While today’s travelers dream of flying into Disneyland on electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) vehicles, flying into the park was once possible with a helicopter.
For over a decade, the Compton, California park welcomed visitors via helicopter from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The concept, however, proved it was way ahead of its time.
Los Angeles Airways Starts the Party
Los Angeles Airways (LAA) was founded on 1 October 1947. At the time, the cargo-only airline offered priority mail deliveries utilizing six new Bell 47D helicopters.
Soon after, the carrier obtained Sikorsky S-51s, which made rooftop mail deliveries and, later, human transportation possible. The company was considered the ‘world’s first helicopter airline.’
The airline frequently flew to and from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) to deliver mail. In the early 50s, LAA formed a network connecting various metropolitan areas in Los Angeles and other parts of Southern California.
In 1956, Disneyland became the airline’s latest destination just one year after the park’s grand opening. From there, the carrier established a route that whisked vacationers from LAX to the park entrance in a mere 20 minutes. The new route allowed travelers to ride a helicopter from the airport into Disneyland without the hectic LA traffic in between. The park named its new heliport ‘Anaheim-Disneyland Heliport’.
Around this time, the airline had several S-55s, which could carry up to 12 passengers at a time. Disneyland operated four flights daily to and from the park.
The heliport was located right next to the newly built Disneyland Hotel. The route was advertised in magazines and travel guides as ‘the fast, convenient way to Disneyland in only 20 minutes.’
Unfortunately, the heliport made needed expansion at Disneyland almost impossible. Disney would build a new heliport in 1957, then another in 1960.
In 1962, LAA upgraded its fleet with four $650,000 Sikorsky S-61s. These new helicopters came with 28 seats, safety features, and capabilities for rainy or windy flights. These vessels could also travel up to 100 miles per hour and carry almost double the load capacity of the S-55.
Even though the Heliport was widely popular, a former Disneyland employee on TikTok claimed the venture was only profitable due to government subsidiaries and the deal with LAA.
A Pair of Tragedies Shuts the Airline Down
On the evening of 22 May 1968, one of the LAA S-61 helicopters crashed in Paramount, California, en route from Disneyland to LAX, killing all 20 passengers and three crew members on board.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) summarized that one of the blades hit the fuselage during flight, causing the crash. This malfunction proved fatal, causing the helicopter to break apart midair and plummet onto a dairy farm.
The Los Angeles Times at the time reported that a Berkeley Professor, a Hunt-Wesson Foods executive, and the Mayor of Red Bluff, California, were among the casualties.
A second crash occurred on 14 August 1968. This tragedy claimed 21 lives, including three crew members. Like the crash less than three months earlier, this accident happened during the early evening hours. However, the route for this flight was LAX to Disneyland.
The NTSB confirmed that the crash occurred due to a ‘fatigue failure’ in one of the helicopter’s blades. This blade detached from the spindle, causing the helicopter to lose control and plummet to the ground.
Scrutiny from the dual S-61 crashes caused the public to shun the airline. Along with ongoing costs and competition from ground-based services, LAA closed its doors in 1971.
Disneyland revived the helicopter routes in 1972, this time with Golden West Airlines. The endeavor only lasted five months before the idea was nixed for good. A couple of factors contributed to this service’s lack of popularity: the increase in fares from $4 to $16, noise complaints from nearby areas, and negative experiences from passengers.
A Cessna 172 holds the record for the longest endurance flight in history: 64 days, 22 hours, and 19 minutes from 4 December 1958 to 23 January 1959. Flying over Nevada and California, pilots Robert Timm and John Cook took turns at the controls while the other rested. During their world-record flight, Timm and Cook flew 150,000 miles nonstop, the equivalent of six trips around the world. To complete the endurance flight, they used some innovative modifications and methods.
Cessna introduced the 172, a single-engine, high-wing four-seat plane, in 1956. The standard engine was a six-cylinder Continental O-300 that produced 145 horsepower and handled a maximum takeoff weight of 2,450 pounds. The 172’s normal range was about 736 miles at 140 miles per hour.
Pilot Robert Timm Requested a Special Engine
The aircraft Timm and Cook used had about 1500 hours on the airframe and about 450 hours on the engine. Timm decided early on to replace the engine. He contacted Continental Motors and told them about the plans for the long flight. He asked if they would provide a “special engine,” and they agreed.
It wasn’t until years after the flight that one of the mechanics working on the 172, Irv Kuenzi, found out just how special the new engine was. According to Kuenzi, Continental’s sales manager worried that if they built and donated a special engine, others would soon be asking for the same thing. The manager then told a fellow worker to go to the production floor and pick the new engine she liked best. Continental sent this “special” engine to Timm and Cook.
Innovative Ideas for Combustion Chamber, Oil, and Spark Plugs
Another issue was maintaining the engine oil and spark plugs while airborne. Oil changes typically occur every 50 to 100 hours, so that would not be possible in flight. To address this, Timm and Cook designed an electric pump system to circulate fresh oil from a reserve tank while draining the used oil into another tank.
One of the pilots performing in-flight maintenance. | Image: Planehistoria.com
They realized spark plugs would probably need to be replaced. To this end, they carried spares and tools and installed access panels over the engine cowling. Timm and Cook could open these panels and change spark plugs while the engine was running. After this, they still needed to modify the plane’s interior.
Interior Modifications Made Space for Sleeping and Supplies
The modifications included removing all furnishings except for the pilot’s seat. They put in a foam mattress and storage for food, water, and other supplies. They added a small stainless-steel sink for washing in the aft of the plane. Yet another modification was to replace the co-pilot’s door with a folding door and a small platform or step to make it easier to bring supplies onboard.
That left the question of fuel. Timm and Cook installed a 95-gallon belly tank to supplement the 47 gallons the plane carried in its wings. Adding the tank required attaching an electric pump to transfer the fuel in the lower tank to the wings. Of course, this was not enough fuel for what they hoped would be the longest endurance flight ever.
A Unique Ground-to-Air Refueling Method
Initially, Timm and Cook considered using air refueling from other aircraft but ultimately decided that would be too expensive and complicated. So, instead, they chose to rely on a ground-to-air system. For this, they fitted a truck with a fuel reservoir, a fuel pump, and a hose. The pilots would lower a winch from the Cessna to grab the hose and pull it up to a connection on the belly tank. The pump would fill the belly tank in about three minutes.
Ground-to-air refueling during world record endurance flight | Image: Pilots of America
While this happened, the truck needed to be on a long, straight stretch of road. The plane and truck also had to be at identical speeds, which required skillful drivers and close coordination. The Cessna 172 cruised at 140 mph and would stall at 54 mph. During the flight, they refueled the plane twice daily and 128 times in total.
Different angle showing low-level refueling operation | Image: Disciplesofflight.com
The pilots needed other support besides fuel. They lowered a bucket tied to a rope, and ground crews would fill it with food, water, and other supplies.
Flight Stayed Mostly Over Desert Areas of Southwest U.S.
Timm and Cook took off from McCarran Field (now Harry Reid International Airport) in Las Vegas on 4 December 1958. They mostly stayed over open desert areas between Las Vegas and Blythe, California, during the flight.
Timm and Cook during their historic flight | Image: Howard W. Cannon Aviation Museum
Each Pilot Took Turns Flying and Resting During the Flight
They established a schedule of flying and resting on four-hour shifts. The plane also had blankets, pillows, and a foldable camp toilet. With this schedule, it was no surprise that they suffered from fatigue, which almost led to disaster. Before dawn on 9 January 1959, the 36th day, Timm fell asleep at the controls. Luckily, they were at 4000 feet at the time, and the wing-leveler autopilot on the plane kept it steady.
Finally, on 23 January 1959, as maintenance issues became too critical, Timm and Cook decided to land. By then, the autopilot had cut out, and the generator, tachometer, cabin heater, landing and taxi lights, belly tank fuel gauge, electrical fuel pump, and winch had all stopped working.
The Record-Setting Endurance Flight was a Success for the Pilots, Plane, and Sponsor
They touched down at McCarran after setting a record for endurance flight that still exists. In every way, the flight was a success. The pilots were safe, and the mission proved the reliability of the Cessna 172. It was also a successful promotion for the Hacienda Hotel in Las Vegas.
Its owner, Warren “Doc” Bailey, had viewed the flight as an opportunity for good publicity, and he agreed to sponsor it. This covered costs for the modifications, fuel, and other supplies. During the flight, the hotel’s cooks provided meals for the pilots. Bailey did ask that “Hacienda” be painted in large letters on each side of the fuselage.
Record-setting Cessna 172 on display at Harry Reid International Airport. | Image: Harry Reid International Airport
The hotel also rewarded Timm and Cook well for their successful mission. They received $1000 for each day of the flight and an additional $10,000 for breaking the endurance flight record. Their Cessna 172 is now on display inside the baggage claim area at Las Vegas Harry Reid International Airport.
You’ve heard of TV shows getting canceled after one episode, but what about an airline that got canceled after just one flight? According to a book titled Commuter Airlines of the United States by R.E.G. Davies and I.E. Quastler, one Florida airline has this dubious honor.
While many airlines today go by ‘Sun Air,’ a regional airline known as ‘Sunair’ lasted less than 24 hours. This airline was slated to provide plenty of air travel throughout Florida. Unfortunately, several financial setbacks stopped the airline dead in its tracks.
Sunair Rises and Sets
Sunair was founded in 1980 by a Fort Lauderdale accountant named A. Wayne Lackey. At the start of the decade, Florida had already been bustling with regional airlines such as Air Florida, Florida Airlines, Southern Airways, Provincetown-Boston Airline, and Shawnee Airlines.
Still, Lackey insisted that his airline would be a hit with state travelers. The airline launched a marketing campaign featuring a Pepsi-esque logo and the tagline ‘The Number One Way to Fly Florida.’
The founder took out television and newspaper ads to promote the airline and its vast network of 15 key locations. These included the base of Fort Lauderdale (FLL), Miami (MIA), Tampa (TPA), Jacksonville (JAX), Pensacola (PNS), and Orlando (MCO).
This commercial was even created by Bo Gehring and Associates and was found inside a company demo reel from 1983.
A marketing pamphlet also advertised the airline’s launch date of 15 January 1981. Unfortunately, this did not happen.
Lackey Wasn’t So Lucky
Despite the Florida airline’s lofty ambitions, Lackey didn’t have the proper planning or finances to live up to them. Before even buying a single plane, Lackey had hired over 400 employees to manage flights.
Sunair was reportedly in talks with Swearingen to order four Metroliners in December 1980. However, something happened on SunAir’s end that left the airline empty-handed.
‘We don’t know why Sunair didn’t want to pay for them,’ a Swearingen spokesperson told local paper Florida Today dated 27 February 1981.
By the time the anticipated start date came around, the airline reportedly still had no aircraft to its name. According to the same article from Florida Today, Lackey stated he declined to purchase the aircraft because Swearingen only had two aircraft ready when it promised four. Lackey ‘hoped to have one aircraft’ by the following week.
While Lackey was counting on having a fleet of brand new Metroliners, he could only cobble together money to lease one Embraer EMB 110 Bandeirante, which was reportedly much slower in comparison. The Embraer came from Charlie Hammonds Flying Service in Louisiana.
‘Fly Until the Money Runs Out’
Sunair’s only day of service was 17 March 1981. The airline took just one flight from Fort Myers to Miami. Prior to the flight, Lackey reportedly gave the pilot a stack of cash and told him, ‘Fly until the money ran out.’
The airline closed down immediately afterward. While Sunair reportedly had hundreds of customers booked for flights, they all had to be canceled as the company had debts of over a million dollars.
Ten days later, Sunair filed for bankruptcy protection. Lackey insisted he could persevere and help Sunair through bankruptcy, but alas, the airline did not live to see another day.
A unique opportunity to fly in a 1930s design WACO YMF-5 biplane awaits tourists and residents of Southwest Florida. Suncoast Biplanes operates their YMF-5C Super, nicknamed “Gracie,” flying guests over local towns and waterways. Gracie was actually built in 2000 and gives Suncoast’s customers the experience of flying at less than 1,000 feet in an open cockpit.
Waco YMF-5 Biplane was Originally Built in 1932
The Weaver Aircraft Company began manufacturing and testing aircraft in 1919. They built them by hand, which continues to this day. The YMF-5 launched in 1932, with production continuing on the type until 1947. Following WWII, the company lost business and closed down.
View of the tail of Suncoast Biplanes YMF-5 WACO biplane, “Gracie”. | Image: Bill Lindner
In 1986, the Classic Aircraft Company in Lansing, Michigan, resumed production of the YMF-5 aircraft. At that time, a number of these planes were still in operation. Although some original YMF-5s remained airworthy, the company opted to manufacture new ones. They utilized the original 1935 type certificate and obtained FAA approval to restart production.
Each Waco YMF-5 is Handmade, Requiring Over 6,000 Labor Hours
The company, now known as WACO Aircraft Corporation, currently produces 15 YMF-5 biplanes annually. Each aircraft is entirely handmade and requires 6,000 labor hours and 5,000 parts to build. These are new aircraft built to the original specifications but with some key improvements.
While using the original design, the newer YMF-5s included more than 300 engineering changes, redesigns to over 1400 drawings, and the development of new tooling for production. Perhaps the most significant modification was to replace the original mild steel tubing in the fuselage frame with high-strength 4130 steel. This lighter steel receives an internal corrosion-resistant treatment and external epoxy coating.
Polyester Skin Material Replaces Cotton and Linen
Another key modification was to replace the original cotton or linen fabric covering on the wings with a modern polyester material called Ceconite. This material is stronger, more durable, and easier to work with.
Sitka Spruce Still Used for Internal Wing Spars
One thing that didn’t change was the material for the wing spars. Waco uses Sitka spruce, the same wood used in the original YMF-5s and other aircraft in the 1930s. It is both light and strong. It also has a clear, straight grain and is resistant to rotting. The wing ribs are wood truss structures with gussets, glue, and staples fastening the components.
Sitka spruce internal wing components still used in new Waco YMF-5 biplanes. | Image: Suncoast Biplanes
The YMF-5 is a two-seat aircraft, with the pilot in the rear cockpit. With a small tailwheel and two landing gear forward, it is impossible for the pilot to see forward while taxiing in a straight line. Therefore, they have to taxi in a broad S pattern which lets the pilot see forward along the left and right of the fuselage.
Rear cockpit of the Waco YMF-5 biplane “Gracie” at Suncoast Biplanes. | Image: Bill Lindner
Dr. Gareth Williams is the primary pilot and owner of Suncoast Biplanes. He and his wife, Joy, opened the business in June 2024. Gracie is a 2000 model, which they purchased from an owner in northern Florida. As the aircraft was still relatively new and in good condition, Williams only made one major modification–replacing the engine. The original YMF-5s had Jacobs R775 seven-cylinder radial engines rated at 225 hp. Versions of these engines appeared in other aircraft from the 1930s until 1959 when Jacobs stopped making them.
2000-Built “Gracie”: A Handcrafted Revival of the Original YMF-5
The modern iteration of the WACO YMF-5 biplane offers two variants of the Jacobs R755 radial engine. Gracie, a meticulously restored example, is equipped with a refurbished R755 B2-M featuring a carburetor. New production aircraft from WACO, however, incorporate a fuel-injected version of the same powerplant.
Williams sourced his overhauled 7-cylinder Jacobs R755 from Air Repair, a respected radial engine specialist based in Cleveland, Mississippi. Installation was completed by a technician at Suncoast Biplanes’ facility at Punta Gorda Airport. Producing 275 horsepower, the engine delivers a climb rate of 770 feet per minute and a cruising speed of 110 mph.
Closeup of engine cylinders on Jacobs R755 engine on Suncoast Biplanes Waco YMF-5 biplane. | Image: Bill Lindner
The YMF-5’s biplane configuration enhances lift, enabling Gracie to maintain controlled flight at speeds as low as 85 mph. During passenger flights, Williams typically operates between 500 and 1,000 feet.
Originally from the United Kingdom, Williams began flying at 17 with the Air Training Corps (ATC), logging his first flight in a glider. Now a certified flight instructor with experience across numerous aircraft types, he bought his first biplane–a 1942 Stearman–in 2010.
Gareth Williams Launched a Nonprofit Operating Flights for Grieving Families
In 2013, after a career in management consulting within the biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors, Williams transitioned to aviation full-time. The following year, he established Fly Hope Dream, a non-profit providing flights for families of children with life-threatening illnesses, those mourning a child’s loss, and survivors of natural disasters. His cross-country missions stretched from Pennsylvania to California.
Suncoast Biplanes Offers Tour Packages in Southwest Florida
“Gracie” banking over Charlotte Harbor | Photo: Suncoast Biplanes
Suncoast Biplanes operates out of Punta Gorda Airport (PGD) in Southwest Florida, where Williams is joined by pilot and A&P mechanic John Manchester, who oversees much of Gracie’s maintenance. The outfit offers year-round flights along the coastal regions near Punta Gorda, with tour options extending up to 90 minutes and showcasing harbors and beaches.
Gracie accommodates two passengers, having carried adventure-seekers from 6 to 86. Williams also provides an aerobatic experience, guiding Gracie through loops, rolls, and hammerhead maneuvers.
Image from forward cockpit of Waco YMF-5 biplane just after takeoff from Punta Gorda Airport. | Image: Bill Lindner
On Tuesday, 18 March 2025, I arrived at 1430 local time for a flight with Suncoast Biplanes. Williams and his wife, Joy, gave me a very friendly greeting and talked with me about their YMF-5 and their business. Following a safety briefing, we headed to the ramp, where Gracie’s beautiful white and red livery distinguished her from the muted tones of neighboring aircraft.
Williams took me through a detailed preflight inspection, emphasizing aspects unique to a classic biplane. He checked the tension on the struts and wires connecting the wings and the movement of the flight controls.
Wooden Dowels Reduce Vibration on Wing Support Wires
A notable design feature of the YMF-5 biplane is its use of wire stays to reduce vibration. These are wooden dowels notched to secure flying and landing wires, reducing vibration and wire fatigue.
The inspection extended to the airframe to check for damage on the wing and fuselage skins, tire wear, or oil leaks. Opting to top off the fuel, Williams summoned a truck, climbed atop the wing, and filled the tanks via overwing caps. Once the tanks were full, we climbed into Gracie and strapped into the seat and shoulder belts.
Jacobs R755-B2M Engine Provides Plenty of Power
With Williams in the rear cockpit, I was unable to see him. So, communication relied on headsets. He started the engine. The Jacobs R755 roared to life, and after a brief warm-up, we taxied to the runway. With a smooth application of power, Gracie accelerated briskly, lifting off after a short roll. Sitting just behind the rumbling radial engine was much different than being inside a pressurized jet.
Fun Flying Over the Coastline at 500 feet in an Open Cockpit
Clear view of the Gasparillia Lighthouse from 500 feet over Boca Grande. | Image: Bill Lindner
We banked west over Punta Gorda and the northern end of Charlotte Harbor. Cruising at 100 mph and 1,000 feet, the water’s details were vivid. Descending to 500 feet along Boca Grande’s coastline, we had a very close view of the sprawling homes and resorts along the beaches.
Flying at just under 1000 feet provides excellent views of the Florida coastline. | Image: Bill Lindner
The route continued south to Pine Island, then east across Charlotte Harbor, before returning north to the airport. The landing was seamless, the open cockpit amplifying the rush of air as we decelerated.
As it was the day’s final flight, Williams taxied Gracie back to the Suncoast hangar and we called it a day.
The aviation industry teeters on the edge of a profound change: Single-Pilot Operations (SPO).
SPO (or SiPO) is the concept of operating commercial flights with only one pilot instead of the current standard of two.
Commercial aviation has relied on a minimum of two pilots in the flight deck in recent decades–a standard borne from necessity and refined by technological advances.
Propelled by technological strides and economic urgency, SPO ignites a debate transcending mere innovation. Is it a feasible, safe, and publicly acceptable alternative?
If history is any indication, SPO represents a fundamental shift that could redefine aviation, like the introduction of jet engines, fly-by-wire technology, GPS navigation, paperless flight decks, and composite materials. However, unlike those advancements, which improved safety and efficiency, SPO raises critical concerns about redundancy, risk mitigation, and public trust.
Proponents see it as an inevitable evolution. Corporations see it as a money saver. Airlines see it as a way to reduce costs and mitigate chronic pilot shortages.
Opponents call it a reckless gamble with safety.
So, how close are we to seeing single-pilot commercial operations? Let’s examine how we got here.
A Historical Perspective: From Crowded Cockpits to the Two-Pilot Norm of Today
The flight deck of a Pan Am Boeing 314 Clipper, circa early 1940s | IMAGE: Airliners History on Facebook
SPO isn’t the first radical idea to challenge aviation norms. In the 1950s, it was common for commercial flights to have up to five crew members on the flight deck: captain, first officer, flight engineer, navigator, and radio operator.
With the advent of new technology, some crew roles became obsolete. Flight engineers began disappearing with the launch of the Boeing 737. The transition continued for the next two decades as glass cockpits–such as those on the Boeing 767 and the Airbus A300–entered the scene in the 1980s.
These shifts weren’t seamless; they demanded rigorous testing, regulatory nods, and pilot retraining, but they stuck.
Automation has become the unsung hero of modern aviation–yet it’s not flawless. Human pilots step in when systems falter, proving their worth in split-second decisions and complex crises.
Now, SPO proponents propose cutting that human presence in half. With an ongoing pilot shortage and rising costs, they see the concept as a lifeline to trim costs and crew needs.
But at what price?
The Push for Single-Pilot Airliners
Rendering of a single-pilot flight deck in the future | IMAGE: Airbus
Europe’s leading the charge. Airbus is forging ahead with its extended Minimum Crew Operations (eMCO) concept. This controversial plan would allow single-pilot operations during cruise. Airbus is eyeing its new A350F freighter, due for delivery to Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific beginning in 2027, as a proving ground for the concept.
Meanwhile, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, or EASA (the European equivalent to the FAA), is crafting a safety-risk assessment framework under its eMCO-SiPO project. Though, regulatory green lights won’t flash before 2027.
Cargo flights could test the waters by the early 2030s, says the Royal Aeronautical Society, but the timeline for passenger jets is at least a decade away–probably more.
IMAGE: European Cockpit Asssociation (ECA)
This drive stems from economic pressures: rising costs and pilot scarcity are squeezing airlines. Boeing’s 2024 forecast of 674,000 new pilots needed over two decades underscores this issue.
Additionally, technological advancements, like Airbus’s Project Morgan, propose AI-driven cockpits and ground-based support to replace the second pilot. However, pilot unions–like the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), and Britain’s BALPA– are sounding the alarm, accusing industry giants of chasing profits over passenger safety.
SPO in the Wild: Real-World Trials
A U.S. Air Force KC-46 Pegasus from McConnell Air Force Base’s 22nd Air Refueling Wing (U.S. Air Force photo/ Staff Sgt. Devin Rumbaugh)
Reduced crew operations (RCO) have already taken flight in controlled settings. In 2020, Airbus marked a milestone in aviation history with the A350-1000, completing a fully autonomous flight–takeoff to landing. The experiment relied on advanced automation and onboard vision systems, sans human intervention.
On this side of the Atlantic, the United States Air Force pushed boundaries in 2022, flying a KC-46 tanker without a co-pilot, leveraging cutting-edge tech to execute a mission solo.
These feats spotlight automation’s potential, yet they remain outliers–military and test scenarios far removed from the complexities of commercial passenger service. Still, they fuel the case for SPO and RCO, offering glimpses of a future where machines shoulder more of the load.
Can AI-Driven SPO Match the Two-Pilot Gold Standard?
Transaero Boeing 777-212ER cockpit – aircraft is landing at Sharm-el-Sheikh Airport in Egypt | Wikimedia Commons
At the heart of the SPO debate lies an underlying truth: safety is non-negotiable.
Modern airliners are engineered for two-pilot crews, with redundancy as a cornerstone–dual engines, hydraulics, and human oversight. Removing one pilot dismantles this critical backup and greatly amplifies risk. Much like driving automated driving vehicles, SPO introduces two categories of potential peril.
First, an AI system malfunction could overwhelm a lone pilot, forcing them to simultaneously control the aircraft and diagnose the failure without human assistance–a daunting, if not impossible, task. Second, untested scenarios, such as a bird strike shredding a leading edge, thrust the aircraft into a test-pilot realm where AI’s response remains unknown.
Decades of NASA and FAA research, reinforced by a 2024 ALPA white paper, reveal that single-pilot simulations strain workload to unsustainable levels, eroding performance in emergencies. EASA’s eMCO-SiPO framework aspires to “equivalent safety” through advanced automation and remote assistance, yet its blueprint lacks clarity.
Beyond technical risks, human discretion remains irreplaceable. Complex emergencies often demand pilots deviate from standard checklists, drawing on deep knowledge and experience to improvise. After all, no two emergencies, such as engine fires or sudden structural failures, are the same. Can AI muster the same seasoned judgment to avert a crisis? Does it possess the requisite strength, power, or energy to wrestle an aircraft through chaos?
Unions argue two pilots provide irreplaceable benefits: cross-checking to reduce errors, workload sharing, better decision-making, and a safety net for incapacitation. ALPA emphasizes that pilots learn from each other, adapt to unexpected situations, and offer versatility that automation can’t match. Cybersecurity risks—such as hacking of automated systems—add another layer of concern.
Redundancy is There for a Reason
On 10 June 1990, British Airways Flight 5390, a BAC 1-11, suffered a dramatic decompression when a cockpit windscreen panel blew out at 17,300 feet, partially sucking the captain out of the aircraft, though he survived the ordeal thanks to the crew’s quick actions.
History bears witness–real-world examples of redundancy’s value abound: the explosive decompression and windshield blowout of British Airways Flight 5390 in 1990, Southwest Flight 6013‘s 2023 mid-flight medical emergency, and Alaska Airlines Flight 1282’s 2024 door plug incident. Every one of these incidents hinged on crew synergy.
ALPA President Jason Ambrosi didn’t mince words when referencing a 2023 near-collision in Austin, Texas, between a FedEx Boeing 767 and a Southwest Boeing 737, averted only by the FedEx crew’s quick decision to go around.
“Some manufacturers and foreign airlines are actually working to design flight decks that replace the very safety features that averted these disasters,” Ambrosi warned in a 2024 speech. “They plan to replace pilots with automation. Of course that’s insane.”
They plan to replace pilots with automation. Of course that’s insane.
ALPA President Jason Ambrosi
Beyond emergencies, opponents also draw parallels to aircraft design. Modern planes feature redundant systems—dual engines, generators, hydraulics—for a reason. If one fails, another takes over. Pilots, they argue, are no different. A single pilot risks lower situational awareness, heightened workload, decision-making overload, and no backup for emergencies like engine fires, medical events, or even a bathroom break. (Although there’s a solution in the works! Introducing the cockpit potty!)
Security threats, unruly passengers, and operational challenges like weather or equipment malfunctions further complicate the picture.
Opponents liken pilots to redundant systems: lose one, and the margin for error vanishes.
Public Perception: Will Passengers Board a Single-Pilot Flight?
Rear-facing seats on an old Southwest jet | IMAGE: Southwest Airlines on X
History offers a cautionary tale.
At one time, it was not uncommon for commercial aircraft to have rear-facing seats and front-facing seats. A 1957 United States Air Force study showed that rear-facing passenger seats had a survival rate ten times higher than forward-facing ones in crashes. Yet, passengers overwhelmingly preferred facing forward. They felt safer despite the data. By the 1970s, manufacturers scrapped them as forward-facing seats sold out first on mixed-configuration planes.
Similarly, the Boeing 737’s three-person cockpit (pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer) in 1967 shrank to two with the Airbus A310’s debut in 1982, thanks to automation like GPS and autopilot. Passengers balked initially, fearing less human oversight, but adapted as safety records held.
The Resistance: Toxify the Idea of SPO
An ad from the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) depicting its stance against single-pilot operations | IMAGE: ALPA
Today, SPO faces a similar hurdle. An ALPA study found that 80 percent of U.S. adults agreed that “two pilots working together is the best option when it comes to problem-solving while operating an aircraft.” In addition, 81 percent said they would never feel comfortable flying with just one pilot.
The resistance isn’t surprising. Aviation safety is a public good, and passengers equate crew presence with security. Unions seize this sentiment with campaigns like the ECA’s “One Means None,” BALPA’s “Safety Starts with 2,” and the Spanish Air Line Pilots Association (SEPLA)’s “United for Your Safety.” These campaigns amplify this sentiment, framing SPO as a risk too far. Their strategy: make SPO so toxic that no airline dares become the first adopter, stalling manufacturers’ plans.
If airlines push forward, they’ll need to overcome technical barriers and a skeptical populace–a challenge no technology can fully address. Currently, not a single airline worldwide has publicly endorsed SPO, likely wary of potential backlash.
History suggests acceptance hinges on trust, not just technology. As such, the public’s confidence in two-pilot crews runs deep, and shaking it could be an uphill battle.
The European Experiment
Ad for European Cockpit Association’s (ECA) “One Means None” campaign | IMAGE: One Means None
EASA’s eMCO study tackles concerns head-on. The study examines physiological issues like fatigue, sleep inertia, and incapacitation alongside practical questions like lavatory use.
The goal is to have a knowledgeable base to assess SPO feasibility. If optimistic timelines hold, eMCO could roll out by 2030, with SPO to follow. But critics, like Ambrosi, see it as a Trojan horse–a vague term deliberately avoiding the words “single pilot” to downplay the endgame.
For now, SPO remains theoretical, but its fate rests on this European experiment.
The European Cockpit Association vows to do “whatever is necessary” to stop it. The union accuses manufacturers and airlines or prioritizing profits over safety.
“Manufacturers and airlines will always pursue their financial interest,” the ECA stated in a 2023 press release. “But the regulator must preserve safety.”
Even if SPO becomes something closer to being seriously considered, U.S. regulators, under pressure from ALPA and public sentiment, may resist importing the concept, setting up a transatlantic divide.
ALPA President Jason Ambrosi addressed the European experiment and said all parties must unite to stop SPO.
“To prevent this risk to safety from reaching our country, we must work together with aviation regulators and stakeholders to discourage it across the globe,” said Ambrosi. “We cannot allow foreign regulators to grease the skids for their manufacturers, trying to force our hand to undermine safety in our country.”
He calls the push to SPO a “gamble with safety” and a “gamble with people’s lives.”
Oof.
The Bigger Picture: Profit vs. Safety
IMAGE: European Cockpit Association (ECA)
SPO crystallizes a profound tension: Should aviation bend to the fiscal ambitions of manufacturers and airlines, or should safety chart the course?
Airlines and manufacturers see dollar signs; pilots and safety experts see red flags. For them, the answer is clear. The push for SPO may promise efficiency, but it risks eroding the human element that has kept flying the safest mode of travel.
As EASA’s study nears its conclusion, aviation faces a defining question: Is this an evolution worth embracing?
ALPA might have said it best in its campaign against SPO and reduced crew operations.
Boeing will design and manufacture the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter, the Department of the Air Force announced on Friday.
Officially designated the F-47, the jet marks a milestone in military aviation. It heralds the arrival of the world’s first sixth-generation fighter jet—a machine poised to redefine air superiority and replace the venerable F-22 Raptor as the U.S. Air Force’s tip of the spear.
A New Era in Air Superiority
Shown is a graphical artist rendering of the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Platform. The rendering highlights the Air Force’s sixth generation fighter, the F-47. The NGAD Platform will bring lethal, next-generation technologies to ensure air superiority for the Joint Force in any conflict | IMAGE: U.S. Air Force
The F-47 isn’t just an incremental upgrade; it’s a generational shift. With a fleet of 180 F-22s currently upholding U.S. air dominance, the Air Force has long recognized the need for a successor capable of countering the evolving threats of the 21st century.
The F-47 promises to deliver, integrating next-generation stealth, sensor fusion, and long-range strike capabilities into a platform designed to operate in the most contested environments.
President Trump, speaking from the Oval Office on Friday, underscored its significance.
“Nothing in the world comes even close to it, and it’ll be known as the F-47,” said Trump.
Dominate the Skies
Get your first look at what will be the most advanced, lethal, & adaptable fighter ever developed… the U.S. Air Force's F-47. pic.twitter.com/ca1CeBABb5
Flanked by military brass, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, the President touted the jet’s speed, maneuverability, and payload capacity—attributes that hint at a design pushing the boundaries of aerodynamic and systems engineering.
What sets the F-47 apart is its role as a force multiplier. It will fly alongside collaborative combat aircraft (CCA)—autonomous drone wingmen—enhancing its situational awareness and lethality. This system-of-systems approach, coupled with a modular and adaptable airframe, ensures the F-47 can integrate emerging technologies over its service life, a critical feature for maintaining relevance in an era of rapid technological flux.
The Road to the F-47: A Competitive Journey
Air Force F-22A Raptor Demo Team officially welcomed their new commander and pilot on Tuesday, Maj. Josh Gunderson. (USAF)
Boeing’s victory in the NGAD competition wasn’t a foregone conclusion. The Air Force conducted a rigorous source selection process, pitting Boeing against Lockheed Martin after Northrop Grumman bowed out in 2023.
According to the Air Force’s Friday press release, Boeing’s proposal emerged as the “most capable and cost-effective solution” to meet the demands of an increasingly complex global threat environment. While the F-22 carried a unit cost of $143 million, the F-47’s price tag remains under wraps—a point of intrigue for analysts tracking the program’s fiscal footprint.
The NGAD effort has been underway for a while. Initiated over five years ago, the program leveraged X-plane testbeds to refine stealth, range, autonomy, and survivability. But a mid-2024 pause raised eyebrows as the Air Force reassessed the project’s trajectory amid cost concerns. The reboot, however, doubled down on innovation, with cutting-edge digital engineering and a government-owned architecture accelerating the timeline.
While our X-planes were flying in the shadows, we were cementing our air dominance.
U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin
Speaking alongside the President on Friday, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin framed it as a triumph of foresight. “While our X-planes were flying in the shadows, we were cementing our air dominance—proving that we can field this capability faster than ever before.”
Technical Prowess and Strategic Messaging
President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announce on 21 March 2025 that Boeing will build America’s next generation fighter | IMAGE: The White House
The F-47’s technical bona fides are tantalizing if still partially veiled. Next-gen stealth will likely build on the F-22’s low-observable legacy, while advanced sensor fusion could rival or exceed the F-35’s data integration wizardry. Long-range strike capabilities suggest a platform optimized for air-to-air supremacy and deep-penetration missions, potentially blurring the lines between fighter and bomber roles. CCA drones point to a networked battlespace where the F-47 serves as a command node, orchestrating unmanned assets with precision.
Secretary Hegseth didn’t hold back regarding its geopolitical implications.
“The F-47 will send a very direct, clear message to our allies that we’re not going anywhere and to our enemies that we can project power around the globe, unimpeded, for generations to come,” Hegseth said.
This rhetoric and Trump’s assertion that the jet will ensure U.S. sky dominance underscores the F-47’s role as both a warfighting tool and a strategic signal.
Operationally, the F-47 promises efficiency. Requiring less manpower and infrastructure than its predecessors could streamline deployment cycles—a boon for rapid response in distributed theaters. Gen. Allvin, calling it a “generational leap forward,” predicted initial operational capability by 2029, aligning with the end of Trump’s second term. If that timeline holds, it will owe much to Boeing’s engineering muscle and the Air Force’s embrace of digital design techniques.
Boeing’s Legacy and the Path Ahead
F-15s with the 142nd Fighter Wing, the REDHAWKS. Photo: USAF
For Boeing, the NGAD win is a feather in the cap of a storied combat aircraft lineage. The aerospace giant is responsible for such combat aircraft as the P-51 Mustang, F-4 Phantom, F-15 Eagle, F/A-18 Hornet, and EA-18G Growler.
As interim president of Boeing Defense, Space & Security, Steve Parker emphasized the company’s readiness.
“We made the most significant investment in the history of our defense business, and we are ready to provide the most advanced and innovative NGAD aircraft,” Parker said in Boeing’s F-47 announcement.
The contract greenlights the engineering and manufacturing development phase, with prototypes slated for testing and options for low-rate initial production on the table.
The Air Force remains coy about basing decisions and full-scale deployment plans, promising updates as the program matures. What’s clear is that the F-47 isn’t just a fighter—it’s a statement of intent, blending cutting-edge tech with a renewed “warrior ethos,” as Hegseth put it. For aviation aficionados and defense watchers alike, the F-47’s journey from X-plane shadows to operational reality will be a saga worth tracking.
Artificial intelligence (AI) makes it possible to create a fun video game such as a flight simulator in just a few hours. With the help of an AI code builder, one influencer has already made thousands of dollars monthly, yet it’s completely free for all and consists of one concise HTML file.
Fly with Pieter on Any Web Browser
Dutch entrepreneur Pieter Levels has launched a completely free flight simulator, known as Fly Pieter. Those that wish to play must simply enter their name and they can start flying in no time.
Fly Pieter was made possible with the Cursor AI code builder, ThreeJS Javascript library, and Grok 3-generated server code.
According to Pieter and colleagues, he has already made $38,000 from the game after ten days being online. A handful of players even purchased very expensive in-game aircraft for thousands of dollars.
As of this writing, a total of 17 websites have ads playing during the AI flight simulator. Those ads are netting Levels around $5,000 monthly.
As of today, Levels has recorded a peak player count of 17,000 concurrent players.
When the game launched on 26 February, X owner Elon Musk praised footage of the game and had encouraging words about the future of AI.
Upon exploring Cursor in late February, Levels posted on X regarding his game idea:
‘Today I thought what if I ask Cursor to build a flight simulator So I asked “make a 3d flying game in browser with skyscrapers”‘
Levels said he is continuing to make updates to the game and has shared various additions to the project on X.
The entrepreneur has since added live multiplayer modes, collision detection, purchasable ad space in the form of blimps and hot air balloons, and other features.
All pilots have made mistakes, but one Northwest pilot in 1995 flew his passengers to the wrong country. To make matters worse, the crew realized they were not flying to the right airport until the last minute, but landed anyway.
This story is always a cautionary tale for on-board crew as a reminder to ensure your flight information is accurate before taking off and to not lose focus during communications.
A Brussels Reshuffle
On 5 September, 1995, a Northwest Airlines McDonnell-Douglas DC-10 carrying 241 passengers departed Detroit, Michigan and was headed for Frankfurt, Germany. It felt like an ordinary flight, until the pilot noticed something was wrong upon landing.
Towards the end of the flight, the crew contacted the ATC at the airport they were approaching with the intention of landing. But even as they referred to the airport as ‘Frankfurt’, the ATC didn’t seem to be confused.
The pilot was seemingly familiar with Frankfurt Airport and was expected to see white concrete runways upon landing. Instead, the runways were made of black asphalt.
Immediately, he realized he was not in the right location. But for the safety of the passengers on board, the crew decided to land anyway and figure things out on the ground.
That’s when they found out that despite following data on the console, that they landed in Brussels, Belgium, about 250 miles away from Frankfurt.
Flight attendants and passengers knew something was wrong upon landing as the live map display was indicating that a ‘detour’ was taking place.
Who Was to Blame?
Aviation experts were quick to blame the flight crew on Flight 52 with the words ‘The only people on that plane who didn’t know where they were were the three guys up front’. As a result of landing at the wrong airport, Northwest suspended the three pilots in charge of the flight. The captain was allegedly a 30-year veteran at the time of the flight with a ‘spotless record’.
The Irish Aviation Authority acknowledged the flight traveled towards Frankfurt, and it denied changing the flight information in any way. This was the last such group to have information on the flight before it was supposedly going to Frankfurt.
Maastricht Air Traffic Control (MUAC) was the entity that communicated the flight crew to land. Originally for a flight from Northern United States to Germany, crews would fly directly over Belgium to reach it. However, something from this communication must have happened to cause the crew to land prematurely and at the wrong airport.
Northwest flew to Brussels regularly in addition to Frankfurt, so the ATC wasn’t unfamiliar with Northwest jets. It also didn’t help matters that the ATC didn’t correct Northwest when the crew mentioned Frankfurt. Doing so likely would have averted the pilot from landing in the wrong country altogether.
It wasn’t known if the MUAC disciplined the ATC for his or her role in the landing mix-up.
Northwest continued to fly until 31 January 2010 when the company merged with Delta Air Lines. This move allowed Delta to become the world’s largest airline, surpassing United and American.
NASA’s Boeing test crew has finally returned home with SpaceX from the International Space Station (ISS). They were left there 9 months ago, when their planned week-long test flight of Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft suffered problems.
A SpaceX Dragon has been at the ISS docked for a while, however NASA wanted to keep the two astronauts in space until the next SpaceX mission could launch NASA’s next crew to replace them. That launch (named Crew-10) occurred just days ago.
With a new crew now on ISS, Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams joined the trip home on the “Crew-9” SpaceX Dragon with fellow NASA astronaut Nick Hague and Roscosmos cosmonaut Aleksandr Gorbunov. They blazed a trail of fire through the atmospheres over the Gulf of America, followed by nominal chute deployments and splash-down under beautiful conditions off the coast of the Florida panhandle. NASA’s coverage (above) even had a drone flying around they splashed-down.
A week-long test flight turned into 9 months in space
Wilmore and Williams launched on Boeing’s Starliner June 5, 2024, atop a ULA Atlas V rocket. It was the first crewed flight test for the spacecraft, to validate and certify it for operational missions for NASA. SpaceX had to prove themselves the same several years ago, before being certified by NASA to fly NASA crews to and from space.
Following Starliner’s launch, however, numerous worrying helium leaks and thruster problems occurred. A mission that was supposed to last a week turned into weeks, and into months, while Boeing and NASA engineers got to work trying to understand the root cause and reproduce the same issues with predictability.
Starliner returned to Earth just fine, however Boeing has work to do before NASA has confidence in Starliner for another crew. There has been no update since the end of that mission in Sep 2024.
NASA astronauts Burch Wilmore (top) and Suni Williams (bottom). Both are retired US Navy Captains and flew the first Boeing crewed flight test in June 2024. NASA photo
Impressive resumes – even for an astronaut
Wilmore and Williams were chosen to fly Starliner’s first crewed flight test last year in large part due to their extensive spaceflight experience. With her latest adventure now complete, Williams has racked up 9 career spacewalks and flown on 4 different spacecraft – Space Shuttle, Soyuz, Starliner and Dragon. She has spent 675 days in space, the most of any American woman.
Wilmore too has now flown in space on 4 different spacecraft, all the same as Williams. He has conducted 5 spacewalks totaling 21 hours, and flown 3 missions.
Both astronauts are also retired US Navy Captains.
From high operating costs and narrow cabins to poor timing against Boeing and Douglas, the Convair 880 never had the opportunity to make its mark in aviation.
Back in the 1960s, as commercial aviation was expanding thanks to jet aircraft, it turned out that airlines realized they didn’t need to go “Top Gun.” There wasn’t a need for speed. Convair, a division of General Dynamics, got in the game by designing the Convair 880, which was developed to compete with the Boeing 707 and the Douglas DC-8. Here are five reasons why the 880 couldn’t compete and didn’t last.
Economy Trumps Speed
The 880 could zip along at 600-plus mph, which was great when you considered passengers who wanted to get from Point A to Point B as fast as possible. But that speed came with a cost in terms of fuel consumption. That cost had to be passed along to passengers who realized that getting to their destination 15 to 30 minutes later wasn’t worth the higher cost of the ticket.
Bad Timing, Part One
Convair was a distant third in the commercial aviation market. Boeing and Douglas were well-established with the airlines. General Dynamics, which eventually switched to producing military aircraft.
Bad Timing, Part Two
Convair 880 flight deck | IMAGE: By Thomas R Machnitzki (thomasmachnitzki.com) – Own work, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25399407
In the 1960s when commercial air travel was growing in popularity, most airlines served major cities/large airports and flew longer routes. The 880 lacked the range for a coast-to-coast trip. It would have served as a regional carrier, but at that time the airlines weren’t serving mid-size cities and airports.
It’s What’s Inside That Counts
A TWA Convair 880 interior lounge | IMAGE: Public Domain
While the 880 looked great on the outside, its interior design didn’t thrill airlines. A narrow body airplane, it’s 2-3 seat alignment wasn’t popular and it limited passenger capacity to just 110. Again, that limited amount of butts in seats didn’t equate to making money.
Good Looks Aren’t Enough
The Convair was a good-looking plane, it flew well and it was whisper quiet. Its four engines were slung below swept-back wings and nose-to-tail the 880 was sleek. But airlines were – and still are – more interested in the bottom line than the design lines of their aircraft.
Epilogue
Elvis Presley’s Convair 880, which he named Lisa Marie after his daughter, on display at Graceland | IMAGE: By Nilsman – Own work, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7457434
Only 65 Convair 880s were produced before General Dynamics ceased production in 1962. A total of 65 were built and most in the United States were operated by Delta and TWA. The last aircraft was withdrawn from commercial service by major operators in 1975. There are few of the airframes still in existence and the only one properly preserved has a musical history. On display at Graceland in Memphis is the Convair 880 owned by Elvis Presley and named after his daughter, Lisa Marie.
America’s budget carriers are ushering in 2025 with a wave of route additions and changes.
Dozens of new routes and destinations are set to begin, as ULCCs strengthen their foothold in the U.S. and beyond.
Avelo, Breeze, Frontier, Spirit, and Allegiant all plan significant additions to connect more cities. Notably, Spirit’s significant expansion comes amid its ongoing Chapter 11 bankruptcy restructuring. Here’s a comprehensive look at the latest developments driving this expansion surge.
Avelo Airlines: 13 New Routes, International Push
BURBANK, CALIFORNIA – APRIL 28: Avelo Airlines takes off with first flight between Burbank and Santa Rosa at Hollywood Burbank Airport on April 28, 2021 in Burbank, California. (Photo by Joe Scarnici/Getty Images for Avelo Air)
Avelo Airlines starts off the list, announcing 13 new routes and three new cities, including Nassau, Bahamas—its fourth international destination alongside Jamaica, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic. The carrier begins service to Nassau’s Lynden Pindling International Airport on 11 June.
New routes include:
Wilmington (NC) International Airport (ILM): Flights to Detroit (DTW) begin on 12 June, Houston Hobby (HOU) and Washington Dulles (IAD) start on 13 June, and Long Island MacArthur (ISP) launches on 12 June—all twice weekly. Avelo now serves 15 destinations from ILM.
Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDU): Nassau (NAS) starts 11 June, Grand Rapids (GRR) begins 23 May, and Wilmington (ILG) launches 22 May, all twice weekly. RDU connects to 10 destinations.
Lakeland (FL) Linder International Airport (LAL): Grand Rapids (GRR) begins on 13 June, and Long Island (ISP) starts on 12 June, both twice weekly. LAL links to nine cities.
Charlotte/Concord Padgett Regional Airport (USA): Detroit (DTW) launches on 13 June, Washington Dulles (IAD) starts on 23 May, and Long Island (ISP) begins on 22 May, all twice weekly. Avelo serves 11 destinations from Concord.
Wilmington (DE) Airport (ILG): Jacksonville (JAX) begins on 23 May twice weekly, bringing Avelo’s total destinations from ILG to 14.
It’s not all good news for Avelo, though. The carrier cut ILG-USA and ILG-ATL on 27 February and will end BDL-ILM and BDL-USA by 30 March. With its focus on Tweed-New Haven (HVN) 50 miles to the south, and Breeze Airways’ focus on Providence (PVD), one has to wonder if Avelo’s push into Hartford was a wise decision.
Since its debut on 28 April 2021, Avelo has grown to serve 56 destinations. The carrier operates a fleet of 20 Boeing 737s (eight -700s and 12 -800s).
Breeze Airways: Key West Becomes 70th Destination
A Breeze Airways Airbus A220-300 rotates | IMAGE: Breeze Airways
Breeze Airways unveiled its 70th destination, Key West (EYW), on 11 March. Flights from Orlando (MCO) and Tampa (TPA) commence on 12 June, operating four times weekly on the Airbus A220-300.
The 240-mile EYW-TPA route marks Breeze’s shortest. Key West joins Rochester (ROC), Albany (ALB), and Memphis (MEM) as the airline’s fourth new city of 2025, bringing its Florida total to 10 and overall destinations to 33 since early 2024.
Breeze also launches twice weekly flights from Greensboro (GSO) to Hartford (BDL) and Orlando (MCO) starting 6 June. Launched in May 2021, Breeze serves 70 cities with 34 A220-300s and 12 Embraer ERJ-190s. However, the latter type is slated for phase-out next month.
Frontier Airlines: West Coast and Caribbean Additions
Image: By MarcelX42 form Wikimedia Commons
Seattle’s Paine Field International Airport (PAE) is Frontier’s newest city.
The carrier will launch thrice-weekly flights from Denver (DEN), Las Vegas (LAS), and Phoenix (PHX) to PAE on 2 June. The carrier already serves DEN, LAS, and PHX from just down the street at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA). In addition to those cities, Frontier operates flights to Dallas (DFW), Los Angeles (LAX), and Ontario (ONT) from SEA.
Paine Field has enjoyed commercial service since March 2019. Frontier will be the second carrier at the airport, which is approximately 40 miles north of SEA. United axed PAE during the coronavirus pandemic, never to return.
Additionally, Frontier begins service to San Pedro Sula, Honduras (SAP) from Atlanta (ATL), starting on 12 June. and revived Aruba (AUA) from ATL after a multi-year break. ATL expands further with new routes to Columbus (CMH), Fort Myers (RSW), Jacksonville (JAX), Kansas City (MCI), Oklahoma City (OKC), St. Louis (STL), and West Palm Beach (PBI).
Fresh Out of Bankruptcy, Spirit Announces Over 20 New Routes, Also Axes Five Cities
IMAGE: Spirit Airlines via Facebook
Spirit Airlines rolled out a significant expansion last week, adding over 20 new and returning routes. Flights begin in May, even as the carrier navigates a questionable post-bankruptcy journey.
Spirit filed for bankruptcy in late 2024. At the time, the company said it would be a quick restructuring. And that proved to be accurate, as the carrier announced the completion of its financial restructuring on Wednesday 12 March.
Presumably, the carrier aims to boost profitability and axe unprofitable routes while targeting high-demand markets.
Highlights include:
Raleigh-Durham (RDU): Baltimore (BWI), Detroit (DTW), Newark (EWR), New Orleans (MSY), and Dallas (DFW) begin May 8-9, ranging from twice to five times weekly.
Indianapolis (IND): Los Angeles (LAX), Dallas (DFW), and Charlotte (CLT) launch on 8-9 May, all twice weekly.
Nashville (BNA): Milwaukee (MKE), Kansas City (MCI), San Antonio (SAT), Chicago (ORD), Baltimore (BWI), Myrtle Beach (MYR), and Cleveland (CLE) start 8-9 May, mostly twice weekly.
Detroit (DTW): San Antonio (SAT), Memphis (MEM), and Charlotte (CLT) begin 8-9 May, up to four times weekly.
Baltimore (BWI): Chicago (ORD) and Charlotte (CLT) launch on 8 May, up to four times weekly.
New York LaGuardia (LGA): Richmond (RIC) and Norfolk (ORF) begin on 7-8 May, four times weekly.
Additional route additions include Philadelphia (PHL) to Charlotte (CLT), Latrobe (LBE) to Fort Lauderdale (FLL), and Los Angeles (LAX) to Milwaukee (MKE).
Earlier this month, Spirit added Columbia, SC (CAE), and Chattanooga, TN (CHA), with flights to Newark (EWR), Orlando (MCO), and Fort Lauderdale (FLL) from 4-5 June. Meanwhile, it will drop five cities—Aguadilla, Puerto Rico (BQN), Ponce, Puerto Rico (PSE), Puerto Vallarta, Mexico (PVR), Los Cabos, Mexico (SJD), and Manchester, NH (MHT)—to sharpen its focus.
Spirit Announces Dismal 2024 Financials
A Spirit Airlines Airbus A320neo waits at the gate | IMAGE: Spirit Airlines via Facebook
With Spirit out of bankruptcy, it’s hard to imagine a future where it could remain an independent carrier. While bankruptcy allowed the carrier to convert nearly $800 million in debt into equity, its 2024 financial results were bleak–to say the least. The company also “received a $350 million equity investment from existing investors to support Spirit’s future initiatives,” company officials said.
The Dania Beach, Fla.-based carrier posted an operating revenue of $4.9 billion in 2024. Coupled with an operating loss of $1.1 billion, this led to a staggering negative operating margin of 22.5 percent.
We won’t be surprised if Spirit continues to announce route cuts and additions as they attempt to find their footing–independently or not–post-Chapter 11.
Allegiant Air: Scaling Back LAX, Adding Elsewhere
A new Allegiant Boeing 737 MAX 8 over the Florida coast | IMAGE: Allegiant
For Allegiant, the news this week was the opposite of expansion.
Allegiant Air is eliminating its Los Angeles (LAX) base, canceling routes to Billings, Mont. (BIL), Des Moines, Iowa (DSM), Kalispell, Mont. (FCA), Laredo, Texas (LRD), Medford, Ore. (MFR), Memphis (MEM), Pasco, Wash. (PSC), Rapid City, S.D. (RAP), and Rockford, Ill. (RFD).
Still, the Las Vegas-based airline continues to ride the coattails of its November 2024 announcement of 44 new nonstop routes and three new cities. Unveiled just days after Spirit’s bankruptcy filing, this move marks Allegiant’s most significant expansion in its 28-year history.
ULCCs Connect the Dots in the American Aviation System
A Breeze Airways A220-300 taxies to the gate at Orlando International Airport (MCO) | IMAGE: Orlando International Airport via Facebook
From Avelo’s international ventures to Breeze’s Florida focus, Frontier’s western and Caribbean push, Spirit’s bankruptcy-fueled recalibration, and Allegiant’s strategic shifts, ULCCs are reshaping options for traveling Americans.
It will be interesting to revisit this story in a year to see what routes have survived. Conversely, it will also be interesting to see how these carriers continue to further connect the dots in the American aviation network. With their focus on historically underserved communities, the significance of ULCCs in the United States cannot be understated.
When US Airways Flight 1939 touched down at Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) on 17 October 2015, a storied chapter of American aviation history came to a poignant close.
The symbolically numbered flight – chosen to commemorate the year the airline was founded – marked the last revenue flight for a pioneering airline that had evolved from a meager airmail carrier in the Ohio Valley to a thriving international airline over a span of nearly eight decades.
From its inception as All American Aviation to its evolution into Allegheny, USAir, and ultimately US Airways, the airline’s rich history will not soon fade from memory.
US Airways’ Humble Beginnings
Stinson Reliant making a mail pickup | IMAGE: Smithsonian Postal Museum
US Airways’ story began in 1939 when brothers Richard C. du Pont and Alexis Felix du Pont Jr. founded All American Aviation Company. Pittsburgh, PA-based All American Aviation began operations as an airmail carrier on 7 March 1939. The company provided mail service to cities and towns throughout the Ohio River Valley.
A Route Map from All American Aviation in May 1947 | IMAGE: Smithsonian National Postal Museum
This small venture would lay the foundation for what was to come.
All American Aviation operated a small fleet of Stinson Reliant aircraft. The Reliant was a high-wing, fixed-tailwheel, single-engine monoplane that first flew in 1933.
Following the carrier’s official launch in 1939, the airline underwent several transformations in name and scope.
Transitioning from All American Aviation to All American Airways in 1949, this change coincided with the approval and introduction of passenger services. All American Airways became Allegheny Airlines in 1953, reflecting its expanded service network. Allegheny grew steadily, serving the northeastern United States from its hub at Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) – then known as Greater Pittsburgh Airport – and establishing itself as a reliable regional carrier.
From Allegheny to USAir: Expansion and Growth
Allegheny Airlines McDonnell Douglas DC-9-31, N969VJ, c/n 47421/558 delivered on 30 Mar 1970 | IMAGE: Piergiuliano Chesi via Wikimedia Commons
The 1960s and 70s were transformative decades for the airline industry, marked by a wave of mergers, acquisitions, and technological advancements. Allegheny was not immune to these changes. It moved its headquarters from Pittsburgh to Washington, DC, and continued to expand its routes and modernize its fleets, embracing jet aircraft to keep pace with the industry’s rapid evolution.
Following the introduction of Allegheny’s first jet – the Douglas DC-9 – in 1966, the carrier acquired Lake Central Airlines and Mohawk Airlines in 1968 and 1972, respectively.
By the late 1970s, Allegheny Airlines had become a formidable player in the regional airline market, with a network spanning Texas, Arizona, Florida, and Canada. Additionally, Allegheny pioneered the groundbreaking “Allegheny Commuter” service, the first of its kind in the airline industry. However, this growth came at a price, as the airline’s once-stellar service and safety record began to falter, tarnishing its reputation.
For some, Allegheny will forever bear the nickname “Agony Air,” a moniker not given out of spite but rather stemming from a series of unfortunate events that plagued the airline during a critical period. From rising fuel prices, increased competition, and labor disputes to frequent operational meltdowns, mismanagement, and ineffective cost-cutting measures, the nickname “Agony Air” encapsulated the collective frustration of passengers who had experienced the airline’s decline firsthand.
The turning point for Allegheny Airlines and many other carriers at the time came with the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. This legislation aimed to promote competition and reduce government intervention in the airline industry. While the intention behind the move was to benefit consumers, it created a hyper-competitive market and presented challenging operating conditions for many airlines.
USAir Takes Flight
USAir’s hub at Greater Pittsburgh Airport (PIT) on 29 Aug 1985 | IMAGE: George Hamlin via Airliners.net
Eager to distance itself from a less-than-flattering moniker and symbolize its transformation from a regional to a national carrier, Allegheny decided it was time for a change.
On 28 October 1979, Allegheny officially became USAir, a name that conveyed a broader, more inclusive vision. This change signaled the airline’s ambition to compete on a national level, challenging industry giants like American and United.
Throughout the 1980s, USAir pursued an aggressive expansion strategy, acquiring several other airlines, including small commuter airlines Pennsylvania Airlines and Suburban Airlines, and larger carriers such as San Diego-based Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA), and Winston-Salem, NC-based Piedmont Airlines, in 1986 and 1987, respectively. These strategic moves significantly bolstered USAir’s presence on the national stage, allowing it to operate an extensive network of routes across the United States.
Following these mergers, USAir and its commuter arm, USAir Express, positioned itself as one of the world’s largest airlines. With over 5,000 daily flights to more than 180 cities, USAir’s system included the fortress hubs of Greater Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT), Philadelphia International Airport (PHL), and Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT).
European service commenced in the early 1990s. The carrier operated transatlantic services to London, Paris, and Frankfurt using a fleet of 12 Boeing 767-200ERs.
The US Airways Era
US Airways Airbus A330-323X preparing for departure from Manchester Ringway International Airport (MAN) – EGCC, United Kingdom | IMAGE: Dale Coleman via Wikimedia Commons
In 1996, the carrier underwent another rebranding, becoming US Airways. This change reflected the company’s vision of a more streamlined and efficient operation. The new name and logo signaled a fresh start, aligning the airline with a more modern and dynamic image.
The rebranding efforts not only involved cosmetic changes but also signified a strategic shift in the company’s focus towards building a more comprehensive route network and enhancing the passenger experience. With the new identity came a renewed determination to compete on a global scale.
Facing the reality of an aging, fuel-thirsty fleet, US Airways began introducing Airbus aircraft, including A320-series aircraft for short-haul flights and A330-series widebodies for transatlantic flights.
Trouble in the New Century
US Airways Airbus A320-214 (N103US) at Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD) on 12 Oct 2011 | IMAGE: Aero Icarus via Wikimedia Commons
Headwinds began to blow in the early 2000s. Following a failed merger attempt with United Airlines in 2000, the attacks of 11 September 2001 severely impacted US Airways. While the attacks crippled the entire aviation industry, US Airways suffered particularly devastating losses due to the extended closure of Reagan National Airport (DCA), where it was the dominant carrier, in the aftermath.
The financial strain proved overwhelming for US Airways, leading the company to file for bankruptcy in 2002. A second bankruptcy filing followed in 2004 as they sought a partner to provide financial support.
During this period, US Airways shuttered its longtime hub in Pittsburgh, dealing a debilitating economic blow to the Steel City.
In 2005, US Airways merged with Phoenix-based America West Airlines and moved its headquarters to Tempe, AZ. Although America West was the surviving entity from the merger, the airline chose to retain the US Airways name for its established brand recognition.
Integrating America West’s assets and routes was a complex process, but it ultimately proved successful in creating a more formidable force in the airline industry. The merger with America West solidified US Airways’ position as a significant player in the US aviation market, establishing what was then the world’s fifth-largest airline.
The Curtain Closes on US Airways
A US Airways A321 lands while two American Airlines Boeing 737s prepare for departure | IMAGE: Joao Carlos Medau via Wikimedia Commons
One final merger would occur before the curtain fell on US Airways’ storied history. This time, it was with Fort Worth, Texas-based American Airlines.
This landmark merger, which led to the creation of the world’s largest airline, was complete on 9 December 2013.
Just under two years later, US Airways’ final flight would complete two cross-country trips, marking the end of the US Airways story.
On 16 October 2015, Flight 1939 lifted off from Philadelphia bound for San Francisco, with nostalgic stops in CLT and PHX (curiously – and for some, frustratingly – PIT and DCA were not part of the itinerary). Commanded by Captain Richard Mitchell, the Airbus A321-200 (registration N152UW) touched down on Runway 28L for an on-time arrival into SFO.
The return trip was a redeye flight, arriving at PHL 27 minutes ahead of schedule as American Flight 1939 at 0551 local time on 17 October 2015.
For the 187 passengers aboard US Airways’ final flight, they became an integral part of the closing chapter for one of aviation’s most storied names. From its humble beginnings as a mail carrier in the Ohio Valley to its establishment as a cornerstone of American aviation, the legacy of USAir is a testament to determination, progress, and adaptability.
We Remember US Airways
For those of us who cherished USAir, we pay tribute to the hardworking individuals whose efforts built this incredible airline. Though almost ten years have passed, the memories will forever remain in our hearts.
Earlier today, SpaceX launched to the International Space Station (ISS) with a fresh crew of NASA astronauts, and will bring NASA’s Boeing test crew home next week.
NASA’s Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams launched on Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft last summer June 5, 2024, atop a ULA Atlas V rocket. It was the first crewed flight test for the spacecraft, to validate and certify it for operational missions for NASA.
NASA’s Boeing Starliner test crew has been on the ISS for 9 months
However, on the way to the ISS their Boeing spacecraft experienced helium leaks and thruster problems. A mission that was supposed to last a week turned into weeks, and into months. Boeing and NASA got to work trying to understand the root cause and predict when the issues could happen again.
Eventually, NASA decided to leave the crew safe on the ISS, and asked SpaceX to bring them home on an upcoming NASA crew mission. Starliner returned to Earth just fine, however Boeing has work to do before NASA has confidence in Starliner for another crew. There has been no update since the end of that mission in Sep 2024.
Suni and Butch on the ISS (NASA photo)
Four new astronauts headed to ISS
Currently en route to the ISS on Dragon are NASA astronauts Anne McClain and Nichole Ayers, JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) astronaut Takuya Onishi, and Roscosmos cosmonaut Kirill Peskov. They are scheduled to dock autonomously to the ISS at 11:30 p.m. on Saturday, March 15.
You can watch that live starting at 9:45 p.m., March 15, on NASA+ with rendezvous, docking, and hatching opening.
NASA’s Crew-10 astronauts on their SpaceX Dragon
“Congratulations to our NASA and SpaceX teams on the 10th crew rotation mission under our commercial crew partnership. This milestone demonstrates NASA’s continued commitment to advancing American leadership in space and driving growth in our national space economy,” said NASA acting Administrator Janet Petro.
“Through these missions, we are laying the foundation for future exploration, from low Earth orbit to the Moon and Mars. Our international crew will contribute to innovative science research and technology development, delivering benefits to all humanity.”
Crew-10 launch (Mike Killian photo)
Williams and Wilmore set to Return to Earth March 19
Williams and Wilmore are finally expected to return home on March 19. They will be joined by Crew-9 NASA astronauts Nick Hague and Don Pettit.
Seven years ago, the final production C-17 aircraft’s wings were mated to the body of its 174-foot fuselage. This step in building the last Globemaster III ended a storied history at the Long Beach plant, where thousands of Douglas were made. While the Southern California plant produced only the C-17A and the C-17A-ER (extended range), at least three other variants were offered. We’ll explore three other C-17 models that never made it off the drawing board.
A tough Start for the C-17 but a smooth finish
The C-17 program had a rocky start. The jet was almost cancelled in the early 1990s as delays mounted and performance targets fell well short of expectations. However, the program eventually recovered with a total of 279 deliveries made to the United States and its allies. Even more impressive is the fact that 223 are still in service today, thirty-four years after the first flight back in 1991.
Today, the C-17 has met and exceeded most expectations. The jet can carry outsize cargo up to 170,000 lbs, fly halfway around the world with an air refueling or two, and land on as little as 3,500 feet of runway. It was the backbone of heavy airlift during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The C-17 has participated in nearly every major humanitarian relief effort throughout the world. With such unique capabilities, Boeing made three major efforts to expand the product line.
BC-17X: The Commercial Derivative that Never Was
Image: Boeing
While the capabilities of the C-17 are impressive, the efficiency of the aircraft has never been its strong point. With a blunt nose and a high lift wing, the operating costs of the jet are extremely high for a jet roughly the size of a Boeing 767. A C-17 burns about ¾ as much fuel per hour as a 747-400 but can carry only about half the pallets of its larger cargo-carrying cousin.
McDonnell Douglas first pitched a commercial derivative in 1997. When Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas, they renamed the project the BC-17. The BC-17 had a couple of false starts, with Boeing sending out press releases that it was close to launching the commercial version. Unfortunately, demand never materialized. A creative plan to provide the jets to commercial operators under a CRAF-like contract, where they could be recalled during times of war, never gained traction either.
C-17B: The Army’s flying Jeep
Image: Boeing
Another potential derivative was the Boeing C-17B. If you ever attended an airlift convention or airshow, you might have even seen a model of the upgraded Globemaster III. The C-17B was pitched as a way to allow landings at truly austere fields in locations where the “A” model couldn’t go.
The C-17B featured a center-truck gear, self-deflating tires, and double-slotted flaps to allow landing on even shorter distances. This variant was proposed a few times by Boeing in an attempt to extend the production line, the last time publicly in 2008. The “B” model never caught on, though. The C-17 was already an expensive plane to operate, and by 2008, Congress started to rein in the massive defense budget that would have been necessary to fund this new variant.
The War on Terror showed off the capabilities of the C-17, but it also exemplified that performance beyond its current capabilities was not required. Most missions did not require landing on a short or unimproved field. Even in poor nations like Afghanistan, most of the cargo could be delivered to a few established fields, transloaded to smaller aircraft like C-130s, and/or convoyed to the final destination.
C-17FE: The mini-Globemaster
Image: Boeing
Boeing’s final attempt to grow the Globemaster family came in the form of a shrunken version of the airlifter. The C-17FE was like a Globemaster on a SlimFast diet. Instead of carrying 18 pallets, the “FE” version could only carry 13 in a single row. The C-17FE was said to be large enough to carry two Stryker vehicles. Strangely, the C-17FE looked similar in size and carrying capacity to the C-141B.
The paper-jet was said to maintain 80% commonality with its larger brother. Boeing offered upgraded engines, improved economics, and added aerodynamic efficiencies. The aerodynamic efficiencies were mainly derived from a narrower profile and blended winglets similar to the 737NG and 757. A revised wing was also reportedly under consideration. The C-17FE was first discussed publicly in 2010. No serious interest ever materialized.
The F-101 Voodoo Evolved During Its 25 Years of Distinguished Service With the US Air Force.
On 13 March 1961, McDonnell delivered the last 807 F-101B Voodoo to the United States Air Force. The F-101 was a record-setting design that was originally conceived as a bomber escort fighter but was adapted to perform photo-reconnaissance and interception missions. The Air Defense Command (ADC) and Air National Guard (ANG) also operated two-seat F-101Bs for 13 years.
When Was a Voodoo Not a Voodoo
The first Voodoo prototype (designated XF-88) took to the air from Muroc (Later Edwards) Air Force Base (AFB) on 20 October 1948. Performance of the new fighter was inadequate with the originally installed Westinghouse J34 engines. During the development of the F-101, the Air Force decided that the Voodoo should be tasked with bomber escort as opposed to interception. The resulting changes to the design yielded an almost entirely different aircraft. In November of 1951 the Voodoo received its F-101 designator reflecting the radical changes to the original design.
Changes That Made the Voodoo Do
Major changes to the original Voodoo included additional fuel capacity and larger and more powerful Pratt & Whitney J57 engines, along with modification to the intakes in order to provide more air to the engines. The Voodoo’s horizontal control surfaces were also moved, resulting in the signature F-101 T-tail.
First Flight and More Mission Changes
The first production F-101A, Air Force serial number 53-2418, was first flown by McDonnell test pilot Robert C. Little on 29 September 1954 at Edwards AFB. But the end of the war in Korea and the advent of the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress had changed Air Force priorities, resulting in the Voodoo no longer being needed as a long-range escort fighter. However, Tactical Air Command (TAC) had plans for the fledgling fighter.
By Clemens Vasters from Viersen, Germany (McDonnell F-101B Voodoo) [CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
TAC Had a Different Vision
TAC saw the Voodoo as a potential fighter-bomber tasked with carrying a single Mark 28 nuclear weapon. Development of the F-101A continued and culminated when the first F-101A was delivered to the 27th Strategic Fighter Wing on 2 May 1957. The 27th became a TAC unit shortly thereafter. Also capable of toting the Mark 7, Mark 43, and Mark 57 nuclear weapons, the F-101A more often carried Falcon air-to-air missiles, conventional bombs, or rockets along with its four internally mounted 20 millimeter M39 cannons.
Fast But Short-Lived Camera Bird
The F-101A never did use any of the weapons it was designed to carry. Only 77 F-101As were built and most of them were modified to the RF-101A variant to perform aerial photo reconnaissance. The RF-101As were eventually phased out of service in 1972. RF-101As from the 363rd Tactical Reconnaissance Wing flew reconnaissance sorties over Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis out of Shaw AFB in South Carolina during October of 1962.
The Camera Bird That Went to War
The improved RF-101C reconnaissance variant saw combat in Vietnam. Photo Voodoos relied on their speed to get in, get the pictures, and get out quickly. All told the RF-101Cs flew 35,000 sorties and 39 of them were lost (all causes). After rotating stateside from Vietnam, RF-101Cs remained in service until 1979.
XF-88 Voodoo: McDonnell's F-One-Oh-Wonder Century Series Fighter 66
For the Rest of the Voodoo Review Bang NEXT PAGE Below
Southwest is breaking yet another tradition as the air travel industry undergoes major changes in 2025. This time, Southwest is axing free checked bags after an astounding 60 years.
The airline posted a press release mentioning the change while also highlighting how it will ‘drive revenue growth and reward its most loyal customers’.
Lone Holdout Institutes Bag Fees
Southwest Airlines issued a press release announcing the end of free checked bags for all customers after six decades. This change will take effect on 28 May, 2025.
The press release states that those who are not ‘Rapids Rewards A-List Preferred’ and ‘Business Select’ members will now be charged a fee for checked bags. Customers that reach either of the two aforementioned statuses will be given two free checked bags for each flight.
To qualify for ‘Rapids Rewards A-List Preferred’, customers must fly 40 qualifying one-way flights on Southwest or earn 70,000 Tier Qualifying Points (TQP) within a calendar year.
Alternatively, customers can pay for the Business Select fare option. Currently, the least expensive one-way flight from New York to Los Angeles on Southwest is $198 per passenger for the ‘Wanna Get Away’ economy class. The same flight costs $328 per passenger for the ‘Business Select’ class. If you have a large family, it might make more sense to just pay the bag fees.
Bags No Longer 'Fly Free' For All at Southwest Airlines 68
Other Southwest Announcements
Also announced in Southwest’s press release, the airline will make adjustments to Rapid Rewards points. ‘Wanna Get Away’ customers earn less, but ‘Business Select’ customers earn more. The Rapids Rewards program will also introduce redemption rates depending on the demand of certain flights.
Southwest Airlines President Bob Jordan commented on the new changes during the press release:
‘We have tremendous opportunity to meet current and future Customer needs, attract new Customer segments we don’t compete for today, and return to the levels of profitability that both we and our Shareholders expect…We will do all this while remaining focused on what’s made us strong—our People and the authentic, friendly, and award-winning Customer Service only they can provide.’
Back in December, Air Canada announced it will do away with free carry-on bags for economy class customers on domestic and flights involving the United States or the Caribbeans.
Under contract to deliver two 747-8i jets to become the new Air Force One fleet, Boeing has pushed back delivery until at least 2029. The initial agreement was for the aircraft to be ready in 2024. Boeing has cited reasons for their delay including rising costs, labor problems, and changing technical requirements. President Trump has made it clear that he is not happy about the situation.
The current Air Force One VC-25A. | Image: U.S. Air Force
New Air Force One contract signed in 2017.
During his first term in office, President Trump focused on the initial plans for two new aircraft. The Air Force and Boeing signed a $4.9 billion contract on 4 August 2017 to purchase two commercial 747-B aircraft, designated the VC-25B. They chose two aircraft that were supposed to go to Transaero, a Russian carrier that went out of business in 2015.
Aircraft originally destined for Russian airline
Boeing Spokesperson Caroline Hutcheson said the Russian airline never received the aircraft. She added that they were in storage in California. As the jets were already built, the contract with Boeing included plans for major modifications.
“Modifications to the aircraft will include incorporating a mission communications system, electrical power upgrades, a medical facility, an executive interior, a self-defense system, and autonomous ground operations capabilities,” said the Air Force in its announcement.
VC-25B flying near Mt. Fuji in Japan in 2017. | Image: U.S. Air Force
Fix-price deal for new Air Force One leads to problems
The contract was a fixed-price deal, which was supposed to cover all engineering, manufacturing, and development costs. As costs rose and requirements changed, this has led to conflict between Boeing and the Air Force.
After Boeing began work on the aircraft, the Air Force came up with some new technical requirements, partly due to security concerns. As the price was supposed to fixed, the Air Force expected Boeing to absorb any higher costs. These quickly became significant.
Andrew Hunter, former Air Force assistant secretary for acquisition, technology, and logistics, said it was challenging for the Air Force and Boeing to agree on who should pay for changes. He seemed to hint that Boeing was nitpicking the language in the Air Force’s requests.
Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun also sounded frustrated about the fixed nature of the contract, calling it “a very unique set of risks that Boeing probably shouldn’t have taken.”
Dimensions of old and new models of VC-25B aircraft with newer one being larger. | Image: Boeing
A variety of excuses for long delay for new Air Force One
Boeing mentioned facing higher expenses due to engineering changes, labor instability, and problems with suppliers. Their supply-chain issues are partly because some parts manufacturers for the 747 are no longer in business.
President Trump has been very involved with the project since his first term. He has made it clear he is frustrated by the delay.
President Trump unhappy with delays on delivery
“I’m not happy with the fact that it’s taken so long,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Feb. 19. “There’s no excuse for it.”
He recently toured a 12-year-old 747-8 aircraft owned by Qatar. He did so to learn about the configuration of the two new aircraft that will become the VC-25B fleet. The 747-B has more interior space than the current Air Force One and will accommodate more people.
President looking onto other options
President Trump’s frustration could be a bad sign for Boeing. In February, he said he was considering possibly buying used jets elsewhere and refurbishing them. Boeing gets 42% of its business from U.S. government contracts, and loss of any of this would seriously harm the corporation.
This situation could possibly result in Boeing losing future defense contracts, said Richard Aboulafia, a managing director at AeroDynamic Advisory, an aerospace consulting firm. This is a valid concern for Boeing as the President wants to reduce the defense budget. In February, he told the Pentagon to cut 8% from its budget each year for the next five years.
“Clearly, the president would like the airplane earlier, and so we’re working to see what could be done to accomplish that,” said Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg.
VC-25B over Mt. Rushmore | Image: U.S. Air Force
Boeing consulting with Elon Musk to address production issues
The delays on the new aircraft have led the President to seek what some might consider an unorthodox source for help: Elon Musk. Boeing reported that it was meeting with Musk to seek ways to speed up the project. The corporation seems to be welcoming his help.
“The President wants those planes sooner so we’re working with Elon to see what can we do to pull up the schedule of those programs,” said Ortberg.
The story of the “Cornfield Bomber” is quite possibly one of the weirdest stories – a pilot ejects, the jet crash lands…the jet gets repaired and then the pilot flies it again!
Like any Avgeek, there’s nothing better than reading about or even hearing first-hand unusual or oddball aviation stories. Most of them are comical, some are mysterious, and then you have some that will just leave you scratching your head. Personally, I love these stories, and the one I’m about to pass along has a little bit of all the above.
On 2 February 1970, Major Gary Foust and three other squadron mates from the 71st Fighter Interceptor Squadron took off from Malmstrom Air Force Base, located in Great Falls, Montana. The four aircraft flying this day were Convair F-106A Delta Darts. However, upon takeoff, one of the aircraft in the four-ship formation was forced to abort due to a mechanical issue, so the remaining three continued on for the training sortie.
According to Major Foust, the three aircraft were at about forty thousand feet practicing aerial combat maneuvers. After coming head-to-head with his opponent (the third aircraft from his squadron), they entered into a “vertical scissors” maneuver. During this time, while performing a high-speed rudder roll, the aircraft began to gyrate violently, sending it into an uncontrollable left-turn flat spin.
While spinning out of control and falling out of the sky, Major Foust frantically went through his emergency checklists while trying to recover the aircraft from the spin. Finally, after being prompted by his wingman, he ejected from the aircraft at approximately eight thousand feet.
This is where the story gets weird…
Once Major Faust ejected, he witnessed the aircraft immediately point its nose down, recover from the spin, and fly off! The plane flew to what he says was a number of miles away, before successfully belly-landing itself in a snow-covered wheat field outside of a town called Big Sandy, Montana. At that point, the aircraft skidded a couple hundred yards, where it came to rest with the engine still running at idle power until it ran out of fuel.
Once the Delta Dart was recovered and discovered to only have minor damage, it was sent to McClellan Air Force Base in California to be repaired and returned to service.
While serving at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida nine years later, Major Foust found himself piloting the same Delta Dart from which he had previously ejected. When his squadron commander realized the significance of the aircraft in their squadron, he ensured the pair would be joined once again. Fortunately, Major Foust never had to share the same experience with his aircraft as they had previously. He jokes that somebody gave it the nickname “Cornfield Bomber,” but to him it should be called the “Wheatfield Fighter.”
The Convair F-106A Delta Dart [S/N: 58-0787] that Major Gary Foust flew that day was finally retired and flown to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio in August of 1986. It is now preserved and on display in the Cold War gallery of the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton.
Convair F-106A: The Cornfield BomberThe Cornfield Bomber on display at the National Museum of the Air Force
Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg is slated to testify before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee in April, in a moment that could mark a turning point for the aerospace manufacturer.
The stakes are high, no doubt, but there’s room for cautious optimism as Boeing works to address its challenges. For those of us who follow aviation closely, this isn’t just a grilling–it’s an opportunity for Boeing to show it’s on the mend.
Washington Opens the Door for Progress
U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy speaks to students at the FAA Air Traffic Controller Academy in Oklahoma City, Okla. on 27 Feb 2025 | IMAGE: Secretary Sean Duffy on X
With the new administration has come a renewed sense of urgency to get Boeing back on its feet again. The April hearing was set in motion earlier this month when U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy called Ortberg to Washington, seeking a detailed update on Boeing’s efforts to bolster safety and quality.
I've requested that the Boeing CEO come to D.C. as soon as possible to provide a full accounting of the steps the company is taking to address its quality and safety issues. Following that, I will visit Boeing myself to evaluate firsthand the measures being implemented to ensure…
“I’ve requested that the Boeing CEO come to D.C. as soon as possible to provide a full accounting of the steps the company is taking to address its quality and safety issues,” Duffy announced on X on 13 February. “Following that, I will visit Boeing myself to evaluate firsthand the measures being implemented to ensure its planes meet the highest safety standards.”
Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg visits the 737 MAX production facility | IMAGE: Boeing
The push follows the Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 incident on 5 January 2024, when a 737 MAX 9’s door plug blew out mid-flight–a stark reminder of Boeing’s vulnerabilities. Paired with an FAA safety review, it’s clear why Duffy wants answers.
But there’s more to this than just oversight. Duffy will visit Boeing’s Seattle facilities in mid-March to see the company’s safety measures in action. Accompanying him on the visit will be acting FAA Administrator Chris Rocheleau. The FAA’s cap of 38 737 MAX jets per month, imposed after Flight 1282, remains in place. However, these engagements signal a willingness to work with Boeing toward solutions. If the company can demonstrate real progress, this could be the start of a thaw in regulatory tensions.
Showing Boeing Some ‘Tough Love’
Undelivered Boeing 737 MAX aircraft that were grounded by aviation agencies, seen parked at Boeing Field in Seattle in 2019 | IMAGE: SounderBruce, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Since taking office, Duffy has made his stance on Boeing crystal clear. During his confirmation hearing, he emphasized that safety isn’t negotiable, stating, “I’ll work with Congress and the FAA to restore global confidence in Boeing and to ensure that our skies are safe.”
“I’ll work with Congress and the FAA to restore global confidence in Boeing and to ensure that our skies are safe.”
U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy
That perspective shapes his upcoming Seattle visit and the Senate hearing. Duffy has said, “There’s a lot more work to do” when it comes to Boeing. This suggests he believes the company has the potential to turn things around if it prioritizes accountability over excuses. His hands-on involvement–coupled with a readiness to lift restrictions when warranted–offers Boeing a pragmatic partner in Washington, not just a critic. This “tough love” approach, as Duffy described it, could pave the way for progress if Boeing delivers.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, framed it with a balanced tone.
“Boeing has been a great American manufacturer, and all of us should want to see it thrive,” Sen. Cruz said in a press release. “Given Boeing’s past missteps and problems, the flying public deserves to hear what changes are being made to rehabilitate the company’s tarnished reputation.”
Boeing’s got a shot here to prove it’s listening–and acting.
The 737 MAX: Signs of Resilience
Delta Air Lines to Modernize Single-Aisle Fleet with Up to 130 Boeing 737 MAX Jets | IMAGE: Boeing
It’s no secret that the 737 MAX program has taken a beating. From the 2018 and 2019 crashes that grounded the type globally to the Flight 1282 wake-up call, the MAX continues to battle a negative image.
Duffy, during his confirmation hearing, stood firm: the production cap stays until Boeing proves it’s safe to lift. Fair enough–it’s a high bar, but not an impossible one. Boeing’s January 2025 delivery of 45 aircraft–the most in a month since 2023 and up from December’s 30–hints at momentum. It’s not a full rebound, but it’s a step in the right direction.
Against Airbus, Boeing’s still playing catch-up, though supply chain woes have kept the gap from getting too out of control. The MAX’s gradual return to form could steady Boeing’s footing, especially if the company leverages the scrutiny to refine its processes. There’s cautious hope here: Boeing knows the playbook. It just needs to execute.
Leadership Adjustments and Financial Flickers
IMAGE: Boeing
Leadership shifts offer a mixed but promising signal. Stephanie Pope stepped down as Chief Operating Officer on 19 February, per a 25 February regulatory filing. However, she will remain executive vice president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA).
Once a contender for Ortberg’s job, Pope’s streamlined role–and Boeing’s decision not to replace the COO–suggests a tighter focus on core priorities. It’s a leaner setup that could sharpen BCA’s edge.
CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA) Stephanie Pope at the 2023 Paris Air Show | IMAGE: Boeing
Financially, BCA has been battered. The division posted $36 billion in losses since 2019 across six tough years, thanks to the MAX grounding, the pandemic, and the Flight 1282 incident. In 2024 alone, the financial hit was $11.8 billion.
This period saw just over 2,200 planes delivered. Contrast that to 2013-2019, when BCA raked in $50 billion in profit from nearly 4,500 deliveries. Yet 2025 offers a glimmer: 550 projected deliveries and a $100 million operating profit. It’s modest, but it’s a pivot toward black ink–a sign Boeing’s digging out of the hole.
Certification as a Catalyst
A Boeing 737-10 with its gear extended | IMAGE: Boeing
Boeing’s certification efforts could be what finally lifts the aerospace titan out of this tough stretch. Issues with the stall-management yaw damper (SMYD) delay the 737-7 and 737-10. Meanwhile, the 777X still awaits approval (although it has finally resumed test flights after a five-month grounding). These three aircraft anchor Boeing’s 2025 strategy.
Clearing these hurdles would expand the fleet and ease pressure, showcasing technical prowess at a critical time. Delays would sting, no question, but Boeing’s track record suggests it can pull this off with the right focus.
Ortberg’s upcoming testimony is Boeing’s platform to outline a credible recovery plan, backed by Secretary Duffy’s Seattle visit as a real-work checkpoint. Washington’s tone isn’t just punitive–it’s pragmatic, offering Boeing a chance to prove itself.
In an industry defined by precision and trust, Boeing is doubling down on its strengths–engineering excellence, operational rigor, and a legacy worth fighting for.
The aviation world isn’t just watching; it’s rooting for Boeing to soar again.
For John Morgan, the sky has never just been a career—it’s been a lifelong journey. A journey that has taken him from the left seat of a Cherokee 140 at age 17 to the controls of the world’s last Douglas DC-8 flying humanitarian missions around the world.
As recently as two years ago, there were five operational Douglas DC-8s around the world. Sadly, with the retirement of NASA’s DC-8 last April, N782SP became the sole operational DC-8 after more than five decades of service. Between 1958 and 1972, 556 DC-8s were built at Douglas’ (later McDonnell Douglas) Long Beach, Calif. factory.
That makes John a member of a very elite club in aviation today.
IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
A Calling of Helping Others
As the senior DC-8 pilot for Samaritan’s Purse, a North Carolina-based Christian humanitarian organization that provides aid to people in need around the world, Morgan’s job is about more than just flying; it’s about delivering hope.
His path to this mission was anything but ordinary. After earning a degree in aviation management from Embry-Riddle, he took an entrepreneurial route, launching an FBO and a Part 135 charter operation in Mississippi.
For 18 years, he ran the business before selling and moving into the airline world. He started on the iconic DC-8 as a flight engineer, then worked his way up to crew. He eventually became a captain for Emery Worldwide. Along the way, he also flew for Fine Air and Rich International out of Miami. But just as his airline career was gaining momentum, the industry hit turbulence. Emery Worldwide shut down just a month before 9/11, and when the attacks happened, furloughs swept through the entire industry, leaving little opportunity in Part 121 flying.
So, Morgan pivoted back to corporate aviation, spending another 18 years flying business jets. He even launched another charter operation, Mid-South Jets, out of Memphis. But in 2020, he felt a new calling—one that led him to Samaritan’s Purse. Now, instead of transporting cargo for airlines or executives, he’s flying critical supplies into disaster zones, using decades of experience to navigate challenges that go far beyond the cockpit.
I recently had the privilege of chatting with John to talk about his incredible career, his love for the DC-8, and what it’s like to fly the last remaining airworthy example of this legendary aircraft.
The Journey to Samaritan’s Purse
Samaritan’s Purse Captain John Morgan pilots the last DC-8 in the US | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
AvGeekery: How did you land at Samaritan’s Purse?
John: I was at a point where I was looking for a place to retire from civilian aviation, but I also wanted to see if I could use all the experience God had given me in a way that served a greater purpose. Then, out of the blue, I got a notification that Samaritan’s Purse was looking for someone. It felt like the perfect fit.
This organization has given me an incredible opportunity to take everything I’ve learned in my career and use it for something bigger. It’s been an honor to be here during this time—to be part of incredible missions, to work with an amazing team, and to do this work with faith at the center of it all. I couldn’t have asked for a better way to close out my flying career.
The Douglas DC-8 is a Piece of Aviation History
IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
AvGeekery: With the retirement of NASA’s DC-8 last April, N782SP became the last remaining operational DC-8 flying in the world. Tell us about the background of this iconic aircraft.
John: Sure! Samaritan’s Purse started what we call the Heavy Lift program in 2016, but we actually identified this particular DC-8 back in 2015. One of the biggest advantages of N782SP is that it’s a combi aircraft—it can carry both cargo and passengers at the same time, which makes it a perfect fit for our mission profile.
Configuration of N782SP | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
Up front, we have space for ten cargo pallet positions, and in the back, we can seat 32 people—what we call our “disaster team relief members.” That setup allows us to bring both critical supplies and the personnel needed to respond to an emergency all in one trip. For example, we can load a fully equipped field hospital in the front and have doctors and nurses in the back, so when we land, we’re ready to go right away. Everything arrives at the same time, at the same place, without having to coordinate separate flights. That’s a huge advantage in disaster response.
Now, as for the aircraft itself, it’s technically a DC-8-72. Originally, it was built as a -62, which means it’s one of the shorter variants of the DC-8. But it was upgraded with larger CFM engines, which converted it into a -72. If you look at early DC-8s, they had much smaller, narrower engines. Then, in the 1970s, Douglas upgraded some of them with the bigger fan engines, and those aircraft were reclassified as -70 series models.
Douglas upgraded some of its -60 series DC-8s to -70 series by installing larger CFM engines during the 1970s | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
Remember, the DC-8 and the Boeing 707 actually came onto the market around the same time, both designed for transatlantic and transcontinental routes. Back in the late ’50s and early ’60s, engineers were figuring out the best way to pressurize the cabin. Boeing went with a system that used engine air to generate pneumatic pressure, but Douglas wasn’t convinced that was the safest option yet. So, on the DC-8, they installed inlets on the lower nose that fed air into four turbocompressors, which then pressurized the cabin. It was a different approach to solving the same problem.
Once the -70 series upgrade came along with the new engines, the DC-8 switched over to the more modern pneumatic system like the 707 had, but those inlets are still there. They’re a bit of a visual throwback to an earlier era of jetliner engineering. That’s what I love about this airplane—it’s a piece of aviation history that’s still out there doing important work.
56 Years Old and Still Going Strong
AvGeekery: Historic, indeed. N782SP just turned 56 years old and is still going strong. That’s impressive!
John: It really is. This aircraft was actually built on Christmas Eve in 1968, so that’s its “birthday,” so to speak. And for us, as a faith-based organization, the timing of that feels meaningful—this airplane has had quite the journey, and now it’s being used as a tool to serve people in crisis.
It’s got 98,000 hours on it, which is a lot for any aircraft, but it also speaks to the longevity of the DC-8. These jets were built to last. When I left the industry in 2001 after flying for Emery, DC-8s were everywhere in the cargo world. The passenger airlines had moved on to widebodies and more computerized aircraft, but in cargo, the DC-8 was still king. Almost every major cargo carrier—both in the U.S. and internationally—had them in their fleet.
Fast-forward to 2020, when I got back into the DC-8, and things had changed dramatically. At that point, only two DC-8s were still flying in the U.S.—ours at Samaritan’s Purse and NASA’s airborne science lab. The last major operator was UPS, but they retired their DC-8s in 2009. So, while the fleet as a whole has been inactive for quite a while, N782SP is still out here working hard.
This particular aircraft started its life with Finnair before being sold to the French military, who converted it from its original -60 series to a -70 series with the larger CFM engines.
The final commercial operator of what would become N782SP was Air Transport International, which operated the aircraft from 2005 through 2013 (REG: N721CX) | IMAGE: planespotters.net
After that, it ended up with ATI (Air Transport International) in Wilmington, Ohio, where it was modified into the combi configuration. Once ATI was done with it, it was stored in Roswell, New Mexico. That’s where a private individual purchased it, but before he could take possession or put it to use, Samaritan’s Purse stepped in.
In 2015, we were looking for an aircraft like this, and when we found it in Roswell, we reached out to the owner. A deal was made, and by 2016, it was officially part of the Samaritan’s Purse fleet. And it didn’t sit around collecting dust—within 24 hours of becoming operational, it was dispatched to Ecuador for earthquake relief. It flew five missions there right away, proving immediately why having a heavy-lift aircraft like this was such a game-changer for our international relief work. That was really the beginning of Samaritan’s Purse using large aircraft for global disaster response, and it’s been an invaluable asset ever since.
More than the DC-8: Samaritan’s Purse Utilizes a Fleet of 24 Aircraft
AvGeekery: Before acquiring the DC-8, what did Samaritan’s Purse use for its missions?
John: Before the DC-8, we already had a strong aviation program in place. Samaritan’s Purse has aviation assets in Alaska, North Carolina, Liberia, Uganda, and Kenya, with operations extending into South Sudan. A lot of our work there involves supporting refugee camps along the Sudanese border, so aviation plays a critical role in getting supplies and personnel where they need to be.
We also have a unique operation in Alaska called Operation Heal Our Patriots. It’s a program that provides marriage retreats for military personnel, law enforcement officers, and their spouses. They spend a week up there working on relationship restoration, and every week, a new group comes in. Since many of these retreats take place in remote locations, we operate Caravans, seaplanes, Otters, and two CASA C-212s to move people and supplies.
A Samaritan’s Purse CASA C-212 (REG: N499SP) in Alaska | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
Our corporate aviation hub, which includes King Airs and other corporate aircraft, is located at Wilkes County Airport (UKF) in Wilkesboro, North Carolina. That’s home base for many of our domestic operations.
When it comes to heavy lift, our base of operations is out of Piedmont Triad International Airport (GSO) in Greensboro, North Carolina. Our ministry headquarters is actually in Boone, North Carolina, and we base our heavy lift at GSO because it is the closest airport of size to headquarters. We started with the DC-8 in 2016, but last year we added a 1985-built 757-200 to the fleet. That move was part of our effort to modernize and expand our capabilities. Over in East Africa, we have two Caravans, a turbine DC-3, and a helicopter supporting our operations.
Samaritan’s Purse Boeing 757-200 (REG: N783SP) offloading relief supplies in Mexico after Hurricane Otis in 2023 | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
All told we have about 24 aircraft in the fleet, each playing a different role in the various programs we run. Aviation is a huge part of what makes Samaritan’s Purse effective in disaster response and humanitarian aid—it allows us to reach remote areas quickly and bring help where it’s needed most.
Preparing for a Relief Mission
Loading relief supplies into N782SP at GSO | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
AvGeekery: What is the process of preparing for a relief mission?
John: Here in Greensboro, we’re dedicated to heavy-lift operations, so when a disaster strikes—whether it’s an earthquake in Haiti or Ecuador, or a hurricane hitting a Caribbean nation—we’re ready to jump into action. As soon as the call comes in, everything shifts into high gear.
The logistics team decides what needs to be sent, and we start getting the aircraft prepped immediately. Everyone falls into their specialized roles—flight crews begin planning routes and fuel loads, loadmasters calculate weight and balance, and mechanics ensure the aircraft is ready to go. It’s a well-oiled machine that ensures that, by the time the freight is delivered to us, we’re able to dispatch immediately.
Most of our relief supplies are staged at our warehouse in Wilkesboro, about 90 minutes from Greensboro. That facility holds all kinds of life-saving equipment—roof tarps, water filtration systems, blankets, food kits—you name it. Over the years, we’ve refined the process so that by the time the cargo reaches us, it’s already netted, blanketed, and palletized, ready to be loaded onto the aircraft.
IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
For example, we were able to get a planeload of relief supplies—tarps and desalination units to provide fresh water for entire communities—into Grenada less than 24 hours after Hurricane Beryl made landfall last July.
We ended up flying three missions to Grenada after Beryl. On the second flight, it became clear they needed an emergency field hospital, so we flew that down along with the medical personnel to staff it. The third flight was a resupply mission.
Samaritan’s Purse DC-8 (N782SP) cargo hold | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
The DC-8 plays a key role in these efforts. It’s usually the “tip of the spear”—the first response aircraft delivering that crucial initial payload of freight, personnel, or both. Then, as more information comes in from the ground, we adjust our response accordingly. By the second or third flight, Samaritan’s Purse is often able to shift to working with local vendors and other logistical support, allowing us to stand down and prepare for the next mission. It’s all about getting in quickly, delivering immediate relief, and then transitioning to long-term recovery efforts.
Every Role on the Team is Essential
IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
AvGeekery: What is the typical makeup of personnel on board the aircraft?
John: On the DC-8, we carry three main crew members: a pilot, a first officer, and a flight engineer. In addition, we always have at least one flight attendant—sometimes two, depending on the mission.
A flight mechanic also travels with us everywhere we go. That’s critical because when we’re flying into disaster zones or remote areas, we can’t always rely on local maintenance support. If something needs fixed while we’re on the ground, our mechanic is there to handle it.
And then there’s our loadmaster. They’re responsible for making sure everything is properly loaded, secured, and balanced. They also handle any hazardous materials, weight distribution, and offloading procedures when we arrive.
IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
That’s our normal crew setup, but depending on the mission, we may adjust as needed. Every role is essential, and we all work together to make sure the operation runs smoothly from takeoff to touchdown.
AvGeekery: Are you a part of every heavy lift mission?
John: We have a rotation of pilots, so you’re not usually tasked with every one of them. We have pilots that can fly the 757, the DC-8, or both.
A Relic of a Bygone Era
DC-8 Captain John Morgan works a flight on the Samaritan’s Purse DC-8, the last DC-8 in the USA | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
AvGeekery: What is it like to fly the DC-8?
John:(laughing) Well, it’s old like me, so she and I get along real well. We feel like we came from the same era.
The DC-8 is a big, cable-driven airplane with some hydraulics, but it’s sluggish compared to modern jets. It’s not tight and responsive like the newer, computer-controlled aircraft. It’s more of a lumbering bird. You feel every bit of its size and weight in the controls.
One of the biggest differences from newer aircraft is that the DC-8 doesn’t have an APU (auxiliary power unit). So, anywhere we go, we need ground support—an external power unit, an external start cart, and an air unit strong enough to spin the engines. That’s one of the drawbacks.
Another unique thing about the DC-8 is that it doesn’t have flight spoilers. Modern aircraft use spoilers to increase drag, allowing for rapid descents to meet ATC requirements. The DC-8 doesn’t have that, so you have to plan descents well in advance. You can’t just drop out of the sky and make a quick altitude change.
And then there’s the flight engineer. On today’s airliners, automation reigns supreme. But on the DC-8, you need a third crew member to monitor all the systems and manually transfer fuel between tanks. The cockpit has a lot of old-school “switchology.” Everything is mechanical, and there is no automation like in modern jets.
The DC-8 also lacks leading-edge devices like slats or leading-edge flaps, so it can’t generate extra lift for takeoff. That means it needs a long runway to get off the ground. Landing, though, is a different story—it can stop fairly short.
IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
It’s a great airplane once you’re familiar with it, but you have to think ahead. You can’t throw it into a tight turn like a fighter jet—it takes time to maneuver. And crosswind landings? That’s another challenge. Unlike most aircraft where you dip a wing into the wind, the DC-8’s engine pods sit low to the ground, so you can’t bank more than five degrees, or you risk striking an engine. Instead, you have to crab into the wind all the way down and straighten out just before touchdown. If you get it right, the correction and the landing happen simultaneously.
It’s an old-school aircraft, for sure, but that’s what makes flying it so rewarding.
Being Mindful of the DC-8’s Operational Limitations
IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
AvGeekery: Would you say that leads to more go-arounds?
John Morgan: I didn’t notice that to be the case a lot in my career, but it really depends on where you’re flying. For instance, one of our regular stops in Europe is Prestwick, Scotland (PIK). Typically, we’re too heavy to fly nonstop from GSO to our final destination, so we have to stop in Prestwick to refuel or sometimes even overnight, depending on the mission. It’s a great airport, but like any airport in the North Atlantic, high winds and wild North Atlantic storms can hit at any time. The runway layout there can sometimes lead to crosswind issues that exceed our aircraft’s limits. So we have to monitor those conditions closely.
There are times when we might have to reroute to Shannon, Ireland (SNN), where the runways are more aligned with the prevailing winds and we don’t have as much of a crosswind issue. It’s about being aware of your surroundings and planning for the weather, especially in places with challenging conditions.
When it comes to density altitude, this DC-8 is certified to operate up to an elevation of 8,500 feet. For example, we’ve done several missions into Mekelle, Ethiopia (MQX), which is at 7,700 feet. That’s already getting close to the high end of its certification range for takeoffs and landings.
You see similar challenges in places like Mexico City (MEX), which is at 7,350 feet, or Quito, Ecuador (UIO), at almost 7,900 feet. Kathmandu, Nepal (KTM), is at 7,400 feet. You have to recognize how these elevated airports impact the performance of the aircraft. At higher elevations, the air is thinner, so you don’t get as much thrust or lift as you would at sea level. This means you have to be especially mindful of the aircraft’s limitations when operating in these conditions. It’s all about adapting to the environment and ensuring safe operations.
Only One DC-8 Simulator Exists–and it’s in Ohio
The last DC-8 simulator in the world is in Wilmington, Ohio | IMAGE: 240sxdrifter via Imgur.com
AvGeekery: Kathmandu is a notoriously unique airport to fly in and out of. Is there special training required for crews to fly into KTM?
John: Yes, there is special training involved, especially when it comes to the approach into Kathmandu. The DC-8 is a bit of a challenge in those conditions because, as I mentioned earlier, we don’t have flight spoilers, which means our descent planning has to be a lot more precise. Kathmandu is particularly tricky because the approach involves some pretty steep terrain, and getting down to the airport’s altitude requires careful management of the aircraft’s descent rate. You really need to use the flaps, the gear, and keep the nose pointed down to maintain the descent rate necessary to complete the approach.
As for training, there’s only one simulator in the world for the DC-8, and that’s in Wilmington, Ohio. The simulator is owned by Airborne Training Services and entered service with what was formerly Airborne Express in 1990. It’s a Category B simulator, which is limited in some ways compared to today’s Category D simulators. A Cat B sim can help with some of the training, but it’s not aligned perfectly with the aircraft’s characteristics, so you can’t complete a full type rating in it. For specific situations like flying into Kathmandu, the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN) requires that you have experience or practice with the approach.
We recreated the Kathmandu approach as closely as we could in Wilmington, but it wasn’t an approved format. So, we had to go to FlightSafety in Savannah, which has a simulator that is programmed with the specific Kathmandu approach. There, we could complete the necessary training and certification to be approved by the CAAN to fly that route. It’s a lot of work, but it’s necessary to ensure we’re completely familiar with such a challenging approach.
Relying on Outdated Technology
The cockpit of N782SP | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
AvGeekery: Would you say the biggest challenge of the DC-8 is not having modern-day technology?
John Morgan: Yeah, those are real key issues. While we’ve updated the avionics and have worldwide GPS now, as well as CPDLC (Controller Pilot Data Link Communications), which allows for texting with air traffic control rather than using radio, there are still a lot of limitations compared to modern aircraft. CPDLC is especially useful when we’re flying over the ocean, as it reduces radio congestion and makes communication clearer than high-frequency radios. It’s a huge help in those long oceanic flights. We also have sat phones, so we can literally pick up a phone if needed, but that’s a backup.
However, we don’t have some of the newer technologies that would make flying a lot easier. For example, our 1985 757 has autoland, which can actually land the plane and brake it perfectly on the runway. The DC-8 doesn’t have that, and navigation is much less precise.
The autopilot in the DC-8 is much like an old version you’d find in a small plane—it works, but it’s not as smooth or responsive as modern systems. And in today’s aircraft, automation is everything. They’ll calculate everything for you, tell you what to do if something goes wrong, and make it all as seamless as possible. On the DC-8, we have to rely on physical charts and manuals to look things up or figure out what to do in an emergency. You just adapt your thinking and planning around that.
So, yeah, the lack of modern features like those leading-edge devices, autopilot, and automated systems definitely makes it more challenging. But it’s something you learn to manage. The systems are older, slower, and not as precise, but you adjust your speed, planning, and approach accordingly.
Samaritan’s Purse Has No Plans to Retire N782SP Anytime Soon
IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
AvGeekery: What is the future of N782SP?
John: As long as the ministry has a need for it, N782SP will stay in service. There’s always a need, and it’s hard to replace something that fits the mission so perfectly. There may come a time down the road when it will be grounded due to things like parts becoming unavailable, the simulator no longer being accessible, or not being able to find qualified pilots. I don’t know when that will happen, but right now, our intent is to keep it going.
The DC-8’s combi layout is ideal for the ministry’s needs, and finding a comparable replacement is tough. Very few 757 combis still exist, and those are pretty much all in operation with other air carriers. While a 757 or 767 could offer similar range and payload, they don’t have the combi conversion. This meant that we’d lose the ability to carry both passengers and cargo on the same flight. If we replaced the DC-8 with one of those, we’d have to rethink how we do the mission. Passengers would need to travel via other means, like on an airline, which changes everything. So, for now, we plan to keep flying it.
Eventually, though, the DC-8 will reach the end of her run. That is a reality we will have to face at some point.
AvGeekery: So, for now, it’s full speed ahead?
John Morgan: For now, yes. You know, I can’t say enough about the maintenance team here. They are superb. I’ve flown DC-8s all my life and have worked with a lot of maintenance teams, but these guys are extraordinary. They keep the aircraft in top-notch condition, and they don’t allow anything to deteriorate. They address issues immediately.
I think their dedication to the mission is a huge part of what makes this work. We’re all driven by the same heart for God, and everyone understands how important it is to get these planes where they need to go. We’re all trying to be the hands and feet of Jesus, and the team’s commitment to keeping the DC-8 flying is a testament to that.
Even with the limitations of an older aircraft, we’ve established protocols that keep us safe and on track. The fact that we’ve done 42 missions to Poland—sometimes one or two times a week—for an aircraft that’s almost 60 years old is a testament to God’s blessings and the incredible team we have.
Trust Your Training, Your Team, and Your Purpose
IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
AvGeekery: Have you experienced any scares or emergencies in your time as a DC-8 pilot?
John: I’ve had my fair share of heart-stopping moments. One that comes to mind is a false fire warning. Now, when that fire warning light goes off, you don’t know if it’s false. You just see this big red light flashing, alarms blaring, and you go straight into emergency mode. Everyone’s running through the checklist, and in that moment, you’re assuming the worst. Turns out, it wasn’t a fire—it was just an overheat situation. But you don’t get the luxury of assuming that in the moment. You treat it like the real deal until you’re absolutely sure.
And then, of course, there are those times when the weather keeps things interesting. You run into terrible conditions on approach, and suddenly, it’s not just about flying—it’s about making sure you can get the aircraft stable before touchdown. Sometimes, that final approach is rough enough that you feel your heart jump into your throat, and you have to decide if you can land or if it’s time to go around. Those moments test your skills, but they also remind you why good training and experience matter.
I also had a CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) warning when I was flying with Miami. We were on approach to Guatemala City, Guatemala (GUA) completely in the clouds, and the captain had gone slightly off course because of a bad vector. Suddenly, the CFIT alarm goes off—meaning either the terrain is coming up fast, or we are coming down too fast toward it.
And let me tell you, when you’re in the soup with no visibility and that thing starts screaming at you, you react immediately. We made the necessary corrections and climbed out of it, but for a few seconds, we had no idea what the threat actually was—we just had to trust the warning and act. Obviously, we didn’t hit the mountains, but it’s one of those moments that stays with you.
Flying into high-risk areas presents its own set of challenges. We go to high-risk areas, but we haven’t had a high-risk outcome in the places that we go. One mission to Nepal had us flying over a small sliver of Afghanistan. We had clearance, but you always keep in mind that the State Department advises staying above 33,000 feet—high enough to avoid shoulder-launched missiles. It’s a stark reminder that while we’re up there doing our job, things on the ground can be unpredictable.
Then you have the geopolitical side of things, which can complicate a mission. When I was flying to Armenia, Turkey—because of its support for Azerbaijan—wouldn’t let us take the most direct route through their airspace. That forced us to go over the Black Sea. Normally, this might sound fine, except that’s where the Russian Black Sea fleet is. With the ongoing war in Ukraine, Russia has been jamming GPS signals to protect their fleet from satellite-guided munitions. Problem is, we need those satellites to navigate.
So now you’re crossing the Black Sea, navigating without reliable GPS, and relying on your own situational awareness and Turkish air traffic control to make sure you stay exactly where you’re supposed to be. You don’t want to accidentally drift into a war zone or an intercept situation. Everyone in the cockpit is locked in—it’s not fear, but a heightened level of awareness. You stay on your A-game until you clear the area and the GPS comes back online. It’s a reminder of just how connected aviation is to global events.
You’re constantly adapting to whatever’s thrown at you. But we’re a faith-based organization, and we’re bold in what we do. We believe in our mission, and we operate with absolute professionalism. Risk management is a big part of it. We take every precaution to make sure we’re handling things the right way. At the end of the day, you trust your training, your team, and your purpose. That’s how you get the job done.
Memories Made Along the Way
John Morgan and his team in Poland, preparing to evacuate Ukrainian refugees to Canada | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
AvGeekery: What are some of your most memorable missions?
Ukraine
John: Definitely the Ukrainian mission. That one was special because we got to really see and interact with the people who had lost so much. A lot of times, we’re just the connection—the ones flying the supplies in or transporting people to a safer place—but in Ukraine, we were right there, bringing people into the open arms of Samaritan’s Purse. They were stepping off our aircraft after escaping unimaginable circumstances, and Samaritan’s Purse was there to help them through it.
As a flight crew, we don’t always get to see that side of the mission. In places like Mekelle (Ethiopia) or Chad, we see the locals, but we don’t always meet the people receiving the life-saving aid. Sometimes, they’re incredibly appreciative. Other times, they’re just trying to figure out who we are and why we’re there. And those are the moments when we get to talk to them, to explain that we’re with Samaritan’s Purse, here to help in Jesus’ name. That we’re an international relief organization. It’s meaningful to be part of that conversation.
The Afghanistan Withdrawal
We were also flying into an air base outside of Doha in 2021 when the Afghanistan withdrawal was happening, and the suicide bombing at the Kabul airport took place. That base was where all the Afghanistan operations were being directed from during wartime and, of course, during the withdrawal. We had people on board who were originally headed into Afghanistan to assist with the situation on the ground.
But while we were in the air, everything changed. Suddenly, the entire military operation was shifting, and by the time we landed, their mission had completely changed. A lot of Afghan refugees had already been brought to the air base. Our people ended up being redirected to assist with the encampments there instead. That’s just how it goes in these kinds of operations—one moment, you have a clear plan, and the next, you’re adapting in real-time to whatever is happening on the ground.
A Coup in Niger
Geopolitical issues impact our flights all the time. One example that sticks out is when we had an aircraft departing the Canary Islands for Chad. The crew was literally at the end of the runway, ready to take off. Suddenly, they were told they couldn’t go because a coup was unfolding in Niger. The airspace was shut down while we were on the ground, and that meant we couldn’t take the planned route. We had to delay for a day, figure out a completely new routing that avoided Niger’s airspace, and make sure we weren’t flying through an active conflict zone.
That’s the kind of thing people don’t always realize about what we do. These flights aren’t like going from Memphis to New York, where you have radar coverage, air traffic controllers guiding you the whole way, and perfect communications. When we operate, there’s always an element of unpredictability. Airspace restrictions, geopolitical tensions, even just the basic infrastructure—everything is tenuous. You always have to be ready to adapt.
The Ukraine Missions: “A Reminder of Why We Do What We Do”
A mother and her child board N782SP in Poland | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
AvGeekery: Take us back to the Ukraine mission. Samaritan’s Purse played a crucial role in humanitarian relief in the opening days of the Ukraine-Russia war. Tell us more about why that was such a special mission for you.
John: When the war broke out, we were there within a week. Our initial missions were to Poland. Like any disaster response, we never know how many flights we’ll end up making. It just evolves based on the need. At first, we were flying twice a week for several months, then we scaled back to once a week. In total, we completed 42 missions to Poland—it was a significant effort over an extended period of time.
One thing that made this mission especially meaningful was that, as pilots, we don’t usually get to see the final impact of what we’re carrying. Most of the time, we land, offload, and take off again without witnessing where the supplies go. But in this case, we were able to be part of something even bigger.
We all saw on the news how, in those early days, Ukrainian men had to stay behind and fight while women, children, and the elderly fled. Canada, which has one of the largest Ukrainian populations outside of Ukraine, launched a special program to accept as many refugees as possible, provided they met the requirements. Samaritan’s Purse Canada worked through our teams already on the ground in Poland and Ukraine to organize return flights for displaced Ukrainians. Instead of flying back empty, we transported families. We relocated women, children, grandmothers, and grandfathers to Toronto, where Samaritan’s Purse Canada helped them start fresh.
Boarding the long flight to Toronto | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
For the first time, our flight crews had direct contact with the people we were helping. These were families who had lost everything. They had a single suitcase, a coat, maybe a hat. Many had walked for miles from their homes in Ukraine to reach the Polish border. Then they made their way to Krakow or Warsaw, where they were gathered for evacuation. Seeing their resilience and being part of their journey was incredibly moving.
There were moments on those long flights that really stood out. Sometimes, a passenger with musical talent would help lift spirits. I remember one flight where a woman played Ukrainian songs on her fiddle, and her children sang along. It was beautiful—such a powerful moment of nationalism, hope, and emotion. For all of us onboard, it was a reminder of why we do what we do.
In total, we completed ten of those refugee flights, relocating about 300 people to safety. It was an honor to be part of that mission, to be the nexus between everything they had known and the start of something new.
Preparing to evacuate Ukrainian refugees from Poland to Canada in 2022 | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
Heeding the Call: Exploring Humanitarian Aviation
AvGeekery: What advice do you have for folks who have an interest in humanitarian aviation?
John Morgan: There are some really good organizations out there to look into. If you’re already a trained pilot, I’d recommend exploring faith-based aviation programs. Many of these organizations operate in different parts of the world.
If you’re looking to start training—whether as a mechanic or a pilot—there are some great schools out there that focus specifically on missionary and humanitarian aviation. Liberty University in Virginia, LeTourneau University in Texas, Moody Aviation in Washington, and the School of Missionary Technology in Michigan are all excellent options. I’m sure there are others, but these are some of the well-known programs that prepare people for this kind of work. They don’t just train you to fly. They teach you how faith-based aviation missions operate and how to be effective in the field.
Typically, when you start out, you’d begin flying something like a Cessna 182 or a Cessna 206. These are examples of aircraft that are great for short fields and can carry a solid payload. As you gain experience, you’d eventually qualify to fly a Cessna Caravan, which is a single-engine turbine. That’s actually the smallest aircraft we operate at Samaritan’s Purse. Once you reach that level, SP would love to have a conversation with you about serving in one of the locations where we have aircraft stationed.
Many of the people working here came through schools like Moody or LeTourneau. They knew early on that this was the direction they wanted to go. They felt called to join a faith-based aviation mission, and they sought out the right training to make that happen. I’d highly encourage anyone who feels that same calling to pursue it.
It’s not easy work. It’s challenging in so many ways. But it’s also incredibly rewarding. I will forever be grateful that I played a small part in it.
