Boeing

why OpenAI is installing Boeing 747 engines in its data farms

by

Just three years ago, Blake Scholl, CEO of aviation company Boom Supersonic, had a linear business plan: He would first build the supersonic plane of the future and, much later, retrofit its engines to generate power. However, a phone call changed the order of factors and revealed the desperation of the technology industry. On the other end of the line was Sam Altman. The OpenAI CEO’s message was a direct plea: “Please, please, please get us something.” Altman wasn’t looking for plane tickets; I was looking for electrical power. This anecdote, reported to the Financial Timessummarizes the state of emergency in the sector: artificial intelligence is advancing at breakneck speed, but it has hit the wall of physical infrastructure. While the AI evolves in monthspermits to connect to the electrical grid can take up to ten years in some regions. Faced with this paralysis, the industry has opted for “Plan B” which consists of bypassing the grid and manufacturing its own energy on site. The tall price of urgency. This strategic shift has profound consequences. The first is economic, the “delay” is expensive. According to BNP Paribas analystspower from a gas plant built for Meta in Ohio costs about $175 per megawatt hour, nearly double the average cost for an industrial customer. The second is environmental. Mark Dyson, from Rocky Mountain Institutewarns that the emissions of these plants are much worse than those of the general network, which combines efficient gas with renewables. Despite this, the urgency is such that the authorities are giving in. In Virginia, the world’s data center heartland, it is considering relaxing emissions rules to allow generators to run more frequently. Even polluting plants that were in retirement, like the Fisk plant in Chicagohave canceled their closure to feed the demand for AI. From the sky to the data center. The most surprising solution comes from aeronautical engineering through aeroderivative turbines. The ProEnergy Company are buying motor cores CF6-80C2 of the iconic Boeing 747 to rebuild them as ground power units. A single one of these turbines generates 48 megawatts, enough for a city of 40,000 homes. It is not an isolated case. GE Vernova already supplies this technology for the gigantic Stargate (OpenAI/Microsoft) data center in Texas. Blake Scholl himself confirmed that it will sell Crusoe turbines “practically identical” to those of his supersonic planes to finance his aeronautical project. The return of diesel. Beyond aviation turbines, the sector is rescuing the most reviled fuel: diesel. The manufacturer Cummins has already sold 39 gigawatts of energy to data centers, doubling their capacity this year. What was once emergency equipment for power outages is now in demand as a primary energy source. The situation has escalated to the US Government. Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, suggested on Fox News an almost war economy measure: requisition the backup generators from data centers or large stores like Walmart to turn them over to the network when the general system falters. The ignored alternative: Is smoke necessary? Not everyone agrees that the return to the fossil is inevitable. A study by researchers at Stripe, Paces and Scale Microgrids maintains that the future is in “off-grid” solar microgrids. According to their calculations, a system with 44% solar energy is already as cheap as gas, and one with 90% renewables would surpass nuclear projects in profitability. The advantage is speed since these solar farms can be built in less than two years in desert areas from Texas or Arizona. Giants like Google have taken note, buying the electric company Intersect Power for 4.75 billion dollars to protect its clean supply and not depend on the network. However, the majority industry prefers diesel and known gas due to a matter of technical inertia, due to the prosaic fear that the cloud will go out if the sun does not shine. AI goes physical. The industry finds itself in a technical paradox. To power the most advanced software on the planet, big technology companies are resurrecting combustion engines and burning fossil fuels on a massive scale. Although these “bridge turbines” allow AI to continue growing today, experts cited by the Financial Times They warn that this fever could cool as the tech giants reduce their capital spending. For now, the cloud has had to come down to earth. The future of artificial intelligence, ironically, depends not only on brilliant code, but on who controls the underground and who manages to turn on enough “plugs” so that the greatest technological revolution of our era is not left in the dark. Image | freepik and Harpagornis Xataka | The exorbitant deployment of data centers for AI has a new problem: salt caverns

Boeing has come to the rescue

by

We have not returned to the Moon since the mission Apollo 17in December 1972. Maybe that mission doesn’t sound particularly familiar to you, and that’s completely normal. Of all the times we have approached or walked by our satellitemost people remember the mission Apollo 11 by Neil Armstrong’s famous quote, “It’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind,” and, possibly, the Apollo 13not because it was a success, but because one of the oxygen tanks exploded and, fortunately, the astronauts managed to save themselves. Fifty-three years later, we are closer than ever to revisiting the one that illuminates us when the sun goes down. We will do so with the Artemis II mission, scheduled to launch as soon as February 2026. But this return is not without challenges. And we are not talking about the delays of the Artemis program, which are not always really delaysbut of a piece as common as it is indispensable: the vehicle that takes astronauts from their bedrooms to the spacecraft that will transport them to the Moon. And someone has come to the rescue of NASA. Returning to the Moon is not just a matter of rockets Historically, astronauts have used the well-known Astrovan to get around from the operations building to the launch pad. From the STS-9 mission of the space shuttle Columbia, in 1983, until the end of the program with the STS-135 mission of the Atlantis, in 2011, a Airstream Excella of 1983 modified specifically for the transport of astronauts. And since NASA has not had its own system to launch astronauts into space since the end of the shuttle program, SpaceX and Boeing, the two American contractors that have assumed this role, have used their own vehicles, turning the historic Airstream Excella into a museum piece. The Artemis program became a good excuse to take a step towards modernity and incorporate, of course, an electric vehicle to transport astronauts. Under this premise, NASA announced in July 2022 that the astronauts of the Artemis program would move in vehicles from Canoo Technologies, an American startup. The fleet would be made up of three vans based on the Lifestyle Vehicle (LV), a model that, strikingly, had not even begun to be sold at the time of the announcement. Even so, there was a vote of confidence and, of course, a contract involved that required compliance. The Canoo vehicles that NASA bought Everything seemed to be progressing without visible setbacks, but things were getting complicated inside. In summary, the company published a press release on its website, which can only be consulted on the Internet Archivein which it voluntarily filed for Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. This implies the cessation of its operations and the liquidation of all its assets. The vehicles had already been delivered to NASA, but using them left one question in the air: if a technical problem arose, who would respond? It was time to make a decision. The original Astrovan With the “countdown” underway for the launch of Artemis II, the US agency’s options were not many. Go out and find a new contractor? NASA had already paid for three Canoo vehicles that now lacked operational support. So there were two alternatives at home: use the Tesla Model employed by SpaceX or resort to the Boeing Astrovan II. Finally, NASA opted for this second option, at least as explained by the agency itself. in a statement provided to the Orlando television network Spectrum News 13. The solution is to temporarily rent the Boeing vehicle for, at least, the Artemis II mission, while other options for the future are evaluated. Boeing’s Astrovan II It is worth remembering that, although the transportation of astronauts before a mission may seem like a minor detail, it is not at all. It is a highly tense situation in which everything must flow with millimeter precision, and the comfort and conditions of the crew are key. So much so that these vehicles are adapted to meet NASA’s strict specifications and have everything necessary so that astronauts can move around with the Orion survival system spacesuits. It’s not as simple as getting into any car and that’s it. Boeing’s Astrovan II The Astrovan II is the result of a collaboration between the caravan firm Airstream and Boeing. It is, in essence, a modified Mercedes-Benz Sprinter 4500driven by a Mercedes-Benz 2.0 liter diesel engine and four cylinders with turbo. It features custom seating, USB charging stations, 110V power outlets, and a live TV broadcast system, as well as being ready to welcome astronauts in their suits. As expected, there are those who are in favor and those who are critical of this decision, but on paper it seems the most logical option. And if you’re wondering if the Astrovan II has ever been used before, the answer is yes. The vehicle debuted on the Boeing Crew Flight Test (Boe-CFT) mission, launched on June 5, 2024. Barry “Butch” Wilmore and Sunita “Suni” Williams were transported in it from the Kennedy Space Center to the launch pad of the Starliner Calypso capsule. That was, precisely, the mission in which the capsule had problems and the astronauts ended up returning to Earth aboard a SpaceX ship. Images | POT | Boeing | Canoo In Xataka | We have filled the Earth’s orbit with satellites. And now the risk of a catastrophic collision is very high

forgot three Boeing 747s in Kuala Lumpur

by

According to official data, More than 80 million passengers pass through airports such as the Adolfo Suárez Madrid – Barajas airport each year, while more than 19 million travelers pass through the Josep Tarradellas Barcelona – El Prat airport each year. With that volume of passengers, it’s not strange for people to lose things. The undersigned lost a jacket he loved forgotten at the Berlin airport. However, at least usually someone loses a 70 meter object long and 200 tons in weight, like those weighed by the three Boeing 747s that someone forgot in 2015 at the Kuala Lumpur airport (Malaysia). The three forgotten Boeings For more than a year, these giants of more than 70 meters long, they remained parked in a corner of the international airport in the Malaysian capital as if they were a simple lost object, accumulating fees and attracting the attention of the ground teams who saw them every day without anyone taking responsibility for them. Over time, that It stopped being just a curious anecdote among the runway operators and became a real administrative problem for the airport management through which more than 70 million passengers pass through each year. The airport space management company was obliged to reserve that space for the three aircraft, assume their tariff costs and try to clarify who was responsible for those three. Boeing 747‑200two configured for passengers and one for cargo. The most striking thing about the case is that they were not small planes within the reach of any user with a flight license, but rather they were three Boeing 747‑200which in its passenger version It can exceed 400 seats and reached a price of about 39 million dollars in the early 1980s. Even so, these three units, identified with the registration plates TF-ARM, TF-ARN and TF-ARH, were immobilized for more than a year and without anagrams or marks that related them to any of the companies that usually operated at that airport. Whose planes are these? Tired of accumulating debt and dust in equal measure, Kuala Lumpur airport authorities set out to find the planes’ owners. According to pointed Bloomberg, the first information indicated that one of the aircraft had carried out cargo tasks for Malaysia Airlines, which had rented it to the Icelandic Air Atlanta Icelandic. Given the impossibility of locating a clear owner through the usual means, the airport administration decided to resort to a method as simple as it is forceful: post an ad in the local newspaper Star Newspaper to ask the “missing” owner of the planes to come by the airport to pick them up. The message of the advertisement was clear: “If you do not collect the aircraft within 14 days from the date of this notice, we reserve the right to sell or otherwise dispose of the aircraft in accordance with the Civil Aviation Regulations 1996 and use the money raised to offset any expenses and debts owed to us under those regulations,” stated the published notice. As and how I collected Guardianthe Kuala Lumpur authorities had decided to take action to get rid of the three aircraft, and were preparing the ground to sell them to the highest bidder. “We have been in communication with the supposed owner, but he has not responded to us to remove the aircraft. That is why we are carrying out this process to legalize any action we want to take,” Mohd Isa, the contact person who appeared in the announcement, told the British newspaper Zainol. The case took a turn when the Swift Air Cargo company, a freight transport company, stated that those planes were theirs and that they had not “forgotten” them, but rather that they were in the middle of a purchase operation from a Hong Kong company that had not yet been resolved. From that moment on, what seemed like a simple case of inattention turned into a dispute over who was really the legal owner and who should be responsible for their particular “parking ticket.” Boeings rose to fame It is not usual for three aircraft the size of these Boeing 747s to be “forgotten” on the runway of an international airport, which is why the three aircraft were made famous all over the world. Since finally It was not possible to clarify who the real owner was.the airport carried out its threat and sold the devices to the highest bidder. According to published LuxuryLaunchesNowadays, airplanes have a very different use than that for which they were designed. One of them, the TF‑ARMwas transferred to Nanchang, in China, where it ended up becoming a valuable setting for training practices for students of the Jiangxi Aviation Technical and Vocational School. The TF-ARN has become a tourist curiosity in northern Dinghai District in Zhoushan He TF-RNA traveled to Zhoushan, in China’s Zhejiang province, and was transformed into a leisure attraction, while the TF‑ARH He didn’t go too far from that airport. It was taken to the Freeport A’Famosa Outlet shopping complex in Malacca (Malaysia), where it was converted into a curious space which combines a cafeteria, a shopping area under the name “Coach Airways”. The third Boeing 747 is a cafeteria next to a shopping center in Malacca (Malaysia) In this way, the three jumbo jets that for more than a year remained forgotten at Kuala Lumpur International Airport, adding unpaid fees of several million, ended up finding a second life as a tourist attraction, practical classroom and commercial experience, far from the initial idea that they would end up reduced to scrap metal. In Xataka | Saudi Arabia bought one of the most advanced Boeing 747s in the world: it will end up being scrapped after only 16 flights Image | Flickr (Slices of Light)

Boeing wanted to get back on track with Starliner after its most difficult year. The contract with NASA just changed in a key point

by

For years, Starliner was presented as Boeing’s opportunity to aspire to a leading role in American manned flights, in a scenario in which SpaceX I moved faster with Dragon. The contract signed with NASA in 2014 It represented that opportunity: six manned flights and an open door to a new cycle of missions. Eleven years later, the situation is different. That agreement has been adjusted and the next mission has become an exam without people on board. That agreement placed Starliner within the program with which the US space agency sought to guarantee two different US vehicles to the International Space Station. The idea was clear: have more than one capsule capable of transporting astronauts, long-term planning and autonomy in low orbit. That document established that, once the ship was certified, Boeing would operate six manned flights for regular rotations. All this with an eye on the station’s deadline, scheduled for 2030. A shortened contract, by mutual agreement. NASA and Boeing have decided to modify the conditions of the original agreement and reduce the number of guaranteed flights. Instead of the six manned missions planned after certification, the new scenario includes a mission without astronauts, intended to validate the system, and up to three crew rotations. In addition, there are two optional flights that NASA can activate depending on its mission needs. This review also reduces the value of the contract, which goes from $4.5 billion to $3.732 million, after deducting $768 million. Starliner-1 changes roles. This mission without astronauts has a name: Starliner-1, and it has become a key piece of the system validation plan. NASA will use it to send cargo to the International Space Station and verify, in real conditions, that the changes introduced after the manned flight in 2024 offer sufficient guarantees. The target date remains no earlier than April 2026, provided the spacecraft successfully completes testing, certification and pre-launch preparation. A history of setbacks: The first warning came with flight OFT-1 in December 2019, when some problems prevented for Starliner to complete the planned profile and approach the International Space Station. The mission had to be terminated early. In 2022, the OFT-2 flight managed to reach the station, but problems appeared in several thrusters. Two years later, during the first manned flight, several thrusters failed again on approachwhich led NASA to order the return of the ship without the astronauts. NASA and Boeing engineers inspect the Starliner spacecraft after landing in White Sands, New Mexico, during the OFT-2 orbital test in May 2022 When NASA decided that Starliner would not bring Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams back, they both extended their stay on the International Space Station much longer than planned. In total it was nine months, until the agency scheduled a Dragon flight with two fewer astronauts than usual to have enough space. That landing, in March 2025, allowed the return to be completed and confirmed that the evaluation process on Starliner was still open after the 2024 manned flight. Meanwhile, Dragon. In parallel, Dragon began operating with astronauts in 2020 and was progressively incorporated into NASA’s regular planning. Since then, the SpaceX capsule has covered the planned rotations within the Commercial Crew Program, becoming the vehicle regularly used to access the International Space Station. In August 2025, the Crew-11 mission was completed, and Crew-12 is scheduled for February 2026. NASA has booked additional flights with Dragon until the station’s operational end, scheduled for 2030. Less flights, less income, more pressure. The contract modification also means a change in Boeing’s position within the program. The reduction of the total value to 3,732 million dollars implies 768 million dollars less compared to the original figure, with fewer guaranteed flights and a greater weight of optional missions. According to Reutersthe company has invested more than $2 billion since 2016 in this development, which adds relevance to Starliner’s performance in upcoming flights. Despite this, Boeing says it remains committed to the program. Redundancy against the clock. For NASA, Starliner remains relevant because the agency wants two independent systems that can transport astronauts to the International Space Station. Steve Stich, head of the Commercial Crew Program, summed it up by pointing out that the plan involves certifying the ship in 2026, scheduling its first manned rotation when it is ready and coordinating future flights according to the operational needs of the station, which will remain active until 2030. Maintaining this double capacity is key so that the agency does not depend exclusively on a single vehicle. What happens from now on will depend on the outcome of the next flights. If the system manages to be certified in 2026, Starliner can still participate in up to three crewed rotations, with two additional options subject to NASA decision. Boeing maintains its commitment and suggests that the ship could have a place in commercial projects after the end of the International Space Station, although these scenarios are yet to be defined. The opportunity has not disappeared, but it no longer looks as much like the one signed in 2014. Images | NASA (1, 2) | Boeing In Xataka | Starship’s great hope has gotten off to a bad start: a new and painful explosion

Something has hit a Boeing 737, injuring the pilot. The truly unheard of: it happened at 11,000 meters

by

A shattered windshield, a pilot with his arm covered in cuts, and United Airlines Flight 1093 diverted for an emergency landing. The plane that covered the route from Denver to Los Angeles has become the aeronautical mystery of the moment after, apparently, something hit the cockpit at 11,000 meters above sea level. What we know. The United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is investigating an incident that occurred Thursday with a Boeing 737 MAX 8 flying over Moab, Utah, at cruising speed. The plane was traveling at an altitude of 36,000 feet when a suspected impact occurred in the cockpit. Photos of the incident show the captain’s side windshield completely splintered, the plane’s center console splattered with glass, and the pilot’s arm covered in small cuts and abrasions. According to initial reports, the captain “thought they had been hit by a piece of metallic space debris.” When they made an emergency landing in Salt Lake City, they ended up discovering a “3.5-inch” impact on the outer panel of the windshield, but the cabin did not depressurize. Space junk? The plane’s windshield has been sent to NTSB laboratories for analysis, but researchers are not working on the hypothesis that it was a space debris impact, but rather part of a more mundane object that also flies higher than airplanes: a weather balloon. Although space junk be a growing problemthe United States Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) considers the risk “minuscule” of a piece of satellite or rocket hitting an airplane. That it also injures a person on board has a probability of “less than one in a billion.” The famous popularizer Scott Manley points out one of the main reasons for skepticism: modern satellites are designed to disintegrate into small pieces. Upon reaching cruising altitudes, these pieces are no longer hypersonic and have low impact energy. So a balloon? If it wasn’t space debris, what could have broken the windshield and injured the pilot? One of the exterior images of the plane shows, in addition to the broken windshield, dozens of small marks and dents on the metal fuselage of the plane, just above the window, which could be an indication that they encountered a hail storm. Hail is rare at 11,000 meters, but not impossible. However, the NTSB is working on the line of investigation that it was “a piece of a weather balloon data packet,” according to the specialized website AVBrief. These balloons and their payloads usually operate at 25,000-40,000 meters above sea level. Of course: if the piece was still tied to a balloon, it is strange that the pilot confused it with space junk. The windshield failed. Whatever hit the plane, the photos suggest the windshield didn’t do its job. The cabin windows of a 737, Manley explains, have multiple structural layers: glass on the outside and inside, with a polymer layer in between. The impact did not cause depressurization, indicating that the main structure and polymer layer held, but the inner glass layer fractured violently, projecting “glass dust” and small fragments toward the pilot, and causing the abrasions and cuts seen in the photos. The crew descended to 26,000 feet after the incident to reduce the pressure differential over the damaged window, and landed without further complications. The definitive answer as to what hit Flight 1093 will have to wait for the forensic analysis the NTSB is conducting on that shattered windshield. Images | JonNYC In Xataka | Three large pieces of space debris reenter every day: “one day our luck will run out and they will fall on someone”

For years the Airbus A380 symbolized European power against Boeing. Today it survives as a colossus without the kingdom

by

The Airbus A380 was born as a huge dream, almost a declaration of intentions of the European industry in front of the Boeing’s historical domain. It was the passenger plane bigger in the worldwith two full plants, space for bars and suites, and a silence in cabin that turned the flight hours into a different experience. For Airbus, the program was not just a commercial project: it was the tangible proof that Europe could look in front of the United States in the field of civil aviation, raising a colossus capable of marking a before and after in the heavens. For a while he got it. Each A380 landing turned an airport platform into a show. Thousands of curious people came to see that mole of 73 meters long and 24 meters higha building with wings that imposed only with its shadow. It was a continental pride, an engineering triumph and a symbol of what could be achieved when several countries align resources, knowledge and ambition. However, that same pride soon began to live with an uncomfortable question: how is it possible that a plane that seemed perfect has had such a short tour? The dream of the global hub and the change of the market direction When Airbus conceived the A380, he did it under a clear premise: the future of aviation would go through increasingly saturated Megahubs. His strategy bet on a “Hub-And-Spoke” model in which passengers would come together in large airports and then distribute on connection flights. The A380 was the key piece of that puzzle: a gigantic plane capable of reducing congestion by transporting more than 500 people at once. In theory, the business was solid. Airbus estimated that more than one thousand units of very large capacity aircraft would be sold in the following two decades. But reality was very different: The market was fragmented towards more frequencies and smaller airplanesweakening at the root the argument that justified the European giant. At the same time, the technical revolution changed the rules of the game. The advance of long -range bimoretores, with increasingly wide ethops certificationsallowed to fly virtually any intercontinental route with only two engines. The Boeing 777 and, later, the 787 and he demonstrated that the same autonomy could be offered as a four -way, but with less consumption, less maintenance and greater operational flexibility. That remained attractive to an airplane that, although efficient per seat in high occupation conditions, depended on filling hundreds of places to be really profitable. In a market that preferred more daily flights with smaller airplanes, the A380 began to run out of hole. The infrastructure also played against. The A380 was classified as aircraft F code (65-80 m of wingspan)which forced many airports to invest in specific positions, double catwalks and adapted filming streets. The compatibility manuals of A380 itself They detail those demands. For Hubs like Heathrow or Dubai, those investments made sense; For the rest, they were a difficult expense to justify. Even in prepared airports, rotation times were more complex than with other airplanes, and that remained efficiency against models that could operate with less conditions. Thus, the one who should be the undisputed king of the skies ended up being an exclusive guest in a few airports on the planet. The operational economy did not help either. With occupancy rates close to 100%, the A380 offered a cost per competitive seatbut when the demand went down the model became a heavy load. In addition, its load capacity in the cellar was not as flexible as that of rivals as the 777-300er or the A350-1000, which combined better passengers and goods. In practice, the A380 was a technical prodigy but too sensitive to occupation factor already variables that escaped the control of the airlines. Despite these difficulties, the program resisted thanks to a main client: Emirates. The Gulf airline turned the A380 into its flagship and accumulated more than a hundred units. But that dependency was lethal. In 2019, Emirates drastically reduced his A380 request To bet on A350 and the A330neo. Airbus officially assumed it With a overwhelming statement: without that support there was not enough request for request to keep production alive. The decision was irreversible: on February 14, 2019, the end of the program was announced, and In 2021 the last unit was delivered. The two -storey giant had come to an end with just 251 copies manufacturedfar from the initial forecasts. The outcome left an obvious paradox. The passengers worshiped the A380, their flight experience was unsurpassed and their presence generated expectation where it flew. But the airlines, in general, did not want it in their balances. The liquidity problems in the second -hand market confirmed it: The first A380 returned by Singapore Airlines ended up scrapped for piecesa curious outcome for such a young plane. The outbreak of the pandemic in 2020 seemed to seal the fate of the A380. The majority of airlines sent it to prolonged storage, and some even They announced their final withdrawal. However, the recovery of international demand and delays in the deliveries of new wide fuselage aircraft, such as the Boeing 777xThey changed the script. Emirates invested billions in reconditioning its fleet With new cabins, Lufthansa recovered some units and Qantas, Singapore or Etihad They also reactivated part of their planes. The A380 thus found a second life, although much more limited: it is still useful in high demand routes and in airports with slots problems, but its long -term future remains marginal. The A380 is not the only one to live this transition. The Boeing 747, which for decades was the real “Jumbo Jet”, closed its production line. The difference is that 747 has found a stronger niche in the cargo market, thanks to The Morro Gate of 747-8F and its volume capacity. In passengers, a few units are barely survived in the hands of Lufthansa and Korean Air, but their time also seems told. The relay is already underway: the … Read more

The commercial war between China and the US also goes from airplanes. The c919 comac already threatens the future of Boeing and Airbus

by

The aeronautical sector has become another battlefield of commercial tension between Washington and Beijing. The C919the first narrow fuselage commercial plane developed completely in China, He is winning traction In Southeast Asia while Boeing and Airbus fight against delays in their deliveries. An opportunity born from despair. Malaysia has confirmed that Airsia and Air Borneo are valuing C919 as an alternative to Western manufacturers. It is no accident: the waiting lists to receive Boeing and Airbus airplanes extend years, and the airlines They desperately seek to diversify their suppliers. Malay Transport Minister Anthony Loke summarized it thus: “All airlines look for faster deliveries and cheaper options. COMAC is one of the manufacturers they are considering.” The Chinese pride Achilles heel. Despite its ambition, the C919 drags a critical dependence on US components that could be lethal. LEAP-1C engines (Manufactured by the Joint Venture between GE and Safran), Honeywell’s navigation systems, the rockwell collins meteorological radar and multiple critical components come from the United States. Tariffs and prohibitions. The Tariff climb It has raised the cost of the US components until they make them almost unfeasible. Just a couple of months ago, China applied tariffs up to 145% in response to tariffs applied by Trump, shortly before The 90 -day truce that both countries occurred. At the same time, Beijing has prohibited its airlines from acquiring US suppliers equipment, although this restriction does not yet affect manufacturers as Comac. The race against time towards autonomy. China has not been still in this critical situation. And it develops the engine CJ-1000A through AECC as the National Substitute for Western LEAP-1C. The evidence has been advanced since 2018, although the commercial certification will not arrive before 2030, and in the worst scenario it would be delayed until 2035. Meanwhile, the Chinese domestic market offers an extraordinary mattress: Boeing estimates that China will need 8,600 new airplanes commercials in the next two decades. And now what. The United States has recently reactivated licenses to sell engines to C919, but this movement can also mean China’s reinforcement to achieve technological autonomy in the sector. The European C919 certification could arrive between 2028 and 2031which would open the doors to the global market. If China manages to combine a competitive plane with aggressive prices and fast deliveries, the historical Boeing-Airbus duopoly could have its days counted. Cover image | Comac In Xataka | In his crusade to manufacture the iPhone at home, the US has achieved something historical: that most of its smartphones come from India

Airbus is about to close a new massive order in China, according to SCMP. The moment cannot be worse for Boeing

by

Airbus prepares to reinforce its presence in one of the most strategic markets on the planet: China. South China Morning Post says that the European manufacturer is at the gates of signing a new agreement with the Chinese authorities that would include Between 100 and 200 new airplanes. The firm could arrive this month, but what really attracts attention is not the magnitude of the order, but the moment in which it occurs. The operation would coincide with the summit between the European and China Union on July 24 and 25, As Politico has advanced. A high -level diplomatic encounter that seeks to reduce commercial tensions, redefine relationships between Brussels and Beijing, and manage an increasingly tense climate in their links with Washington. That Airbus manages to close a contract of this size just in that context is something that does not go unnoticed. A new order in Chinese heavens? China has not closed great agreements with Boeing for years. The last relevant request dates back to 2017and since then the American manufacturer has been losing ground in one of the most dynamic markets in commercial aviation. The reason is not only commercial: the cooling of relations between Washington and Beijing, The tariff war And regulatory doubts seem to be tilting the balance to the European side. As the Hongkonese medium points out, Airbus has gained weight as the main supplier. Time also plays in favor of Airbus. Many Chinese airlines are dealing with aged fleets, mostly composed of Boeing aircraft acquired more than a decade ago. In cases such as Shandong Airlines or China United Airlines, the bulk of the devices exceeds ten years of service. As the airplanes accumulate flight hours, in general, their maintenance becomes more expensive, their operational efficiency decreases and increases inactivity periods. At first glance, it may seem that an airline can compensate for the situation by combining manufacturers. However, operate A mixed fleet It implies logistics complexity and high costs. An Airinsight analysis concluded that the expenses derived from managing two types of fleet – parties, training, documentation, crew ratio – are amortized in just 12–15 months and then favor significant savings in the useful life of the fleet. Operating a mixed fleet implies logistics complexity and high costs The standardization – arrest by a single supplier such as Airbus or Boeing – reduces operational costs, simplifies the training of personnel and speeds up the management of spare parts. In contrast, changing manufacturer forces to reorganize supply chains, train pilots and technicians in new models and adapt maintenance infrastructure. The latter implies from updating the hangars and workshops to the physical requirements of the new plane, to acquire specific tools. For many airlines, that entrance barrier seems to explain why they continue to depend on boeing fleets even when Airbus gains ground. China is also betting on developing its own alternative. The three large state airlines – Air China, China Eastern and China Southern – have already committed the purchase of more than 100 units of the Comac C919the passenger plane developed by the Chinese aeronautical industry. Political support is evident, but so are its limits: Production is still reducedinternational certifications are in the initial phase and the technical support network does not have maturity or the Airbus or Boeing scale. For now, C919 is a medium -term promise, but not an immediate solution to meet the enormous demand of the domestic market. Nevertheless, Boeing is not totally out of the game. In April 2025, several 737 Max prepared for Chinese airlines They returned to the United States After Beijing ordered to suspend deliveries, as part of their response to new tariffs against US products. Although this measure points to a protective impulse of the national industry and the geopolitical strategy, Boeing could still regain land if commercial tension is reduced and access to the Chinese market is resumed. But, for now, Airbus is emerging as a favorite. Airbus knows well the potential of the Chinese market. According to their own forecaststhe country will need more than 9,500 new commercial airplanes in the next 20 years. Boeing handles a similar figure: Around 8,830 to 9,740 units, depending on the economic and regulatory scenario. In any case, we are talking about a gigantic demand. And at this time, with the orders to Boeing frozen and Comac still consolidating, Airbus has a clear advantage. If the new contract is confirmed, it will not be an isolated case: it will be the reflection of a trend that can mark the distribution of power in commercial aviation during the next decades. Images | FASYAH HALIM | Takashi Miyazaki In Xataka | The C919 Comac In Xataka | The United Kingdom was waiting for an invincible hunt. Today, the F-35 flies little and cannot shoot its own weapons

Naples Airport has rejected a Boeing 787 with 200 passengers on board for a single reason: two meters long

by

Two meters. Not one more, not one less. Those have been the culprit that Naples airport had to reject a flight with origin in Philadelphia. Everything seemed to work without shocks on the morning of June 3. Until the passengers who had to land in Naples received the unpleasant surprise that they would land in Rome. The reason: the plane was too big for the airport. Six meters. That is the distance that differentiates a Boeing 787-8 from a Boeing 787-9. Both They are part of the Dreamliner family (which is also part of the Boeing 787-10) and are common on transatlantic flights since their autonomy widely exceeds 10,000 kilometers and have more than 200 places for passengers. The size in all cases is 60 meters but its length grows as the last name number increases. Thus, the Boeing 787-8 measures 57 meters long but the 787-9 already extends to 63 meters long. The 787-10 reaches 68 meters long. A small (big) difference. Those six meters long suppose a problem that is called 8 RFFS category airport (Rescue and Fire Fighting Services, for its acronym in English). This name refers to the aircraft that an airport can manage, according to the emergency and fire extinction services that it has at your disposal. In this case, the 8 RFFS category allows aircraft to be operated with a maximum size of 61 meters long. That is, it can handle the Boeing 787-8 but not the Boeing 787-9, which exceeds in two meters the dimensions established by the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization). In order to manage the landing of a Boeing 787-9 it is necessary for the airport to have a 9 RFFS category where airplanes are allowed to land up to 76 meters long. Better to Rome. This scenario did not contemplate in American Airlines when they decided that, for operational reasons, a Boeing 787-9 had to operate the Philadelphia-Naples route that the airline keeps open. Usually, this journey is made by a Boeing 787-8 (smaller) since They open the route last summer. In fact, in the press release of the Naples airport it is specified that the plane used will be the smallest of the Dreamliner line. But, as we said, last week American Airlines decided to send Naples a Boeing 787-9. When the plane It was 70 miles of his destiny he had to turn around and deviate to Rome. The problem was evident, from Naples they reported that they could not host the flight because their category prevents it. The plane was too big. Specifically, the two meters that exceeds an airport with 8 RFFS category can operate it. By bus. They explain in Business Insider that passengers had to cover the distance between both airports by bus, on a trip that took them from two to three hours, or by plane, in Routes operated by Ita Airways. The company apologized and alleged the American media that “operational limitations” had occurred that had prevented the plane in southern Italy. In CBS They point out that 231 passengers and 11 crew members who received, for any response from the company “apologies for the interruption of the trip” were traveling on board the aircraft, in a statement rescued by the media. Photo | Dominic Bieri and Flightware In Xataka |

In 2015, Catar’s ex-emir fractured a leg in Morocco. So his nine Boeing 747 private set for Switzerland

by

In December 2015, an incident starring the ex-emir of Qatar, Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani, exposed to what extent the deployment of Media of a real family. What began with a fall in the mountains of Morocco ended up collapsing the Zurich airport with the arrival of nine Private Boeing 747 In the middle of the night they needed a special permit of the Swiss airport authority to land. This episode, beyond the anecdotal, reveals how protocols and infrastructure that surrounds large fortunes can Mobilize resources on a difficult scale to imagine to The common of mortals. As in THE THEORY OF CHAOSthe effect of a fall in Morocco put a serious squeeze to Swiss air controllers. A real accident in Morocco During the December 2015 vacationsSheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani, who was Emir from Qatar since 1995 and father of the country’s current leader, suffered an accident in the Atlas mountains, in Morocco. The 63 -year -old millionaire at that time fractured a leg while enjoying a snow vacation, As reported In your day Morocco World News. However, the severity of the injury that caused the fall led the EMIR personal medical team to recommend its immediate transfer to Switzerland to be operated there. The ex -president was evacuated to a Swiss hospital where he could receive medical attention more advanced and specialized for recovery. The evacuation was carried out aboard one of the Boeing 747 that the Catarí royal family uses as a private jet. The problem is that the emir never travels alone. Eight Boeing 747 more were needed. That is, one delegation formed by nine aircraftif we have the one that transported the former Hamad Bin Khalifa to the Thani. In Zurich they did not believe it As Everything that happens Around the Catarí royal family, the transfer of the former emir was not a simple private flight. Six of the airplanes took away immediately from Doha to Zurich destination, to support the transfer of the president, while the other three remaining were part of the personal entourage of the patriarch of the Al Thani clan. According to public The GuardianZurich-Kloten airport controllers were quickly overwhelmed at the presence of nine aircraft asking to land in the middle of the night due to the medical emergency of their most illustrious passenger. In just a few hours, a total of nine Boeing 747 operated by Qatar Amiri Flight, the family’s exclusive airline Al thani requested to take land at the Swiss airport. The situation was so exceptional That the Swiss authorities had to grant a special permit for airplanes to land outside the allowed schedule, since Zurich-Kloten airport prohibits night air traffic so as not to disturb local residents. The simultaneous arrival of so many private jets for a medical emergency was an unprecedented event in the Swiss city. Obviously, as they counted in Luxurylaunchesthis aerial deployment not only responded to the need to transfer the patient, but to mobilize all his entourage. Among the passengers of the nine Boeing 747 the private medical team of the Sheikh, the family security personnel, personal, family assistants, etc. was traveling etc. Each plane had a specific purpose, from transporting medical equipment to guaranteeing the comfort and safety of all companions of the ex-emir during their stay in Switzerland. The private fleet of the Thani family: more than a luxury Beyond the anecdotal of mobilizing nine aircraft that in their commercial configuration are able to transport 400 people, the private fleet of the family to Thani is part of an infrastructure designed to guarantee the mobility and well -being of its members in any circumstance. These nine Boeing 747 are not simple private jets: inside they have medical suites, private rooms and, in some cases, gyroestabilized hospital beds that keep the patient stable during the flight. The luxury and sophistication level of these aircraft exceeds any usual standard. All this, adorned and splashed with the most exclusive luxuries, which makes these planes authentic flying palaces capable of responding to any emergency or need of the Catarí royal family. In Xataka | A single millionaire spent on his luxury vacation in Mallorca the equivalent of 10,000 tourists: the Emir de Catar In Xataka | Mark Zuckerberg has sent his two supereyates at 8,500 km only for one reason: climb to a helicopter and lower it skiing Image | Wikimedia Commons (Mehmet Mustafa çelik), Flickr (ITU PICTURES, Alan Wilson)

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.