January 21, 2026 - No. 03


In This Issue 

: United Airlines Grounds Dozens of Boeing 777s Over Engine Failures 

: Airbus pulls off a world first : guiding two jets to the exact same point without a collision 

: Boeing’s New 737 MAX 10 Enters Into Final Certification Test

: Making it Easier to Get Parts for Diamonds

: NASA to modify two F-15 fighter jets to support development of silent supersonic X-59

: NG delivers 1,500th F-35 center fuselage

: Inside the world’s largest factory, where 30,000 people work and up to eight jet aircraft can be built at the same time

: Why the US Navy has no stealth bomber (Video)

: B-52H experienced a drag-chute malfunction with the chute unexpectedly deploying mid-flight.

: Why Planes Fly Over the Arctic but Not the Antarctic



 


 


United Airlines Grounds Dozens of Boeing 777s Over Engine Failures
At least one aircraft was officially moved into storage last month, with more expected to follow as engine availability remains constrained.

By Kevin Derby
January 15, 2026


Note: See photos in the original article.

CHICAGO- United Airlines (UA) is placing multiple Pratt & Whitney-powered Boeing 777 aircraft into long-term storage as engine reliability issues and parts shortages disrupt operations.

The affected aircraft operate critical high-density and long-haul routes, including Hawaii, Asia, and Europe. Additional engine incidents could trigger regulatory action that restricts extended overwater flights, placing some of United’s most important routes at risk.
Photo: jpellgen | Flickr
United Boeing 777 Fleet Grounded
United operates a total of 96 Boeing 777 aircraft, broken down as follows:
•	22 Boeing 777-300ERs
•	55 Boeing 777-200ERs
•	19 Boeing 777-200s

Of these, 52 aircraft are powered by Pratt & Whitney PW4000-112 engines, all inherited from legacy United operations prior to the Continental merger. United is the only US airline operating Boeing 777s with these engines.

This creates significant exposure:
•	Approximately 54 percent of United’s Boeing 777 fleet
•	Roughly 23 percent of United’s total widebody fleet (52 of 223 aircraft, including 777s, 787s, and 767s)

The average age of United’s 777-200 fleet is 27.5 years, while the 777-200ER fleet averages 24.8 years.

Older aircraft are more difficult to support, and limited spare engines and maintenance capacity are now grounding otherwise serviceable airframes.
United has begun formally storing, not retiring, some Pratt-powered Boeing 777s in Victorville, California, a known long-term aircraft storage location.

At least one aircraft was officially moved into storage last month, with more expected to follow as engine availability remains constrained.

According to View from the Wing, engine parts shortages, especially the lack of spare PW4000 engines and limited shop capacity, are the primary drivers behind these storage decisions.

Some sources suggest a partial solution may emerge, but current conditions indicate that a meaningful number of aircraft could remain parked through the summer.
Photo: Athul Suresh/ An Airsidean
PW4000 Engine Problem and Inspection Burden
The Pratt & Whitney PW4000-112 engine has been linked to multiple high-profile fan blade failures.

Over time, fatigue cracks can develop on the interior surfaces of hollow fan blades, where visual inspections cannot detect them.
If a crack propagates:
•	A fan blade can fracture
•	The failure can cause violent engine damage
•	Surrounding structures may be compromised
•	Fires or debris release can occur

Following earlier incidents, the FAA issued a 2021 emergency airworthiness directive requiring advanced imaging inspections rather than standard visual checks. These inspections are time-consuming and must be repeated frequently.
Boeing and Pratt & Whitney are working on integrated engine and airframe design changes. The FAA has mandated that these modifications be fully incorporated by March 2028, although Boeing and United have requested additional time.

Until then, aircraft cycle through repeated inspections and maintenance visits, often remaining idle while awaiting engines.
Photo: X User
Previous Engine Failures
In February 2018, United Flight 1175 experienced a fan blade separation near Hawaii. While on approach to Honolulu, the aircraft lost parts of the right engine inlet and fan cowl. The crew shut down the engine and landed safely.

The subsequent investigation revealed that a blade with a known crack had been returned to service. Investigators cited training and feedback weaknesses as contributing factors.

In February 2021, United Flight 328 suffered a catastrophic engine failure shortly after departing Denver. A full-length fan blade separation caused extensive nacelle damage, scattering debris over a residential area.

Within days, the FAA grounded much of United’s Pratt-powered 777 fleet and initiated a multi-year inspection and modification program. More than 50 aircraft were removed from service during this process.
Photo: Cado Photo
Network Consequences of Parking 777s
These aircraft perform two critical roles within United’s network:

1.	High-density leisure routes where maximum seat capacity matters
2.	Long-haul international routes where range and payload are essential
As aircraft are removed from service, United must:
•	Substitute smaller widebodies such as 787s or 767s
•	Reduce frequencies on existing routes
•	Cancel routes that lack suitable replacements

Previous engine constraints forced United to delay or cancel services such as Washington Dulles–Dakar and Newark–Stockholm, highlighting how quickly fleet limitations translate into network reductions.
Photo: Cado Photo
Risk of Losing Extended Overwater Approval
Extended overwater operations depend on strict FAA engine reliability standards measured by in-flight shutdown rates. For twin-engine aircraft, the thresholds are:

•	0.05 shutdowns per 1,000 engine-hours for up to 120 minutes
•	0.03 shutdowns per 1,000 engine-hours for 120 to 180 minutes
•	0.02 shutdowns per 1,000 engine-hours for beyond 180 minutes

The FAA does not automatically revoke approvals due to elevated shutdown rates. If issues stem from design flaws, operators are not immediately penalized.
However, if shutdowns are linked to systemic maintenance or operational shortcomings, the FAA may impose reduced diversion limits.

Because the total engine-hour base is limited, even a single additional shutdown can significantly spike the rate.

Reduced overwater authority would remove these aircraft from transpacific, Hawaii, and certain transatlantic routes.

United would be forced to reassign other aircraft types and restrict affected 777s to routes near diversion airports. Inefficient coastal or Iceland-style routings would not be viable for regular operations.

Restoring Overwater Authority
Regaining higher diversion-time approval requires sustained reliability performance, an approved maintenance program, and demonstrated results over time.

Boeing and Pratt & Whitney must complete long-term design improvements under FAA oversight.

Even if regulatory approval is restored, engine and parts shortages could still limit aircraft availability.

As a result, United may face continued operational constraints even after compliance milestones are met.

Stay tuned with us. Further, follow us on social media for the latest updates.
Join us on Telegram Group for the Latest Aviation Updates. Subsequently, follow us on Google News


 


 


Airbus pulls off a world first : guiding two jets to the exact same point without a collision
16 January 2026

Instead of unveiling a flashy new aircraft, Airbus chose a subtler route: it taught existing jets to meet in the sky with surgical precision, paving the way for formation flying that trims fuel burn without passengers even realising.
A silent milestone over the North Atlantic
Between September and October 2025, Airbus coordinated eight test flights over the busy North Atlantic corridor. The goal sounded almost reckless at first hearing: bring two commercial airliners to the exact same point, at the same time, under full air traffic control rules, yet never breach standard separation.

The exercise underpins Airbus’s fello’fly project, which borrows its logic from migrating geese. In nature, birds share the workload by flying in formation, with those behind benefiting from the swirling, rising air generated by the leader’s wings. Airbus wants wide body jets to do something similar, only with algorithms, procedures and regulation proof coordination instead of instinct.
For the first time, two commercial aircraft converged with metre level precision in normal airspace, without bending a single safety rule.
This phase did not yet involve “surfing” the wake itself. It proved that airlines, pilots and air traffic controllers can choreograph a rendezvous accurate enough to enable wake energy retrieval later on. That validation matters because the aviation system prizes predictability even more than efficiency.

Wake energy retrieval: saving fuel from thin air
The concept at the heart of fello’fly is known as wake energy retrieval. When an aircraft flies, it creates a pair of vortices behind its wingtips. Inside those spiralling tubes of air sit regions of upward airflow that can partially support another aircraft’s weight.

If a second aircraft flies at the right lateral and vertical offset behind a leader, it needs less engine thrust to stay aloft. Airbus modelling suggests fuel savings of up to about 5% on long haul sectors once the technique becomes operational.

That figure might sound modest, yet across a fleet of wide bodies crossing oceans every day, it turns into thousands of tonnes of kerosene and a meaningful cut in CO₂ emissions. Civil aviation accounts for roughly 2–3% of global CO₂, with long haul flights carrying a disproportionate share of that footprint.
Wake energy retrieval promises fuel savings without a new airframe or engine, by changing how aircraft cooperate in cruise rather than what they are made of.
The idea appeals to airlines for another reason: it squeezes extra efficiency out of aircraft already in service, while future technologies such as hydrogen propulsion or radically new designs remain years away from mass deployment.

A multinational cast on both sides of the radio
To turn theory into practice, Airbus built a wide coalition. Air France, Delta Air Lines, French bee and Virgin Atlantic provided aircraft and crews. On the ground, multiple air navigation service providers joined the experiment: AirNav Ireland, France’s DSNA, EUROCONTROL and the UK’s NATS.

The comparison many engineers used internally was a mountain stage in cycling. Imagine two riders, each listening to different support cars, trying to reach the same hairpin bend within a handful of seconds. Every tiny mismatch in speed or timing triggers fresh calculations and new instructions.

In the sky, the “hairpin bend” became a three dimensional rendezvous point, while the support cars turned into control centres scattered across Europe. Each had to ensure any course adjustment stayed within normal procedures, even as the system nudged both aircraft toward the same invisible dot in space.

The pairing assistance tool: a GPS for moving targets
Inside the cockpit, crews used a new digital companion called the Pairing Assistance Tool (PAT). Rather than simply suggesting a route, PAT continuously simulated both aircraft trajectories, extrapolating where the partner aircraft would be minutes ahead and calculating how to align with that future position.
•	PAT ingests live flight data from both aircraft.
•	It computes feasible rendezvous options that respect separation rules.
•	It proposes speed and route adjustments to both crews.
•	Pilots and controllers review and approve the plan.
•	Both aircraft then commit to meet at a defined point and time.

The tool does not replace humans. Controllers still maintain authority over clearances, and pilots remain responsible for their aircraft. PAT acts more like a navigation coach, turning what would be an almost impossible mental geometry problem into a manageable, transparent process.
The technological breakthrough sits less in sensors or hardware, and more in coordinating many actors so that the sky stays legible and predictable.
A four step protocol to keep safety margins intact
From algorithm to pilot action
To convince regulators and airlines, Airbus wrapped the rendezvous manoeuvre in a strict, four stage protocol designed to keep vertical and horizontal separation within existing standards.

Note: See procedural sequence in the original article. 

The rendezvous itself happens while maintaining the vertical spacing airliners respect today. That point matters: the current campaign focuses on proving that two independent flights can coordinate with centimetre level predictability, not on shrinking the gap between them.

Only once that reliability is accepted by regulators will Airbus move to the next stage, where the trailing aircraft subtly adjusts its position to tap into the wake’s upward forces and cut thrust.
Animal behaviour gave the project its intuitive narrative. Flocks of geese arrange themselves in a V shape to reduce the energy cost of long journeys. Each bird flies in regions of uplift created by wingtip vortices from the bird in front, then rotates into the lead position when its turn comes.

For aircraft, the physics rhyme, but the constraints differ. Designers must avoid the turbulent core of the vortex, where rolling moments can become dangerous, and instead target the more stable, lifting regions. Lateral and vertical offsets matter as much as the distance behind the leader.

Unlike geese, airliners need rulebooks. Every offset, timing window and communication protocol must fit within existing safety frameworks. That is one reason fello’fly moves in stages: from rendezvous, to controlled formation, and only then to commercial application.

The current tests also complement Europe’s GEESE project, funded under the SESAR air traffic modernisation programme. That effort gathers a wide line up of organisations such as Boeing, ENAC, Indra, CIRA, DLR, and several air navigation providers and universities, underlining that no single player can reshape cruise operations alone.

How this fits into aviation’s climate toolbox
One lever among many for cleaner long haul
Fello’fly does not compete with other decarbonisation strategies; it layers on top of them. Airlines are already experimenting with sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) that can cut lifecycle emissions sharply when produced from waste or renewable feedstocks. Engine makers push higher bypass ratios and smarter cooling flows to trim specific fuel consumption. Airframes shed kilos using composites and streamlined cabins.

In parallel, electric and hybrid electric concepts target regional and commuter markets, while hydrogen — whether burned in modified turbines or used in fuel cells — sits on the horizon for larger aircraft. Against this backdrop, formation style cruise offers a software driven gain that can apply to today’s long range fleets.
Stacking multiple 2–5% improvements often moves the needle faster than waiting for a single disruptive leap in technology.
The real challenge becomes operational. Dispatchers must pair suitable flights, consider departure waves, time zones and weather, then check that both aircraft can maintain compatible speeds and altitudes. Over the North Atlantic, where traffic follows organised tracks and flows, those conditions appear relatively favourable.

What a formation flight could feel like for passengers
If the project reaches commercial use, travellers may not notice much. Cabin noise would stay largely the same. The flight profile might include slightly unusual speed changes in cruise, but seat belt signs and in flight service would operate normally.
From a window seat, a keen eyed passenger might spot another wide body flying some distance off the wing, not close enough to alarm anyone used to military formation displays, but clearly within visual range in good weather.

Behind the scenes, though, a dense web of data links, predictive tools and cross border coordination would hum in the background — all aimed at shaving a few percentage points off fuel burned between continents.

Risks, limits and what comes next
No new procedure comes without trade offs. Pairing flights adds complexity for air traffic management and airlines, especially when weather forces diversions or when one aircraft suffers a delay on the ground. Regulators will also want extensive data on wake behaviour, pilot workload and failure scenarios before clearing wake energy retrieval for routine use.

There is also a reputational risk: formation flying must never look like a stunt. Industry leaders know that public trust in aviation rests on the perception that safety outranks efficiency every time, so they will likely introduce the concept gradually, on carefully chosen routes and with conservative margins.

At the same time, the potential side benefits reach beyond fuel. Techniques for high precision rendezvous could support future concepts such as autonomous cargo convoys, optimised search and rescue patterns or even coordinated use of special use airspace. What started as a way to mimic the discipline of geese might end up rewriting how aircraft share the sky across multiple missions.






 


Boeing’s New 737 MAX 10 Enters Into Final Certification Test
By Kevin Derby
January 13, 2026



Note: See photos and video in the original article. 

ARLINGTON- Boeing has entered the final phase of certification flight testing for its largest narrowbody aircraft, the 737 MAX 10, as of January 9, 2026.

The milestone marks incremental progress in a program delayed by technical fixes and heightened regulatory scrutiny.

The aircraft is central to Boeing’s narrowbody strategy, with testing conducted in the United States under oversight from the Federal Aviation Administration.

United Airlines (UA) is among the key customers planning to operate the model, with certification activity coordinated near Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD), as flagged by Simple Flying.

Photo: Boeing Airplanes
Boeing 737 MAX 10 Final FAA Tests
As reported by Reuters, the FAA has authorized Boeing to proceed to the second phase of flight testing for the 737 MAX 10 under its Type Inspection Authorization process.

This phase allows evaluation of a wider range of systems, including avionics, propulsion, and flight controls, and represents a required step toward type certification.Despite this progress, regulators have not yet approved the aircraft for service. Regulators continue to apply enhanced scrutiny across the MAX program following earlier safety incidents, extending certification timelines beyond original expectations.Industry stakeholders now anticipate that final approval may slip further into 2026.

Scott Hamilton, aerospace analyst and principal at Leeham Company, summarized the situation to Reuters, stating, “It’s progress, but until the MAX 10 is certified, it’s not.”

A key barrier to certification remains an engine inlet anti-ice issue. Regulators have determined that, in rare icing conditions, ice accumulation could potentially damage engines or affect thrust performance.The certifying authority must fully resolve this concern before granting certification.

Boeing is implementing software updates and design modifications to address the issue. Each change requires validation through testing and regulatory review. Until it approves the fix, the FAA will not authorize entry into service.

This same issue has also delayed certification of the 737 MAX 7, effectively linking the approval timelines of both aircraft and complicating Boeing’s broader production planning.
Photo: Boeing
Production Constraints and Financial Impact
Certification delays have direct operational and financial consequences. Boeing cannot begin full-scale production of the MAX 10 until certification is complete, restricting delivery schedules for airline customers.

Customers have already placed more than 1,200 orders for the aircraft, representing significant future revenue.

However, delayed deliveries defer cash flow and limit airlines’ ability to deploy the aircraft as planned. Regulatory constraints continue to limit Boeing’s narrowbody production strategy until authorities secure approval.
Photo: Delta Air Lines
FAA Oversight
Beyond flight testing, the FAA continues to closely oversee Boeing’s manufacturing and quality-control processes.

While some production limits have eased, regulators have emphasized that any further increases will depend on sustained improvements in safety systems and compliance performance.

This oversight reflects a lasting shift in certification and production governance. Regulators have signaled that confidence in Boeing’s internal controls is now a prerequisite for advancing certification and increasing output rates.
Photo: File:MAX10 Reveal.jpg – Wikimedia Commons
Strategic Importance
Boeing designed the 737 MAX 10 to compete directly with the Airbus A321neo, reinforcing its position in the high-capacity narrowbody segment against Airbus.

Airlines value the MAX 10 for its seating capacity and efficiency on short- to medium-haul routes.

Despite delays, several carriers have reaffirmed or expanded their orders, indicating continued confidence in the aircraft’s long-term value. Certification remains critical to both Boeing’s recovery strategy and airline fleet expansion plans.
Photo- Boeing; Compiled by Aviation A2Z
Boeing Certification Challenges
The MAX 10 effort is occurring alongside other delayed programs, including the 777-9, highlighting the broader regulatory environment Boeing faces.

Each certification milestone is viewed as a step toward stabilizing operations and restoring market confidence.

Looking ahead, successful approval of the MAX 10 could enable deliveries to begin in late 2026 or later.

Until then, airlines and investors are expected to remain cautious, closely monitoring how Boeing resolves its remaining technical and regulatory challenges.
Stay tuned with us. Further, follow us on social media for the latest updates.

Join us on Telegram Group for the Latest Aviation Updates. Subsequently, follow us on Google News






 


Making it Easier to Get Parts for Diamonds

By General Aviation News Staff
January 10, 2026

FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida — Diamond Aircraft dealer Premier Aircraft has been named the North American Platinum Distributor for Diamond Aircraft parts.

“In the past, when parts were coming in from Canada or Europe, Diamond owners would have to deal with prolonged shipping times, high shipping costs, and lengthy customs issues that added weeks to the delivery process,” said Travis Peffer, CEO of Premier Aircraft. “Now, with over $1.5 million in new Diamond Aircraft parts in stock at our main parts hub in the DFW area, and a dedicated parts staff, we can get them the parts they need sooner to reduce aircraft downtime dramatically.”
Premier Aircraft’s maintenance centers are located at:
•	Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport (KFXE) in Florida 
•	Fort Worth Meacham International Airport (KFTW) in Texas 
•	Flightlevel Aviation, Norwood Memorial Airport (KOWD) in Massachusetts. 

Peffer said that to further reduce the order-to-shipping time, Diamond Aircraft owners and mechanics in North America and the Caribbean Islands can get online quotes at Premier Aircraft’s parts page: PremierAircraft.com.







 


NASA to modify two F-15 fighter jets to support development of silent supersonic X-59
NASA’s two new F-15 fighter jets will enable “breakthrough advancements in aerospace”, the space agency says.
By
Chris Young
Space
Jan 16, 2026 12:28 PM EST


NASA's new F-15 aircraft at the Armstrong Flight Research Center.
NASA / Christopher LC Clark

The US Air Force has given NASA two retired F-15 jets to boost the space agency’s supersonic flight research capabilities.

The F-15, the Air Force’s primary fighter jet aircraft and interception platform since the early 1970s, will aid in NASA’s X-59 program, which aims to make Concorde-like supersonic flight a reality again.
d at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center in Edwards, California. According to a NASA blog post, they are “transitioning from military service to a new role enabling breakthrough advancements in aerospace.”


Supporting supersonic research
The new F-15s will support supersonic flight research under NASA’s Flight Demonstrations and Capabilities project, the space agency explains. This will include testing that will help collect data relevant to the X-59 quiet supersonic research aircraft.

One of the aircraft will fly and serve as an active research aircraft. The other will be used for parts, NASA explained in its blog post “to support long-term fleet sustainment.”

“These two aircraft will enable successful data collection and chase plane capabilities for the X-59 through the life of the Low Boom Flight Demonstrator project,” said Troy Asher, director for flight operations at NASA Armstrong. “They will also enable us to resume operations with various external partners, including the Department of War and commercial aviation companies.”

NASA’s experimental X-59 silent supersonic aircraft performed its historic first flight in October last year. Built by Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works, the X-59 aims to replace the loud sonic boom—problematic during the era of the Concorde—with a gentle “thump.”

NASA’s modified F-15s
The two F-15 aircraft, from the Oregon Air National Guard’s 173rd Fighter Wing at Kingsley Field, completed their final flights for the Air Force last year. They arrived at NASA Armstrong on Dec. 22.

NASA will modify the active F-15 to support its flight research. During flight tests, the fighter jets can carry hardware under their wings or under the main fuselage. Flight controls and software can also be modified for specific mission requirements.

The two NASA F-15 aircraft modified for X-59 research. Source: NASA / Carla Thomas

It isn’t the first time NASA has used US Air Force aircraft for research purposes. As Asher pointed out, “NASA has been flying F-15s since some of the earliest models came out in the early 1970s. Dozens of scientific experiments have been flown over the decades on NASA’s F-15s and have made a significant contribution to aeronautics and high-speed flight research.”

In fact, NASA has recently operated two modified F-15s to fly at up to 60,000 feet. This is the top of the flight envelope for the X-59, which will cruise at 55,000 feet. The modifications allow pilots to operate more comfortably at these altitudes. The new active F-15 will feature the same modifications, NASA confirmed in its post.





 


NG delivers 1,500th F-35 center fuselage
NewsAviation
By Colton Jones
Jan 13, 2026


Center fuselage of the F-35 aircraft at Northrop Grumman’s Integrated Assembly Line in Palmdale, CA. (Northrop Grumman pic)
Key Points
•	Northrop Grumman delivered its 1,500th F-35 center fuselage from the Palmdale Integrated Assembly Line on Jan. 12.
•	The company said AR/VR tools on the line reduced assembly time by 35% and lowered the technician learning curve by 20%.

Northrop Grumman delivered its 1,500th center fuselage for the F-35 Lightning II on Jan. 12, completing the milestone at its Integrated Assembly Line in Palmdale, California.

The delivery reflects the current production pace of one center fuselage every 30 hours.

According to Northrop Grumman, the Palmdale facility uses advanced manufacturing processes to build center fuselages for all three F-35 variants on a single line. The company said its automated systems allow the assembly line to shift between the F-35A, F-35B and F-35C without changes to the overall production workflow. As noted by the company, these processes are designed to maintain repeatability and reduce time spent on each fuselage unit.

Northrop Grumman stated that the use of augmented reality and virtual reality tools on the Integrated Assembly Line has reduced center-fuselage assembly time by 35 percent. The company added that AR/VR systems have lowered the technician learning curve by 20 percent. These tools assist workers by providing digital instructions, visual overlays and real-time guidance during complex assembly tasks.

The center fuselage is one of the core structural sections of the F-35 airframe. It houses internal fuel, mission systems, wiring and structural components that tie the forward and aft fuselage sections together. On the Integrated Assembly Line, Northrop Grumman oversees the complete build of each center fuselage before shipping the units to Lockheed Martin’s Final Assembly and Checkout Facility in Fort Worth, Texas, for aircraft integration.

Northrop Grumman is a principal partner on the F-35 industry team that develops and sustains all three versions of the fighter. The company produces the AN/APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar used on the aircraft, along with the communication, navigation and identification suite. Northrop Grumman also manufactures the wing skins and leads the industry team in low observable technologies applied across the jet.

According to information released by the company, its role extends beyond production. Northrop Grumman provides sustainment services for F-35 operators in the United States and abroad. These services support long-term maintenance needs, operational availability and upgrades across the global fleet.

The F-35 Lightning II is a multirole, supersonic, low-observable aircraft fielded by the United States and partner nations. The aircraft family includes the F-35A for conventional takeoff and landing, the F-35B for short takeoff and vertical landing, and the F-35C for carrier operations. Center fuselages delivered from Palmdale feed into these variants as part of ongoing U.S. and international production requirements.

Northrop Grumman described the milestone as part of its broader mission to advance manufacturing capabilities and support global defense needs. The company stated that its workforce remains focused on applying modern production methods to meet program demands. The announcement follows continued F-35 deliveries to U.S. units and allied air forces.

Northrop Grumman said its employees “define possible every day,” highlighting the role of the Palmdale production facility in meeting customer requirements for the F-35 program. The company noted that advanced manufacturing remains central to its efforts to support U.S. and allied airpower.





 


Inside the world’s largest factory, where 30,000 people work and up to eight jet aircraft can be built at the same time

By Max Olivier
18 January 2026 : 06:34

It stretches so far along the horizon that your eyes give up before the walls do. In the icy morning air outside Everett, Washington, thousands of people stream toward one gigantic door, coffee in hand, badge on lanyard, like a daily migration into a man made canyon of steel.

Inside, the sound hits first. A deep, constant hum of drills, hydraulic lifts, rolling tool carts and distant voices echoing under a ceiling so high you lose all sense of scale. Somewhere near the center of this vast hall, a worker bends over a gleaming wing panel, while another drives past on a bike—as if riding through a small town, not a factory.

This place can build eight jets at once. And it runs on 30,000 people who know what it means to work inside the world’s largest factory.
The day the sky moved indoors
Walk a few steps onto the main assembly floor and your brain quietly protests. Jets don’t belong indoors. Yet here they are: unfinished giants on yellow stands, lined up nose to tail under suspended walkways and cranes the size of apartment buildings.

The floor is marked like a city map, with colored lines guiding teams, parts and vehicles. High above, huge bay doors wait patiently, ready to open so a finished aircraft can crawl out into the light. You don’t just visit the Everett factory; you enter a space where the sky itself feels like it’s been folded and packed under a roof.
People whisper without realizing it. Not out of respect, but because the scale absorbs even loud thoughts.

This factory, run by Boeing in Everett, holds a 
record that sounds almost exaggerated: it’s the largest building in the world by volume. More than 13 million cubic meters of air. You could fit Disneyland inside it and still have room for parking. At peak, up to eight wide body jets—think 747, 767, 777, 787—can be in final assembly at the same time.Every jet starts as a scattered geography of parts: fuselage sections arriving on trains, wings rolled in from other sites, engines flown in from across the planet. Each piece has its own story, its own journey, before meeting on this floor. Here, those stories snap together with bolts, wiring, and human hands into something that will carry hundreds of people over oceans.

It’s an industrial ballet that quietly runs 24 hours a day, clicking along in shifts, like a city that never truly sleeps.

Behind the scenes, the choreography relies on a level of planning that borders on obsessive. Where an average factory might juggle a few product lines, this one coordinates thousands of suppliers, millions of parts, and a workforce the size of a small country town. Everything has a place, a time, a person in charge.

The production line moves aircraft stage by stage along the floor. At one station, technicians feed nerve like cables through the fuselage. At another, wings meet body, and the jet finally starts to look like something that belongs in the sky. Every step is tracked, checked, signed off, then checked again.

*Nothing* about building a jet is quick or simple. But the factory’s scale allows something rare: mistakes have less room to hide.

How 30,000 people build something most of us fear a little
If you zoom in from the drone view and stand next to a single worker, the magic of Everett suddenly feels very human. One woman tightens fasteners along a panel. A man in an orange vest checks a tablet, then ducks into an open cabin door, vanishing into a future passenger’s legroom.

Each person knows their task in almost intimate detail. How much force to use on a bolt. The exact sound a correctly fitted panel makes. Where a cable should never bend. Multiply that knowledge by 30,000 people and you get something close to a nervous system, spread across the world’s largest indoor volume.

On a bad day, it’s just a job. On a good day, it’s building flying cities.

On the mezzanine level, there’s a break room window that looks down onto a row of half finished jets. During a coffee break, one technician points out a 777—still in bare metal, still ugly—like someone showing a friend a half renovated house.
“That one? I’ve been on it for weeks,” he says. “I’ll probably never see it again once it leaves.” He shrugs, almost casual, then adds: “But I always wonder where it ends up. Tokyo? Dubai? Somewhere I’ll never go.”

On the wall, a map is dotted with pins showing where Everett built jets now fly. It’s messy, crowded, full of overlapping colors. That map is the real product of this factory: not just planes, but routes, reunions, long distance relationships surviving one more year because a metal tube can safely cross the ocean at 900 km/h.
Every pin is also a quiet reminder: humans built this, one shift at a time.

From a distance, the Everett factory can sound like a monument to machines. Fancy cranes, laser guided tools, automated riveters that never get tired. Yet its real secret weapon is something less glamorous: process. Years of trial and error turned into checklists, work instructions, and flows that keep 30,000 people from literally bumping into each other.

When you walk the floor, you see it in small things. Tools shadowed on boards so nothing goes missing. Colored vests separating roles. Digital screens counting down to milestones. It’s not romantic, but it’s the difference between chaos and a jet leaving on schedule.

Most of us never have to think about how a screw in seat 34A relates to a mechanic in Everett who cares about sleeping strangers they’ll never meet. Yet that invisible care is stitched into almost every inch of these jets.
What this giant can teach any kind of work
If you strip away the noise, the Everett factory runs on a surprisingly simple method: break the impossible into small, repeatable steps. One team doesn’t “build a jet”. They install a specific harness. Or test a specific line of code. Or measure a specific joint.

That approach can feel almost boring at ground level. But it’s how eight jets can be in progress at once without collapsing the schedule. The magic lives in the handoff. Each group finishes their part so cleanly that the next team can start without hesitating or second guessing.

In a way, this place treats complexity like a long flight: you don’t jump from takeoff to landing. You move from checkpoint to checkpoint, quietly, one after the other.
There’s a comforting lesson here for anyone drowning in big projects. The Everett model doesn’t worship heroism. It respects routine. Workers talk about rhythm more than genius. The right torque here, the right label there, the morning check of tools and paperwork that looks trivial until something goes wrong.

On a human level, this rhythm is also a shield. It protects people from being crushed by the sheer scale of “building an airliner.” You don’t wake up thinking you’re responsible for 300 lives. You wake up thinking: today I wire this section, exactly as trained, exactly as checked.

For most kinds of work, that mindset is strangely liberating. There are also mistakes, delays, unexpected issues that ripple down the line. A late part from a supplier in another state. A wiring discrepancy discovered during a test. A safety concern that forces teams to pause and rethink. None of this fits well in glossy marketing videos.

Workers will tell you the real craft isn’t about avoiding problems. It’s about how quickly they’re spotted, discussed, recorded, and fixed. That means psychological safety isn’t a buzzword here; it’s baked into how people talk to each other on the floor.
“You need people who can say, ‘This doesn’t look right,’ even if it means stopping the line,” says one supervisor. “The plane will fly for 25 years. No one cares if we save 30 minutes today and regret it for decades.”
Behind that mindset sits a few quiet rules you can almost feel as you walk:
•	Small questions are welcome, big surprises are not.
•	Routines matter more than personal brilliance.
•	Safety and traceability beat speed every single time.

That’s not just aerospace talk. It’s a way of working that can keep teams—any teams—sane when the stakes get high.
Why this factory stays in your head long after the tour
Leaving the Everett factory, you step from the echoing hall back into a parking lot full of ordinary sedans and pickup trucks. The scale snaps back to normal. People unlock cars, check their phones, think about dinner. The world’s largest building empties out one badge at a time.

Yet something lingers. The idea that the next time you board a long haul flight half asleep, the ceiling panels above your head were once open metal, hanging over a concrete floor in this town north of Seattle. Somewhere, someone on a bike rode past that spot, carrying a toolbox and a half finished coffee.

On a crowded red eye, with cabin lights dimmed and engines droning, that image quietly changes how you look at the airplane around you.

We’re used to thinking about aviation in terms of pilots and airlines, legroom and ticket prices. The Everett factory reminds you there’s another side: the hidden city of workers who build the machine itself. The ones who tighten the bolts others will never see, and then go home in time for school pickups.

On a more personal level, it pokes at a simple question: what are you building that outlives your daily routine? It doesn’t have to be a jet. It might be software, or a business, or a kid learning to trust themselves. Scale is relative. What matters is that same quiet choreography—small steps, repeated, cared for.

On a dark runway somewhere, a jet from Everett lines up, engines rising. In the control tower, a voice clears it for takeoff. Inside, most passengers are just hoping to sleep or watch a movie. They rarely think about the 30,000 people who made this moment possible. Yet the work of that factory, and the lives inside it, will follow them across the sky.





 


Why the US Navy has no stealth bomber 

During the Cold War, the US Navy attempted to develop its own stealth attack aircraft to replace carrier based strike platforms. The A-12 Avenger II was designed as a stealthy flying wing capable of deep penetration missions. 

Severe weight issues, cost overruns, and missed deadlines led to its cancellation in the early 1990s. The failure reshaped naval aviation and pushed the Navy toward upgraded multirole fighters instead of a dedicated stealth bomber.




 


A B-52H from Barksdale AFB (60-0011) experienced a drag-chute malfunction earlier today, with the chute unexpectedly deploying mid-flight. 

Note: See photos and video in the original article. 


Captured here in the video and two photos, the BUFF passed directly over NAS JRB Fort Worth before jettisoning the chute and proceeding back to Barksdale for recovery.

A rare sight to witness on approach, and an even rarer one to catch on camera. Both the base and air crew handled the situation professionally in the abnormal situation.






 


Why Planes Fly Over the Arctic but Not the Antarctic

Dan Smith
January 5, 2026

Planes crossing the top of the world have become so normal that most people barely notice them anymore. Even so, hardly any scheduled commercial planes go anywhere near Antarctica. The reasons are practical, geographic, and tied closely to how modern commercial aviation operates.

The Arctic Sits Between The World’s Busiest Cities

Image via Wikimedia Commons/Brocken Inaglory

Most long-distance air travel connects cities in North America, Europe, and Asia. These regions account for the majority of the world’s population, economic activity, and air cargo demand. When airlines plan routes between these cities, the most efficient paths often arc northward.

This is because aircraft do not fly according to straight lines on flat maps. They follow great circle routes, which represent the shortest distance between two points on the surface of a globe. On common map projections, these routes appear curved, even though they reduce distance, fuel burn, and flight time in reality.
Flights between city pairs such as New York and Tokyo, London and Beijing, or Chicago and Hong Kong frequently pass through high northern latitudes. These paths are chosen because they minimize distance and operating costs while ensuring compliance with safety requirements.

In the Southern Hemisphere, the geometry works differently. Major cities are more widely spaced, and even the shortest great circle routes usually remain over open ocean rather than crossing the Antarctic continent itself. While some routes curve far south, they rarely gain enough efficiency from an Antarctic crossing to justify the added complexity.

Safety Rules Require Nearby Airports
Emergency planning plays a central role in airline route design. Long-haul aircraft operate under strict safety rules that limit their maximum distance from a suitable diversion airport in the event of an engine failure, medical emergency, or other serious issue.

The Arctic provides options. Northern Canada, Alaska, Greenland, Iceland, and parts of Scandinavia all have airports capable of handling large commercial aircraft. These airports are certified, maintained, and routinely factored into flight planning. Their presence allows airlines to operate polar routes while still meeting regulatory requirements.

Antarctica does not offer a comparable safety net. The continent has a limited number of research and military airstrips, many of which are built on ice and are only usable during certain seasons. These facilities are not certified for routine commercial airline operations and can become unavailable with little warning due to weather or surface conditions.
From a planning perspective, flyi
ng over Antarctica would mean committing to long stretches with no realistic diversion options.

Demand Shapes Routes More Than Curiosity

Image via Pixabay/fahadputhawala

Airlines also design routes around demand. The Arctic lies between some of the busiest travel markets on Earth while generating constant flows of passengers and cargo.

Antarctica has no cities, no permanent commercial population, and no origin or destination demand for routine air travel. Even flights between southern cities such as Sydney, Cape Town, Santiago, or Auckland typically gain little or no benefit from crossing the continent. Higher operational risk, regulatory constraints, and limited emergency options would outweigh any marginal distance savings.

Some southern routes do travel far south over the ocean when winds are favorable. On rare occasions, passengers may catch distant views of Antarctica from cruising altitude. That is generally as close as routine airline operations come.

The Environment Is Far Less Forgiving
Both polar regions are cold, but Antarctica is in a different category. It is the coldest, windiest, and highest continent on Earth by average elevation. Temperatures can fall below -60 degrees Celsius, and weather forecasting is more difficult due to the scarcity of observation stations.

Powerful katabatic winds, long periods of winter darkness, and frequent whiteout conditions add layers of uncertainty. If an emergency landing were required, rescue operations would likely be slower, more complex, and more dangerous than in the Arctic, which benefits from nearby nations and established search-and-rescue infrastructure.

Airlines tend to avoid situations where multiple risks overlap. Antarctica presents too many variables at once to make routine overflight attractive.

History Pushed Aviation North, Not South
During the Cold War, military planners focused heavily on Arctic navigation because the shortest routes between major powers passed over the North Pole. This led to investments in mapping, navigation systems, weather data, communications, and airport infrastructure.

Commercial aviation later benefited from this groundwork. While limited polar flights occurred earlier, transarctic routes became routine only when long-range aircraft, improved navigation, and modern safety regulations made them scalable and reliable. By the late 20th century, flying over the Arctic had become a normal part of long-haul airline operations.

Antarctica never experienced a similar push. With no strategic pressure and no commercial incentive, it remained outside the development path of mainstream airline networks.
Flights Go Near Antarctica, Just Not Across It
Image via Getty Images/Heavily Meditated
Airlines do not completely ignore the southern extremes. Certain long-haul flights between Australia, New Zealand, and South America sometimes track far south when winds make it efficient to do so. These routes remain over the ocean, within range of approved diversion airports, and outside the most hostile conditions over the Antarctic interior.

Specialized flights do operate to Antarctica, but they serve research stations, logistics missions, or tightly controlled tourism. They are carefully planned and fundamentally different from everyday airline service.



Curt Lewis