aviation

new-amelia-earhart-bio-delves-into-her-unconventional-marriage

New Amelia Earhart bio delves into her unconventional marriage


more than a marriage of convenience

Author Laurie Gwen Shapiro chats with Ars about her latest book, The Aviator and the Showman.

Amelia Earhart. Credit: Public domain

Famed aviator Amelia Earhart has captured our imaginations for nearly a century, particularly her disappearance in 1937 during an attempt to become the first female pilot to circumnavigate the globe. Earhart was a complicated woman, highly skilled as a pilot yet with a tendency toward carelessness. And her marriage to a flamboyant publisher with a flair for marketing may have encouraged that carelessness and contributed to her untimely demise, according to a fascinating new book, The Aviator and the Showman: Amelia Earhart, George Putnam, and the Marriage that Made an American Icon.

Author Laurie Gwen Shapiro is a longtime Earhart fan. A documentary filmmaker and journalist, she first read about Earhart in a short biography distributed by Scholastic Books. “I got a little obsessed with her when I was younger,” Shapiro told Ars. The fascination faded as she got older and launched her own career. But she rediscovered her passion for Earhart while writing her 2018 book, The Stowaway, about a young man who stowed away on Admiral Richard Byrd‘s first voyage to Antarctica. The marketing mastermind behind the boy’s journey and his subsequent (ghost-written) memoir was publisher George Palmer Putnam, Earhart’s eventual husband.

The fact that Earhart started out as Putnam’s mistress contradicted Shapiro’s early squeaky-clean image of Earhart and drove her to delve deeper into the life of this extraordinary woman. “I was less interested in how she died than how she lived,” said Shapiro. “Was she a good pilot? Was she a good, kind person? Was this a real marriage? The mystery of Amelia Earhart is not how she died, but how she lived.”

There have been numerous Earhart biographies, but Shapiro accessed some relatively new source material, most notably a good 200 hours of tapes that had become available via the Smithsonian’s Amelia Earhart Project, including interviews with Earhart’s sister, Muriel. “I took an extra six months on my book just so that I could listen to all of them,” said Shapiro. She also scoured archival material at the University of New Hampshire concerning Putnam’s close associate, Hilton Railey; at Purdue University; and at Harvard’s Radcliffe Institute, along with numerous in-person interviews—including several with authors of prior Earhart biographies.

Shapiro’s breezy account of Earhart’s early life includes a few new details, particularly about the aviator’s relationship with an early benefactor (Shapiro calls him Earhart’s “sugar daddy”) in California: a 63-year-old billboard magnate named Thomas Humphrey Bennett Varney. Varney wanted to marry her, but she ended up accepting the proposal of a young chemical engineer from Boston, Samuel Chapman. “Amelia could have had a very different life,” said Shapiro. “She could have gone to Marblehead, Massachusetts, where [Chapman] had a house, and become part of the yacht set and she still would have had an interesting life. But I don’t think that was the life Amelia Earhart wanted, even if that meant she had a shorter life.”

Shapiro doesn’t neglect Putnam’s story, describing him as the “PT Barnum of publishing.” The family publishing company, G.P. Putnam and Sons, was founded in 1838 by his grandfather, and by the late 1920s, the ambitious young George was among several possible successors jockeying for position to replace his uncle, George Haven Putnam. He had his own ambitions, determined to bring what he viewed as a stodgy company fully into the 20th century.

Putnam published Charles Lindbergh‘s blockbuster memoir, We, in 1927 and followed that early success with a series of rather lurid adventure memoirs chronicling the exploits of “boy explorers.” The boys didn’t always survive their adventures, with one perishing from a snake bite and another drowning in a Bolivian flood. But the books were commercial successes, so Putnam kept cranking them out.

After Lindbergh’s historic crossing, Putnam was eager to tap into the public’s thirst for aviation stories. It wouldn’t be especially newsworthy to have another man make the same flight. But a woman? Putnam liked that idea, and a wealthy benefactor, steel heiress Amy Phipps Guest, provided financial support for the feat—really more of a publicity stunt, since Putnam’s plan, as always, was to publish a scintillating memoir of the journey. During the Jazz Age, newspapers routinely paid for exclusive rights to these kinds of stories in exchange for glowing coverage, per Shapiro. In this case, The New York Times did not initially want to sponsor a woman for a trans-Atlantic flight, but Putnam’s connections won them over.

Love at first sight

Earhart, then a social worker living in Boston, interviewed to be part of the three-person crew making that historic 1928 trans-Atlantic flight, and Putnam quickly spotted her potential to be his new adventure heroine. Railey later recalled that, at least for Putnam—whose marriage to Crayola heiress Dorothy Binney was floundering—it was love at first sight.

At the time, Earhart was still engaged to Chapman, and George was still married to Binney, but nonetheless, he “relentlessly pursued” Earhart. Earhart ended her engagement to Chapman in November 1928. “There’s a tape in the Smithsonian archives that talks about his wife coming in and catching them in sexual relations,” said Shapiro. “But [Binney] was having an affair, too, with a young man named George Weymouth [her son’s tutor]. This is the Jazz Age, anything goes. Amelia wanted to be able to achieve her dreams. Who are we to say a woman can’t marry a man who can give her a path to being wealthy?”

The successful 1928 flight earned Earhart the moniker “Lady Lindy.” Putnam showered his mistress with fur coats, sporty cars, and other luxurious trappings—although as her manager, he still kept 10 percent of her earnings. That life of luxury fell apart in October 1929 with the onset of the Great Depression, and Putnam found himself scrambling financially after being pushed out of the family publishing company.

Earhart and Putnam in 1931. Public domain

After his rather messy divorce from Binney, Putnam married Earhart in 1931. Earhart held decidedly unconventional views on marriage for that era: They held separate bank accounts, and she kept her maiden name, viewing the marriage as a “partnership” with “dual control,” and insisting in a letter to Putnam on their wedding day that she would not require fidelity. “I may have to keep some place where I can go to be myself, now and then, for I cannot guarantee to endure at all times the confinement of even an attractive cage,” she wrote.

Since money was tight, Putnam encouraged Earhart to go on the lecture circuit. Earhart would execute a stunt flight, write a book about it, and then go on a lecture tour. “This is an actual marriage,” said Shapiro. “It might have started out more romantically, but at a certain point, they needed each other in a partnership to survive. We don’t have fairy tale connections. Sometimes we have a hot romance that turns into a partnership and then cycles back into intense closeness and mental separation. I think that was the case with Amelia and George.”

Then came Earhart’s fateful final fight. The night before her scheduled departure, a nervous Earhart wanted to wait, but Putnam already had plans in the works for yet another flight, financed through sponsorship deals. And he wanted to get the resulting book about the current pending flight out in time for Christmas. He convinced her to take off as planned. Her navigator, Fred Noonan, was good at his job, but he was a heavy drinker, so he came cheap. That decision was one of several that would prove costly.

Shapiro describes this flight as being “plagued with mechanical issues from the start, underprepared and over-hyped, a feat of marketing more than a feat of engineering.” And she does not absolve Earhart from blame. “She refused to learn Morse code,” said Shapiro. “She refused to hear that trying to land on Howland Island was almost a suicide mission. It’s almost certain that she ran out of gas. Amelia was a very good person, a decent flyer, and beyond brave. She brought up women and championed feminism when other technically more gifted women pilots were going for solo records and had no time for their peers. She aided the aviation industry during the Great Depression as a likable ambassador of the air.”

However, Shapiro believes that Earhart’s marriage to Putnam amplified her incautious impulses, with tragic consequences on her final flight. “Is it George’s fault, or is it Amelia’s fault? I don’t think that’s fair to say,” she said. In many ways, the two complemented each other. Like Putnam, Earhart had great ambition, and her marriage to Putnam enabled her to achieve her goals.

The flip side is that they also brought out each other’s less positive attributes. “They were both aware of the risks involved in what they were doing,” Shapiro said. “But I also tried to show that there was a pattern of both of them taking extraordinary risks without really worrying about critical details. Yes, there is tremendous bravery in [undertaking] all these flights, but bravery is not always enough when charisma trumps caution—and when the showman insists the show must go on.”

Photo of Jennifer Ouellette

Jennifer is a senior writer at Ars Technica with a particular focus on where science meets culture, covering everything from physics and related interdisciplinary topics to her favorite films and TV series. Jennifer lives in Baltimore with her spouse, physicist Sean M. Carroll, and their two cats, Ariel and Caliban.

New Amelia Earhart bio delves into her unconventional marriage Read More »

get-into-the-cockpit-as-new-crop-of-“top-gun”-pilots-get-their-wings

Get into the cockpit as new crop of “Top Gun” pilots get their wings


NatGeo’s new documentary series, Top Guns: The Next Generation, shows the sweat behind the spectacle.

Credit: National Geographic

The blockbuster success of the 1986 film Top Gun—chronicling the paths of young naval aviators as they go through the grueling US Navy’s Fighter Weapons School (aka the titular Top Gun)—spawned more than just a successful multimedia franchise. It has also been credited with inspiring future generations of fighter pilots. National Geographic takes viewers behind the scenes to see the process play out for real, with its new documentary series, Top Guns: The Next Generation.

Each episode focuses on a specific aspect of the training, following a handful of students from the Navy and Marines through the highs and lows of their training. That includes practicing dive bombs at break-neck speeds; successfully landing on an aircraft carrier by “catching the wire”; learning the most effective offensive and defensive maneuvers in dogfighting; and, finally, engaging in a freestyle dogfight against a seasoned instructor to complete the program and (hopefully) earn their golden wings. NatGeo was granted unprecedented access, even using in-cockpit cameras to capture the pulse-pounding action of being in the air, as well as capturing behind-the-scenes candid moments.

How does reality stack up against its famous Hollywood depiction? “I think there is a lot of similarity,” Capt. Juston “Poker” Kuch, who oversees all training and operations at NAS Meridian, told Ars. “The execution portion of the mission gets focused in the movie so it is all about the flight and the dogfighting and dropping the bombs. What they don’t see is the countless hours of preparation that go into the mission, all the years and years of training that it took to get there. You see the battle scenes in Top Gun and you’re inspired, but there’s a lot of time and effort that goes in to get an individual to that point. It doesn’t make for good movies, I guess.”

Kuch went through the program himself, arriving one week before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. He describes the program as being deliberately designed to overwhelm students with information and push them to their limits. “We give them more information, more data than they can possibly process,” said Kuch. “And we give it to them in a volume and speed that they are not going to be capable of handling. But it’s incumbent on them to develop that processing ability to figure out what is the important piece of information [or] data. What do I need to do to keep my aircraft flying, keep my nose pointed in the right direction?”

Ars caught up with Kuch to learn more.

Essential skills

A crew member holds an inert dummy bomb for the camera. National Geographic/Dan Di Martino

Ars Technica: How has the Top Gun training program changed since you went through it?

Juston Koch: It’s still the same hangar that I was in 25 years ago, and the platforms are a little bit different. One of the bigger changes is we do more in the simulator now. The simulators that I went through are now what the students use to train on their own without any instructors, because we now have much newer, nicer, and more capable simulators.

The thing that simulators let us do is they let us pause. When you’re on flight, there’s no pause button, and so you’ve got to do the entire event. A lot of times when there’s learning moments, we’ll try to provide a little bit of debrief in real-time. But the aircraft is still going 400 miles an hour, and you’re on to the next portion of the mission, so it’s tough to really kind of drill down into some of the debrief points. That doesn’t happen in the simulator. You pause it, you can spend five minutes to talk about what just happened, and then set them back up to go ahead and see it again. So you get a lot more sets and reps working through the simulator. So that’s probably one of the bigger differences from when I went through, is just the quality and capability of the simulators.

Ars Technica: Let’s talk about those G forces, particularly the impact on the human body and what pilots can do to offset those effects.

Juston Koch: The G-force that they experienced in their first phase of training is about 2 to 3 Gs, maybe 4 Gs. On the next platform we’ll go up to 6.5  to 7 Gs. Then they’ll continue on to their next platform which gets up to 7.5 Gs. It’s a gradual increase of G-force over time, and they’re training the body to respond. There’s a natural response that your body provides. As blood is draining from your head down to your lower extremities, your body is going to help push it back up. But we have a G-suit, which is an inflatable bladder that is wrapped around our legs and our stomach, and it basically constricts us, our legs, and tries to prevent the blood from going down to the lower extremities. But you have to help that G-suit along by straining your muscles. It’s called the anti-G straining maneuver.

That is part of developing that habit pattern. We do a lot of training with a physiologist [who] spends a lot of time in the ground school portion of training to talk to them about the effects of G-force, how they can physically prepare through physical fitness activities, hitting the gym as they are going through the syllabus. Diet and sleep kind of go along with those to help make sure that they’re at peak performance. We use the phrase, “You got to be an athlete.” Much like an athlete gets a good night’s sleep, has good nutrition to go along with their physical fitness, that’s what we stress to get them at peak performance for pulling Gs.

Learning to dogfight

Capt. Juston “Poker” Kuch during a debriefing. National Geographic

Ars Technica: Those G forces can stress the aircraft, too; I noted a great deal of focus on ensuring students stay within the required threshold.

Juston Kuch: Yes, the engineers have figured out the acceptable level of threshold for Gs. Over time, if the aircraft stays under it, the airframe is going to hold up just fine. But if it’s above it to a certain degree, we have to do inspections. Depending on how much of an overstress [there is], an invasive level of inspection might be required. The last thing we want to do is put an aircraft in the air that has suffered fatigue of a part because of overstress, because that part is now more prone to failing.

Ars Technica: There is a memorable moment where a student admits to being a little scared on his first bombing dive, despite extensive simulator training. How do you help students make the switch from simulations to reality?

Juston Kuch: That’s why we do a mixture of both. The simulator is to help them develop that scan pattern of where to look, what are the important pieces of information at the right time. As they get into the aircraft the first time and they roll in, it’s a natural tendency to look outside at the world getting very big at you or the mountains off in the distance. But you need to take a breath and come back into that scan pattern that you developed in the simulator on what to look for where. It’s very similar as we go to the aircraft carrier. If you go to the aircraft carrier and you’re looking at the boat, or looking at the rest of the ship, you’re probably not doing well. You need to focus on the lens out there in the lineup.

It’s constant corrections that you’re doing. It is very much an eye scan. You have to be looking at certain things. Where is your lead indicator coming from? If you wait for the airspeed to fall off, it’s probably a little bit too late to tell you that you’re underpowered. You need to look for some of the other cues that you have available to you. That’s why there’s so many different sensors and systems and numbers. We’re teaching them not to look at one number, but to look at a handful of numbers and extrapolate what that means for their energy state and their aircraft position.

Ars Technica: All the featured candidates were quite different in many ways, which is a good thing. As one instructor says in the series, they can’t all be “Mavericks.” But are there particular qualities that you find in most successful candidates?

Juston Kuch: The individual personality, whether they’re extroverts, introverts, quiet, are varied. But there is a common thread through all of them: dedication to mission, hard work, willing to take failure and setbacks on board, and get better for the next evolution. That trait is with everybody that I see go through successfully. I never see somebody fail and just say, “Oh, I’m never going to get this. I’m going to quit and go home.” If they do that, they don’t finish the program. So the personalities are different but the core motivations and attributes are there for all naval aviators.

Getting their wings

Ars Technica: I was particularly struck by the importance of resilience in the successful candidates.

Juston Kuch: That is probably one of the key ingredients to our training syllabus. We want the students to be stressed. We want to place demands on them. We want them to fail at certain times. We expect that they are going to fail at certain times. We do this in an incredibly safe environment. There are multiple protocols in place so that nobody is going to get hurt in that training evolution. But we want them to experience that, because it’s about learning and growing. If you fall down eight times, you get back up eight times.

It’s not that you are going to get it right the first time. It’s that you are going to continue to work to get to the right answer or get to the right level of performance. So resiliency is key, and that’s what combat is about, too, to a certain degree. The enemy is going to do something that you’re not expecting. There is the potential that there will be damage or other challenges that the enemy is going to impact on you. What do you do from there? How do you pick yourself up and your team up and continue to move on?

Ars Technica: What do you see for the future of the program as technology continues to develop?

Juston Kuch: I think just continuing to develop our simulator devices, our mixed-reality devices, which are getting better and better. And also the ability to apply that to a debrief. We do a great job in the preparation and the execution for the flights. Right now we evaluate students with an instructor in the back taking notes in real time, then bringing those notes for the debrief. We have some metrics we can download from the planes, as well as tapes. But to be able to automate that over time, particularly in the simulators, is where the real value added lies—where students go into the simulations, execute the profile, and the system provides a real-time debriefing critique. It would give them another opportunity to have a learning evolution as they get to relive the entire evolution and pick apart the portions of the flight that they need to work on.

Top Guns: The Next Generation premieres on National Geographic on September 16, 2025, and will be available for streaming on Disney+ the next day.

Photo of Jennifer Ouellette

Jennifer is a senior writer at Ars Technica with a particular focus on where science meets culture, covering everything from physics and related interdisciplinary topics to her favorite films and TV series. Jennifer lives in Baltimore with her spouse, physicist Sean M. Carroll, and their two cats, Ariel and Caliban.

Get into the cockpit as new crop of “Top Gun” pilots get their wings Read More »

us-air-traffic-control-still-runs-on-windows-95-and-floppy-disks

US air traffic control still runs on Windows 95 and floppy disks

On Wednesday, acting FAA Administrator Chris Rocheleau told the House Appropriations Committee that the Federal Aviation Administration plans to replace its aging air traffic control systems, which still rely on floppy disks and Windows 95 computers, Tom’s Hardware reports. The agency has issued a Request For Information to gather proposals from companies willing to tackle the massive infrastructure overhaul.

“The whole idea is to replace the system. No more floppy disks or paper strips,” Rocheleau said during the committee hearing. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy called the project “the most important infrastructure project that we’ve had in this country for decades,” describing it as a bipartisan priority.

Most air traffic control towers and facilities across the US currently operate with technology that seems frozen in the 20th century, although that isn’t necessarily a bad thing—when it works. Some controllers currently use paper strips to track aircraft movements and transfer data between systems using floppy disks, while their computers run Microsoft’s Windows 95 operating system, which launched in 1995.

A pile of floppy disks

Credit: Getty

As Tom’s Hardware notes, modernization of the system is broadly popular. Sheldon Jacobson, a University of Illinois professor who has studied risks in aviation, says that the system works remarkably well as is but that an upgrade is still critical, according to NPR. The aviation industry coalition Modern Skies has been pushing for ATC modernization and recently released an advertisement highlighting the outdated technology.

While the vintage systems may have inadvertently protected air traffic control from widespread outages like the CrowdStrike incident that disrupted modern computer systems globally in 2024, agency officials say 51 of the FAA’s 138 systems are unsustainable due to outdated functionality and a lack of spare parts.

The FAA isn’t alone in clinging to floppy disk technology. San Francisco’s train control system still runs on DOS loaded from 5.25-inch floppy disks, with upgrades not expected until 2030 due to budget constraints. Japan has also struggled in recent years to modernize government record systems that use floppy disks.

If it ain’t broke? (Or maybe it is broke)

Modernizing the air traffic control system presents engineering challenges that extend far beyond simply installing newer computers. Unlike typical IT upgrades, ATC systems must maintain continuous 24/7 operation, because shutting down facilities for maintenance could compromise aviation safety.

US air traffic control still runs on Windows 95 and floppy disks Read More »

are-boeing’s-problems-beyond-fixable?

Are Boeing’s problems beyond fixable?


A new CEO promises a culture change as the aerospace titan is struggling hard.

A Boeing logo on the exterior of the company's headquarters.

Credit: Getty Images | Olivier Douliery

As Boeing’s latest chief executive, Kelly Ortberg’s job was never going to be easy. On Wednesday, it got harder still.

That morning, Ortberg had faced investors for the first time, telling them that ending a debilitating strike by Boeing’s largest union was the first step to stabilizing the plane maker’s business.

But as the day wore on, it became clear that nearly two-thirds of the union members who voted on the company’s latest contract offer had rejected it. The six-week strike goes on, costing Boeing an estimated $50 million a day, pushing back the day it can resume production of most aircraft and further stressing its supply chain.

The company that virtually created modern commercial aviation has spent the better part of five years in chaos, stemming from fatal crashes, a worldwide grounding, a guilty plea to a criminal charge, a pandemic that halted global air travel, a piece breaking off a plane in mid-flight and now a strike. Boeing’s finances look increasingly fragile and its reputation has been battered.

Bank of America analyst Ron Epstein says Boeing is a titan in a crisis largely of its own making, comparing it to the Hydra of Greek mythology: “For every problem that’s come to a head, then [been] severed, more problems sprout up.”

Resolving Boeing’s crisis is critical to the future of commercial air travel, as most commercial passenger aircraft are made by it or its European rival Airbus, which has little capacity for new customers until the 2030s.

Ortberg, a 64-year-old Midwesterner who took the top job three months ago, says his mission is “pretty straightforward—turn this big ship in the right direction and restore Boeing to the leadership position that we all know and want.”

Resolving the machinists’ strike is just the start of the challenges he faces. He needs to motivate the workforce, even as 33,000 are on strike and 17,000 face redundancy under a cost-cutting initiative.

He must persuade investors to support an equity raise in an industry where the returns could take years to materialize. He needs to fix Boeing’s quality control and manufacturing issues, and placate its increasingly frustrated customers, who have had to rejig their schedules and cut flights owing to delays in plane deliveries.

“I’ve never seen anything like it in our industry, to be honest. I’ve been around 30 years,” Carsten Spohr, chief executive of German flag carrier Lufthansa, said this month.

Eventually, Boeing needs to launch a new aircraft model to better compete with Airbus.

“If Kelly fixes this, he is a hero,” says Melius Research analyst Rob Spingarn. “But it’s very complex. There’s a lot of different things to fix.”

Ortberg started his career as a mechanical engineer and went on to run Rockwell Collins, an avionics supplier to Boeing, until it was sold to engineering conglomerate United Technologies in 2018.

His engineering background has been welcomed by many who regard previous executives’ emphasis on shareholder returns as the root cause of many of Boeing’s engineering and manufacturing problems.

Longtime employees often peg the shift in Boeing’s culture to its 1997 merger with rival McDonnell Douglas. Phil Condit and Harry Stonecipher, who ran Boeing in the late 1990s and early 2000s, were admirers of Jack Welch, the General Electric chief executive known for financial engineering and ruthless cost cuts.

Condit even moved Boeing’s headquarters from its manufacturing base in Seattle to Chicago in 2001, so the “corporate center” would no longer be “drawn into day-to-day business operations.”

Jim McNerney, another Welch acolyte, instituted a program to boost Boeing’s profits by squeezing its suppliers during his decade in charge. He remarked on a 2014 earnings call about employees “cowering” before him, a dark quip still cited a decade later to explain Boeing’s tense relationship with its workers.

Ken Ogren, a member of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District 751, says managers at Boeing often felt pressured to move planes quickly through the factory.

“We’ve had a lot of bean counters come through, and I’m going to be in the majority with a lot of people who believe they’ve been tripping over dollars to save pennies,” he says.

Dennis Muilenburg headed the company in October 2018, when a new 737 Max crashed off the coast of Indonesia. Five months later, another Max crashed shortly after take-off in Ethiopia. In total, 346 people lost their lives.

Regulators worldwide grounded the plane—a cash cow and a vital product in Boeing’s competition with Airbus—for nearly two years. Investigations eventually showed a faulty sensor triggered an anti-stall system, repeatedly forcing the aircraft’s nose downward.

Boeing agreed in July to plead guilty to a criminal charge of fraud for misleading regulators about the plane’s design. Families of the crash victims are opposing the plea deal, which is before a federal judge for approval.

The manufacturer’s problems were compounded by COVID-19, which grounded aircraft worldwide and led many airlines to hold off placing new orders and pause deliveries of existing ones. Boeing’s debt ballooned as it issued $25 billion in bonds to see it through the crisis.

Regulators cleared the 737 Max to fly again, starting in November 2020. But hopes that Boeing was finally on top of its problems were shattered last January, when a door panel that was missing bolts blew off an Alaska Airlines jet at 16,000 feet.

While no one was injured, the incident triggered multiple investigations and an audit by the US Federal Aviation Administration, which found lapses in Boeing’s manufacturing and quality assurance processes and led to an uncomfortable appearance by then chief executive Dave Calhoun at a Senate subcommittee hearing.

The company also has struggled with its defense and space businesses. Fixed-price contracts on several military programs have resulted in losses and billions of dollars of one-off charges. Meanwhile, problems with its CST-100 Starliner spacecraft resulted in two astronauts being left on the International Space Station. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon vehicle will be used to return them to Earth early next year.

Boeing’s stumbles have resulted in loss of life, loss of prestige, and a net financial loss every year since 2019. On Wednesday, it reported a $6 billion loss between July and September, the second-worst quarterly result in its history.

One of Ortberg’s first big moves as chief executive was to move himself—from his Florida home to a house in Seattle. He told analysts that Boeing’s executives “need to be on the factory floors, in the back shops, and in our engineering labs” to be more in tune with the company’s products and workforce. Change in Boeing’s corporate culture must “be more than the poster on the wall,” he added.

His approach represents a shift from his predecessor Calhoun, who was criticized for spending more time in New Hampshire and South Carolina than in Boeing’s factories in Washington state.

Bill George, former chief executive at Medtronic and an executive fellow at Harvard Business School, says Ortberg is doing a “terrific job” so far, particularly for moving to the Pacific Northwest and pressuring other itinerant executives to follow.

“If you’re based in Florida, and you come occasionally, what do you really know about what’s going on in the business?” he says, adding that Boeing has “no business being in Arlington, Virginia,” where the company moved its headquarters in 2022.

Scott Kirby, chief executive at one of Boeing’s biggest customers, United Airlines, told his own investors this month that he was “encouraged” by Ortberg’s early moves, adding that the company suffered for decades from “a cultural challenge, where they focused on short-term profitability and the short-term stock price at the expense of what made Boeing great, which is building great products.”

“Kelly Ortberg is pivoting the company back to their roots,” he said. “All the employees of Boeing will rally around that.”

But Ogren of the machinists’ union cautions that previous commitments to culture change have been hollow. “You’ve got people at the top saying, ‘We’ve got to be safe, oh, and by the way, we need these planes out the door…’ They said the right thing. They didn’t emphasize it, and that’s not what they put pressure on the managers to achieve.”

When workers eventually return to work—Peter Arment, an analyst at Baird, expects the dispute to be resolved in November—Ortberg wants better execution, even if it means lower output. “It is so much more important we do this right than fast,” he said.

The company had planned to raise Max output from about 25 per month before the strike to 38 per month by the end of the year, a cap set by the FAA. It will not reach that goal and Spingarn, the Melius analyst, says the strike will probably delay any production increase by nine months to a year. Some workers would need retraining, Ortberg said, and the supply chain’s restart was likely to be “bumpy.” The manufacturer also has established a quality plan with the FAA that it must follow.

Boeing also needed to launch a new airplane “at the right time in the future,” Ortberg said. Epstein of BofA called this “one of the most important messages” from the new chief executive, likely “to reinvigorate the workforce and culture at Boeing.”

In the meantime, Boeing will continue to consume cash in 2025, having burnt through $10 billion so far this year, according to chief financial officer Brian West. Spingarn says that investors may be disappointed in the cash flow at first, but adds that “fixing airplanes isn’t one year, it’s three years.”

For all the challenges, Ortberg has the right personality to turn Boeing around, says Ken Herbert, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets.

“If he can’t do it, I don’t think anyone can.”

© 2024 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way.

Are Boeing’s problems beyond fixable? Read More »

natgeo-documents-salvage-of-tuskegee-airman’s-lost-wwii-plane-wreckage

NatGeo documents salvage of Tuskegee Airman’s lost WWII plane wreckage

Remembering a hero this Juneteenth —

The Real Red Tails investigates the fatal crash of 2nd Lt. Frank Moody in 1944.

Michigan's State Maritime Archaeologist Wayne R. Lusardi takes notes underwater at the wreckage.

Enlarge / Michigan’s State Maritime Archaeologist Wayne R. Lusardi takes notes underwater at the Lake Huron WWII wreckage of 2nd Lt. Frank Moody’s P-39 Airacobra. Moody, one of the famed Tuskagee Airmen, fatally crashed in 1944.

National Geographic

In April 1944, a pilot with the Tuskegee Airmen, Second Lieutenant Frank Moody, was on a routine training mission when his plane malfunctioned. Moody lost control of the aircraft and plunged to his death in the chilly waters of Lake Huron. His body was recovered two months later, but the airplane was left at the bottom of the lake—until now. Over the last few years, a team of divers working with the Tuskegee Airmen National Historical Museum in Detroit has been diligently recovering the various parts of Moody’s plane to determine what caused the pilot’s fatal crash.

That painstaking process is the centerpiece of The Real Red Tails, a new documentary from National Geographic narrated by Sheryl Lee Ralph (Abbot Elementary). The documentary features interviews with the underwater archaeologists working to recover the plane, as well as firsthand accounts from Moody’s fellow airmen and stunning underwater footage from the wreck itself.

The Tuskegee Airmen were the first Black military pilots in the US Armed Forces and helped pave the way for the desegregation of the military. The men painted the tails of their P-47 planes red, earning them the nickname the Red Tails. (They initially flew Bell P-39 Airacobras like Moody’s downed plane, and later flew P-51 Mustangs.) It was then-First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt who helped tip popular opinion in favor of the fledgling unit when she flew with the Airmen’s chief instructor, C. Alfred Anderson, in March 1941. The Airmen earned praise for their skill and bravery in combat during World War II, with members being awarded three Distinguished Unit Citations, 96 Distinguished Flying Crosses, 14 Bronze Stars, 60 Purple Hearts, and at least one Silver Star.

  • 2nd Lt. Frank Moody’s official military portrait.

    National Archives and Records Administration

  • Tuskegee Airman Lt. Col. (Ret.) Harry T. Stewart.

    National Geographic/Rob Lyall

  • Stewart’s official portrait as a US Army Air Force pilot.

    National Archives and Records Administration

  • Tuskegee Airman Lt. Col. (Ret.) James H. Harvey.

    National Geographic/Rob Lyall

  • Harvey’s official portrait as a US Army Air Force pilot.

    National Archives and Records Administration

  • Stewart and Harvey (second and third, l-r).

    James Harvey

  • Stewart stands next to a restored WWII Mustang airplane at the Tuskegee Airmen National Museum in Detroit.

    National Geographic/Rob Lyall

A father-and-son team, David and Drew Losinski, discovered the wreckage of Moody’s plane in 2014 during cleanup efforts for a sunken barge. They saw what looked like a car door lying on the lake bed that turned out to be a door from a WWII-era P-39. The red paint on the tail proved it had been flown by a “Red Tail” and it was eventually identified as Moody’s plane. The Losinskis then joined forces with Wayne Lusardi, Michigan’s state maritime archaeologist, to explore the remarkably well-preserved wreckage. More than 600 pieces have been recovered thus far, including the engine, the propeller, the gearbox, machine guns, and the main 37mm cannon.

Ars caught up with Lusardi to learn more about this fascinating ongoing project.

Ars Technica: The area where Moody’s plane was found is known as Shipwreck Alley. Why have there been so many wrecks—of both ships and airplanes—in that region?

Wayne Lusardi: Well, the Great Lakes are big, and if you haven’t been on them, people don’t really understand they’re literally inland seas. Consequently, there has been a lot of maritime commerce on the lakes for hundreds of years. Wherever there’s lots of ships, there’s usually lots of accidents. It’s just the way it goes. What we have in the Great Lakes, especially around some places in Michigan, are really bad navigation hazards: hidden reefs, rock piles that are just below the surface that are miles offshore and right near the shipping lanes, and they often catch ships. We have bad storms that crop up immediately. We have very chaotic seas. All of those combined to take out lots of historic vessels. In Michigan alone, there are about 1,500 shipwrecks; in the Great Lakes, maybe close to 10,000 or so.

One of the biggest causes of airplanes getting lost offshore here is fog. Especially before they had good navigation systems, pilots got lost in the fog and sometimes crashed into the lake or just went missing altogether. There are also thunderstorms, weather conditions that impact air flight here, and a lot of ice and snow storms.

Just like commercial shipping, the aviation heritage of the Great Lakes is extensive; a lot of the bigger cities on the Eastern Seaboard extend into the Great Lakes. It’s no surprise that they populated the waterfront, the shorelines first, and in the early part of the 20th century, started connecting them through aviation. The military included the Great Lakes in their training regimes because during World War I, the conditions that you would encounter in the Great Lakes, like flying over big bodies of water, or going into remote areas to strafe or to bomb, mimicked what pilots would see in the European theater during the first World War. When Selfridge Field near Detroit was developed by the Army Air Corps in 1917, it was the farthest northern military air base in the United States, and it trained pilots to fly in all-weather conditions to prepare them for Europe.

NatGeo documents salvage of Tuskegee Airman’s lost WWII plane wreckage Read More »