AvTalk Episode 375: Progress, but to what end?

AVT 375 Transcript
EPISODE 375
[EPISODE]
[0:00:07] IP: Hello and welcome to episode 375 of AvTalk. I am Ian Petchenik, here as always
with –
[0:00:16] JR: Jason Rabinowitz. Ian, it was a pleasure hanging out with you this past weekend.
[0:00:21] IP: It was a lot of fun.
[0:00:23] JR: Or weekday before last weekend. I don’t know. Our time is tricky right now.
[0:00:27] IP: Yeah. I think, time still does not matter.
[0:00:29] JR: It led into the weekend. It did.
[0:00:32] IP: It did. We had a good time in Cleveland for a bit. We got to do some plane
spotting. We had a good time down in Akron for a bit with the Goodyear blimp. Though,
unfortunately, we did not get to fly it.
[0:00:48] JR: We did not. Had a nice afternoon in Cleveland, like you said Ian, and then the
folks at the – what was the official name that Apple told us we left our stuff at? The Wingfoot
Lake Airship Operations Balloon Port, we're outstanding. Everyone at Goodyear was
exceptionally welcoming. They literally opened every door, except the hanger door, and said,
“Okay, here's everything. Have at it. Go talk to anyone. Go look at anything. Go touch anything.”
But the hangar door must stay closed, because Cleveland, you've done us dirty and it was a
little too windy and they couldn't take the blimp out of the blimp hangar, which is disappointing.
But there is more blimp to come, we promise.
[0:01:32] IP: Much, much more blimp to come. What we did end up doing, and this actually, I
think, worked out really well, because we weren't flying and we didn't have to spend time getting
the blimp out of the hangar and then flying on it, which still would have been awesome. Still, we
© 2026 AvTalk 1
AVT 375 Transcript
had a chance to talk with some extremely knowledgeable and very interesting folks who have
been blimping for a very long time. That video will come out on our YouTube channel in a few –
well, about a month from now, because we've got some other stuff that we're working on to
hopefully add a bit more footage to that particular video.
Because he was such an awesome person to talk to and because he knows basically
everything there is to know about the Goodyear Blimp, we are going to have Goodyear’s chief
pilot, Michael Dougherty on this podcast in the near future, so that he can share with us and
with you all a bit more about what it's like to operate one of only four of the anti-airships around
the world and just extremely engaging, knowledgeable and wonderful person to talk to. We're
going to have him on the show as soon as we can. Stay tuned for that and stay tuned for even
more blimp content.
[0:02:59] JR: Yeah. That was a fun walk through the history of good year and their history with
airships and all that. Talking to Doc was great, because he's one of those few people who can
say, “I am the only person in the entire world who can do X.” I believe, what was he? The only
certified –
[0:03:20] IP: He's the only dedicated pilot examiner for airships. These particular airships in the
world.
[0:03:27] JR: The only person in the entire world. That's quite the resume buster right there.
[0:03:32] IP: Exactly.
[0:03:33] JR: There's really no one else who can do what he does. It was a really, really great
chat. Looking forward to some more blimp, Ian. It's good news that the blimp just happens to be
going to Oshkosh and also here in New York in a month span for both locations. Weird.
[0:03:50] IP: Interesting.
[0:03:50] JR: It’s following us home.
© 2026 AvTalk 2
AVT 375 Transcript
[0:03:53] IP: We’ll hopefully have much more to share soon and have an interview with Doc on
the show as soon as we possibly can. Well, Jason, Gabe and I were in Ohio. Our colleague,
Sophia was in Berlin. I just want to say thank you to everyone who stopped by, met up with
Sophia during Ela Berlin and had a great time. I know a bunch of you all who listened to the
podcast met up with her, so that was great to hear about. She learned some very interesting
things about how you stack the display aircraft into a very small area when you are dealing with
things like A350s, A380s, and some smaller fighter jets as well. How does all of that go into,
basically, the world's largest and most expensive game of Tetris. Some very fun stuff there.
[0:04:49] JR: Carefully. You do it carefully.
[0:04:51] IP: Exactly. Exactly. You do it very, very carefully. Thank you to everyone who stopped
by and was able to say hello. Jason, let's get to the meat of things. Late last week was the first
anniversary of the crash of Air India flight 171. Indian investigators released a progress report,
such as it is. An interim statement on the progress of investigation into the accident involving Air
India flight AI-171. This is an ICAO Annex 13 mandated statement should a final report not be
available within a year of the accident.
They released a statement of progress, because they have said they have not yet completed
their investigation. They further say, and I'm quoting here, “Significant progress has been made
in the examination and analysis of aircraft systems, flight recorder data, engine-related
components, maintenance and operational records, and other evidence relevant to the
investigation.” Further quoting, “The evidence gathered and the results of various examinations
are currently being analyzed in comprehensive and integrated manner. Additional technical
evaluations and specialist examinations, wherever considered necessary, will continue to be
undertaken to ensure that all findings and conclusions are supported by verified evidence and
sound scientific analysis.”
[0:06:20] JR: Great.
[0:06:22] IP: The investigative update provides no new information, whatsoever –
[0:06:27] JR: Fantastic.
© 2026 AvTalk 3
AVT 375 Transcript
[0:06:27] IP: - on the actual investigation itself.
[0:06:29] JR: That's a lot of words to say a whole lot of nothing. I hope they are actually due.
[0:06:34] IP: That was two paragraphs in a nine-paragraph statement.
[0:06:38] JR: Yeah. Basically to say, “We're working on it.”
[0:06:40] IP: Yes.
[0:06:40] JR: “We promise.” I hope it's not a China Eastern situation, where they have possibly
concluded their investigation and will never release it. This doesn't feel like that. It's just much
slower than anyone would like. But you can't be mad if they are actually truly making progress
and they are not yet ready to actually make conclusions. You just have to actually get to the
conclusion part at some point, sooner rather than later. We will sit and we will wait, but hopefully,
this doesn't become a year's long situation.
[0:07:10] IP: Yeah. I would have liked to have seen a bit more information about the focus of the
investigation in this. Perhaps, what they've been doing, what still needs to be done in order to
get to a conclusion, I think that would have been helpful here. I know that I'm not alone in being
not entirely satisfied with this particular update. As Jason mentioned, we don't want to find
ourselves in a situation where investigators just don't release a report. I agree with Jason. I don't
think that's what we're looking at here. I don't think we're going to see a situation where India's
AAIB just doesn't release a report. It would be helpful to know what still needs to be – What are
we still working on in order to begin coming to a conclusion?
[0:08:04] JR: Typically, if there is any major revelation during the investigation process, they
would communicate that to other regulators, other investigatory bodies that as far as –
[0:08:12] IP: Especially if there was a safety issue that needed to be corrected.
© 2026 AvTalk 4
AVT 375 Transcript
[0:08:15] JR: Right. That has not seemed to have occurred in this situation. It's not like, so far
we can assume they have not discovered like, oh, there is an actual massive issue with the fuel
cutoff switches and this needs to be dealt with. If that was the case, they certainly would have
communicated that to literally everyone possible, but it hasn't happened. Whatever path they're
going down to take this investigation, we don't quite know what they're investigating and what
progress has been made. Hopefully, that wraps up soon. But yeah, not much more to bring us at
this point, which is disappointing.
I guess, on the other end, I understand that until it's done, they don't want to say much, because
then, people will run with whatever they say and say, “Oh, they still need to look into this. Then it
must be the cause. If this is what’s taking so long, then this thing they're looking at now still must
be the issue.” That's the way the media and the social atmosphere takes things now. On the one
hand, I understand why they don't want to say, “Here's what we've done and here's what's left.”
On the other hand, I really want them to do that, because it's been too long.
[0:09:21] IP: That's a good point to make about what would happen if they did, in fact, release a
more substantive statement. That's fair. After more than a decade of negotiation throughout the
European Council and European Parliament, we get roughly the same passenger rights as we
had before a decade of negotiations. Under the new rules, which are very similar to the old
rules, passengers will continue to benefit from compensation for lengthy delays and
cancellations. The benefit of free cabin baggage will continue. This is really about the same.
There will be no fees on cabin baggage. If you're flying an ultra-low-cost carrier, or low-cost
carrier like Ryanair, or EasyJet, you get a free personal item, which, okay, great. The price of
tickets and the search portals that you can use to book your fares, that will always now show the
carry-on luggage ticket price at the beginning of the booking process. But airlines can offer less
expensive tickets to people who then voluntarily say, “I don't want hand luggage.”
[0:10:55] JR: Yeah. This is a complicated thing here. Pretty much all European airlines, they're
base fare somewhere, some fare amongst the others, they offer a fare that does not include
cabin bags beyond the one small backpack per laptop, whatever that will fit under the seat in
front of you. But almost all European airlines also offer that one step up that usually includes a
bunch of other bundles, things bundled in, like priority boarding, or things that other things you
might not need and inclusive of that extra bag. You can, of course, buy that extra bag separate.
© 2026 AvTalk 5
AVT 375 Transcript
Looking at Ryanair, a random search from Dublin and Hamburg right now, the minimum step up
for that one carry-on bag is 32.45, which is less than the minimum spend to get to the smallest
bundle that includes a bag, which was 48 USD. There is a savings in just paying for the bag.
Ryanair really makes you jump through a hoop to find that fare that does not include a cabin
bag, because they, like all airlines, they don't actually want you to book basic. They want you to
book the highest possible thing, or the most possible ancillaries. It's a bit conflicting. I don't like
the regulators mandating what an airline can and can't do in this regard. There are times where I
don't need a bag. I don't want to pay extra to have something included that I don't need. A lot of
people, I'm sure, fall into the trap of unintentionally booking a fare that does not include a cabin
bag, and then they get to the gate and have to pay 100 pounds, or whatever the case to bring
that bag onboard. Not everyone can win in this situation.
IATA, for its part, declares this a total loss. The headline from them is EU261 reform misses the
mark on delays and competitiveness. They actually don't even really talk about the bags. But
they're more pissed off that the status quo is staying after apparently, 13 years of discussion.
They put some brackets in place for compensation when flights are delayed, or canceled, but
they have been trying to get rid of this particularly component of EU261 forever, and they ain't
too happy that it's not going away.
[0:13:02] IP: No. No. What airlines have been arguing for is let's get rid of this entirely.
[0:13:07] JR: Yeah, that's not going to happened.
[0:13:08] IP: What a more realistic scenario they were arguing for, what they were really trying
to get was at least a five-hour limitation on paying compensation, rather than the three or four as
it currently exists. I think that it didn't happen. The argument here was that it would have been
easier for airlines to find alternate flights for those passengers and still get them where they are
going, rather than just canceling flights because of a lengthy delay. Because once the delay,
they were saying, “Well, we just cancel the flight anyway, if there's going to be a delay.” They
were arguing that they would have the ability to operate more flights and the ability to find
disrupted passengers' better arrangements. The Parliament didn't buy that.
© 2026 AvTalk 6
AVT 375 Transcript
[0:14:04] JR: I don't necessarily believe that, though. I don't buy that either. Flights are always
so full and there are often not enough frequencies to shuffle everyone around anyway. I think
this was the right decision. Going off script here, looking through IATA’s press releases, we
didn't pick up on this, but they also earlier this month launched a Save A Life, Not A Bag
passenger safety campaign, with a very nice animation and video about what not to do when
you're evacuating an aircraft, which is chiefly, stop trying to rescue your bags when you could be
hampering the evacuation, while other people are trying to save their own lives. Apparently, the
animated owl in this situation is really, really not great. Nobody likes this owl in this video.
[0:14:48] IP: The owl is creepy.
[0:14:49] JR: It is a little creepy. Actually, there's a bunch of animals in this, all doing things you
shouldn't do. I don't know where this video will be played.
[0:14:55] IP: That's what IATA gets for laying a bunch of wild animals on an airplane.
[0:14:58] JR: Right? They don't know what a bag is. They just know that they're on an airplane
and what's going on. It is nice to see more attention being paid to the evacuation issues
onboard. Again, I don't know what's going on with this video where it's shown, but they do say
that more research is needed to help quantify the need for action, which I think is pretty
quantifiable at this point, watching just about any video of a cabin evacuation, which itself is
problematic that there are people taking video, unless they strap a GoPro to the top of their
head and doesn't possibly slow down situation. Apparently, they say this is significant gap in
knowledge among travelers that could result in disaster.
Many, many airlines at this point roll into their safety briefing that, “Hey, in the unlikely event of
an evacuation, leave your bags onboard.” But I don't think it's really firm enough. It should really
be repeated and then smashed over people's heads at this point. There's a lot of other stuff in
those safety videos that's also important. It’s just yet another thing that people don't pay
attention to.
[0:16:02] IP: Yeah. I mean, and we've talked about this before. Some of the stats are pretty
interesting from the IATA survey that was conducted among passengers in the United States,
© 2026 AvTalk 7
AVT 375 Transcript
the UK, the UAE, and Singapore. They found that 80% of passengers surveyed claim to know
what to do in an emergency evacuation, yet only 61% correctly answered that they should leave
all personal items and exit the aircraft. 33% said they had seen reports of people taking their
baggage during an evacuation. Of these, 22% indicated that they were likely to do the same.
[0:16:35] JR: Yes. 38% indicated that they think it would take three minutes or more to
evacuate an aircraft. So, you know, what's an extra couple of seconds?
[0:16:44] IP: Well, if everybody's grabbing their bag, that's true.
[0:16:46] JR: Yeah. There are cases where we know, like that JAL A350, you could do it in a
heartbeat. If you do everything by the book, and even with half the exits, yeah, 90 seconds,
that's the most it can take. Well, that's really the benchmark. It can and does take more
sometimes, but 90 minutes is what they say the safety minutes. Ah, maybe in America with all
our bags. But 90 seconds is the safety benchmark. But somehow, only 38% of people had that
right idea. Yet, one in 10 passengers admitted that even knowing all of that, they may still take
bags during an evacuation, or follow others who do, even when instructed not to. Those are the
people who you know, if you happen to see doing that, you have my permission to smash them
over the head to get out of the way, because they are intentionally slowing things down. If they
get left behind, they get left behind. They did it to themselves.
[0:17:37] IP: All right. Well, we'll put a link to the creepy owl video in the show notes if you want
to watch that.
[0:17:44] JR: The educational creepy owl video.
[0:17:45] IP: The educational creepy owl video. Absolutely. Let's head to Sydney, where in
October of 2027, so a little more than a year from now, Qantas will launch its first Project
Sunrise flights to London.
[0:18:02] JR: Oh, so I'm still going to have to make a stop if I want to go to –
[0:18:07] IP: You're going to have to go to Auckland first.
© 2026 AvTalk 8
AVT 375 Transcript
[0:18:08] JR: Oh, man. Yeah. But next, maybe, maybe soon, next –
[0:18:14] IP: Yes.
[0:18:15] JR: - they will offer the fight that I admittedly still don't want to take.
[0:18:19] IP: Well, it will be next. There are 12 A350-1000 ULRs on order to Qantas. The first
batch of six aircraft will be dedicated to Project Sunrise flights only. That will be Sydney to
London and Sydney to JFK. That second batch will then take over some of the other ultra-long-
haul flying that's just a little bit shorter. Perth-London, and Auckland-JFK, amongst a few other
possible routes. Those flights are currently operated by 787-9s. While the 787-9 can do those
flights, it's not really designed for those routes. Qantas sees itself moving those aircraft off those
routes to other routes where it can make a lot more money, rather than operating the 787-9.
One of the routes that that might switch to is Chicago. Because as we all know, Qantas has
really wanted to fly to Chicago for the better part of two decades. Every time they announce the
Chicago flight, something bad happens. At this point, I'm a little superstitious about them
announcing a date for flying to Chicago, because then I know something bad is going to
happen.
[0:19:41] JR: Yeah, didn't Air New Zealand also actually launch Chicago flights for 15 minutes
before COVID?
[0:19:48] IP: They operated for a little bit, yeah. Before and after, so that was a moment. Every
time Qantas announces that they're going to fly to Chicago, you get a global financial crisis, you
get a global pandemic. I mean, just nothing good every time they announce a date for their
flights to Chicago.
[0:20:07] JR: Awesome. These are some very, very long flights, yet still not the longest in the
world currently. Just looking at the JFK to Auckland flight, of which there are two airlines,
because Air New Zealand also offers this, of course. These flights push 17 hours take off
touchdown time. I know we've talked about this before, but that doesn't actually mean the entire
time you're onboard the aircraft, because at JFK you could be taxiing for an hour and a half and
© 2026 AvTalk 9
AVT 375 Transcript
also boarding for an hour before you actually push back. What is actually 17 hours in the air
could be more like 19 hours onboard the aircraft. Now we're stretching another couple hours.
I know we've talked about this so many times, but every time we do, I just get antsy and think 19
hours onboard the plane, beyond that, like 20 plus hours. It's nice that they're finally going to
have these purpose-built aircraft for it, instead of just throwing the 787-9 on it as they are today.
But incremental gains, incremental at best in economy at least.
[0:21:09] IP: Yeah, they see a market for this, and they say they see a market for an economy
class product. This is something that I would be super interested to talk to someone who's like,
“Absolutely. I want to do this in economy,” and see what their, I guess, use case is for a nonstop
flight, what makes it better in their eyes? Or is it just going to be something where it's slightly
cheaper and then –
[0:21:37] JR: Thought it was going to be more expensive?
[0:21:39] IP: I don't know. I mean, I don't know exactly why you would choose this if you're in
economy. But Qantas says they see a market here and they see an economic opportunity for an
economy cabin on these flights. That said, if it doesn't work out for them, they're certainly
leaving themselves open to adjust the cabin configuration.
[0:21:58] JR: Yes. Can and almost certainly would in that case.
[0:22:02] IP: Yeah. Let's stick with a conversation about Airbus, because Airbus this week
opened a second A320neo-final assembly line in Toulouse, making it their 10th A320neo family
final assembly line around –
[0:22:19] JR: Where did they find that space? Was that the –
[0:22:22] IP: A380.
© 2026 AvTalk 10
AVT 375 Transcript
[0:22:23] JR: 380 line. Yeah. Amazing that the A380 has been out of production for so long.
They're just now finishing converting that space to the 320, which did they already complete that
in Hamburg?
[0:22:35] IP: The full redo of the A380 space?
[0:22:37] JR: Yeah.
[0:22:37] IP: I believe so.
[0:22:39] JR: I think they did, which they didn't actually assemble the 380. They did cabin, or –
[0:22:43] IP: Finishing touches.
[0:22:44] JR: Yeah, finishing touches there in Hamburg. Yeah, it's good stuff. That’s 10 lines
compared to –
[0:22:50] IP: Ten lines.
[0:22:51] JR: - Boeing’s maybe two one day.
[0:22:53] IP: Three and possibly four.
[0:22:55] JR: Maybe two locations, that is. They'll have a couple of lines, but maybe, maybe this
year, maybe. Probably not. We'll see the 73 line spin up. I don't know if that's going to happen
this year, but it's going to happen eventually.
[0:23:09] IP: I mean, if they want to get to the rate that they want to get to, it'll have to happen.
[0:23:12] JR: Just thinking about the logistics of having a final assembly in Hamburg and
Toulouse and Mobile NT Engine. That is truly, truly a global operation, all to build the same
exact thing.
© 2026 AvTalk 11
AVT 375 Transcript
[0:23:23] IP: Yeah. There's four lines in Hamburg. There's two in Toulouse, two in Mobile and
two in Tianjin. Who knows?
[0:23:31] JR: Could be India one day.
[0:23:33] IP: Yeah, exactly. The idea is to buy next year, produce between 70 and 75 A320neo
family aircraft per month.
[0:23:43] JR: It's a lot. We’ll see what the supply chain has to say about that, because maybe
not.
[0:23:48] IP: Because so far, the supply chain says, no.
[0:23:51] JR: No. Supply chain says, “No. I don't think we're ever going to do that again.”
[0:23:55] IP: We'll see how far we get. Spirit Airlines, or Spirit’s holding company parent has
gotten the go ahead by the bankruptcy court to auction off its assets, which include the owned
A320s and the LaGuardia slots. Some interesting bidders are lining up, Jason.
[0:24:16] JR: Yeah. I'm reading in your notes here, and you say, Florida Air Express and
Mooney International. Surely, that can't be right. You must have misspelled Delta and United.
[0:24:25] IP: I did not. I'm not saying that they're going to win, but there are some interesting
possibilities here. Florida Air Express wants to start up an ultra-low-cost carrier based on
Florida.
[0:24:41] JR: No.
[0:24:42] IP: Stop me if you've heard this one before.
[0:24:43] JR: No. Denied. Denied.
© 2026 AvTalk 12
AVT 375 Transcript
[0:24:45] IP: They would start by flying within the state and then expand up to New York,
because they want the LaGuardia slots as well. They would expand up to New York. Then they
would take delivery of A320neos, or A321XLRs and begin flying internationally.
[0:25:05] JR: No, no. No to none of any of that. The good thing about slots is though, they are
use them or lose them in most cases. If some weirdo entity were to somehow end up being the
highest bidder, which doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility if a speculator comes in with
dark money and buys up these slots as an investment, I don't know if there are rules preventing
that, but it seems like that is something that could happen. You have to actually operate the
slots, or the FAA will yoink them back and redistribute them, or put them back up for sale, or
whatever. It is good to know that, yeah, much to the dismay of the Port Authority here, these are
technically assets of the airline that get to be auctioned off. Ian, this is a wild card. I didn't put
this in the show notes, because I forgot. You know what is not a part of Spirit Airlines assets to
be redistributed to its debaters, basically?
[0:25:59] IP: I don't.
[0:26:00] JR: Okay, good. Honeywell put a memo in with the United States bankruptcy court,
Southern District of New York saying, “Hey, Spirit Airlines had five auxiliary power units known
as APUs that are not actually Spirit’s. They are our property. They were loaners to the airline.
They belong to Honeywell. Please, do not sell them to anyone as the aircraft are parted out, or
sold, or otherwise moved on to a new airline. Those belong to us. Also, we don't know where
they are. If you could help us find them, that'd be great.”
[0:26:35] IP: Oh. Oh, great.
[0:26:38] JR: Yeah. The quote literally says, “The Honeywell APUs belong to Honeywell. Spirit
was simply allowed to use the Honeywell APUs under the terms and conditions of the MSA.”
APUs are very expensive, but they also seem to break a lot. I guess, much like if you have a
new car and it has an issue, you bring it to the dealer and they will maybe give you a loaner.
That seems like the case here, where Honeywell had a few loaner APUs, which are not
inexpensive assets that were installed in aircraft, or maybe not. Maybe they're not even in
© 2026 AvTalk 13
AVT 375 Transcript
aircraft, but nobody seems to know. So, they have filed with the court to say, “Hey, these belong
to us, not Spirit. Please, return them promptly if you happen to find them somewhere.”
[0:27:18] IP: If you see a Honeywell APU just sitting around an airport near you, give Honeywell
a call, I guess?
[0:27:24] JR: More or less. Yeah. Thanks, Rob, for pointing that one out. That was a funny read.
[0:27:29] IP: Whoops. AirAsia X is delaying its Bahrain hub. Surprise.
[0:27:37] JR: Yeah, probably a good idea. At least for a little bit.
[0:27:40] IP: Yeah, exactly. The plan there was for the airline to begin flights from Malaysia to
Gatwick in London, via a new hub in Bahrain. Bahrain, for those that aren't sitting in front of a
map is located on the Persian Gulf, which, as listeners to this podcast will know, has been the
subject of a bit of tension over the past few months. The airline's saying, “You know what? We
think this is a good plan commercially. We just don't think the timing is right.”
[0:28:17] JR: We're going to take a pause. Yeah.
[0:28:18] IP: They’re going to wait until later in the fall, or early winter to put that into play,
assuming no further delays. Jason, we talked, I think, two weeks ago about Swiss parting out
some of its A220-100s. Now, we have three more A220 part outs. These will be 300s. Former
Egypt Air A220-300s that were acquired by Azora are going to Delta Material Services for
Delta's fleet. They announced in April that they were going to part out one A220-300 from the
former Egypt air fleet. That has now risen to four. They will be able to keep those spare parts,
and then the engines will also be leased to Delta for use in their fleet.
[0:29:12] JR: Got to get what you can get, where you can get it, I guess. Were these the A220s
that didn't actually fly for Egypt Air? They flew for a subsidiary of Egypt Air, and then quickly
were yoinked out of service seemingly out of nowhere? Everyone's speculating –
[0:29:26] IP: That did happen, but I'm not sure exactly which.
© 2026 AvTalk 14
AVT 375 Transcript
[0:29:28] JR: It’s either the same ones, yeah.
[0:29:30] IP: Which MSNs are the ones that are being parted out.
[0:29:32] JR: Yeah. Such a shame. Not even the original 100. These are 300s, so firmly an
Airbus produced territory at this stage. That's crazy. Then again, we see year old Spirit
A320neos getting parted out. You got to do what you got to do. Delta's got a lot of A220s in
these to keep alive. Not terribly surprising, but still disappointing and sad.
[0:29:55] IP: Yeah. I went down an interesting rabbit hole on Delta Material Services. I did not
know that they existed.
[0:30:01] JR: No. I'm familiar with Delta Tech Ops and Delta Services, and all sorts of other
units of Delta, but material services is a new one to me.
[0:30:12] IP: Yeah. Delta Material Services is the sole provider of used material to Delta
Airlines. It's functionally named. Some of the photos of the warehouse are just incredible.
[0:30:28] JR: What is it like? The Indiana Jones movie, where they go into the warehouse and
it's just an endless rose of A220 parts.
[0:30:36] IP: That's exactly what it looks like, with better lighting. Yes, all sorts of stuff. It's one of
the world's largest buyers of used aircraft parts, engines, components. They have a warehouse
that's just shrink-wrapped engines sitting around. I'll put a link to the website in the show notes.
[0:30:55] JR: Sounds like a prime candidate for a tour and podcast episode.
[0:30:59] IP: It sure does, doesn't it?
[0:31:01] JR: Wink, wink, nudge, nudge Delta subsidiary. Are they even a subsidiary? Because
looking –
© 2026 AvTalk 15
AVT 375 Transcript
[0:31:07] IP: They are a wholly owned subsidiary of Delta airlines.
[0:31:10] JR: Wow. They are missing from the Delta Airline to Wikipedia entry who lists tech
ops, the trainer, or a finery unify aviation and clear secure as their subsidiaries. Even down to
5%, but not this one. This one does quite a bit flying under the radar.
[0:31:26] IP: Yeah. I mean, very cool stuff that they're doing, and the little hero video they have
at the top of their website’s worth a bit of a watch. Enjoy that. Sorry, parted out A220s. Jason,
we've been doing this podcast almost 10 years. I think that one of the first stories we talked
about was Norwegian and how they were faring. For a while, Norwegian’s ups, mostly downs
was a long running topic of the podcast. Then they stopped their long-haul flying. They got rid of
all of their 787s. They went back to their Nordic short-haul bread and butter low-cost flying and
it's worked really well for them. They bought Widerøe. They moved in to basically, even shorter
haul space. Now they're saying, “Hey, let's buy ourselves a leisure travel group.”
[0:32:33] JR: Oh, yeah. Just for 843 million dollars, US dollars. Where did it get that money?
This is an airline that was always on the verge of not existing anymore. How did that happen?
[0:32:45] IP: Well, they really have turned around in not astounding fashion, but something
short of astounding. They executed on their plan to operate 737s around Europe very well. Then
this comes along and it seems like it sort of makes sense. They're buying Nordic Leisure Travel
Group, which owns Sunclass Airlines, which is based out of Denmark. They own a set of hotels
and package travel. It'll all be separate from Norwegian, except that it'll feed the Norwegian and
Widerøe will be used to feed passenger traffic to these leisure packages, which seems to all
make sense. It's just, low-cost carriers, generally speaking, don't have a great history of
purchasing package carriers and doing well.
[0:33:43] JR: Wait a minute. Do you know what this means, Ian, that finally, years after it gave
up its hopes and dreams of widebody flying, they're back. Because Sunclass Airlines operates
three A330-900neos.
[0:33:59] IP: Yup.
© 2026 AvTalk 16
AVT 375 Transcript
[0:34:00] JR: A bit of a roundabout way here, but we're back in a situation where Norwegian Air
has widebody aircraft. Not going to do the same things that it did with the 78s, I don't think, but
it's got them and they can do whatever they want with it.
[0:34:17] IP: I mean, I guess. The idea is that this will be all integrated into one flow for
passengers. The businesses themselves will be separated out. They're saying that the
Sunclass, Norwegian and Widerøe networks have limited overlap, is what they say. Yes, that
makes perfect sense. But, I guess, they wanted this for reasons. It's not quite clear to me what
they get out of all of this headache –
[0:34:52] JR: I don't know.
[0:34:53] IP: - to operate a full package carrier.
[0:34:55] JR: I don't know. But seemingly, someone over there does know. Very fascinating
story arc for Norwegian, which was on the bubble again, of not existing. But they're doing what
they think is right. I think it's just also hilarious that when I search on my phone for North Atlantic
in DuckDuckGo, all I get is an ad for Norwegian Air, which is odd because they don't serve the
same market. But hey, they've got a 330s now, so maybe they will one day. Again, please don't
do that. Don't do it.
[0:35:25] IP: They're all going to sunny destinations from Northern Europe. I don't see that
happening.
[0:35:29] JR: Surely, they couldn't fall for that again.
[0:35:31] IP: No. No. No, no. Absolutely not. KLM is looking to take its first A350 in August and
begin service between Amsterdam and Toronto in September, with one of the large caveats
being that all of the business class seats will be blocked.
[0:35:51] JR: Now surely, you're reading notes from a few months ago, where Lufthansa was
operating its first aircraft with new business class to Toronto without any of the seats actually
available. Surely, you must be mistaken.
© 2026 AvTalk 17
AVT 375 Transcript
[0:36:06] IP: Or Toronto.
[0:36:07] JR: What's the deal here? Why does Toronto always get the new aircraft that don't
have any business class seats available to book? It's twice this year alone, which is very odd,
very coincidental.
[0:36:19] IP: It can't be coincidence. It's got to be something special about Toronto.
[0:36:22] JR: I mean, surely Toronto can't be that low yield a market. Surely, you're not going to
send to JFK, but I don't know, maybe Kansas City, or something? I don't know. Toronto seems
like there would be enough demand for premium cabins, but that's strange. But it's deja vu all
over again, or the industry and observers. We should probably call John Walton for some
support on this one, but it doesn't seem like it's going to be in a Lufthansa Allegris situation
that's not drawn out for months, or even years at a time. This should hopefully be quicker. But
yet again, an airline was a little over ambitious with its business class product and is now being
stung by certification issues. Or in this case, I think the rules were changed a little bit, and
they're still working on adopting their certification to those new rules. This is not stuff that you
saw happen years ago. This is all new stuff, and it's happening again for Toronto. Hopefully,
nobody was actually booked and has to get downgraded, or re-booked, or anything, but that's a
lot of revenue being left on the table.
[0:37:22] IP: Yeah. Hopefully, that gets resolved soon, and you can book all of the seats on
KLM's two A350s. That's a new plane. Let's talk old plane. Because of the dramatic rise in fuel
prices, Icelandair says it is accelerating the retirement of its 757 fleet. The airline currently has
eight in the fleet, remaining six of which are in regular passenger service, two are used for
specialty transports around the world, extravaganzas, and most recently, flying World Cup
teams to North America. These aircraft were supposed to last through next year before being
retired, but because of the high cost of fuel, the airline says, “Mm, we're done.”
[0:38:08] JR: Don't like that at all.
[0:38:09] IP: No.
© 2026 AvTalk 18
AVT 375 Transcript
[0:38:10] JR: No, the Icelandair without the 757 just doesn't feel right to me. I don't like it.
[0:38:16] IP: Maybe they'll keep a few around as charters for a little while, and it'll just be the
ones in regular passenger service that go by the end of the year. But that's a bummer.
[0:38:25] JR: Does Icelandair still have the 76s, or are those also now gone entirely?
[0:38:32] IP: They're still operating –
[0:38:33] JR: Three of them. They still got three.
[0:38:34] IP: - three with them. Yeah.
[0:38:35] JR: Yeah. That was more so than the 757. That was always my favorite modern-ish
Icelandair aircraft, because it was just so much more comfortable than the 75s, because who
doesn't like a 76? At least, no one announced plans to get rid of those on any accelerated
timeline. Hey, that's something.
[0:38:55] IP: They're going away soon, but they'll be around for as long as they're around.
[0:38:59] JR: Shh. Don’t we hope.
[0:39:00] IP: Okay. I'm sorry. Things that aren't supposed to happen include aircraft taxiing into
light masts, or various poles and things like that.
[0:39:15] JR: It happens sometimes. It happens. It happens. Sometimes people aren't doing
their job, or not doing their job right, or you're not having a good day. Sometimes wings clip light
poles. It happens.
[0:39:27] IP: Yeah. In this case, it was one of the leased 777s being operated, that was
operated by Indigo from Turkish Airlines. I think carried 12,000 passengers. It was one of those
super –
© 2026 AvTalk 19
AVT 375 Transcript
[0:39:48] JR: We weren't ever able to get an actual account, because the legend has it that
they never stopped boarding this airplane.
[0:39:55] IP: It just keep –
[0:39:55] JR: Was an aircraft they were using for hodge flights between Jeddah, Istanbul,
domestic within Turkey as well. I'm not sure if this is one that also operated up to Russia at any
point for a max pax configuration. This airplane ain't going anywhere anytime soon, or maybe
never again.
[0:40:14] IP: It's got a real big gash in the side, right behind the wing. It does not look good.
[0:40:20] JR: No, the airplane messed with the light pole and the light pole won, because in this
case, it wasn't a simple steel light pole, which usually would result in like, “Oh, no. You bent the
winglet or whatever. Slap a new one on.” This was a lattice tower, which happened to have, I
guess, a light to the top, or some other. I actually don't know if this was a light tower. It was
some sort of light mast. The mast collapsed and not only damaged the wing, but punctured a
big old hole in the side of the airplane. We've seen aircraft come back from a lot worse than this,
but this was not by any means a new aircraft. This was a 17-year-old 777-300ER. It might be
one of those cases where it's more valuable to part it out, take those precious GE90s off, slap it
on something new than actually fix this airplane. But somewhere over at Delta Material
Services, they're probably looking at this and go, “Mm, parts.”
[0:41:15] IP: In Pakistan, the final law providing for the privatization of Pakistan International
Airlines has now been signed. This caps a more than decade-long effort to make sure that the
government isn't the majority owner of the airline. Whether this is good, bad, will happen all over
again remains to be seen, but now things seem official, so good luck, Habib Group. We wish
you all the best.
[0:41:48] JR: Good luck to them. I bet they didn't see the price of fuel doubling right after they
signed on this airline that is functionally obsolete. Still has no orders placed for more efficient,
© 2026 AvTalk 20
AVT 375 Transcript
newer aircraft. Good luck with that. I'm not sure they know what they got themselves into, but
they must.
[0:42:06] IP: I hope so. Let's close the show with the Pope.
[0:42:10] JR: As we often do. Yeah.
[0:42:13] IP: That's exactly right. The Pope was on a tour of Spain and was down in the Canary
Islands. He was on Tenerife when he boarded an Iberia A320 to go home, but the aircraft was
broken, so then he got off the plane. What do you do in that situation, Jason?
[0:42:34] JR: This is where the story gets good, though. Well, usually, EU261 rules say, you've
got four hours before compensation kicks in, or the flight is canceled. But this is the Pope we're
talking about. The King of Spain offered his personal aircraft to get the Pope home, several
members of the delegation as well.
[0:42:54] IP: Take my Falcon Jet.
[0:42:55] JR: Yeah, take my Falcon. It's no big deal. I'm the King of Spain, which today I
learned there's a King of Spain. That's cool. Yeah. The reason stated that the aircraft broke here
in this Reuters article is a bit of a head scratcher. I'm literally scratching my head. I'm just going
to read here. “In announcements made after the Pope had disembarked, the captain said the
engine had likely failed to start because of the wind.” He said, “The issue could not be resolved
immediately and that passengers would have to leave the plane.” What? Huh?
[0:43:28] IP: I mean, I was dealing with getting a blimp out of a hangar all week. I don't know.
[0:43:31] JR: It was too windy to blimp. Maybe there's a mistranslation here, or things got lost in
a game of telephone, but the engine failed because of the wind is –
[0:43:44] IP: It sounds like, there was a technical issue, because the wind was too strong, and
so the engine wouldn't start. I'm not even sure what that means.
© 2026 AvTalk 21
AVT 375 Transcript
[0:43:55] JR: No. It's not something I've ever heard before and airplanes often operate in windy
places. I've been to Chicago before.
[0:44:06] IP: Yeah. I mean, I'm not sure if there's a limitation on because this particular aircraft
is an A320-200 powered by two CFM-56 engines. I've never heard of it being too windy to start
a CFM-56.
[0:44:21] JR: There's got to be more to this story that's not checking out to me at all.
[0:44:26] IP: If you know anything about this, please email us at podcast@fr24.com, because
I'm really interested. Because I'm sure there's an explanation here. I just cannot fathom what it
is at the moment.
[0:44:37] JR: I'm sure there is. The captain of the flight operating the Pope is not going to
cancel a flight and kick him off the plane willy-nilly, because his friends and co-workers will
never let this one down like, “Remember that time you kicked the Pope off your plane?” “Yeah.
Yeah, it was too windy.”
[0:44:53] IP: Can you imagine you're trying to get the engine started and you realize that,
“Okay, we need to go tell them.”
[0:44:59] JR: Oh, man. I left the light on and the battery is dead.
[0:45:01] IP: We need to go tell them.
[0:45:02] JR: Which is a thing you can do on an airplane. That is a thing that happens. They do
have batteries and the batteries needed to start the plane. If you leave the light on in the flight
deck, plane no start. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. Also, if you are the king of
Spain and you're a listener, look us up, because we like a flight on your Falcon Jet, too.
[0:45:20] IP: Can we have a ride, too? I like that pitch. We'll see if it works.
[0:45:26] JR: Oh, poor Pope.
© 2026 AvTalk 22
AVT 375 Transcript
[0:45:27] IP: Well, the Pope got home. The entourage of media and other folks traveling with
the Pope had to take a later flight, but they eventually got home, too. Not on a Falcon Jet, but
they did eventually get home on another Iberia flight.
[0:45:41] JR: The king could only spare one jet today.
[0:45:44] IP: Exactly. Well, this has been episode 375 of AvTalk. I am Ian Petchenik, here as
always with –
[0:45:53] JR: Jason Rabinowitz. Thanks for listening.
[END]
© 2026 AvTalk 23