AvTalk Episode 308: Upside down, but alive

AVT 308 Transcript
EPISODE 308
[EPISODE]
[0:00:08] IP: Hello and welcome to episode 308 of AvTalk. I am Ian Petchenik, here, as always
with –
[0:00:15] JR: Jason Rabinowitz. Ian, this year is just the year that keeps on giving.
[0:00:22] IP: I wish it would stop giving. I don't need it to give anymore. It has given enough.
[0:00:27] JR: We've had enough. If it could just –
[0:00:29] IP: Enough has been given.
[0:00:30] JR: - take off the rest of the year, that'd be great. If we could just all stay where we
are, remain calm, and not do anything until next year. If we make it that far, that'd be good.
[0:00:40] IP: At this rate, who knows? It's another episode. It's another discussion of another
crash. We begin in Toronto this week with a Delta connection. CRJ-900 operated by Endeavor
Air. As Delta has mentioned in every single statement, this was a single aircraft accident by
CRJ-900 operated by Endeavor Air.
[0:01:08] JR: That is true. Endeavor Air, much like PSA Airlines, is a wholly owned subsidiary of
American Airlines. Endeavor Air is a wholly owned subsidiary of Delta Airlines, in case you're not
familiar with the intricacies and weirdness of US regional operators. In this case, it is indeed an
entity owned by Delta.
[0:01:32] IP: We'll come back to the communication side of things, because that's much less
important than what actually happened. What we know so far is based on weather data and
video evidence, because there were multiple videos from both –
© 2025 AvTalk 1
AVT 308 Transcript
[0:01:49] JR: As close as you could get without being on the airplane. It's actually, no, there is
some video from onboard the airplane. But, yeah, yet again, another incident of another crash
that is almost entirely caught on video, which is becoming a trend.
[0:02:04] IP: Yeah. I mean, proving once again that avgeeks are going to avgeek, no matter
what.
[0:02:09] JR: That's true.
[0:02:10] IP: We'd like taking pictures and video of aircraft, no matter what. Even if we're getting
ready to pilot another aircraft. This was Delta Flight 4819 from Minneapolis to Toronto. The flight
was landing on runway 23, and the aircraft was landing into a crosswind, into a headwind, into
wind of all kind. As the video demonstrates, the aircraft touched down, I think it's safe to say
pretty hard at this point, given the fact that the right wing separated from the aircraft, the aircraft
rolled with the left wing coming up and over, and the aircraft coming to rest upside down.
[0:03:04] JR: Yeah. There is so much to unpack, really aided here by the video that probably
shouldn't have been taken, but was anyway from, I think it was the medevac aircraft, actually,
that happened to be holding short of the active runway. One of the pilots, I don't know, an
avgeek happened to be taking video of a CRJ-900, one of the least interesting aircraft in the
known universe, still taking video of it. It really sheds a lot of light on what happened, or what
potentially happened. Not why it happened, but what happened.
The initial data we saw from ADS-B showed quite a hard landing. I think the last data report was
over 1,000 feet per minute descent, which at that point is way above what it should be. Would
be totally fine earlier on the approach, but for the actual touchdown that is quite hard. Like, Ian,
what you said, that the right wing separated. I think Colleen Mondor actually pointed out that,
yeah, when the right wing is broken off, the left wing is still generating lift. when there isn't a right
wing, the left wing is now suddenly very imbalanced aerodynamically. It just generated
additional, or it was still generating that lift. Since the aircraft is no longer symmetrical, it tumbled
over to the right.
© 2025 AvTalk 2
AVT 308 Transcript
[0:04:19] IP: Yeah. The miraculous thing here is that every person onboard the aircraft, 76
passengers and four crew survived the crash.
[0:04:30] JR: 76 passengers, by the way, is a full Delta –
[0:04:32] IP: That’s a full flight, yes.
[0:04:33] JR: CRJ-900. Every single seat on board that aircraft was full as Toronto, and really,
all of that region of Canada had gone through historic snow levels and it was extremely windy.
Lots of delayed canceled fight for days. I'm sure everyone onboard that fight was very happy to
be on that flight and actually going to Toronto, until they were very not happy to be on that flight.
[0:04:57] IP: Yeah. There were initial reports varied, but the final tally seems to be 21
passengers were taken to area hospitals in Toronto. By the following morning, 19 of those 21
passengers had been released from the hospital. It sounds like, there are still two. I haven't
seen an update today from Delta on anyone still in the hospital. It sounds like both of those
people remain in the hospital. The fact that 78 out of the 80 people were out of the hospital by
the following morning is just absolutely incredible to me.
[0:05:37] JR: Yes. 20 of 21 of the injured passengers have now been released. There is one
passenger remaining in hospital. That was as of 10 a.m. Wednesday, the 19th. That may have
changed by now. It is just absolutely outstanding. The end result of what happened is, and I
know that we talk about this all the time and this is something we bring up after every crash of
this nature. The fact that an aircraft could have a hard landing, have a wing ripped off, flip over
onto its top, basically, skid down the runway with flames, and then everyone is more or less
unscathed and there are no deaths onboard is an absolute testament to the industry's safety
record, regulations, testing, testing again, certification, testing again of that certification, and
wearing your damn seatbelt on the plane. It is absolutely a modern miracle that something like
this can happen, and more or less, everyone walks off board.
[0:06:43] IP: Yeah. The investigation is now underway. The Transportation Safety Board of
Canada is leading the investigation with support from the US NTSB and the FAA. The Canadian
TSB provided an update yesterday, Tuesday the 18th, that the black boxes have both been
© 2025 AvTalk 3
AVT 308 Transcript
recovered for analysis. It was, and I'm editorializing a bit here, perhaps the most Canadian
announcement and update I have ever seen.
[0:07:14] JR: It looked cold out on that runway, but it looked like a very warm Canadian jacket.
[0:07:19] IP: They put one of the investigators just in front of the fuselage on the airfield.
[0:07:24] JR: Sure, why not? Who needs a podium in the conference room when you could
have a runway, Ian? I appreciate it.
[0:07:31] IP: Well, okay.
[0:07:32] JR: What makes a better backdrop than a very broken CRJ?
[0:07:36] IP: I guess, I'm not disagreeing with you. That's what we know so far. We will certainly
be following along to understand where the investigation takes the Canadian TSB and what
their final report leads to. Let's go to Washington, DC, and discuss the NTSB's latest update on
the midair collision over the Potomac. The NTSB late last week provided an extensive briefing
on what they've learned so far based on analysis of the combined flight data and cockpit voice
recorder from the Black Hawk helicopter. Here's where we start to get into a lot of the what, but
not a lot of the why. Let's follow along with some of the important points on this particular
update.
The NTSB provided an update, a detailed timeline. I'm not going to walk through that here,
because we've pretty much gone through that in previous episodes. It's also posted on the blog
that we're keeping for this particular accident. I just wanted to let that they did provide a detailed
timeline of what happened when, and that gets into some of the details about what pilots may or
may not have heard during the transmissions with air traffic control. I'm going to leave that for a
separate reading. What we know about what some of the FDR and CVR data tells us about the
Black Hawk is this. Radar altimeter data says that the Black Hawk helicopter was at 278 feet.
That was a steady reading for five seconds before the collision. Previously, the NTSB had said
that the CRJ was at 313 feet based on radar altimeter data, two seconds before the collision.
© 2025 AvTalk 4
AVT 308 Transcript
[0:09:34] JR: Refresh our memory. What altitude was the Black Hawk authorized to operate up
to?
[0:09:40] IP: Where the Black Hawk helicopter was operating, it should have been at a
maximum of 200 feet. This leads us to the second point. There is a discrepancy indicated in the
altimeter data that the pilots use to determine their altitude on the Black Hawk helicopter. At one
point, the pilot flying states, and this is a previous section of the flight where the aircraft was
supposed to be at 300 feet. There are no higher than 300 feet. The pilot flying indicated the
aircraft was at 300 feet. The pilot monitoring indicated that the aircraft was at 400 feet. The
NTSB in its briefing says that there was no discussion of this altitude discrepancy between the
two pilots. That's point one.
Point two on the altitude discrepancy issue is that the pressure altitude, which is the altitude that
would feed into the system, not necessarily the altitude that the pilots are looking at, but the raw
pressure altitude that feeds into the primary flight displays. The NTSB, and this is Sean Payne,
the vehicle recorder branch leader, saying that this is bad data. “We are working to determine if
this bad data for pressure altitude only affected the flight data recorder, or if it was more
pervasive throughout the helicopter's other systems. The FDR captures that pressure altitude
and captured the radar altimeter data, but it does not capture the corrected altitude with local
pressure that the pilots would have looked at.
[0:11:33] JR: Interesting. We're learning a lot here as we go about what, not only a helicopter,
but a military helicopter flight data recorder actually records, because I don't know about you,
but I had no idea if these aircraft even had data recorders to begin with.
[0:11:51] IP: This is all information that is relatively new to me and adding to some of the pieces
that I knew, but it's very interesting to see how development of these recorders has been
different amongst commercial aviation and military aviation. Maybe this is, in particular, a
helicopter situation. That, I don't know. But we're learning what that recorder is capturing and
what it's not capturing. The NTSB, Sean Payne says, they will know what the altitude the pilot
saw was. They're doing what they do to understand this and find out what the pilots were seeing
and to understand if that had any impact whatsoever on the collision. Given what we know so
far, probably?
© 2025 AvTalk 5
AVT 308 Transcript
[0:12:44] JR: Yup.
[0:12:46] IP: But we will continue to follow along with that. A few other things from the NTSB
briefing that is new confirmation and new elucidation, because it's not quite a 100% confirmed.
But NTSB Chair, Jennifer Homendy, says that the NTSB believes that the pilots were wearing
their night vision goggles. The NTSB now understands that this was a check ride, a combined
annual proficiency and night vision goggle check ride for the pilot flying. The pilot monitoring
was the person conducting the check ride. We also now understand that the NTSB believes that
the pilots were wearing the night vision goggles at the time of the collision.
Homendy noted that if the pilots had decided to take off the night vision goggles for whatever
reason, there should have been a discussion about “going unaided” that was part of the SOPs
that is not recorded on the Black Hawk's CVR. Also, the NTSB has said that they believe that
the night vision goggles were on for other reasons, but that was not specified exactly what.
That's one point there. To the point about the night vision goggles, there was a press question in
the briefing about whether or not that would have affected what the pilot saw.
Obviously, the NTSB can't give a yes or no answer, but they are going to do a laser scan of the
flight decks, both the CRJ, a comparable CRJ, and a comparable Black Hawk to understand
what pilots would have seen and been able to see in the context of where the aircraft were. Are
they wearing night vision goggles? What can they see? What can they not see when they're
looking at various places? That'll be interesting to see when that finally comes through on the
docket.
[0:14:40] JR: Yeah. I'm especially interested to see what recommendations the NTSB might put
out about the use of night vision goggles in dense, urban, congested airspace like this. I think
we're going to learn some quite insightful pieces of information as a result of this.
[0:14:57] IP: Yeah, absolutely. A few other points that the NTSB noted. In a previous episode,
we said that the helicopter was operating on a UHF frequency. That is incorrect. I apologize.
They were operating on a discrete VHF frequency. What that means for the purposes of the
discussion that we had previously, nothing has changed. What we were saying was that air
© 2025 AvTalk 6
AVT 308 Transcript
traffic control could talk to both pilots of the Black Hawk helicopter and pilots of the CRJ. Air
traffic control could hear the replies from both sets of pilots, but the two sets of pilots could not
hear each other.
[0:15:40] JR: There's the most important bit about the discrete frequency, whether it was UHF
or VHF doesn't really matter. The fact is that it was a discrete frequency, so that the pilots of the
Black Hawk weren't able to hear the pilots of the CRJ. That is yet another piece of the puzzle
that makes the operational and situational awareness probably not as high as it should have
been if those two groups of pilots in that very congested airspace couldn't have heard each
other, because there's a chance that they lost the opportunity to hear the PSA crew confirm
what runway they were on. Then the Black Hawk crew could have known that, hey, there's
actually another aircraft out here. Ian, you just said that the Black Hawk crew could still hear the
air traffic controllers talking to the CRJ but couldn't hear the pilots of the CRJ. Is that correct?
[0:16:30] IP: That is my understanding of the situation.
[0:16:33] JR: I see. I see. Okay. They would heave had some opportunity to hear what the PSA
aircraft was doing, but probably not as much as any other helicopter or aircraft operating in that
airspace would have had the opportunity to hear.
[0:16:48] IP: Yeah.
[0:16:48] JR: That's my best guess of what's happening there.
[0:16:51] IP: Yeah. The final point that we learned in the briefing late last week was that the
Black Hawk was in fact equipped with ADS-B out, but it is not known yet why it was not
broadcasting. The Black Hawk did have ADS-B, but it was not broadcasting. They don't know if
it was just turned off. They don't know if it was not working. They just don't know that yet.
[0:17:17] JR: Would that have helped in this situation though? Who would have been viewing
the ADS-B out signal other than us, of course? I think we should clarify that this isn't a flight
critical thing, or a flight safety requirement to have ADS-B out. Can you think of any impact of
having that turned off that would have occurred here? Because I can't.
© 2025 AvTalk 7
AVT 308 Transcript
[0:17:39] IP: The only thing that I'm thinking of, and I don't know specifically how the display on
the CRJ would work, but it would have perhaps increased the visibility of the helicopter to the
CRJ, but I would hesitate to say more than that at this point. It's just interesting to see what
comes out of this, as far as also knowing, would that have impacted what the controllers were
seeing, or the information that the controllers were getting from that aircraft?
[0:18:16] JR: Right. Would there be more granular information than what radar is returning is a
great point.
[0:18:22] IP: Right. That I don't necessarily know for certain.
[0:18:25] JR: I'm sure somewhat at the NTSB has already asked that very question.
[0:18:30] IP: Yes, exactly. Let's stick around the Washington DC area and talk about what has
happened within the past week across the federal government, but we're going to focus
specifically on firings at the FAA, because there was initially a lot of misinformation about who
had been fired and whether or not that had included air traffic controllers, or folks that are
directly responsible for the safety of the national airspace. That turned out not to be the case.
[0:19:10] JR: Not directly.
[0:19:12] IP: Not directly. No air traffic controllers have been fired, but there have been a few
hundred FAA employees who were part of this mass call of probationary federal employees.
Folks who had been on the job for less than a year, they were just fired because they were new.
The Air Current did a deep dive into which people at the FAA were fired. What they found was
there were not folks who may be directly responsible for active safety measures. Air traffic
controllers, not fired. Folks who are working on radar systems, they were not fired. But folks like
maintenance mechanics, who may be required to maintain safe access to airfield
instrumentation, like an ILS system, people who are reviewing medical and certificate
paperwork for pilots and air traffic controllers, IT and telecommunications support professionals
who are maintaining the infrastructure that communicates between things like surveillance
© 2025 AvTalk 8
AVT 308 Transcript
radars and air traffic control centers, which failed last year and shut down a good chunk of
airspace in the Northeast.
[0:20:45] JR: Numerous times.
[0:20:47] IP: Numerous times. And information specialists. The people who are in charge of
charting. The crash in DCA reminds us how aircraft routes are charted has a distinct impact on
where aircraft fly and how they operate. These aren't necessarily folks who are on the front lines
of active flight safety.
[0:21:18] JR: But they make sure the people who are on the active lines of flight safety are able
to do their job safely and reliably. We talked a bit before we started recording about how we're
going to cover this topic and stay as unpolitical as possible. This is a really hard topic to do that
on, because these firings are happening indiscriminately. Some might say randomly without any
care of who exactly they're firing or why. It's just the path of least resistance to fire people, for no
particular reason, who are easy to fire. It's not a good look. It's terrible, actually, especially since
the FAA has been understaffed for so long, to go in and fire people who you've hired in the last
year to backfill a historically understaffed federal agency, some might say is incredibly stupid.
Going a little off script here, Ian, because it makes my blood boil. But sticking to the point we're
trying to make here, this doesn't make any sense. What are we saving here? What are we trying
to do? Especially two weeks after a major catastrophe that may not have been caused by any of
the positions that have been terminated here. But to what end? Why are we doing this? What's
the cause? What are we gaining? The answer is nothing.
[0:22:37] IP: Yeah. I can't disagree with Jason's assessment that the firing of folks who have
recently been hired to improve the safety of the national airspace system that has been
historically underfunded and understaffed is not a wise decision. I think, Jason, you bring up this
next point, between recent incidences that have been extremely high profile, and some of the
things that are happening in government, again, people are asking, is flying safe right now?
[0:23:19] JR: Yeah. This question has come up amongst my group of friends, amongst people I
talk to casually, and random people on the Internet have asked me, and I think rightfully so,
© 2025 AvTalk 9
AVT 308 Transcript
between the incident in the crash. Let's say, the crash in DC, the crash in Toronto, and the
indiscriminate firings at the FAA, people are actually concerned. Let's put the two crashes in
perspective, especially because a lot of people, and of course, the media, the mainstream
media has picked up on every single little GA accident crash incident that has happened
in the last week. Because of course they have.
General aviation is no stranger to crashes incidents, things happening. I wouldn't read too much
into that. Yeah, the two crashes from major US airlines, combined with the news hot on the
heels of that of firing possibly safety critical FAA employees, people are uneasy. I myself am
uneasy to a degree. I'm not going to stop flying. I'm not going to tell people to stop flying, but I
can understand why somebody no longer wants to go to Orlando, to Disney with their family, or
fly, because they no longer trust the government to provide the service that our taxes are paying
for. If we are just firing safety inspectors, maintenance maintainers, people who are supposed to
keep the wheels of the FAA turning, the level of trust is eroded very quickly.
I hope we see more out of industry organizations and CEOs and thought leaders to really decry
the firing of FAA employees, because it may not have an immediate impact right now. Maybe
not today or tomorrow. Eventually, this will catch up with us, not just in the people who were
fired today, but in the people who no longer want to work in the federal government and no
longer want to be an air traffic controller, or a telecom specialist at the FAA, because they think
they could be fired within the first year, rightfully so. Is flying unsafe? No. But I can understand
why people might be second-guessing it right now.
[0:25:37] IP: Yeah. That was a point I wanted to bring up that you mentioned with. It's not just
the fact that people are being fired who have important safety rules, but it definitely tamps down
the pool of people who would consider these positions in the future if this is how they are going
to be treated. I mean, historically, it's been difficult to get people to want to work in government.
[0:26:03] JR: Or who want to work, but are put off by the incredibly long hiring process. It is no
short ordeal to be hired for a federal job.
[0:26:13] IP: This is also true.
© 2025 AvTalk 10
AVT 308 Transcript
[0:26:14] JR: At that point, why bother if the federal government could just indiscriminately fire
you, regardless of your performance or your role within the first year, because Elon Musk wants
to save a buck, or do whatever, swindle the government and fire a bunch of probationary
employees, who may have actually been fantastic at their job, or the future of the agency have
now been fired for literally no reason.
[0:26:40] IP: We move from one set of firings to another. For the first time in the airlines history.
[0:26:48] JR: Kinda, but I'll get to that.
[0:26:50] IP: Okay. Southwest Airlines is conducting mass layoffs. Nearly 15% of its corporate
staff, about 1750 people being laid off from the airline. The airline's expecting to save between
200 and 300 million dollars over the next two years.
[0:27:10] JR: Short sighted.
[0:27:12] IP: Unclear why. Southwest has been the subject of an activist investor push over the
past two years. Elliot Investment Management.
[0:27:23] JR: Those don't go well.
[0:27:25] IP: Not for people. Usually, no. Elliot Investment Management has taken an interest in
Southwest saying, “Hey, this airline could be making a lot more money than it than it is,” which
true, fine. A few months ago, they got rid of a lot of the Southwest Old Guard that had been
around for a very long time. Elliott Management got a few board seats. It sounded like that was
going to be that. Southwest was going to make changes, start with red-eye flights, which started
this week. Then they were going to roll out assigned boarding and all of those things. It sounded
like, okay, that was going to be that. Then this week, they announced the layoffs.
The take that I find most compelling on this is from our good friend, Brett Snyder over at Cranky
Flier, where his point is, yes, Southwest may have had some bloat in staff, but that's probably
nothing you couldn't have gotten rid of with some buyouts and attrition, where with these cuts,
© 2025 AvTalk 11
AVT 308 Transcript
as you're trying to pivot an entire corporate strategy is a morale killer, and one that does not
engender the “warrior spirit” that Southwest has been known for, and that they will need to make
this a successful transition.
[0:28:53] JR: Yeah. It's an absolute killer for morale, company-wide, especially given the
circumstances here. Yes, all of the layoffs, I believe, were corporate headquarters staff, so I
don't believe there were any frontline employees impacted here. Especially now, during this
major corporate, not restructuring, but corporate identity crisis that Southwest is going through.
They're going to need a lot of people, a lot of successful smart people to see this through. I
have seen a lot of those successful smart people already been let go. It's really unfortunate that
this is happening at the behest of Wall Street's activist investor firm. They could pan their
earnings, but 15% of Southwest staff get let go, unceremoniously.
I say, at the beginning of this topic, kind of, sort of Southwest's first ever layoffs, because it's
only kind of true. Because when Southwest acquired AirTran, it did lay off or let go a number of
AirTran employees that were at that point, redundant. But they were still technically AirTran
employees at the time. Come on, that's Southwest conducting layoffs. It is not Southwest's first
time doing layoffs. The first time probably at Southwest headquarters into this degree, but out of
respect for the employees who were let go at the end of the AirTran era, I wanted to make that
known.
[0:30:19] IP: That's fair.
[0:30:20] JR: Because I work with one every day, and he is great, and Southwest let him go.
[0:30:24] IP: All right.
[0:30:24] JR: Which is unfortunate. But I needed to put that out there. It's the first mass layoff.
[0:30:30] IP: Judge Reed O’Connor has now set March 14th as the deadline for Boeing and the
Department of Justice to figure out what plea deal they're going to try and reach, or this case is
going to trial. This stems from the DOJ going back and saying, “Boeing, you didn't live up to
your deferred prosecution agreement. Now, you're going to need to figure that out.” Boeing
© 2025 AvTalk 12
AVT 308 Transcript
says, “Okay, we'll plead guilty.” They came up with this plan where there was going to be
monitoring by an independent monitor that wasn't necessarily going to be all that independent,
and it wasn't going to monitor very much. Boeing wouldn't actually have to listen to the monitor.
Judge O'Connor didn't like that, but also didn't like a few other things, such as the DOJ abiding
by its previous DEI guidelines for who the monitor might be. Then the Trump administration
came in. Both sides said, can we have an extra month? The deadline was previously this week.
It is now a month from now on the 14th of March. We'll see what they can come up with and if
they can reach a deal. Families of the victims of the 373 MAX crashes are saying, “Hey, don't
forget about us. No, the first plea deal, basically wiped our memory from what had happened.
Please include us this time in whatever Boeing has to do to satisfy this agreement.” We'll see in
about a month's time what that new deal looks like.
[0:32:06] JR: Or, we'll let you know if it's been delayed again.
[0:32:09] IP: Well, there's also that.
[0:32:10] JR: Speaking of delays.
[0:32:12] IP: Yeah, there you go.
[0:32:13] JR: Yeah. You see the transition. Happy transition. I hope you weren't, Ian, planning
on taking delivery of any A350 freighters anytime soon.
[0:32:23] IP: I was. I have 27 on order.
[0:32:27] JR: Unfortunately, that won't be happening, at least for, what is it? A year beyond
originally expected?
[0:32:34] IP: At least.
[0:32:36] JR: Who do we have to blame for that?
© 2025 AvTalk 13
AVT 308 Transcript
[0:32:38] IP: Spirit AeroSystems.
[0:32:40] JR: Wow, they're everywhere.
[0:32:42] IP: They are. This comes from Airbus working through its year-end financial
statements for 2024 and forward-looking statements for 2025. They're delaying both the first
flight and introduction into service of the A350 freighter and also, the rate increase for the A350
passenger version. They were targeting a rate increase beyond six aircraft per month on the
A350 line, now going up. Well, not going up, but still targeting 12 by 2028. We'll see if that
happens.
[0:33:22] JR: This is the part of Spirit AeroSystems that now is owned by Airbus, I reckon.
Really, will be owned. This will become a problem that Airbus itself can deal with more directly.
Not quite yet. But for right now, it could still blame Boeing.
[0:33:43] IP: I guess. Yeah, they can. Let's go to Canada, Jason.
[0:33:48] JR: I love Canada. Canada is great.
[0:33:51] IP: Where last week, Lufthansa Technik had a monumental announcement in Calgary.
[0:34:01] JR: That's true. Their words.
[0:34:02] IP: Monumental.
[0:34:04] JR: Not our words. Their words.
[0:34:06] IP: Their words.
[0:34:07] JR: Yes.
[0:34:09] IP: Such a good press release.
© 2025 AvTalk 14
AVT 308 Transcript
[0:34:11] JR: It may have been overblown, but I got a press release on February 12th from
Lufthansa Technik saying, “We're going to have a monumental contract and an exciting
partnership in Calgary, Canada.” They even had a nice rendering of the Calgary skyline with an
engine cloud rendering thing, which was nice. That was a bit of a hint. What did they actually
announce?
[0:34:38] IP: Lufthansa Technik is going to spend a ton of money and get quite a bit of money
from various Canadian governmental organizations to build a massive facility to take care of all
of WestJet's CFM Leap 1B engines. The airline has 50 and 50 on order. That's times two, that's
a lot of engines. I assume at some point, this will also perhaps include other airlines CFM Leap
1B engines, perhaps also in Canada. Who knows? This is the first time that this maintenance
package will be performed by Lufthansa Technik in Calgary, keeps things close to home for
WestJet, which I know they're excited about, and also puts a ton of money into the airport
complex and folks.
[0:35:30] JR: And a lot of good paying jobs, too, in Calgary. These are highly technical. I mean,
it's called Lufthansa Technik, but these are good jobs. Monumental may be a bit of an overblown
statement, but it really is a big deal.
[0:35:45] IP: It's a big deal. I would not necessarily have called it monumental, but it's definitely
great news for both Lufthansa Technik and WestJet.
[0:35:54] JR: I think Lufthansa Technik should invite us out there when the facility is open to
judge for ourselves how monumental it is. What do you think?
[0:36:00] IP: How monumental? We should. We should definitely do that. Construction’s starting
this year with completion by 2027, and then you'll start to see engines come off the wing then.
Looking forward to seeing that.
[0:36:14] JR: Cool.
[0:36:15] IP: Also cool, Air Greenland is deciding that they need another jet. They're going to
lease an A320neo from Carlyle Aviation Group in December of 2026 with delivery expected in
© 2025 AvTalk 15
AVT 308 Transcript
December 2026 for the 2027 summer season. This aircraft will mostly operate on the
Copenhagen-Ilulissat route. To the western coast, north of Nuuk. That'll be cool, because it's the
– what do we figure out? The fourth –
[0:36:51] JR: The fourth.
[0:36:52] IP: - ever jet that Air Greenland has ever operated.
[0:36:56] JR: We did some deep, deep research before we hit record on Air Greenland's
previous jet fleet. We all know the somewhat troubled now A330neo. We know of this new
A320neo. We know that the 330neo replaced the 330CO, but we both did not know that in the
past, Air Greenland had actually operated a leased Icelandair 757, back up until, I think, 2011 or
2012. I had no idea.
[0:37:28] IP: 2010.
[0:37:29] JR: 2010. Even earlier. Wow.
[0:37:32] IP: Is when it stopped. It's still flying. It's been converted to cargo, and I believe
operates for one of the DHL subsidiaries.
[0:37:40] JR: Cool.
[0:37:42] IP: Yeah. There you go. Operated by DHL Austria.
[0:37:47] JR: Nice.
[0:37:47] IP: There you go. Yeah. Looking forward to that one. Sticking in the far north, airBaltic
has taken delivery of its 50th A220 last week. Registration YLABX, that aircraft bears a special
Baltic heritage livery, Latvian heritage livery. Very cool-looking special livery. That aircraft, while
the airline's 50th, still doesn't take it up to enough aircraft in the fleet to not need wet lease
capacity for the summer season. Because as we all know, you could be flying on one airline and
before airlines removed from the aircraft you are actually operating on come high summer
© 2025 AvTalk 16
AVT 308 Transcript
season in Europe. We have a first confirmation of what the summer season is starting to shape
up with. Carpatair will have two A319s and an A320 operating for airBaltic. Looking forward to
see what else shakes out and looking come June, July, what manner of strange wet lease
operators are flying around for airBaltic and where airBaltic aircraft are flying for other operators.
That would be fun.
[0:39:05] JR: Yes. For those keeping score at home while airBaltic is now up to 50 deliveries,
apparently according to planespotters.net only 37 are actually in service leaving 13 inoperable
or park for whatever reason. We'll let you know when the in-service number hits 50. Check back
in 2027 or so.
[0:39:26] IP: Yeah. A few episodes ago, Jason, we got excited.
[0:39:34] JR: I love getting excited.
[0:39:36] IP: About Air Canada, bringing back the 767. As it turns out, surprisingly really, things
got better for the airline and they might not need those 767s this summer after all.
[0:39:52] JR: Maybe. Maybe not. We're not quite sure. Air Canada was, I think February 1st,
had inserted into the schedule the resurrected 767-300 ER. It pulled them out of the desert.
They are currently in Hamilton, Ontario being worked on. That didn't happen. Apparently, it takes
a lot of effort to refurbish and put back into service a 30-year-old 767 that's been running away
in the desert since the – of COVID. Apparently, they've had some mechanical issues with it.
We're not really quite sure why. In some of panel that I happened to get some video of today, an
employee asks about the 767s. It turns out that maybe by May or June, we'll see them put to the
schedule and they won't be permanent. Maybe May or June, but also, maybe not, because
apparently, and Ian, you might gasp and listeners, you might not believe me, but they say that
Pratt & Whitney is catching up on their A220 GTF engine issues, to the point where they may
not need these 76s after all. Imagine that.
[0:40:59] IP: What?
© 2025 AvTalk 17
AVT 308 Transcript
[0:41:00] JR: Yeah. These 76s were brought back because they had a lot of A220s grounded
and they were very short on fleet last summer. They're still short on fleet. They had a couple
766s hanging around. They thought, put them in service. Maybe after all, it just might not be
worth it, or they might not actually need to, or a combination of the both, which would be
disappointing. I was thinking about going out and catching a flight on one of these Air Canada
76s. I might have to go to China instead.
[0:41:31] IP: Go on.
[0:41:33] JR: Go on. With absolutely no confirmation whatsoever, and it's almost certainly a
scheduling mistake, Air China has actually put the 767-300ER back into its schedule starting
March 1st. That has to be a mistake, because it doesn't have any 767s left and it retired them in
2011, or something like that. But they're there. They're in the schedule. You can find them on
flightsonairchina.com and they will even link you to the seat map of the 767s. It's almost
certainly a mistake. Some sort of old filing.
[0:42:10] IP: Somebody pressed the wrong button.
[0:42:13] JR: Somebody hit a 76, instead of a 77. But if Air China brings back the 76, hey, that
would be very exciting too, because I have no idea where they would be pulling one from.
[0:42:24] IP: Other fleet replacement news, Finnair is finally considering replacing some of its
A320 family aircraft. We talked about this, I don't know how many episodes ago, but Finnair has
famously refused to partake in the Neo thus far. They have not quite ancient, but elderly fleet.
[0:42:45] JR: It ain't new.
[0:42:46] IP: 19s A320s, and A321s. Four-fifths of the five A319s are 24-years-old. All of the
A321s are over 20 years old and the oldest is 24. A321s, comparatively new. Only two of those
are over the age of 20. Finnair's leadership this week says, they're looking at some final
calculations on replacing 15 of the oldest members of its A320neo family. As previously
discussed, this non-renewal of the fleet has fared Finnair pretty well, because they haven't had
to deal with any of the Pratt & Whitney GTF engine issues.
© 2025 AvTalk 18
AVT 308 Transcript
[0:43:27] JR: Yeah, look at that, procrastination pays off and always does.
[0:43:31] IP: We'll see if they go with a GTF. Obviously, assuming they stick with the A320neo
family, which I think is a fairly benign assumption. Then you have your options of you get your
Leap 1A, or you have your Pratt & Whitney GTF and we'll see which ones they choose. Keep
your eyes open for a new tender for the Finnair fleet. Finally, this week, you could help JetBlue
pick its next new livery.
[0:43:59] JR: Yes. We love contests. Specifically, we do contests that involve helping an airline
pick its next special livery. JetBlue already well-versed in the art of special livery, because they
probably have more than any other airline that I can think of at least?
[0:44:18] IP: I mean, as long as we're not counting Frontier.
[0:44:21] JR: Well, every aircraft at Frontier –
[0:44:22] IP: That’s what I’m saying.
[0:44:25] JR: If you're excluding Frontier, I get more jet tip alerts for JetBlue than any other
airline, because they have so many specials. Now, they are letting you pick and they very
specifically put YOU in capitals, pick the next special livery that celebrates Puerto Rico, which is
pretty great. There are three distinct already mocked up liveries, one called the stencil network
and other from artist Elizabeth Barreto, and the other from 2BLEENE, which is interesting, with
long descriptions about how each one ties itself back to Puerto Rico. I voted for the Elizabeth
rendering, because it has sea turtles on the belly of the airplane, and I think that's pretty great.
You should vote for whichever one you think is the nicest.
[0:45:10] IP: I'm having some real trouble here, because I like all three of them. I've narrowed it
down to my top two, but I have not yet been able to choose which one I really want to vote for.
Let us know either in the comments, in the show notes, or in an email to podcast@fr24.com,
which one you're most keen to see. Or with anything else you want to talk about and let us know
about comments, questions about this week's episode, previous episodes, what you want to see
© 2025 AvTalk 19
AVT 308 Transcript
on a future episode, let us know. Email us at podcast@fr24.com. Or if you listen to the podcast,
or read the show notes to the podcast on the flightradar24 blog, we do have the comment
section there, so you can engage in not only comment and question to us, but with other
listeners, if you so choose. Have at you there.
This has been episode 308 of AvTalk. I am Ian Petchenik, here, as always with –
[0:46:06] JR: Jason Rabinowitz. Thanks for listening.
[END]
© 2025 AvTalk 20