Boeing Seeks FAA Waiver to Sell 35 Additional 777 Freighters Amid Certification Delays

Boeing has formally petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from upcoming emissions regulations, seeking permission to sell 35 additional 777 Freighters (777F) beyond the regulatory deadline of January 1, 2028. As reported by Reuters, the aerospace giant filed the request in December 2025, citing significant delays in the certification of its next-generation replacement aircraft.

The request highlights a critical “freighter gap” facing the U.S. manufacturer. With the successor 777-8F now delayed until at least 2029, Boeing argues that failing to grant this waiver would sever a vital supply line for global logistics and inflict billions of dollars in damage to the U.S. export economy.

The Regulatory Hurdle: The 2028 Emissions Deadline

At the center of Boeing’s petition is a carbon emissions standard adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in 2017 and subsequently enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the FAA. These regulations prohibit the production of aircraft that do not meet specific fuel-efficiency benchmarks after January 1, 2028.

According to the filing details summarized by Reuters, the current 777F, powered by older GE90 engine technology, does not meet these stricter 2028 limits. Without a waiver, Boeing would be legally barred from selling these widebody freighters to U.S. carriers or international operators adhering to FAA standards.

Boeing’s proposed solution is a capped exemption. Rather than an open-ended rollback of the rules, the company is asking for authorization to produce exactly 35 additional units of the legacy freighter to bridge the gap until the new technology is ready.

Delays and Economic Consequences

The primary driver for this request is the slippage in the timeline for the 777-8F, the modern freighter based on the 777X airframe. Originally intended to enter service before the 2028 deadline, the 777-8F has faced certification hurdles similar to the passenger variant.

According to Reuters, Boeing confirmed in October 2025 that the 777-8F entry into service (EIS) had slipped to 2029 or potentially 2030. This creates a multi-year period where Boeing would have no large freighter product to offer customers if the legacy 777F line is forced to close.

The $15 Billion Risk

Boeing’s petition leans heavily on the economic implications of a denial. The manufacturer asserts that widebody freighters are a cornerstone of U.S. trade infrastructure. Data cited in the report indicates that each 777F carries an export value of approximately $440 million.

If the FAA blocks the sale of these 35 aircraft, Boeing estimates the total economic fallout could be substantial.

“Blocking these 35 sales could cost the U.S. economy roughly $15 billion,” the report notes, citing Boeing’s projections.

Furthermore, the company argues that the global air cargo market is already facing a capacity shortage. With major carriers like FedEx and UPS retiring aging MD-11 fleets, the demand for reliable widebody lift is acute. Boeing contends that the 777F remains the most fuel-efficient option currently available until the next generation of aircraft can be delivered.

Competitive Landscape and Precedents

The request does not occur in a vacuum. In 2024, Congress granted a statutory exemption for the Boeing 767 Freighter, allowing that aircraft, which also fails the 2028 emissions standards, to remain in production through 2033. This legislative move set a significant precedent for prioritizing economic stability and logistics continuity over immediate adherence to the 2028 timeline.

However, the competitive pressure is mounting. Airbus is developing the A350F, a direct competitor that complies with the new emissions standards. While the A350F has also experienced delays, pushing its entry to the 2026/2027 timeframe, a denial of Boeing’s waiver could theoretically hand Airbus a monopoly in the large freighter segment for several years.

AirPro News Analysis

The Tension Between Climate Policy and Industrial Strategy

Boeing’s request places the FAA and the current administration in a difficult bind. On one hand, the 2028 deadline was established nearly a decade ago to force the aviation industry toward greener technology. Granting another waiver, following the 767 exemption, could be viewed by environmental groups as “backsliding” on climate commitments. Organizations like the Sierra Club have historically opposed such exemptions, arguing they undermine the efficacy of international agreements.

On the other hand, the “35 aircraft” cap is a strategic calculation by Boeing. By framing the request as a limited, temporary bridge rather than an indefinite extension, they are attempting to minimize political blowback while protecting a massive revenue stream. We believe the FAA’s decision will likely hinge on whether the administration views the risk of ceding market share to European competitors as a greater threat than the incremental emissions of 35 legacy aircraft.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does Boeing need a waiver for the 777F?

The current 777 Freighter engines do not meet international carbon emissions standards that take effect on January 1, 2028. Boeing needs a waiver to continue selling the jet until its replacement, the 777-8F, is certified.

When will the FAA make a decision?

Boeing has requested a decision by May 1, 2026, to maintain its production schedule and secure supply chain commitments.

What is the alternative to the 777F?

The direct successor is the Boeing 777-8F, but it is delayed until at least 2029. The primary competitor is the Airbus A350F, which meets emissions standards but is also not yet in service.

Has this happened before?

Yes. In 2024, the U.S. Congress granted a similar waiver for the Boeing 767 Freighter, allowing it to be produced until 2033 despite not meeting the new emissions rules.

Sources

• Reuters

This article summarizes reporting by NBC Los Angeles and Jonathan Lloyd.

Stolen Cessna 172 Crashes into Hangar at Van Nuys Airport

A security breach at Van Nuys Airports (VNY) early Thursday morning resulted in the theft and subsequent crash of a single-engine aircraft. According to reporting by NBC Los Angeles, a suspect broke into a flight school facility and attempted to commandeer a Cessna 172 before crashing the plane into a nearby hangar building. Authorities have confirmed that the aircraft never successfully became airborne.

Law enforcement officials, including the Los Angeles Airport Police (LAXPD) and the FBI, responded immediately to the scene. The suspect was taken into custody without incident, and no injuries were reported on the ground or in the aircraft. The incident has prompted a federal investigation into the security protocols at one of the world’s busiest general aviation airports.

Timeline of the Theft and Crash

The incident began in the pre-dawn hours of December 18, 2025. According to a timeline compiled from reports by NBC4 and KTLA, the suspect trespassed onto the airport grounds around 4:00 AM. The individual targeted a flight training facility located near the 7900 block of Balboa Boulevard, an area densely populated with Commercial-Aircraft academies and hangars.

The Break-in and Attempted Taxi

After gaining access to the flight school, the suspect boarded a white single-engine Cessna 172. Around 5:00 AM, the suspect attempted to operate the aircraft. NBC Los Angeles reports that the plane was stolen directly from the flight school’s ramp.

“A small plane crashed in a building at Van Nuys Airport after it was stolen from a flight school, officials tell NBC4 Investigates.”

— NBC Los Angeles

While the suspect managed to start the engine and begin taxiing, they lost control of the aircraft before reaching a runway. The plane surged forward and impacted a hangar nose-first. Aerial video footage broadcast by KTLA showed the aircraft’s nose embedded in the metal siding of the structure, leaving a distinct hole in the exterior wall. The propeller and nose cone sustained significant damage, rendering the aircraft inoperable.

Suspect and Legal Proceedings

Following the crash, LAXPD officers arrested the suspect at the scene. CBS Los Angeles and other local outlets have identified the individual as 37-year-old Ceffareno Michael Logan. He was booked on suspicion of burglary and theft of an aircraft.

According to verified reports from Patch and NTD News, bail for Logan has been set at $150,000. As of the latest updates, authorities have not disclosed a motive for the theft, nor have they confirmed whether the suspect possessed any prior flight training or a pilot’s license. The swift arrival of law enforcement prevented any further attempts to move the aircraft or flee the scene.

Investigation and Aftermath

The investigation has expanded beyond local police to include federal agencies. Both the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are on-site to assist LAXPD. Their inquiry will likely focus on how the suspect breached the perimeter and accessed the aircraft keys or ignition system.

Crews were observed later in the morning extracting the damaged Cessna from the hangar wall and towing it back to the flight academy’s facility. Despite the dramatic nature of the event, airport operations at Van Nuys were not significantly disrupted, as the crash was contained within the flight school’s specific ramp area.

AirPro News Analysis: General Aviation Security

While commercial airports operate under the strict passenger screening protocols of the TSA, general aviation (GA) airports like Van Nuys face different security challenges. VNY is a massive facility with multiple access points for Private-Jets businesses, hangars, and flight schools. This incident highlights the vulnerability of “insider” areas where aircraft are parked.

Although rare, the theft of aircraft is a known risk in the aviation industry. In 2018, a ground service agent stole a Q400 turboprop from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, a tragedy that ended in a fatal crash. Fortunately, in this instance at Van Nuys, the suspect failed to achieve flight, preventing a potentially catastrophic outcome over the densely populated San Fernando Valley. We anticipate this event will trigger a review of after-hours key storage and perimeter security standards for flight schools operating at VNY.

Sources

• NBC Los Angeles
• KTLA 5
• CBS Los Angeles
• Patch / NTD News

This article summarizes reporting by AP News.

US Government Admits Liability in Fatal Collision Between American Eagle Jet and Army Helicopter

In a significant legal development following the deadliest United States aviation accident since 2001, the U.S. government has formally admitted liability for the mid-air collision that claimed 67 lives earlier this year. According to court filings submitted in December 2025, the Department of Justice acknowledged that negligence by both Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic controllers and U.S. Army pilots caused the tragedy.

The crash, which occurred on January 29, 2025, involved American Eagle Flight 5342 and a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter operating near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA). As reported by AP News, the government’s admission comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the family of a victim, signaling a potential shift in how the remaining legal battles regarding the disaster will proceed.

Government Concedes Negligence in Court Filing

The lawsuit, filed by the family of passenger Casey Crafton, alleges that failures in communication and protocol led directly to the catastrophe. In a move that legal experts describe as unusually swift for complex aviation litigation, the government did not contest its role in the accident.

In the filing, the government stated that it:

“owed a duty of care to plaintiffs, which it breached.”

, U.S. Department of Justice filing, via AP News

By admitting liability, the government effectively removes the need for a trial to determine fault regarding its own agents (the FAA and the Army). The legal focus will likely shift toward determining the amount of damages owed to the families of the 64 people on the regional jet and the three crew members on the helicopter.

Operational Failures Behind the Crash

The collision occurred at night while the American Eagle CRJ700, operated by PSA Airlines, was on approach to DCA from Wichita, Kansas. The Black Hawk helicopter was conducting a training mission involving night vision goggles. Investigations cited by AP News and preliminary NTSB data highlight two primary causes for the disaster: air traffic control errors and pilot deviations.

FAA Controller Errors

According to the reports, the FAA controller at DCA utilized “visual separation” procedures, asking the helicopter pilots if they had the incoming jet in sight. Once the pilots confirmed they did, the controller transferred the responsibility for maintaining safe distance to the helicopter crew. Following the incident, the FAA has reportedly restricted the use of visual separation for helicopters operating in this congested airspace.

Army Pilot Deviations

The government’s admission also encompasses errors made by the Army flight crew. Investigators found that the helicopter was flying significantly higher than permitted for its specific route. While the limit for “Route 4” was 200 feet, the Black Hawk was operating between 278 and 300 feet, approximately 78 feet above the ceiling for that corridor.

Furthermore, technical discrepancies were noted in the helicopter’s equipment. The investigation revealed that the barometric altimeter may have displayed an altitude 80 to 100 feet lower than the aircraft’s actual position, potentially misleading the pilots. The use of night vision goggles was also cited as a factor that may have limited the crew’s peripheral vision and depth perception.

AirPro News Analysis

The speed at which the U.S. government admitted liability, less than a year after the incident, is notable. In many aviation disasters involving state actors, litigation can drag on for years over jurisdictional and immunity claims. We assess that this early admission is likely a strategic decision to limit the scope of discovery. By conceding fault now, the government may prevent a prolonged public trial that would expose granular, potentially sensitive details regarding military training operations and air traffic control systemic vulnerabilities in the nation’s capital.

Ongoing Legal Disputes with Airlines

While the government has accepted its share of the blame, the legal battle continues for the private carriers involved. American Airlines and its regional subsidiary, PSA Airlines, are also named defendants in the lawsuit. Both airlines have filed motions to dismiss the complaints against them, arguing that the sole responsibility lies with the government entities that controlled the airspace and the military aircraft.

Attorneys for the victims’ families, however, argue that the airlines failed to mitigate known risks associated with flying into the highly congested airspace around Washington, D.C. The outcome of these motions will determine whether the airlines must also pay damages or if the U.S. taxpayers will bear the full financial burden of the settlements.

Frequently Asked Questions

When is the final NTSB report expected?
The National Transportation Safety Board is expected to release its final report on the probable cause of the accident in early 2026.

What safety changes have been made since the crash?
The FAA has permanently closed the specific helicopter route (Route 4) involved in the crash. Additionally, regulators have prohibited the simultaneous use of certain runways at DCA during urgent helicopter missions and restricted visual separation procedures for helicopters.

How many people died in the accident?
The crash resulted in 67 total fatalities: 60 passengers and 4 crew members on the regional jet, and 3 crew members on the Army helicopter.

Sources

• AP News