AvTalk Episode 254: The bolts, they are missing

AVT 254 Transcript
EPISODE 254
[EPISODE]
[0:00:07] IP: Hello, and welcome to episode 254 of AvTalk. I am Ian Petchenik, here, as always
with –
[0:00:16] JR: Jason Rabinowitz. How are you, Ian? We're back on Wednesday.
[0:00:20] IP: We're back on a Wednesday. We've been very, very off schedule the last few
weeks for a variety of reasons, but we're back on schedule. Yeah, I feel right. How are you, sir?
[0:00:32] JR: I'm good. I'm good. We're still a couple hours off from our normal recording time,
because I'm off today and I'm not working, so I can record before 5. What a day. What a feeling.
[0:00:41] IP: What is this madness?
[0:00:43] JR: I don't know, but it's been a week already.
[0:00:45] IP: Yeah, it's been a week already, and it's shaping up to be quite the weekend.
Should we start with what hasn't happened yet? I think just to get it out of the way with.
[0:00:54] JR: Sure.
[0:00:54] IP: Last week we talked about Taylor Swift's anticipated flight and it's still going on.
Hopefully, all of this is over and done with this weekend. I cannot wait for it to be over. My
dearest hope is that it will introduce flight tracking and being an av geek to a whole new
segment of the population. That is my strident call. But I didn't know that I would still be talking
about this. But I stand by what I said last week, where I don't think the flight's going to go
directly from Tokyo to Las Vegas. I'm sticking by that, and I just wanted to re-up my statements
on that, just so that we can talk about it later on. Done.
© 2024 AvTalk 1
AVT 254 Transcript
[0:01:40] JR: Done. Well, I mean, she could. Area 51 is probably the next nearby airport with
capacity. Could connect down on Janet? Why not, right? If anyone can do it –
[0:01:51] IP: Why not?
[0:01:52] JR: Why not?
[0:01:53] IP: Let's not feed any conspiracy theories. The other thing that I wanted to bring up
from last week is that so many of you sent in heartwarming and funny and earnest stories about
how you became av geeks, that I'm still working through all of them and I haven't had a chance
to really edit them down, so that we can present them on the podcast quite yet. Keep those
coming and I'm working my way through them. I'm about two thirds of the way through them.
Those that have come in so far. Please, keep them coming. If you've got them, email us at
podcast@fr24.com and we'll have those in the next couple episodes to share with everyone.
Thank you. Thank you all so much.
Last week, we said that it was entirely possible that we could get the preliminary report on
Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 by the end of the week. That didn't happen, but it did happen at the
beginning of this week. We now have a very thorough preliminary report from the NTSB.
Weighing in at a whopping 13.3 megabytes, one downloaded.
[0:02:59] JR: That poor NTSB server. It still has not recovered.
[0:03:02] IP: It's trying so hard. Accident number DCA24MA063, in case you want to look it up.
Or, you could just download the copy of the report that we've linked to in the show notes and
save yourself some trouble. We learned what we already assumed had happened, happened.
But we get a lot more information from the NTSB about the life of this particular aircraft.
[0:03:32] JR: Yeah, a lot more details than expected. Usually, these preliminary reports are
pretty much, here's what happened. We already know what happened. That's typically what you
get. Then it says, “Okay, we'll issue a final report and check back in a couple of years, perhaps.”
We got a lot more this time around. I think this is the most comprehensive preliminary report that
I have come across.
© 2024 AvTalk 2
AVT 254 Transcript
[0:03:53] IP: Yeah, absolutely. I think the NTSB knew that there was going to be an incredible
amount of interest in this particular report. Judging by how buckly their website was yesterday, I
think they were right. The preliminary report walks through what the mid-cabin exit door plug is,
how it comes to be part of the 737-9 MAX aircraft, and then what happened with this specific
aircraft, as far as the first walking through the accident flight, a timeline of the accident flight,
and then the manufacturing of the door plug, as well as the manufacturing of the fuselage,
because that becomes a very important point in this particular accident.
Let's start with the door plug, I suppose. The door plug was manufactured by Spirit
AeroSystems in Malaysia in March of 2023. It was received in August of 2023 by Spirit in
Wichita. It was assembled on to the fuselage and then shipped via rail to Boeing, who received
it on the last day of August 2023. Upon receipt, Boeing goes to the fuselage and makes note of
anything that isn't exactly as it is supposed to be.
[0:05:27] JR: Which these days is quite a large number of items.
[0:05:32] IP: What they do is they perform an inspection and they note any defects, or
discrepancies, according to the NTSB, that's their phrase, and they create a non-conformance
record, an NCR. That non-conformance record stipulates where the part is, what exactly isn't
properly done, and what needs to be done to fix it. On the 1st of September, the day after the
fuselage arrived at Boeing in Washington, they created an NCR, noting, and I'm quoting the
NTSB preliminary report here, “Five damaged rivets on the edge frame forward of the left MED
plugs, a mid-cabin exit door plug.” The NTSB provides a very detailed photo of this non-
conformance finding.
Based on the photo, it appears that they take orange tape and put long strips of orange tape on
any of these non-conformities. The aircraft was noted, and then Spirit AeroSystems personnel
who are in Washington, Jason, I believe you called them the warranty workers?
[0:06:48] JR: Warranty workers, yeah. I believe, that's what the reference is to them, that Spirit
has so many quality defects coming on its assembled airframes to Boeing that Spirit have to
have a team of warranty workers at Boeing's Renton facility to fix what they have already
© 2024 AvTalk 3
AVT 254 Transcript
delivered to Boeing and actually take care of that at the factory in Renton with Boeing. Not
Boeing workers, but Spirit workers at Boeing's factory, working, presumably, to fix what Boeing
quality assurance workers have spotted themselves.
[0:07:23] IP: I'll back up a step, and I want to give the NTSB some real credit here for including
the photos that describe the issues in the preliminary report. The photos themselves come from
Boeing workers, who are noting these defects, noting these findings, and taking pictures of them
and sending them wherever they need to be sent, either between different teams, or up the
ladder, or over to Spirit and things like that. They were able to collect all of these photos.
The NTSB says that documents and photos show that to perform the replacement of the
damaged rivets, access to the rivets required opening the left MED plug. To open the MED plug,
as we now know, the two vertical movement arrestor bolts and two upper guide track bolts had
to be removed. Then there's a helpful picture of the MED plug open on that particular aircraft, as
they work on the damaged rivets.
Then, records show that the rivets were replaced per engineering requirements on September
19th by Spirit AeroSystem’s personnel. Photo documentation obtained from Boeing shows
evidence of the left-hand MED plug closed with no retention hardware bolts in the three visible
locations. The photo shows insulation covering the upper left as you're looking from the inside of
the aircraft, the upper left guide track. You can only see where the three bolts, three of the four
bolts should be. But the visuals indicate that there are no bolts in that particular, in those
particular locations. This image was attached to a text message between Boeing team members
on September 19th.
[0:09:05] JR: Yeah. Crucially, the photos are really helpful that the NTSB was thankfully able to
source from, presumably, both Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems, that there is a photo showing the
door plug and I quote, “Immediately before interior restoration.” They have circles around three
locations that apparently, clearly show the retaining bolts missing, and the two vertical
movement arrestor bolts and the forward guide, upper guide track bolt also missing. The aft
upper guide track is already covered with insulation. At that point, it was pulled back to complete
the necessary rivet work on the right side of the door plug. This was on the left side.
© 2024 AvTalk 4
AVT 254 Transcript
It's just outstanding and really great work that they were able to – that Boeing documented so
closely that they have photos all along the procedure of the damaged rivets, the door being
opened for the work that the door plug being reinserted right before the cabin was restored, as
they were saying. The cabin restoration would be things like, putting the insulation back on the
side wall, putting the seats back on, the wiring for the in-seat power. Once that's done, that's it.
The aircraft is ready to go.
At that point, as that door plug is about to be basically, we sewn back it up into the aircraft so
you can't even see it. You can't even know it's there. Those bolts are not there. That is the very,
very big question of why are those bolts not there? Jon Ostrower has a very good write-up
about the anatomy of this very situation that the NTSB has confirmed. That was Jon's article, I
believe, was inspired by the anonymous comment on Liam [inaudible 0:10:47] blog weeks ago
at this point, that really indicated that there was a massive and still is a massive communication
breakdown between Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems, how they use different systems. Systems
don't talk to each other. Things are happening out of sync. They're happening after the aircraft is
brought out of the hangar, out of sequence with other items. The worst-case scenario happened
here was where the bolts just didn't get put back in, presumably.
That is what the NTSB's investigation so far doesn't conclude, they are not concluding anything,
but it is strongly suggesting that Boeing forgot to put the bolts back in. Honestly, if the bolts were
never there, I'm quite shocked that this door plug remained in place for as long as it did.
Thankfully, it wiggled its way off the airframe at one of the least bad times for it to be doing that
in the air.
[0:11:43] IP: Yeah. The preliminary report paints a picture that is already not great, about the
workmanship that happens between Spirit and Boeing. I can only assume that the focus moving
forward is going to be a lot on what just Jason just talked about, is how Boeing and Spirit
Systems and personnel talk to each other and work together. How do they make sure that
they're speaking the same language? Because if they're not, apparently, bolts don't get put back
on to door plugs.
[0:12:27] JR: Yeah. Where are the bolts is, I think, a very valid question. It's not helped here by
Spirit AeroSystems having to do the work and Boeing having to do some other work to enable
© 2024 AvTalk 5
AVT 254 Transcript
Spirit to do that work. You have two different sets of people doing two different tasks and two
different systems, presumably talking to each other, since we have photos, which is good, so
there's some communication. But apparently, it is not enough.
Now that we know almost definitively that the bolts were never installed, they were missing,
because they weren't there, the aircraft left the factory and was delivered without the bolts. I
think this is going under the radar a bit right now. It raises the question of, why were there so
many other aircraft with so many loose bolts? Those were almost discovered by accident at this
point. There wasn't an issue with loose bolts on this aircraft, because there weren't any bolts to
be loose.
In the dozens of aircraft that Alaska and United inspected, they were finding loose bolts on
these aircraft, which is a whole other manufacturing problem, that this NTSB investigation may
look at, but this investigation is not centered around that. There damn well better be another
one, because that seems to be a whole other problem.
[0:13:44] IP: I can't speak for the NTSB. But it seems to me that an expanded scope of inquiry,
which they did not rule out in any way, shape or form, would be warranted here to understand
what processes are going into these, we’ll stick with the Boeing term, quality escapes, and how
those can be nipped once and for all. Can the NTSB make any safety recommendations?
[0:14:13] JR: It's scary when you think about it this way. I think it's in an even worse scenario
here, where the bolts were just straight up missing. They weren't loose. They didn't become
loose over time. They didn't break free. They just weren't there. The whole situation with other
bolts being loose is just – there is a bigger production quality issue happening at Spirit and
Boeing at this point. This is just the red herring, or I guess, or the straw that breaks the camel's
back, because there is something very rotten going on on the assembly line of the 73.
Thankfully, this particular issue reared its head in a way that didn't injure anyone, but this is not
good. I don't know where Boeing goes from here, but I hope the NTSB and I assume they will, I
hope, they look further into this, because bolts being missing and bolts being loose are two very
different situations.
© 2024 AvTalk 6
AVT 254 Transcript
[0:15:04] IP: Speaking of loose bolts, an update on the 737-9 MAX fleet. 97% of all of the mid-
cabin exit door plug bearing aircraft have reentered service. All but one of United's aircraft are
back in service and Alaska still has five out of service. Turkish, Copa, and Aeromexico have all
returned their entire MAX 9 fleets to service. Just six more planes to go.
[0:15:34] JR: All right, they're getting there. Almost done. I guess, all eyes will be on the
accident aircraft to see when that gets put back into service.
[0:15:42] IP: Indeed.
[0:15:43] JR: Might be a little while.
[0:15:44] IP: Might be a while. Might be a while.
[0:15:45] JR: Yeah, it wasn't really much damage to it, but going to be a while.
[0:15:49] IP: We'll keep it on the ground for a minute. Speaking elsewhere of 737 MAX aircraft,
Jason, I'm sorry. I'm going to go a little out of order here. Let's stick with Spirit and problems,
and then we'll back our way into Mike Whitaker's testimony in front of Congress this week.
There's another issue with the 737 MAX. 50 aircraft that are currently undelivered have been
flagged for non-conformance. Rivet holes on the fuselages “may not have been drilled exactly to
our requirements,” says Boeing. That means it's a Spirit problem. They were alerted to the
problem by Spirit of the issue. This could delay some “near-term 737 deliveries.”
[0:16:37] JR: What else is new? It's hard to keep talking about this topic, because it's just
something else every day. It's the same thing repeating itself, just with a different particular.
[0:16:46] IP: All that to say that FAA Chief, Michael Whitaker, was in front of Congress this week
and said, “I need more people.” They need more inspectors. They need more “boots on the
ground. We don't have that many inspectors on the aircraft certification side of the house.”
Perhaps, that might be some appropriations that Congress wants to lay out.
© 2024 AvTalk 7
AVT 254 Transcript
[0:17:14] JR: Yeah, that would be pretty good. I can't find the exact quote right now. I think at
some point, he did say that the FAA is not Boeing's quality assurance division. It shouldn't be in
that position. You shouldn't have to have an FAA safety inspector looking over the shoulder of
every Boeing employee to make sure that they tighten every bolt and every bolt is in the place it
should be and every hole is drilled correctly and everything is here and everything is there. You
shouldn't need an army of inspectors doing this. I have to wonder how EASA does it with Airbus.
What's the ratio of inspectors to workers over there in the France and Germany assembly lines?
I would love to know that.
[0:17:56] IP: That's a great question. We know the numbers at the FAA. We know it's about two
dozen on-site with Boeing.
[0:18:02] JR: Not a whole lot.
[0:18:03] IP: And half a dozen at Spirit. Two and a half dozen. Call it three dozen, because
about two dozen could mean a few more than two dozen. That's not a lot of folks.
[0:18:14] JR: No. Again, I don't know where the exact quote is, but somebody said like, that's
barely enough people to manage the restaurants at the Boeing facilities to quality assure that
the food is being produced right for their own people. It's just not a lot of people.
[0:18:28] IP: No.
[0:18:29] JR: The quote is, “That's not enough people to monitor the restaurant operations at
the site,” said Ed Pearson, a former senior Boeing production manager, who raised concerns
about the quality problems of the 737 factory after the crashes. That comes from an Andrew
Tangel story in the Wall Street Journal.
[0:18:45] IP: There you go.
[0:18:46] JR: It's an interesting point.
[0:18:48] IP: Yeah. I mean, FAA wants more people and I would think that [inaudible 0:18:54] –
© 2024 AvTalk 8
AVT 254 Transcript
[0:18:54] JR: I mean, the FAA could use a lot more people than probably everything it does.
[0:18:58] IP: Just in everything. Yeah, absolutely. One of the big questions right now is the
delegated authority that we've talked about in the past. This was in regards to the MAX,
generally speaking. Then we've talked about it also in the context of 787. The FAA has
something called the organization designation authorization process, which allows Boeing to
create in-house regulators of their own and then certify that their own aircraft are safe.
The FAA hasn’t entirely revoked this, though it has in the past updated how it deals with
Boeing's ODA. MITRE, which is an aviation research organization company, entity, is currently
researching what the FAA can do as far as Boeing's designation authorization. That'll be
interesting to see what decision the FAA takes, based on that study when it's completed.
Whether or not the FAA revokes that entirely, or modifies it even more, that will be a very
interesting thing that I'm going to be following closely. Because taking the ODA away is basically
–
[0:20:16] JR: How do you put it?
[0:20:17] IP: Yeah. I'm having trouble coming up with a good analogy here. It's basically, taking
away any confidence that the FAA has in Boeing to produce a quality airplane, without someone
staring over his shoulder the entire time.
[0:20:33] JR: Which is just not practical. I don't think anyone wants that, and it shouldn't be
necessary.
[0:20:39] IP: I agree, it should not be necessary. But we'll see if it ends up being necessary.
Jason, let's go international, shall we?
[0:20:45] JR: Okay. Okay.
[0:20:47] IP: Should we go to Russia?
© 2024 AvTalk 9
AVT 254 Transcript
[0:20:48] JR: Sure. What's going on there?
[0:20:50] IP: Nothing. Nothing much. But interestingly enough, the TU-214 is now an
international aircraft.
[0:20:59] JR: I would say, it's now back in commercial service outright, because I don't think it
was a commercial service at all before last year. It was used by the Russian government quite a
bit as VIP transport and military aircraft, but now it is, I think, now back in commercial service
outright, let alone international service.
[0:21:19] IP: Yes. Red Wings has it back in service, and they are taking it to Armenia, but
they're also going to take it to Georgia and Tel Aviv, eventually. This is a bit of an interesting
development. You still have to fly it back to Russia, so not really an easy trip to manage at the
moment, but an interesting thing to see that that is what's happening and they’re finding planes
wherever they can. Red Wings is also going to add back, according to the Fight Global article
that I'm looking at at the moment, the TU-204.
[0:22:02] JR: All right.
[0:22:03] IP: Okay.
[0:22:03] JR: Yeah. If you're not familiar, these are basically, the Russian version of the 757.
They are, I think, late 80s aircraft, if I'm not mistaken. As I said, they are mostly in service for
government operations at this point. But the first flight of the TU-204 was January 2nd, 1989.
Very similar vintage of the 757. What would you know? It looks just like a 757.
[0:22:32] IP: Imagine that.
[0:22:33] JR: No surprise there. But the TU-214 is, I think, an updated variant of the TU-204,
which they are still making today, unexpectedly. I guess, expectedly. They're not exactly making
them in great numbers, I would say. But if this Wikipedia article is to be trusted, it was in
production without skipping a year, all the way through 2018 and 2019, there were none
© 2024 AvTalk 10
AVT 254 Transcript
produced. But in 2020, it was ramped back up. It will be ramped back up considerably more in
the near future, since Russian airlines can't buy anything else at this point. So, it's back.
[0:23:13] IP: It's back.
[0:23:14] JR: Apparently, the interior was refurbished. No idea what it looked like beforehand, or
after the fact, it's an all-economy layout. But they're doing this, because it increases capacity.
They are currently limited, basically, just to the Sukhoi Superjet, which nobody wants to be on,
nobody wants to operate. It's too small. It’s only like, 99 passengers, or something like that. So,
the TU-214 is a much higher capacity aircraft for an airline that's probably in dire need of
capacity.
[0:23:41] IP: Indeed. Speaking of airlines in dire need of capacity, Indigo actually made money
last year, despite having more than 70, 7-0 Pratt & Whitney powered A320neo family aircraft
sitting around, collecting dust.
[0:23:58] JR: Which is outrageous. Indigo has more aircraft grounded than most airlines have in
their entire fleet. There aren't a ton of airlines that have more than 70 aircraft. Here we have
Indigo with a mid-70s numbers of aircraft out of service today, out of a total fleet of 360. That's a
huge proportion of its fleet.
[0:24:21] IP: Yeah. I mean, it just boggles my mind how many aircraft they can have sitting
around. I mean, they're getting compensation from Pratt & Whitney, because of the problems.
It's just, wow.
[0:24:36] JR: Yeah. I mean, maybe they're helped by other Indian airlines not surviving the very
same thing, or not being around at all anymore. It is true that there are fewer airlines to choose
from in India than there were just a few years ago. But in a sector of the world that is growing so
quickly and has such a demand for flights to have such a huge percentage of its fleet at a
service is just crazy. Then it isn't changing anytime soon. They're hopeful that the situation will
start to get better a couple of quarters from now. The subtext there is don't expect to change this
year.
© 2024 AvTalk 11
AVT 254 Transcript
[0:25:09] IP: A podcast listener wrote in this week with some very interesting information about
Indigo. I hadn't seen this. I'm running some data now. It'll hopefully be in the show notes, a link
in the show notes by the time the podcast comes out on Friday. Indigo is wet leasing 737s from
Qatar. They're doing this. Basically, the argument is they're doing this because they don't want
to concede any capacity to Air India, or Akasa. The market is so strong.
[0:25:48] JR: This is not the time.
[0:25:48] IP: They feel like, “We need any plane we can get.”
[0:25:51] JR: Remember, this is after Indigo had already inducted some 777s that it has taken
on from, I think, Turkish. Some super high-density 777s to operate massive amount of capacity
with that. I mean, that's quite a number of A320 flights that you have to fill up for a 777. These
aircraft have 531 seats onboard. In comparison, a little 737 MAX is like, who cares, almost?
[0:26:19] IP: I mean –
[0:26:20] JR: It's something.
[0:26:22] IP: They care enough to do it.
[0:26:23] JR: They care enough to do it. if I were an Indigo passenger, I would be quite happy
to end up on one of those Qatar 73s. That's probably a much nicer experience onboard, I'd have
to say.
[0:26:32] IP: Maybe. Yeah, I mean, that's just – I mean, we're going to dig into this a lot more.
By we, I don't necessarily mean Jason and I, because I don't think Jason wants to deal with the
numbers. As far as flightradar24 goes, we're going to dig into this a lot more, because this is just
such a fascinating use of data to find out what is happening with the A320neo fleets at various
airlines and how they're being operated. Because Indigo's just fascinating with the number of
routes that they've had to cut, because of the engine issues. I mean, it's changing the landscape
between the low-cost carriers and how they're operating, because of these engine issues. It's
just a real fascinating story to me.
© 2024 AvTalk 12
AVT 254 Transcript
[0:27:19] JR: Yeah. But you know who doesn't have any time for these engine issues, doesn't
want to deal with it, even though they've already dealt with it? They're just going to get rid of
them entirely. You know who I'm talking about?
[0:27:28] IP: I do.
[0:27:29] JR: You do.
[0:27:29] IP: But why don't you tell the people who listen to the podcast?
[0:27:32] JR: I’ll tell everyone else. It’s Egyptair, who is a relatively recent operator of the Airbus
A220-300, who recently said, “You know what? No. We don't want these. You can have them
back.” They went back to their leasing company, Azores, who I am sure will have no problems
placing these, because apparently, according to this Flight Global article, these aircraft have
already been freshly overhauled by Pratt & Whitney.
[0:27:58] IP: Excellent.
[0:27:58] JR: These should have mint engines ready to go. Every rare breed of A220 with
engines that are apparently good to go. Egyptair just says, “Ah, you know, we've got our
attention elsewhere on a fleet of other new wide bodies coming. We don't really need these.”
That's an unexpected twist.
[0:28:15] IP: I thought that was a very interesting reasoning, or rationale why they were getting
rid of them, because getting rid of the A220s opens them up for a wide body. I don't get that.
[0:28:32] JR: No, I don't really understand it, but I'm sure they have their reasons. Some people
explain to me that they have a lot of five plus-minus hour flights in their network. Should they be
shifted to A330s that are going to be replaced by 350s, just operate them on 73s? Maybe they
just don't really have a place in their fleet. Maybe they're just not the right size aircraft for the
missions that Egyptair operates this, and they just came to that realization a little too late. I'm
sure they'll get a nice offer from the leasing company.
© 2024 AvTalk 13
AVT 254 Transcript
[0:29:02] IP: Yeah. I'm sure Azores is not upset about that at all. I'm sure they're actually quite
pleased. Speaking of being pleased, the European Commission is pleased that JetBlue has its
Amsterdam slots.
[0:29:15] JR: At least for one more season.
[0:29:17] IP: At least for one more season. Well, based on what they've said so far, it sounds
like, they'll find a way to work it out. The European Commission was very concerned that
competition among and against the big three joint ventures that operate hub-to-hub routes out of
Amsterdam. Basically, there's a oneworld joint venture, there's a SkyTeam joint venture and a
Star Alliance joint venture that all don't compete on flights hub-to-hub. Meaning, those joint
ventures can effectively collude –
[0:29:56] JR: Price fix.
[0:29:57] IP: And price fix.
[0:29:57] JR: Just call it what it is.
[0:29:58] IP: Yeah. Their flights. You have entrants, like JetBlue, which wants to undercut all of
those airlines on price, but can't because Amsterdam is a slot control airport. JetBlue had
complained about that, and then been given slots that were terrible. What do they call them?
Not commercially viable.
[0:30:18] JR: Commercially unviable, or something along those lines.
[0:30:23] IP: That has changed. Now, the European Commission says, “Yeah, we're happy
about that.” I'm sure, the joint ventures are also slightly pleased that they don't have to do with
the European Commission being upset with them.
[0:30:34] JR: Yeah, everybody wins in this situation.
© 2024 AvTalk 14
AVT 254 Transcript
[0:30:37] IP: We also want to welcome back Marty St. George to JetBlue. Marty is rejoining
JetBlue from LATAM. He was at JetBlue for a long, long time.
[0:30:49] JR: 2006 to 2019, I think. A long time.
[0:30:52] IP: He worked his way up to Chief Commercial Officer at JetBlue, then left for a
number of consulting gigs. Was leading Norwegian Air Shuttle’s commercial arm for a while,
then ended up at LATAM and is now going to be back at JetBlue at the end of February. I say all
this, because Marty is, if not the most approachable and plain-spoken airline executive I've ever
come across, he's in the top three. I don't mean outspoken. I don't mean Akbar Al Baker. I don't
mean Sir Tim Clark. But plain spoken. He explains how things work very clearly and doesn't do
so through a lens that is necessarily as rosy as possible for the airline he is currently running.
He tells you like it is.
[0:31:42] JR: It's very unusual for us to cover any airline executive shifting, especially if it's not
at the CEO level, or we might talk about it. Marty St. George, when the news came out this
morning, there was pretty much universal reaction on the social media is that, “Hey, this is great
and unexpected.” Didn't see it coming. I'm happy for him. I'm happy for JetBlue. as I put it this
morning, I think this brings JetBlue to the official end of it's like, what are you even doing with
your life, mid-20s segment of your life? JetBlue is in its mid-20s. It was out there trying to figure
out what the hell it wanted to do when it grew up. It tried to get married to American Airlines.
That didn't work out. They annulled that.
Then they tried going to Europe, and that's kind of working out, but it's a distraction. Is it really
profitable? Is it what JetBlue needs to do? Probably not. JetBlue needs to focus on its core
strengths here in the Northeast, and they know it. Now, their new CEO knows it. Signaling really
well that they know it by bringing back Marty, because he was a higher up in the management
for many years of JetBlue's success. It's exciting. This is a positive sign for an airline that has
not had much positive signs to talk about for quite a while.
[0:32:59] IP: No, no. It’s, I think, good news all around.
[0:33:01] JR: I forgot to mention Spirit even. How did I forget that?
© 2024 AvTalk 15
AVT 254 Transcript
[0:33:06] IP: We've all blocked it from our brains.
[0:33:08] JR: Man.
[0:33:09] IP: Oh, speaking of Spirit, we should mention that the appeal, Spirit's appeal will be
heard in June. Or, Spirit and JetBlue's appeal, such as it is, will be heard in June.
[0:33:19] JR: Which is problematic.
[0:33:21] IP: Well, there's that.
[0:33:22] JR: There is that. I say it's problematic, I believe, because if the deal's not done, or
something like that by June, they could call off the deal, or, I think, Spirit could call it off and
claim some massive termination fee. Not quite sure about that, but I believe that's why JetBlue
petitioned to accelerate the appeal of that, which did not get accelerated as much as they
wanted it to be.
[0:33:43] IP: We'll see what happens there. I think we all know what's going to happen there.
None of us knew what was going to happen to Avion Express aircraft, but it was fun to watch.
[0:33:55] JR: Yeah. I'm sure it was even more fun from inside the aircraft, because you'd be
wondering what the – what was even going on. Ian, what happened?
[0:34:03] IP: This was an Avion Express flight A320 operating from Milan to Vilnius. I love the
fact that it was an all-white A320 made it even better.
[0:34:17] JR: Almost like an art project.
[0:34:19] IP: Almost like an art project. Because what happened is the aircraft skidded off the
runway during its landing rollout, and went pretty far into the mud, into the grass, crossed over a
taxiway, stopped, and then they called Joe Patrohm and they just powered back onto the
runway and taxi’d to the gate.
© 2024 AvTalk 16
AVT 254 Transcript
[0:34:41] JR: Yeah. There is video of this happening. There are still photographs.
[0:34:44] IP: There’s video. There’s photos. Oh, it's the best.
[0:34:48] JR: Unfortunately, the picture was photobombed by a bird. It might not unfortunately,
maybe even better, but you can see the aircraft clearly not on any paved surface. The spoilers
are up. There is just dirt, rocks, debris flying everywhere with the nose of the aircraft poking
through a layer of dust, and then they just kept on going to the stand. Very, I would say,
questionable decision that the aircraft is covered in stuff, dirt, mud. There was damage to the
underbelly of the aircraft. It's not like it was just a cosmetic thing, but they just kept going, not
knowing if there was damage to the engines, or the turbine blades, or anything that they just
kept going. Thankfully, everything was fine. But I don't think that aircraft is going to go anywhere
for a little bit.
[0:35:36] IP: It's scheduled to be back in service on Saturday.
[0:35:42] JR: Yeah. Well, we'll check back and see if that actually happens.
[0:35:44] IP: Yeah. We'll see if that happens. It went off the runway at approximately 75 knots.
[0:35:53] JR: That's pretty fast.
[0:35:55] IP: Yup. Is going through the grass, slowing, obviously, through – this is what's crazy
to me. It went over the taxiway at 38 knots.
[0:36:07] JR: Bumpy ride.
[0:36:08] IP: Bumpy, bumpy ride. Then they stop and then they decide that, “No. Okay, let's
keep going, and we'll just power back right into the runway.”
© 2024 AvTalk 17
AVT 254 Transcript
[0:36:18] JR: The video captures the whole taxi in and boy, were they dead on that center line
when they were taxiing into the ramp. They were accurate as they could be past that point. The
damage is done, but yeah, they were right on that yellow line.
[0:36:33] IP: Might as well make it look good. Oh, man. Oh, let's stay in the neighborhood and
step on the scale, shall we? Finnair is not – I should clarify. Finnair is politely requesting that
passengers be weighed to collect data on the average weight of passengers and their carry-on
baggage for new calculations for aircraft weight and balance.
[0:37:03] JR: Hmm, that's unusual. Typically, when you hear about passengers being weighed,
it's because you're about to get on a little Britain Norman be into island gate, to some nice exotic
island, not when you're boarding your A350 to Heathrow.
[0:37:17] IP: Since 2018, Finnair has used average weights to determine based on its own
measurements. But authorities require these figures to be updated every five years with
previous measurements having been taken in 2017 and 2018. It is “Now time to collect updated
data.” Yeah, there are going to be weighing passengers with passengers that opt into the
volunteer. They don't ask for personal data, but the total weight and the customer and the carry-
on baggage, customer’s age, gender, and travel class are recorded. No information is collected
that would allow participants to be identified.
[0:37:55] JR: All right.
[0:37:55] IP: There you go.
[0:37:56] JR: That's interesting. I don't know if I've ever heard it happened here in the US. I
believe, the FAA is looking, or did update those numbers up from a 170 pounds to a 190 pounds
for the average passenger. I think that goes up in the winter, because people bring extra coats
and sweaters and stuff.
[0:38:16] IP: Yeah, they add 5 pounds in the winter.
© 2024 AvTalk 18
AVT 254 Transcript
[0:38:18] JR: Yeah, exactly. But the numbers are pretty unrealistic, given the average weight of
a typical American, where so many Americans are obese, unfortunately. The numbers don't
really work. But I've never heard of any campaign by the FAA to actually weigh passengers and
figure out a new, more realistic average. I don't think the airlines would take kindly to that,
because I don't think they would like the numbers that come out of it.
[0:38:46] IP: Well, I think what's interesting is that the – the FAA uses numbers based on the
CDC's data collection. Then they guesstimate cabin baggage. I'm not sure exactly where that
figure comes from, having focusing on the Finnair thing. But that would be something that I think
we should look into, to see, maybe we can conduct our own experiments.
[0:39:08] JR: Yeah, sure. Just head out to the airport and anyone go into TSA, just say, “Can I
weigh you?”
[0:39:12] IP: Yeah. Yeah. What could possibly go wrong?
[0:39:15] JR: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
[0:39:15] IP: It would be fine. It would be fine.
[0:39:17] JR: Yup. Yup.
[0:39:18] IP: A story that is almost not worth discussing, because it's just that time of the year.
Lufthansa's on strike again. This is the ninth time in the past 60 days.
[0:39:29] JR: But it’s not that time of year. That time of year is usually in the high season, in the
middle of the summer, where the impact is actually the greatest. I do feel like, the number of
strikes and the frequency of strikes we've seen in 2024 already, it feels way up to me. I don't
have any empirical numbers to back that up, but we've seen Finnair basically shut down for a
day, multiple strikes at Lufthansa. Not just Lufthansa, but also, the ground workers, I think, it's
mostly, at basically, every major German airport taking out Lufthansa for days.
© 2024 AvTalk 19
AVT 254 Transcript
There's been Deutsche Bahn strikes, train strikes, all sorts of matters. It just feels like, it's way
worse and way earlier than usual, and with no notice. Sometimes you have pretty good
advanced notice that like, “Oh, don't fly four and a half weeks from today, because there's going
to be a strike.” These strikes are happening with extremely little notice. When I was in Europe
just a couple of weeks ago, when we were in not Rotterdam –
[0:40:23] IP: Antwerp.
[0:40:25] JR: In Antwerp. Thank you. Brussels Airlines, pilots went on a wildcat strike. There
was no notice, whatsoever. That crippled the airline for the entire day. They basically had no
operations at all. That to me is unusual. Something has changed and strikes are becoming more
frequent, more impactful with less notice, which is not a good trend. Watch out for that. I don't
know.
[0:40:46] IP: We talk about this now to say, hey, it's only February. Keep an eye on your
summer travel plans.
[0:40:52] JR: Yeah. Even if you do keep an eye on it, good luck. There’s not much you can do.
[0:40:58] IP: Yeah. Just good luck. We close the show with the rollout of updated cabins,
including more power on Southwest Airlines?
[0:41:12] JR: Yeah, strange.
[0:41:14] IP: What?
[0:41:15] JR: Brian Summers of The Airline Observer, I don't know if we have ever had him on
the podcast, had a really –
[0:41:19] IP: Not yet, but we will.
[0:41:21] JR: - really clairvoyant quote, just a few days, three days ahead of this massive
announcement. He had said, and I quote, “Is Southwest stubborn, or perhaps consistently
© 2024 AvTalk 20
AVT 254 Transcript
behind the times by choice?” Maybe he knew this was coming. He has a good number of
industry contacts. He knows people, but maybe he didn't and he just called it. Three days later,
Southwest announced it'll install USB A and C power outlets on all of its 737 MAX and 737NG,
the 800.
[0:41:50] IP: This is the very big part of the announcement.
[0:41:53] JR: This is hundreds and hundreds of aircraft and tablet holders, which will come to
the MAX deliveries, I think. But USB ports on the 800s, that's a big deal. This is an airline that
just maybe a year ago, I don't think you ever would have expected that, but it's also an airline
that flies transcon, flies six, seven-hour flights. If the conditions are wrong, it flies to Hawaii and
not quite trans-Pacific. But as far as you're going to get on a 73 nonstop, maybe even a red-eye
flight in the near future. Who knows? It's a big deal to have a low – yeah, I know, but a low-cost
carrier like Southwest commit to hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of aircraft with USB
power. I mean, maybe it gives hope.
[0:42:34] IP: As of today, that's 433 planes.
[0:42:38] JR: That's a lot of planes. But maybe it gives hope for the easyJets and God forbid,
the Ryanairs at Europe.
[0:42:43] IP: No, no, no. Hold your tongue. I don't want to get an email from Michael Leary
calling us out of our gourds. There's no way. There's no way. Because you would have to be
able to, with a straight face, make the argument that Southwest Airlines is a low-cost carrier. If
anyone, anyone on the face of the planet wants to come on this podcast –
[0:43:04] JR: Ooh, that’s a good point.
[0:43:05] IP: - and make a serious argument to me that Southwest Airlines is in fact a low-cost
carrier, I will let you do that. Email us at podcast@fr24.com and you are more than welcome to
pull up a microphone and make that case.
[0:43:18] JR: They're low-cost at heart. How about that? No, no.
© 2024 AvTalk 21
AVT 254 Transcript
[0:43:23] IP: This has been episode 254 of AvTalk. Get out here, Jason. Just get out. What an
episode it was. That was fun, and I hope you enjoyed listening. Thank you so very much. We
appreciate you. If you've made it this far, a small apology. For whatever reason, Spotify was
having a bit of trouble getting the feed ingested last week. We hope that’s solved for this week.
But if it's not, apologies in advance. Know that you can listen to this podcast wherever you find
your podcasts, including Spotify eventually, I guess. But it's always available, first and foremost,
on our website, so you can go to the blog to find the latest episode all the time.
This has been episode 254 of AvTalk. I am Ian Petchenik, here, as always with –
[0:44:15] JR: Jason Rabinowitz. Thanks for listening.
[END]
© 2024 AvTalk 22