AvTalk Episode 374: 17 years without a license

AVT 374 Transcript
EPISODE 374
[EPISODE]
[0:00:08] IP: Hello and welcome to episode 374 of AvTalk. I am Ian Petchenik, here as always
with –
[0:00:16] JR: Jason Rabinowitz. Hello, Ian. What's going on in apparently, very rainy Chicago?
[0:00:21] IP: Oh, it was very, very wet.
[0:00:24] JR: It's summer.
[0:00:25] IP: It's summer? Yeah, the thunderstorms are moving through. Unfortunately, the
thunderstorms thundered into my house a little bit.
[0:00:33] JR: That’s not supposed to happen.
[0:00:33] IP: Our recording today was delayed by me mopping up.
[0:00:38] JR: Ground delay program issued.
[0:00:40] IP: Yeah, ground delay exactly, both at the airport and in my house. The
FlightRadar24 North American office is now a bit drier, thankfully. But it's summer in Chicago.
These things happen. There's trees down around the neighborhood. It was pretty windy, and
O’Hare shut down for a bit. I screen-shotted the METAR at the time of windiest.
[0:01:02] JR: What did it say? Just, don't bother?
[0:01:04] IP: Well, it was five lines long. Yes, basically said, don't bother. Let's see. Wind’s 250
at 26 gust 4.5.
[0:01:14] JR: Oh, that's not terrible.
© 2026 AvTalk 1
AVT 374 Transcript
[0:01:15] IP: Visibility half a statute mile runway. The RVR on the departure runway was
thunderstorms, broken clouds at ground level, broken clouds just above ground level, overcast
at 1,000 feet. Yeah, it got real dark real quick and the wind was whipping.
[0:01:36] JR: I feel like the METAR reports you see don't often capture the true in-the-moment
intensity and scariness of some of these thunderstorms, because it's a capture of an exact
moment in time of what the weather was for that exact moment. It could calm down. It could
intensify. Really hard to capture what's going on on the field in alphanumeric nonsense.
[0:01:58] IP: Yeah. I think that's a really good point. We see this especially when things get
really bad. Sometimes the weather stations just go, “Nah.”
[0:02:06] JR: “Nah. I quit.”
[0:02:07] IP: Is O'Hare –
[0:02:08] JR: Like JFK, where forever and always, as long as I've been doing this, is always a
dollar sign at the end of it that indicates some data above, maybe inaccurate, followed by three
exclamation points. Something's broken. You don't know why.
[0:02:20] IP: We don't have three exclamation points.
[0:02:22] JR: Oh. Well, you need the three exclamation points.
[0:02:25] IP: We only have the dollar sign to indicate possible deviation from truth.
[0:02:29] JR: Well, the dollar sign tells you you have possible deviation from truth, but actually
on aviationweather.gov, an official source of METARs, the QC flag actually has three
exclamation points next to some data above maybe inaccurate. They really want you to know
that this is probably the weather.
[0:02:45] IP: But also, could be the weather.
© 2026 AvTalk 2
AVT 374 Transcript
[0:02:46] JR: I don't know. Maybe not.
[0:02:48] IP: Things are moving at O'Hare. Things are moving here at the podcast, and let's get
to it, because it has been a busy week. We begin with bad news, unfortunately.
[0:02:59] JR: We always do.
[0:03:01] IP: Generally, yeah. We do. This time, thankfully, well, unfortunately, people got hurt,
but thankfully, not very seriously, as far as we know at the moment. But a Lufthansa Boeing
787-9 was preparing to depart Frankfurt for Los Angeles, when at the gate, the nose gear
decided it would no longer be extended.
[0:03:24] JR: It opted out.
[0:03:25] IP: It opted out of extension. It became retracted. We don't know yet why the gear
retracted, collapsed, folded, whatever you want to use at the moment, because we don't know
exactly what happened yet. This was DABPQ, and it was positioned at Stand A15, preparing for
flight LH450 to Los Angeles. There were ground crew and flight crew onboard the aircraft at the
time of the incident. Lufthansa says that several people sustained minor injuries, and at least
two people sustained serious injuries, and multiple people were taken to hospital for evaluation.
The aircraft sustained significant damage to the nose area, as well as some other areas.
Thankfully, as far as extremely, extremely expensive and difficult repairs, the front door seems
to have been closed. The L1 door at the jet bridge appears to have been closed.
[0:04:33] JR: Yeah, there's a couple other interesting points here. The extended video shows.
Most of the videos people have seen, and then we even have in the blog, only show the
immediate moments before the gear collapse. The longer version of the video actually shows
the doors opening up before the nose wheel retracts into the bay, indicating that, for whatever
reason, whether it was commanded to retract the nose gear, or whatever else, it wasn't just that
the gear gave out and collapsed into the wheel well. It seems to have been doing the normal
thing, the normal actuation that the nose gear does, which is very, very interesting.
© 2026 AvTalk 3
AVT 374 Transcript
Whether that was due to some maintenance procedure that was going on, or whatever other
reason, it wasn't simply that the nose gear gave out. It looks like it was commanded to, or either
decided to do it for whatever reason. Ian, you speak of, thankfully, that damage could be worse.
As Jon Ostrower points out on Bluesky or wherever, thankfully, the folks at Boeing designed the
787 with, and I'm sure other aircraft with this in mind, so that if the nose gear gives out, the face
of the nose of the aircraft hits the ground. But thankfully, there is enough clearance that the very
precious engines do not hit the ground, or do so very, very, very gently.
[0:05:50] IP: Exactly. Yeah. The way that the 787-9 and other aircraft generally hit the ground
when this happens, it does leave clearance for the engine nacelles to not hit the ground. As
Jason notes, the gear doors opened, the main gear doors also opened.
[0:06:12] JR: Ah, I did not see that.
[0:06:14] IP: Yeah. The first picture show us with the main gear door open. It is possible that
this was part of a maintenance action, or something like that. We just don't yet know. There's
definitely, definitely an ongoing investigation here. The German investigators are looking to see
what happened, how it happened, and then we will bring you more as we get a preliminary
report, hopefully sometime soon.
[0:06:41] JR: Yes.
[0:06:41] IP: For now, Lufthansa is down one 787.
[0:06:46] JR: Quite new 787.
[0:06:48] IP: Yes. This is less than a year old. But they did just take delivery of a new 787 this
week. I guess, one out, one in, maybe?
[0:06:59] JR: Sure. Not ideal for fleet planning, or schedule delivery at the very beginning of the
summer season, but Lufthansa's got some experience with this. It's not the first time. It's
happened before. Way back when in 2017, Lufthansa 747-400 did the same thing at Frankfurt,
too. Not quite sure if it was the same exact gate. Apparently, this happened to get A23 back in
© 2026 AvTalk 4
AVT 374 Transcript
the day on preparing for a flight to Delhi. But apparently, there was a malfunction of the liver
mechanism with the safety bar in conjunction with the ground block pin, and then this left the
GLP in an insert position, in an unlocked state, and well, the same exact thing happened. It
happened before, it'll happen again. Do we know what gate this happened at this most recent
one? Because that would be a real weird coincidence.
[0:07:41] IP: Close, but not the same gate. This is Alpha 15 –
[0:07:45] JR: Oh, so close.
[0:07:46] IP: - this time around. To Jason's point about what happened with the 747, the nose
gear pin, this was an issue with the 787. Again, we don't know –
[0:07:55] JR: We have no information.
[0:07:56] JR: - if it’s the same issue this time. We have no information one way or the other. But
for a holistic context, the 787 has two holes on the nose landing gear. One of those holes is the
lockout pin, so that the nose gear cannot retract. One of them does not lockout the nose gear.
They're next to each other. In a previous incident, somebody put the pin in the wrong hole, and
the nose gear was able to attract on the ground. While Boeing put out a service bulletin, and
airlines have been in the process of basically plugging the other hole –
[0:08:34] JR: What does the other hole do?
[0:08:37] IP: It's just a hole. It doesn't do anything. It's just the design of the gear. In this case,
this particular incident, we don't know if that played any role here at all. This was almost a
brand-new aircraft. It stands to reason in my mind, and again, we don't know, but it stands to
reason in my mind that this is something that Boeing, after telling other operators to take care of
this years ago, would have already taken care of this on new-built aircraft. We'll wait to learn
more exactly the sequence of events of what happened and how it happened. There's some
context about why Lufthansa is missing one of its 787s in action for the foreseeable future.
© 2026 AvTalk 5
AVT 374 Transcript
[0:09:19] JR: For probably a while. But you know what? If you wait maybe even just 30 days,
somebody's probably going to issue a preliminary report. That's just what the NTSB did with the
Newark United 74 – not 74. 767-400.
[0:09:34] IP: Wishful thinking?
[0:09:35] JR: Wishful thinking, yeah. Or is it? I don’t know.
[0:09:37] IP: For me, it’s slip or wishful thinking. We’ll go with either.
[0:09:38] JR: Yeah, either one. From the 747 from Lufthansa, back in the day. Now we're talking
about the United 767-400 that found its way to impacting a light pole on the New Jersey turnpike
just outside of Newark. We now have the preliminary report. We now know for a matter of fact, it
would seem that the aircraft did not hit the truck. I suspected this from the very moment we saw
it, because it just didn't look quite right. What happened was the NTSB confirms that the plane
did hit a light pole. Subsequently, that light pole hit the truck. The aircraft continued on, as we
know. Landed safely, went to the gate where the pilots did a walk around and said, “What the
heck happened here?” Now we know, plane did not hit truck, but it came damn close.
[0:10:30] IP: It came very, very close. In the final report, which we won't get for quite some time
– hopefully, we'll have a bit more information about the precise location of both the truck and the
aircraft in relation to each other. Because I'm very interested in how close those two vehicles
actually got to each other. The idea that the pilot had was to fly a lower approach than a
standard 3-degree glide slope. The captain of the aircraft discussed wanting 3-red and 1-white
on the Precision Approach Path Indicator, or PAPI. That, on a normal 3-degree approach
displays 2-red and 2-white lamps to the pilots to let them know that they are on the correct glide
slope. This captain wanted a lower approach, because –
[0:11:25] JR: He got it.
[0:11:26] IP: He got it. Too low. Too low. What he wanted to do was touch down with more
runway remaining than would be available otherwise if he made a 3-degree approach. That's
the idea that seems prevalent enough that United felt it necessary to remind pilots not to do that.
© 2026 AvTalk 6
AVT 374 Transcript
[0:11:56] JR: Yeah, this is a tough one. This is a relatively short runway on a non-precision
approach. This isn't an ILS. This is very much either – I don't think it's visual of EOR. I guess,
these days a GPS approach, but it is not precision –
[0:12:10] IP: It's an RNAV approach that becomes a visual approach.
[0:12:13] JR: Yeah, it's quite tricky. The runway is by far and away the shortest at Newark of the
three runways. It's like half a runway, basically.
[0:12:20] IP: Yeah. Four right 22 left was the originally signed runway. They got switched three
or four times, because it's Newark and whatnot.
[0:12:29] JR: As is tradition.
[0:12:31] IP: That runway is 9,000 feet and change. Runway 29 is 6,500 feet.
[0:12:37] JR: Yeah. Anything can land on that runway. I don't know if an A380 can, but A380s
aren't allowed at Newark anyway, so it doesn't matter.
[0:12:44] IP: You can land anything once.
[0:12:47] JR: That's true, Ian. That's true. But the NTSB preliminary report is interesting,
because they do know that, at least the captain stated, they had no crew resource management
issues during the flight. There was a lot of conversation back and forth between the pilot flying
and the pilot not flying. Multiple callouts of like, “Hey, you're a little low. You're a little slow.
Maybe you should do something about that.” As their speed decayed, again, the first officer
recalled like, “Hey, you're slow and a little low.” Apparently, he was right. When they heard a
thump, they didn't know what it was, but now we know what it was. Could have been a lot worse
than it actually was. Yeah, maybe you don't take that particular approach solo next time.
[0:13:28] IP: It definitely could have been a lot worse. It's interesting to me how United felt
strongly enough that this might be prevalent enough to say, pilots don't do that. Don't shift the
© 2026 AvTalk 7
AVT 374 Transcript
aim – they're calling it ducking under. Don't shift the aiming point during landing. Saying that this
contributes to low flight paths during visual approaches, which this was at certain airports and
Newark being one of those airports, where there just happens to be 12,000 lanes of traffic right
next to the threshold.
[0:14:07] JR: Yes, famously wide New Jersey turnpike. There's also one more thing. We got a
couple of photos from the NTSB and via the port authority that puts a little more context than
what actually happened to the truck. The video from the dashcam on the truck is very dramatic,
because it is probably window mounted camera. When the windshield is shattered, the camera
ends up not where it was before. The truck wasn't flipped over. It didn't go flying in cross lanes.
The truck driver pulled over and it was fine. But the video is way more dramatic than what
actually happened, simply because the windshield was shattered and remained in place,
actually. But then, the dash cam took a bit of a trip inside the cab of the truck. It wasn't like the
truck got blasted, or anything, or ended up in a ditch. It was completely upright and fine.
[0:14:51] IP: Yeah, thankfully this resulted in no serious injuries. Got to the truck driver and
thankfully, the truck was not severely damaged.
[0:15:00] JR: No bakery item were lost during this time.
[0:15:03] IP: That's the important thing. Wouldn't it have been hilarious if this was a Gate
Gourmet truck?
[0:15:07] JR: I mean, it can happen. It definitely can happen. But again, nothing of value would
have been lost. Having eaten food on United flights before, literally nothing of value would have
been lost.
[0:15:20] IP: This is one of those things that we've never discussed on the podcast. Then
something happens and then we get there tangentially. I'm like, okay, let's talk about it for a
second. This was brought up, I think twice to me in the past week and a half. There's a sign on
some of the Gate Gourmet trucks that makes people take a second look at them.
[0:15:42] JR: Is it the regulated garbage one?
© 2026 AvTalk 8
AVT 374 Transcript
[0:15:44] IP: It's the regulated garbage one.
[0:15:46] JR: I knew you were going there.
[0:15:48] IP: Any airline catering provider, whether it's Gate Gourmet, DO & CO, what have you,
some of the trucks have a sign on them that says, “Regulated Garbage.” In most countries, all of
the garbage that comes off of an international flight is –
[0:16:08] JR: Gets recycled as your next meal out about. No, that's not what it is.
[0:16:13] IP: No. It's incinerated. Because they don't know where it's been. They don't know
what you're bringing into the country. It's the same reason you can't bring fresh fruits and
vegetables and things like that to another country, without a whole lot of paperwork. They have
signs on those trucks that say, “Regulated Garbage,” so that that information is communicated,
and so that they know they can go certain places and remove that garbage and things like that.
It's always very interesting –
[0:16:40] JR: What you're getting at is you should never be afraid to ask for seconds onboard a
flight, because they're just going to burn the leftovers anyway.
[0:16:46] IP: That's true. Yeah. I mean, I think that's a great takeaway from this. Yes. Always
ask for seconds.
[0:16:51] JR: Yes.
[0:16:52] IP: You will most likely say yes.
[0:16:53] JR: I mean, the fight crew is probably going to be upset, because they actually eat the
leftovers. But whatever's the leftover, the leftovers, then it finds its way to a fire pit.
[0:17:00] IP: Yeah, then you can have that. Jason, this is not the story I expected we would be
talking about this week, because I didn't think that this –
© 2026 AvTalk 9
AVT 374 Transcript
[0:17:10] JR: I didn’t think it was possible in country.
[0:17:11] IP: - thing could happen like this.
[0:17:14] JR: No.
[0:17:15] IP: But as it turns out, Captain Jeffrey Wall, who is now a retired and under arrest Air
Canada captain is being charged with fraud and forgery, because he didn't have the right pilot's
license to operate Air Canada flights.
[0:17:35] JR: And never did. This is some real Pakistan stuff right here. Years ago, what was it?
2020-2021 where we saw a massive operation in Pakistan to figure out, hey, are the pilots flying
for this airline –
[0:17:47] IP: To be clear, this is just one guy.
[0:17:48] JR: Just one guy.
[0:17:49] IP: I guess, that we know about. But just one guy.
[0:17:52] JR: However, this came about apparently as an investigation called Project Icarus,
which is just a fantastic name. If you're not familiar, Icarus is long story short, guy flew too close
to the sun and burned up, or whatever. In this case, yeah, this pilot flew too close to the sun for
apparently, 17 years, no big deal, without the correct license. Only at some point, did someone
– Actually, Ian, you explained to me before we started recording, what happens, basically, and
what happened?
[0:18:22] IP: From my understanding based on the charging document and the press
conference that the Peel Police had, this all started because of a random check, where
Transport Canada, like the FAA, or EASA, or whoever is the regulator of that country, visits with
pilots and says, “We would like to see your documentation just to make sure that all your
licensure is in order, just to make sure that your medical's here, everything's good to go, you are
© 2026 AvTalk 10
AVT 374 Transcript
who you say you are. Just making sure the system's working as designed.” He presented
evidence of licensure and all of these things. The folks said, “That doesn't look quite right.”
[0:19:02] JR: Sir, this is a fruit roll up, your license key. Can you please provide your license?
[0:19:07] IP: This is just a piece of paper that says, “I can fly any plane I want.”
[0:19:11] JR: Yeah. To be clear, he did have some license and ATT –
[0:19:16] IP: He was a military pilot.
[0:19:18] JR: Or a CPL.
[0:19:18] IP: And had a CPL. He was a military pilot and then had a CPL. He did not have an air
transport pilot's license that offered, or enabled him to operate flights that carried passengers on
an airline.
[0:19:33] JR: Which is crazy.
[0:19:33] IP: He did not have that.
[0:19:34] JR: Crazy how over a decade, almost two decades that this guy was able to fly 767s,
777, 787s. These are not fly under the radar aircraft. This guy is flying all over the world, and at
no point during his career until the very end of the career, did anyone ask to see –
[0:19:51] IP: He's retired.
[0:19:52] JR: - the actual license, which is nuts.
[0:19:53] IP: He's retired.
© 2026 AvTalk 11
AVT 374 Transcript
[0:19:55] JR: You would think at some point in a career that long, it would happen incidentally,
like renewing your health checks and all that and going through recurrent training. Nope, never
happened, apparently.
[0:20:05] IP: No.
[0:20:05] JR: If it did happen, nobody looked close enough.
[0:20:07] IP: Yeah. He's accused of fraud and forgery. Not that he was just flying with the wrong
license that somehow wasn't caught. He apparently doctored a license, so that he would appear
to have an ATPL. Air Canada for its part says that at no time, and I'll say what they say, and then
we'll talk about that. Air Canada says, That at no time was safety compromised, because pilots
go through recurrent training every six months.”
[0:20:39] JR: True.
[0:20:40] IP: True, I guess.
[0:20:41] JR: With an asterisk, I guess. Yeah. I mean, this person definitely did have not just
recurrent training, but new training, if he moved up the ranks from the 76 to the 78, the 777 and
then the 78. There is a lot of training involved in getting those type certificates. Yes. But also, I
mean, you want all your pilots to be fully licensed correctly and not fakely, I guess, in this case.
[0:21:08] IP: Yeah.
[0:21:08] JR: Makes you wonder, who else out there? Is Project Icarus just for this one guy, or
was it for multiple pilots? I don't know. Or multiple airlines. Who knows? We'll have to wait and
see what else comes. But hopefully, we don't hear anything about this.
[0:21:22] IP: Hopefully, nothing. Hopefully, it's just the Peel Police really leaning into the naming
of criminal investigations.
© 2026 AvTalk 12
AVT 374 Transcript
[0:21:29] JR: I can't blame them. It's a pretty good one. You know there were a couple meetings
about that and they debated it and it’s –
[0:21:34] IP: What are we going to call this investigation?
[0:21:35] JR: Icarus sounds good.
[0:21:37] IP: Exactly. Yeah. He's been charged with fraud, uttering forged documents,
possession of a counterfeit mark and public mischief.
[0:21:49] JR: Public mischief. Okay.
[0:21:51] IP: Public mischief.
[0:21:52] JR: I feel like they're just throwing whatever out there and see what sticks.
[0:21:56] IP: There you go.
[0:21:57] JR: A time-honored tradition.
[0:21:59] IP: Let's switch gears completely and talk about something that is very, very cool.
[0:22:04] JR: Okay.
[0:22:05] IP: NASA's X-59 quiet supersonic aircraft made its first supersonic flight on the 5th of
June and made its second supersonic flight today, Wednesday the 10th of June. The first flight
passed Mach 1 and reached a top speed of Mach 1.1 at 43,400 feet. Soon, the aircraft will
begin targeting a top speed of Mach 1.4 at 55,000 feet. Once they're comfortable at that altitude
and speed, the aircraft, and this is where it gets real fun, the aircraft will begin doing “community
flights.” Those will be flights over populated areas that NASA will then survey to say, “Hey, did
you hear the supersonic plane?”
[0:22:50] JR: I was hoping community flights would be inviting the community.
© 2026 AvTalk 13
AVT 374 Transcript
[0:22:53] IP: Ah, wouldn’t that be fun? Unfortunately, it's a one-seater. You would have to
become a NASA pilot, go through years of training, a rigorous qualification program, and then
somehow also be able to fly the plane, and you've got a year to do it.
[0:23:10] JR: I can't just fake all those credentials, because I'll get caught by Project Icarus.
[0:23:13] IP: Exactly. Then you'll be charged with public mischief.
[0:23:16] JR: I don't need any of that. The community flights and the surveys, I feel like, are
going to be very, very, very different and what happened back in the 60s and 70s with the run up
to the Concorde. Because I feel like the environment is just a hell of a lot noisier than it was
back then, between people with very souped up, very annoying, purposely modified cars that
make all sorts of noise. It sounds like it's going to kill you, but it's really just some guy who
modified his exhaust to be as loud and as obnoxious as possible. I feel like that didn't really
exist back then. People are just, I don't know, they tuned out nonsense like this. But a sonic
boom is pretty damn loud.
[0:23:54] IP: Well, the idea here is that it's a sonic thud. Exactly. The idea here is that you'll feel
possibly a sonic thud. The X-59 is projected to have a 75 perceived decibel noise level.
Whereas, the Concorde was at 110.
[0:24:14] JR: That is a big difference. Because remember, that's exponential.
[0:24:17] IP: It's a logarithmic scale. Much, much, much different. It'll be very interesting to see.
I don't know exactly how they're doing in community flights, whether they're doing the flights.
Because I feel like telling people ahead of time when these things are going to happen and then
going –
[0:24:34] JR: They’ll be looking out for it. Yeah.
[0:24:35] IP: Right. Then it’ll be like, “Oh, yeah. I definitely heard it. It was super loud.” What
time did the aircraft fly over? “Uh, 6 a.m.? Noon?”
© 2026 AvTalk 14
AVT 374 Transcript
[0:24:42] JR: At some point. That being said, 75 decibels is nothing to sneeze at. I'm looking at
the Port Authority New York, New Jersey has a somewhat nearly live noise monitoring website
up. All of the noise monitors around Newark, LaGuardia, and JFK, they are all well below 75
decibels. Even as what is this? An A220-300 flies over one right now, it's only at 66 decibels.
Granted, these aircraft would probably be making the most noise when they're low to the ground
approaching an airport. But the background level of noise at these airports, even with aircraft
flying low overhead is not all at heights, around anywhere in the 40s to 50s to 60s. Newark,
unsurprisingly, is in the high 60s. 75 decibels on the low end would be noticeable, especially if
it's a very, very momentary thud. You're going to hear that. Oh, look at that. Newark just peaked
at the 77. Something loud must have happened on the turnpike.
[0:25:44] IP: I mean, but the other thing is the design of this specific aircraft, where the design
of the aircraft is designed to, while that noise exists, it's designed to deflect it upwards. It'll be
super interesting to see, because we haven't been able to hear it by itself yet, because the first
flight had NASA's F-15 flying alongside, which was much louder than the X-59. That'll be super
interesting to see what is happening. There's a quote from Catherine Bahm, who is the project
manager on the X-59 program. She was speaking with BBC in 2023. She says, “We always joke
that the X-1 broke the sound barrier. Now we're trying to fix it.” I think that's super interesting.
“Its sonic boom won't be loud enough for people to notice. It'll be distant thunder, or your
neighbor's car door closing that merges into everyday life.”
[0:26:41] JR: I mean, I don't want the noise.
[0:26:41] IP: We’ll see.
[0:26:42] JR: I have enough noise. This 777-200 that just took out a JFK at 1,500 feet produced
80 decibels of noise. Just tossing that out there. Just some nice to see these numbers go up
and down. I guess, if these things are flying, I don't think they will ever fight nearly in any of the
numbers that boom, supersonic, or any of the other manufacturers would like you to believe. It's
probably not going to be the biggest deal. But if you happen to be living under a flight path that
these would take, you're probably going to notice it, even if it is a thud. Very interesting to see
what the result of these, what are they called? Community flights.
© 2026 AvTalk 15
AVT 374 Transcript
[0:27:17] IP: Community flights. Yeah, exactly. All right, let's shift gears to Rio mostly and cover
some of the IATA annual general meeting news. The IATA annual general meeting is exactly
what it sounds like. It's an annual general meeting that takes place wherever IATA decides to
hold it. This year, it was Rio. Next year, it's back to China, I believe, and everybody's there.
Airlines, organizations, OEMs, everybody goes.
[0:27:51] JR: Not everyone, Ian. We're not there.
[0:27:54] IP: Fair.
[0:27:56] JR: That's fair, right? Not everyone.
[0:27:58] IP: Not everyone. But most people.
[0:27:59] JR: Well, our good friend of the podcast, Ned Russell is there. Maybe we'll have him
on next week, or the week –
[0:28:03] IP: Exactly.
[0:28:04] JR: - to talk about what he talked about.
[0:28:06] IP: He was collecting news left and right. We're going to go through some of the
things that caught our eye. Then we'll talk about some orders and deliveries that have happened
in the past month or so that are also noteworthy. Let's start with Southwest Airlines. Because
anytime Andrew Watterson talks, I always like to listen. If only because he's one of the people in
the industry that I trust to tell it how it is.
[0:28:36] JR: Yes.
[0:28:36] IP: Whether it's good for Southwest or not, you're not going to get spin from Andrew. I
mean, you'll get a little bit of spin, but any good advocate for the organization is going to do that.
However, you'll always get what's actually happening.
© 2026 AvTalk 16
AVT 374 Transcript
[0:28:51] JR: What is actually happening?
[0:28:52] IP: Exactly. For him to say that they're expecting to add the MAX 7 early next year, no
earlier than six months after certification, so early next year, so Southwest seems to be on
board with Boeing's target for this summer for certification of the MAX 7. They're going to bring
the first batch of about 20 to 30 aircraft into the airline and begin service on special purpose
flying. Those aircraft will be ETOPS certified. If Southwest needs an ETOPS certified aircraft,
Jason, where are they going?
[0:29:29] JR: They are probably going to go to Hawaii, or maybe Iceland these days. I don't
know. Who knows what Southwest did?
[0:29:37] IP: Definitely Hawaii. An example that Watterson gave was these aircraft can go from
the U.S. West Coast to Hawaii. Then they can bounce around the islands and then they can
come back to the West Coast. They have that capability. They have the right number of seats
for that kind of flying, and they can really plug and play them into that special program.
[0:29:57] JR: They are desperately needed to replace Southwest’s legacy 737-700s, which are
getting a bit long in the tooth and having fallen on one just a couple months ago, desperately
need to be put out of their misery.
[0:30:13] IP: After that first batch, then we'll start to see, basically, a one-for-one replacement of
the 737-700s that are still in the fleet.
[0:30:21] IP: Which is numerous, I think. How many do they have in their fleet? Let's see.
Bringing it up right now. Loading, loading, verifying your browser. They have got, wow, 289 in
the fleet right now, which is a lot. That's still the bulk of the Southwest fleet is 737-700s, only
eclipsed for the MAX 8 at 319 now. Good for them. This is nearly 300 737-700s that they've got
to replace. I don't know how many Boeing has on the ground wherever scattered across Pacific
Northwest, ready to go to replace these, but then need to hurry up.
© 2026 AvTalk 17
AVT 374 Transcript
[0:30:59] IP: Southwest currently has 256 firm orders for the littlest MAX. If they want to replace
all of them, they're going to have to order some more. Let's head over to Boeing news, where
Boeing says that they have received Type Inspection Authority 4B. This is the last stage in type
inspection authority granted by the FAA. We are moving much, much closer to the 777-9
becoming an actual airplane flown by actual airlines. First one for Lufthansa, flew for the second
time this week. It's thought that Lufthansa is going to be the launch customer, but it may end up
now. Emirates, so we'll see. Hopefully, we're still moving in the right direction.
[0:31:52] JR: Does it feel more real this time to you?
[0:31:54] IP: It feels much more real. I mean, the FAA does not grant type inspection authority
willy-nilly. For them to say, “Yes, you can move.” Basically, 4B is the biggest, meatiest step until
final certification. Avionics is a huge component of this step. It's one of the things that needs to
go well for Boeing, and everything seems to be moving in that direction, so that they can get to
final certification and then start delivering this plane to airlines sooner rather than later.
[0:32:32] JR: I hope so. As we talked about earlier, Lufthansa needs a new airplane. They’re
currently down at 787. It could really use that 777-9. Though even if they weren't to induct it into
their fleet tomorrow, they're not exactly going to take it and immediately launch it on flights to
Delaware-New York. It's going to sit around on the ground for a little while and then do crew
familiarization and then pop around Germany, or Europe for a while. Even if they take it, it's still
a pretty decently long road to full-fledged operation, which doesn't always go well, doesn't
always go amazingly. New airplanes are hard, especially an actual new type for an airline, even
lesser new types. Just look at United with its elevated 787-9s that it took from Boeing not too
long ago. Those aircraft have been a disaster operationally. It takes a while to get used to new
aircraft and break them in and make them a part of an actual operation. That leads more
credence to what Watterson said for Southwest, “That even if we take them, it's going to be no
earlier than six months after a certification before we can actually do anything with them.”
[0:33:39] IP: Yeah. I mean, we're moving in the right direction. Things are looking the way
they're supposed to now. Let's hope that continues. Hey, Jason?
[0:33:48] JR: Yes.
© 2026 AvTalk 18
AVT 374 Transcript
[0:33:49] IP: Remember all the talk over the past few years about sustainable aviation fuel?
[0:33:57] JR: I know it rings a bell. It rings a bell. I've seen some airlines beg me to buy some
for them.
[0:34:03] IP: Exactly. How sustainable aviation fuel was the key to decarbonizing aviation and
reaching net zero targets, the industry target of net zero by 2050.
[0:34:13] JR: That's like next week.
[0:34:13] IP: Remember all that? Guess how much sustainable aviation fuel accounts for in
2026.
[0:34:21] JR: 0.8%. I'm going to go with that.
[0:34:24] IP: It's almost like I wrote that down in the show notes.
[0:34:26] JR: Wow. Look at that.
[0:34:27] IP: Okay. Look at that.
[0:34:29] IP: Willie Walsh, the outgoing IATA Director General and incoming CEO of Indigo
Airlines said, the path to meeting 65% of our needs in 2050, which is the amount of sustainable
aviation fuel that the industry, the aviation industry worldwide needs to be using by 2050 to
reach carbon net zero. “The past meeting, 65% of our needs in 2050 is growing more difficult
with each year of ineffectively sequenced government policies,” which is a long-winded way of
saying, governments aren't paying for it, and oil companies manifest lack of interest. That just
makes sense there.
[0:35:09] JR: Yeah. When they're going to do whatever's best for them, none of this is
surprising. Many people have been saying this for a long time. Many people have also been
banking on staff to somehow save the industry, but from itself. But it was a long road. It's
© 2026 AvTalk 19
AVT 374 Transcript
expensive. There's no clear path to – A net zero by 2050 was never going to happen. I don't
think anyone really believed that. But then, literally just yesterday, American put out a press
release that it and Google signed a record-breaking sustainable aviation fuel agreement, but it's
only for Google. It's only to offset Google's own employee flying.
Apparently, the agreement unlocked 35 million gallons, or 132 million liters of SAFs over just
three years, resulting in blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. This is a private company saying, “We want
to offset our own employees flying, so we're going to buy some SAFs and feel good about it.”
That's where we're at with this is that individuals can try to offset their own carbon emissions by
some airlines offering a green fare, which lets you buy into SAF. In this case, a company, in this
case, Google just saying, “We're going to do it ourselves and we're going to buy some SAFs, or
make it available out of Chicago O’Hare specifically. One company at a one airport with one
airline setting up for SAFs. This does not feel like a sustainable, expandable future for the
industry. Apparently, IATA is finally getting onboard with that. What plan B is? I don't think there
is a plan B.
[0:36:40] IP: No, no. There's no plan B. It's doubling down on we need SAF.
[0:36:45] JR: But we did that already and it didn't work.
[0:36:48] IP: Tripling down?
[0:36:48] JR: It's too expensive. Too hard to do. Well, let's try hydrogen again. Have we looked
at that again recently?
[0:36:56] IP: I think that one's on pause.
[0:36:57] JR: Oh, okay. Well, that's all we got.
[0:37:02] IP: Let's stick with the cost of fuel then. Because WestJet has announced that it will
retire its 737NG fleet faster than it initially planned to help defray higher fuel costs that it is
currently paying. It'll wind down its NG fleet with one-to-one MAX 8 replacements throughout the
© 2026 AvTalk 20
AVT 374 Transcript
end of the year, which makes sense for a variety of reasons. But WestJet's also pretty mad at
the Canadian federal government.
[0:37:33] JR: Yeah. Apparently, they felt strongly enough to put out a public press release. I’ll
quote here, “WestJet strongly imposes the government's proposal to issue loans to airlines amid
the rising fuel cost. The government faces a choice. Continue with costly and market-distorting
subsidies, or build sustainable future for Canadian aviation.” It goes on to say some stuff about
COVID. The government lost 400 million dollar in COVID blah, blah, blah, airline loans. I don't
know. It also calls out to say, the US didn't extend any loans. Yeah, and then Spirit disappeared,
probably for the best in that case. But this one has me debating internally back and forth with
myself, whether or not this is something the Canadian government should do, because there is
a very different, very specific type of airline in Canada that offers lifeline connectivity. I'm
thinking Air Inuit, Air North, and I'm sure there are plenty. Plenty, I've never even heard of and
will never hear of in Canada, that offer services that cannot be replicated by literally anything
else. I'm thinking services like flying a 737-200 with a gravel kit to a runway that's barely a
runway to bring literally everything a town needs to survive through the winter.
If the cost of fuel doubles or triples and those airlines go away overnight, there are entire
populations of people who will not be in a very good spot, because WestJet's not going to
swoop in with a 737-8 MAX and deliver anything, because they physically cannot do that. I get
it, but also, I feel like the north of Canada is in a very unique spot where it needs these
subsidized airlines if it comes to that point. I don't know if you have a different opinion, but
there's some nuance here that I feel like they're skipping.
[0:39:18] IP: I think anytime WestJet is upset, you can just look at, you can remove all of the
other airlines, except Air Canada from the equation.
[0:39:29] JR: Basically. Or, maybe Porter.
[0:39:31] IP: Or, maybe Porter. I think the Canadian government handed out just boxes of
money to Air Tindi, or Canadian North, or Air North, or what have you.
[0:39:42] JR: Nobody should blink an eye.
© 2026 AvTalk 21
AVT 374 Transcript
[0:39:43] IP: I think they would be fine with that. Those are PSOs, those are public service
obligations. The Air Canada side of things, the interesting thing to me is that they don't mention
that at all. It's a blanket statement. “Canada should stay away from distorting markets, both
within our country and across the border news,” which it's really weird that they're so focused on
the US here.
[0:40:07] JR: Well, we're their neighbor.
[0:40:08] IP: But we're not their neighbor. “Our direct competitor.”
[0:40:11] JR: Oh, that's right. Because the US airlines siphon off their traffic.
[0:40:15] IP: I'm not sure what they're against and what they're for here.
[0:40:18] JR: I don't know. It's a really weird statement. I think they're just upset with everyone
and wanted to just lash out a little bit. The picture of the 737 MAX-8 that accompanied the press
release is nice.
[0:40:27] IP: That's a good picture. Yeah, yeah.
[0:40:28] JR: It's a very good picture. Is it a real picture? I don't know.
[0:40:31] IP: Unclear.
[0:40:32] JR: Unclear. Might be a rendering. I don't know.
[0:40:35] IP: Could be. We'll figure it out.
[0:40:37] JR: No, we won't.
[0:40:38] IP: That's what I'm going to spend my night on tonight. Figuring out if this is a photo –
© 2026 AvTalk 22
AVT 374 Transcript
[0:40:41] JR: Recreate it.
[0:40:43] IP: Yeah. Let's talk about some orders and deliveries. Because Airbus, the A320
family, passed the 20,000 orders mark in May.
[0:40:54] JR: That's a lot of orders.
[0:40:56] IP: With 207 A320neo family orders for the month. The total family from the first order
in June of 1981 from Air France through the large order for undisclosed airlines in May of 20
A320neos and 50 A321neos brings the mark past 20,000. That's a lot of planes.
[0:41:23] JR: Our favorite airline at it again. Undisclosed airlines. I assume the curtain will be
withdrawn from that order at Farnborough probably. Because that's a very big order. Orders like
that don't go undisclosed for all too long. Who do you think it could be?
[0:41:38] IP: Oh, that's a good one. It's got to be Southwest.
[0:41:41] JR: Probably Southwest, if I add to guess. Yeah. Definitely, no. Ryanair already
placed their big COMAC order.
[0:41:48] IP: Right. Right, we talked about that last week.
[0:41:51] JR: This is a strange alternate timeline. I don't like it.
[0:41:55] IP: I don't know. There's been a lot of talk about large widebody orders.
[0:41:59] JR: Because that was one order.
[0:42:00] IP: [Inaudible 0:41:59] have one coming up. Right, that was one order.
[0:42:03] JR: One order, 23 20neo and 53 21neo. That was one order, not broken up over a
couple of orders, a couple of years. That's one solid order. That's a lot of airplanes.
© 2026 AvTalk 23
AVT 374 Transcript
[0:42:13] IP: It is. It is. I can't think of anyone at the moment off the top of my head who hasn't
recently ordered that many aircraft. That'll be interesting to see. Yeah, I think Farnborough is
going to show us the details on that one. On the delivery side of things, United took delivery of
its first XLR. XLR-ing from – It was in the air last week when we –
[0:42:38] JR: Yeah, we talked about this last week. Next.
[0:42:41] IP: Then Canada, Air Canada made its first XLR revenue flight, the long, long-haul
destination of Montreal to Toronto.
[0:42:51] JR: You need the XLR for that route.
[0:42:52] IP: As we mentioned.
[0:42:53] JR: Yes.
[0:42:54] IP: These are leg stretching activities. This was obviously a press flight, first revenue
flight, but also a lot of press onboard. They did very nice from when I hear. They'll stretch its
wings later in the year and into next year. Jason, there are airlines that start up and they
obviously want PR. They reach out to organizations like FlightRadar24 and say, “Hey, this is
what we're doing. Are you interested?” A lot of times we'll say, “Yeah, we're interested. We'll help
you announce things.” Or that's really interesting for our users. We'll, of course, send it along to
them. Oftentimes, that's the good stuff. In the case of Riyadh Air, they didn't tell us about the
good stuff, because they took delivery of a pair of 787s in an objectively cool way and didn't say
anything about it.
[0:43:46] JR: They took actual delivery of this time. They didn't just take somebody else's
aircraft, slap them, stickers on it, make it look like they're – These are their actual real aircraft
that they're going to put in service, or have already put on service.
[0:43:55] IP: Exactly. Exactly. Have already put in service today.
[0:43:58] JR: Because I actually don't know. What did they say?
© 2026 AvTalk 24
AVT 374 Transcript
[0:44:01] IP: They took delivery of two 787-9s.
[0:44:04] JR: Unremarkable, but go on. Uh-huh.
[0:44:07] IP: One from Everett, one from Charleston. They linked up over the Atlantic and
landed in tandem in Riyadh.
[0:44:14] JR: On like, different runways at the same time, or back-to-back?
[0:44:18] IP: I don't know if they did different runways at the same time, or just one after the
other.
[0:44:22] JR: I mean, that's impressive coordination to be able to take delivery of two aircraft at
the same time, because Boeing delivery flights run notoriously to no schedule in particular.
That's very impressive to be able to get not one but two aircraft out from Boeing. At the time you
think from different origins and be able to lead up in the –
[0:44:40] IP: And then link up over the North Atlantic.
[0:44:42] JR: Ian, maybe they didn't tell you, because it wasn't supposed to happen like that.
Maybe they were supposed to be three days apart. It was a happy accident.
[0:44:50] IP: Just complete accident. Oh, that would just be the icing on the cake. Well, they
started their first revenue flights, actual revenue flights where you can buy a ticket, rather than –
[0:45:03] JR: Let me guess, they went to Heathrow.
[0:45:05] IP: It did. It did go to Heathrow.
[0:45:06] JR: I’m shocked they had slots.
© 2026 AvTalk 25
AVT 374 Transcript
[0:45:08] IP: The flight leaves Riyadh at 2 in the morning and lands at Heathrow right around 7
in the morning.
[0:45:14] JR: Sure.
[0:45:15] IP: That's a rough flight. But they've got their flights. Hey, maybe that big Airbus orders
for Riyadh. Maybe, I don't know.
[0:45:21] JR: Sure. Why not?
[0:45:24] IP: Get your money in.
[0:45:25] JR: We'll see if Airbus can orchestrate such a nice delivery.
[0:45:28] IP: All 70 of them at the exact same. Let us know at podcast@fr24.com if you've got
insight into who might have that delivery order out. When the podcast comes out, Jason and I, if
all goes according to plan and you hate to say, but doesn’t –
[0:45:43] JR: Yikes.
[0:45:46] IP: We'll be on the Goodyear blimp and we will bring you all of that next week.
[0:45:51] JR: I don’t know. Not make it out of JFK?
[0:45:54] IP: Or Jason just taxis around JFK and I get a lovely –
[0:45:57] JR: If I'm lucky.
[0:45:59] IP: Oh boy. All right. Well, cross your fingers, cross your toes, cross all your things,
wish us luck, and we will talk to you next week. This has been episode 374 of AvTalk. I am Ian
Petchenik, here as always with –
[0:46:13] JR: Jason Rabinowitz. Thanks for listening.
© 2026 AvTalk 26
AVT 374 Transcript
[END]
© 2026 AvTalk 27