Boeing

Aug. 3 (UPI) — After years of delays, the Federal Aviation Administration has certified the Boeing 737 Max 7, the smallest model in that line, to fly passengers.

The FAA delayed the certification for reasons including the redesign of an engine anti-icing system and other safety and manufacturing issues. In addition, there was increased inspection after Max 8 models, which had already been certified, crashed in 2018 and 2019.

“The approval reflects years of sustained work to resolve complex technical issues and complete a thorough review of the airplane’s design and supporting safety analyses,” the FAA said in a statement.

“Throughout the process, the FAA performed or directly reviewed significant work involving flight controls, system safety assessments, human factors, flight-crew alerting and other novel, complex or safety-critical areas, while also requiring testing, design changes, and additional analysis when necessary.”

Airlines will now need to work the planes into schedules, so it may take a while before passengers see them. They had originally expected to have the Max 7 models flying before the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This important certification validates the rigor of our airplane’s design and recognizes the determination and resilience of our 737 MAX development team,” said Stephanie Pope, Boeing Commercial Airplanes president and CEO, in a statement Monday.

Boeing’s stock rose about 8% in Monday afternoon trading following the news.

The company is still waiting on certification of the 737 Max 10 model, the largest in the line, which has also been delayed for years.

In mid-July, the FAA resumed allowing Boeing to issue airworthiness certificates for its 737 Max aircraft and 787 Dreamliners. The manufacturer lost that authority after the Max 8 crashes, which killed more than 300 people. It has since escalated production of those airplanes.

Boeing has taken a fresh $280 million loss on work to deliver two newly converted and fully equipped VC-25B Air Force One presidential aircraft to the U.S. Air Force. The company says the new cost growth reflects investments to help it keep on track to finally deliver the first of these planes in 2028. The program remains years behind schedule, as well as over budget, with Boeing now having paid more than $3 billion out of pocket. This all also follows last week’s announcement that the Qatari-gifted VC-25B Bridge jet will be pulled from service for roughly a month to receive additional upgrades amid concerns that it lacks adequate defensive and other capabilities.

The new loss, or “charge,” on the VC-25B effort was announced during a quarterly Boeing earnings call this morning. Steve Parker, President and CEO of Boeing’s Defense, Space, and Security division, had first disclosed new cost growth on the program in an interview with Aviation Week earlier this month, but did not provide a specific dollar figure at that time. The Air Force has been actively working to acquire the two VC-25Bs as one-for-one replacements for its aging VC-25A Air Force One aircraft since the late 2010s.

Boeing is doing the VC-25B conversion work under a firm, fixed-price contract, and has already absorbed billions of dollars in losses since the program began. As of 2024, Boeing had reported some $2.8 billion in charges, according to Aviation Week. The new $280 million charge would push that figure to over $3 billion.

The Air Force has infused some additional funding into the effort, as well. This includes a $15.5 million contract modification to support communications systems work in December 2025. In a report published in June, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said the total estimated acquisition cost of the program on the U.S. government side had risen from $6.263 billion to $6.608 billion between December 2018 and August 2025.

“We’ve made the decision to add significant resources to support the build and test schedule on VC-25B. We have also aligned with the Air Force on moving from an FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] to a military certification basis,” Boeing President and CEO Kelly Ortberg said during today’s earnings call. “These additional resources will also help mitigate potential risks during certification and flight tests. Since this program is in a reach-forward loss, these additional investments resulted in a $280 million charge during the quarter.”

“Results include $280 million of losses on the VC-25B program primarily driven by an investment in additional production and certification resources,” Boeing added in a press release put out today. “The company continues to anticipate first delivery in 2028.”

Boeing first announced last year that it was aiming to deliver the first fully-equipped VC-25B by mid-2028. GAO’s report in June said the Air Force hopes to receive the aircraft by March of that year. If Boeing holds to this timeline, it will represent a slight improvement in the program schedule. However, the original goal was for the Air Force to have the first of these new Air Force One jets in hand by December 2024.

“In September 2025, Boeing provided a revised schedule that would accelerate the aircraft delivery, to mid-2028 and mid-2029, respectively. Program officials said the revised schedule reflects changes to the airworthiness certification approach and aircraft requirements, including interior designs, weight limitations, and storage,” per GAO’s report in June. “They said that the supply chain is ramping up to ensure that parts are delivered on time to support the schedule. They also noted that they are exploring use of the organic industrial base to mitigate supply chain risks and ensure a diversity of suppliers.”

“Repairs of the VC-25B stress corrosion cracks are ongoing and are expected to be completed in 2026, according to officials. They are planning ongoing inspections after delivery,” the report added. “The Air Force plans to upgrade mission communications systems after the aircraft are delivered, but the timelines are still being developed, according to program officials.”

Cracking is a known issue that has been impacting 747-8s worldwide, regardless of their configuration. The FAA issued a formal airworthiness directive to all operators regarding these problems back in 2023.

The additional work required on the communications systems also speaks to the fact that delays on such a complex program inherently mean that certain technologies intended to be incorporated originally have become out of date.

“The program is developing 80 certification plans to demonstrate aircraft airworthiness,” GAO also noted. “The Air Force approved seven of these plans as of October 2025. The Air Force has yet to determine when operational testing will begin.”

Delays and cost growth in the conversion of the two fully fledged VC-25Bs are deeply intertwined with what is now known as the VC-25B Bridge aircraft. Issues related to Air Force One had already been of personal interest to President Donald Trump since he was just a candidate back in 2015. Reports that he was looking for ways to speed up the acquisition of a new Air Force One plane emerged soon after he started his second term last year. The Qatari government subsequently made the highly irregular donation of the 747-8i jet to the U.S. military, after which the Air Force announced it would be turned into an interim presidential aircraft. Defense contractor L3Harris did the conversion work in a span of roughly 10 months.

The basic justification for needing the Bridge VC-25B at all remains a subject of intense debate, and the aircraft has been a source of criticism and controversy from the start. This has been further fueled by a recent chain of events that began with the Bridge jet’s official entry in service in the Air Force One role earlier this month.

Trump took his first trip on the plane on July 1, traveling to Montana for events surrounding the 250th anniversary of the United States. Just days later, the President traveled to the NATO summit in Turkey on the aircraft, but then made an unexpected swap back to an older VC-25A on the return flight home. It has since been reported that a credible threat to Trump emanating from Iran prompted the Secret Service to advise the switch in aircraft. There were reports before and after saying the ex-Qatari 747 lacked key self-defense features and other capabilities that are found on the VC-25As and that will be included on the future VC-25Bs from Boeing.

Regulator proposes checks on 453 US-registered jets over seats that may be incorrectly installed.

The US aviation authority has warned that seats on hundreds of Boeing 737 MAX planes could have been installed incorrectly and may require inspection.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said on Monday that the issue relates to 453 jets registered in the US and proposed requiring airlines to inspect the seats.

If not installed correctly, the seats could come loose during an emergency landing and “injure passengers and crew members”, the FAA said, adding that they could also “block the aisle and slow an evacuation”.

The proposed order would apply only to US-registered planes because the FAA does not regulate foreign airlines.

Regulators in other countries, however, often follow FAA orders when the issue affects aircraft operating in their markets.

A Boeing spokesperson told the Reuters news agency that the company had issued guidance to operators ‌on the matter in December 2025.

“We support the FAA making that guidance mandatory,” the spokesperson said in an email.

The warning adds to years of scrutiny of Boeing’s safety record.

A cabin panel blew off an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9 in January 2024, forcing an emergency landing and prompting the FAA to ground 171 jets.

Investigators later found that the panel was missing four key bolts.

The scrutiny intensified after a spate of other accidents around the world, as well as the death of Boeing whistleblower John Barnett in March 2024 while he was providing evidence for a safety lawsuit against the firm.

In June 2025, the US National Transportation Safety Board said Boeing had failed to provide adequate training, guidance and oversight to prevent the Alaska Airlines incident.

There are nearly 2,300 737 MAX jets operating around the world, including 823 in the US, according to aviation advisory and intelligence firm IBA.

For a Boeing 777 cargo jet pilot we spoke with, the viral video of a 777 making a freakishly low pass and sharp bank over a Texas airfield was a “shocking” sight to see.

“Shocking, yes,” exclaimed Steve Jones, a former Navy MH-53E Sea Dragon pilot who now flies 777s for Atlas Air. “‘Jesus Christ!’ or ‘holy shit!’ come to mind, but shocking will do.”

Jones was reacting to a 37-second video clip of the jet – painted in Qatar Airways Cargo livery – flying over the runway at the Horseshoe Bay Private Jet Center in Horseshoe Bay, Texas. At about the 12-second mark, the jet makes a sharp bank to the right, placing the right wing tip just above the ground before gaining altitude and flying off.

Jones estimated the jet was flying about 50 feet off the ground during the ‘flat’ part of its flyby and traveling at between 210 and 220 knots.

“It looks like the flaps and slats are up,” Jones noted.

The exact altitude and speed are unknown.

“Two things came to mind,” Jones said after watching the video. “The pilot is probably very good, or lucky, because he was extremely low, and you can see that the right wing tip got pretty close to the ground. You can’t even see the wings from inside the cockpit. You’re looking at somewhere like a 212-foot wingspan.”

Inside the cockpit, “there’s a lot of warnings the crew has to either disable or ignore,” the 777 pilot said. “For example, there’s a ground proximity warning. There’s a configuration warning – not only the ‘whoop whoop’ sounds, but also there will be audible signals saying that, ‘you’re close to the ground, pull up, pull up.’ The sink rate alarms would be going off. All those things are going on. There are some things that you can disable that will prevent those things, but not all of them all at once.”

Boeing 777 Cbt #63 Crew Alerting System Ground Proximity Warning System Gpws

“That’s a pretty great video,” Jones proffered, “but not a smart thing to do.”

The reason, he said, was that “the plane is not designed” to fly like that. “A wind gust in the wrong direction, or a judgment on his actual altitude and height could have been off. It’s a lot of airplane that close to the ground going at those speeds.”

Asked how difficult it could have been for the pilot to pull off such a maneuver, Jones told us that the aircraft is very forgiving.

“The Triple Seven is a very easy airplane to fly… It’s very gentle on the controls. It’s a well-designed airplane to be able to fly at altitudes and take off and landings, but not to fly extended periods low-level over the ground. You’ve got engine pods hanging down, long wingspans.” 

“I’ve never flown that aircraft in that particular configuration that low, but I imagine that it is not necessarily difficult to fly. It comes down to ‘just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.’”

Boeing 777 Freighter

Jones, who has about 850 hours in a 777, said that he would not want to be on a flight like the one seen on the video.

“If I was the co-pilot or first officer flying that situation, I wouldn’t have been comfortable, and I would have said ‘I’m not comfortable with this,’ and try to put a stop to it, but again, I don’t know the circumstances around it, so I can’t speculate, but with two brains, sometimes three or four brains in the cockpit, usually the voice of reason will come up between other folks.”

Things would not go well for him if he were captured on video flying like this, Jones acknowledged.

“I would lose my job,” Jones said with a laugh. “I don’t even know if they would ask why I would do it. I would just probably lose my job.”

There are other factors to consider when it comes to official reactions to this flight, Jones said. 

“What I don’t know is if that particular pilot had authorization to do so,” he stated. “So it could have been authorization from the tower, authorization from the company, or whatever, in order to create something like that. But knowing how the industry is, if there were no prior permissions or authorization, that pilot and that crew will probably lose their jobs.”

FAA records show the jet, N-705DN, is registered to Jetran LLC, an aircraft leasing and service company with an address at Horseshoe Bay. We have reached out to them for more details about the status of the aircraft and why it was flying so low. However, the company reportedly released a statement saying that the low pass flight “does not reflect operational standards” and the aircraft was going through “a pre-delivery test flight” before being turned over to Qatar Airways.

Jetran was also quick to point out that “the pilots on board were not Qatar Airways pilots.”

While the statement about the Boeing 777 low flyby has been issued by Jetran, I can’t help but feel that Qatar Airways had a big say in its content. Ouch! pic.twitter.com/FlHrnNJbnV

— Matt Maszczynski (@yourownkanoo) June 25, 2026

Qatar Airways Cargo “has an agreement with Jetran for five aircraft. DHL and Ethiopian Airlines are also due to take delivery of the aircraft in the future,” according to Aerospace Global News.  

“As the launch customer for the 777-200LRMF, this milestone marks an important moment for both Mammoth Freighters and Jetran,” Jordan Jaffe, CEO, Jetran, told the publication in April. “From the outset, we have had strong confidence in the Mammoth engineering team and their vision for the program.” 

The aircraft is a former Delta Air Lines 777-200LR that was converted to freighter configuration by Mammoth Freighters, according to FlightRadar24.

“Mammoth Freighters has been made aware of a video circulating on social media showing a low-pass flight of a Mammoth-converted 777 freighter aircraft in Qatar Airways livery,” the company said in a statement on its website. “Mammoth is not the owner of the aircraft and Mammoth was not in control of the aircraft at the time of the maneuver. The current owner (which is not Qatar Airways) was in control of the aircraft at the time of the maneuver. The aircraft is in its final stages of preparation prior to delivery to Qatar Airways.”

“While the aircraft is painted in Qatar Airways livery, it was not owned or operated by Qatar Airways, did not carry a Qatar Airways registration, and the pilots on board were not Qatar Airways pilots.”

The FAA told us “it is aware of reports about this event and is looking into it.” We have also reached out to Qatar Airways and Horseshoe Bay Private Jet Center.

Fly Direct to Horseshoe Bay Resort

As to why anyone would authorize a flight like that, Jones shrugged.

“This is a cargo aircraft. It has a job to move cargo from Point A to Point B, not to create videos for Instagram,” Jones scoffed. “From a company standpoint, I don’t know their policies, but I can imagine a company with a $300 million aircraft and the insurance that goes along with those aircraft would not allow such a flight to happen unless they authorized it.”

What reason that would be is unclear.

“Sometimes you see manufacturers like Boeing or Airbus do a demonstration at the Paris Air Show, where you’ll see a steep takeoff or a climb or a low pass,” Jones said. “I’ve never seen one that low before, even at an air show.”

Speaking to us at a layover in Luxembourg, Jones said that so far, he hasn’t heard much buzz from the 777 pilot community about this video, but expects that to change.

“Give it a few hours or a couple of days and I probably will,” he said.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Boeing has decided not to pursue a bid for the U.S. Navy’s Undergraduate Jet Training System (UJTS) competition. The company had previously planned to submit a version of the T-7A Red Hawk being built now for the U.S. Air Force. The winning UJTS design will replace the Navy’s T-45 Goshawk jet trainers. The new trainers will become part of a future naval aviation training curriculum for prospective tactical jet pilots that no longer requires carrier qualifications or even simulated touch-and-go carrier landings at bases on land.

The Navy issued a formal request for proposals for UJTS in March. The service currently plans to acquire 216 new jet trainers to replace the just under 200 T-45s that are in its inventory today. With Boeing now out of the running, the Sierra Nevada Corporation (which has now partnered with Northrop Grumman and General Atomics) and a team led by Leonardo and Textron are the only known remaining competitors. Lockheed Martin, which had teamed with Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI), also dropped out back in April. Aviation Week and Breaking Defense were among the first to report on Boeing’s decision regarding UJTS.

“Boeing is focused on meeting our commitments, and we bid for programs where we believe we can provide the right solution tailored to our customers’ needs and requirements,” a Boeing spokesperson told TWZ. “After careful evaluation, we have determined the T-7A does not meet the U.S. Navy’s Undergraduate Jet Training System requirements.”

“We have therefore informed the Navy that we will not bid on the current RFP. We remain committed to delivering the T-7A as a modern, growth-oriented training solution for 4th, 5th and 6th generation pilots as requirements evolve,” they added. “We look forward to providing and sustaining both current and future capabilities for the Navy.”

Boeing says its decision on UJTS is tied to the General Electric F404 turbofan. The company has stressed that the F404 is a proven design with millions of flight hours on multiple platforms, including the T-7A, and is a clear example of a ready-to-field design. Still, Boeing’s view is that the UJTS engine qualification requirements would require additional long-cycle development work, and potentially limit its ability to meet the Navy’s initial operational capability target for the new jet trainers.

All this being said, it is still not entirely clear what the specific issues might be, given that the F404 is such a well-established design that has been and continues to be used on a variety of military aircraft. This includes several other land-based jet trainer designs beyond the T-7, like the Scaled Composites Model 400, which competed against the Red Hawk in the Air Force’s T-X competition, and the Turkish Aerospace Industries Hürjet.

Most notably, the F404 also powers the TF-50N that Lockheed Martin and KAI had put forward for UJTS. At the time of writing, neither Lockheed Martin nor KAI looks to have offered a detailed explanation for the decision to withdraw from the Navy jet trainer competition.

The T-7A has also suffered from various technical and other issues over the course of its development, which has led to significant delays in its entry into Air Force service. The service is now hoping to reach initial operational capability with the Red Hawk next year. Any potential for direct synergies in terms of support and sustainment between the Air Force and Navy jet trainer fleets is now off the table.

It is worth pointing out that the TF-50N and the T-7 are also both single-engine designs. The Beechcraft M-346N that Leonardo and Textron have put forward is powered by a pair of Honeywell F124 turbofans. Two Williams FJ44-4M turbofans power SNC’s Freedom Jet, which is also the only clean-sheet design in the running for UJTS. This may point to a general view of the UJTS requirements that make single-engine designs less attractive.

The Freedom Jet design is also tailored to meet now-axed requirements for UJTS to be able to perform carrier qualifications and simulated carrier touch-and-goes at base on land. The requirements for so-called Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) training at facilities ashore have historically been structured specifically in a way that “simulates, as near as practicable, the conditions encountered during carrier landing operations,” according to the Navy.

F-18 Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP). Touch-and-Go Landing.

SNC says its choice to build an aircraft that can still perform these tasks is deliberate, and offers the Navy what could still be important capability and flexibility in the future, as you can read more about here.

The Navy’s decision to remove carrier qualifications and otherwise alter key aspects of the tactical jet aviator training pipeline has been and continues to be controversial. The service has argued that substantial investments in virtualized training and assisted carrier landing capabilities, such as Magic Carpet and its successors, have fundamentally changed the landscape when it comes to training future pilots for carrier-based operations.

Flight Ready: Magic Carpet

Flight Ready: Live, Virtual, Constructive

Earlier this month, the Navy also confirmed that it had raised the total cost ceiling for the prospective UJTS contract from approximately $1.8 billion to $2.7 billion.

“The Government updated the price cap to reflect a change in the program cost estimate due to new information received,” Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) subsequently explained, according to Breaking Defense.

The substantial increase in the projected cost has raised its own questions about the outlook for the competition and the development program that is expected to follow. The Navy’s decisions to scale back its training requirements had previously been seen as opening the door to existing land-based jet trainer designs, or derivatives thereof, like the T-7 and the TF-50N. That, in turn, was viewed as a potential way for the service to help keep costs and risk low.

The Navy’s T-45 replacement plans have already been delayed multiple times, with the service originally planning to pick a winning design this year and to have the first example enter operational service in 2028. The goal now is to award a contract in the middle of next year.

The aging T-45 fleet has faced its own struggles, including a spate of reported hypoxia-like physiological episodes among pilots that led to the development of a new oxygen system. There have been several Goshawk crashes in recent years due to a variety of factors, with the most recent coming just last month. The pilots in that case thankfully survived.

For Boeing, the decision to drop out of the running for UJTS could also allow it to refocus resources to other priorities. The company is also notably one of two remaining competitors vying to build the sixth-generation F/A-XX carrier-based fighter for the Navy. Boeing is already heavily engaged now on work for the F-47 sixth-generation fighter for the Air Force.

When it comes to the UJTS competition, with Boeing having bowed out, the SNC-led and Leonardo/Textron teams are now facing off head-to-head.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Operators of the C-17 Globemaster III have been reaching out to Boeing about possibly restarting the product line, and the company has been “encouraged” by these engagements. Separately, Congress recently directed the U.S. Air Force to prepare a formal briefing on the feasibility of acquiring new Globemaster IIIs. The Air Force’s C-17 fleet is critical for U.S. power projection globally. At the same time, a succession of crises in recent years has put serious strain on these aircraft, and questions have already been raised about the viability of the current plan to keep them flying through 2075.

The House Committee on Armed Services added the requirement for the C-17 production restart briefing to a report accompanying the latest draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), last week. The Air Force took delivery of its last Globemaster III in 2013, and has some 222 of these airlifters in service today. The air arms of Australia, Canada, India, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom also have smaller fleets of these airlifters. Three more of these aircraft are operated under the Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC) initiative, a multi-national arrangement with several European members, as well as the United States. Boeing shuttered the C-17 line entirely in 2015.

Boeing Pieces Together the Last C-17 on the Line

“The committee recognizes that the existing C-17 fleet continues to bear significant operational demands supporting combatant commander requirements, humanitarian assistance missions, and global mobility operations,” the provision in the House Committee on Armed Services’ report notes. “The committee is concerned that future operational demands may place additional strain on the existing C-17 fleet.”

“Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 1, 2027, assessing the feasibility of restarting the production line for the C-17 aircraft,” it adds.

The committee wants the Air Force’s briefing to at least include the following:

• “An assessment of the technical and industrial feasibility of restarting the C-17 production line, including the status of tooling, supplier base viability, workforce availability, and potential reconstitution costs.”
• “An estimate of the timeline required to reestablish production and deliver the first newly produced aircraft.”
• “A cost estimate for restarting the production line and procuring additional aircraft, including options for limited procurement and multi-year procurement.”
• “An evaluation of alternative approaches to increasing strategic airlift capacity, including service life extension programs, modernization of existing aircraft, procurement of commercial derivative cargo aircraft, and expansion of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet.”
• “An assessment of potential international partner interest in participating in or contributing to a restarted production line.”

TWZ subsequently reached out to Boeing to ask about the company’s current position on rebooting C-17 production.

“Our goal is to help our customers be successful, and we work with them to develop innovative solutions to meet their mission needs, including development and production partnerships,” a Boeing spokesperson told us this week. “We are proud of our continued support for the unique, mission-proven capabilities that the C-17 Globemaster III delivers to the U.S. Air Force and eight allied nation partners.”

At the Paris Air Show last year, Turbo Sjogren, Vice President and General Manager of Boeing Global Services-Government Services, had told Shephard Defense that talks with an unnamed country about a possible C-17 production restart were in their “early infancy.”

“It is a very extraordinary effort to do” and is “reflective of the utility of the aircraft,” he also said at the time, according to Shephard.

Boeing has also now said that it is always willing to work to better understand the requirements and needs of its customers. Any talk about the prospect of restarting C-17 production would also have to be viewed in the broader context of the Air Force’s still-evolving requirements for the Next Generation Air Lift (NGAL) program. The service’s current NGAL plans envision a single aircraft replacing the very different C-17 and C-5 Galaxy fleets, as you can read more about here.

TWZ also reached out to the US Air Force about the recently requested briefing.

It is unclear what it might cost to get the C-17 line restarted and what the unit price of these new-production aircraft would be in the end. There are various factors at play, including whether Boeing retains any relevant tooling, the knowledge base of its current workforce, the state of third-party supply chains, and the availability of physical space to build the airplanes. Back in 2019, the company sold off the facilities in Long Beach, California, where it built the original run of Globemaster IIIs.

More than a decade ago, the RAND Corporation did conduct a detailed, independent analysis that explored options for resuming production of the baseline C-17A, a new C-17B, and a significantly revised “fuel efficient” C-17FE derivative.

The C-17B was “a variant Boeing has proposed that adds centerline landing gear, a tire deflation/inflation system, higher-thrust engines, advanced flaps, and an advanced situational awareness and countermeasures system,” according to RAND’s report. The C-17FE derivative “would have a narrower fuselage, up-rated engines, a double-element flap system, winglets, a longer loading ramp, a shorter cargo door, and a modified horizontal tail.”

RAND said that it could cost between $2.1 and $2.7 billion in 2011 dollars to begin making C-17A models again after a pause, depending on how much tooling Boeing retained. Those costs would rise to $4.6 to $6.4 billion for new production of the improved C-17B version, and $6.2 billion to $7 billion to start building the C-17FE derivative. Billions more would be required to actually procure the aircraft, with unit prices being highly dependent on the total size of the production, as outlined in the table below. If nothing else has changed, these cost projections would still be significantly higher today just due to inflation.

As an aside here, RAND published a similar assessment of the options for restarting production of the F-22 Raptor in 2011. That report factored heavily into a study the Air Force subsequently delivered to Congress on that topic back in 2017, which you can read more about here.

Foreign participation in new production of C-17s could help defray costs, and is one of the points the House Armed Services Committee specifically wants the Air Force to address in its briefing. As TWZ noted last year after Turbo Sjogren made comments at the Paris Air Show, Boeing’s discussions at that point might not have been with the U.S. government. Earlier in 2025, then-Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba had expressed interest in buying Globemaster IIIs, raising immediate questions about where those aircraft might come from.

It should be noted here that the U.S. Air Force’s C-17s have received various upgrades over the years, and the service continues to move ahead with other plans to improve their performance and expand their capabilities. This includes the installation of 3D-printed microvanes on the fuselage, which offer a very minor reduction in drag (approximately one percent), but that translates into real reductions in fuel consumption. All Air Force C-17s are expected to have this feature by the end of next year. Communications and data-sharing upgrades have also been a major focus area across all of the Air Force’s airlift and tanker fleets.

Boeing is now under contract for a more extensive upgrade of the flight decks on Air Force C-17s. The company says this will aid in “resolving avionics obsolescence” and integrate new open systems architectures to make it easier to add new and improved capabilities and functionality in the future.

The prospect of a re-engining effort for the Globemaster III fleet has also been raised in the past, but the Air Force downplayed the value of doing so earlier this year.

When it comes to discussions about restarting C-17 production, another key factor is the lack of immediate alternative options. There is really no other aircraft in this class in production now in the United States or anywhere else in the West. Airbus has long positioned its turboprop-powered A400M as sitting in a capability space between Lockheed Martin’s C-130 family and the C-17. Embraer’s KC-390 Millennium design, which is also offered as an aerial refueling tanker, has generally been pitched as a jet-powered competitor to the C-130. China’s Y-20 and Russia’s Il-76 are really the only in-production analogs on any level to the C-17 globally.

The House Armed Services Committee has now also asked the Air Force to speak to the possibility of buying “commercial derivative cargo aircraft” and/or an “expansion of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet,” or CRAF, to help bolster airlift capacity. The CRAF is an arrangement by which the U.S. military can call upon commercial airlines and charter companies to help move cargo and personnel, which you can learn more about here.

A key issue here is that the C-17 is specifically designed for tactical operations right at the tactical edge. This includes the ability to bring combat-ready forces to far-flung locations without the need for an established airfield. Additional commercial alternatives could still be utilized in rear areas to help free up C-17s for more demanding missions and otherwise relieve stress on the Globemaster III fleet.

Questions have been increasingly raised about the survivability of the C-17 itself, especially in the context of a future high-end fight, as the threat ecosystem continues to expand and evolve. The Air Force has made clear that it is working to find new ways to bolster the defensive capabilities of all of its existing airlifters, as well as its tanker fleets, and that this is a key consideration in the evolving NGAL requirements.

TWZ has long been sounding the alarm on the need for more survivable cargo planes and tankers. The Air Force already has decades’ worth of experimental work and studies on concepts for stealthy cargo aircraft and tankers, as well as non-stealthy ones with blended-wing-body (BWB) planforms, under its belt. Over the years, several companies have publicly put forward prospective designs that could be relevant for NGAL, as well.

When any new platform developed under NGAL actually enters service remains to be seen. The stated plan the Air Force has put forward to date would see those new aircraft replacing its C-5s first, with C-17s flying through 2075. By that point, the Globemaster III, as a type, will have been in service for 80 years.

“The C-17 is the most amazing airplane ever made. I have a lot of time in it, so I can say that. We have asked it to do a lot of things, and it’s done more than we ever planned for when we bought that airplane,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Rebecca Sonkiss told TWZ and other outlets at a roundtable on the sidelines of the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) annual Warfare Symposium in February. “It has performed flawlessly, but it’s getting old too.”

Sonkiss is Deputy Commander of Air Mobility Command (AMC). She has been serving as the interim head of the command since her predecessor, Gen. John Lamontagne, became Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force in January.

“I cannot have a gap in my strategic airlift forces, and we’re working forward on the NGAL to combine the view of the C-5 and the C-17 fleet and figure out what the next strategic airlifter needs to be. That conversation, in my book, can’t happen enough, or can’t happen fast enough,” she added at the roundtable in February. “We have to get after what next looks like, and we can’t wait until we’re shoveling it into the boneyard before we get to that discussion.”

Whether the Air Force’s future airlift plans also include buying new-production C-17s remains to be seen. For its part, Boeing does not appear to have ruled out the possibility just yet.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Published on
11/06/2026 – 17:25 GMT+2

German MEP Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee, has warned that the long-running Airbus-Boeing dispute could jeopardise the EU-US trade agreement struck last summer if transatlantic tensions flare again in the coming weeks.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The implementation of the Turnberry Agreement, clinched in July 2025 by US President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland, is entering its final stretch, with EU lawmakers expected to approve it in a vote next Tuesday.

However, the five-year truce between US aerospace giant Boeing and its European rival Airbus over mutual subsidy allegations expires on 11 July, with the Trump administration and the European Commission yet to agree to extend it.

“Will this lead to another escalation? Nobody knows,” Lange, the Parliament’s lead negotiator on the EU-US deal, told journalists on Thursday during a meeting with fellow Socialist lawmakers.

The MEP is concerned that a renewed aerospace dispute could further strain transatlantic trade ties after a year of intense tensions.

“I hope this will not blow up,” Lange told Euronews.

Turnberry deal remains fragile

The battle between Boeing and Airbus dates back more than two decades. The US first brought a case before the World Trade Organization arguing that the EU was illegally subsidising Airbus. Brussels responded with its own complaint, accusing Washington of unlawfully supporting Boeing.

The dispute eventually spiralled into a tariff war, with both sides imposing punitive duties on products ranging from wine and spirits to cheese and tobacco, affecting $11.5 billion worth of trade.

A truce was reached in 2021 under the Biden administration, taking effect on 11 July that year and suspending retaliatory measures for five years. However no extension has been announced since.

“Discussions with the US are ongoing to ensure stability and certainty and to continue the suspension of countermeasures on both sides,” Commission deputy chief spokesperson Olof Gill told Euronews.

In its Trade Policy Agenda 2026, the Trump administration said the US Trade Representative would decide in July “whether to take action in the Section 301 investigation involving the enforcement of US rights in the World Trade Organization disputes involving large civil aircraft”.

The US is able to impose tariffs on trading partners under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Last week, Washington threatened to impose 10 percent tariffs on EU goods over forced labour following a Section 301 investigation. If implemented, those duties would be added to existing most-favoured-nation tariffs, pushing average US tariffs on EU goods above the 15 percent ceiling agreed under the Turnberry deal.

Under the agreement, which EU lawmakers are expected to adopt next week, the EU committed on its side to eliminate its duties on US goods. However, lawmakers fought hard to include safeguards to protect the deal from future US tariff threats and ensure the 15 percent cap is respected.

The agreement has always appeared fragile. Trump has repeatedly used tariffs as leverage in non-trade disputes, from his push for the acquisition of Greenland earlier this year to his more recent threat to impose 25 percent tariffs on EU cars after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz criticised the war with Iran.

Should the Airbus-Boeing dispute reignite, it could give the US president another pretext to unravel the 2025 agreement.