AvTalk Episode 371: “So that started this on the wrong trajectory to begin with”

AVT 371 Transcript
EPISODE 371
[0:00:07] IP: Hello, and welcome to episode 371 of AvTalk. I am Ian Petchenik. Here as always
with –
[0:00:17] JR: Jason Rabinowitz. Ian, welcome to summer.
[0:00:21] IP: Welcome. Oh man, what a welcome, right?
[0:00:23] JR: You know how I know it's summer?
[0:00:25] IP: How do you know?
[0:00:26] JR: I don't even have to judge by the disgustingly high temperature outside that you
probably have in Chicago. I know we have here in New York. I know is following me all the way
to Switzerland next week. Super happy about that. But the New York airports are in a state of
absolute chaos. And it's not even just because of the sinkhole in LaGuardia's runway 422. It's
just because of this weather.
[0:00:48] IP: Not just because of the sinkhole.
[0:00:50] JR: Not just because of the sinkhole. The sinkhole doesn't help. It hurts. But because
there's a cloud 500 miles away. So, 4-hour delays. It is what it is. That's how you know you're in
summer.
[0:01:02] IP: It's chaos theory. A grasshopper in Ohio rubs its wings together, and LaGuardia
gets a sinkhole. That's how it goes, right?
[0:01:11] JR: I'm pretty sure. Yeah. Don't know where exactly the sinkhole is, because I see a
lot of planes doing a lot of stuff at LaGuardia. But it seems like they are avoiding falling into the
hole, which is good.
[0:01:22] IP: That's important. Not taxing into the sinkhole is important and good.
© 2026 AvTalk 1
AVT 371 Transcript
[0:01:27] JR: Yes. Generally good practice.
[0:01:30] IP: Yeah. Well, good luck with all of that. As Jason mentioned, he's off to Switzerland
next week. I'm off to Sweden next week. Those are different countries. I feel like I have to say
that probably not for our audience who is generally interested in aviation, which usually goes
along with a geographic interest. But so many people, when I say I work for Flightradar24, they
say, "Oh, what's that?" I tell them what it is. "Where are you based?" "We're based in
Stockholm." "Oh, how's Switzerland?"
[0:02:00] JR: I mean, unrelated, but it's probably fine. I'll let you know.
[0:02:05] IP: We'll have an interesting show next week. I'll be in Stockholm for the annual
company gathering there. We'll bring whoever we can find on to the podcast. It'll be a cast of
characters. I'm not sure who exactly will be here on the show next week, but someone will be
here, and it will be good. I promise you that.
[0:02:27] JR: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
[0:02:30] IP: Last week, we talked with Steve Giordano from Nomadic Aviation Group about
bringing a whole mess of former Spirit Airlines planes into storage in the desert. This week,
we've got an update on how many they've brought and how much money Spirit lost in its final
month of operation. Or not even the final month. It's penultimate month of operation. So we
don't actually know how much they lost in the final month yet. But nearly all. All except one that I
can find of the least Spirit aircraft have made it into storage or onward to their next destination.
A few have gone to MRO's in San Salvador and in Hamilton, Canada. The rest have gone to
storage, most of which have gone to storage in the Arizona desert. The only remaining, save for
one, aircraft that need to be moved are those that were owned by Spirit Airlines. Some of those
are moving. But I'm going to be super interested to see how long the longest one sits.
[0:03:44] JR: Yeah, notably four that were at Newark 18 days ago. They're still there, all four of
them, which is interesting because that's not an airport you think of of having a tremendous
© 2026 AvTalk 2
AVT 371 Transcript
amount of excess space to put stranded aircraft. But I guess those might be the owned aircraft.
They're all in the same kind of bank of registration. Maybe those were owned aircraft with –
[0:04:06] IP: Yeah, those are all owned.
[0:04:07] JR: Yeah. No immediate future, unfortunately. Yeah. Don't know what happens with
those, but they haven't moved. All I expected one or maybe two of them to move, but not a one.
[0:04:16] IP: Maybe we can make an offer.
[0:04:18] JR: I don't want to go to New Jersey.
[0:04:19] IP: I can't argue with that. Well, in March of this year, Spirit lost $157 million, operating
on a negative 61% margin.
[0:04:38] JR: When we talked about how, hey, this idea of giving Spirit a $500 million
government-backed loan is ridiculous. This is why we say that was ridiculous. Because in one
month, they lost $157 million, which is a lot of money. So extrapolate that out over a couple
months, and that 500 million would have also been lit up on fire or injected directly into the
engine core of a now grounded A320ceo.
Yeah, this never made sense. The amount of money this airline was losing, a negative 61%
operating margin. Unsustainable. The writing was on the wall. The last nails were being
pounded into the coffin. They were not going to turn this around at this point. I'm not even gonna
say not with the increase in fuel because it seems trivial at this point. There was no turning
around at this point. It was just they were too far gone.
[0:05:33] IP: There was barely turning, let alone turning around.
[0:05:36] JR: Yeah, it was done, Jim. It's dead, Jim. It's done. It sucks. But if only the first
bankruptcy reorganization plan were a little more realistic, maybe we wouldn't be in this position
now where Spirit is gone as a whole. They had a good plan. They needed more time, and they
just didn't have more time. And everything was against them. But that is a tremendous amount
© 2026 AvTalk 3
AVT 371 Transcript
of money to lose in that span of time considering how small Spirit Airlines was in the end
compared to its peak. That's wow.
[0:06:06] IP: Yeah, that's a very, very good point, the amount that the airline had already shrunk
by March makes the loss even more impactful.
[0:06:17] JR: Yeah. Rest in peace, Spirit. You were too good for this world.
[0:06:21] IP: Okay, I can't add any more to that. So, we're going to move on to this week's
NTSB hearings in Washington covering the UPS MD-11 crash from last November. These
hearings are 2 days of expert testimony, witness statements, and other examination of evidence
that covers the factual docket that the NTSB has created. That docket is now available. The link
is in the show notes for you to take a look at.
Among other things are video evidence that the NTSB has put together that combines a
thorough examination of the parts of the aircraft and how those parts came together, and then
separated to cause the accident. It also has, for the first time, the on-airport official CCTV. And
they point out exactly where the failure occurred and how the engine detached from the wing.
Part of these two days of hearings, the NTSB is trying to understand, given the history of this
exact part failing multiple times over the past two decades, why was corrective action not taken
before now? The first report of a fractured spherical bearing in the engine pylon assembly was
received by Boeing in July of 2002.
[0:08:01] JR: That's a long time ago.
[0:08:03] IP: Then reports followed in 2007, August, and September. And then after the initial
report, Boeing received six total reports. The discussion between the NTSB and some of the
witnesses that they called this week, very interesting, because there's a moment in the
conversation between NTSB board member, John DeLeeuw, and UPS's Senior Director of
Engineering, John Springer. And what they were talking about is why didn't this level up to
something that needed to be done, changed, corrected immediately.
© 2026 AvTalk 4
AVT 371 Transcript
And the UPS's director of engineering is saying, "We looked at the service letters, and they
explicitly said that it would not be a safety of flight condition." And so the comment that he then
says is, "So that started this on the wrong trajectory to begin with." And I think that's really, really
interesting.
[0:09:10] JR: Yeah. Basically, someone made a determination in like 2002, and that was it. No
one ever went back to look at it again and think, "Huh, maybe this is more problematic than we
thought."
[0:09:20] IP: They did. The service letter was issued in May of 2008. One thing happens in
2002. It gets reported. Okay. Then the same thing happens in August of 2007 and September of
2007. By May of 2008, a service letter is issued that says, "Here's the thing that happens. It's
not a safety of flight condition, but there's an inspection procedure. You should be on the lookout
for this."
Then in 2011, there's another surface letter, follow-on surface letter, that informs of a change in
the design of the bearing which gets rid of the lubrication groove in the bearing race, which is
the originating point where these have all failed. Basically, they created a seam. And because
that seam was stressed, the seam failed. And so they got rid of the seam.
[0:10:14] JR: Okay, that seems reasonable.
[0:10:17] IP: But then there's no impetus to deal with the existing – if they replace it, then great.
But there was no, "You need to do this now. This is important to the safety of flight." It was very
not that. I think the NTSB is really focusing on why didn't we set ourselves on a path of ensuring
that this would be addressed in an expedited fashion because it's certainly –
[0:10:47] JR: That's a great question.
[0:10:50] IP: The hearings have been super interesting. And if you've been trying to visualize or
understand how all of the pieces of an engine come together and how complicated even a
mounting pylon is. These aren't even mechanically moving, powered or anything. It's just an –
© 2026 AvTalk 5
AVT 371 Transcript
[0:11:09] JR: It's just an inanimate object. To that point, the NTSB, we'll link in the show notes,
put a video together, an animation, the engine-to-wing attachment design overview and findings.
It is a 5 minute and 22 second video just basically showing how this static thing works. There's
no moving part. It's just there. It holds the thing in place. But it is pretty damn complicated.
[0:11:33] IP: Yeah. I mean, there are no simple pieces of an airplane. Let's put it that way.
[0:11:37] JR: That's true. That's very true.
[0:11:39] IP: Let's shift gears to another accident investigation and report, because the FAA this
week, for the first time, explained how it is responding to the almost three dozen NTSB report
recommendations from the NTSB's final report into the January 2025 mid-air collision near DCA.
The FAA says that it's working on addressing. They have addressed seven recommendations
thus far, and they are trying to address "more than half" by the end of next year.
[0:12:25] JR: Ah, no rush. No rush at all. Specifically, one they're talking about there is
something I think has been talked about a lot is the arrival rate at DCA, which the NTSB says is
a key metric that contributed to the airport's congestion in time of the crash, and why the
regional jet was taking that kind of secondary runway where the helicopter pilots didn't expect it
to be. But, unfortunately, any adjustments that will be made won't be determined after an official
analysis in 2027. Not even this calendar year. So, it will be multiple years after this crash before
any corrective action on the arrival rate at DCA is officially adjusted.
I guess, right now, they're kind of unofficially tackling this with basically consistent ground delay
programs and EDTC's for aircraft that are more or less permanent. That only slaps a band-aid
on it. It doesn't actually address the scheduled number of aircraft daily at DCA. It just makes
everything operate terribly. So, we're going to have to wait until 2027, and maybe it will result in
a reduction of hourly flights at DCA. It's going to be a tough pill to swallow for airlines and
passengers, but it's probably the way we're headed.
[0:13:41] IP: And all of this we learned because the FAA published its response on the final –
this is real, real senior year handing your homework right before it's due. The last day of a 90-
© 2026 AvTalk 6
AVT 371 Transcript
day window that the FAA had to publish this. And it was also the day before FAA Administrator,
Bryan Bedford, was set to testify before the Senate's aviation subcommittee on said
implementation of NTSB suggestions.
Yeah, setting that aside, we also learned some rather interesting things as part of that testimony.
Part of what we learned is that we are at least 3 years away from full ATC staffing at major US
air traffic control facilities. And we also learned –
[0:14:39] JR: This is where it gets good.
[0:14:39] IP: Yeah. We also learned about the FAA's revamped air traffic controller targets. The
FAA is reducing its staffing targets.
[0:14:53] JR: Excuse me? Surely you have that backwards, right? You must mean increasing
the targets for hiring air traffic controllers, right?
[0:15:00] IP: I wish I had that backwards. The FAA is reducing its target number of air traffic
controllers "because of expected efficiency gains" through air traffic control modernization
efforts. What they are saying, or what a report from a group that is tasked with figuring these
things out, that all of the air traffic controllers and their union are very concerned with at the
moment, says, "If you modernize US air traffic control and do things like AI, then you don't need
as many air traffic controllers."
[0:15:43] JR: No, don't agree with that. No. No. No.
[0:15:45] IP: And the air traffic controllers response thus far has been, "I'm sorry. What?" But
more critically, what they are saying is that the FAA is arguing that and one of the biggest things
here is increased efficiency and time on scope, which is the FAA saying if we do technology
things. Doesn't necessarily have to be AI. It could just be better –
[0:16:09] JR: Yeah. Something the FAA is well known for executing flawlessly and on time.
© 2026 AvTalk 7
AVT 371 Transcript
[0:16:14] IP: Yes. If we do that, it will allow controllers to spend more time during their shift on
the scope. When in fact, a number of NTSB recommendations regarding air traffic control is
basically don't do that.
[0:16:33] JR: Yes. Part of the system modernization they say here is – also, I'm going to quote
a bullet point out of the press release, "Improve airspace optimization and reduce airspace
complexity by deconflicting airline scheduling to smooth traffic flow and maximize efficient use of
airspace through new technology." Technology. Technology. How many times has the FAA said
that exact thing over the dozens of years we've seemingly been talking about this subject? It
never happens. Whether we're talking about the improvements ADSB will bring, or next-gen, or
anything else. Do these airspace improvements ever actually bring forth any tangible reduction
in airspace complexity or deconflicting airline scheduling? I don't think so.
I'm taking a look at JFK right now, and things are not going so well. Then again, there is a cloud
over Boston and a sinkhole at LaGuardia, but none of this stuff ever comes to fruition. And
lowering the target hiring of controllers is real, real problematic. Because we know that what
percentage of trainees wash out and don't actually make it into actual – I don't want to call it
production, but actually in a cab or a facility somewhere managing air traffic. It's what? Like
50%?
[0:17:48] IP: It's a high number. Hiring targets versus actual controllers on the job. Very different
numbers.
[0:17:56] JR: Yes. The FAA says it's 60% towards this year's hiring goal, which I guess is good,
could be worse, but I don't know. After all the rhetoric from this administration about hiring as
many people, and then the best and the brightest, and then saying, "You know what? Actually,
we don't need that many people because ChatGPT is going to tell us how to make things
better." Is the same AI that I was just reading today that like a college's graduation ceremony,
they used an AI tool, and it just erased people's names. If you erase someone's name off a
graduation ceremony, they're going to be upset. If you erase a flight from a controller scope,
someone could die. None of this stuff is production ready. I don't know. I hate this. I don't see
why they would do this. It's not a budget reason. It's not like we don't have the money to hire
© 2026 AvTalk 8
AVT 371 Transcript
more controllers. Is it just a tacit acknowledgement that we will never be able to hire enough air
traffic controllers, so let's just make the number lower?
[0:18:51] IP: I mean, I don't think that's it. I think that they followed the recommendations of this
report that was produced by – it's a nonpartisan transportation study board. That's their job. I
don't understand it. So, it's the National Academy of Science's Transportation Research Board.
And they are responsible for coming up with ideas to solve problems.
[0:19:22] JR: Ideas are great, but they actually have to be put into practice and be proven to
work before you can lower the amount of controllers you need. Because what if this stuff doesn't
get put into practice or doesn't work out as well as they think it would? Now you've lowered the
number of controllers who you might actually still need in the next few years. I don't like any of
this. And it's not like this is some far-off number. This is like fiscal year 2026, which is kind of
now. So that's not great.
[0:19:47] IP: Yeah. I mean, fiscal year 2026. And then dropping those numbers down in 2027
and 2028. And remember, the fiscal year starts October 1st.
[0:19:57] JR: Yeah. This is basically now.
[0:19:59] IP: We're almost to the end of the year. Good stuff. Yeah, not great. I will be very
interested to see if this plan stays put or survives some sort of congressional oversight.
[0:20:13] JR: Congress, we still have one of those. That's good.
[0:20:15] IP: And surprisingly enough, they've been on this lately. We'll see how this shakes out.
[0:20:22] JR: They got to do something, I guess.
[0:20:23] IP: Let's stick with accidents, incidents, and updates here. We're moving on to the
NTSB's recommendation that the FAA mandate real-world smoke in the cockpit training as part
of pilot training because of a December 2023 incident in which a 737 MAX suffered a bird strike
and engine failure leading the cockpit to fill with smoke. And the pilots were facing a much more
© 2026 AvTalk 9
AVT 371 Transcript
difficult scenario than they had trained on. It got darker. It got smokier. It got much more
confusing much more quickly than they had trained. The NTSB says, "If such an event occurred
at night or in instrument meteorological conditions, the consequences could be catastrophic."
[0:21:22] JR: This is a good recommendation.
[0:21:24] IP: Yeah, the NTSB is urging the FAA to "develop standardized training for realistic
scenario-based simulations of smoke in the cockpit events to be used during initial and
recurrent pilot training."
[0:21:34] JR: I like it.
[0:21:35] IP: Yeah.
[0:21:35] JR: Smoke in the cabin is scary. Way back when, we're going like 10 years now, I was
in Brazil at TAM's flight attendant training facility. And one of those things that they trained on,
they had a mock cabin that had extremely low light that they then filled with extremely thick
smoke. And I didn't think it would be as scary and as impossible to find my way out of the cabin
trainer as it was.
But in low light, like the NTSB said, and with thick smoke, it's basically impossible to evacuate
the aircraft. You have to do it by touch and feel. And if you're not intimately familiar with the
aircraft, which is where the training comes in, you're kind of cooked.
[0:22:19] IP: Now try flying the plane.
[0:22:21] JR: Exactly. Now try and fly the plane in that situation. I would imagine this is the kind
of situation where increased training can only make your odds better, not completely mitigate
the situation. But it could at least ground the fear of that situation in reality. Whereas thinking
about it could be scary, but actually experiencing that. Are they just going to toss pilots in a
simulator and toss a smoke bomb in there and close the door? Maybe. I don't know. How do
you do this?
© 2026 AvTalk 10
AVT 371 Transcript
[0:22:49] IP: Maybe. We actually did a similar thing to what Jason just described doing at TAM's
headquarters at Lufthansa a few weeks ago. That video is up on our YouTube channel now. I'll
put a link in the show notes.
[0:23:00] JR: I mean, that's what TAM did. They closed the door on the trainer and they threw a
smoke grenade in, and it got real very quickly.
[0:23:05] IP: Yeah. Gabe and Sophia practiced putting out a fire. It was a cigarette in a trash
can. And you see how quickly that smoke spreads and –
[0:23:14] JR: It's scary.
[0:23:15] IP: There's also some very interesting discussion about what the response is for the
crew not dealing with the actual fire. And one thing that I hadn't really thought about in the
context of aviation thus far is what do you do on an A380, which Lufthansa operates? And that
becomes even more interesting because you certainly don't want the fire to spread between
levels. Super interesting discussion and worth checking that video out. That link is in the show
notes.
Over the weekend, a Croatia Airlines A22-300 rejected its takeoff in split and then exited the
runway in a not on a taxiway manner. Through the grass, took out some runway edge lights,
took out a runway sign, and came to a safe stop in the grass. The aircraft was damaged.
Thankfully, no one on board was injured. Investigators are probing why they needed to reject
the takeoff and why they suffered a runway excursion.
[0:24:20] JR: Yeah. At a pretty high rate of speed, I think they rejected the takeoff, or the takeoff
–
[0:24:25] IP: 131 knots.
[0:24:27] JR: Yeah. Don't know if they rejected the takeoff or the takeoff was rejected on them.
Not really sure. But while there is video, it's fairly low resolution. And I've seen a lot of
© 2026 AvTalk 11
AVT 371 Transcript
speculation back and forth of, "Oh, they didn't even apply any rudder deflection or anything to
keep them on the runway." Really hard to tell from the video, at least that I have seen.
But we are just here mourning the loss of yet another perfectly good geared turbo fan engine for
an A220. Or maybe that wasn't a perfectly good A220 GTF engine. Maybe it caused the
problem. We don't know. But it is fun to watch it just demolish a couple of signs on the side of
the runway. We could say it was fun because everyone was –
[0:25:05] IP: Everyone was fine.
[0:25:07] JR: Except that engine.
[0:25:08] IP: Well, except the engine. Yeah. Reuters is reporting on the Indian investigation into
the crash of the Boeing 787 and the separate investigation into the 787 fuel cut-off switches on
a flight from London to Bengaluru. That investigation is proceeding to Seattle in June. These are
separate investigations dealing with the same part.
But the investigation into the field cut-off switches on the flight that eventually landed fine in
India from London is ongoing. And that is what investigators are focusing on. The cut-off switch
module from that particular aircraft was removed and sent back to Boeing. Reuters is reporting
"as the matter is sensitive in nature, Air India is hereby directed to ensure that the strip test
examination at OEMs, Boeing, their premises, is carried out in presence of a DGCA officer."
That was an email written by the DGCA deputy director of airworthiness in March. Air India is
going to transport DGCA officers to Seattle where they will oversee the tests of these fuel cut-off
switches to see if they can somehow, when pressure is applied in some way, be made not to
stay in the run position.
[0:26:44] JR: Interesting that they would have to go to Seattle for this and wouldn't want to test,
I don't know, their own aircraft in India with Boeing personnel there.
[0:26:54] IP: This is specifically the module from that incident airplane.
[0:26:57] JR: Oh. Yes. Okay.
© 2026 AvTalk 12
AVT 371 Transcript
[0:26:59] IP: If we remember, what happened is there was a flight from London to Bengaluru?
[0:27:04] JR: I thought they were testing all of the other 787s. But that makes sense. Are they
just going to sit there and like just keep toggling the switch back and forth and back and forth
until they break it?
[0:27:13] IP: Correct. I think that's what's going to happen. What happened in this specific
instance was they tried to start the engines twice. And what they say is that the fuel cut off
switches went from –
[0:27:23] JR: Kept flipping back.
[0:27:24] IP: Or run to off twice. On the third attempt to start the engines, they stayed on, and
then they flew to India from London.
[0:27:34] JR: Yeah, I remember this.
[0:27:34] IP: I'm going to editorialize a bit here and just say that if that had happened to me, I
might have considered cancelling the flight.
[0:27:43] JR: Given the not too distant historical context of that possible situation. Yeah, I
remember talking about this very, very odd decision to continue that flight. Very, very weird. But
hey, maybe they'll figure it out in Seattle. Weird.
[0:28:02] IP: Yeah. We'll bring you more when we know more.
[0:28:05] JR: What is this next topic that just –
[0:28:07] IP: Oh, I've been waiting to get to this.
[0:28:09] JR: It's very vague.
© 2026 AvTalk 13
AVT 371 Transcript
[0:28:10] IP: I've been waiting to get to this. Yes, I left it vague on purpose because I wanted to
get your reaction while we were recording. The new technology being developed around the
world and being introduced into national airspace systems includes things like drones,
unmanned aerial vehicles. What we've called air taxis from time to time, and things like that. But
one of the things that people need to think about in the context of a pilotless vehicle is what do
the passengers do when there's a disruptive passenger, Jason?
[0:28:46] JR: Oh, get the duct tape ready?
[0:28:48] IP: And so there is a UK body that was tasked by the government with answering
some of these questions. What should we do about various things? And one of those things was
what should we do if there's a disruptive passenger on a pilotless air taxi?
[0:29:07] JR: Who's we in this situation?
[0:29:09] IP: We being the passengers. And so their proposal was that the passengers be
equipped with restraint devices to safe the cabin from whoever this person is.
[0:29:26] JR: Wait. Wait. You we're talking about when you say air taxis, Archer Midnight and
Joby, whatever that thing is called. That only seat like four, five, maybe six people, right?
[0:29:37] IP: Yes.
[0:29:38] JR: The idea is to equip one of these people or all four to six of these people with –
[0:29:44] IP: There will be like a disruptive passenger kit.
[0:29:48] JR: How's that going to work? This is not an aircraft where you can get up, walk
around and just nonchalantly grab the disruptive passenger kit. You can't get up out of your seat
on these aircraft and walk around.
[0:29:59] IP: Maybe you select a captain before you board.
© 2026 AvTalk 14
AVT 371 Transcript
[0:30:01] JR: Look at me.
[0:30:02] IP: Who's going to hold the plastic cuff?
[0:30:04] JR: Sure. What? If there's an unruly passenger in one of these uncrewed aircraft
anyway, what can they even do?
[0:30:13] IP: Plastic cuff them, I guess?
[0:30:15] JR: What can they do? I mean, I guess they can attack the other passengers. But I
guess it's a valid question of if this thing is remotely piloted or autonomously piloted, is there a
means for them to take manual control or actual commandeer the aircraft? That's something I
have not thought about. But I wouldn't want to put the onus on one of the other passengers and
be like, "Hey, that guy's being weird. Slap some duct tape on them."
[0:30:39] IP: What could possibly go wrong, right?
[0:30:41] JR: Nothing. Remember, this is exactly what US crews not that long ago were
explicitly told to never do, to never use duct tape to restrain someone to a seat. Because in the
event of an evacuation, they are duct taped to a seat, which is not great. I guess you got to think
of all circumstances, but this seems impractical at best.
[0:31:01] IP: At best. Yes. I think there's a lot of good things to think about or bad things, I
suppose, to think about here, and a lot of very sticky questions to answer. And I'm glad they're
thinking about these. I'm not sure that that's the best solution. But it'll be interesting to see what
we eventually end up with. I think that's a good point to make. There might not be a solution
here.
[0:31:27] JR: Yeah, good luck.
[0:31:29] IP: It turns out, Jason, that there is a solution to the worries about Europe having jet
fuel this summer.
© 2026 AvTalk 15
AVT 371 Transcript
[0:31:36] JR: I know what it is.
[0:31:37] IP: What is it?
[0:31:38] JR: You just ignore the problem until it goes away. No? That usually works for me.
[0:31:43] IP: No. You know what they did? They bought more jet fuel.
[0:31:50] JR: Oh, the answer is always money. If you throw money at a problem, the problem
goes away. If you can't ignore it, you throw money at it, and then it goes away. Is that what
happened here?
[0:32:00] IP: Basically that's what happened. Yes.
[0:32:01] JR: But I thought there was no more fuel. That money would not work here.
[0:32:05] IP: Well, it turns out that everybody's got a price, and that price was just much higher
than they had been paying. Now, jet fuel costs more, but they have it. And the worries for the
summer season –
[0:32:18] JR: That's great for both of us. We have a vested interest in there being jet fuel in
Europe next week. So, that's good.
[0:32:23] IP: Yes, we do. Yes, we do. And, hopefully, it'll be there after that. The concern now
shifts to secondary airports for the upcoming winter season. What happens at smaller airfields
serviced by regional or secondary carriers in the follow-on season? They're comfortable through
summer that they can make these things work.
[0:32:46] JR: We're going to find out. According to the news, the straight is going to either open
very soon, or is already open, or is closed, or is never opening again. So, we'll find out in time.
[0:32:59] IP: In some time. Yes. That's how time works, unfortunately. We talked a little bit a few
episodes ago about the changes ongoing at Norse Atlantic Airways, which had been trying to
© 2026 AvTalk 16
AVT 371 Transcript
save about 50 to75 million through restructuring, closing its far-flung headquarters, moving to
Oslo, doing all sorts of things. Now they say, "We've hired JPMorgan Chase to prepare the sale
of the company. And we want to get it done before summer."
[0:33:34] JR: To who?
[0:33:35] IP: The same people who are going to buy Spirit.
[0:33:37] JR: Oh. No, I don't like this at all. This sucks. I love Norse. I loved Norwegian before
it. It was a great experience last year from LA all the way to London. I don't even know if they
offer that route anymore since fuel got so expensive. But the golden age of travel, in my opinion,
and I know others share this opinion, was ended not all that long ago, a couple months ago
when long-haul, low-cost travel was so prevalent and so available. And if Norse kicks the
bucket, that's really going to hurt. I will miss them if they truly sell. That'll suck. I hope it doesn't
happen. But at this rate seems kind of likely, doesn't it?
[0:34:21] IP: Yeah. I mean, Norse is not – and we joked about this a ton. But Norse ended up
not being Norwegian 2.0. They ended up running a well-run airline. And this is one of those
things where because of choices they made to some degree. But largely because of economic
conditions around them, the airline is not doing as well as it could be. And I totally get not basing
your business model on the best case scenario, which may have been a bit of what they did, but
it still sucks. They had a great spot in the market.
[0:35:02] JR: Yeah. Weren't they also leasing out their aircraft to like Indigo? And then Indigo
very suddenly said, "Nah, never mind. Fuel's too expensive. Aerospace restrictions, all that."
Even their backup plan at this point isn't working out. I'm going to be real, real unhappy and sad
if the reincarnation of Norwegian, Norse, ends up also not working out. Because it has made
long-haul travel available to many people in the same way Spirit made short-haul travel in the
US very affordable to people who may not have been able to travel otherwise. I wouldn't say at
this point like, "Oh, don't book Norse or anything. They're going to disappear next week." I don't
think that's at all the case.
[0:35:40] IP: No.
© 2026 AvTalk 17
AVT 371 Transcript
[0:35:39] JR: But we will see what Chase has to say. As my bank of choice, if I have any say, I
would say, "Chase, please advise them to not sell. And just maybe give them some free money."
Not my money.
[0:35:51] IP: Oh, I thought that's where you were going.
[0:35:53] JR: No, not my money. I need that to fly Norse.
[0:35:56] IP: Yeah, I'll let somebody else work –
[0:35:58] JR: This was not sound financial advice.
[0:36:00] IP: No. Let's go to Korea and talk about a brewing fight between the pilots’ unions
representing Korean Air pilots and Asiana pilots.
[0:36:10] JR: No, guys, you had 6 years to figure this out.
[0:36:14] IP: And now we're getting into lawsuits. The pilot union representing Korean Air has
filed a defamation suit against the pilot’s union of Asiana Airlines, because that pilots’ union sent
a letter to Korean Air arguing that Asiana pilots should be – what would essentially be putting
them ahead of Korean Air pilots in some ways in the seniority line. And there's been a lot of
back and forth about this.
So, the differences stem from how each airline hires, the requirements for getting hired, and
how they upgrade pilots from first officer to captain, and how all of that seniority comes together.
Korean Air requires a thousand hours for first officers. Asiana only requires 300s. If you have a
date of higher, and that becomes the seniority, you can have much less experienced in terms of
flight hours, first officers from Asiana, becoming captains at the new Korean Air ahead of much
more experienced Korean Air first officers.
[0:37:27] JR: This merger was announced in what? 2019 was it? 2020? Early 2020?
© 2026 AvTalk 18
AVT 371 Transcript
[0:37:33] IP: Maybe 2019. Could have been 1998.
[0:37:38] JR: This is what we're getting at is this has been going on forever. And it seems like
it's not going to be fully resolved anytime soon. However, we do know now that the current
airline, that is Asiana, will, I believe, cease to exist on December 17th. And it will officially
become a part of Korean Airlines, which is fun, because I'm flying Asiana at the very end of
November. So, I will fly presumably Asiana in its final days of operation, which is pretty fun or
sad. But I've never flown the airline, so it'll be my first and last time. But this has been going on
for over half a decade. And it's kind of shocking that they don't have like the details figured out.
Meanwhile, Allegiant gobbled up Sun Country, and that took like all of four days to figure out and
close. But wow, this just won't end.
[0:38:21] IP: It just keeps going. And last month, the Korean Air Pilots Union voted, members of
the union voted 80% in favor of a strike. So, they didn't vote to strike, but they voted 80% in
favor of a strike.
[0:38:40] JR: This was Korean, you said?
[0:38:42] IP: Yes.
[0:38:42] JR: Oh, good. I'm flying Asiana. It's fine.
[0:38:47] IP: There you go, Jason. There you go. Little gift for you.
[0:38:49] JR: Mm-hmm. Thank you.
[0:38:51] IP: This next one, we talked about this before we hit record, because Jason was upset
in a way I didn't expect him to be upset. But then when I explained what was happening, he got
much more upset in a different way. So, I'm going to lay it out and see how upset you all get.
[0:39:09] JR: Go for it.
© 2026 AvTalk 19
AVT 371 Transcript
[0:39:10] IP: WestJet in Canada is being investigated for not paying compensation due to
passengers when they suffered lengthy delays or cancellations. In Canada, compensation is
due for lengthy delays and airline cancellations. However, no compensation is due if the delay
was due to the safety of the aircraft.
What passengers are alleging and what regulators are investigating is that WestJet would swap
the tails of the aircraft from the ones that they were cancelling to a different aircraft that was
already down for maintenance, and then say, "Oh, no. Plane is broken, flight is canled," and
then refuse to pay compensation because it was a safety issue.
[0:39:58] JR: Hmm. First of all, I didn't know Canada had rules like this. Very similar to EU261,
kind of sort of, but a little more restrictive.
[0:40:08] IP: Less restrictive on the airlines part. Yeah.
[0:40:10] JR: Yeah. This is basically what's happening here is that there are some very helpful
screenshots that we can link to as well in articles about this where the airline, in the very same
minute, cancelled the flight immediately after or before. Unclear. In the same minute, swapping
the tail to an aircraft that had not operated and was not operating because it had some sort of
maintenance issue. Why is this a problem?
[0:40:36] IP: I mean for who?
[0:40:38] JR: For the passengers, I guess. Why does the tail swap matter?
[0:40:41] IP: What the passengers, their advocates, what those people are arguing and what
investigators are investigating again because WestJet has already been taken to task for a very
similar situation in 2022. What the tail swap does is it allows the airline to then cancel the flight
because of a safety issue if that aircraft that they are swapping to requires maintenance.
[0:41:07] JR: Ah. So the flight could have been cancelled for – maybe they knew they were
going to cancel it for either weather, or they were short on aircraft because Boeing wasn't
delivering them fast enough, or it got stuck at LaGuardia because of a sinkhole. Who knows?
© 2026 AvTalk 20
AVT 371 Transcript
Bet you didn't see that call back happening. But basically, what they're alleging is WestJet did
not have enough aircraft for whatever reason to operate this flight. So they quietly swapped in
an aircraft they knew had a maintenance issue. And then at that moment, canceled the flight, so
they wouldn't be eligible for compensation. If that proves to be the case and proves to be true,
that is real, real crappy.
[0:41:46] IP: Yeah. And again, this isn't the first time WestJet has been taken to task for this
particular action. This was first raised in 2022 when the Canadian Transportation Agency ruled
against WestJet in a similar case. CBC did a very interesting investigation here and found a
bunch of people saying, "Yeah, that happened to me." So now the Canadian Transportation
Agency is again investigating this just to show why they might be doing this on WestJet's part,
why they might want to not pay out that compensation. On the low-end, CBC says that's about
$75,000. And on the high-end, it's about $200,000 per flight. I can understand why they would
not want to pay that compensation.
[0:42:39] JR: Yeah. But the flight in question here wasn't exactly a no big deal, high frequency
Toronto to Vancouver flight. Oh, you cancel it. No big deal. Roll the passengers over to the next
19 flights of the day. No, this was Las Cabos to Calgary. I don't think they operate too many
flights on the Los Cabos to Calgary line.
And the main genesis of this, basically this investigation, was because these people got home
16 hours later than planned. So yeah, there's real implication if you're stranded because the
airlines says it's a mechanical issue. You don't get compensation, you don't get meals. Probably
you don't get hotels. You get nothing. You're on your own.
Yeah, if WestJet pulled a fast one and swapped out the tail to an aircraft that was already
broken and they knew just because they wouldn't have to pay out compensation, there's also
real financial hardship on the passengers who no longer are getting home or getting to wherever
they're going and end up getting home 16 hours later. They have to pay out of pocket, if they
don't have travel insurance, for their own hotel, their own food, their own whatever. That's a real
burden on these passengers. We'll see what happens. But if there's real fraud there, I can only
hope that the fine equals more than whatever it would have cost them in the onset to actually
pay out people.
© 2026 AvTalk 21
AVT 371 Transcript
[0:43:53] IP: Yeah.
[0:43:53] JR: It never is.
[0:43:54] IP: We'll see what the resolution is here and report back. Jason, let's talk about the
bus.
[0:44:01] JR: Ah, the bus. The not so glamorous way to the airport. But functional way to the
airport.
[0:44:09] IP: Or is it?
[0:44:09] JR: Yeah. We've probably talked about landline in the past. I'm not all that sure.
[0:44:16] IP: We've talked about landline in the past. But what is landline?
[0:44:19] JR: Landline is a fancy bus operator here in North America that works with airlines
and actually has "scheduled flights" that operate actually is just as buses from either very small
airports or individual cities to big hub airports where you can then onward connect to an airlines
route network. And you do so. Typically, you clear immigration. Not immigration. TSA security.
You check your bag. It gets loaded on the bus. And you actually end up airside at the airport
you're connecting. That has been in practice for a good while now, I think, since 2021 maybe
here in the US with United, American. Air Canada has a big operation in Pearson. But now it's
expanded to a bit of a twist in Boston. They are operating a remote terminal in Framingham,
Massachusetts. About 40-ish minutes to an hour west of Boston, but not in technically in
conjunction with an airline.
Logan, the airport in Boston has just opened up a remote terminal in a defunct parking lot,
where if you are flying JetBlue or Delta, you can check in, you can check your bags, you can get
on the bus, and they will drop you airside. And it cost $9. That's pretty cool because it takes
congestion off people individually driving to the airport. Takes congestion off the TSA
checkpoints at the major hub airport.
© 2026 AvTalk 22
AVT 371 Transcript
I don't know. I picked this one up because it's just an interesting evolution. What's unclear is
what happens if the bus has a flat tire or there's tremendous traffic and you misconnect. You're
not technically the airlines passenger at that point because all you've done is gotten on a bus
that the airline hasn't booked for you. I'm a little wary of that, but I want to try it. I like this idea.
And I have a feeling it's going to catch on.
[0:46:11] IP: I mean, I like the idea. And I hadn't really thought about your concerns there. And
now I'm a little more worried about what happens.
[0:46:19] JR: Well, yeah, because with everyone else, with Delta, American –
[0:46:23] IP: You're the airlines problem. You're technically flying the airlines.
[0:46:27] JR: Yeah. You once you check in and you get on that bus, you are ostensibly an
American Airlines passenger. You're just on a flight operated by landline, which actually got
American into a little bit of trouble earlier this year where they were calling them flights and
people got on. They're like, "Why am I on a bus? This isn't a flight." That was a weird loophole.
Let's not talk about that. But yeah, I'd imagine the airline will take care of you because it only
applies to JetBlue and Delta at Logan. It's not like any passenger can do this. You have to be
flying one of them.
But, it's not something that's in like the global flight schedule. So, you can't book it as a flight. It's
an extension of the Logan Express bus network. Not that buses are anything new to connect
onward to the airport, but this is an interesting twist for landline. Something I could see
becoming quite popular if it proves to work. Here in New York, sure, TSA at Newark is an
absolute disaster. What if you could clear TSA in Westchester? Get on a bus and head down to
Newark?
And I know there are actually buses operated by airlines or contracted by airlines. I think a
couple of the Asian airlines. I'm thinking in particular, Eva Air has a bus that operates all the way
from Philly to JFK to connect onto those flights. And in those cases, you're booking through the
© 2026 AvTalk 23
AVT 371 Transcript
airline. So, you're definitely protected. It's a interesting twist on how people get to the airport, but
we'll see how it works. Starts June 1st.
[0:47:55] IP: All right. Let's wrap up with what is, I think, irony, I think is what we're looking at
here.
[0:48:04] JR: Yeah, irony or just like a sad ending. I don't know. This one's weird.
[0:48:10] IP: Yeah. What happened, Jason?
[0:48:11] JR: What happened? Well, you apparently knew this happened last week, and we
didn't bring it up. But the headline from AFP news agency is experimental plane Solar Impulse
2, which completed a historic round the world trip in 2016 without using jet fuel, crashed into the
Gulf of Mexico recently, its owners revealed. I said, "Huh, first of all, I have a personal
connection to that because I was at JFK when it completed its round the world journey, which
was most of the way on its round the world journey." By the way, if the name Solar Impulse 2
didn't bring it home for you, this is a solar-powered aircraft.
[0:48:43] IP: Yeah, we tracked it the whole way on its very, very, very long journey around the
world. It was not a fast aircraft.
[0:48:52] JR: No, it was not. But apparently, 3 years after its round the world flight, the solar-
powered aircraft, or as AFP calls it vessel, which is interesting, was sold to Skydweller Aero,
which they say converted the aircraft into a drone to carry out controlled ditching, the company
said in a press release issued Tuesday.
Apparently, took off from Stennis, Mississippi on April 26th, but crashed into the Gulf of Mexico
on May 4th. First of all, that's interesting because that's like a week in the air. But then the
aircraft they converted to do controlled ditching crashed into the Gulf of Mexico. I guess it was
an uncontrolled ditching. I have questions that I don't think we're going to get the answers to,
but the NTSB is investigating, which is also quite interesting.
© 2026 AvTalk 24
AVT 371 Transcript
[0:49:45] IP: Yes, there will be no preliminary report. However, we will get a final report at the
end of their investigation.
[0:49:53] JR: Rest in peace, Solar Impulse 2, at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.
[0:49:58] IP: Bummer.
[0:49:59] JR: Hey, at least it had an 8-day, 14minute flight. That was cool.
[0:50:03] IP: It was active for quite some time. I mean, they were busy with whatever they were
doing.
[0:50:08] JR: I also don't know why they were converting it to a controlled ditching aircraft.
Why?
[0:50:14] IP: Got to convert it to something.
[0:50:15] JR: Okay. Do you?
[0:50:17] IP: I don't know. I don't know. I honestly don't know. But that's what happened.
[0:50:21] JR: Okay.
[0:50:23] IP: There was no control ditching in this particular case.
As a reminder, next week we'll have something for you. It'll be a good episode no matter what it
ends up being. I promise. And we'll be off in Sweden and Switzerland. Again, they're not the
same place. And we'll make sure that that is noted again as well. Jason, if you decide to take
next week off, or if whatever we end up doing, have lovely travels. And we'll see you when
you're back.
[0:50:53] JR: Thank you.
© 2026 AvTalk 25
AVT 371 Transcript
[0:50:55] IP: If you're here next week, great. I'll talk to you then. This has been episode 371 of
AvTalk. I'm Ian Petchenik. Here as always with –
[0:51:04] JR: Jason Rabinowitz. Thanks for listening.
[END]
© 2026 AvTalk 26