Free for nonsubscribers
By Howard Hardee
July 10, 2026, © Leeham News: In a cavernous space designed for building much larger aircraft, a pair of narrowbody fuselages are moving slowly through Boeing’s much-anticipated North Line in Everett, Washington, marking what the company hails as a new era for 737 Max production.
The two 737 Max 10s are the first of Boeing’s flagship single-aisle family to be produced outside the company’s production facility in Renton — located about 40 miles south of Everett along the Interstate 5 corridor — since 737 production was consolidated there in 1970.
In the early days of Boeing’s low-rate initial production plan, the new line is months away from reaching full capacity. But the company view it as critical for its ongoing financial turnaround and strategy to regain market share from Airbus’ strong-selling A320neo family of single-aisle airliners.
Having secured approval from the Federal Aviation Administration, Boeing is transitioning to a monthly production rate of 47 737s rolling off all four lines — three in Renton and one in Everett — after recently reaching a rate of 42 new 737s per month. With the additional capacity provided by the North Line, Boeing will eventually step up to rate 52.
That level of 737 production would carry special significance, as it would match Boeing’s highest production rate before the 737 Max crashes in 2018 and 2019, which killed a combined 346 people and grounded the global 737 Max fleet. The company’s recovery has been long, painful and nonlinear, with the January 2024 door-plug blow-out on an Alaska Airlines 737 Max 9 flying from Portland to Southern California prompting a fresh round of soul-searching and an accelerated C-suite shake-up that culminated with the installation of Kelly Ortberg as chief executive of Boeing.
Reporters toured the North Line shortly after the first 737 Max 10 fuselage was loaded on July 6, with company executives touting the $1 billion investment to repurpose the production facility and expand the Everett site’s workforce with Renton-trained mechanics and other employees. They say the moves will contribute to Boeing’s positive momentum as it attempts to finally secure certification of the Max 7 and Max 10 variants of the 737 family and begin working through a backlog of more than 4,800 unfilled orders for the single-aisle jets.
Opening the fourth 737 production line is strategically important for Boeing. There is also hope that it marks a meaningful turning point in the company’s history.
“A couple of years ago, this was the 787 [production line], and this is the first time the 737 is being built in Everett,” said Jennifer Boland-Masterson, Boeing Commercial Airplanes’ senior director of the North Line. “Think about that; it’s pretty historic.”
With a few exceptions, the North Line is designed to mirror the well-established production pattern used at Boeing’s Renton factory. Fuselages produced at Boeing subsidiary Spirit AeroSystems, based in Wichita, are transported to Everett by rail. The train’s route passes through Everett before Renton.
The fuselages are then loaded into the enormous Everett factory, which is the world’s largest free-standing building by volume. The factory has historically produced Boeing’s iconic widebody aircraft, including the 747, 767, 777, and 787.
Wing structures are following a different path — namely, they are assembled in Renton, then loaded onto specially designed trailers and driven to Everett. Wing systems will be installed and the wings joined to the fuselage on the North Line, along with the horizontal and vertical stabilizers and landing gear.
As with aircraft assembled in Renton, the Everett-produced 737s will move through 10 production positions.
Boland-Masterson declined to estimate how long it will take the first Max 10 to roll off the production line, or when it will likely be delivered to customer WestJet. (The Max 10 has yet to receive FAA certification.)
Previously, the factory space was used to produce 787s, which were last assembled in Everett in February 2021; all 787 production has since moved to Boeing’s North Charleston, South Carolina plant. The widebody-sized space allows Boeing to accommodate additional “slant” positions for more-complex cabin interior installations, such as lie-flat seats.
The North Line has about 20% more floor space than the entire footprint of the Renton factory — room enough for a potential second 737 production line in Everett, as LNA has previously reported.
About 1,000 Boeing employees are initially supporting the North Line, including a roughly even mix of new and veteran mechanics trained in Renton.
“We paired them up with Renton expertise to learn their jobs, so that when they come up here they are ready to go, and we will continue that…for several more months,” Boland-Masterson says. “Structured, on-the-job training will continue in Renton, not up here.”
The North Line’s workforce will grow in coming months as the pace of production increases.
“Eventually, we will get to rates like Renton, and each one of those [four] lines will be equal,” Boland-Masterson says. “Here, we’re going to start off slower, then increase our rates as we deem fit.”
The North Line will produce Max 8, Max 9, and Max 10 variants of the 737. It will not immediately have the tooling required to assemble the smallest variant, the Max 7, which will be assembled in Renton.
On July 9, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Max 7’s type certification by the FAA could be imminent, citing sources close to the program. That day, Boeing declined to comment specifically on the likelihood of passing that long-awaited milestone before the end of July.
Once Max 7 deliveries are cleared to begin, the Max 10’s certification is expected to follow relatively soon afterward. Certification of the Max 7 and Max 10 variants has been severely delayed due to increased regulatory scrutiny amid Boeing’s quality and safety issues.
Ortberg told Aviation Week in a June interview that Boeing aims to raise 737 production to 63 aircraft per month, which would close the gap with Airbus’ narrowbody production levels. Whether the supply chain and Boeing’s own production systems will support that monthly rate remains to be seen.
Airbus delivered 73 A320neo-family jets to customers in June, according to a report compiled by RBC Capital Markets. However, that figure likely includes deliveries of “gliders” that previously rolled off the production line without engines due to Pratt & Whitney’s geared turbofan engine delivery delays, meaning it does not provide a precise measure of Airbus’ monthly factory output.
Congrats to Boeing for expanding beyond Renton for 737 FAL
Has Boeing fixed all the safety issues with the 737, engine icing issue and a 3rd “synthetic” AOA sensor?
Yep
More on those subjects next week. Stay tuned.
Very much looking forward to that 👍
More on those subjects next week. Stay tuned.
Man sucked out of the window on Ryan’s Boeing 737 when it just fell off the aircraft.
Your characterization of the incident is incomplete. An Air Malta 737 in service of Ryanair suffered an uncontained engine failure. Part of the engine hit a window causing it to blow out. The passenger seated next to that window was partially sucked out the window, but was restrained by their seat belt and other passengers.
Thanks TB. I had just caught bits of that and was puzzling on the link.
.. and survived!
One lucky fella!
Yea, either never fly again to go to Vegas and see if its holding.
There was a tragic report on a lady who survived the Towers drop and then was on the flight out of NY that lost its tail and all on board lost.
I probably had 6 of those type of live or die though none were national reports. I survived all of them (who knows what is to come) and ponder Fate Being the Hunter.
Reminiscent of WN 1380 and WN 3472:
> “This accident was very similar to an accident suffered 20 months earlier by Southwest Airlines Flight 3472 flying the same aircraft type with the same engine type. After that earlier accident, the engine manufacturer, CFM International, issued a service directive calling for ultrasonic inspections of the turbine fan blades with certain serial numbers, service cycles, or service time. Southwest Airlines did not perform the inspection on the engine involved in this failure because it was not required to according to the parameters specified by the directive.
The final report, released in 2019, recommended that Boeing should develop and install a redesigned fan cowl structure due to the cowling latch’s vulnerability in a fan blade outage.”
> “In 2023, Boeing stated that it had completed the design process suggested by the NTSB, but needed additional time to complete changes to prevent cowl latch failures due to operator error (in not closing the latch securely). All airlines operating the Next Generation aircraft are expected by the FAA to implement the new design changes by July 31, 2028. Finally, Boeing has up to December 31, 2029, to issue fixes of any other possible maintenance mistakes.” ~ Wikipedia
Proof that the process works. Not everything can be root caused designed and fleet implemented quickly. There are long timeline fixes throughout the insustry.
That’s how the process “is working”?? Gosh!
To keep in mind, while Boeing is closing the gap on A320/321 build, the A220 adds to Airbus single aisle numbers to its more 83 Single Aisle Airbus is making. Higher numbers built as the 500 comes on line and it takes over the 319 and the 320 place in non A320 fleets as well as some of the A320 that also operate that. Not a lot but a few.
Built is not a delivery, its on hold until it gets its kit be it engines or interior. You can only log a delivery when its transferred to a buyer.
I think the opening of the Everett line is fantastic and a slow ramp up is exactly what you want to see.
I look forward to the 5th line.
As noted, deliveries are money back into Boeing and the more of those the faster to profit and money set aside for a new aircraft.
I am loving seeing the battle of the lessors and airlines in NOT wanting a new aircraft. If they kept some old guys on staff they would have seen the engine issues coming. It was no different than the CFM and V2500, both had problems and that is simply engine reality when you make a jump.
Airbus is saying P&W is delivering and they are getting to the need TOW. Nice. How they achieve the A220-500 needs will be interesting. A reliable thrust increase would be the best choice. Working with known setup and how it reacts is the best tech choice.
“You can only log a delivery when its transferred to a buyer. ”
What is the typical remainder (in % of purchase ) after up front payments that has to be handed over on delivery?
100% of planes agreed price has to be paid before delivery. Pre pay amounts will vary. If the airlines financing hits a snag vendor finance could be aarranged.
The question was not “finance arrangement” but
how much revenue in % does delivery actually provide?
( in theory it is 100% as prepayments received are not yet “Boeing’s money”. 🙂
“Closing the gap on A320/321 build”???
AB delivered almost 90 aircraft last month. To meet its target for the year, AB has to maintain at a similar pace. Is BA any where close to that (73 A320/321 delivered last month)?
PEDRO
Boeings 2025 revenue was up 34% to 89.43 billion USD
Airbuses 2025 revenue was 83.07 billion USD which is its all time record.
Boeings all time record revenue was 101.13 billion in 2018.
I put this here hoping you will get off your single product criticism. Airbus today, out producing Boeing by a wide margin still isn’t generating the revenue of Boeing.
There are many ways to show the alleged superiority of one company over the other, and its becoming quite tiring to see you continue the drumbeat of only a highly slanted viewpoint of Boeing negativity.
Boeing is returning to profitability slowly, revenue is up, sales are there and there’s a lot to feel good about. Airbus is building on its best revenue year in history and there’s a lot to feel good about. Enjoy the weekend.
Investors are more interested in earnings (profit) than revenue.
BA still isn’t generating a profit.
BCA won’t be generating a profit until (at least) 2030-ish. Karl Sinclair explained that in 2 articles last week.
Apart from that, Pedro is factually correct in pointing to the ongoing difference in delivery numbers: that’s not a “highly slanted view of Boeing” — it’s just reality.
ABALONE.
Great points.
Where did I speak to Profitability. I posted about revenue climbing for both airbus and boeing and mentioned that there is a lot to feel good about.
That’s the whole point — you omitted profitability.
Generating $20B per quarter in revenue without making a penny in profit is nothing to feel good about….unless BA is regarded as being purely a jobs program.
ABALONE.
I DID NOT OMIT PROFITABILITY
I posted 100% completely verifiable truth. I did not wish to speak to profitability as it is a different subject completely. I posted un-nuanced fact.
Thank you for making my point.
Boeing, as screwed up as it is, and lacking most measures of profitability, outpaced Airbus in 2025 if we used revenue as the measuring stick. That is despite Airbus having it’s best revenue year ever. It is a 100% verifiable fact. So yes, Airbus does deliver more narrow body jets than Boeing, and I never post anything to object to that because that is a 100% verifiable fact. Why is it that now, in this instance, instead of accepting what I wrote as 100% fact, you must add a nuance recolving profitability. All you are trying to do is cloud the fact that Boeing actually has, in 2025, generated more revenue than Airbus, despite Air us having its highest revenue year ever. Because that it the truth.
And further to my point, this is not the first time the Airbus Faithful write to explain away 100% verifiable facts.
Remember the collective response to the A380 wing spar structural cracking history and the list of AD notes printed. All 100 % verifiable. The fact that the safety ad note inspection process is managing that issue in the A380 as it was designed to do is irrelevant to the fact that the wing has shown of late to be continually cracking in new places.
IT IS STILL SAFE, as I never said it wasn’t. I said it was still cracking a 100% verifiable fact.
Nuance matters, I never chimed in when Airbus was building narrow body gliders because I understood the nuance behind the engine part of the story. Nuance matters, and my post clearly shows Airbus having a great year and Boeing clearly improving. I even said exactly that.
Perhaps you should read a bit harder before jumping on your bandwagon, to understand the message. You clearly missed it this time.
Unfortunately I have to report that the “verifiable truth” aren’t verifiable. What a sad day when “verifiable truth” isn’t what it is.
For the few here not allergic to facts, here is the link to BCA result of 2025 (for the result of Airbus, see my link above):
https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/FY-Revenues.jpg
What’s shocking is BCA lost over $7 billion last year when AB is quite profitable.
This is a little disingenuous. Boeing’s revenue in 2025 included revenue from the disposal of the digital services which is not repeatable, additionally you have given numbers for all of Boeing which is not comparable to Airbus whose defence business is a lot smaller. Additionally, Boeing was still loss-making even with the higher revenue even using the US GAAP program accounting method. This was true both of Boeing overall and BCA.
This pattern continued in Q1 2026 when BCA revenue was up substantially compared to Q1 2025, but the loss was almost identical reflecting a degradation in margins. At the same time, Deferred Production Costs on the 737 and 787 rose in 2025 and Q1 2026 which indicates that actual margins are probably worse than reported.
No one is denying that Boeing is improving on execution etc but it is important to note the financials are not yet reflecting that and will worsen in the near term due to the Spirit integration and the costs of establishing and operating the North Line.
Sunil.
I agree.
There is a lesson here about un nuanced gacts.
You understand it.
Some of the Airbus Cheerleaders don’t.
Cheers
1. Haha where did i criticize a product? Or a company?
2. As you noted, BA had 7.7% higher revenue than AB last year.
Airbus’ consolidated net income last year was € 5,221 million (2024: € 4,232 million). You can read more about how much was contributed by commercial aircraft op. below:
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2026-02-airbus-reports-full-year-fy-2025-results
Last year, BCA lost about $7 billions.
Time for you to explain why one airframer is making money and the other is losing money.
Current analysts’ eps estimates for BA:
Current Quarter -$0.29
Current Year -$0.10
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/ba/analystestimates?eafs_enabled=false
Unless BCA succeeds to return to profits, Kelly is unlikely to greenlight a new aircraft program. BTW, Cirium data showed that less than 10% of commercial aircraft used by Philippine carriers were built by Boeing. There isn’t an urgency from BA to start a new aircraft program anytime soon.
“Unless BCA succeeds to return to profits, Kelly is unlikely to greenlight a new aircraft program.”
Even *if* BA manages to return to generating a profit, it will have to use that profit to slowly pay off a mountain of debt.
Whatever way Ortberg wishes to present it, BA’s real reason for a lack of a new plane before 2040 is lack of available funds.
If I had to give a prize for the best aviation article so far in 2026, it would go to last week’s pair of articles from Karl Sinclair — which described in great detail how BCA’s gross margins are absolutely obliterated by G&A expenses…and will continue to be obliterated in the near-to-medium-term future, despite production increases.
PEDRO
Why are you speaking one word about profitability.
I never did.
What I did say was that Boeing revenues were up
Airbus revenues were up to a new all time record
Boeing has a lot to feel good about
AIRBUS has a lot to feel good about
All true.
This is another episode of your single product criticism. You take a 100% factual post pointing out how both competitors have a lot to feel good about and spin it by bringing in a bunch of nonflattering content about Boeings profitability. We know and all agree Boeing is still a work in progress but here you decide to jump on the Boeing profitability angle. How come you couldn’t note that Boeing generated almost twice the revenue Airbus did if we look at their highest revenue years. I don’t see any acknowledgement of Boeings improved performance. That’s also factual but it doesn’t meet your criteria for authorship.
Basics for CFOs:
“Why Revenue Growth is Useless Without Profit Growth”
https://clickcfo.com.au/why-revenue-growth-is-useless-without-profit-growth/
For a commercial enterprise, the whole purpose of generating revenue is to generate profit — the two concepts are inseperable.
Discussing one automatically gives rise to a discussion of the other.
Investors are interested in earnings — no earnings means no ROI.
1. Can you point out where did I criticize a product, or a company in my post on July 10?
My post on July 10 as follows:
> “Closing the gap on A320/321 build”???
AB delivered almost 90 aircraft last month. To meet its target for the year, AB has to maintain at a similar pace. Is BA any where close to that (73 A320/321 delivered last month)?
2. Is Boeing a for-profit business concern or not?
Why its CFO has to talk up the elusive (almost mythical) $10 billion FCF target from time to time?
3. Why it’s so hard for one airframer to be profitable but not the other?
@ Pedro
Some EPS consensus estimates for the current year are even worse than what you quote… at -$0.37 (loss).
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BA/analysis/
It will be interesting to see if there are new charges booked on the KC-46A: the USAF has stopped taking deliveries, and another boom snapped off recently, so there are bound to be additional losses there.
Going into 2026, some analysts predicted positive FY EPS.
Not any longer.
ABALONE.
THE KC46 IS NOT IN A DELIVERY PAUSE TODAY.
Its got problems, but you are incorrect about the delivery status. As much as Nuance matters, Facts are probably a greater concern.
Deliveries under the existing contract are ongoing. Boeing delivered 14 tankers in 2025 and plans to deliver 19 in 2026 as it works to stabilize production, with more than 100 KC-46s already delivered under the current procurement program . The most recent pause was the February 2025 stop after cracks were found in the outboard fixed trailing-edge support structure which was resolved by mid-2025.
The important distinction is what’s not moving forward: the follow-on order. The Air Force has indefinitely halted plans for 75 additional KC-46s, and the vice chief has said no contract for extra tankers will come until deficiencies are fixed — chiefly the boom actuator stiffness and RVS 2.0, which is now projected for fielding by summer 2027, roughly four years later than originally expected. A decision on a new procurement contract could come within the next two years, assuming the problems are addressed.
So: accepting jets from the current backlog, yes; committing to more, no.
March 13, 2026:
“Deliveries of the KC-46A Pegasus suspended again by the US Air Force”
https://meta-defense.fr/en/2026/03/13/kc-46a-suspension-us-air-force-ailerons/
Deliveries resumed, but the delay / fix will have incurred extra charges in Q2 2026.
ABALONE.
METADEFENSE IS INCORRECT.
The pause was February 2025, and that’s about as well-documented as these things get. The delivery halt decision was made on February 27 by the KC-46A program office, reported contemporaneously by Breaking Defense on March 3, 2025, with FlightGlobal covering it March 4, 2025. The resolution timeline also anchors it: RVS 2.0’s delay to 2027 was announced in May 2025 while “deliveries have been halted since February”, and deliveries resumed May 2025.
The retrospective sources agree too. The Aviationist’s May 2026 recovery-plan piece states Boeing halted deliveries in February 2025 after cracks were found on two aircraft awaiting delivery, and even that Vimanan article from March 2026 says the aileron hinge cracks were detected in 2025.
A Feb 2026 date is exactly the kind of error you’d expect from AI-generated or sloppily rewritten content — the model or writer sees “February” in source material published near their writing date and anchors the year to the present. So whichever site claimed 2026, that’s a mark against it. If it was one of the aggregator-looking outlets, that’s consistent with the pattern; if it was Meta-Defense, it could also be a translation/editing slip, but the date is wrong either way.
revenue is nice to have.
But with persistent losses Boeing is busy churning money.
in the end real cosmetically unmassaged profit counts.
( my understanding of unfettered capitalism is correct. 🙂
Basics for CFOs:
“Why Revenue Growth is Useless Without Profit Growth”
https://clickcfo.com.au/why-revenue-growth-is-useless-without-profit-growth/
Yea I got one post reducer to nothing saying the same thing in less polite terms.
Its why their posts are not worth the push of a key. Always slanted.
Boeing is recovering and will be profitable in the next quarter or two. Airbus is doing well but has issues it has no control over dragging it down.
It also has the secret payments to the Free Lunch Money (only if and when they make more than a magical number of aircraft of which the A320/21 is actually known to do so, they were less refined in those days and guess to low)
Go Boeing. Keep it up Airbus.
Boeing “will be profitable in the next quarter or two.”
Why it’s so hard for one airframer to be profitable but not the other?
Why the 737 seems to have more issues by uncontained engine failures than the other best-selling NB? One died. One almost sucked out. How many more will happen?
Design failure? Engineering failure? Organization failure?
take a look around on avherald.
uncontained engine failures don’t appear strongly $manufacturer connected.
( funny avherald at the moment does not count the recent case as “uncontained engine failure )
Is the MAX 10 certified?
No that is probably later this year. WSJ just reported max7 is happening later this month
Actually, the WSJ article said that certification *could* happen later this month.
Whatever that means.
Could is evenly likely and unlikely. As each month passes its gets more likely than not
Maybe is lowest and should is highest.
The world *could* end tomorrow.
Should we make contingencies for that?
Boeing plans to start the 737 production line in Everett **at a rate of one aircraft a month**. My understanding is until BA receives permission from the FAA to raise production rate beyond 47, which likely won’t happen before next year, the FAL in Everett will have negative margin.
Remember that LNA article a few months ago featuring an interview with the BA lady tasked with recruiting personnel for the new North Line?
She said that she was “excited” by the challenge of recruiting untrained personnel without having enough trained personnel to shepherd the newbies.
That phenomenon alone will put a cap on achievable rates for quite some time.
Go France!
While this is literally a low level news story, for those who follow and have flew in these types, its huge (I have flown in, I have not flown a Cub or tail dragger – principles are the same but the risk is far higher into a short strip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRJIs8dIkdg
A mini TP has been the Holly Grail and one of the major shortcomings of using a TP has been fuel burn. Some Commercial ops can afford it but often they go with Piston due to engine costs and high fuel burn (a shift to Diesel engines in the non US markets though the issue is weight fraction taken up)
In this case, a company in France has been the first to successfully manage heat recovery in a TP and building a small TP that has an equal to piston fuel burn. That is stunning. France did it, so my hat is off to them for that first in industry success. It has a bit more prop torque than the piston Rotax so while equal in HP and WEIGHT, it has a bit more prop performance where it counts.
They are making a big deal about how smooth a TP is. Technically true but opposed piston engines are more than smooth enough and they do not beat you or the airframe up, that is a huge overreach spin wise.
Side Note: My family was on Biorka Island when this ditch took place. Talk about incredible luck, smooth, calm, sunny day and they could reach Sitka Sound before the engine went. Biorka was between them and the deep dark major swells at all time Pacific.
https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-douglas-dc-7cf-biorka-island
While the all survived in great shape was the headline, what was lost to history was the military had a courtier on the aircraft with a chained to the wrist Brief case. Probably not big time stuff, it was a charter and he had no escort (if he had they would have both recovered the brief case and coughed him)
That said, when they had sorted out the passengers and the word came down to secure the courier and his case, there was no Brief case to be found and there was no shackle on his wrist.
Excuse me, you had a KEY? That is a court martial violation and you used it to save yourself? (not that it was threatening his life, it probably would float – ergo he panicked). Of course the other open question is, if one has a key how many others have a key and why? And a deliberate violation of the Oath in even having the key is prison time.
Now before the stuff hit the fan, my Dad and the Coasties from Biorka Loran station towed the rafts ashore to the beach in front of the FAA station a mile away. Nice sheltered sandy breach to land on. Got em out of the Sound as there was a lot of fishing traffic there and getting floasom off the water was high priority. Of course the Fedeair sailed off to Sitka to get some glory as they had the Plane passengers and crew picked up first!
Well sometime around midnight or 2 am the Coasties came thundering down the hill to the FAA station in a convoy of Machine gun armed youngsters (the techs had to stay at the Loran Stallion as keeping it going was their mission, so a commander and all the Coastie equal of a sailor.
Roared down to the rafts, surrounded them looking wild eyed into the dark ready to shoot the commies. Or us.
Yep, Briefcase loss went up the Chain of Command and CG has orders to seize the rafts (well we know where the briefcase was but it was in 250 feet of water and what do you do when a Secret Briefcase is missing, you panic! Off with their heads. In this case (pun) was the raft and us (well we had been around the rafts, had a few flashlights form the emergency kits which they would no re-use and probably not the rafts either). Then the knocks on the door (yea my dad was a WWII combat vet so he knew something had hit the fan as did the other two FAA families). Ok what is up? Military Courier Briefcase missing, do your kids have it? Oh come on, these are FAA kids. They know the drill to report something like that. Your guys were there, there was nothing more than odds and ends of shoes in the rafts. But NO, we do not have it nor did we see it, we are FAA, we know what to report. Sheese.
Following that was an out of house conversation about unloading the guns, get this ramped DOWN. If our VOR or ADF has a fault or the Generator has an issue, we get an alarm and we CAN NOT respond with those Sailors amped up in the dark. We have to tell our mangers we can not currently respond so they can put out a NOTAMS. Oh by the way, you guys flying using the Biorks VOR may suddenly loose it, just carry on (yes its still there, ADF is gone, a Radar is in its place and the Repeater facility for Com link is still there)
It was we call this in and more stuff hits the fan or you get them unloaded, stand guard all you want, unload the Machine guns, keep your 1911 (45 semi autonomic) those are safe enough. Get a Chief over here and a Petty Officer, they are experienced, loaded 1911s are fine with them, on their hips, and you can tell command your guards are armed with loaded weapons, just now how many or what.
They had it sorted by morning when all was calm and we could walk the road above the beach but we sure were going no where near the rafts. They spend 3 weeks on the local beaches and in boats on the rocky shore but of course it was not in the water, it was 250 ft down. It never hit the news, bad image for command don’t you know.
Or there was Northway AK in the late 50s when a flight of 16 USAF Flying Bananas came across the border from Whitehorse Canada.
Why they got caught in weather I do not know, Northway was a full time staffed weather reporting station. The Choppers hit fog and in a miracle managed to side slip down from the hills where the road ran to the Tannana River Valley below it where they had some visability.
That in turn got them onto a River approach into Northway (no Nav aids, terrain navigation ). First we knew a Flying Banana came thundering out of the fog and landed, followed by 15 more. All safe. Phew. Mid day roughly.
So we lived some events.
Note that BA is quietly working its accounting magic black box again: CFO Jesus Malave noted BA took advantage of one-time accounting adjustment during Q1 that enhanced its result. Pay attention to profits/loss on unit cost basis, not figures managed through financial engineering.