Latest news with #RichardAboulafia
Mint
07-07-2025
- Business
- Mint
Italys Bridge to Nowhere Shows Defense-Boom Risks
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The defense boom in Europe is as close to a tech-style gold rush as the Old Continent can offer. Armaments stocks are outperforming Nvidia Corp., and defense-themed funds are amassing billions in anticipation of rising military spending in a more dangerous world. NATO allies have agreed to more than double defense spending goals to 5% of gross domestic product in the coming years. But with so many countries already struggling to stump up the billions needed to keep up in artificial intelligence, reindustrialization and the energy transition, where's the cash going to come from? With the notable exception of Germany, many European countries are already near the limit of investor and voter patience with borrowing and taxation. And good luck shrinking the welfare state. Italy, a serial defense under-spender with the second-highest debt ratio in the euro area, has one answer: Stretch the definition of 'defense' to breaking point. Officials are reportedly looking to reclassify a proposed €13.5 billion ($15.8 billion) bridge linking Sicily to the mainland as a defense investment. You almost have to applaud the chutzpah. This is a bridge that has been a field of political dreams for decades, if not centuries, and attracted plenty of criticism for its cost, lack of utility and riskiness. To say that this is about rearmament is tantamount to defense-washing a pet political project — one beloved by populist Matteo Salvini, who, ironically, is one of the most vocal critics of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. One MEP from the opposition Five Star Movement called the plan a 'mockery' of military spending. Of course, this isn't to say that only things that go bang should count as defense. NATO's 5% targets include 1.5% for infrastructure and interoperability. We live in a world of deadly drones, AI and cyberattacks — which require tools other than bullets. And governments want to make sure wide swathes of society benefit from military-spending spillovers, which means casting nets wider than usual. 'Defense is the new Keynesianism,' says Richard Aboulafia, managing director of consultancy AeroDynamic Advisory. Still, Italy's plan should set alarm bells ringing. Slapping the label 'defense' on national boondoggles would further exacerbate differences between European countries at a time when defense is already too fragmented. It would make Europe weaker, not stronger. It would also prove Goodhart's Law: When a number becomes a target, it ceases to be a useful measure. NATO's previous 2% targets already included some eyebrow-raising outlays on railways and firefighters, according to Der Spiegel. If this is how the 5% era is set to go, credibility will wither. Clearer definitions, better coordination and ultimately more leadership are needed to ensure the blurred lines between military and civil infrastructure don't vanish completely. The EUISS think tank recommends focusing on disruptive research and innovation via a European version of Darpa, the US Defense Department's advanced research projects agency, more measures to attract top scientific talent and putting more European funding to work. And the Bertelsmann Stiftung think tank also says that Germany's unique position as top spender means it should also step up when it comes to the framework for defense-related infrastructure. Nobody wants yet more box-ticking that stops money getting out the door, but voters deserve better than a defense twist on greenwashing. This isn't about preventing the real economy from getting some of the rewards of a defense boom, but ensuring those spillovers actually happen. Italy has other more positive examples of supporting a more defense-oriented Europe, such as Fincantieri SpA's plan to refocus some shipyards on just making warships. The defense boom is worth celebrating, but a bridge to nowhere isn't a good outcome. More From Bloomberg Opinion: This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Lionel Laurent is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist writing about the future of money and the future of Europe. Previously, he was a reporter for Reuters and Forbes. More stories like this are available on
NDTV
16-06-2025
- Business
- NDTV
Is Airbus Safer Than Boeing? No, And That's Not The Point
When a Boeing 787 Dreamliner crashed in Ahmedabad last week, the fallout extended far beyond the scorched wreckage. For Air India, it was a devastating blow, as it was engaged in a long-overdue brand revival. But for Boeing, it was something worse. It was a jolt that reopened wounds the company had barely managed to scar over after years of public scrutiny, software failures and shattered reputations. This was no ordinary aircraft. The Dreamliner was Boeing's comeback symbol. Sleek, long-range, fuel-efficient and technologically advanced, it was meant to restore faith after the 737 MAX fiasco, a debacle that had cast a dark shadow over the American aerospace giant. But as flames lit up the sky over Gujarat, so did old questions and new doubts. No one yet knows what went wrong. The black boxes will take time to yield answers. Was it pilot error? Mechanical failure? A freak accident? Until we know more, speculation will fill the void and fear will follow. This sentiment, which first gained traction after the 737 MAX crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia, when many travellers began saying, 'I'm not flying Boeing again, is being felt again. For Boeing, the crash happened in Ahmedabad but the damage to trust could be felt around the world. A Tale of Two Giants Globally, there are just two most dominant aircraft manufacturers: America's Boeing and Europe's Airbus. The duopoly has shaped the global aviation landscape for decades. The two aerospace titans have forever locked in an eternal dogfight, their names stamped invisibly beneath our boarding passes. Which one has better safety records? Between 2013 and 2022, Boeing aircraft were involved in 60 accidents, while Airbus had 50. On the surface, that makes Boeing look worse. But the catch is that Boeing also has more aircraft in service. When adjusted for the number of flights, the fatality rates are neck-and-neck. The difference is just a few hundredths of a point per million departures. 'In purely statistical terms,' says aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia, 'you are as safe flying an Airbus as you are flying a Boeing. The plane itself is rarely the problem.' Still, perception isn't bound by data. Boeing's problems in recent years haven't just been mechanical, they have been moral. The 737 MAX disasters in Indonesia and Ethiopia killed 346 people. Investigations pointed to a flawed MCAS (Mast Cell Activation Syndrome) software system that overrode pilot commands. What truly damaged Boeing's brand was the revelation of a toxic internal culture - one that prioritised cost-cutting over safety. Airbus, meanwhile, has avoided such intense scrutiny. But it hasn't been faultless. In 2009, an Air France A330 crashed into the Atlantic after a sensor failure caused the autopilot to disengage. The pilots stalled the plane fatally. In 2020, Airbus paid a $4 billion settlement over a global corruption probe. A cynical industry insider once said, 'Airbus sins in boardrooms. Boeing sins in cockpits.' A brutal summary, but one that sticks. The Politics of the Skies Boeing and Airbus aren't just competitors; they are geopolitical avatars. Boeing enjoys close ties with the US government and Pentagon contracts. Airbus, a European creation, was meant to counter American aviation dominance. Their rivalry has spilt into trade disputes, WTO battles, and lobbying skirmishes. When Boeing's 737 MAX was grounded worldwide, some pointed fingers at a US regulator being too cosy with the manufacturer. Meanwhile, Airbus faced multibillion-dollar investigations across Europe for corporate bribery. It's capitalism at 40,000 feet, and we passengers are mostly unaware of the backroom turbulence behind the polished check-in counters. Boeing's Bruised Legacy To be honest, Boeing has had a rough decade. The 737 MAX saga was a crisis of design and ethics. Internal messages showed engineers mocking regulators. A new software system was quietly slipped in without adequate pilot training. The result? Two crashes, hundreds dead, and a global grounding that lasted nearly 20 months. Even after its return, the MAX hasn't escaped turbulence. In early 2024, an Alaska Airlines MAX-9 suffered a mid-air blowout - a door plug, improperly bolted, flew off during ascent. Boeing was once again in the headlines for all the wrong reasons. But here's what gets overlooked: In 2023, Boeing operated over 31 million flights with just 11 accidents - all non-fatal. That's a stellar safety record, even if media coverage suggests otherwise. The Safest Way to Be Afraid According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), in 2023, there was just one major accident for every 5.3 million flights. Your odds of dying in a plane crash are one in 11 million. For a car crash, it is one in 5,000. Statistically, you are more likely to choke on a vada pao or get struck by lightning than perish in a commercial airliner. Aircraft today are marvels of engineering. They are built to survive lightning strikes, bird impacts, dual-engine failures and intense turbulence. Redundancy is their religion. And as YouTube-famous pilot Captain Joe puts it: 'If you knew how much backup is built into a modern jetliner, you'd sleep like a baby at 35,000 feet.' Even so, aviation disasters feel apocalyptic. The rarity of crashes makes each one more horrifying. But they are not signs of systemic collapse, especially not with newer models like the Dreamliner. The Human Variable Aviation experts are never tired of explaining that planes don't crash, people do. Over 50% of aviation accidents are attributed to pilot error. Fatigue, miscommunication, poor judgment, all can be fatal. Mechanical issues account for only about 21%. Software glitches? Less than that. Both Boeing and Airbus equip their cockpits with state-of-the-art tech. But pilots remain fallible. Long hauls and erratic schedules increase error risk fivefold after 13 hours in the air. And even the best aircraft can't override a miscalculated decision. The Irony of Choice Most passengers don't choose a plane, they choose an airline. But in a duopoly, the illusion of safety in one brand over another is often just that - an illusion. One could argue: 'I trust Airbus more.' Fair enough. But the next time you book a last-minute flight to Shanghai or Bengaluru, odds are you will fly on whichever jet is available. Because the real enemy isn't Boeing. It's emotion over data. The question one might ask is: does the Ahmedabad crash signal a deeper rot? Possibly. It certainly warrants scrutiny. But the broader data shows something comforting: commercial aviation has never been safer. In 2023, not a single passenger jet was lost in a fatal accident. That's unprecedented. Boeing's 787, until last week, had an impeccable record. Airbus's A320 family remains a workhorse across continents. Both companies, while battered by scandals, produce planes that are safer than any other mode of mass transport known to humanity. At Heathrow Two days after the Ahmedabad crash, I found myself at London's Heathrow airport, boarding a flight to Delhi. The airline? Air India. Was I nervous? Absolutely. But I reminded myself of math and logic. Dreamliner had completed over a billion passenger journeys without a single fatal hull loss, until Ahmedabad. One tragedy, no matter how heartbreaking, should not negate that record. So I stepped on board, settled into my seat and buckled in, not just out of habit, but out of faith in an industry that, for all its flaws, remains an astonishing modern miracle.
Middle East Eye
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
Israel and US modified F-35s to enable Iran attack without refuelling, sources say
The US and Israel altered Israel's F-35 warplanes to extend their range without the need for refuelling or compromising on stealth to help Israel's attack on Iran, Middle East Eye can reveal. The modification is secret, but two US officials speaking to MEE on condition of anonymity confirmed that Israel did not use mid-air refuelling during its Friday attack on Iran or land their warplanes for refuelling at any nearby countries. Instead, the US officials told MEE that Israel and the US modified the F-35's system to carry additional fuel that did not impact the F-35's stealth features. The Israeli designation for their version of the F-35s is called the F-35I Adir. The F-35 is the only long-range stealth fighter in the world, and its features make it difficult for radar or infrared sensors to track it. The scale of Israel's Friday attack and the surprise nature of it mean the improvement is a sea change for the F-35, the US officials told MEE. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The F-35s performance is going to be carefully studied by Middle Eastern countries looking to acquire them, as well as the US's foes, China and Russia. 'This is a game changer. Israel had our cooperation on this modification,' one US defence official told MEE, speaking on condition of anonymity. Both officials confirmed that Israel modified their F-35Is with US involvement. Exclusive: US quietly sent hundreds of Hellfire missiles to Israel before Iran attack Read More » One US official refused to share details on how the F-35 was altered to carry more fuel, but suggested an external feature was added. The second US official said that Israel attached external drop tanks to the F-35s. 'It's impressive. Period,' Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace expert at aerodynamic advisory told MEE when asked about the US officials' statements. Aboulafia said that the only option Israel had in place of not refuelling was to use drop tanks. 'The big challenge is devising the F-35s interface system with drop tanks that don't compromise stealth. Not only do you have to design the fixtures, but some sort of in-line modification has to be done. The Israelis, with our cooperation, I assume, practically did surgery on an existing jet to make this modification.' The F-35 has a publicly stated combat range of roughly 700 miles. The distance between Israel's Nevatim Airbase and Tehran is roughly 620 miles one way. If mid-air refuelling wasn't employed, then theoretically they could have used a US base in the Gulf or in Azerbaijan, but the officials MEE spoke to said land refuelling did not take place on any US bases in the region. Azerbaijan today said it would not allow its airspace or territory to be utilised for launching attacks on Iran or any other country, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov said in a call with his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araqchi. Reports have emerged in recent years that Israel was working on such a project. In 2021, Israel's Walla news reported that the Israeli Air Force was working on a drop tank for the F-35I Adirs. The report at the time said Israel could finish the modification in two years. Adding a drop tank that carries extra fuel sounds easy, but it is extremely sensitive and difficult, US officials and experts say. The F-35 contains radar-absorbent materials and its entire engineering is designed to avoid detection. Any change to the body could compromise those features. One challenge noted by The Aviationist magazine in 2021 was that once the tank was dropped it could expose other parts of the aircraft to radar because the attachment points and fuel lines would not be covered by any Radar Absorbing Material (RAM). The US officials MEE spoke with refused to share details about the F-35s closely guarded engineering.
Boston Globe
13-06-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Boeing Returns to Crisis-Mode as India Crash Poses New Test
Advertisement Boeing shares fell 2.2% at 9:48 am in New York, as the uncertainty sparked by tragedy continued to concern investors. Only one passenger out of the 242 people on board survived the accident, which once again associated the planemaker with safety concerns. Airlines around the globe meanwhile waited to to see if regulators would demand new inspections of 787 Dreamliner fleet, or even a grounding, though the cause of the crash remains unknown for now. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Follow The Big Take daily podcast wherever you listen. 'It's a classic moment of crisis management and fast response: getting out there and sending teams to understand what happened, and just being there to reassure people,' aerospace consultant Richard Aboulafia said of the initial tasks for Boeing. 'A lot of life is just showing up.' Advertisement Ortberg and Boeing commercial aircraft head Stephanie Pope spent the initial hours after the tragedy reaching out to Air India executives, 'to offer our full support,' the CEO told employees in a memo viewed by Bloomberg. The Boeing executives also scrapped plans to travel to the Paris Air Show next week, where they'd been expected to showcase Boeing's progress and unveil orders. GE Aerospace, which made the engines on the doomed Dreamliner, canceled a June 17 investor day in Paris. 'Safety is foundational to our industry and is at the core of everything that we do,' Ortberg told employees. 'Please keep the families and loved ones affected by this accident in your thoughts.' It will take investigators weeks, if not months, to sort through the evidence and pinpoint what caused the first fatal crash for Boeing's 787 Dreamliner. That's likely to keep the spotlight on Ortberg and Boeing's safety record, rather than the progress in the factories toward returning to pre-pandemic manufacturing rates. The Air India Dreamliner rolled down almost the entire length of an 11,000-foot runway before lumbering in the air, according to data from FlightRadar24. It only gained about 625 feet of altitude before sinking to the ground with its nose up, suggesting an aerodynamic stall, said aviation consultant Robert Mann. There were several puzzling aspects, including the configuration of the plane's flight surfaces and landing gear — which wasn't retracted. 'It was clearly a case where it was not accelerating and should have been obvious early enough you just reject the takeoff,' Mann said. Investigators will examine what might have caused the loss of power — whether from a bird strike, contaminated fuel, maintenance or pilot error, or some other factor. They say it's less likely the crash was related to the design and build of the 787 itself, which had been flying for Air India for more than 11 years. Advertisement Even still, for Boeing executives 'it's going to be a very tense 24 hours,' Aboulafia said. Ortberg, a low-key Midwesterner and engineer by training, came out of retirement last year to take on one of the tougher turnarounds in corporate America. Boeing was reeling from a near-catastrophe on an airborne 737 Max that spurred investigations, a crackdown by US regulators and a leadership exodus. He's kept a low public profile while preaching internally the importance of instilling a culture that emphasizes civility, respect and pride in workmanship. A working group of employees, formed to craft a statement of values, insisted on urging Boeing's workforce to 'give a damn.' Boeing customers like John Plueger, the chief executive officer of Air Lease, the largest US aircraft financier, have noticed a difference. The manufacturer's planes are arriving on time, after years of chronic delays, Plueger said in an interview last month. The company's jet factories and supply chain seem to have fewer disruptions and quality breakdowns, although they're still a concern, he said. The US planemaker even enjoyed the momentum of a record order placed by Qatar Airways during a visit by Trump, which propelled its May orders to the highest such tally in about 18 months. That momentum risks stalling as the company works to find out what role, if any, Boeing played in the crash. Follow Bloomberg India on WhatsApp for exclusive content and analysis on what billionaires, businesses and markets are doing. Sign up here. Advertisement The plane at the center of the tragedy was built during the early days of the 787 program, when Boeing was struggling with the consequences of a decision to offload much of the design and development work to suppliers in order to cut costs. The Dreamliner was the 26th to roll off Boeing's line, placing it among the 60 early aircraft that required extensive rework after they'd rolled out of Boeing's factory north of Seattle. The early turbulence of the 787 Dreamliner had faded as the carbon-composite jet settled into a mostly steady performer for carriers from ANA Holdings Inc. to United Airlines Holdings Inc. While Plueger has confidence in the company's leadership, 'Boeing is not completely out of the woods,' he said. 'It needs to consistently deliver and consistently demonstrate high quality production with no real glitches or problems or safety concerns.' --With assistance from Mary Schlangenstein. ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
LeMonde
12-06-2025
- Business
- LeMonde
Boeing faces renewed doubts after Air India 787 Dreamliner crash
The crash of Air India's Boeing 787, which was carrying 242 people and went down shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad Airport in India on Thursday, June 12, dealt another blow to the Seattle-based manufacturer. Investigations were set to begin to determine the cause of the accident. Launched in 2011, Boeing's 787 Dreamliner had never before been involved in a fatal air disaster. Yet, the aircraft's commercial debut was troubled. On January 17, 2013, the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grounded all 787s worldwide – a rare decision made after a series of battery fires, including one on a Japan Airlines flight. The 787 fleet was grounded for three months while Boeing developed a technical solution – a containment case and exhaust pipe to isolate potentially faulty lithium batteries and vent fumes. At the time, the new long-haul jet's troubles stemmed from Boeing's decision to outsource production as much as possible. In total, 70% of the aircraft was manufactured by around 50 suppliers worldwide, including 35% in Japan. When the 787 launched, critics pointed to a rushed rollout. Richard Aboulafia, an aviation and defense expert at the consulting firm Teal Group, said they were launched before the certification process had even been fully completed.
