Before it lit up the big screen in a fiery explosion, a now-famous Boeing 727 movie prop had a much more patriotic purpose.
Originally painted by American artist Alexander Calder to celebrate the United States Bicentennial in 1976, this aircraft—registered as N408BN—was once a flying piece of art for Braniff International Airways.
Its transformation from an airborne tribute to a Hollywood icon is one of aviation’s most unexpected plot twists.
Here’s a brief history of Calder’s special-edition aircraft.
Braniff’s Artistic Aspirations
Braniff International Airways (BIA) was an airline founded in Dallas, Texas, that served travelers worldwide for over five decades. The airline even leased a Concorde briefly for domestic operations before closing its doors in 1982.
During the 1970s, Braniff introduced a more modern fleet and embraced eye-catching design. Aircraft donned striking two-tone schemes using vivid blues, greens, and oranges, paired with yellow or light-blue underbellies.
The dramatic style shift was driven by Chairman Harding Lawrence and Mary Wells, an advertising executive who later became his wife.
Braniff’s ‘Flying Colors of South America’ Douglas DC-8 | Image: Wikimedia Commons
But the carrier’s creative vision didn’t stop there. In 1973, advertising executive George Stanley Gordon elevated the idea further by commissioning artist Alexander Calder to create an entirely hand-painted livery. The result was Flying Colors of South America, a vibrant Douglas DC-8 featuring streaks, waves, and other accents in bold primary colors.
The aircraft commemorated Braniff’s 25 years of service to South American cities and was used exclusively on routes between North and South America.
A Star-Spangled Boeing
In 1975, two years after his first airline collaboration, Alexander Calder was again commissioned by George Stanley Gordon—this time to celebrate America’s upcoming 1976 Bicentennial. The result was Flying Colors of the United States, a striking red, white, and blue design hand-painted onto a Boeing 727-200.
The aircraft was delivered new to Frontier in 1968 and later sold to Braniff in 1972. Prior to Calder’s work, it wore a solid blue Braniff livery. Calder’s patriotic version featured flowing ribbons and swirls in red and blue on a predominantly white background.
The aircraft debuted its new livery during a company event at Dallas Love Field and was later used primarily for routes between the United States and Mexico.
Unfortunately, the special edition livery was short-lived. Once the Bicentennial festivities concluded, Braniff repainted N408BN in a solid color once again — this time, in ‘chocolate brown.’
Flying Colors of the United States was the last special-edition livery commissioned from Braniff. Calder unfortunately died from a heart attack on 12 November 1976 in his daughter’s home in New York City. He was 78.
Life After Braniff and the Journey to an Iconic Boeing 727 Movie Prop
N408BN remained in Braniff’s fleet until the airline ceased operations in May 1982. The aircraft sat in storage until the launch of Braniff II in 1984 when it was repainted in the new airline’s white and blue livery.
In 1985, N408BN was sold to Pride Air and eventually passed through the hands of several smaller domestic and international carriers. Its flying career came to an end in June 1990, when it was retired in Opa-locka, Florida. The aircraft was dismantled, and its parts were sold by International Air Leases.
But N408BN had one last moment in the spotlight.
In 1993, the aircraft was sold to Columbia Pictures for the climactic final scene of Bad Boys, starring Will Smith and Martin Lawrence.
The film’s villain, Fouchet (played by Tchéky Karyo), attempts to flee aboard the jet until the film’s heroes blow up the hangar (and the aircraft). N408BN’s registration is clearly visible throughout the scene, which was filmed at Miami-Opa Locka Executive Airport (OPF).
Australian photographer Frank Schaefer took the last known photo of N408BN in March 1993, shortly before production of Bad Boys began:
‘Sad end, but at least with a bit of fame,’ Schaefer wrote.
On 5 January 2024, Alaska Airlines Flight 1282, a Boeing 737-9 MAX (reg. N704AL), suffered a terrifying midair incident when its left mid-exit door (MED) plug blew out at 14,830 feet, leaving a gaping hole in the fuselage.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) on 24 June 2025 released a synopsis of its forthcoming final report on the Flight 1282 incident. The agency pins the blame on Boeing’s failure to provide adequate training, guidance, and oversight to its factory workers while also criticizing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for ineffective oversight.
A Harrowing Turn of Events Six Minutes After Departure from Portland
The hole created by the mid-air blowout of the mid-exit door aboard Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 on 5 January 2024 | IMAGE: Kelly Bartlett via AP
Just six minutes after departing Portland International Airport (PDX) for Ontario International Airport (ONT) in California, Flight 1282’s left MED plug—a 29-by-59-inch rectangular structure sealing an unused door space—separated from the airframe. The rapid depressurization was harrowing: passenger belongings were sucked out through the hole, oxygen masks deployed, and the flight deck door swung open, injuring a flight attendant. Seven of the 171 passengers sustained minor injuries, but the quick actions of the two pilots and four flight attendants ensured the remaining 164 passengers were unharmed. The crew executed emergency procedures flawlessly, descending and safely landing back at PDX.
The MED plug was recovered two days later in a Portland neighborhood, offering a critical clue: the four bolts meant to secure it vertically were missing. Alaska Airlines hadn’t performed any maintenance on the plug since taking delivery three months earlier, pointing investigators straight to Boeing’s Renton, Washington, factory. The incident raised immediate questions about production quality and oversight, setting the stage for a damning NTSB report.
Probable Cause: Boeing’s Manufacturing Breakdown
The exterior of N704AL, which was the aircraft involved with Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 | IMAGE: NTSB
The NTSB’s probable cause is unequivocal: the in-flight separation resulted from Boeing’s failure to provide adequate training, guidance, and oversight to ensure compliance with its parts removal process.
On 18 September 2023, Boeing workers opened the MED plug on N704AL to repair rivets on the fuselage, a non-routine task requiring the removal of the four securing bolts. The plug was closed the next day, but no removal record was generated, violating Boeing’s Business Process Instruction (BPI). Without documentation, no quality assurance (QA) inspection occurred, and the bolts were never reinstalled.
The investigation uncovered systemic issues. Boeing’s BPI for parts removal was convoluted, lacking the clarity and usability needed for workers to follow it consistently. The NTSB noted a decade-long history of compliance issues with the BPI, yet Boeing’s corrective actions—accepted by the FAA—failed to resolve these persistent deficiencies. On-the-job training was equally problematic. It was described as unstructured and focused on routine tasks, leaving workers ill-prepared for non-routine procedures like opening MED plugs.
Compounding the error, none of Boeing’s specialized “door team” technicians were on duty when the plug was closed, leaving the task to less experienced personnel. The absence of bolts allowed the plug to shift upward incrementally over multiple flight cycles, undetectable during routine preflight inspections, until it catastrophically separated on 5 January.
NTSB Chairwoman Jennifer Homendy underscored the gravity of the incident at the NTSB Board Meeting on 24 June.
“The safety deficiencies that led to this accident should have been evident to Boeing and to the FAA,” Homendy said. “The same safety deficiencies that led to this accident could just as easily have led to other manufacturing quality escapes and, perhaps, other accidents.”
FAA’s Oversight Failures
NTSB Chairwoman Jennifer Homendy in the cockpit of Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 aircraft N704AL | IMAGE: NTSB
The FAA came under fire for its “ineffective compliance enforcement surveillance and audit planning,” which failed to identify Boeing’s “repetitive and systemic” nonconformance issues. The agency’s systems lacked the functionality to track persistent problems, and its five-year record retention policy hindered inspectors’ ability to spot long-term trends, such as the BPI’s decade of noncompliance. The NTSB also criticized the FAA for accepting Boeing’s ineffective corrective actions, allowing known issues to fester.
Boeing’s voluntary safety management system (SMS), still in development during the incident, was deemed immature and lacking formal FAA oversight. The NTSB emphasized that a robust SMS, fully integrated into Boeing’s quality management system (QMS), requires accurate, ongoing data on safety culture. However, a prolonged work stoppage at Boeing limited the NTSB’s ability to conduct a comprehensive safety culture survey, leaving gaps in understanding whether production line pressures contributed to the error.
Operational and Design Shortcomings
An investigator with the NTSB examines the interior of Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 | IMAGE: NTSB
Beyond manufacturing, the incident exposed operational and design vulnerabilities. The flight crew’s response was exemplary, but their oxygen mask training lacked realistic, scenario-based exercises, leading to communication challenges after donning masks. Flight attendant A faced difficulties communicating with the cockpit and other crew members, though this didn’t compromise passenger safety. The NTSB recommended hands-on, aircraft-specific training for oxygen systems and a review of portable oxygen bottle design standards, noting that flight attendants struggled to access masks, even improvising tools to open packaging.
The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) was another sore point. Alaska Airlines’ procedures failed to preserve CVR data, which was overwritten after the two-hour recording limit. The NTSB reiterated its long-standing call for 25-hour CVRs to prevent the loss of critical investigative data, a recommendation that continues to go unheeded.
Child safety also drew scrutiny. Three lap-held children under two were unharmed, but the NTSB highlighted the potential for severe injury or death in such events. The board reiterated its push for increased voluntary use of child restraint systems (CRSs), urging the FAA to study barriers to CRS adoption and encouraging industry groups like Airlines for America to promote their use through data-driven programs.
Recommendations Following the Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 Incident
The covered door plug of Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 during the investigation | IMAGE: NTSB
The NTSB issued a comprehensive set of safety recommendations to address the incident’s multifaceted failures:
To Boeing: Revise the BPI for parts removal to ensure clarity and usability, develop structured on-the-job training with a grading system to track competence, and enhance SMS to identify and mitigate human error. Boeing was also tasked with certifying a design enhancement for MED plugs to ensure complete closure and issuing a service bulletin for retrofitting in-service aircraft.
To the FAA: Overhaul compliance surveillance, audit planning, and record systems to better track systemic issues, retain records beyond five years, and provide recurrent training for inspectors. The agency was urged to convene an independent panel to review Boeing’s safety culture, issue an airworthiness directive (AD) for MED plug retrofits, and improve oxygen system training and CVR preservation protocols.
These recommendations aim to close critical gaps, but their success hinges on sustained commitment from both Boeing and the FAA.
Industry Implications and a Call to Action
An Alaska Airlines 737-700 takes off from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA) on 30 March 2024 | IMAGE: Alaska Airlines
The Flight 1282 incident was a near miss that narrowly avoided disaster. The NTSB’s report highlights a critical breakdown in the chain linking manufacturing discipline, regulator oversight, and operational preparedness. Boeing’s quality control lapses, coupled with the FAA’s inadequate monitoring, exposed vulnerabilities in the 737 MAX production line that demand immediate attention.
As Boeing works to certify MED plug enhancements and the FAA revises its oversight processes, the industry must stay focused on its processes. The final report, expected soon on NTSB.gov, will provide further details, but the message is clear: preventable deficiencies must be addressed before they lead to another close call—or worse.
Flight 1282 serves as a case study in the consequences of systemic failures and a rallying cry for stronger standards across manufacturing, oversight, and safety culture.
Will Boeing and the FAA rise to the challenge? The stakes couldn’t be higher.
The full 24 June 2025 NTSB board meeting synopsis is available below.
Throughout aviation history, many aircraft have featured a push-pull engine configuration.
Propeller-driven planes often rely on forward-mounted engines to pull them through the air. Some have engines mounted in the rear of the fuselage, which operate as pushers.
The push-pull concept offers some of the advantages of both designs. Although not ideal for all aircraft, the push-pull structure provides some significant improvements over other designs.
Different Versions of Push-Pull Engine Configuration
There are multiple ways push-pull configurations are used on aircraft. A common concept has two propellers, one forward and one aft, aligned along the fuselage centerline. Some of these designs have multiple engines working in tandem to turn the propellers. Other models feature a combination of standard puller-type engines and others in different locations that operate as pulling powerplants.
The Dornier Seawings Seastar has a push-pull engine configuration with 2 Pratt and Whitney PT6A-135A engines rated at 650 horsepower each. | Image: Dornierseawings.com
The push-pull engine configuration offers several key advantages. By placing both propellers along the aircraft’s centerline, the design maintains the aerodynamic balance and symmetry of a single-engine aircraft. This setup also reduces drag compared to wing-mounted engines, improving overall efficiency.
Another significant benefit is enhanced safety. In the event of an engine failure, push-pull aircraft are easier to control. Push-pull designs remain more stable than conventional twin-engine aircraft with wing-mounted engines, which tend to yaw sharply toward the inoperative engine. This feature helps pilots maintain control, even at lower speeds where conventional twins can become uncontrollable due to a condition known as Minimum Controllable Airspeed (Vmc).
Military Applications for Push-Pull Designs
Push-pull engine configurations have been a feature on some military aircraft since the First World War. One of the earliest examples was the Kennedy Giant, an experimental British heavy bomber prototype. It had four Canton-Unne Salmson Z9 engines–two in a pulling configuration and two as pushers.
The Kennedy Giant prototype WWI heavy bomber had four engines. | Image: flyingmachines.ru
The aircraft was built by C.J.H. Mackenzie-Kennedy’s company, which he founded in 1909. However, the project faced challenges from the start. During construction, the team discovered the aircraft was too large to fit through the hangar doors.
When the Kennedy Giant finally made its only test flight in 1917, it managed little more than a brief hop—the engines simply couldn’t generate enough power to lift the nearly 19,000-pound bomber effectively.
After the war, aircraft designers grew wary of push-pull configurations for most military planes. They found that during crash landings, the crew risked being crushed between the two engines if they were mounted fore and aft in the center of the fuselage. And in the event of a bailout, there was the added danger of striking the rear propeller. These safety concerns ultimately limited the push-pull layout’s use in combat aircraft.
Licensing Limitations for Push-Pull Aircraft Pilots
Another interesting complication with push-pull aircraft is how they affect pilot certification.
Pilots who earn a multi-engine rating in aircraft with centerline thrust–a defining feature of push-pull configurations–are limited to flying that specific type. Their license does not authorize them to fly conventional multi-engine aircraft with wing-mounted engines. In contrast, pilots trained on wing-mounted engine aircraft can legally operate both types without restriction.
Caproni Ca. 1 Had Three Engines: Two Pulling and One Pushing
Multiple aircraft designs have used push-pull engine configurations over the years. One of the more unusual early designs was the Caproni Ca.1, introduced in 1914. This Italian bomber featured three engines: two 80-horsepower Gnome et Rhône rotary engines mounted on the tail booms operating as pullers or tractor propellers, while a third 100-horsepower engine positioned behind the central fuselage functioned as a pusher.
The Caproni Ca.1 aircraft flew in 1914. | Image: San Diego Air & Space Museum
Bellanca “Blue Streak”: A Tragic End to an Ambitious Design
Another unique push-pull aircraft was the 1929 Bellanca TES X-855e “Blue Streak.” Equipped with two 450-horsepower Pratt & Whitney Wasp engines–one mounted in front of the cabin nacelle (or passenger compartment) and the other behind–it featured dual three-bladed propellers. In 1930, engineers replaced the engines with more powerful 600-horsepower Curtis Conquerors.
However, tragedy struck during a cargo flight that same year. Loaded with cargo, the aircraft experienced severe vibrations in the rear propeller’s drive shaft. This tore the plane apart mid-flight, killing its three-man crew.
View of both propellers on the Bellanca Blue Streak. | Image: earlyaviators.com
Fokker F-32 Designed for Luxury Travel
The Fokker F-32, built in 1929, was one of the first push-pull aircraft designed specifically for commercial service and the first four-engine airliner. Powered by Pratt & Whitney Wasp radial powerplants, it could carry up to 32 passengers. Its Dutch manufacturer, GKN Fokker, designed it to be a comfortable, luxurious way to travel.
Fokker F-32 with four Pratt & Whitney radial engines could carry 32 passengers. | Image: planehistoria
Two engines were mounted in two nacelles under each wing, each with propellers fore and aft. Fokker hoped the F-32 would increase range compared to other airliners of that time. However, the aircraft was notorious for high fuel consumption and excessive maintenance needs. Eventually, due to economic conditions during the Great Depression, Fokker ended the project.
Eight Engine ANT-20 Largest Aircraft in The World in 1930s
The Soviet Tupolev ANT-20 “Maxim Gorky” was designed and built in the 1930s. They created it to be the largest aircraft in the world at the time. It had a wingspan of 206 feet, wider than that of a B-52, and a length of 107 feet. The ANT-20 was powered by eight Mikulin AM-34FRN V-12 liquid-cooled piston engines. They were rated at 1200 horsepower each, but the plane cruised at a relatively modest top speed of 140 miles per hour.
Image of ANT-20 shows its size relative to a smaller aircraft and several men. | Image: Public Domain
The engine layout was unconventional: three engines mounted under each wing operated as pullers. In contrast, an additional engine mounted atop each wing featured a rear-facing propeller at the rear of the nacelles that functioned as a pusher.
The Tupolev ANT-20 in flight with a view of its push-pull engine configuration. | Image: Public Domain
Cessna Skymaster a Modern Version of Push-Pull Engine Configuration
Decades later, the Cessna 337 Skymaster brought push-pull design into the modern era. First introduced in 1969, Cessna produced 2,993 of the type, making it one of the most recognizable aircraft with a push-pull engine configuration.
The Skymaster featured two 201-horsepower air-cooled Continental engines—one mounted in the nose (puller) and the other behind the passenger cabin, just ahead of the tail (pusher). This layout offered better visibility and eliminated asymmetric thrust issues during engine failure, a key selling point for general aviation pilots.
Cessna 337 Skymaster with push-pull engine configuration and forward and aft propellers visible. | Image: aviationconsumer.com
Despite its popularity, the Skymaster wasn’t without flaws. The rear engine often suffered from cooling problems, and the aircraft was notoriously loud. The turbulent airflow from the front propeller interfered with the rear propeller, amplifying noise and reducing efficiency.
Once a beloved symbol of Caribbean travel, Air Jamaica was known for its colorful liveries, vibrant in-flight culture, and award-winning service. But behind the Caribbean airline’s cheerful image was a turbulent financial story that spanned decades.
Air Jamaica rose quickly—but unsustainably. After years of expansion, privatization, and mounting losses, it was ultimately absorbed by another tropical airline. Here’s what happened to Air Jamaica.
Air Jamaica’s British Beginnings
Though Jamaica gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1962, it still leaned on British aviation expertise in the years that followed.
In 1963, British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) and British West Indian Airways (BWIA) formed an international airline for the Jamaican government. It was called ‘Jamaica Air Service Limited’ and launched routes from Jamaica to New York and Miami.
Five years later, however, the Jamaican government changed its mind and wanted to run an airline independently. At 51%, it was the majority owner of Jamaica Air Service Limited, so it dissolved its original airline and formed a fully national flag carrier: Air Jamaica.
Formed in October 1968, Air Jamaica was partly backed by Air Canada, which held a 40% stake and supplied four aircraft to help the airline get off the ground.
On 1 April 1969, Air Jamaica launched its first flights, connecting Kingston, Montego Bay, New York, and Miami.
1970s and 1980s Expansions
Air Jamaica quickly expanded to Toronto and Montreal thanks to its partnership with Air Canada. Throughout the early 1970s, the Caribbean airline also launched service to Philadelphia, San Juan, Puerto Rico, and other Caribbean destinations. Its fleet included Douglas DC-8s and DC-9s.
By 1974, Air Jamaica had extended its reach across the Atlantic, launching service to London, followed by Frankfurt in 1975. Air Jamaica was now a serious contender in international travel. Towards the end of the 1970s, the carrier added the Boeing 727-200 to its fleet.
According to airline historian R.E.G. Davies, the airline left a great impression on travelers by hiring attractive female flight attendants and offering free rum on flights.
Still, the airline was bleeding money. Despite its popularity, it was operating at a loss, a reality the Jamaican government hoped would eventually turn around. Growth slowed in the 1980s, but Air Jamaica pressed on, launching service to Los Angeles (LAX), Baltimore (BWI), and Atlanta (ATL) and leasing newer aircraft like the Boeing 747 and Airbus A300 to replace its aging jets.
In 1989, the government chose to privatize the carrier. A group of investors, the Air Jamaica Acquisition Group (AJAG), took a 70% stake in the airline, while the government retained 25% and employees held the remaining 5%.
1990s and 2000s Declines
The 1990s saw continued expansion. Air Jamaica added new international destinations to the Bahamas, Santo Domingo, Manchester, Fort Lauderdale, and Phoenix. Some of these new destinations were possible due to codeshare agreements with Delta Air Lines.
The airline also continued to upgrade its fleet with new Airbus aircraft, such as the A310, A320, and A340. While these changes took place, the airline discussed merging with other Caribbean carriers, including Guyana Airways and Trinidad and Tobago Airways.
But by 2004, AJAG had exited the partnership, and the Jamaican government once again took full ownership of the airline.
In the next few years, the airline began axing routes and laying off employees to cut costs. Destinations like Phoenix, Los Angeles, Miami, and Atlanta were removed from its network.
Air Jamaica CEO Bruce Nobles called it the airline’s ‘most challenging time.’ Losses had piled up to around $1 billion, and the government was desperate to find a buyer.
It was reported that Air Jamaica reported losses in 40 of its 42 years of existence.
Acquisition and Closure
In 2010, the Jamaican government sold Air Jamaica to Caribbean Airlines, making it the largest airline in the region. Jamaica retained a 16% stake in the newly merged carrier, while Caribbean Airlines took over operations.
Though the Air Jamaica brand would linger for five more years, it was officially folded into Caribbean Airlines in 2015.
Caribbean Airlines is now the flag carrier of both Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. The government of Trinidad and Tobago owns an 88.1% stake, while Jamaica’s stake was reduced to 11.9%. After years of financial strain, the airline finally reported its first profit in 2019 of a modest $4 million.
Fred Smith passed away last week at the age 80. He leaves behind legacy of innovation but also a company that faces many challenges ahead.
When Frederick Smith, founder of FedEx, died this week, the giant shipping corporation lost more than a chief executive. It lost a man with many titles and descriptions, including combat veteran, risk taker, renegade, and zealot.
Many adjectives also apply to Smith, including determined, confident, adaptable, and, according to Smith himself, crazy. Now FedEx must face an uncertain and challenging future without its leader.
FedEx 777-F aircraft. | Image: FedEx
Fred Smith Overcame Challenges His Whole Life, Still Achieved Success
Fred Smith faced many challenges while very young. His father died when he was just four years old. Then at eight years old, he was afflicted by Calvá-Perthes, a disease that interrupted blood blow to his right thigh bone. This affected the leg’s development, and he was on crutches for the next two-and one-half years. He overcame this and later played football, learned to fly at age fifteen, and became a Marine Corps infantry officer.
Prior to becoming a Marine, Smith entered Yale University in 1962. While taking an economics class, he demonstrated he had a clear eye for future business opportunities. He wrote a paper outlining overnight delivery service in a computer information age, an original concept that would later become his idea for FedEx. His professor felt Smith’s idea was “improbable” and gave him a C for the paper.
Smith Joined U.S. Marine Corp as a 2nd Lieutenant and Served Two Tours in Vietnam
After graduating from Yale in 1966, Smith joined the U.S. Marine Corps as a second lieutenant. He served two tours in Vietnam and received decorations for bravery and wounds received in combat. While in the Marines, Smith gained experience that he would directly apply when he started FedEx.
Smith later said he had, “the opportunity to observe the military’s logistic system first hand,” and “carefully observed the procurement and delivery procedures,” experience that fine-tuned his “dream for an overnight delivery service.”
Decades later, during a 2023 interview with the Associated Press, Smith said that everything he did running FedEx came from his experience in the Marines, and not from what he learned at Yale. Smith served for four years and left as a captain.
Smith Used Trust Funds to Start First Business
Smith wanted to create a business and started to develop a reputation as a risk taker. He returned to the U.S. and used a family trust distribution to $750,000 to partner with a friend and purchase Arkansas Aviation Sales at Little Rock Municipal Airport.
Smith led the small company to success, earning $9 million in revenue in the first two years. He also became frustrated by late air freight shipments of spare parts, which his business desperately needed. This only made him more determined to start an overnight delivery service.
Frederick Smith in the 1970s. | Image: FedEx
In the following years, Frederick Smith got the idea for FedEx and raised $80 million to get started. He received some of the funds from investors and some from his brothers and sisters. The new company began with 14 aircraft carrying just 186 packages the first day.
As the company began to grow, rising fuel costs took its profits. In the first two years, it lost $27 million and neared bankruptcy. Things got so bad, that the company only had $5000 left. During a trip to California where he tried, and failed, to receive funding from General Dynamics, Smith was on his way home and made a detour to Las Vegas.
Smith Bet Company’s Last $5,000 in Las Vegas
He used the $5000 to play Blackjack and won $27,000, which he immediately wired back to FedEx. “The $27,000 wasn’t decisive, but it was an omen that things would get better,” said Smith.
It was not in Smith’s nature to give up, and he was eventually able to renegotiate his bank loans and raised an additional $11 million to keep the business open.
“I was very committed to the people that had signed on with me, and if we were going to go down, we were going to go down with a fight,” he said. “It wasn’t going to be because I checked out and didn’t finish.”
Fred Smith did not show any regret for gambling the company’s last $5,000. “No business school graduate would recommend gambling as a financial strategy, but sometimes it pays to be a little crazy early in your career,” he said.
FedEx Becomes World Shipping Leader
In the following decades, FedEx became, by every measure, a massive success. Under Smith’s leadership and vision, it turned into an $87.7 billion global corporation with more than 500,000 employees, 705 aircraft, and 5,000 operating facilities. FedEx also handles approximately 17 million shipments each day.
Frederick Smith | Image: FedEx
Smith Faced Tragedy and Even Possible Prison Sentence
Despite all his success in growing FedEx into one of the worlds leading corporations, Fred Smith also dealt with some dark times, and his ability to overcome them may say the most about his determination. He was thirty years old, and FedEx was struggling to survive, when the FBI accused him of forging papers to get a $2 million bank loan. He was facing the loss of his company and going to prison. According to some accounts, he was considering suicide.
On the same day that he was indicted, while driving home he struck and killed a 54-year-old man. Even worse, Smith continued driving, unaware that he had hit the man. Luckly, an off-duty police officer happened to be driving directly behind Smith and witnessed the accident.
He verified that Smith had not known about the accident, and the hit-and-run charge was later dismissed. He was also found not guilty of the bank loan charge. Smith overcame these challenges and continued to move FedEx forward.
Smith Calls FedEx an Information Business
Fred Smith showed his adaptability, or his ability to innovate, with his approach to organizing FedEx. From its earliest days, Smith said it was in the information business, not just the shipping business. He was one of the first corporate heads to recognize how having current, accurate information about package origin, present whereabouts, destination, price, and shipment costs was as important as prompt deliveries.
Smith always pushed for continuous improvement at FedEx and recognized the potential of the Internet and digital systems. In the 1990s, the corporation installed computer terminals in offices of 100,000 customers and gave its proprietary software to more than 500,000 others. Smith also led FedEx through purchases of Kinkos, and TNT Express, and entered a deal with the U.S. Postal Service.
Fred Smith Passes Away
Fred Smith grew FedEx into a multibillion dollar business that achieved success wildly beyond expectations. Smith stepped back from FedEx in 2022 but retained the executive chairman title.
He passed away on Saturday at the age of 80, leaving behind a legacy of a successful multi-billion dollar business that employs over a half million people worldwide.
FedEx Still Faces Numerous Challenges Now Without its Founder
Anytime a strong leader passes away or leaves, the unit or organization left behind must adapt. FedEx is facing some significant decisions and challenges, and for the first time, they must manage without their visionary leader.
1.) FedEx Cancels Contract With USPS
FedEx lost its contract with the U.S. Postal Service in 2024. While this will result in many less shipments, it could become something positive. In recent years, FedEx’s revenue from its USPS contract has dropped. In 2022, went down by $236 million.
Eliminating this contract will allow FedEx to cut costs for its daytime operations, which could save the company $1.5 billion each year.
2.) Major Competition From Amazon
Another issue for FedEx is its competition from Amazon. While FedEx has a much longer history of providing shipping, Amazon is focusing on developing its shipping capability. While the two corporations were partners for years, in 2019 FedEx they announced they were not renewing their $850 million contract with Amazon.
FedEx reported they wanted to focus more on new e-commerce opportunities and form partnerships with other companies like Dollar General and Walgreen’s. While this is occurring, Amazon is trying to position itself as a competitor to FedEx instead of a partner.
3.) Tariffs Pose a Risk For FedEx
The recent tariffs from the U.S. Government are yet another concern for FedEx. The corporation does business with over 87 countries, including China. With Tariffs approaching 145% on imports from China, shipments from that country are dropping, resulting is less revenue for FedEx. This could be especially difficult for small businesses that can’t afford to pay higher shipping costs.
4.) Strained FedEx Pilot Negotiations Ongoing With No End In Sight
FedEx Pilots Picketing Outside Corporate Headquarters | Image: WREG
Finally, FedEx is still facing a possible strike by its pilots as negotations remain stalled. FedEx pilots state they are “overworked, undervalued, and fighting for a fair contract.” FedEx Pilots have been picketing outside FedEx Corporate Headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee.
Their current pilot contract was signed in 2015, but the pilots have been negotiating for a new contract since 2021 with little progress on either side, although they are working with a mediator. They had reached an agreement in 2023, but the pilots ultimately rejected it citing that the agreement did not go far enough to protect their careers or keep pace with industry standards.
In January 2023, a database problem forced the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to pause thousands of flights and issue a nationwide stoppage. The FAA is currently responsible for the 45,000 plus flights that take place daily in the United States, and that number is expected to increase.
The FAA is facing significant challenges in upgrading and modernizing the system.
NextGen Focused on Modernizing Air Traffic Control Systems
The Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) is a sweeping FAA initiative launched in 2004 to modernize the US National Airspace System (NAS). One of its core components is Trajectory Based Operations (TBO), a transformative approach to managing air traffic.
TBO aims to streamline air travel between airports by giving controllers better knowledge of each aircraft’s flight path. This shift allows for more precise coordination and potentially more efficient routes. While TBO marks a significant evolution in ATC, FAA communications about it often make ambitious but vague claims, leaving questions about its practical impact and implementation.
Image from FAA Video Showing Complexity of Trajectory Based Operations (TBO) and Air Traffic Control Systems. | Image: FAA
For example, one FAA message includes the phrases, “revamped air traffic control infrastructure, airport infrastructure improvements, new air traffic technologies and procedures, and safety and security enhancements.”
Another message provided only a bit more detail: “to improve air traffic management and decrease aviation congestion by strategically planning, managing, and optimizing flights from departure gate through arrival gate.”
Billions Already Spent on ATC Upgrades, but More is Needed
The FAA first recognized the need to modernize the ATC system in 1982, releasing a comprehensive plan for the future and beginning substantial financial investment in the effort. It also started investing considerable funds in the effort. Over time, this initiative evolved into what is now known as NextGen. Between 2007 and 2022, the FAA spent more than $14 billion on the program, with projected spending expected to exceed $35 billion by 2030.
Many ATC Facilities Still Use Floppy Disks and Windows 95
One striking example of the system’s age is that many control towers still rely on floppy disks and the Windows 95 operating system. In some facilities, air traffic controllers continue to use paper flight strips, jotting down call signs, aircraft types, and altitudes by hand.
Some Air Traffic Control Centers Are Still Using Paper Strips Instead of Digital Tools. | Image: FAA
The most common justification for maintaining these outdated tools is that they’ve been “safety certified” and simply can’t be shut down without risking disruptions. Any upgrades must be done cautiously and carefully considering cost, security, and safety implications. It wasn’t until June 2025 that the FAA formally requested information, inviting companies to propose solutions for modernizing the system.
GAO Finds FAA to be Slow in Making Necessary Upgrades
The need to modernize the ATC system has become so urgent that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a study highlighting the issue. The report found an “urgent” need to modernize ATC systems, that the FAA has been slow to implement improvements, and that full modernization could still be 6 to 10 years away.
While upgrading the ATC system is difficult, there is also broad support for doing so. In May 2025, a coalition of aviation industry unions, trade groups, manufacturers, and other stakeholders launched an alliance called “Modern Skies” to advocate for change. As part of their campaign, they released a TV ad reflecting on outdated 1980s trends–pointing out, with irony, that floppy disks are still in use at some ATC facilities four decades later.
Modern Control Tower | Image: FAA
Responding to questions about the 2023 ATC stoppage, the FAA announced that it has developed a contingency system to deal with potential similar problems in the future. However, there appears to be much more to do.
Focus on Common Goal to Improve ATC System
On 8 June 2025, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy spoke about NextGen, stating, “This is the most important infrastructure project that we’ve had in this country for decades. Everyone agrees this is non-partisan. Everyone knows we have to do it.“
The B-2 Iran Strike was significantly bigger than initially reported. USAF dropped fourteen 30,000lb MOP bombs on nuclear plant targets
The B-2s sent to Guam recently were just decoys, as others flew the opposite direction to Iran for the actual attack. The Pentagon has released details about the bomber-attacks on several Iranian underground nuclear facilities last night, named Operation Midnight Hammer.
All 19 of the U.S Air Force B-2 bombers are based at Whiteman AFB in Missouri. With the support of aerial refueling tankers, the B-2 can fly anywhere in the world, hit their target, and be back home in Missouri in time for dinner. This mission never landed outside of Missouri.
Numerous B-2s took-off from the U.S. Friday night into early Saturday morning. Word spread quickly across media about the bombers arriving in Guam, but nobody knew 7 other B-2s (each with 2 crew members) were quietly en-route 18 hours to Iran.
Waiting for them across the ocean were more than 125 other aircraft, with more of our warfighters ready to support the attack. Fighter jets would lead and escort the strike, flying as a “protection package” to ensure safe passage of the B-2s with their 30,000 pound MOP bunker-busters. Numerous aerial refueling tankers were flying in support – from the U.S. to the Middle East and back.
Pentagon handout of Operation Midnight Hammer (DoD image)
As the planes approached Iranian airspace, a U.S. Navy Ohio-class submarine launched 30 tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles at key Iranian surface targets at Esfahan – 400 miles away.
Entering Iran in the middle of the night (local time), fighter jets pushed out in front of the B-2s. Flying at high altitude and high speed, they swept the sky in front of the bombers for enemy fighters and surface-to-air missile threats.
Approaching the targets of Fordow and Natanz, the jets employed preemptive suppressing fire to any potential surface-to-air threats.
The jets and bombers encountered no resistance from Iran
Iran never fired a single shot as aircrews penetrated deep into the country, and not one Iranian fighter jet took off. Israel already softened and drastically degraded Iran’s Air Force and defenses over the past week, overwhelming them at a rapid pace. The work done by Israel alone in just over a week of conflict was impressive, and will be studied by military strategists for decades to come.
The lead B-2 bomber dropped its 2 MOPs at 2:10am local time, hitting the first of several “aim points” in Fordow. The other bombers proceeded to hit their targets with 2 MOPS each as well, dropping a total of 14 GBU-75 bombs and marking the first operational use of the bunker-busting weapons.
Pentagon releases details on massive B-2 Iran strike 31
Iranian surface-to-air missile sites appeared unable to even see the jets and bombers. If they did, nothing was fired. The crews left Iran without resistance, with their mission accomplished.
Midnight Hammer was the B-2 Bomber’s largest attack ever
Midnight Hammer is the B-2 bomber’s largest attack in history. Their 36-hour round-trip flights are the second-longest flown missions by any B-2 (exceeded only by B-2 missions in the days following 9/11). Midnight Hammer utilized 36% of the B-2 fleet for this one mission. Pentagon officials say the mission delivered extreme destruction to all three target sites.
B-2 bombers (USAF photo)
It’s too early to say whether Iran’s nuclear capability is now completely annihilated, says the Pentagon.
U.S. forces across the region are on high alert, ready for any retaliatory attacks from Iran in the coming hours, days and weeks ahead. Iran’s proxies across the Middle East have been silent ever since Israel started their attack on Iran, but that does not mean they are not planning something.
The Design Concept of the Flying Wing Eventually Led to Modern-Day Aircraft.
The B-2 Stealth Bomber is a modern marvel of technology — a military aircraft that is as graceful as it is lethal. The world witnessed it in action in June 2025 as part of Operation Midnight Hammer.
While there is no direct lineage, the B-2 had a predecessor. The Northrop Flying Wing was conceived before World War II but was scrapped after the defeat of the Axis powers.
The Northrop Mind at Work
If Jack Northrop’s company and production line had been as big as his imagination and talent, his Flying Wing might have become part of the Air Force’s fleet. Northrop believed that a flying wing design would minimize drag and maximize lift.
His concept first took to the skies when the X216H in 1929. It was a combination of conventional and imagination. In 1940, Northrop’s N-1M was the first all-wing aircraft that proved such a design could maintain stable and controlled flight. (It is now on display at the National Air and Space Museum.)
Early Examples of the Flying Wing
In October 1941, the U.S. Government submitted a preliminary order to develop the B-35 Flying Wing bomber. The N-9M, a scaled-down test version, was the first model built. In total, four test aircraft were built.
While the Flying Wing could fly, developing a reliable aircraft for battle faced enormous difficulties. One of the biggest challenges was the complex propulsion system, which involved pushing and counter-rotating propellers. Another was simply building the aircraft. Northrop’s factory could only build and house one plane at a time; it was far from an assembly line.
Northrop YB-35 Flying Wing | Image via National Archives
A Novel But Impractical Design
Before the project gained any momentum, the Second World War ended. However, the Air Force was still intrigued by the concept. With the rapidly evolving development of jet engines, the Air Force requested that two B-35s under construction be modified from four-engine propeller planes to eight-jet aircraft. They were designated as YB-49s. While a single-wing bomber was possible, it wasn’t practical. Even with the change to jet engines, the YB-49 lacked the payload and the range of other planes that were in development by Convair and Boeing.
Northrop YB-49 Flying Wing | Image via national archives
Replaced By a Couple of Legends
With defense spending being curtailed during peacetime, the YB-49 never entered production. Convair’s B-36 Peacemaker and then the venerable and still operational Boeing B-52 Stratofortress eventually became the Air Force’s long-range bombers. The scrapping of the program also led Northrop to scrap the N-9 test aircraft that had been built. But Northrop’s Flying Wing design concept lives on in the most recent American strategic bomber- the Northrop-Grumman B-2 Spirit.
U.S. Air Force B-2 bombers have struck multiple nuclear sites in Iran. President Donald Trump confirmed the attacks earlier this evening on his social media, called Operation Midnight Hammer.
It’s the longest B-2 strike mission flown since 2001.
U.S. Air Force photo of a B-2 bomber dropping a GBU-57
The news comes after days of anxious anticipation of his decision; to take-out Iran’s underground nuclear sites, or avoid getting directly involved and let Israel continue doing the work.
President takes to social media to confirm strikes
“We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,” Trump wrote on social media.
“All planes are now outside of Iran airspace. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow,” wrote Trump.
“All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American warriors. There is not another military in the world that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!” added the president.
B-2 used massive 30,000 pound bunker-buster bombs
B-2 Bombers Strike Multiple Nuclear Sites in Iran 38
The stealth bombers used 30,000 pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) ground-penetrating bombs, to destroy the underground Iranian sites. It’s the first time the MOP has ever been used in combat.
Israel already softened up the airspace over the past week, overwhelming the Iranian Air Force quickly. Many old American F-14 Tomcats, given to Iran long ago by the United States, were obliterated by Israeli attacks as they sat parked.
It’s unclear right now what-all assets were involved. One thing however is clear, the United States is again involved in a Middle-East war. To what extent, time will tell.
When you think of a private jet, a name like ‘HondaJet’ often doesn’t spring to mind, but rather ‘Gulfstream,’ ‘Cessna,’ and ‘Bombardier.’ Little do some know that while the automaker has had a sizable chunk of the market share, it also has a history in aviation spanning almost 40 years.
How did Honda come about entering the private jet business, and how do their aircraft hold up today? Here’s the story of the HondaJet.
Honda’s Humble (Aero) Beginnings
In 1986, the Fundamental Technology Research Center opened in Saitama, Japan. Honda was among the companies involved with the center and began to study aircraft fundamentals. Honda created the Honda Aircraft Company (HACI) with the goal of building a modern aircraft fit for the 21st century.
HACI President Michimasa Fujino quickly realized how big of an undertaking this was for a company like Honda. To reach closer to this goal, Fujino traveled to America to collaborate with Mississippi State University’s (MSU) Raspet Flight Research Laboratory. While in Mississippi, Fujino interned in assembling propeller planes and learned more in-depth about aircraft development.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Honda and MSU completed prototypes for a light jet. The first was called the MH-01, followed by the MH-02. However, the next design turned out to be pivotal in the aviation industry.
The Innovative HondaJet
In 1993, one engineer at HACI suggested mounting the engines over the wings rather than along the aft fuselage. This concept improves aerodynamic drag and limits lift, increasing the plane’s fuel efficiency and decreasing noise production. Many recognized this discovery as an important one in aircraft design.
In 1999, Honda and Boeing collaborated to develop a light jet using this new idea. The HondaJet was created, and its first test flights were in 2003. Both the body and engine were designed in-house.
The HondaJet made its public debut in 2005 at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh, an event that ultimately tested whether there was genuine market interest in the aircraft.
Honda President Takeo Fukui gave the green light for full-scale production the following year. A decade later, in December 2015, the first HA-420 was delivered from Honda Aircraft Company’s Greensboro, North Carolina headquarters. By 2024, 250 HA-420s had been sold.
HondaJet’s Variants and Future
From 2017 to 2021, the HondaJet held the title of best-selling light business jet. Yet, it hasn’t garnered the same spotlight as larger jets like Gulfstreams—mainly because of its smaller size, with seating only for up to seven passengers when modified.
Unlike many private jets that come in basic white, Honda treats its jet buyers more like car buyers, offering a range of exterior paint options. Available accent colors include Red, Deep Sea Blue, Luxe Gold, and Black Sable. A brand-new HondaJet typically costs around $3.5 million.
Since 2018, Honda has released at least three variants of the HA-420:
HondaJet Elite (2018): Featured extended range and noise-dampening engine inlets for a quieter cabin.
HondaJet Elite S (2021): Included avionics upgrades, though it added 200 pounds to the aircraft’s weight.
HondaJet Elite II (2022): Gained roughly 100 additional miles of range and introduced autothrottle and emergency autoland systems for added safety and ease of use.
Looking ahead, the HondaJet Echelon is set to debut as the next version of the HondaJet—expected around 2028 or 2029.
The Echelon will feature cutting-edge systems like Runway Overrun Awareness and Alerting System (ROAAS), upgraded flight controls, and a distinctive geometric exterior design. It will also offer expanded seating for up to ten passengers.
Rising tensions between Israel and Iran are causing major disruptions for US airlines and the broader aviation industry.
A week into the conflict, US airlines have temporarily suspended key routes to the Middle East, prioritizing passenger and crew safety in response to heightened regional risks. With travel advisories in place and airspace restrictions tightening, the situation is impacting both US and international carriers.
US Airlines Respond to Regional Instability
A United Boeing 787 departs San Francisco International Airport (SFO). United is one of three US airlines to suspend Middle East service in response to the Iran-Israel conflict. | IMAGE: Photo by Arkin Si on Unsplash
The United States Department of State has issued a Level 4 “Do Not Travel” advisory for Israel, its highest warning level, prompting US airlines to act swiftly.
United Airlines has suspended its daily Boeing 777 flight from Newark Liberty (EWR) to Dubai (DXB) from 18 June to 25 June, as stated in a company release. Additionally, United has paused its two daily Boeing 787 flights from EWR to Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion International Airport (TLV) until at least 1 August. These suspensions began on 12 June, coinciding with the start of Israel’s “Operation Rising Lion.”
American Airlines, which does not operate flights to Tel Aviv or Dubai, has halted its daily Boeing 787 service from Philadelphia (PHL) to Doha’s Hamad International Airport (DOH) from 18 June through at least 22 June, per CBS News. The outbound flight, AAL120, operated as scheduled on 17 June, but the return flight, AAL121, landed safely in Philadelphia on 19 June at 0917 local time, marking the start of the suspension.
This decision follows an urgent warning from the US Embassy in Qatar urging US citizens to “exercise increased vigilance” due to regional hostilities. While no credible threats were cited, the embassy restricted access to Al Udeid Air Base and advised citizens to stay aware, avoid crowds, monitor local media, follow local authorities, and maintain a low profile.
American Airlines emphasized, “We will continue to monitor the situation with safety and security top of mind and will adjust our operation further as needed.”
Delta Air Lines has also suspended its New York (JFK) to Tel Aviv route through 31 August, aligning with United’s suspension from 13 June.
Delta stated, “The safety of our customers and crew remains our top priority. Delta is continuously monitoring the evolving security environment and assessing our operations based on security guidance and intelligence reports.”
The carrier has not confirmed whether it will proceed with plans to add a second daily JFK-TLV flight for the upcoming holiday season.
American Airlines, for its part, has not resumed TLV service since suspending operations there in October 2023.
Iran and Iraq’s main airports, Imam Khomeini International Airport (IKA) in Tehran and Baghdad International Airport (BGW), respectively, are also closed until further notice. No US airlines serve either destination.
International Carriers Adjust Schedules
The Emirates fleet at Dubai International Airport (DXB) | IMAGE: Emirates
The impact extends beyond US carriers, with numerous international airlines suspending flights to Middle East hubs. According to The Times of Israel, Air France, KLM, Air Canada, Qatar Airways, British Airways, Emirates, Etihad Airways, Lufthansa, Air India, and others have paused services to cities like Dubai, Tel Aviv, and even Riyadh.
Israel’s flag carrier, El Al, has suspended all flights through at least 23 June, focusing instead on recovery flights to repatriate Israeli citizens stranded abroad. The carrier has stated that it will focus on recovery flights to TLV from:
Europe: London, Paris, Larnaca, Athens, and Rome
USA: New York and Los Angeles
The Far East: Bangkok
Recovery flights also took place on 19 June between Milan, Budapest, and Tel Aviv.
El Al’s website showing recovery flight information for Israeli citizens to return home | IMAGE: elal.com
Airspace Restrictions Complicate Operations
Airborne aircraft avoid three distinct areas around the world in June 2025. US airlines have suspended flights to key Middle East dstinations. | IMAGE: FlightRadar24.com
Airspace closures are adding significant complexity to airline operations. Israel and Iran have closed their airspace, with Israel’s Ministry of Transportation stating that its airspace will remain shut until further notice. Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon have also faced temporary closures of their airspace due to missile trajectories in the region. Iraqi airspace will also remain closed until further notice, as reported by the Iraqi Ministry of Transportation.
These restrictions exacerbate existing challenges, such as the closure of Russian airspace due to Ukraine-related sanctions. Airlines are now rerouting flights, often adding hours to journey times and straining operational flexibility. The combined effect of these closures is severely disrupting air travel across the region, forcing carriers to rethink schedules and fuel planning in an already constrained environment.
FlightRadar24.com imagery showing airspace restrictions in the Middle East amid rising Iran-Israel tensions in June 2025 | IMAGE: flightradar24.com
The aviation industry is navigating a challenging period as US and international carriers adapt to the evolving situation in the Middle East. As the crisis continues to evolve, airlines are closely monitoring developments and adjusting operations accordingly.
As the conflict continues, global aviation faces yet another test of its adaptability, adding yet another crisis to a series of disruptions in recent years.
The aviation industry hopes for the best as the world holds its breath.
The United States developed the Douglas X-3 to reach Mach 2 and maintain an edge in the race to build the world’s fastest, most advanced fighter jets.
With its sleek shape and short wings, the X-3 featured a cutting-edge design. However, it fell short of expectations due to underpowered engines and control issues. Although it never achieved its original performance goals, the X-3 contributed valuable data that improved the safety and design of future aircraft.
Supersonic Planning Began in 1941
In 1941, the US Army Air Corps began exploring the possibility of supersonic flight and asked the Douglas Aircraft Company to examine whether breaking the sound barrier was achieveable. During the next several years, the service remained committed to the idea as Douglas continued developing a potential design.
Douglas Aircraft Company Produces Innovative X-3 Design
In 1949, Douglas finalized its concept aircraft design, named Model 499-D, with a service title of “X-3.” The company agreed to build two X-3 aircraft. The original specifications called for twin engines, a length of 66 feet 10 inches, a wingspan of 22 feet 8 inches, and a maximum weight of 22,400 pounds.
Douglas planned for the airframe to be mainly aluminum alloy. They also intended to use stainless steel, molybdenum, and magnesium alloy for the surfaces that would face intense heat. However, later that year, the Air Force approved a request from Douglas to substitute titanium on the tail boom, afterburner, and tail cone sections. These changes reduced the aircraft’s weight by 395 pounds.
The Douglas X-3 during a test flight; it never reached Mach 2. | Image: NASA
Another distinctive feature of the X-3 was its long, thin nose cone. It housed the nose landing gear, flight test instruments, and other electrical systems.
Inadequate Engines Keep X-3 from Reaching Mach 2
While the X-3’s basic design appeared modern, sleek, and capable of reaching high speeds, its engines became one of its major flaws. Douglas Aircraft’s initial design was for the X-3 to have the newly designed turbojet, the Westinghouse J-46, with an afterburner. This design would produce 6600 pounds of thrust with afterburners.
By 1948, however, Douglas found that the J-46 was still under development and not ready for the X-3. They then decided to replace the J-46 with the J34-WE-17. This engine had similar dimensions to the J-46 but could only produce 4850 pounds of thrust. This flaw left the aircraft “severely underpowered” and unable to reach its Mach 2 performance goal.
View inside cockpit of the Douglas X-3. | Image: U.S. Air Force
For its first supersonic flight, the pilot had to put the aircraft into a 15-degree dive to reach Mach 1.1. The X-3’s fastest flight was on 28 July 1953, reaching Mach 1.208 in a 30-degree dive. Another problem with its engines was that its takeoff speed was 260 knots.
Control Problems Proved Challenging for Douglas X-3 Pilots
The Douglas X-3 also had significant control problems during flights.
After the first test flight on 20 October 1952, test pilot William Bridgeman stated, “This thing doesn’t want to stay in the air.”
Placard with pilot instructions inside the cockpit of the Douglas X-3. | Image: U.S. Air Force
Bridgeman landed at 240 miles per hour and said he was happy the dry lakebed runway at Edwards AFB gave him plenty of room to slow down.
After the 25th test flight on 2 December, the Air Force received the single Douglas X-3. Pilots Chuck Yeager and Lt. Col. Frank K. Everest each made three additional test flights. After finding the controls “sluggish” at low speeds, Everest called it “one of the most difficult airplanes I have ever flown.”
A year later, on 27 October 1954, pilot Joseph A. Walker was flying a test mission in the X-3. The flight was a series of tests of the jet’s lateral and directional stability. With relatively “short and stubby wings,” most of the X-3’s mass was centered along its long fuselage.
Sudden Uncontrolled Movements
During the flight, Walker was flying at Mach 0.92 at 30,000 feet and made a left roll. As the X-3 made the roll, the nose suddenly pitched up 20 degrees and yawed 16 degrees. Walker got it under control and prepared for the next test maneuver.
Diagram showing aircraft moving through several axis during roll coupling. | Image: Defense Technical Information Center
He went into a dive and accelerated to Mach 1.154. He then made a left roll, and the nose pitched down and then up while also sideslipping. These sudden movements loaded the fuselage with higher than normal g-forces. Walker managed to control the aircraft and landed safely. The post-flight inspection found that the X-3 had reached its maximum load limit and could have broken up if the g-forces had been higher.
Roll Coupling Results in Grounding of X-3
Engineers determined that the X-3 had undergone “roll coupling” or “roll divergence.” This occurs when an aircraft makes a maneuver around one axis and causes an uncommanded move in one or two others. Following this incident, the Air Force grounded the X-3 for almost a year and never tested its roll stability limitations again.
Image shows difference in design of modern aircraft with long fuselage and short wings. | Image: Defense Technical Information Center
Around the same time, several Air Force F-100As also experienced roll coupling, resulting in three crashes and two fatalities.
Walker completed ten additional flights in the X-3, with his final flight taking place on 23 May 1956. Shortly afterward, the Air Force retired the aircraft and transferred it to the Air Force Museum.
The X-3 Still Had Some Successes
Although the Douglas X-3 never achieved its goal of flying at Mach 2, it was far from a failure. The program yielded valuable insights, particularly about roll-coupling, which led to important design changes to the F-100 and F-104. The X-3 was also one of the first aircraft to use titanium. Additionally, its unusually high takeoff and landing speeds spurred advancements in aircraft tire technology.
Major Chuck Yeager and the Douglas X-3 Stiletto. The aircraft never reached its promised speed of twice the speed of sound. | Image: U.S. Air Force
President Eisenhower’s Columbine II—America’s first Air Force One—has enjoyed a storied life in the skies and was recently restored by its current owner.
But there was a time when its future looked grim.
After just two years of sitting idle, the Air Force was ready to scrap it—literally. In fact, Columbine II was bundled into a five-plane package deal and auctioned off for a bargain price. Here’s how the historic aircraft fared on the auction block.
Columbine II’s Retirement
The Columbine II is a 1948 Lockheed Constellation VC-121A, serial number 48-610. It was Eisenhower’s first Air Force One plane, but he only used it for one year before upgrading to the Lockheed Constellation VC-121E, which he renamed ‘Columbine III.’
For the rest of Eisenhower’s presidency, Columbine II would be used by Vice President Richard Nixon and other very important people, such as Queen Elizabeth II. After Eisenhower’s time in office, the plane was still active with the Air Force until 1968.
The Air Force stored the Columbine II at Arizona’s Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. Somebody replaced its starboard main gear at some point while in storage with one from a Lockheed 1049 Super Constellation. Base officials were thinking of using this plane as a crop duster, but because of the incorrect landing gear configuration, they couldn’t use it at all.
During an auction in 1970, the Air Force sold the Columbine II in a bundle with the five Constellation VC-121As. The Air Force did not inform anybody ahead of time that the first Air Force One was part of the lot, which likely explains why the highest bid was only $35,000—that’s $7,000 per plane.
The cost of $35,000 in 1970 equates to around $290,000 today. By comparison, flying cars from Xpeng and Alef are expected to cost around $300,000 apiece.
The winning bidder was Mel Christler, a former World War II pilot, flight instructor, and businessman from Wyoming who intended to turn the planes into crop dusters. Christler managed to turn the four other Constellations into crop dusters, but like before, the Columbine II had the wrong landing gear attached.
The owner used the Columbine II to supply four other Constellation VC-121As with parts throughout the 1970s. Christler then thought about scrapping the plane and selling it for parts.
However, an unexpected phone call in 1980 changed the aircraft’s trajectory.
On the other end of the line was a Smithsonian researcher, who informed Christler that the plane was the original Air Force One. Upon hearing this, Christer changed plans and kept the plane from going to the scrapyard.
‘The first time we saw it, we obviously didn’t realize whose plane it was. But when you find out it was Eisenhower’s, now you’re stuck with it. You have a presidential plane you can’t melt up because people wouldn’t think very highly of you.’
Columbine II Flies Again
Christler, however, did attempt to sell the aircraft but didn’t find any takers due to its condition. A man named Harry Oliver talked him out of melting the aircraft, and the two invested $150,000 in restoring it to its former glory.
By 1990, the plane was in working condition once more and made the flight to a ceremony in Abilene, Kansas, celebrating Eisenhower’s 100th birthday.
Christler and Oliver have since been able to lease the aircraft several times before Karl Stoltzfus, founder of Virginia-based Dynamic Aviation, outright purchased it in 2015.
Today, the first Air Force One is undergoing a complete overhaul, with the promise of being restored to “as new” condition—comparable to, or even better than, when it first left the factory.
The restoration team began by removing obsolete systems that would no longer be used, such as pressurization, autopilot, and deicing. From there, the process moved systematically: the engines are being overhauled, the aircraft is receiving all-new wiring, and hydraulic lines are being completely replumbed. When finished, the aircraft will appear factory-fresh inside and out.
Inside the cabin, however, the team is working to recreate the aircraft’s 1950s-era layout with striking authenticity. Eisenhower’s granddaughter, Mary Jean Eisenhower, is contributing to the project by providing family photos and personal insights from their time aboard. The result will be an immersive experience, allowing visitors to walk through the president’s office, view the cockpit, and gain a deeper appreciation for this aircraft’s role in shaping global history.
It may sound improbable today, but there was a time when Alaska Airlines Russia flights were a regular fixture in the skies. In an era when US–Russia relations are at a deep freeze, the idea of commercial air service across the Bering Strait feels almost unthinkable.
But from 1991 to 1998, Alaska Airlines operated scheduled flights to remote Siberian cities like Magadan and Khabarovsk, offering a rare aerial link between East and West during a brief window of post-Cold War optimism.
This historic chapter of aviation history is packed with bold decisions, operational quirks, and the kind of diplomatic daring only Alaska Airlines could deliver. With its pioneering spirit, the airline made the improbable possible—connecting two worlds at a time when the skies felt just a little more hopeful.
A Thaw in the Ice Curtain: The History of the Alaska Airlines Russia Flights
Alaska Airlines Russia flights began as a charter operation in June 1970
The early 1990s marked a turning point in US-Soviet relations. As Cold War tensions eased under Mikhail Gorbachev’s leadership, economic and cultural ties began to blossom. Seattle, Alaska Airlines’ headquarters, became a focal point for this newfound camaraderie, hosting the 1991 Goodwill Games between the US and Russia.
On 17 June 1991, Alaska Airlines launched scheduled service from Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (ANC) to two cities in Russia’s Far East. Anchorage, twinned with Magadan as a sister city, became the launchpad for seasonal flights to Magadan’s Sokol Airport (GDX) and Khabarovsk Novy Airport (KHV), the economic heart of Russia’s East.
Flights operated once or twice weekly, occasionally thrice, and went year-round in 1994. By 1993, Vladivostok International Airport (VVO) and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Airport (PKC) joined the network, with Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Airport (UUS) added in 1997.
Alaska initially operated the scheduled flights with Boeing 727-200s but eventually replaced them with the more fuel-efficient McDonnell Douglas MD-80s. The Alaskan Mad Dogs were equipped with auxiliary fuel tanks to ensure adequate fuel for the long distances they traversed.
These flights weren’t Alaska’s first foray into Russia. In the early 1970s, “secret negotiations” with Soviet officials led to over two dozen charter flights on Boeing 707s between Anchorage and Russia.
An advertisement for Alaska’s “Golden Samovar Service” in 1970 captures the era’s charm:
In 1988, Alaska operated a poignant “Friendship Flight” from Nome (OME) to Provideniya (PVS), a 45-minute, 55-mile hop on a Boeing 737-200 carrying 82 passengers to reunite Native families separated by the “Ice Curtain” for 40 years. These efforts echoed World War II, when the U.S. ferried 8,000 aircraft to Russia via Nome to fight the Nazis, and Indigenous families moved freely across the Bering Strait until Stalin’s 1948 crackdown sealed the border.
2018 review of the Alaska Airlines Friendship Flight from the 2018 Anchorage Daily News | IMAGE: ADN
Navigating Siberia’s Challenges: Vodka and Boiled Potatoes
Alaska Airlines Russia flights switched to the McDonnell Douglas MD-80, like the one seen here at San Jose (SJC) in June 1988 | IMAGE: FlightAware
Flying to Russia’s Far East was an operational adventure. The region’s infrastructure was sparse, and reliable weather data from Siberia was nearly nonexistent, making flight planning a gamble. Alternate airports were few and far between, complicating route planning. Airport services like deicing were often unavailable, leading to creative (and controversial) solutions.
In one infamous incident in Magadan, just 400 miles south of the Arctic Circle, a sudden and unexpected temperature drop iced up an MD-80’s wings. With no deicing fluid available, Bill Boser, Alaska’s assistant vice president of flight operations at the time, gathered 25 bottles of vodka from a nearby liquor store. The crew mixed it with glycol and sprayed it on the wings using a garden hose.
The wild story, featured in an in-house Alaska Airlines newsletter in December 1993, sparked regulatory outrage. Investigators warned that vodka’s high alcohol and sugar content could have ignited or gummed up the engines, prompting enforcement action against the airline.
The carrier faced additional challenges while operating its Russia flights. On the inaugural Anchorage to Petropavlovsk flight, a dignitary-loaded plane was forced to return to ANC when PKC authorities denied the captain landing rights. Crews on RONs subsisted on boiled potatoes at local hotels.
Yet, the service had its quirks and charms. Many Russians flew to Anchorage to shop at Costco, stocking up on supplies scarce back home. As Joe Sprague, then Alaska’s senior VP for external relations (now CEO of Hawaiian Airlines as of last year), said in a 2017 Flynn’s Harp interview, “The service to the Russian Far East was really something. It still amazes me to look at the map and think how far away from home base we were flying our old MD-80s for that service.”
A 1994 route map showing Alaska Airlines Russia routes | IMAGE: Departed Flights
A Bridge of Hope: Cultural and Historical Significance
US-bound passengers board an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737-200 in Provideniya, USSR (PVS) | IMAGE: NPS
More than just a business venture, Alaska’s Russian flights symbolized a brief window of optimism. The service harked back to World War II’s open Bering Strait and provided hope that a new and fruitful era of cooperation was underway.
At its peak, Alaska served five Russian destinations: Khabarovsk (KHV), Magadan (GDX), Vladivostok (VVO), Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky (PKC), and Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk (UUS).
To this day, the image of an Alaska MD-80 landing in Russia’s Far East—a region once a forbidden no-man’s land for Americans—remains surreal. While the service is long gone, a longing for a friendlier era in the years to come provides hope that we could perhaps one day see service return.
The flights carried echoes of history. The 1988 Friendship Flight and the scheduled Alaska flights that operated from 1991 to 1998 aimed to rebuild ties that had been severed since Stalin’s era. They reflected a time when aviation could bridge divides as Cold War suspicions waned.
The Ruble’s Fall and a Fading Dream
Alaska Airlines Russia scheduled flights launched on 17 June 1991 with the Boeing 727
By 1998, Alaska’s Russian venture hit a wall. A devastating economic downturn in Russia, capped by the collapse of the ruble, crushed demand. Alaska canceled all Russian service that autumn, bringing an abrupt end to a bold experiment.
The airline’s exit marked the end of scheduled US-Russia flights from Alaska—a concept now unthinkable. Relations have deteriorated since Vladimir Putin’s rise in 2000, and especially after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
Today, there is no scheduled service between Alaska and Russia.
Alaska’s Russian flights remain a captivating chapter of aviation history—a time when MD-80s crossed the Bering Strait, vodka doubled as deicer, and Costco runs united two nations.
It reminds us of aviation’s extraordinary power to connect friends, enemies, and everybody in between–even when the world feels worlds apart.
Smokers Express is the strange but true story of two men, three jets, and an airline dream that went up in smoke.
Many gimmick airlines were proposed in the late 20th century, but Smokers Express sought to bypass regulations recently imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the early 1990s.
Its two founders had many innovative ideas for the airline outside of smoking, and thousands of passengers were reportedly on board. However, the airline fell short of its financial goals and never got past the planning phase.
‘Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fliers’
In 1990, the FAA banned smoking on all U.S. commercial flights, citing safety concerns and the health risks of secondhand smoke. While the move was made to protect passengers and crew, it sparked backlash from some smokers, who felt the ban unfairly targeted them.
Two businessmen from Cocoa Beach, Florida, decided to capitalize on this ruling by proposing an airline that openly encourages smoking. Former Disney executive George ‘Mickey’ Richardson and businessman William Watts came up with Smokers Express in 1993.
The founders planned to bypass the FAA’s restrictions by simply labeling the company a ‘private club’ instead of a public airline. The carrier would be exempt from the FAA’s regulations as a private entity.
A lot of people seem to enjoy having learned about Hooters Air but my that's not even my favorite airline. The very best one is one that never actually got off the ground but got as far as buying a few DC-9s — a concept airline called "Smokers Express" pic.twitter.com/ASPP5j2hpw
— fat motorcycle twins truther. theyre not dead (@fart) April 10, 2023
Smokers Express mailed swaths of flyers to residents of Florida to raise awareness of the airline. These flyers guaranteed up to 25 interesting perks for members, some of which were as follows:
Free cigarettes
Free burgers and subs
Free newspapers
Free lottery tickets
‘No screaming babies’ – All flights were only for people 21 and up
Many discounts on hotel reservations, rental cars, vacation packages, cruises, and tours
According to the flyer, a ‘Smokers Express Vacation’ and an accompanying magazine were also in the works.
Customers had to mail in $25—cash, check, or credit card—to become members. But there was a twist: one could also earn membership by mailing in a gallon-sized bottle of Jack Daniel’s or Dewar’s.
The gimmicks didn’t end there, however. In an interview with Florida Today, Richardson also expressed interest in placing ads on the sides of their planes, similar to those on racing cars.
Smokers Express’s Efforts End Up a Little ‘Blunt’
Smokers Express reportedly sold around 5,000 to 6,000 memberships. According to Richardson, two-thirds of the memberships were for women. Apparently, this wasn’t enough money to start the airline, despite the airline securing three Douglas DC-9 aircraft.
An initial list of flight offerings focused on gamblers and included flights from Orlando, FL (MCO) to Las Vegas (LAS) via Dallas, TX (DFW). Another flight would operate between Orlando, FL (MCO), and Atlantic City, NJ (ACY), via Atlanta (ATL). Additional proposed destinations included Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, New York, Baltimore, New Orleans, Chicago, Denver, and Detroit.
The airline’s proposed base was Space Coast Regional Airport (TIX), near Titusville, Florida.
Smokers Express scheduled its first flight for 25 September 1993 from Florida to Washington, D.C. The occasion? To protest President Clinton’s proposed tobacco tax hike and join the ‘Smokers’ Rights March at the White House’ event. The flight was rescheduled to 26 January 1994 out of Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDU).
Tickets for this flight cost $345 round-trip. However, not enough tickets were sold, and the flight was later canceled.
Following the canceled flight, communication from Smokers Express was radio silent. In June 1994, Aero Corp Director of Marketing Dan Givens confirmed to the Orlando Sentinel that his company had a verbal agreement to provide maintenance for Smokers Express’ fleet.
Givens also revealed, however, that the airline was unable to secure enough financial support to continue.
‘I believe they found out it’s not as easy to start an airline as people might think,’ Givens said.
Around the same time, Freedom Air started the ‘Freedom Air Smoker Club,’ offering charter flights for tobacco lovers. This program also fizzled out shortly after due to a lack of interest.
Six General Electric J35 turbojets and Jet-Assisted Take Off (JATO) rockets powered the Boeing B-47 Stratojet.
Boeing designed the B-47 as a long-range strategic bomber capable of flying at high subsonic speeds fast enough to avoid enemy interceptors.
The first Stratojet flew in 1947 as the United States and the Soviet Union began deploying nuclear-capable aircraft in the early days of the Cold War.
A B-47, with JATO system visible behind the engine, with landing parachute deployed. | Image: Avionist.com
Poor Acceleration of Turbojets Led to Need for Jet-Assisted Take Off on B-47
In 1947, early turbojet models lacked the acceleration of piston engines, which required manufacturers to add supplemental propulsion to some aircraft. Recognizing this need for more power, Boeing decided to add 18 solid-propellant rockets to the XB-47 prototype. They installed nine rockets in rows of three inside the fuselage on each side behind the wings.
The initial prototype XB-47s had six General Electric J35 turbojets, each producing 3,750 pounds of thrust, for a total of 22,500. When engineers found the engines did not provide enough trust at low speeds, they added the JATO system. Each rocket produced 1000 pounds of thrust, adding 18,000 to the total from the turbojets.
In the following years, updated versions of the B-47 turbojets gave it considerably more power. On the B-47B, J47-GE-23 engines provided 5,800 pounds of thrust each. These improvements continued to the B-47E model, which had J47-GE-25A engines with 5,970 pounds of thrust.
Turbojet Improvements Reduced Need for Rockets on Takeoffs
Although Boeing continued to install the Jet-Assisted Take Off rockets up through the B-47E model in 1953, the more powerful turbojets reduced the need for the rockets. Also, the J47-GE-25A engines featured a water and methanol injection system, which improved their thrust. Injecting a water and methanol mix into the engines during takeoff increased the mass flowing through, boosting the thrust to 7200 pounds.
Eventually, engineers became concerned that the JATO rockets were too close to the B-47’s fuel tanks. The bomber held all its fuel in the fuselage instead of the wings, which flexed a great deal during flight and were thin, making them unsuitable for carrying fuel.
Engineers then modified the B-47Es by removing the standard JATO system and replacing it with an external setup. This setup was a “horse collar” rack that could be mounted under the rear of the fuselage. It held 33 JATO rockets in three rows of 11. The entire rack was jettisonable and basically throwaway. Crews using it could drop it after takeoff.
“Horse collar” JATO rack with 33 rockets. | Image: B-47 Association
Following this, Boeing still used JATO, but only for emergency alerts when aircraft had to get airborne as fast as possible. Beyond that, units still trained on JATO systems, but only about once per year.
Soviets the First to Test JATO
The first use of JATO on aircraft came in 1931 on the Soviet U-1 training aircraft. A biplane, it had just a 120-horsepower rotary engine and a maximum speed of about 84 miles per hour. Engineers V.I. Dudakov and V.A. Konstantinov experimented with rocket boosters during takeoffs. When the rockets fired, the U-1’s takeoff run was 1.5 seconds. The Soviets tested this system on one hundred takeoffs.
The Soviet U-1 aircraft was the first to carry a rocket propulsion system. | Image: Airwar.ru
U.S. Asks Scientists to Study Effectiveness of Rockets on Aircraft
In 1939, the U.S. considered using JATO on aircraft. A team of scientists received $1000 from the National Academy of Sciences to research rocket-assisted takeoff technologies. On one test, they installed several solid-fuel 28-pound boost rockets on a piston-engine Ercoupe plane. Each rocket produced thrust for about 12 seconds.
A Ercoupe taking off for test flight with rockets providing extra thrust. | Image: IEEE Spectrum
Blue Angels C-130 No Longer Using Jet-Assisted Takeoffs
After the B-47, the United States used JATO systems on various aircraft, including the OV-10 Bronco and C-130 Hercules. The Navy’s Blue Angels demonstration team used to travel with a C-130 nicknamed “Fat Albert.” It had eight Jet Assisted Take Off rocket bottles mounted behind its wings. It used up the last remaining JATO bottles in 2009, and they were not replaced. The Navy has since transitioned to a C-130J Super Hercules. It has enough thrust that is does not require a JATO system.
Blue Angels “Fat Albert” C-130 rotating with JATO assist. | Image: history.navy.mil
Before Donald Trump became President, he was a prominent business mogul who invested in hundreds of different ventures. However, for every ‘Apprentice,’ hotel, and golf course, there were unsuccessful endeavors like the United States Football League (USFL), cologne, and even an airline.
‘Trump Shuttle’ lasted only four years before Trump sold the airline and exited the air travel game. Here’s the story of Trump Shuttle.
Failing Airline Seeks Help from Donald Trump
The Trump Shuttle originated from the Eastern Air Lines Shuttle (EALS), which launched on 30 April 1961. The airline marketed itself as a no-frills travel option for businessmen and government workers, offering quick, hourly flights to New York City, Washington D.C., Boston, and Newark.
EALS’ parent company, Texas Air Corporation (TAC), faced financial hardships in the late 80s and was losing business to Pan Am. Despite EALS being profitable, TAC’s chairman, Frank Lorenzo, wanted to sell the airline to recoup losses. Lorenzo tried to find a new owner multiple times before meeting Trump at a party. He was successful at convincing Trump to buy the airline.
Trump purchased EALS in October 1988, and the deal made national headlines. However, the deal wasn’t finalized, and many events took place during the transition process.
In March 1989, Eastern Air Lines filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, prompting Donald Trump to offer the airline a lower price. Eastern included its entire Boeing 727 fleet in the deal, and the two parties finalized the agreement.
The bankruptcy court approved the sale of Eastern Air Lines Shuttle and its fleet to Trump for $365 million. Trump gained full control of the airline on 7 June 1989.
The Airline Fit for a Trump
Following the closure of the sale, Trump announced that EALS would be renamed Trump Shuttle. The airline would also no longer be a no-frills airline but a luxury airline with hourly service.
Trump had each Boeing’s cabin overhauled with maple wood decor and gold restroom fixtures. Despite the short distances, the airline also offered complimentary meals and alcohol.
The airline, however, was among those leading the pack when it came to technology. Trump Shuttle was one of the first airlines to offer self-service check-in stations. Customers could also rent laptops on board flights, which was ideal for those who wanted to continue working during travel.
Trump Shuttle also axed Newark as a destination, opting instead to operate routes between New York and Boston and New York and Washington.
In its first few months, Trump Shuttle attracted a lot of travelers and found decent success. However, outside factors caused the airline’s momentum to turn quickly.
Passenger traffic dropped later in 1989 due to the financial crisis that year. To add insult to injury, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait the following year caused fuel prices to soar, which, in turn, caused fares to skyrocket. During these challenging times, passengers opted to fly with Pan Am’s shuttle thanks to its lower fares.
In September 1990, Trump Shuttle lost over $128 million and defaulted on loans due to rising maintenance costs and a lack of interest. As a response, Trump lightened the airline’s schedule and looked for other ways to profit from it, such as offering charter flights and military flights arranged with the George H.W. Bush Administration.
Trump, however, was looking to sell the airline, and in December 1991, he found his buyer in USAir. Trump, along with Citigroup, put together a deal in which USAir would operate Trump Shuttle for ten years with the option to buy Trump Shuttle outright after five.
On 7 April 1992, USAir officially took over Trump Shuttle. Five days later, USAir rebranded Trump’s airline to USAir Shuttle. USAir would operate this shuttle service and restore its no-frills nature for affordability.
On 17 October 2015, USAir, now rebranded as US Airways, sold this airline to American Airlines (AA), which later became ‘American Airlines Shuttle.’ AA closed the airline down a year into the COVID-19 pandemic.
Today, Delta Air Lines is the only US airline that runs a shuttle service called ‘Delta Shuttle.’ The shuttle flies to and from New York, Boston, Washington, and Chicago.
A Long Career Served Around the World- That Was the Albatross
The Grumman HU-16 Albatross served for 46 years. The Albatross was powered by two Wright R-1820-76 Cyclone radial piston engines in military service. The HU-16 was used by the United States Air Force (USAF), Navy (USN), and Coast Guard (USCG) for search and rescue (SAR), anti-submarine warfare (ASW), and other specialized duties.
When first introduced in 1949, the Air Force designation was SA-16, the Navy was JR2F-1, and the Coast Guard called it the UF-1. When the sweeping changes to aircraft designations occurred in September 1962, the designation of the 464 Albatross airframes built by Grumman changed to HU-16.
Descended From a Long Line of Grumman Designs
Grumman’s designator for the Albatross was G-64. It was a development of the G-73 Mallard design, a civil amphibious aircraft developed during a similar timeframe. Another influence was the Grumman G-21 Goose, a successful precursor to the Mallard. The Albatross was capable of open-ocean landings (optimally in seas no higher than 10 feet) due to its deep-V hull cross-section and long keel length, although higher seas could be downright punishing on the aircraft and crew. HU-16s could utilize jet-assisted takeoff (JATO) bottles to shorten takeoff runs in rougher seas.
One Tough Bird
The Albatross built its reputation for toughness during its service in Korea as a SAR aircraft, gaining the nicknames Slobbering Albert, Duckbutt, Clipper Duck, and Goat in addition to the generic Dumbo air-sea rescue call sign. Air Force SAR crews went where others feared to tread in order to bring a total of nearly 1,000 United Nations (UN) personnel out of enemy-held territory.
The same was true during the Vietnam War, although the HU-16s were the longer-winged HU-16B model. USAF, USMC, and USN pilots and aviators knew that if they could make it to “feet wet” (the Tonkin Gulf) after taking damage to their aircraft, a HU-16B with the USAF Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Service (ARRS) would likely be coming for them.
Island Hopping in Navy HU-16s
The Navy also used the HU-16 for SAR, but in smaller numbers over a much wider area. The Navy often operated their HU-16s mainly from US and overseas coastal naval air stations (NASs). During the Vietnam War, the Navy flew most of their rescue and support missions from NAS Agana in Guam.
During the early 1970s, the Navy’s “Goodwill” flights from NAS Agana and other remote air stations to the atolls and archipelagos in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands were more common. Navy HU-16s often trained in open-water landings and takeoffs using JATO from the waters near their air stations in the States.
Sub Hunting With a Twist
The Navy’s ASW Albatross, designated SHU-16B, was introduced in 1961. Crewed by six and with a range of 3,200 miles, this version of the Albatross was equipped with a revised radar and radome housing in the nose, a retractable magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) boom in the tail, electronic counter-measures (ECM) lumps and bumps, and a steerable searchlight.
Ordnance payload was light, but usually consisted of depth charges. Rockets could be carried on underwing racks, but often those racks were used for drop tanks to increase range. US Navy service of the SHU-16B was exceedingly short, but Greece, Norway, and Spain also operated the SHU-16B.
Black Birds
One of the specialized roles the Albatross undertook was black operations. HU-16s, painted all black with subdued markings, were flown by shadowy USAF Air National Guard Air Commando groups between 1956 and 1971- some with reported ties to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Where they went and what they did is still classified, but at least some of these missions were covert infiltration and extraction. Or maybe they weren’t.
But we do know that HU-16s also equipped Air Force Reserve (AFRES) Air Rescue Units during the 1960s and 1970s until the Air Force retired their last HU-16 in 1973—but only after the airplane set a new altitude record for piston-powered seaplanes. Nice finish!
For the Rest of the Albatross Story bang NEXT PAGE below.
The new Volonaut Airbike promises to be an exciting new option for personal air mobility.
Designed by Polish inventor and entrepreneur Tomasz Patan, the Volonaut looks like something from “Star Wars.” Fans of the movie “Return of the Jedi” might see similarities between the Volonaut and the hoverbikes in the film.
On the Volonaut Airbike Personal Air Mobility Vehicle, the Pilot Sits Up Like on a Motorcycle. | Image: Volonaut
Jet Propulsion Powers Volonaut Personal Air Mobility Vehicle
One of the key things that stands out about the Volonaut Airbike is that it is powered by jet propulsion instead of propellers like other personal air mobility designs. It carries a single pilot without a cage or protective frame. Instead, the pilot sits on a seat like on a motorcycle. Patan said its sleek, “minimalistic design” gives the pilot an unobstructed 360-degree view. The design will also enable it to operate through narrow spaces.
According to Patan, the Volonaut Airbike is seven times lighter than a typical motorcycle, thanks to carbon fiber materials and a 3D printing manufacturing process.
Stabilization System Will Keep Wingless Volonaut Level
According to Volonaut, “The unique riding position…helps the rider to quickly become one with the flying machine and provides the sensation of complete freedom.”
Instead of traditional landing gear with tires, the Volonaut Airbike personal air mobility vehicle rests on a pair of struts, basically tubular components.
Video of Prototype Shows Capabilities of Volonaut Airbike
Volonaut Airbike Personal Air Mobility Vehicle | Image: Volonaut
While Patan has not provided a date when the Volonaut might be available for purchase, in May 2025, the company released a video of a prototype flying and hovering over desert and forest areas. The vehicle looks so striking and different that some wondered if the video, which went viral, was not authentic and if it was made with software. Patan quickly denied this.
Pilot View From The Volonaut Airbike | Image: volonaut
Volonaut Inventor Also Designed The Jetson One EVTOL Aircraft
The Jetson One EVTOL Aircraft | Image: Jetson
The Volonaut Airbike is not the first personal air mobility vehicle Patan has designed. He also invented the Jetson One EVTOL aircraft. Like the Volonaut, it only carries one pilot, but in this case, the single seat is configured to lean back like a Formula One race car. The Jetson One has a cage or “safety cell” that protects the pilot. It also has eight brushless electric motors and eight propellers, and it can maintain flight if it loses one. The aircraft weighs 253 pounds with batteries installed, has a maximum speed of 63 mph, and has a 20-minute flight time.
Front View of the Jetson One, Scheduled For Delivery to Customers in 2026 | Image” Jetson
Jetson advertises the aircraft as “the first affordable EVTOL on the market.” It also claims that anyone can learn to fly it in just five minutes and that no pilot’s license will be required to fly it in the United States.
Jetson Taking Down Payments For 2026 Deliveries
Further along in development than the Volonaut personal air mobility vehicle, the Jetson One will be in production soon, and the first deliveries to customers will be in 2026. They are currently taking down payments of $8000 towards a final payment of $120,000. Customers interested in personal air mobility vehicles might soon be able to decide between a race car-style Jetson One or what Patan calls the “superbike for the skies:” the Volonaut Airbike.
In May 2025, Global Airlines made waves in the aviation world as its Airbus A380, 9H-GLOBL, finally took to the skies on its inaugural transatlantic flight with paying passengers.
The buzz was immediate—planespotters lined up for photos, while aviation YouTubers like Noel Phillips and Josh Cahill weighed in with sharply critical reviews of the inaugural flight. The startup’s debut drew fascination, skepticism, and no shortage of heated discussion.
Many (including us) wondered quietly if this ambitious venture would ever get off the ground. But one month ago, Global proved the doubters wrong—at least for now.
So, what’s really going on behind the scenes at Global Airlines?
To answer that, we looked at a recent statement from Global’s founder and CEO, James Asquith, and reviewed firsthand accounts from passengers on that first flight, including Cahill and Phillips.
First, though, let’s rewind and take a look at how Global Airlines got here.
A Dream Takes Flight
IMAGE: Global Airlines
On 15 May 2025, Global Airlines defied doubters with the launch of its first–and much ballyhooed–passenger flight aboard an Airbus A380-800 from Glasgow Airport (GLA) to New York John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK).
The flight, operating as HFM380 (with “HFM” nodding to Hi Fly Malta–more on that shortly), marked a significant moment for the fledgling carrier.
Bringing a nearly 13-year-old A380 back to life was no small task. Asquith calls it a “monumental achievement,” and he’s right—resurrecting an A380 from desert storage, overhauling its cabin, navigating regulatory mazes, and coordinating crew and catering is a Herculean task for a startup.
Boarding gate screen at Glasgow Airport (GLA) for Global Airlines’ inaugural flight to New York JFK Airport on 15 May 2025 | IMAGE: James Asquith
That inaugural flight carried just 95 passengers, far below the A380’s 500+ seat capacity. Critics were quick to point to the low passenger count as a sign of weak demand. But Asquith pushed back on that narrative.
“We wanted to test our service and products and focus on our premium cabins,” he explained in a social media post addressing the speculation. “If we had more passengers, we would never have got to test all the elements we wanted to try out.”
He also noted the airline didn’t market the flight to the general public.
“We didn’t do any marketing but simply reached out to our community online and in the wider aviation circles,” Asquith added.
In his words, the flight “succeeded on all fronts.”
The flight crew of Global Airlines’ inaugural flight pose for a picture at Glasgow Airport (GLA) on 15 May 2025 | IMAGE: James Asquith
Asquith’s Vision: Golden Age Glamour with a Modern Twist
Global Airlines’ 9H-GLOBL on the ramp at Beja | IMAGE: Global Airlines
When James Asquith founded Global Airlines in 2021, his mission was clear: bring back the elegance and excitement of aviation’s Golden Age—this time with a modern edge.
At the heart of that vision is the Airbus A380. Although it is a fuel-thirsty aircraft compared to more modern twinjets, the A380 remains a fan favorite known for its smooth, quiet, and spacious ride. Asquith’s strategy centers on acquiring retired A380s at bargain prices, refurbishing them inside and out, and putting them to work on high-demand routes, starting with transatlantic service between the UK and the US.
Global wholly owns its flagship aircraft, 9H-GLOBL, but partners with Maltese wet-lease operator Hi Fly Malta to handle the operational side. Bookings are managed through Travelopedia, a UK-based travel agency.
While early concepts like a five-class cabin—including a quirky “gamer” class—have been dropped, the airline is still pushing for a premium experience, with a strong focus on First, Business, and the airline’s signature “Global Traveller” cabins.
The ultimate goal? To become a full-fledged scheduled carrier. But as Asquith himself puts it, “There are still a lot of things to tackle on that journey.”
Did Global Airlines overpromise and underdeliver? It depends on who you ask.
Global Airlines’ Airbus A380 (9H-GLOBL) lands at London Gatwick (LGW) | IMAGE: James Asquith/@gatwick.sptr
While passengers aboard Global’s debut flight, HFM380, appreciated the A380’s signature quietness and roomy cabin, many came away underwhelmed by the overall experience.
Aviation YouTuber Josh Cahill, one of the first to board 9H-GLOBL, didn’t hold back. In a video titled “Global Airlines STRANGE First Flight and it was VERY BAD,” Cahill called it “one of the most chaotic flights I’ve ever been on.” He cited confusion at check-in, uneven service, and a noticeable lack of polish in the premium cabins Global had heavily promoted.
“It’s not too favorable to overpromise and underdeliver,” he said. “You promised us a new world, a new level of traveling—and that didn’t happen. It was really far away from it.”
Cahill criticized everything from the catering—describing it as “subpar” and sloppily presented—to the unprepared crew, who appeared to struggle with the logistics of working such a large aircraft. He also questioned the low passenger load, suggesting it reflected limited demand rather than a strategic soft launch.
His video quickly racked up over half a million views and struck a chord online, with many viewers echoing his disappointment. The narrative emerging was that Global Airlines had ambition but wasn’t ready for prime time.
Similarly, Noel Phillips wished Global Airlines well; however, in his review, he expressed concerns about the carrier.
“I genuinely want them to succeed,” Phillips said as he landed at JFK. “But after today, it’s clear there’s a long runway ahead before they’re truly ready for takeoff.”
Global Airlines’ Airbus A380 and a British Airways Boeing 777 at the remote stands at London Gatwick (LGW) | IMAGE: Global Airlines
But not all reviews were negative.
Six days later, on a Global flight from Manchester (MAN) to JFK, travel vlogger James Warren-Oliver offered a more hopeful perspective.
“This wasn’t just another flight,” he said. “This was the start of a dream years in the making. James [Asquith] didn’t just launch an airline; he launched an idea—a belief that flying could be more joyful, more meaningful. In a world of airline conformity, he asked, ‘Why can’t it succeed?’”
And Simon Calder, travel correspondent for The Independent, went even further, calling the inaugural flight “easily the most comfortable and fun transatlantic trip I have had.” He wrote, “This wasn’t a return to the ‘golden age of travel’—it was far better than that.”
Still, the online negativity—fair or not—clearly struck a nerve with Asquith. The buzz from influencers with large audiences quickly shaped public perception. Asquith later commented that “negativity drowns out all the good stuff online,” hinting at the frustration of watching his vision get overshadowed by early missteps.
MythBusting the Noise: Global Airlines’ Response
Global Airlines Airbus A380 | IMAGE: Global Airlines
In the wake of criticism and online speculation, James Asquith didn’t stay silent. He took to social media with a post that felt equal parts celebration and clapback.
“There’s been a lot of noise since the first passenger flights,” he wrote, thanking supporters while calling out what he described as “huge speculation repeated as fact.”
Though he acknowledged the buzz Global had stirred up, Asquith urged followers to take a breath before jumping to conclusions.
“Don’t believe everything you see, hear, and read,” he warned. “Check information before amplifying fiction.” He added that while the attention is welcome—“there is only one thing worse than being talked about—not being talked about”—he’d rather the conversation be based on facts, not rumors.
Global Airlines founder and CEO James Asquith in front of 9H-GLOBL | IMAGE: James Asquith
To push back against misinformation, Global announced plans for a “MythBusters” series aimed at offering more transparency.
“We always have a good laugh at Global HQ when the latest missive gets posted,” Asquith joked.
But he made it clear that the focus remains on doing the actual work: “We’d rather channel our energy into delivering on our goals.”
He then addressed some of the biggest rumors head-on:
ACMI rumors: “We’re not planning to change any strategy to become an ACMI operator—ACMI has always been part of our discussions with Hi Fly, but nothing has changed about our direction of travel.”
Funding speculation: “We’re in talks with various organizations… Take anything you read with a pinch of salt, especially if there’s no official quote from Global.”
Passenger numbers: The low load was intentional, allowing Global to “succeed on all fronts” in testing its premium offerings.
In short, Global isn’t backing down from the criticism. But it wants the record set straight.
Global Airlines A380 landing at Josep Tarradellas Barcelona-El Prat Airport (BCN) during test flights | IMAGE: James Asquith
The First Flight Fumble: Critics, Context, and Course Correction
The economy cabin aboard Global Airlines’ inaugural flight | IMAGE: Josh Cahill via YouTube
Asquith owns the rough start: “Our first flight was a bit of a challenge… We were hopeful, but it just didn’t quite happen.”
But he also offers important context. For a startup, launching a transatlantic flight on a reactivated Airbus A380 is no small feat. The aircraft needed extensive maintenance, a major cabin overhaul, regulatory clearance, and a fully coordinated crew—all under the public eye.
“We apologize to any of our passengers who didn’t have the best time,” he says, but notes, “Many did have an amazing time, and the feedback was incredible.”
Thankfully, the missteps didn’t become a trend. Flights two, three, and four showed what Asquith calls a “1,000,000% improvement,” with reviewers praising the upgrades and smoother operations.
“It’s a shame that some of those who shouted loudest on the first flight did not join us on the second,” he adds, thanking those who documented the progress. Global plans to share more positive passenger stories online to “balance things out a little.”
And for the skeptics? Asquith has a simple invitation: “The only way to really get to know us is to buy a ticket… and then decide once and for all.”
While online reviews exposed real issues, Global’s quick response suggests they’re listening, learning, and making changes fast.
Global Airlines’ Road Ahead is Far from Certain
Global Airlines’ first A380 receives a water cannon salute at Berlin Brandenburg Airport (BER) during flight trials | IMAGE: By TheButz – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=164575284
There’s no sugarcoating it—Global Airlines has a steep climb ahead. The transatlantic market is brutally competitive, dominated by lean, fuel-efficient twinjets like the Boeing 787. By contrast, the A380 is a high-stakes bet: big, expensive to operate, and built for volume. With no new commercial flights scheduled beyond Glasgow and Manchester, doubts are growing about whether Global can scale—or sustain—its operations.
Online reviews, especially after the first flight, cast shadows on the airline’s readiness. And without regular service to build momentum, the hype risks fading.
Yet, there’s something familiar about Global’s story. It reminds us of past dreamers like Freddie Laker and Richard Branson—entrepreneurs who went up against the odds with vision, swagger, and a refusal to play by the old rules.
Backed by investors and targeting premium travelers, Global isn’t trying to be everything to everyone. There’s a clear effort to tap into a niche: travelers who value comfort, nostalgia, and the once-unrivaled magic of the A380.
Behind the scenes, discussions with financiers and maintenance partners are ongoing, hinting that something more may be taking shape—even if details remain under wraps.
Suppose Global can continue refining its product by filling more seats and delivering a consistently elevated experience. In that case, the A380’s enduring appeal, with its space, silence, and sense of grandeur, might just win over a loyal audience (so long as fuel prices remain reasonable).
Will Global Airlines’ Superjumbo-Sized Gamble Pay Off?
Image: Global Airlines
Global Airlines is a startup with sky-high dreams and real challenges. Their A380 debut was a milestone, but scathing passenger experiences exposed a chaotic first flight that fell short of the hype. It is, after all, a massive undertaking to launch a new airline, especially one flying the world’s largest passenger jet.
Still, improved feedback from later flights and Global’s commitment to making the experience better for its customers show they’re listening and ready to tackle their shortcomings.
Asquith’s open invitation to “come and experience it for yourself” is a challenge for curious travelers to give Global a chance.
But when will that chance be? Will there be another chance? At the time of writing, we simply don’t know yet.
Will Global become a scheduled airline or remain a niche player? Time will tell. For now, they’re writing a story worth watching.
We wish them the best.
For those of us who live and breathe aviation, startups like this are part of what keeps the industry thrilling. However, bold (and, some might argue, crazy) bets like Global’s keep the skies worth watching, even if the takeoff’s a bit bumpy.
