne hours.
Dassault Mercure cockpit | IMAGE: Konstantin von Wedelstaedt (GFDL 1.2 or GFDL 1.2 ), via Wikimedia Commons
The low-set wings, whose two-spar torsion boxes were comprised of a continuous spar, eight skin panels, stiffeners, and machined ribs, were equipped with three-section out- and downward-extending leading edge slats (as opposed to the five fitted to the prototype), two-section triple-slotted trailing edge flaps, an aileron, three spoiler panels, and two airbrakes. All were hydraulically operated by dual actuators, which were themselves fed by three independent circuits.
The spoilers, interrupting lift upon main-wheel spin-up, operated in conjunction with the aileron in flight to provide lateral control.
The 100.3-foot wingspan, resulting in a 1,250-square-foot area, featured a 25-degree sweepback, producing a 96.25 pounds-per-square-foot loading. Other wing surface areas included the trailing edge flaps (261.6 square feet), the ailerons (45.2 square feet), the spoilers (49.5 square feet), and the speed brakes (36.6 square feet).
Wing leading edges were deiced by means of engine bleed air.
The conventional tailplane, again similar to the 737’s, consisted of two-spar horizontal and three-spar vertical surfaces, resulting in a 37-foot, 3.25-inch overall aircraft height. The former, mounted with three degrees of dihedral and of the variable-incidence type, had a 41.11-foot span and a 257.3-square-foot area with 86.1 square feet of hinged, hydraulically actuated elevators. The 166.3-square-foot fin was provisioned with a 64.1-square-foot, hydraulically-operated, dual-section rudder.
IMAGE: Mathieu Marquer from Paris, FRANCE, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
Power was provided by two nacelle-encased, sound absorption-treated, thrust reverser-equipped, 15,500 thrust-pound Pratt and Whitney JT8D-15 low (1:1) bypass ratio turbofans pylon-mounted to the wing leading edge underside. Unlike the direct-wing underside arrangement of the 737, the configuration placed the engine below and ahead of the airfoil, necessitating a longer undercarriage strut. Several versions of the engine powered the Boeing 727, higher-capacity Caravelle variants, the DC-9, and the 737 itself.
Fuel, whose capacity was 4,860 US gallons, was introduced at the starboard wing’s outer leading edge, with additional points on the actual surface. Oil capacity was 11.9 US gallons.
The Mercure 100 rested on a hydraulically-operated, twin-wheeled undercarriage consisting of Kleber-Colombes tires, Messier-Hispano wheels, oleo-pneumatic shock absorbers, Messier-Hispano brakes, and antiskid units. The nose gear, with a tire size of 30 x 8.8 and a pressure of 123 psi, was steerable and retracted forward. The main gear, whose tire size was 46 x 16 and whose pressure was 141 psi, retracted laterally into the wing and fuselage wheel well fairings. The undercarriage could be manually extended in the event of a hydraulic failure.
Nose wheel steering and track enabled the aircraft to be turned 180 degrees on the ground on a 70-foot-wide surface.
Dassault Mercure aircraft in production | IMAGE: Dassault Aviation
Entry was provided by 71-by-33-inch forward and aft port-side doors, the first of which was standardly equipped with an extendible, lighted, handrail-provisioned airstair, and the second of which could be optionally equipped with one. The forward and aft, starboard-side galley-servicing counterparts measured 71-by-33- and 65-by-33-inches, respectively. Four 39.4-by 20-inch overwing emergency exits, two on each side, facilitated egress.
Although the Mercure 100 was standardly operated by a two-person crew, two additional observer seats were provided. Vision was through two forward and four side windows, as well as two eyebrow panes. Incorporating technology designed for Dassault-Breguet’s famous fighters, it was provisioned with a head-up display, reducing the time between sky scanning and instrument monitoring for more immediate control and corrective action, if required.
Three 3,000-psi independent hydraulic systems powered the primary and secondary flight controls. The first two, driven by Abex engine-driven pumps, powered the leading-edge slats, trailing-edge flaps, spoilers, tailplane, nose-wheel steering, undercarriage, and brakes. The third, powered by a Vickers electrically driven pump, provided backup power to the ailerons, elevators, and rudder.
The 83.7-foot-long, 11.11-foot-wide, and 7-foot-2.75-inch-high cabin, with an 882-square-foot floor area and 5,717-cubic-foot volume, was both wider and longer than that of any twin-jet up to that time and thus facilitated numerous class divisions, seat pitches, and seat densities. This flexibility was further enhanced by its rectangular, closely spaced, polarized, light-filtering passenger windows and the four forward and aft access doors.
Cabin Layout and Passenger Configuration
Dassault Mercure cabin interior | IMAGE: Konstantin von Wedelstaedt (GFDL 1.2 or GFDL 1.2 ), via Wikimedia Commons
Originally outfitted with a wide cabin look, it featured a flat ceiling with recessed, diffused lighting; individual, upward-opening overhead storage compartments for carry-on luggage; and paneled sidewalls. Galleys, lavatories, and garment closets could be installed in 11 locations. The galleys themselves could be simply or extensively provisioned with ovens, refrigeration units, coffee makers, storage compartments, counters, waste receptacles, and meal and beverage carts, and could serve anything from an aperitif to a hot meal appropriate to the time of day.
Installation and the number of units included the forward, right side (two units), the forward, left side behind the passenger door (two units), the aft, right side ahead of the servicing door (two units), the aft, left side ahead of the passenger door (one unit), and the aft, right side behind the servicing door (one unit).
Lavatories, which standardly consisted of a lockable door, a chrome sink and counter, dispensers for tissues, cups, and toilet paper, a lighted mirror, and a recirculating toilet, could equally be installed in a number of locations, including on the forward, right side behind the servicing door; on the forward, left side behind the passenger door; on the aft, left side before the passenger door; on the aft, left side behind the passenger door; and on the aft, right side behind the servicing door.
Garment storage closets could also be installed in seven forward and aft locations.
Seating densities, configurations, upholstery, color, and design, like galley, lavatory, and garment closet locations, varied according to customer specification, but each seat itself was provisioned with a seatbelt, an ashtray, a pull-down tray table, and a literature pocket. Each also reclined.
An Air Inter Dassault Mercure taxiing at Paris Orly (ORY) in August 1986 | IMAGE: simon butler from halesowen, uk, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
A dual-class, 120-passenger arrangement entailed 12 four-abreast first-class seats at a 38-inch pitch, their pairs spanning 54 inches in width and thus permitting a 31-inch aisle, and 108 six-abreast coach ones at a 34-inch pitch, their triples spanning 61 inches and the resultant aisle measuring 17 inches in width.
A dual-class, 132-passenger configuration consisted of 12 first-class seats at a 38-inch pitch and 120 at a 34-inch pitch, but the additional capacity was achieved by relocating or removing galley, lavatory, and/or garment storage closet facilities.
An international, single-class arrangement entailed 135 to 140 six-abreast seats at a 34-inch pitch, while its single-class domestic counterpart increased the capacity to 150 at a 32-inch pitch. The type’s maximum single-class capacity was 162 at a 30-inch pitch, which was 32 more than the comparable 737-200’s and 23 more than either the Caravelle 12’s or the DC-9-50’s.
Garett air conditioning and Hamilton Standard pressurization systems, using engine bleed air, produced an 8.3-psi cabin differential.
An Air Inter Dassault Mercure at Paris Orly (ORY) in 1981 | IMAGE: Eric Salard, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
Baggage, cargo, mail, and live animals were carried in three lower-deck holds.
The first two compartments could accommodate five and four 727-type cargo containers, respectively, while the third accepted only bulk or loose loads. All were heated, lighted, and pressurized, and housed oxygen and potable water supply tanks, as well as lavatory waste receptacles. A powered loading system could be optionally installed.
The Mercure 100 offered the following weights: an empty operating weight of 70,039 pounds, a payload of 32,850 pounds, a maximum ramp weight of 121,250 pounds, and a maximum takeoff weight of 120,150 pounds.
Weights for export aircraft—that is, those ordered by carriers other than Air Inter—differed, as follows: a maximum zero-fuel weight of 105,820 pounds, a maximum ramp weight of 125,660 pounds, and a maximum takeoff weight, after taxi fuel consumption, of 124,560 pounds.
Performance and Payload Limitations
Air Inter Dassault Mercure landing at Marseilles Provence Airport (MRS) | IMAGE: Udo K. Haafke (GFDL 1.2 or GFDL 1.2 ), via Wikimedia Commons
Fulfilling its design goals, the Mercure 100 offered a higher payload, a greater passenger capacity, and more cargo hold volume than any previous twin.
It was also able to transport more passengers for its weight than any other twin-jet, achieving superior operating efficiency.
Only the 727-200, which was also powered by the JT8D engine, could exceed the Mercure 100’s capacity with 169 passengers, but at a considerably higher average weight of 145,000 pounds and with an additional powerplant.
The Mercure 100 also offered the lowest fuel burn per passenger on a typical 630-nautical-mile European sector when operating at its long-range cruise speed at 33,000 feet with a 137-mile diversion allowance.
Air Inter Dassault Mercure fueling up at Nice (NCE) in 1989 | IMAGE: Ken Fielding/https://www.flickr.com/photos/kenfielding, CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
These comparisons indicate four basic design superiorities.
The highest fuel mileage per seat of all jetliners carrying fewer than 250 passengers.
The highest average speed of all short- to medium-range commercial aircraft.
The lowest empty weight per seat.
The highest payload of all twin-jets weighing less than 200,000 pounds.
Optimized for short flight times, the Mercure 100 covered 500 nautical mile segments in five to 15 minutes less than comparable twins because of its high climb, cruise, and descent rates. Combined with its quick turnaround capability, these performance figures facilitated high daily utilization rates.
The aircraft required a 4,630-foot runway for landing based upon a 136-mph (118-knot) approach speed and a 109,790-pound maximum landing weight.
Built for Fast Turnarounds
An Air Inter Dassault Mercure at Nice (NCE), France, in 1975 | IMAGE: G B_NZ, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
Short turnaround times were made possible by a tailcone-installed Garrett-AiResearch GTCP-85-163C auxiliary power unit (APU) that provided ground power for cabin conditioning, engine starting, and an emergency electrical supply; the forward, left (and optional aft, left) Aerozur airstair; and the starboard side galley servicing and lower deck baggage and cargo hold access doors. Because sectors were short, galley servicing and cabin cleaning were limited. And while the aircraft could be refueled in ten minutes, its high takeoff-to-landing weight ratio enabled it to operate several sectors before refueling was required.
Turnaround times thus varied from 10 to 15 minutes at intermediate stops and from 20 to 25 minutes at terminating points, where more extensive provisioning was required.
Aircraft at their maximum gross weight required a 6,300-foot runway for takeoff and could climb at 3,300 fpm.
Despite these seemingly superior design capabilities, the type’s primary deficiency was its payload-range inflexibility. On a typical Air Inter flight with 150 passengers cruising at Mach 0.78 and at 32,000 feet with a 200 nautical mile diversion allowance, for instance, the Mercure 100’s range was only 800 nautical miles. Only payload restrictions would have increased this—to 1,200 miles with a 25,000-pound payload and 1,600 miles with a 21,000-pound payload—thereby rendering it unable to exploit its passenger-cabin-and-cargo-hold advantage on routes that exceeded short-range ones.
The first Mercure 100 prototype, designated 01 and registered F-WTCC, first flew from Bordeaux on 28 May 1971, powered by two 15,000-thrust-pound Pratt & Whitney JT8D-11 turbofans, but incorporated a shorter fuselage than that intended for production versions.
Marcel Dassault in front of the second Mercure | IMAGE: Dassault Aviation
Because performance proved below design targets, it was retrofitted with 15,500-thrust-pound JT8D-15s and returned to the sky four months later, on 7 September. But the additional power did little to improve its poor low-speed handling characteristics, which were, in part, remedied by adding horizontal stabilizer dihedral, leaving it to fly again, now in this configuration, still two months later, on 18 November.
The second prototype, 02, and registered F-WTMD, joined the flight test program the following year on 7 September. The higher-thrust engines and the tailplane dihedral, along with full-span leading-edge slats, delivered the intended performance.
The first production version of the Mercure 100, intended for launch customer Air Inter and incorporating all of these modifications, along with the full-length fuselage, first flew from the new Istres production plant on 17 July 1973, and was awarded its French type certificate the following year on 12 February.
Air Inter Service
Air Inter Dassault Mercure being towed at Paris Orly (ORY) in March 1982 | IMAGE: Tim Rees (GFDL 1.2 or GFDL 1.2 ), via Wikimedia Commons
Air Inter took delivery of the first of its ten aircraft on 16 May, integrating the type into its shuttle-type French domestic route network. It received its second example seven days later, on 11 June.
Of the ten ordered, the first six were delivered in 1974, and the remaining four the following year, alphabetically registered F-BTTA through BTTJ.
Although its first four aircraft were only provisioned with Category II landing capability, its remaining six featured the upgraded Category III standard, enabling them to conduct approaches with a 500-foot runway visual range (RVR) and a 50-foot decision height (DH). The initial four were subsequently brought up to this capability.
Accommodating 150 passengers in a single-class, six-abreast, 3-3 configuration with 32-inch seat pitches, its ten Mercure 100s were well received by passengers and operated multiple daily round trips between a dozen French domestic cities and towns, with sectors ranging from 50 to 70 minutes, demonstrating its rapid turnaround capability.
Dassault Mercure on the ground at Nice – Cote d’Azur (NCE / LFMN), France, in 1975 | IMAGE: Manfred Groihs (GFDL or GFDL ), via Wikimedia Commons
Its capacity, however, proved excessive relative to demand. Lower-than-anticipated load factors, along with escalating fuel prices, ironically prompted Air Inter to ultimately acquire a fleet of Sud-Aviation Caravelle 12s, operating them on many of the same routes, but with lower costs. Although it briefly flirted with the idea of selling its Mercures, the French government mandated their continued operation, but provided a subsidy to do so.
Structurally, however, the Dassault-Breguet airliner was sound and offered technological comparability to other twin-jets.
During the first five years of operation, the ten Mercure 100s logged more than 90,000 hours, comprising some 100,000 53-minute segments and achieving an average dispatch reliability of 98.5 percent. Each aircraft operated eight to ten daily flights.
Equipped with a fully monitored automatic pilot and head-up instrument displays, they conducted Category IIIA landings in poor weather conditions and still achieved a 98- to 99-percent reliability rate.
On 25 March 1985, Air Inter took delivery of the second prototype, F-WTCC. Having already been provisioned with the longer fuselage, the higher-rated engines, the leading-edge slats, and the tailplane dihedral, it was brought up to full production standard, giving Air Inter an 11-strong fleet.
Program Conclusion
An Air Inter Dassault Mercure resting at the gate at Paris Orly on 14 August 1978 | IMAGE: Michel Gilliand (GFDL 1.2 or GFDL 1.2 ), via Wikimedia Commons
Because no other carrier or operator ordered the Mercure 100, which, to a degree, was designed for Air Inter’s frequent domestic route system, only a dozen, including the two prototypes, were ever built. Although the design was an aerodynamic success and it was extremely reliable in daily operations, it was a financial failure for several reasons.
Like the Vickers VC10 and the Hawker Siddeley HS.121 Trident, which had respectively been designed for British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) and British European Airways (BEA), it was geared toward Air Inter and its unique high-density, multiple-frequency, short-range domestic routes, a system which no other carrier maintained.
Dassault-Breguet, perhaps without choice, employed then-current technology, incorporating the existing Pratt and Whitney JT8D engines that powered other twin-jets, such as the DC-9, the 737, and the later versions of the Caravelle, and therefore elected to use its thrust for payload and passenger capacity rather than range.
Because it launched the Mercure program late, these and other twin-jets had already captured most of the market and offered the necessary payload and range variations to do so. While the ultimate stretches of the Caravelle, the DC-9, and the 737 resulted in maximum passenger capacities of 139, 139, and 130, respectively, their ranges were significantly greater, offering operators more flexibility.
Although market studies for an Airbus-type aircraft were accurate, their timing was not. Only after the 1980s was the 150-seat twin prevalent.
Finally, the Mercure 100’s operating economics could not be fully exploited if its additional capacity was not filled.
Dassault Mercure on the ramp | IMAGE: Steve Knight from Halstead, United Kingdom, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
While all of these factors led to the type’s demise and resulted in its paltry production run, Dassault-Breguet officially attributed the reason for its discontinuation as, “Fabrication stopped after completion of the tenth (production) aircraft due to the extremely penalizing evolution of the US dollar exchange rate.”
Despite what was certainly a failure by many measures, the Mercure 100, whose last scheduled flight occurred on 29 April 1996, achieved an enviable operational record. Air Inter’s 11 aircraft carried some 44 million passengers, logging 360,000 airborne hours during 440,000 flights with a 98-percent dispatch reliability during their 22 years of service, never having caused a single fatality.
A look back at MetroJet, the US Airways low-cost brand that launched in 1998 and became one of the era’s most memorable airline experiments.
On 1 June 1998, a bright red Boeing 737-200 pushed back from the gate at Baltimore/Washington International (BWI) and carried US Airways into a fight it could no longer avoid.
The airplane said MetroJet on the side. The fuselage was red. The belly was gray. The tail still carried the familiar US Airways flag, but the message was clear: this was supposed to be something different.
MetroJet was US Airways’ answer to the low-cost carrier revolution that was reshaping the US airline industry in the 1990s. Southwest Airlines was no longer some quirky Texas upstart with a clever boarding process and funny flight attendants. By the late 1990s, Southwest was a national force, and it was pushing hard into the East.
Southwest Airlines signs at BWI in the early 1990s | IMAGE: US Airways
For US Airways, that wasn’t a minor annoyance. This meant war.
At BWI, Southwest had started service in 1993 with just eight daily flights. Within a few years, it had grown to more than 70 daily departures, many of them aimed at markets US Airways cared deeply about. Low fares were no longer something happening somewhere else. They were happening in US Airways’ backyard.
So US Airways responded with MetroJet, a low-fare brand designed to compete head-to-head with Southwest, Delta Express, AirTran, and the other carriers putting pressure on legacy airline pricing. Like other “airline-within-an-airline” experiments of the era, MetroJet promised simplicity: one aircraft type, one class of service, low fares, and a focused route network built around leisure-heavy flying.
But MetroJet was also a contradiction from the start.
It was meant to feel like a low-cost carrier. But it was still very much a US Airways product.
Built by Task Force, Not by Accident
A MetroJet Boeing 737-200 at Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) in December 1999 | IMAGE: Konstantin von Wedelstaedt (GFDL 1.2 or GFDL 1.2 ), via Wikimedia Commons
One thing that tends to get lost in the history of MetroJet is that it was not simply thrown together in a panic.
Inside US Airways, the company presented MetroJet as the result of extensive internal planning. In late 1997, US Airways formed what it called the US-2 Task Force, a 25-member group representing nearly every major part of the airline. The team was asked to build a complete operating plan for a low-cost carrier within US Airways.
That meant more than choosing a paint scheme and lowering fares.
The task force benchmarked competitors. It held employee focus groups. It conducted consumer research. It surveyed Dividend Miles members. It studied outside research. It even evaluated more than 100 flights on low-cost competitors, including Southwest, Delta Express, and Shuttle by United, looking at the entire customer experience from ticket purchase to boarding to inflight service.
The team also tested operational procedures on actual mainline flights. Boarding procedures were studied. Reservation calls were timed down to the second. Policies were evaluated through the lens of whether they saved time, reduced complexity, or made the operation more consistent.
That detail adds texture to MetroJet’s story. This was not an airline that failed because nobody understood the threat. US Airways absolutely understood the threat. It studied the low-cost model carefully.
The harder problem was whether a high-cost legacy airline could truly build a low-cost competitor inside itself.
A Different Product With Familiar DNA
A USAir Boeing 737-200 that had yet to be repainted in the new US Airways livery wears a hybrid MetroJet livery as it taxis at Washington Dulles International (IAD) in 1999 | IMAGE: Konstantin von Wedelstaedt (GFDL 1.2 or GFDL 1.2 ), via Wikimedia Commons
MetroJet launched from BWI with five Boeing 737-200s transferred from US Airways. The first routes connected Baltimore with Cleveland (CLE), Providence (PVD), Fort Lauderdale (FLL), and Manchester, New Hampshire (MHT). Service expanded quickly, with Jacksonville (JAX), Miami (MIA), Tampa (TPA), Washington Dulles (IAD), and other destinations joining the network.
Florida was a natural fit. MetroJet was aimed heavily at leisure traffic, especially passengers moving between the Northeast and the Sun Belt. At its peak, the operation served roughly two dozen destinations, including cities such as Boston (BOS), Buffalo (BUF), Hartford (BDL), Orlando (MCO), Fort Myers (RSW), Raleigh/Durham (RDU), Syracuse (SYR), West Palm Beach (PBI), and others.
A MetroJet 737-200 in hybrid USAir/MetroJet colors departing Miami International Airport (MIA) in 1999 | IMAGE: JetPix (GFDL 1.2 or GFDL 1.2 ), via Wikimedia Commons
The 737-200 was the only aircraft type in the fleet. From an operational simplicity standpoint, that made sense. From a fuel-burn standpoint, it was less ideal. These were older airplanes, many of them already veterans of Piedmont or USAir mainline service. They were loud, classic, and full of character, but they were not exactly the perfect weapon against Southwest’s increasingly efficient low-cost machine.
A screenshot of MetroJet’s mission statement from a corporate video | IMAGE: US Airways
Still, MetroJet had some genuinely passenger-friendly touches. The aircraft were configured in a single-class layout with 118 seats, and the seat pitch was generous by today’s standards. MetroJet was low-fare, but it was not trying to be miserable.
The branding was also carefully considered. The red fuselage created a clear visual break from mainline US Airways. But the blue tail and stylized flag remained, reminding customers that MetroJet wasn’t a chintzy startup carrier but one backed by a well-known, established legacy airline.
That may have been smart from a marketing standpoint. It was also a perfect symbol of MetroJet’s larger challenge.
US Airways wanted MetroJet to be separate enough to compete differently, but connected enough to benefit from the parent company’s credibility, systems, employees, and Dividend Miles frequent flyer program. The result was a brand that looked independent from the terminal window but was still tied tightly to the legacy structure behind it.
The Low-Cost Battle Was Measured in Minutes
A MetroJet Boeing 737-200 on approach to Orlando International Airport (MCO) in October 1998 | IMAGE: JetPix (GFDL 1.2 or GFDL 1.2 ), via Wikimedia Commons
One of the most interesting parts of MetroJet was the operational choreography.
US Airways knew that if MetroJet was going to compete in the low-fare world, it had to save time on the ground. Time at the gate meant lower aircraft utilization. Lower utilization meant higher costs. And higher costs meant trouble when the competition was Southwest.
The internal MetroJet process reflected that obsession with minutes.
A MetroJet gate agent helps a passenger | IMAGE: US Airways
Seat assignments were available at the airport on the day of departure. Boarding passes were issued at the gate, so all customers had to interact with the gate agent. Tickets were collected during check-in. Customers with checked bags had a 20-minute cutoff. Passengers requiring assistance were pre-staged near the jetway. Fleet service agents were positioned to move the jet bridge as soon as the aircraft arrived, freeing customer service agents to focus on the gate process.
Even the cabin service was built around efficiency. Flight attendants took drink orders by zone using special MetroJet order forms. Snacks were served, then drinks followed. Before arrival, flight attendants collected trash and newspapers to reduce cleaning time after landing. Boarding was handled three rows at a time, with employees positioned to help customers stow bags and keep the process moving.
It wasn’t glamorous, but it got the airplanes back in the air quicker. And in the low-cost world, that was the whole game.
Early Optimism, Hard Economics
A MetroJet Boeing 737-200 on short final to Orlando International (MCO) in April 1999 | IMAGE: Andrew Thomas from Shrewsbury, UK, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
At least early on, US Airways had reason to feel encouraged.
In a corporate video from the period, the airline said MetroJet’s first day of operation was flawless, with a load factor in the 70s and 100 percent on-time performance. The same video said MetroJet was exceeding its operational objectives and traffic projections, citing a recent day with a load factor above 90 percent and on-time performance above 90 percent.
That was the optimistic version of the story. MetroJet was employee-designed. Customers were responding well. The airline was proud of the operation. US Airways even projected aggressive growth, with plans for MetroJet to become a significant – and “permanent” – part of the company’s family of products.
MetroJet timetable image from 3 February 1999 | IMAGE: From the Collection of Björn Larsson/timetableimages.com
But the business reality was more complicated.
MetroJet did lower costs compared with US Airways mainline, but not enough. Its reported cost per available seat mile was around 8 cents, compared with roughly 10 cents at mainline US Airways. That was progress. Unfortunately, Southwest was reportedly around 6 cents.
In airline economics, that gap made a huge difference.
MetroJet also had a cannibalization problem. Some of the passengers it attracted were not necessarily being stolen from Southwest or AirTran. They were coming from US Airways itself. Instead of simply protecting the parent airline’s markets, MetroJet could undercut mainline US Airways flying, including from airports such as Washington National (DCA).
As a poor college student in Florida in the late 90s, I was one of those passengers. A loyal US Airways customer at the time, I was drawn to MetroJet’s low fares and happily booked its bright red 737s during school breaks and trips back north to visit home. Little did I know, in my own tiny way, I was helping prove one of MetroJet’s biggest problems: some of its customers weren’t being won from competitors. They were already US Airways customers.
That is the trap many airline-within-an-airline projects fell into. Legacy carriers wanted the economics and flexibility of a low-cost airline without fully abandoning the structures, contracts, and complexity of a legacy airline.
MetroJet looked like a low-cost carrier, but it certainly didn’t fully operate with the cost base of one.
A Short Life in a Brutal Era
A MetroJet Boeing 737-200 taxis at Washington Dulles (IAD) in June 2001 | IMAGE: By Konstantin von Wedelstaedt – http://www.airliners.net/photo/MetroJet-%28US-Airways%29/Boeing-737-2B7-Adv/0327414/L/, GFDL 1.2, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15210560
MetroJet grew quickly. By 1999, it was operating dozens of aircraft and serving a broad East Coast network. At BWI, it became one of the most visible parts of the US Airways presence, with bright red 737-200s flying to Florida, the Northeast, and beyond.
Then came 11 September 2001.
US Airways was hit especially hard by the aftermath of the attacks. The extended closure of DCA was devastating for a carrier with such a heavy presence in the Washington, D.C. market. Traffic dropped. Security requirements changed. The entire industry entered crisis mode.
On 24 September 2001, US Airways announced that MetroJet would be shut down. By December, the operation was gone. The 737-200s were retired from US Airways service, the MetroJet brand disappeared, and the airline’s BWI hub was largely dismantled.
A MetroJet Boeing 737-200 sits, fittingly, next to a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-200 in the Mojave Desert in 2004 | IMAGE: aeroprints.com, CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
MetroJet lasted roughly three and a half years.
That short life makes it tempting to call the airline a failure and move on. In strict business terms, it did fail. It did not stop Southwest’s rise at BWI. It did not solve US Airways’ structural cost problems. It did not become a permanent low-cost platform inside the company.
But MetroJet remains one of the more fascinating experiments of its era because it showed just how difficult the low-cost revolution was for legacy carriers to answer.
US Airways understood the threat. It studied the competitors. It built a task force. It tested procedures. It painted the airplanes red. It choreographed the turns. It tried to shave minutes from the operation and create a product that could fight on price.
But the airline could not fully escape itself.
That is the real story of MetroJet. It was not merely a failed low-fare brand. It was a snapshot of an industry in transition, when legacy carriers were trying to defend old territory against a new kind of competitor with a different cost structure, different culture, and different rules.
For a few years, MetroJet gave US Airways a bright red answer to Southwest.
And for avgeeks who remember those 737-200s at BWI, in Florida, or scattered across the East Coast, it remains a wonderfully specific artifact of late-1990s airline history: loud, red, ambitious, imperfect, and gone almost as quickly as it arrived.
Watch this deliciously nostalgic corporate video announcing MetroJet’s vision:
Next year, NASA hopes to launch Artemis-3 alongside two commercial contractors Blue Origin, owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos, and SpaceX, owned by billionaire Elon Musk. However, neither company is anywhere close to ready, and after last night’s explosion of Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket, both rockets to launch the landers next year are currently grounded by the FAA.
The impact of last night’s explosion, combined with other Starship mishaps, could be significant for NASA’s near term Artemis plans to land on the moon again before China.
Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket exploded on Cape Canaveral LC-36 last night, doing a test fire ahead of the rocket type’s 4th mission.
More pressure is on SpaceX Starship now to get operational for Artemis-3
Starship just recently flew its 12th test, with a new beefed-up version of the previous design. The mammoth booster is supposed to return to Earth on a controlled power descent, but on flight 12 the engines conked out, leaving the booster to crash into the ocean instead of a controlled soft-landing on the waves. So it is currently grounded until they find the cause and solution.
The Starship itself did well, and did its own soft-landing before exploding as expected.
Fully fueled SpaceX Super-Heavy rocket and Starship
With the loss of Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket, there is even more pressure on SpaceX now to get Starship operational. NASA also gave Blue Origin a contract to develop a moon lander for Artemis missions. It is called Blue Moon, and is to launch on New Glenn.
With last night’s explosion taking out half the launch complex, it is safe to assume that repair work at LC-36 will take 6-12 months before the pad is operational again.
New Glenn on LC-36 before exploding (Mike Killian photo)
Add to that, New Glenn has only flown 3x, and the 3rd launch actually failed to deliver the payload to the proper orbit. So, even once the pad is repaired, they still don’t have a safe and consistent flight rate enough for NASA to realistically trust it yet. So, is Artemis-3 still realistic for 2027?
A cargo version of Blue Moon is currently undergoing testing in Houston, but now it has no rocket to launch to the moon on. It was supposed to launch this year, on an uncrewed lunar landing to show NASA it works and deliver the first payloads supporting future crews.
NASA illustrations, Blue Moon lander on left, Starship lander on right
Blue’s lander can however fit on NASA’s Artemis SLS rocket, used to launch the crew on Orion.
Blue Origin was to start launching Artemis infrastructure and payloads to the moon this year, now that won’t happen
NASA also awarded Blue Origin a contract to deliver payloads and Lunar Terrain Vehicles to the Moon for the Artemis program using New Glenn beginning later this year. With last night’s explosion, those plans are now gone.
NASA’s SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft launch with the first Artemis crew around the moon, mission Artemis-2 April 1, 2026 (Mike Killian photo)
NASA has proven their SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft for Artemis works, twice. Now it’s on Blue Origin and SpaceX to step up with their promises.
Artemis-3 is scheduled to launch next year, as a test in Earth orbit with NASA’s crew on the Orion spacecraft doing docking and rendezvous tests with the landers. But if the landers and their rockets are not ready, there is no mission. Which would mean no moon landing in 2028 either. Everything will continue delaying further.
Blue Origin Explosion, Starship Mishaps May Delay NASA’s Artemis Moon Plans 40
For now, both Blue Origin and SpaceX have shifted priorities more to development of the landers, to stay within the timetable expectations of the President and NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman. Both companies will no doubt figure things out. But will they do it before China?
Boeing is moving toward higher 737 MAX production as CEO Kelly Ortberg says 787 output is rising and MAX 7 certification is nearing.
Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg | IMAGE: Boeing
Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg used his appearance at the Bernstein Strategic Decisions Conference in New York on 27 May 2026 to lay out what may be one of the clearest snapshots yet of Boeing’s near-term commercial airplane recovery plan: push the 737 MAX line from 42 to 47 aircraft per month, move the 787 Dreamliner from eight toward 10 per month, and finally close out long-delayed certification work on the 737 MAX 7 and MAX 10.
For Boeing, all three are deeply connected. Higher production rates mean more deliveries. More deliveries mean more cash. But after years of scrutiny over manufacturing quality, certification delays, supply chain strain, and the lingering impact of the 2024 Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9 door-plug incident, Ortberg’s message was not simply that Boeing wants to build more airplanes.
It was that Boeing believes it is ready to do so more carefully.
737 MAX Production Is Moving Toward 47 Per Month
Renton Factory Interior View | IMAGE: Boeing
The most immediate update came on the 737 program, where Ortberg said Boeing has completed what he called the FAA’s capstone review for a move to 47 aircraft per month.
“We’ve passed the capstone review for rate 47,” Ortberg said. “So, we are now in the process of running the line at the 47 a month rate.”
That is a meaningful step for Boeing’s most important commercial airplane program. The company had moved to 42 per month last fall, and Ortberg said the ramp to that level had gone well, with key performance indicators remaining positive. The next step, he said, is to stabilize the production system at the higher rate.
“It’ll probably take us a few months of stabilization there,” Ortberg said, adding that Boeing “should be there in the next couple of months.”
Reuters also reported Wednesday that FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said the agency had endorsed Boeing’s move from 42 to 47 aircraft per month and was “absolutely comfortable” with that increase. The FAA imposed a 38-aircraft-per-month cap in January 2024 after the Alaska Airlines door-plug incident, later allowing Boeing to resume upward production as it demonstrated quality improvements.
Ortberg described Boeing’s rate-increase process as deliberately cautious. Before the capstone review, Boeing had already tested the system at 47 per month and placed “blanks” in the production flow. Those blank positions give the line room to recover if a commodity or supplier area falls behind.
In other words, the company is not simply shoving more airplanes through Renton and hoping the system catches up.
“We’re highly confident that we pulse the system to make sure we’re ready to go to that rate,” Ortberg said.
Everett’s “North Line” Will Matter More at 52 and Beyond
Boeing’s Everett, WA facility, which will become the “North Line” as 737 MAX Production ramps up | IMAGE: By Jeremy Elson – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16996754
The next major target is 52 aircraft per month, but Ortberg was careful not to put an aggressive date on it. He said Boeing historically has talked about waiting at least six months between rate increases, but he also made clear that the company will move only when the production system and supply chain are ready.
That is where Boeing’s new 737 production line in Everett, Washington, comes in.
Ortberg said the fourth 737 line, which Boeing calls the North Line, is already in place. The company plans to run an airplane through it to qualify the production system. Employees are being hired and trained in Renton before moving to Everett.
The Everett line is not needed for the move to 47 per month, Ortberg said. It becomes important for 52 and beyond.
“We need the Everett line active to move 52 and beyond, not for 47,” he said.
The long-term ambition remains even higher. Ortberg said Boeing would eventually like to get to 63 aircraft per month, but he acknowledged that the industry will be watching the company closely before that happens.
I think the whole world is watching to make sure we make 47 and 52.
Kelly Ortberg | Boeing CEO
“I think the whole world is watching to make sure we make 47 and 52,” he said.
That line may be the most honest summary of where Boeing stands. The demand is there. The backlog is there. But after years of operational and quality crises, Boeing has to earn confidence one production step at a time.
MAX 7 and MAX 10 Certification Near the Final Stages
The Boeing 737 MAX Family | IMAGE: Boeing
Certification also remains one of Boeing’s biggest commercial airplane priorities for 2026. Ortberg said the 737 MAX 7 and MAX 10 certification programs are “clearly getting to the final stages,” and that the two variants are now a little more than 80 percent through certification flight testing.
He also said Boeing now has FAA authority for the full remaining flight-test regime, meaning the company does not need additional FAA TIA approvals for those tests.
“So, it’s just a matter of getting through that flight test program,” Ortberg said.
The MAX 7 is expected to receive its type certificate before the MAX 10, though Ortberg said the two should be relatively close together. He acknowledged that the MAX 10 certification package is larger than the MAX 7 package, but said the work is being handled concurrently.
The engine anti-ice system, which has been one of the major issues tied to the delayed certifications, appears to be largely behind Boeing from a testing standpoint. Ortberg said that work has been completed and will first be cut into the 737-8 program.
“We’re through all the testing of the engine anti-ice, and that’s all kind of behind us,” Ortberg said. “We’re pretty confident that we’re not going to see any hiccups here in the remaining regime of flight testing.”
Separately, Reuters reported that FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said the FAA anticipates the 737 MAX 7 will be certified this summer and the MAX 10 before the end of 2026.
The long-awaited certification update is music to the ears of airlines waiting on the smaller and larger ends of the MAX family. Southwest Airlines has long been the key customer tied to the MAX 7, while the MAX 10 is important to carriers such as United Airlines, which has been waiting for the highest-capacity version of the 737 MAX family.
787 Output Is Back to Eight Per Month, But Seats and Engines Remain Watch Items
Boeing 787 final assembly at its North Charleston facility | IMAGE: Boeing
On the 787 Dreamliner, Ortberg said Boeing has moved to a rate of eight aircraft per month, with a goal of reaching 10 per month by the end of the year. But he also made clear that the path to 10 is not free of friction.
The biggest near-term challenge is not the basic production of the aircraft. It is getting completed aircraft delivered.
Ortberg said complex seating configurations, particularly in higher-end cabins, have created certification delays. In some cases, airplanes are finished but cannot be handed over to customers because the seat certification paperwork is incomplete.
“We have airplanes sitting for customers completely done waiting for seat certifications,” Ortberg said.
Boeing 787 Dreamliner family | IMAGE: Boeing
He said Boeing is working with the FAA, EASA, and seat manufacturers to improve the process, but expects the company will be “fighting seats throughout the year.” The issue is not typically the supply of the seats themselves, he explained. The seats are installed. The airplanes are built. The paperwork is the bottleneck.
Boeing is also watching engine deliveries. Ortberg said the company fell behind on engines in the first quarter and is working with GE on a recovery plan. That recovery, he said, will be needed before Boeing can raise the 787’s production rate.
The good news for Boeing is that Ortberg does not expect the seat issue to force a production slowdown. The more realistic impact is timing.
“I don’t think we’re going to do anything to slow production down,” he said. “But we may not go to the rate 10 as early as we could have had we not had the challenges.”
For Boeing, the message from Bernstein was one of progress, but not victory laps. The 737 is moving higher. The 787 is building momentum. The MAX 7 and MAX 10 are finally approaching the end of certification. But each milestone still depends on execution, and Ortberg seemed to know that better than anyone.
“This is an execution story,” he said. “So, just focus on execution.”
A full transcript of Ortberg’s comments is available here.
American Airlines Flight 191 and UPS Flight 2976 were not identical accidents, but their similarities have drawn serious attention from investigators and aviation safety experts.
On 25 May 1979, American Airlines Flight 191 began what should have been a routine mid-afternoon departure from Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD).
American Airlines Flight 191 seconds before impact on 25 May 1979 at ORD | IMAGE: All Things Chicago via Facebook
The aircraft, a McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10 bound for Los Angeles International (LAX), was carrying 258 passengers and 13 crew members. As it accelerated down Runway 32R and rotated into the air, the unthinkable happened. The left engine and pylon broke away from the wing, ripping off a section of the leading edge as it separated. The engine fell onto the runway while the aircraft continued climbing, briefly reaching about 325 feet.
What followed happened in seconds.
With the engine gone, the left wing’s leading-edge slats retracted unevenly. That left wing stalled without warning, and the DC-10 rolled sharply to the left (its maximum bank was recorded as 112º). Just 31 seconds after takeoff, it crashed into an open field near a trailer park, roughly 4,600 feet from the runway. All 271 people aboard were killed, along with two people on the ground.
The moment of impact when American Airlines Flight 191 crashed on 25 May 1979 | IMAGE: American Airlines Flight 191 seconds before impact on 25 May 1979 at ORD | IMAGE: All Things Chicago via Facebook
The NTSB later determined that the disaster was caused as a result of an asymmetrical stall and the resulting roll, caused by the uncommanded retraction of the left wing’s outboard leading-edge slats. The failure was traced back to maintenance-induced damage that led to the separation of the No. 1 engine and pylon assembly.
Investigators found that American Airlines’ maintenance procedure, which included the use of a forklift to support the engine and pylon during removal and reinstallation, had caused hidden structural damage to the pylon’s upper flange. In the aftermath, the FAA grounded the DC-10 fleet for 37 days while inspections and repairs were carried out.
More than four decades later, Flight 191 remains the deadliest single-aircraft crash in United States history.
Aviation safety expert Steve Forness, managing director of Air Flight Technical, later pointed to the design vulnerability exposed that day. In both the DC-10 crash and the later UPS accident, he noted, the engine appeared to rotate around the forward bulkhead before leaving the wing entirely.
A Reputation the DC-10 Never Fully Recovered From
The crash site of American Airlines Flight 191 | IMAGE: NTSB/Public Domain
The crash did more than destroy one aircraft. It severely (and permanently) damaged the DC-10’s reputation.
In the days that followed, the FAA temporarily revoked the aircraft’s type certificate, grounding all US-registered DC-10s and banning foreign DC-10s from American airspace. Even after fixes were made to the slats, warning systems, and power supplies, public confidence never fully returned.
Following Flight 191, the DC-10 became a symbol of risk for the flying public – whether that reputation was entirely fair or not. Sales suffered. McDonnell Douglas lost roughly $200 million in market value, and production of the DC-10 ended in 1989 after 386 aircraft had been built.
Aviation has always had aircraft that were technically improved after tragedy. But public perception can be harder to repair than metal.
Louisville: UPS Flight 2976
The stories of American Airlines Flight 191 and UPS Flight 2976 are linked by the same root cause: the separation of the No. 1 engine during departure | IMAGE: Public Domain/NTSB
On 4 November 2025, another McDonnell Douglas trijet was rolling down a runway when history seemed to echo in a chilling way.
UPS Airlines Flight 2976, an MD-11F freighter, was departing Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport (SDF) for Honolulu (HNL). The aircraft had been built in 1991 and had accumulated nearly 93,000 flight hours and more than 21,000 cycles. Three crew members were on board.
Shortly after V1 on Runway 17R, the left engine and pylon separated from the aircraft.
The MD-11 climbed only about 30 feet before losing control. It crashed into an industrial area south of the airport, striking several buildings and erupting in flames. All three crew members were killed, along with 12 people on the ground. One of those victims died from injuries 51 days later, bringing the final death toll to 15. Another 23 people on the ground were injured.
NTSB footage of the debris field caused by the crash of UPS Flight 2976 | IMAGE: NTSB
It was the deadliest accident in UPS Airlines history.
The NTSB’s preliminary report and later hearings identified fatigue cracks in the left pylon’s aft mount, particularly in the aft and forward lugs of the spherical bearing assembly. Investigators found that metal fatigue and overstress led to the failure.
The similarities to American Airlines Flight 191 were impossible to ignore. Both aircraft came from the same McDonnell Douglas wide-body trijet lineage. Both lost the left No. 1 engine and pylon during takeoff. Both aircraft became uncontrollable almost immediately. Both crashes ended in fire, fatalities, and loss of life on the ground.
In response, the FAA temporarily grounded the MD-11 fleet. This represented a fairly significant portion of the UPS fleet (about 9% of its total fleet). In the weeks following Flight 2976, the airline announced the accelerated retirement of its remaining MD-11s, completing the phaseout in early 2026.
Former NTSB major accident investigator Stephen Carbone raised concerns about oversight of heavy maintenance, warning that airlines can lose control when major maintenance work is outsourced. He pointed to the need for stronger FAA and airline oversight of third-party maintenance, repair, and overhaul providers.
The Parallels, the Differences, and the Lesson
UPS Flight 2976 moments before impact | IMAGE: NTSB
The similarities between American Airlines Flight 191 and UPS Flight 2976 are striking, but the accidents were not identical.
The 1979 crash happened because of maintenance damage during engine removal and reinstallation. The 2025 crash, based on the NTSB’s findings so far, was caused by long-term metal fatigue in a key bearing assembly. One accident was due to a harmful maintenance procedure. The other involved an old structural part that failed after many years of use.
Still, both accidents point to the same uncomfortable truth: the engine-pylon structure on these aircraft was a critical area where failure could quickly become catastrophic.
During NTSB hearings, FAA technical expert Dr. Melanie Violette explained that the severity of a bearing failure had been misunderstood decades earlier. It was not believed, at the time, to be critical to the aircraft’s integrity or safety.
That detail may become one of the most important lessons from Louisville.
First responders comb the scene of the crash of American Airlines Flight 191 on 25 May 1979 | IMAGE: Public Domain
Commercial aviation is vastly safer today than it was in 1979. Maintenance practices, inspection technology, crew training, certification standards, and oversight have all improved dramatically. But Flight 2976 shows that even mature aircraft designs can still hold hidden risks, especially as fleets age and airframes remain in demanding cargo service long after their passenger careers have ended.
The DC-10 and MD-11 are now largely gone from the skies, with only a few exceptions still flying. But the lessons from Chicago and Louisville will likely remain part of the safety conversation for years to come.
Commercial aviation is much safer now than in 1979, but Flight 2976 showed how quickly an older, proven design can become dangerous if a hidden structural problem is missed. This is especially true for cargo planes, which often continue flying long after their passenger service ends and undergo many demanding flight cycles.
The DC-10 and MD-11 are mostly gone from regular service, but the issues raised by the Chicago and Louisville crashes will not be forgotten soon. Now, investigators, airlines, regulators, and maintenance teams are focused on finding what was missed, understanding why, and making sure this kind of failure does not happen again.
The final NTSB report for Flight 2976 will be released this November.
The Hawker Siddeley Nimrod was one of those aircraft that should not have worked as well as it did, at least not on paper.
The civilian version of the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod was the Comet 4, seen here in British European Airways (BEA) colors arriving at Berlin Tempelhof Airport in 1969 | IMAGE: By Altair78 (talk) – BEA_De_Havilland_DH-106_Comet_4B_Manteufel.jpg, GFDL 1.2, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17868134
The Nimrod didn’t start out as a purpose-built submarine hunter. Instead, it was a heavily modified version of the de Havilland Comet 4, which was the world’s first operational jet airliner. By the mid-1960s, the Royal Air Force (RAF) needed to replace its aging Avro Shackleton maritime patrol aircraft, which were piston-powered and nearing the end of their service life. On 4 June 1964, the British Government issued Air Staff Requirement 381, beginning the search for a new long-range maritime patrol aircraft.
The government considered several options, including the Lockheed P-3 Orion and the Breguet Atlantic. But on 2 February 1965, they chose Hawker Siddeley’s HS.801, a maritime patrol version of the Comet. It was an unusual decision, but a classic British move: take a jet airliner, make major changes, and turn it into a plane built to hunt submarines across the North Atlantic.
The changes to the Comet were significant. Its original Rolls-Royce Avon turbojets were swapped for more efficient Rolls-Royce Spey turbofans. The fuselage was fitted with an internal weapons bay, a longer nose for radar, electronic support gear in the tail, and a magnetic anomaly detector boom. Two prototype Nimrods, XV148 and XV147, were built from unfinished Comet 4C airframes. The first Nimrod flew on 23 May 1967, and the first production model, XV230, joined the RAF on 2 October 1969.
A Jet-Powered Submarine Hunter
Hawker Siddeley Nimrod MR2 XV235 conducting a mission over the North Pole | IMAGE: Avro Heritage Museum UK
The Nimrod was the first jet-powered maritime patrol aircraft to enter service. Before this, most patrol planes used piston or turboprop engines for their long endurance and efficiency. The Nimrod’s turbofans gave it more speed, higher altitude, and greater range, so crews could reach their patrol areas quickly and cover huge stretches of ocean.
A fisheye view of the cockpit of a Nimrod aircraft during a pilot training sortie. The Nimrod is operated by 201 Squadron Royal Air Force flying from RAF Kinloss in Scotland. | IMAGE: By Photo: SAC Brown RAF/MOD, OGL v1.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=26896428
Its primary job was anti-submarine warfare, especially during the Cold War, when tracking Soviet submarines in the North Atlantic was a constant and highly sensitive mission. Nimrods operated from RAF Kinloss in Scotland and RAF St Mawgan in Cornwall, keeping watch over the seas north of Iceland and deep into the Western Atlantic. In wartime, the information gathered by Nimrod crews would have been passed to Royal Navy and NATO forces to help track and, if necessary, prosecute submarine contacts.
The MR1 gave the RAF a modern jet platform, but the MR2 became the definitive maritime reconnaissance variant. Beginning in 1975, 35 aircraft were upgraded to the MR2 standard and redelivered starting in August 1979. The upgrade included new electronics, such as EMI Searchwater radar, a new acoustic processor capable of handling more modern sonobuoys, a mission data recorder, and improved electronic support systems.
Routine navigator and Tactical Navigator Station on Hawker Siddeley Nimrod MR2 XV235 | IMAGE: Avro Heritage Museum UK/Mike Batty
Inside, the Nimrod served as both a sensor platform and an airborne command post. A typical MR2 crew had about 12 or 13 people, including pilots, a flight engineer, navigators, an Air Electronics Officer, and several weapons systems operators who managed the acoustic and electronic warfare equipment. The plane could carry torpedoes, mines, bombs, Harpoon missiles, Sting Ray torpedoes, sonobuoys, and search-and-rescue gear in its weapons bay. In some configurations, it could hold as many as 150 sonobuoys.
The Nimrod wasn’t glamorous like a fighter jet, but for those who know maritime aviation, it was a serious piece of equipment. It was made for long missions over cold oceans, tracking quiet targets, and crews spending hours watching screens and scopes.
From the Falklands to the Gulf
IMAGE: BAE Systems
The Nimrod’s most dramatic moment came during the Falklands War in 1982. Flying from Wideawake Airfield on Ascension Island, Nimrods carried out 111 missions to support British forces. Their jobs included maritime patrol, search and rescue, relaying communications, escorting other aircraft, and helping with the Vulcan Black Buck raids.
The Falklands War also led to some unusual changes for the Nimrod. MR2s were fitted with air-to-air refueling probes to fly farther and were even armed with AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles for self-defense against Argentine surveillance aircraft. This earned the Nimrod one of its best-known nicknames: the RAF’s biggest fighter.
A Royal Air Force (RAF) Nimrod MR2 Maritime Patrol aircraft takes off for a mission in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM in 2003 | IMAGE: Public Domain
These long-range missions were demanding. One patrol lasted 19 hours and 5 minutes, and it came within 60 miles of the Argentine coast. Another flight covered about 8,453 miles, making it the longest flight of the Falklands War.
The Nimrod continued to evolve after the Cold War. During the 1991 Gulf War, MR2s were sent to Oman and flew patrols over the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf. Some planes got better communications, electronic countermeasures, and towed decoys. Later, Nimrods were used over land in places like the Balkans, Iraq, and Afghanistan, where their sensors and long endurance made them valuable for gathering intelligence, far beyond their original maritime mission.
The RAF also operated the Nimrod R1, a variant designed for signals and electronic intelligence, flown by No. 51 Squadron. The R1 was easy to spot because it did not have a MAD boom. It carries special antennas and could have up to 25 SIGINT operators, along with the flight crew. The R1 remained in service until June 2011, outlasting the MR2.
A Difficult Ending
Nimrod MR1 XZ282 inflight (1978) | IMAGE: Mike Freer – Touchdown-aviation (GFDL 1.2 or GFDL 1.2 ), via Wikimedia Commons
Despite all it could do, the Nimrod’s story ended with frustration, loss, and a long gap in capability.
The most tragic moment came on 2 September 2006, when Nimrod MR2 XV230 was lost over Afghanistan after an in-flight fire. All 14 personnel on board were killed. It was the largest single loss of UK military personnel in Afghanistan and cast a long shadow over the type’s final years.
A Hawker Siddeley Nimrod MR4 in flight | IMAGE: By Ronnie Macdonald – Flickr: Nimrod MRA4 1, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=14539448
The planned replacement, the Nimrod MRA4, was supposed to bring the aircraft into a new era. In reality, it was more of a complete redesign than just an upgrade. The MRA4 used rebuilt MR2 fuselages, new Rolls-Royce BR710 engines, a bigger wing, modern avionics, and a glass cockpit. But the project faced long delays and went over budget.
The MRA4 first flew in 2004, but it never entered service. In 2010, the project was canceled during the Strategic Defense and Security Review, leaving the UK without a dedicated long-range maritime patrol aircraft until the Boeing P-8 Poseidon arrived.
The MR2 was retired on 31 March 2010, with its last official flight in May that year. The R1 was retired in 2011. By then, a plane that started as the world’s first jetliner had spent over forty years as one of Britain’s key maritime patrol aircraft.
The Nimrod was never sleek in the traditional sense. It looked like an airliner that had been asked to do a submarine hunter’s job and somehow made it work. But that was part of its character. It was strange, capable, deeply British, and quietly essential.
Breeze Airways has plans to more than double its footprint by the end of the decade.
On 3 April 2025, at the CAPA (Centre for Aviation) Airline Leader Summit in Dublin, Ireland, Breeze Airways CEO David Neeleman took the stage as a keynote speaker for a candid conversation with APEX (Airline Passenger Experience Association) Global CEO Dr. Joe Leader. Their conversation explored innovation, strategic shifts, and the reorientation of the airline industry toward traveler priorities. Neeleman’s insights offered a deep look into Breeze’s founding philosophy and its path forward as a five-year-old, Utah-based carrier. Here’s how Neeleman is steering Breeze to connect underserved communities with a modern, passenger-focused approach.
A Mission to Serve the Underserved
A Breeze Airways Airbus A220-300 receives a water cannon salute at CMH | IMAGE: Breeze Airways
Neeleman, the serial airline founder behind JetBlue, Azul, WestJet, and Morris Air, has built Breeze on lessons learned from his past ventures. He has shaped Breeze Airways to serve travelers in markets others bypass.
“I’ve spent my whole career trying to make flying better for people who don’t live in the biggest cities,” Neeleman said. “Breeze finally lets us connect those dots with nonstop service, great aircraft, and a simple, affordable experience.”
Breeze sets itself apart from legacy and most low-cost carriers (Avelo Airlines’ model is very similar) by targeting unserved and underserved routes.
“From day one, we knew we didn’t want to be just another airline trying to squeeze into the same crowded markets,” Neeleman stressed. “We wanted to go where the need existed, where people had been ignored—cities where the only options involved long drives to bigger airports or hours of connecting flights through hubs.”
Routes like Erie, PA (ERI) to Tampa (TPA), Ogdensburg, NY (OGS) to Washington Dulles (IAD), or Charleston, SC (CHS) to Los Angeles (LAX) exemplify this approach. By focusing on point-to-point flights, Breeze spares passengers the hassle of layovers and packed terminals, bringing convenience to communities long underserved.
The Airbus A220: The Heart of the Breeze Airways Fleet
A Breeze Airways A220-300 taxies to the gate at Orlando International Airport (MCO) | IMAGE: Orlando International Airport via Facebook
Central to Breeze’s strategy is its fleet, dominated by the Airbus A220-300. As of May 2026, Breeze operates 66 aircraft, primarily A220-300s, with the Embraer 190s largely transitioned out of scheduled service (retained mainly for charters or backup).
Breeze’s A220-300 fleet features two different layouts. The standard carries 137 passengers in a 2-3 configuration, with 12 premium “Ascent” seats in a 2-2 layout at the front. The more premium-heavy version features 36 Ascent seats and a total capacity of 126 passengers.
Neeleman remains unequivocal about the A220’s role. “The A220 allows us to fly coast-to-coast efficiently with a better onboard experience than any other aircraft in its class,” he said. “It’s quiet, fuel-efficient, and passengers love the cabin layout.”
The Ascent seats reduce capacity by just one seat per row, enabling Breeze to offer a first-class-like product on an ultra-low-cost carrier (ULCC) budget. With dozens more A220s on order and steady deliveries continuing, Neeleman sees endless possibilities.
“Every time we put one into service, we expand the map of where we can fly nonstop,” he noted.
The shift to an all-A220 scheduled fleet has streamlined operations for long-haul routes like transcontinental flights while keeping costs low and comfort high.
Digital Innovation: A Mobile-First Airline
IMAGE: Breeze Airways
Breeze strikes a balance between low fares and a superior experience through its from-scratch design and “mobile-first infrastructure.” As Neeleman put it, “We built the airline around the idea that your phone is your boarding pass, your check-in agent, and your help desk. We didn’t want long lines, printed itineraries, or call center wait times.” The Breeze app is the hub for booking, checking in, managing flights, and accessing support, streamlining every step for passengers. By eliminating call centers and paper-based processes, Breeze empowers its team to prioritize meaningful interactions with travelers.
Smart automation further enhances efficiency. “We use automation to solve what machines can handle, so our people can focus on what matters,” Neeleman explained.
Breeze’s systems proactively spot and resolve issues before they disrupt passengers. Coupled with gate-to-gate Viasat Wi-Fi on its A220s, this digital foundation keeps travelers connected and comfortable. It’s how Breeze delivers a high-end feel at ULCC prices—a defining feature of its approach.
Thoughtful Growth and Employee Ownership
A Breeze Airways Airbus A220-300 | IMAGE: Breeze Airways
Neeleman stressed that Breeze has scaled deliberately to “protect reliability and employee morale.” He described the airline’s growth as “thoughtful,” fostering a culture where employees feel like owners. “That sense of ownership makes a huge difference,” he said. By keeping operations lean and proactive, Breeze aims to resolve issues before they escalate, maintaining both passenger satisfaction and staff morale.
Looking ahead, Neeleman envisions Breeze serving 150 cities by 2030, sticking to its steady, measured approach. “There are still so many places in the US that don’t have nonstop service—and that’s just the beginning,” he said.
Breeze has since expanded internationally, launching service to destinations in Mexico (e.g., Cancún), the Caribbean (including Punta Cana and Montego Bay), the Bahamas (Nassau), and Costa Rica (San José), among others. The interline partnership with Azul Brazilian Airlines continues to connect Breeze’s domestic routes with Azul’s Brazilian network, making travel to secondary cities in both countries easier. “It’s a natural fit,” Neeleman said. “We’re connecting the dots between two airlines that share the same DNA—great service, great people, and nonstop routes where others don’t fly.”
More of the Same, Done Better
David Neeleman, founder of Breeze Airways | IMAGE: Breeze Airways
When Leader asked what Breeze would look like by 2030, Neeleman’s answer was simple: more of the same, done better. Breeze will expand its US network, using the Airbus A220 to serve more underserved markets with unmet demand. International growth is now underway and accelerating, but the core focus remains on removing travel hassles for passengers.
“We’ve built Breeze to remove the hassles, reduce the connections, and let people fly the way they’ve always wanted to,” Neeleman concluded. “That mission won’t change—it will only grow.”
In an era when the phrase “budget airline” can feel a bit…questionable…Breeze’s journey showcases strategic innovation at its best.
Innovation doesn’t always mean flashy new tech or crowded hubs. In Breeze’s case, it’s simply about connecting the dots where others haven’t looked and treating guests like humans, not numbers.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This story was originally published on 14 April 2025, and was updated in May 2026 with the most recent fleet, route, and network information.
There are aviation bucket list items, and then there is Maho Beach.
For decades, this tiny stretch of sand beside Runway 10 at Princess Juliana International Airport (SXM) has become almost mythical among aviation enthusiasts. The idea of standing beneath arriving aircraft while Caribbean waves roll onto the beach sounds almost too ridiculous to be real until you actually experience it yourself.
And now, after wanting to visit for years, I finally did.
I arrived in Sint Maarten, a small eastern Caribbean island that is half Dutch and half French, by cruise ship on a Thursday, with our ship docked from 0800 to 1630. That gave us plenty of time to explore the island, grab lunch, and spend a good chunk of the afternoon at Maho Beach.
We were also lucky. We were the only cruise ship in port that day, which helped keep the island from feeling completely overrun. Word on the street is that 6-7 ships can be in port at any given time, and I don’t think I ever want to experience that.
Still, Maho Beach is Maho Beach. Even on a quieter day, it is part beach, part aviation circus, part bucket-list spectacle, and part reminder that the internet tends to make everything look a little more glamorous than it really is.
And yet, if you love airplanes, you absolutely must go.
Flexibility is Worth It!
Maho Beach from above | IMAGE: SXM Airport
There are a lot of ways to get to Maho Beach.
You can book a cruise line excursion, take a shared island tour, hire a private tour operator, grab a taxi, or rent your own car for the day. Each option has pros and cons, but for my family, we decided to book a private tour through Bernard’s Tours.
I promise this is not an ad. Nobody is paying me to say this. But when, not if, I return to Sint Maarten, I will 100% use Bernard’s again.
I was genuinely impressed.
Bernard’s offers several different types of excursions, including shared island tours, private tours, and packages specifically built around Maho Beach planespotting. In our case, we booked a private tour that gave us the freedom to go where we wanted, when we wanted.
That flexibility was huge.
If you want to grab lunch in Marigot, the capital of the French side of the island, then head to Maho Beach on the Dutch side of the island for the afternoon – you can. Pro Tip: Definitely try the French pastries and treats at Chez Fernand la French Bakery inMarigot. If you want to stay longer because something interesting is inbound, you can. If you want to skip something because your kid is tired or the beach is calling, you can do that, too.
For cruise passengers, especially, that flexibility is worth a lot.
Know the Flight Schedule Before You Go
A Delta Airlines Boeing 757 passes over Maho Beach before touching down on SXM’s Runway 10 | IMAGE: SXM Airport
If you are going to Maho Beach specifically for airplanes, do not just show up and hope for the best.
Do your homework.
I did not have internet access while I was there because I am cheap and did not want to pay for an international data plan. That meant I could not rely on flight tracking apps in real time. Fortunately, I had already researched the SXM schedule before leaving home, especially the larger aircraft arrivals.
At the time of this writing in mid-May 2026, the larger aircraft serving SXM are concentrated in the early afternoon, which is actually very convenient for cruise passengers.
Air France operates five weekly flights from Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport (CDG) on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Flight 498 is scheduled to arrive at 1325 local time, with the outbound Flight 499 departing at 1530. The aircraft is an Airbus A330-200.
KLM Airbus A330 at SXM | IMAGE: SXM Airport
KLM also operates five weekly flights from Amsterdam Schiphol (AMS) on Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday. The Sunday, Tuesday, and Friday flights use the Airbus A330-200, while the Wednesday and Saturday flights use the Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner. Flight 777, operated by the A330, is scheduled to arrive at 1300 and depart at 1420. Flight 789, operated by the 787-9, is scheduled to arrive at 1240 and depart at 1410.
One interesting detail is that KLM’s inbound flights are direct from Amsterdam, but the outbound flights make an intermediate stop before continuing on to AMS. Flight 777 stops at Port of Spain, Trinidad, while Flight 789 continues to Georgetown, Guyana.
Delta Air Lines also brings in some larger narrowbody action. The daily Atlanta flight arrives from Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) at 1345 using the Boeing 757. Delta’s JFK service arrives at 1357 on Saturdays from May through September, and daily during the rest of the year. Departure times are 1520 for the Atlanta flight and 1535 for the JFK flight.
Up close and personal with a KLM A330 at Maho Beach | IMAGE: SXM Airport
So, if you want to see the larger birds, early afternoon is your friend.
That also works well for cruisers, as the drive from Maho Beach back to the cruise terminals can take 45 to 60 minutes, depending on traffic, and many cruise ships depart Sint Maarten between 1600 and 1700.
In other words, you can catch the good stuff and still make it back to the ship, as long as you are not reckless with your timing.
A quick note about Sint Maarten’s time zone: The island operates on Atlantic Standard Time (AST) year-round and does not observe Daylight Saving Time. That means during the summer months it shares the same time as the US East Coast, but during the winter it is one hour ahead.
Use the Sunset Bar Screens If You Do Not Have Data
A KLM Airbus A330 passes over Maho Beach before landing at SXM. View from Sunset Bar | IMAGE: Sunset Bar and Grill
The open-air Sunset Bar and Grill has TV screens showing arrivals and departures at SXM.
A Southwest 737 lines up for a Runway 10 departure from SXM. This photo shows the proximity of the Sunset Bar and Grill to the runway | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
This was extremely helpful for me since I was operating without mobile data. Instead of constantly guessing what was coming next, I could check the screens, watch the flow of arrivals and departures, and plan whether to stay in the water, move to the fence line, or grab a drink.
Would flight tracking apps have been nice? Absolutely.
Did I survive without them? Also yes.
Still, if you are serious about catching specific arrivals, research the schedule before you go. Flight tracking apps are great, but schedules, even imperfect ones, give you a solid game plan before you ever step onto the beach.
Bring a Change of Clothes
An Air France Airbus A330 from CDG passes over Maho Beach | IMAGE: SXM Airport
We toured the island in regular clothes, but we also wanted to swim at Maho Beach while planespotting.
Because honestly, how often do you get to float in warm Caribbean water while airliners pass over your head on short final?
If you want to do the same, bring a change of clothes.
One thing to know: Sunset Bar charges $1 to use the restroom, whether you are changing or using it for other reasons. The good news is that they give you a $1 voucher toward your bill at Sunset Bar, so it is not quite as annoying as it sounds.
And let’s be honest, you are probably going to buy something there anyway. I did. And $1 is $1, after all (remember how I said earlier that I was cheap?)
A WestJet Boeing 737 from Toronto Pearson Airport (YYZ) passes over Maho Beach | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
Understand What Maho Is Today
SXM Airways Britten-Norman BN-2B-26 Islander landing at SXM | IMAGE: Photo by Jermaine Lewis/pexels.com
Here is where I want to be very honest.
I am so glad I went. As a lifelong avgeek, Maho Beach was a bucket list experience I had wanted to check off for years. Finally standing there, watching aircraft drop over the beach at SXM, was genuinely special. Getting to share that moment with my 8-year-old son made it even better.
But I also think the experience has been romanticized, especially in recent years, as social media and influencer culture have made Maho look like some flawless aviation fantasyland.
It is not.
It is hot. It is crowded. The beach is smaller than many people expect. The road is busy. The bar is touristy. People are everywhere with phones in the air. And depending on the day, you may spend a lot more time watching ATRs, A320s, 737s, Twin Otters, and bizjets than widebodies.
That is not a bad thing. In fact, the variety is part of the fun. I saw airlines land that I didn’t even know existed.
But if you are expecting the glory days of KLM 747s and Air France jumbos roaring over the beach, that era is gone.
The days of seeing quadjets at SXM are, sadly, most likely gone forever | IMAGE: SXM Airport
Today, the biggest scheduled aircraft you are likely to see are the Air France A330-200, KLM A330-200, the occasional KLM 787-9 Dreamliner, and Delta’s 757s. Large cargo aircraft can appear, but I did not have the privilege of seeing any during my visit.
And while an A330 or 787 is certainly not small, standing at the fence line during departure just does not hit the same way it did when four-engine heavies were common.
The quadjets of yesteryear helped build the legend. Today’s Maho is still awesome, but it is different.
The Jet Blast Is Not A Joke
My son and I are somewhere in the middle of that jet blast-induced sandstorm. And yes, the sand REALLY hurts. | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
One word of warning: the sand hurts.
A lot.
After several departures, both my son and I felt like we had been blasted with thousands of tiny nails traveling at Mach 4.
No lies detected
Which, honestly, makes complete sense when you remember that sand is basically microscopic shards of glass.
The videos make it look hilarious. And yes, it kind of is. But when you are actually standing there, and the blast hits, it very quickly stops feeling like a cute little aviation-themed breeze.
Use your head.
The jet blast warnings are not decoration. People have been injured — and worse — at Maho Beach, and while the whole fence-line experience is part of the lore, there is a big difference between enjoying the power of aviation and volunteering to become a human tumbleweed.
I mean, just on the day we were there, we saw multiple shoes, bags, hats, and other items blown into the ocean.
Watch. Laugh. Take photos. But respect the engines.
Do Not Forget To Just Enjoy It
IMAGE: SXM Airport
This may sound strange, but one of my biggest tips is to not spend the entire time trying to document the experience.
Yes, take photos. Yes, shoot video. Yes, get the shot of the aircraft coming in low over the beach.
But also put the phone down for a few minutes.
Listen to the spool-up. Watch the approach lights. Feel the entire beach turn toward the same aircraft at the same time. Look around at the mix of hardcore aviation nerds, curious tourists, kids, pilots, cruise passengers, and first-timers all reacting to the same absurdly wonderful thing.
That is the magic of Maho.
It is not just that the airplanes are low. It is that everyone there knows something unusual is happening.
For a few seconds, an airport approach becomes a public event.
So…is Maho Beach Worth It?
A Delta Air Lines Boeing 757 passing over visitors at Maho Beach | IMAGE: Sunset Bar & Grill
Absolutely.
Without question.
As a lifelong avgeek, visiting Maho Beach was a bucket list experience I had dreamed about for years. And finally standing there, hearing the roar of arriving aircraft over the beach, smelling jet fuel mixing with salty Caribbean air, and watching airplanes descend impossibly low over the water was genuinely special.
But it is also okay to acknowledge reality.
Maho Beach in 2026 is not perfect.
It is not as glamorous as it looks online. It is not the same place it was during the 747 era. It is hot, crowded, commercialized, and shaped by social media more than many avgeeks probably want to admit.
But it is still Maho Beach.
And if you find yourself on Sint Maarten, whether you love airplanes or not, it is something you have to experience at least once. For avgeeks, it’s basically a rite of passage.
And even now, after the social media hype, after the influencers, after the endless TikTok clips and dramatic YouTube thumbnails, a jet’s arrival still makes people stop what they are doing. The departures still rattle the beach. The engines still send sand flying. The crowd still cheers when something big rolls in. And for a few seconds at a time, the whole place feels like it belongs to the airplane overhead.
Spirit Airlines planes repo’d after its collapse became more than an aircraft recovery operation. It became a final goodbye to the yellow jets and the people who loved them.
When an airline shuts down, the airplanes do not simply vanish.
They sit at gates, cargo ramps, outstations, and maintenance areas, still wearing the colors of the company that once flew them. The seats are still installed. The galley carts may still be stocked. The logbooks still matter. The banks and leasing companies still own assets that need to be protected, moved, inspected, and eventually placed somewhere safe.
That is where the so-called “repo men” come in.
In a new video from Nomadic Aviation (we have included the link to the video at the end of this story), the company takes viewers behind the scenes of the effort to move former Spirit Airlines aircraft into storage after the airline ceased operations on 2 May 2026. The term “repo men” is technically close enough, as the narrator admits, but the video makes clear that the reality is far more complicated, and far more human, than that nickname suggests.
Nomadic says it moved 23 Spirit aircraft to the Sonoran Desert during the first week of May, working on behalf of banks and leasing companies that owned the jets and had leased them to Spirit. Most of the airplanes, the narrator explains, will likely fly again someday for another airline, in another paint scheme, somewhere else in the world. But they will never fly again for Spirit.
That is the emotional center of the video. This is not a story about people celebrating a repossession. It is a story about aviation professionals doing a difficult job in the middle of a very sad week.
A Massive Logistical Puzzle With No Room for Guesswork
The operation started before Spirit’s final shutdown became official. According to the video, Nomadic had first been contacted months earlier by a major aircraft lessor that saw the writing on the wall and wanted basic quotes prepared for the possible recovery of 10 Airbus A321neos. Twice earlier in the year, the company had received “get ready” calls, only to be told to stand down when Spirit managed to buy more time.
This time was different.
On Friday, 1 May, the calls began again. Lessors wanted crews staged at airports where their aircraft were expected to end up that night. Some of those airplanes had not even landed yet. Spirit had not officially closed. But the machinery of aircraft ownership, bankruptcy, leasing, maintenance, dispatch, and ferry operations was already moving.
The video captures the controlled chaos of that moment. Crews were needed in Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Charlotte, Columbus, Houston, Atlantic City, Detroit, Philadelphia, Orlando, Dallas, Chicago, and Los Angeles. What began as one batch of airplanes quickly expanded as more lessors joined the operation.
The original plan was to move the jets quickly while they were still under Spirit’s continuing airworthiness program. The aircraft had been flying passengers only hours earlier. But Spirit’s management pilot team did not want to accept the liability of allowing those ferry flights to proceed under its program. From an operational standpoint, that decision slowed things down. From a human standpoint, it was understandable. There was no real upside for the remaining Spirit team to take on more risk after the airline had already collapsed.
So Nomadic pivoted. The company brought in Designated Airworthiness Representatives, known as DARs, who could inspect the aircraft and issue special flight permits for one-time ferry flights into storage. That changed the pace of the operation, because the DARs had to physically move from city to city and inspect each airplane. But it also gave everyone a clean and safe path forward.
That is one of the best parts of the video. It shows the aviation industry’s unglamorous machinery at work. Fuel contracts. Tow bars. Pushback crews. Dispatch. Flight plans. Crew rest. Airport access. Special flight permits. Hotel rooms. Group chats. All of it had to come together quickly, often with only hours of notice.
In Philadelphia, the narrator describes trying to move one former Spirit aircraft out of his home airport. The flight required about 3,500 gallons of Jet-A to bring the aircraft up to 31,000 pounds of fuel for a 5-hour, 15-minute trip into strong headwinds toward Arizona. Even something as basic as getting a tug, tow bar, and driver became part of the day’s puzzle.
What makes the video land emotionally is not just the aircraft movement. It is the people.
Nomadic made a deliberate choice to bring Spirit pilots into the operation. Many of them had just lost their jobs. Some were still in the middle of trips when the calls came. They were hearing from people they did not know, in WhatsApp groups they had just joined, while trying to process the end of their airline.
And yet, according to the video, they showed up.
The flight plan west | IMAGE: Nomadic Aviation Group/CockpitCasual (YouTube)
The narrator says the Nomadic team kept hearing the same thing from Spirit employees. Not bitterness. Not complaining. Nostalgia. A sense that Spirit, for all the jokes and baggage fees and tight seats, had been a family.
That becomes especially clear in Atlantic City, where the last Spirit airplane moved by Nomadic departed on a rainy Monday, 11 May. Atlantic City was one of Spirit’s early gateway cities and crew bases. The video notes that Spirit’s first scheduled flight from Atlantic City took place on 1 June 1992.
There, viewers meet Suzanne Makino, described as Spirit’s first flight attendant. She was hired by Charter One, Spirit’s predecessor, in 1990 and stayed with the company for 36 years. She came to the airport when she heard the last Spirit flight was leaving, and airport staff helped her out to the ramp, then near the runway, to say goodbye.
Spirit’s first flight attendant, Suzanne Makino, and 36-year company veteran, watches the final Spirit Airbus lift off from Atlantic City International Airport (ACY), where it would head west for desert storage | IMAGE: Nomadic Aviation Group/CockpitCasual (YouTube)
It is hard to watch that moment and think of these as just airplanes being repositioned.
The sight of bright yellow Airbuses heading for desert storage is striking on its own, but those airplanes represent far more than fleet numbers and tail registrations. They carried vacations, first flights, commuting crews, tired families, delayed passengers, frustrated passengers, loyal passengers, and the employees who kept showing up through all of it.
Near the end of the video, the narrator says many of the former Spirit jets are young and will likely return to service in new colors. That is probably true. The desert is not always a graveyard. Sometimes it is a waiting room.
But for Spirit, this was the end.
The yellow jets may fly again. The people will move on. The industry always does.
Still, watching this video, it is impossible to miss what was left behind: an iconic livery, a pilot group, a crew family, and one more airline story that ended with engines spooling up for a final departure into the desert.
This weekend in north Georgia is all about warbirds. The Flying Legends of Victory Tour stop at PDK offers Atlanta-area aviation fans a rare opportunity to see World War II bombers, fighters, and trainers up close.
This weekend, DeKalb-Peachtree Airport (PDK) will come alive with activity you don’t often see today. The arrival of a four-engine B-17 Flying Fortress, a twin-engine B-25 Mitchell, and other CAF warbirds will turn the airport into a living history flightline.
The Flying Legends of Victory Tour returns to PDK this week with two of the Commemorative Air Force’s most famous bombers: the B-17G Sentimental Journey and the B-25 Mitchell Maid in the Shade. Both planes, operated by CAF Airbase Arizona, will be in Atlanta from 12–17 May, offering ground tours and flight experiences.
The main event takes place this Saturday and Sunday, 16-17 May, when CAF Airbase Georgia brings five of its own aircraft. Visitors will see a P-51 Mustang, SBD-5 Dauntless, LT-6 Mosquito, PT-19A Fairchild, and T-34 Mentor. This lineup offers a rare look at various aspects of military aviation, from trainers to frontline fighters and bombers.
Aviation fans and history lovers will have a great chance to get close to these planes, hear their engines, smell the oil, and imagine what it was like for crews to fly and maintain them.
From Heavy Bombers to Trainers
IMAGE: CAF Airbase Georgia
The two main attractions will be hard to miss.
The B-17 Sentimental Journey is one of the most recognizable American bombers from World War II. Its wide wings, tall tail, glass nose, and many gun positions bring to mind the daylight bombing missions over Europe. Even when parked, the Flying Fortress stands out. It looks big, powerful, and somehow delicate all at once.
The B-25 Maid in the Shade has a different character. While the B-17 was built for high-altitude bombing, the B-25 became known as a tough and versatile medium bomber. It served in many places and was used for both level bombing and low-level attacks. It’s smaller than the B-17, but its twin engines and unique look always draw attention.
North American P-51D Mustang “Red Nose” | IMAGE: CAF Airbase Georgia
The planes from Georgia add even more variety. The P-51 Mustang is sure to attract a crowd, and it’s easy to see why. Few planes are as closely tied to American airpower in World War II as the P-51. The SBD-5 Dauntless brings Navy and Marine Corps history to life, famous for its dive-bombing missions in the Pacific.
The PT-19A, LT-6, and T-34 highlight another side of history: how pilots learned, advanced, and prepared before flying in combat. Warbird events often focus on the largest or most famous planes, but trainers are important too. Every combat pilot started with planes like these, which helped turn students into aviators.
Living History, Not Just Static History
B-17 “Sentimental Journey” arrives for the Flying Legends of Victory Tour at PDK | IMAGE: CAF Airbase Georgia
CAF Airbase Georgia, based at Atlanta Regional Airport-Falcon Field (FFC) in Peachtree City, was founded in 1987 and is one of the largest Commemorative Air Force units. The group maintains and flies vintage military planes, helps restore them, and is part of the Georgia World War II Heritage Trail. Volunteers play a key role in keeping these aircraft flying and sharing them with the public.
This is important because flying warbirds in 2026 is not easy. These planes are old, rare, and need a lot of care. Every flight, from starting the engines to landing, depends on volunteers, skilled mechanics, finding parts, raising money, and making careful choices.
One of the best parts of the Flying Legends of Victory Tour is the access it offers. Visitors can walk through the bombers, talk to the people who keep them flying, and, if seats are available, even ride inside while the planes are still in action.
Of course, flying historic aircraft is never as simple as following a schedule. Weather, maintenance, and other needs can always change plans. But that’s part of what makes weekends like this special. These planes aren’t just museum pieces. They are cared for, flown, shared, and remembered while in action.
For aviation and history fans in Atlanta metro and across north Georgia, the PDK stop is a chance to see history up close, with rivets, exhaust stains, spinning propellers, and real people keeping these stories alive. It’s the kind of weekend to share with kids, family, or friends. These planes were once flown by young crews during wartime. Even now, hearing their engines brings those stories to life right in front of us. If you’re in the area, please support this worthwhile cause!
IMAGE: CAF Airbase Arizona
IF YOU GO:
LOCATION Doc Manget Memorial Aviation Park 2000 Airport Rd Atlanta, GA 30341
The MD-11 return to service begins after months of grounding, inspections, and repairs following the fatal 2025 crash of UPS Flight 2976.
For the first time since early November 2025, the McDonnell Douglas MD-11 is operating commercial cargo routes again.
FedEx began returning its MD-11F fleet to revenue operations this week after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved Boeing’s return-to-service plan for the type. This ends the months-long grounding that followed the fatal crash of UPS Airlines Flight 2976 at Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport (SDF) on 4 November 2025. Reuters reported that FedEx resumed MD-11 operations after the FAA lifted the ban, with the agency stating that Boeing’s plan includes all necessary maintenance and inspections before aircraft can return to service.
It’s a bittersweet moment for avgeeks. The MD-11 is no longer common, and its days are clearly numbered. But this isn’t just about nostalgia. It’s also about safety, operations, and the important role the aging widebody still plays in global cargo. The return is also a solemn reminder of the tragedy that led to this moment.
— Turbine Traveller (@Turbinetraveler) May 10, 2026
A Return Overshadowed by Louisville
N259UP, the UPS MD-11 involved in the Louisville disaster on 4 November 2026 | IMAGE: By Sunil Gupta – https://www.flickr.com/photos/lockonaviation/54489730352/, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=178272226
The grounding traces back to UPS Flight 2976, an MD-11F registered N259UP, which crashed shortly after takeoff from runway 17R at SDF on 4 November 2025. The NTSB said the aircraft was destroyed after it impacted buildings and terrain shortly after departure. Three crewmembers aboard the aircraft and 11 people on the ground were fatally injured, while others on the ground were seriously or minorly injured. The NTSB later noted that one seriously injured person on the ground died 51 days after the accident, bringing the total number of fatalities to 15.
The early focus of the investigation quickly centered on the aircraft’s left engine and pylon. SDF airport surveillance video showed the No. 1 engine and pylon separating from the wing shortly after rotation, followed by fire near the left pylon attachment area. Investigators also documented fractured components in the pylon aft mount bulkhead and examined the spherical bearing assembly tied to that structure.
As such, the return-to-service fix is aimed directly at the area identified in the investigation. The NTSB said the bearing race showed evidence of fatigue cracking around the interior surface, with cracking extending through much of the fracture surface. The Associated Press reported that Boeing’s plan includes replacing a key spherical bearing and increasing inspections of the engine mounting parts.
After the crash, the FAA grounded MD-11 aircraft over safety concerns. UPS later chose to retire its MD-11 fleet entirely, accelerating the type’s end within its own operation. FedEx took a different path. While the aircraft is old, it remains useful, especially in a cargo network built around heavy lift, long sectors, and flexible widebody capacity. From the early days of the grounding, FedEx remained committed to returning the MD-11 to service, even though the type accounts for only a small portion of its overall fleet.
The Work Behind the Comeback
FedEx’s main hub at Memphis International Airport (MEM) | IMAGE: FedEx
Bringing the MD-11s back isn’t as simple as taking them out of storage and putting them back to work. The process will be gradual and require significant maintenance.
Reuters reported that FedEx worked with Boeing and the FAA to validate that required inspections and maintenance actions had been completed on two of its 29 MD-11s before the initial return. The FAA said it approved Boeing’s protocol after an extensive review, and that protocol required specific maintenance and inspection work before aircraft could fly again.
According to FreightWaves, FedEx operated a short test flight in and out of Memphis International Airport (MEM) on Saturday evening (9 May) before returning the aircraft to commercial service. On Sunday, 10 May, FedEx operated MD-11 revenue flights from MEM to Los Angeles (LAX) and from MEM to Miami (MIA), marking the type’s first commercial FedEx operations since the grounding.
The two MD-11s returned to service thus far are N621FE and N521FE.
FedEx’s own statement framed the work as a coordinated effort in safety, engineering, and maintenance. “Safety is our highest priority,” the company said, adding that its airline safety, engineering, and maintenance teams had spent months conducting inspections, maintenance, and planning to prepare the fleet’s return. The company also said aircraft began returning to service after the FAA approved Boeing’s means of compliance and validated completion of required repairs and inspections.
Bringing the MD-11 back also means maintenance staff and crew need refresher training. Pilots must complete a three-day program that includes flight management system drills, simulator sessions, and scenario training before they can operate the MD-11 again.
Because the fleet is spread worldwide, this process is an enormous logistical challenge. FedEx technicians were dispatched to multiple global locations to remove pylons from grounded aircraft and send them to heavy maintenance facilities in Memphis and Indianapolis for bearing replacement and inspection work. Each aircraft also requires a post-repair test flight before returning to revenue service. Planespotters.net data shows FedEx MD-11s spread out across the world, having been grounded since November at airports stretching from Houston (IAH), Anchorage (ANC), and Honolulu (HNL) to Taipei (TPE), Singapore (SIN), and Tokyo Narita (NRT).
The MD-11 might be old, but it still has a place at FedEx
A FedEx MD-11 in the company’s iconic purple livery in 1994 | IMAGE: By contri – originally posted to Flickr as FEDEX MD-11F(AF) (N612FE/48605/555), CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8495265
The MD-11 is an older aircraft. Most of the remaining freighters were built in the 1990s, and airlines stopped using them for passengers years ago. Even in cargo, the MD-11 has become extremely rare as companies switch to more efficient twin-engine planes. However, the MD-11 offers important capabilities.
In freighter form, the MD-11F offers large main-deck cargo volume, a payload of roughly 200,000 pounds, and room for 26 pallets. That makes it a vital asset for a company like FedEx, especially when cargo demand rises, and widebody lift becomes harder to replace quickly. Reuters reported that FedEx previously said the grounding could cost the company up to $175 million. This is a significant number for FedEx to reckon with, even if its MD-11 fleet represents a relatively small share of FedEx’s total operation.
FedEx has also said it intends to keep operating the MD-11 until 2032. This contrasts with UPS, which retired its MD-11 fleet after Flight 2976. FedEx still plans to eventually retire the MD-11 and replace it with more efficient aircraft, but for now, the tri-jet remains part of the company’s short-term plans.
Practicality and Symbolism
A FedEx MD-11 departs MEM | IMAGE: Memphis International Airport
The MD-11’s return is practical and also symbolic. For FedEx, it means getting back needed cargo space after months of relying on other planes, spares, and charters. It also means that one of the last great tri-jets is flying again, but now with more scrutiny than ever.
Western Global MD-11 | IMAGE: Western Global Airlines
The MD-11’s return is not a full fleet comeback all at once. So far, only two aircraft are back in service, and the rest will follow slowly as maintenance, inspections, test flights, and pilot training are finished. Western Global Airlines also operates the MD-11, but its post-grounding plans for its 15 MD-11s have not been publicly shared. According to AP, Western Global had not commented on the FAA decision at the time of their report.
So, the iconic MD-11 is not finished yet, after all. It is older, rarer, and now operating under new scrutiny, but it still fills a role FedEx is not ready to give up. After one of the darkest chapters in the aircraft’s history, the tri-jet is back in the air. And while that is definitely good to see, it also comes with a vivid and solemn remembrance of the Louisville tragedy and the souls lost that November day.
Many airline pilots these days have never served in the military. But did you know that in the event of a crisis, they could be called upon to fly in direct support of U.S. military operations? Enter CRAF.
With the conflict involving Iran on everyone’s minds and the President requesting 1.5 trillion dollars for the next budget cycle, many civilian pilots and military personnel alike are wondering what that could mean for the future of commercial aviation. It’s the sort of plot twist your career doesn’t exactly advertise during the hiring interview.
CRAF: On-call support for contingencies
There is one fascinating and little-known program that could rapidly turn U.S. commercial airliners into troop and cargo movers. It is called the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, or CRAF. It is a voluntary partnership between the Department of War and commercial airlines that has been in place since 1951. U.S. Transportation Command runs the program from Scott Air Force Base in Illinois.
CRAF organizes aircraft into segments based on the type of work they can perform. The international segment includes long-range aircraft capable of transoceanic operations to move troops and heavy cargo. It also includes short-range aircraft that handle medium-haul trips for near-offshore and select intra-theater missions.
United’s Boeing 787 Elevated interior | IMAGE: United Airlines
The national segment covers domestic movements inside the United States. This structure gives the military flexible airlift options without overusing its own heavy-lift C-5s and C-17s. After all, even the Air Force appreciates a little help staying on schedule.
Roughly two dozen U.S. airlines participate. They include American, Delta, United, Atlas, FedEx, UPS, Kalitta, Omni, Polar, Alaska, JetBlue, Sun Country, Southwest, Allegiant, and others. The total committed fleet usually numbers around 450 aircraft, though the exact mix changes from month to month. And the best part? Chili Mac MREs! Just kidding!
How CRAF Works
An American Airlines Boeing 787-9 from London Heathrow on short final for Runway 24R at LAX | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
The benefit to CRAF is that airlines are offered preferential DoW contracts even in peacetime. During conflicts (which can affect airline profitability significantly), CRAF offers a guaranteed revenue pipeline while supporting the nation when required.
Activation happens in three stages approved by the Secretary of War.
Stage I covers smaller regional crises or humanitarian and disaster relief needs. Stage II supports a major theater war. Stage III applies during full national mobilization. When activated, airlines have between 24 and 72 hours to prepare the assigned aircraft and qualified crews. The planes remain under civilian registration and Federal Aviation Administration oversight. You’d remain an airline employee and The Department of War just pays your company for the actual flight hours. Just go easy on the “there I was” stories at your next family reunion. You’re still a POG, albeit a highly paid one.
CRAF Activation Stages
Stage I (minor regional crises or humanitarian needs): Used in 2021 for the Afghanistan evacuation to move evacuees from safe staging bases.
Stage II (major theater war): Activated during the 1990-1991 Gulf War for large-scale troop and cargo transport to the Middle East.
Stage III (full national mobilization): Would apply in a large-scale global conflict on the scale of a potential World War III scenario to provide maximum commercial airlift capacity.
CRAF Has Been Used Before
Troops disembark on the tarmac after a CRAF flight supporting Operation Desert Storm, Image: DoD
The program has been activated exactly three times in its history. During Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm in 1990 and 1991, CRAF aircraft flew more than 5,460 missions, transported about 726,000 passengers, and moved about 230,000 tons of cargo. In 2003, it supported Operation Iraqi Freedom with Stage I passenger missions.
In 2021, Stage I helped with the Afghanistan evacuation. About 18 aircraft carried people from safe havens and staging bases, allowing military planes to focus on the most critical legs. Not a bad track record for a system that dates back to the Truman administration.
For pilots, especially younger ones, the rules are straightforward. CRAF missions are flown by the airline’s current crews under normal employment contracts. No pilot is drafted or conscripted through this program, but that doesn’t mean that some of you can’t break ranks and join up. For those who want to go to full military power after snagging the three wire, we salute you!
Crew assignments follow each carrier’s procedures and union agreements, and the airline meets its contractual commitment to supply planes and people. Any future military draft, if one were ever reinstated, would be handled separately by the Selective Service System, with no direct tie to, or exemption via, CRAF participation.
Official Department of War and Air Mobility Command requirements also state that all flight-deck crewmembers on activated CRAF missions must be U.S. citizens. Even if a pilot holds permanent resident status and flies for a participating airline, they cannot be assigned to CRAF missions.
Brief Examples of CRAF Segments
Long-range international: Wide-body passenger and cargo jets flying troops and supplies on transoceanic routes from the continental United States to major overseas bases.
Short-range international: Medium-sized aircraft performing medium-haul support flights for near-offshore or select intra-theater needs.
National/domestic: Aircraft handling personnel and cargo movements entirely inside the United States.
So, as the world watches the Middle East with growing concern, and pilots nervously discuss outcomes, the fact is that commercial aviation is itself a national asset and one that can be and has been used to great effect during previous conflicts and is always an option. Trust me. It’s one mission you’ll never forget!
The Spirit Airlines shutdown leaves behind more than empty gates. It’s a story of people, purpose, and a lasting impact on aviation.
Today is a sad day in aviation.
After years of uncertainty, close calls, and one final fight to stay airborne, Spirit Airlines has ceased operations.
The Dania Beach, Florida-based ultra-low-cost carrier shut down on 2 May 2026 at 0300 local time after a last-ditch attempt to secure a US government lifeline fell through.
🚨#BREAKING: The final Spirit Airlines flight has touched down in Dallas at 1:08 a.m. EST, marking the definitive end of active operations ahead of the airline’s expected systemwide shutdown at 3:00 a.m.
Just under two hours earlier, the final Spirit flight touched down at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW). Flight 1833 departed Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW) at 2212 local time and arrived at DFW at 0017 CDT.
And when that bright yellow Airbus A320 eased up to Gate E32, the moment became real. The engines wound down. The flight deck went quiet. The cabin emptied one last time.
And just like that, it was over.
After 34 years, the Spirit Airlines era has come to a close.
Some airlines are celebrated. Others are criticized. Then there are airlines like Spirit. The ones people talked about, joked about, debated, defended, mocked, and misunderstood. The ones that became part of the background noise of American air travel until, suddenly, that noise was gone.
Spirit was never just another airline. It changed the fare structure. It challenged the legacy carriers. It made flying possible for people who otherwise might not have gone at all. Love it or hate it, Spirit occupied real space in modern aviation.
Now that space is empty.
This is not just the end of a company. It is the loss of a chapter in American aviation, and above all, it is a human story. Nearly 14,000 people who showed up every day to dispatch the flights, turn the wrenches, work the gates, load the bags, staff the cabins, fly the airplanes, and keep those bright yellow jets moving are now facing what comes next.
In aviation, we compete hard. We argue. We compare liveries, legroom, fares, service, strategy, and everything in between.
But when an airline disappears, we do not celebrate.
We mourn.
FlightAware screenshot showing no more Spirit Airlines aircraft in the air as of 0100 EDT on 2 May 2026Spirit.com announces the airline’s closure on 2 May 2026
From Humble Beginnings to Industry Disruptor
Before Spirit, there was Charter One Airlines. Founder Ned Homfeld stands with his employees outside of a Charter One Convair 580 in the early 1980s | IMAGE: Spirit Airlines
Spirit’s story did not begin with Airbus jets or bold yellow branding.
It began in 1964 as a trucking company. Then, in the 1980s, Charter One operated charter flights to destinations like Atlantic City and Las Vegas. The airline was founded by Ned Homfeld and, in 1992, adopted a new identity. Spirit Airlines was born, launching scheduled service out of Detroit with a small fleet and an even smaller margin for error.
A Spirit employee marshals a Spirit DC-9 to the gate at ACY | IMAGE: Spirit Airlines
The name “Spirit” was not chosen in a boardroom. It came from employees, reflecting the energy and attitude that would define the airline for decades.
Even the aircraft carried a piece of that story. The “NK” at the end of Spirit’s tail numbers stood for “Ned’s kids,” a tribute to its early days as a family-run business.
From there, it grew the only way it knew how. Scrappy. Resourceful. Relentless.
Spirit Airlines timetable dated 1 October 1993 | IMAGE: airtimes.comThe Spirit Airlines ticket counter and employees at Atlantic City International Airport (ACY) in the early 1990s | IMAGE: Spirit AirlinesA Spirit Airlines commercial from the early 1990s | IMAGE: Spirit Airlines
A Spirit Airlines DC-9-41 on short final at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) in 1998 | IMAGE: JetPix (GFDL 1.2 or GFDL 1.2 ), via Wikimedia Commons Spirit Airlines McDonnell Douglas DC-9-32 at Orlando International Airport (MCO) in 1995 | IMAGE: JetPix (GFDL 1.2 or GFDL 1.2 ), via Wikimedia CommonsA Spirit Airlines MD-83 entering a hangar at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW) featuring the carrier’s “pixel” or “brick” livery, which was introduced in 2002 | IMAGE: Spirit AirlinesA Spirit Airlines McDonnell Douglas MD-82 departs Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in 2003 | IMAGE: Konstantin von Wedelstaedt (GFDL 1.2 or GFDL 1.2 ), via Wikimedia Commons
DC-9s gave way to MD-80s. MD-80s gave way to the Airbus A320 family. A steady evolution built on survival, not luxury.
And then came the shift that would forever define its legacy.
Unbundled fares. The $9 Fare Club (9FC). Pay only for what you use. Buy-on-board service that turned even a bottle of water into part of the business model. Charging for carry-ons long before it became the industry standard.
The “Big Front Seat” was another unique idea. It offered a premium experience without the usual high price. This was just one example of how Spirit kept experimenting with its own business model.
At the time, these ideas were controversial.
Today, they are everywhere.
The Airline Everyone Had an Opinion About
A Spirit Airbus A319 moments from touchdown at Harry Reid International Airport (LAS) in 2011 | IMAGE: Tomás Del Coro from Fabulous Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
Spirit was never invisible.
Spirit’s bright yellow airplanes and irreverent branding stood out. Its business model challenged what people thought they knew about airline pricing. It was impossible to ignore, even if you tried.
And yes, it often became the punchline. The airline people loved to criticize. The one compared to the “Walmart of the skies.”
Some of that reputation was earned. The fees. The policies. The moments that made headlines for the wrong reasons.
But that was never the full picture.
Because behind the jokes was an airline that forced the industry to rethink what flying could cost. One that proved there was a massive group of travelers who simply wanted one thing: an affordable way to get from point A to point B.
And Spirit gave them that.
Sometimes for less than the price of dinner.
The Flights That Mattered Most
A pair of Spirit Airbus aircraft – an A319 (front) and an A320 (back) – on the ramp at Fort Lauderdale – Hollywood International Airport (FLL) in 2018 | IMAGE: JTOcchialini, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
This author is living proof of the access to travel that Spirit provided. For me, Spirit was never just a headline.
It was a way to go. A way to say yes to a trip without hesitation. It made it possible for me to visit my dad more often as he got older. Trips that might not have happened otherwise.
That is the part that rarely gets talked about.
Behind every ultra-low fare was a real reason someone was flying. A family visit. A moment that mattered. A chance to be there when it counted.
Spirit made those moments possible.
And when you look at it that way, the conversation changes.
It stops being about fees and policies.
Instead, it becomes about access.
A Record That Deserves Recognition
Three Spirit Airbus aircraft – A319 reg.N534NK (rear), A319 reg. N509NK (middle), and A320 reg. N602NK (front) – on the ramp at FLL in 2014 | IMAGE: JTOcchialini, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
Despite all the criticism Spirit Airlines received over the years, there is one area where its record is clear.
Safety.
From the time it began operations in the early 1980s to the moment it ceased operations, Spirit never experienced a fatal crash or passenger fatality. In an industry where the margin for error is zero, that is an impressive track record.
It is easy to focus on the things that made headlines. The fees. The policies. The viral moments.
But behind every departure was a crew that took that responsibility seriously. Pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, dispatchers. Professionals who ensured that every flight operated safely, every single day.
That does not happen by accident.
It happens because of people who care deeply about what they do.
And that part of Spirit’s legacy deserves to be remembered just as much as anything else.
The People Behind the Yellow Jets
A Spirit Airbus A320neo and a group of employees | IMAGE: Spirit Airlines
None of this happened because of a pricing strategy alone.
It happened because of people.
Pilots who flew tight, demanding schedules. Flight attendants who brought personality and energy into cabins that could have felt purely transactional. Ramp agents who turned aircraft faster than seemed possible. Gate agents who navigated tough situations with limited flexibility. Corporate teams that tried to keep everything moving on razor-thin margins.
That was the real Spirit.
A culture built on hustle. Efficiency. And doing more with less every single day.
Now, that workforce is left to pick up the pieces. Nearly 14,000 people are suddenly without the careers they built, the routines they knew, and the stability they relied on.
These are real people.
People with mortgages. With kids in school. With lives built around an airline that asked everything of them and, in many ways, defined them.
That is what makes this moment so heavy.
A Complicated, Lasting Legacy
Spirit Airlines Airbus A320-271N | IMAGE: Spirit Airlines via Facebook
Spirit Airlines will not be remembered in simple terms.
It will be remembered as controversial. As disruptive. As frustrating at times.
But also as innovative. As bold. As necessary.
It forced the industry to adapt. It opened the skies to travelers who had been priced out. It introduced ideas that competitors eventually adopted, whether they acknowledged it or not.
It proved that there was more than one way to run an airline.
And in doing so, it became something rare in this industry.
Different.
One Industry, One Family
IMAGE: Spirit Airlines
Now that the airplanes have stopped flying, the noise fades.
What remains is perspective.
In aviation, we often focus on airlines, brands, and competition. But moments like this remind us of something more important.
This is a family.
Pilots. Flight attendants. Mechanics. Dispatchers. Gate agents. Writers. Photographers. Enthusiasts. All of us, in one way or another, connected by a shared love of flight.
And when one part of that family hurts, we all feel it.
At AvGeekery, we feel it.
We mourn with the Spirit team. We stand with the thousands of employees and families now facing an uncertain road ahead. And we hope, sincerely, that the next chapter for each of them brings stability, opportunity, and a chance to keep doing what they love.
Because behind every airline are people.
And those people matter far more than any fare, any policy, or any headline ever could.
Rest easy, Spirit.
You were never boring. You were never insignificant.
And you will not be forgotten.
The sun sets on Spirit Airlines | IMAGE: Avgeekery
There are strange aircraft, and then there is the Sud-Est Grognard.
At first, the French prototype didn’t look like a sleek jet-age attack plane. Instead, it seemed like the result of a clash between aerodynamic ideas and practical needs. The cockpit was set far forward in the nose, and the fuselage rose into a noticeable hump behind the pilot. A single intake on top fed two turbojets stacked one above the other inside the body. The plane looked awkward, almost cartoonish, but it had a clear purpose: to give postwar France a fast, jet-powered aircraft for low-altitude attacks.
The name Grognard suited the plane perfectly. “Grognard” means “grumbler” and was used for soldiers in Napoleon’s Old Guard. It was a fitting name for such an unusual airplane. Officially, it was called the Sud-Est SE.2410 Grognard, developed by the French company Sud-Est/SNCASE after World War II. The first prototype, F-ZWRJ, first flew on 30 April 1950. Only two prototypes were ever built.
France Was Rebuilding More Than an Airplane
The Sud-Est Grognard Looked Awkward, But It Was Built to Hit Hard 126
The Grognard came from a very specific moment in French aviation history. After World War II, France was trying to rebuild an aviation industry that had been badly disrupted by occupation, destroyed factories, and scattered design teams. In jet propulsion, France also lagged behind countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, which had moved quickly into the jet age during and immediately after the war.
This background is important because the Grognard wasn’t just unusual for the sake of it. It was part of France’s push to rebuild its aerospace industry and create its own jet-powered military planes. The Rolls-Royce Nene turbojet played a big role in this effort. Hispano-Suiza made the Nene in France under license, and many early French jets used it while the country developed its own engines.
In 1946, the French Air Force asked for a new ground-attack aircraft. Sud-Est answered the call with the SE.2410, a small, rounded, single-seat plane powered by two Nene turbojets. The French obviously didn’t care what it looked like, but in terms of speed, firepower, and the ability to attack at low altitude, it was actually a pretty futuristic machine at a time when jet combat planes were still a new idea.
The Hunchback Had a Purpose
Mockup of the SE-2400 used for experiments in the wind tunnel of the ONERA (Chalais-Meudon), circa 1950 | IMAGE: Fondudaviation, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons
The Grognard looked the way it did for a reason. Early designs were shaped by wind tunnel tests with scale models at ONERA’s Chalais-Meudon facility. The end result was a compact fuselage, sharply swept wings, and the distinctive top intake that fed two engines stacked inside.
The intake on top was what made the plane look so unusual. Air entered the fuselage from the top, just behind the cockpit, and fed the two engines, stacked one above the other. This gave the Grognard its “hunchback” look and its memorable nickname.
The cockpit was also set far forward in the nose, which made sense for a low-flying attack plane. Pilots need good visibility when flying low and aiming at targets. The planned weapons matched this mission: the Grognard was supposed to carry two 30 mm DEFA cannons, bombs, and rockets, with some rocket ideas stored in a retractable bay under the fuselage.
Looks aside, the Grognard had legitimate performance to back it up. The SE.2410 reportedly reached about 645 mph, climbed to roughly 38,000 feet, and had a range of about 530 miles. It was unconventional, certainly, but it was not underpowered.
The Grognard II Tried to Civilize the Beast
The Sud-Est Grognard Looked Awkward, But It Was Built to Hit Hard 127
Sud-Est kept going after the first prototype. In 1951, they built a second version called the SE.2415 Grognard II. This one was longer, had two seats, a raised cockpit with a bubble canopy, and wings swept back at 32 degrees instead of the original 47. The second prototype, F-ZWRK, first flew on 14 February 1951.
The Grognard II looked a bit more polished, but it still had the same family traits. It was still humped, compact, and unconventional…a clear example of early jet-age experimentation.
The program also reached an important milestone. During weapons tests, the Grognard reportedly became the first French plane to fire an air-to-air missile, the Matra T-10. This gives it a special place in French aviation history. Even though it’s mostly remembered for its odd looks, the Grognard helped pave the way for the missile-armed jets that would come later.
The Problem Was Not Just the Airplane
IMAGE: Public Domain
Like many prototypes from that time, the Grognard had its share of technical issues. Test flights led to changes to the tail and ailerons, and the SE.2415 experienced tailplane flutter. The second prototype was badly damaged in a belly landing after a false fire warning, but the airframe was saved and later used as a target for firing tests.
But the bigger problem for the Grognard was that things changed too fast around it.
While the Grognard was being tested, the French Air Force revised its fighter and bomber requirements so much that the attack aircraft category was almost dropped. This left the Grognard in a tough spot. It was built for low-level attacks, and its unpressurized body made it hard to use for other roles.
Sud-Est did consider future versions. The SE.2418 was planned as a production attack model with Rolls-Royce Tay engines, and the SE.2421 was studied as a two-seat all-weather fighter with radar. The SE.2418 would have used the original Grognard I’s wing with the longer body and improvements from the Grognard II. At one point, Sud-Est was even getting ready to produce the SE.2418 in larger numbers.
So, the Grognard’s story feels less like a dead end and more like a prototype overtaken by new ideas, competition, and changing times.
Beaten by a Better Future
Sud-Est Grognard with dummy bomb load | IMAGE: Public Domain
The Grognard program ended in 1952. In the end, French officials chose the Sud-Ouest Vautour II instead. The Vautour was bigger, more versatile, and could be used as a fighter-bomber, interceptor, or attack plane. Compared to the specialized and unusual Grognard, the Vautour was a more obvious choice for the future.
The original SE.2410 was taken out of service and reportedly scrapped by 1954. The Grognard II, which was damaged and reused, didn’t do much better. No production models were built, no squadrons ever flew it in regular service, and it never had the chance to become well-known.
Still, the Grognard is hard to forget.
Strange, Ambitious, and Very Much of Its Time
IMAGE: By source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=27456968
It’s easy to make fun of the Sud-Est Grognard. The nickname “Hunchback” almost encourages it. But this plane deserves more than just a quick look or a joke about its appearance.
The Grognard showed France’s effort to catch up in the jet age. It tested out swept wings, compact twin engines, heavy weapons, missile trials, and low-level jet flying when all these ideas were still new and unproven. The plane may have looked awkward, but the ideas behind it were ambitious.
Some aircraft become famous because they set the direction for the future. Others are important because they show the experiments engineers tried before the future was clear. The Grognard is definitely in that second group.
It was a grumbling, hunchbacked French jet made for a mission that vanished almost as soon as it appeared. It never went into production, never entered service, and never became the attack plane France had hoped for.
A United Airlines drone strike report is under FAA investigation after Flight 1980 landed safely in San Diego with no injuries or aircraft damage reported.
A United Airlines flight landed safely in San Diego on Wednesday morning after its crew reported a possible drone strike during approach, according to the airline and several local news reports.
United Flight 1980, a Boeing 737-800, was operating from San Francisco International Airport (SFO) to San Diego International Airport (SAN) on 29 April 2026 when the crew reported the encounter shortly before landing. The aircraft was carrying 48 passengers and six crew members, United said. The flight landed safely at San Diego International Airport around 0830 local time, and passengers deplaned normally at the gate.
United reported that after landing, the plane was inspected and no damage was found.
“United Flight 1980 reported a possible drone strike just prior to arriving in San Diego. The flight landed safely, and customers deplaned normally at the gate. Our maintenance team found no damage after thoroughly inspecting the aircraft,” the airline said in a statement reported by NBC 7 San Diego and other outlets.
A Red, Shiny Object At About 3,000 Feet
A possible United Airlines drone strike on 29 April 2026 involved a United Boeing 737-800 | IMAGE: 4300streetcar, CC BY 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
The incident reportedly took place while the Boeing 737 was on final approach to San Diego. In air traffic control audio shared online and mentioned by several news outlets, the crew described the object as small, red, shiny, and slow-moving. The pilot is heard saying the plane hit a drone “probably at around 3,000 feet,” according to SFGate and the San Francisco Chronicle.
The FAA’s first account, as reported by CBS News, was slightly different. According to that report, the aircraft was at about 4,000 feet when the crew told air traffic control they believed they had seen a drone roughly 1,000 feet below them. Air traffic control alerted other pilots, but no additional drone sightings were reported.
At this point, the information suggests there was a reported possible drone strike, but not a confirmed collision. United found no damage after checking the plane, and no drone wreckage has been reported so far.
Even so, the crew’s report was taken seriously. And rightfully so. A drone at that altitude, near a major international airport in Class B airspace, is an egregious violation. The FAA said it is investigating.
Why The Altitude Raises Concern
If the object was a drone, its reported altitude would be well above normal limits for recreational drones. FAA rules usually require small drones to stay below 400 feet unless the operator has special permission, and drone pilots must avoid restricted airspace and airports.
That is what makes this report so concerning. A drone near an airliner at 3,000 feet would not simply be in the wrong place. It would be operating in airspace where flight crews are busy configuring, communicating, descending, and preparing to land.
SAN is already known for its unique approach, with its city location, nearby terrain, and tight landing area. Adding an unidentified object to the mix creates a situation no crew wants to face while landing.
Safe Landing, No Injuries, Investigation Ongoing
A United Airlines jet on short final at San Diego International Airport (SAN) | IMAGE: San Diego International Airport
The good news is that Flight 1980 landed without incident. No injuries were reported. The passengers got off normally. The airplane was inspected, and United said no damage was found.
Right now, there are still only a few confirmed facts: the crew’s report, United’s statement, the safe landing, no damage to the plane, and the FAA investigation. It’s still unclear if the object was a drone, if there was contact, or who might have been flying it.
But even with those caveats, it is worth reiterating how dangerous this could have been. For an airline crew on approach, even a “small” red object at a few thousand feet is not small at all. It is a hazard, a distraction, and potentially an extraordinarily serious breach of the airspace system that keeps airplanes moving safely in and out of busy airports every day.
Southwest Independence One celebrates America’s 250th with a patriotic 1776 livery, special details, and a first flight from Dallas to Philadelphia.
Southwest Airlines has never been shy about putting a little personality on its airplanes.
As the United States gets ready to celebrate 250 years since the Declaration of Independence, the Dallas-based airline is introducing another patriotic plane. Independence One is a new special livery made in partnership with America250, the national group honoring the country’s Semiquincentennial.
And honestly, it’s one of the most beautiful liveries we’ve ever seen.
The aircraft will officially join Southwest’s fleet on 29 April 2026, with an absolutely fitting first scheduled flight from Dallas Love Field (DAL), Southwest’s hometown, to Philadelphia International Airport (PHL), the birthplace of both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.
That is not exactly subtle. But then again, neither is painting “1776” in giant quill script on the side of a Boeing 737.
A Flying Tribute To 1776
Southwest Airlines unveils its newest specialty livery, Independence One, celebrating America 250. // Photo Credit Stephen M. Keller 2026
Independence One is designed to be more than a red, white, and blue paint job, although it certainly has plenty of that.
Southwest says the livery incorporates several design details connected to the nation’s founding. The livery shows “1776” in big quill-style script, marking the year the Declaration of Independence was signed. It also features the phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” one of the Declaration’s most famous lines.
IMAGE: Southwest Airlines
Thirteen stars on the fuselage represent the original thirteen colonies. Each engine cowling has a circle of stars inspired by the Betsy Ross flag. The aircraft will also have America250 decals on its nose and winglets.
And yes, because avgeeks notice these things immediately, the aircraft will carry a special 1776 tail number.
Southwest says Independence One will join two other patriotic-themed aircraft in its fleet: Freedom One, which has been flying since 2021, and Liberty One, another newly introduced aircraft painted in an American flag theme. Together, the three aircraft will carry the America250 logo throughout the year.
Southwest says Independence One will join two other patriotic-themed aircraft in its fleet: Freedom One, which has been flying since 2021, and Liberty One, another newly introduced aircraft painted in an American flag theme. Together, the three aircraft will carry the America250 logo throughout the year. | IMAGE: Southwest Airlines
The Freedom To Fly, Southwest Style
Southwest Independence One features the phrase from the Declaration of Independence, “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” | IMAGE: Southwest Airlines
For Southwest, the symbolism fits neatly into the airline’s own origin story.
The carrier has long leaned into the idea that it helped democratize air travel, making flying more accessible to millions of Americans. In its announcement, Southwest connected the new aircraft to its 55-year history of carrying families, service members, entrepreneurs, and communities across the country.
That is where the livery works best. Special paint schemes can easily become marketing wallpaper, but this one has a little more meaning. Southwest built its brand around the idea that air travel should feel possible for more people, not just the polished few at the front of the cabin.
So when Southwest talks about the freedom to fly, there is real history behind those words.
Of course, avgeeks also enjoy spotting patriotic special liveries. They turn a normal gate arrival into a small event, make ramp workers pause, get passengers pointing through the windows, and give photographers something new to capture.
And with a tail number like 1776, this one probably will not be hard to remember.
More Than A Paint Job
IMAGE: Southwest Airlines
Southwest’s America250 partnership also includes a volunteerism component.
The airline has been named the official airline of America Gives, a nationwide effort connected to America250 that aims to make 2026 the largest year of volunteerism in the country’s history. As part of that effort, Southwest is introducing the We Serve Together grant, which will invest up to $250,000 to support nonprofits served by Southwest employees.
The company said the new grant builds on more than 180,000 hours of volunteer service from Southwest employees in 2025.
Rosie Rios, Chair of America250, said Southwest’s role in connecting people and communities reflects the “spirit of freedom and opportunity” behind the national celebration.
It is an interesting pairing: a major U.S. airline, a national anniversary, three patriotic aircraft, and a volunteer initiative that brings it all back down to earth. Because as much as avgeeks love the metal, liveries are usually strongest when they point to something larger than paint.
Watch For 1776
IMAGE: Southwest Airlines
Independence One is scheduled to begin flying on 29 April 2026, starting with that Dallas-to-Philadelphia trip. After that, Southwest says to watch for tail number 1776 throughout the year as the aircraft makes special stops tied to the nation’s 250th anniversary.
For some passengers who are unaware of the plane they’ll be flying, it will be a fun surprise at the gate. For avgeeks, it will be one more aircraft to track, photograph, and casually point out to everyone nearby.
Because that is what we do.
And with a tail number like 1776, Southwest clearly knew exactly how to get our attention.
The Royal British Airbus A321neo made a high-profile arrival at Joint Base Andrews on Monday for King Charles III’s America 250 state visit.
When King Charles III and Queen Camilla arrived in Washington, D.C. today, the occasion was bound to make headlines. Their state visit will undoubtedly be a historic event, celebrating America’s 250th year of independence and the America 250 festivities. For avgeeks, though, the real highlight was the United Kingdom government’s VIP Airbus A321neo parked at Joint Base Andrews.
The aircraft, registered as G-GBNI, is one of the most recognizable narrowbody VIP planes used by any government. Titan Airways operates it for the UK government, and it often appears on important ministerial and royal trips. On this transatlantic journey, the King and Queen flew from RAF Brize Norton to Washington, D.C., using a royal flight callsign.
Flight tracking shows G-GBNI left RAF Brize Norton (BZZ) at 1147 local time and landed at Joint Base Andrews (ADW) at 1432 local, making the trip in about 7 hours and 45 minutes. This flight is notable not just for its passengers, but also for what it reveals about the use of long-range narrowbody jets in VIP travel today.
King Charles and Queen Camilla have departed for their State Visit to the United States. They'll be meeting with President Trump and the First Lady at the White House later today.
The royals flew from RAF Brize Norton aboard the UK government jet 'G-GBNI', typically used by the… pic.twitter.com/NhYWNffjbw
IMAGE: Anna Zvereva, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
G-GBNI is an Airbus A321-251NX from the A321neo family, set up for long-range VIP missions. Public records show it is MSN 8830 and has two CFM International LEAP-1A32 engines. The plane first flew in 2019 and joined the UK government’s VIP fleet after serving with other operators.
Most people think of the A321neo as a regular commercial jet, but it is now playing a bigger role in long-range premium travel. Its longer range, lower costs compared to larger jets, and ability to use many airports make it an attractive choice for government and VIP flights.
This was clear during today’s flight, when the plane flew nonstop from the UK to Washington, covering about 4,500 nautical miles depending on routing. For a single-aisle jet, this is exactly the kind of trip the long-range A321neo was built for.
This A321neo is set up differently from standard models. Public sources say G-GBNI has a low-density VIP layout with lie-flat seats, meeting areas, high-speed internet, secure communications, and other features needed for official trips. The exact interior is not shared for security reasons, but it is used by the Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers, senior officials, and the Royal Family.
From Airliner to Government Transport
Stunning Royal British Airbus A321neo Arrives in Washington for Historic State Visit 143
The current G-GBNI has a more complex past than its VIP role suggests. It was first delivered to Arkia Israeli Airlines in 2019, then stored and re-registered. Titan Airways received it in 2022 as G-POWT and re-registered it as G-GBNI in 2023.
An Arkia Israeli Airlines Airbus A321LR neo. The current Royal British Airbus A321neo began its life at Arkia Airlines | IMAGE: Airbus
This is important because G-GBNI is not just a new plane with a new registration. According to records, this is the second airframe to use the G-GBNI registration. The previous A321neo with this registration became G-OATW, and the current plane took over the registration, livery, and VIP duties.
This history makes the plane especially interesting for planespotters. It serves as a government aircraft, is operated by a civilian company, and was originally an airline jet. This mix shows how modern VIP transport is more complex than the old idea of a military jet with a flag on the tail.
Titan Airways, a British charter and ACMI company with experience in special flights, operates the aircraft. When used by the government, G-GBNI uses royal and official callsigns, such as KRH/Sparrowhawk for royal trips and AWC/Zap for government flights.
A fun bit of aviation trivia: the registration G-GBNI is a nod to the country’s official name, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In other words, GBNI. And now you know.
The “Global Britain” Look
G-GBNI landing at Prestwick, Scotland in 2025 | IMAGE: By Jonathan Payne from Ayr, United Kingdom – G-GBNI A321, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=178251847
G-GBNI stands out thanks to its bold look. It features the UK government’s Global Britain livery, with Union Flag colors on the fuselage and tail. This design is also used on the RAF Voyager KC3 VIP jet, giving the UK’s transport fleet a more unified and visible identity.
On a normal commercial A321neo, the fuselage is often a clean canvas for airline branding. On G-GBNI, the aircraft’s livery turns the narrowbody into a flying diplomatic symbol. That is especially fitting for a mission like this, where the aircraft was transporting the King and Queen to the United States during a major anniversary year.
The aircraft’s arrival at Joint Base Andrews also put it in rare company. This is the kind of ramp more often associated with presidential aircraft, military transports, and high-level diplomatic arrivals. So for avgeeks, seeing a single-aisle Airbus in that setting was part of the fun. It was also a reminder of just how far the A321neo has stretched the role of the narrowbody. With the right cabin and range, an aircraft many travelers associate with airline service can also carry heads of state, royalty, and senior officials across the Atlantic.
A Royal Flight During America 250
BBC coverage of the arrival of His Majesty King Charles III to Joint Base Andrews in Washington, DC on 27 April 2026 | IMAGE: BBC
The visit itself carries major historical significance. The White House said President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump would welcome King Charles III and Queen Camilla for a state visit from 27 April through 30 April 2026, coinciding with commemorations marking the 250th anniversary of American independence.
Most people will pay attention to the ceremonies, meetings, and symbolism surrounding a British monarch’s visit to the United States during America 250. But the flight itself also shows the important role of aircraft in state visits. Before the motorcades and photo ops, it all starts with the plane.
This time, the aircraft was not a jumbo jet or military plane. Instead, it was a VIP Airbus A321neo, a model many travelers know from regular airline service. G-GBNI’s arrival showed how this type of plane can be turned into a long-range government jet fit for royalty.
Why This Flight Stood Out
Airbus A321-253NX (c/n 10238, G-GBNI) of the Government of the United Kingdom / Titan Airways | IMAGE: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Airbus_A321-253NX_%28cn_10238%2C_G-GBNI%29_2024-07-14_Andre_Gerwing_Collection_ID_021118.jpg
There is something especially avgeek-worthy about a state visit carried out aboard a narrowbody Airbus. The A321neo family has already changed airline route planning by making thinner long-haul routes more practical. VIP service offers many of the same advantages: range, efficiency, airport flexibility, and enough cabin space for a specialized interior.
G-GBNI’s arrival in Washington showed all these qualities at once. It was a royal flight, a diplomatic event, and a great example of how much single-aisle planes have advanced.
For aviation fans, the main point is clear. While the King and Queen’s visit made the news, the plane that brought them is worth attention too. G-GBNI is more than just a way to travel—it is a modern government flagship, and this was one of its biggest missions so far.
New information from the NTSB explains how the March 2026 LaGuardia runway collision between an Air Canada CRJ-900 and a fire truck happened.
On the night of 22 March 2026, something went very wrong at New York’s LaGuardia Airport (LGA).
A routine arrival from Montréal–Trudeau International Airport (YUL) ended in a deadly runway collision between an Air Canada Express regional jet and an airport fire truck. The National Transportation Safety Board’s preliminary report now provides the first detailed account of what happened in those final moments.
Although many questions remain, the initial findings are already prompting difficult questions.
A Landing That Never Finished
IMAGE: NTSB
Jazz Aviation flight 646, operating as Air Canada Flight 8646, was on final approach to LGA’s Runway 4 just before midnight. The CRJ-900 had 76 people on board and was nearing the end of what had otherwise been a normal flight from YUL.
At 23:35:07 (all times local), the aircraft was cleared to land.
R35 (Truck 1) and Air Canada Flight 8646 positions at 23:37:04 | IMAGE: NTSB
At the same time, multiple airport rescue vehicles were responding to a separate emergency near Terminal B. Seven ground vehicles began moving across the airfield, planning to cross Runway 4 via Taxiway D.
What happened next took place over the course of just a few seconds.
At 23:37:04, with the aircraft just a quarter mile from touchdown and about 130 feet above the ground, the lead fire truck, identified as Rescue 35, was cleared to cross the runway.
Three seconds later, the truck began moving.
Four seconds after that, the aircraft crossed the runway threshold.
The gap between them was closing fast.
“Stop! Stop! Stop!”
IMAGE: NTSB
As the aircraft touched down, controllers took immediate action.
At 23:37:12, the tower instructed the fire truck to stop. Then again at 23:37:20.
Inside the truck, the crew sensed the urgency in the radio call but did not immediately understand what it meant.
One crew member later recalled hearing “stop stop stop” on the frequency, but not realizing right away that it was directed at them. Only after hearing “Truck 1 stop stop stop” did it fully register.
By then, the truck had already crossed the hold short line and was entering the runway at roughly 30 mph.
At the same moment, the aircraft was decelerating through about 100 knots, less than 400 feet from the intersection.
Two seconds later, they collided.
A System That Stayed Silent
LaGuardia is equipped with multiple layers of safety designed to prevent exactly this kind of scenario.
But in this case, several of them didn’t provide the protection you might expect.
The airport’s ASDE-X surface detection system, which is designed to track aircraft and vehicles and warn of potential conflicts, did not generate any alert in the tower.
Investigators say one key reason is that none of the responding ground vehicles were equipped with transponders. That meant the system could not reliably distinguish or track each vehicle, especially as they moved close together.
Instead of seven distinct vehicles, controllers saw only intermittent and merged radar targets.
Without a clear track for the fire truck, the system never recognized the developing conflict.
REL Lights Were On
Runway Status Lights (RWSL) illuminated at runway intersection | IMAGE: FAA
Another layer of protection, however, did activate.
Runway Entrance Lights (RELs), designed to warn vehicles not to enter an active runway, illuminated as the aircraft approached.
Surveillance video shows the red lights were clearly on while the fire trucks were holding short, about 300 feet from the runway.
But those lights are designed to turn off as an aircraft passes an intersection.
In this case, they went dark about three seconds before the collision—just as the truck reached the runway edge.
That timing, by design, may have removed a final visual warning at the worst possible moment.
The Outcome Could Have Been Much Worse
The day after the fatal incident shows catastrophic damage to the cockpit of the CRJ-900 | IMAGE: NTSB
The collision caused catastrophic damage to the forward section of the aircraft.
The cockpit area was destroyed, and both pilots were killed.
However, for passengers seated further back in the cabin, the outcome could have been much worse.
Passenger seats remained largely intact, and many occupants were able to evacuate through overwing exits. In total, 39 people were taken to hospitals, including six with serious injuries.
The aft flight attendant said the landing seemed normal until a sudden impact, followed by confusion and darkness, before passengers began evacuating.
Even with the confusion, most people evacuated in an orderly way.
The Investigation Continues
The Air Canada CRJ-900 involved in the fatal LaGuardia runway collision in March 2026 rests in a hangar at LGA | IMAGE: NTSB
It’s important to remember that this is only a preliminary report. The NTSB has not yet determined a probable cause, and many details are still being analyzed.
But even at this early stage, some key issues are already becoming clear:
A high workload environment, with controllers managing both arriving aircraft and a ground emergency
Communication challenges, including blocked transmissions and delayed recognition of instructions
Limitations in surface detection systems when ground vehicles are not fully equipped
Safety systems that worked as designed, but may not have been enough in combination
None of these factors alone tells the full story.
But taken together, these factors help explain how a routine landing and a routine runway crossing ended up overlapping with tragic results.
As the investigation into Air Canada Flight 8646 continues, the focus will shift from understanding what happened to understanding why it happened. And perhaps, most importantly, preventing it from ever happening again.
The bright yellow jets may get yet another chance. Spirit Airlines is in advanced talks for a bailout. Here’s what we know.
After weeks of uncertainty, Spirit Airlines may finally have a path forward.
The Wall Street Journal first reported, and other outlets have confirmed, that Spirit Airlines is in advanced talks with the US government about a possible rescue package worth up to $500 million. The deal is not final, but it could give the government a large equity stake in the airline, which might put it ahead of other stakeholders depending on the final terms.
Talks are ongoing and moving forward as officials work out the final terms. There is no official agreement yet, and details could still change. Even so, this progress is a significant development after days of uncertainty about possible support.
The Spirit Airlines story plot twists keep coming. After multiple rounds of merger speculation, two bankruptcies in a year, and other challenges, the Dania Beach, Fla.-based carrier announced in February that it was aiming to emerge from bankruptcy by this summer.
And then fuel prices skyrocketed as the US and Israel launched military operations in Iran.
This was not good news for Spirit, which was barely hanging on as it was. Just last week, it was reported that the carrier’s closure was imminent, barring an eleventh-hour rescue.
It appears that rescue may have arrived.
What the Deal Could Mean
A Spirit Airlines A320-271N lands at Harry Reid International Airport (LAS) | IMAGE: Spirit Airlines via Facebook
If the deal goes through, Spirit would get quick access to cash as it restructures and seeks to emerge from bankruptcy later this year. The deal could also change the airline’s ownership, since the government might end up with a large stake depending on the terms.
This possibility has brought mixed reactions. President Donald Trump said he is open to helping, pointing to the 14,000 jobs at risk and the need for competition in the U.S. airline market. On the other hand, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy questioned whether a bailout would help, warning against using taxpayer money for a company that has not been consistently profitable. Duffy also asked whether giving taxpayer money to the airline would really change its long-term trajectory or just delay an outcome markets already expect.
Industry experts are also divided. Some analysts warn that rescuing one airline with government support could set a precedent for others.
Past government interventions, like those after the September 11 attacks and during the COVID-19 pandemic, were meant to support the whole industry. Directly rescuing just one airline would be different and could lead other struggling carriers to ask for help too.
For Now, Operations Continue as Normal
IMAGE: Spirit Airlines
As talks go on, Spirit says its daily operations remain the same. Passengers can still book flights and use tickets, credits, and loyalty points as usual, with no immediate disruptions reported.
For crews and frequent flyers, who know how quickly things can change in this industry, the main question is what happens next. If a deal is reached, it could help stabilize Spirit and give it a better chance to exit bankruptcy. If talks fall through, the situation could become urgent again.
Either way, the Spirit Airlines story isn’t over.
For now, though, the bright yellow jets are still flying.
And in an industry that has seen more than its share of goodbyes, that still matters.
Either way, this moment stands out. It is not just that Spirit is facing challenges, but for the first time in a while, there is a real plan being discussed to keep the airline operating.
