Can confirm that ever since Raj took over the company, more emphasis has been placed on ethnic nepotism hires and putting profits above all else, to the detriment of quality of service, performance, and reliability - all of the tenets that once made FedEx great. You may have noticed that their service has gone down the drain the last few years.

If anything good can come of this, at least it is that FedEx is looking like their pilots might finally be getting a new contract offer. They were supposed to get one more than 5 years ago, but the company dragging their feet during COVID followed by pilot disagreement on the terrible one offered a couple of years ago has prevented some pilots from getting a raise for almost a decade.

Now that 20% of their freight handling capacity is down the drain (MD-11 makes up only about 4% of the fleet but 20% of the freight capacity), some of the pilots on other airframes are finally stepping up to not carry the extra cargo load as overtime work. This is finally forcing the company's hand to come to the table and negotiate a new pilot contract.

The ethnic nepotism hires (as you label them) are happening all over the corporate landscape. If the CIO/CTO is Indian, you can expect the majority of his/her directs to be as well.

At some point there will be a reckoning (much like with DEI and reverse discrimination) but it won't stop until there is sufficient outcry from investors and/or regulators.

Couple of things.

- I brought this up previously in the thread, but we don't know how many of those 500+ "trijet pilots" are rated on other types. They are likely not all just sitting around with nothing to do, assuming a subset of them are rated on the 767 and other platforms too.

- Used freighters are always an option. Despite new 767 production ending, there are a ton of used 767 frames stored in the desert awaiting new life. This includes passenger models that can be converted for less than the cost of a new jet.

Even if a 'Trijet Pilot' has a type rating for another airframe like 767, they're not likely to be current. You have to go through recurrent training every 12 months at a minimum to maintain currency in an airframe. It would be multiple days of training, at a minimum, to get MD-11 pilots current in another airframe, if they already have that type rating. If they don't have a type rating for another airframe, then it is around a 3-month process to go through that training.

Airlines don't just have pilots swap between airframes at a moment's notice.

For example, FedEx just released a bid for their MD-11 pilot base and is having 20% of them move to another airframe like 777 or 757. The bid won't be finalized until at least the new year, and then training scheduling can start. It may take a month or two to set up the training slots, and another 3 months of training. So somebody who bids to move to the 777 might not end up flying in any real capacity until next May or so.

Suprmachjm answered your first question. Second question is not that simple. Most of those 767 frames are exhausted (Amazon bought most of the ones that had useful life in them already). No one ever built a real replacement for the type as a small widebody. There are folks trying to ramp up 777 conversions but that is a trickle today and takes a ton of man hours for all the strengthening etc. maybe 10-20 a year could be produced in the next couple years. Boeing is still delivering 2 to 3 new builds a month but has no new slots really the next two years to sell more.

I am pessimistic this lift would be replaced in the next few years if retired. They may contract out some and just enjoy higher freight rates as well, if it happens. Again, some of these frames were getting "abused" on shorter routes anyway precisely because fedex and ups have screwed around so much with fleet planning.

I've heard rumors that they might be pursuing an FAA waiver to fly them one at a time to a central location so they can all be inspected at once rather than moving the inspection equipment to them. Once this happens, they should slowly be able to trickle them back out into service.

The MD-11 is a notoriously hard aircraft to land, especially smoothly. Higher frequency of cycles from flying shorter routes = more landings = more hard landings, which could have exacerbated the fatigue issues.

nortex97 said:

---

ETA: Fedex is a total trainwreck at this point, not really directly related. Their all-Indian ethnic executive suite really is going to destroy the company, imho.
https://fdx.alpa.org/Portals/7/Documents/communications/public/2025/12/2025-12-02-mec-chair-message.html

---

Thanks for sharing that article. Good read. I wish I had a forum for publishing something like that in my business world.

And after the statement about the C-Suite, I had to go take a look:
https://www.fedex.com/en-us/about/leadership.html

I'm currently seeing that sort of thing first hand at my work.

fullback44 said:

---

Jetpilot86 said:

---

Good explanation of the physics and materials science of the accident.

---

Im no pilot and don't know much about planes other than flying commercial fairly often, but after watching the video, it seems like there should / needs to be a better way to inspect the entire engine attachment system

the guy is saying that this airplane basically was never designed for long term (long long term) use as a freight carrier that handles heavier cargos on a continual basis. thus heavy loading the lugs/brackets eventually gave way and there was no real way to check them because of their location (they were hard to look at).

So my very simple question, wouldn't or should there be a maintenance requirement where the entire engine lugs / bearings, etc. connection system must be totally replaced? seems to be a rather simple requirement to replace all of that engine connection system? I do have an engineering degree and stuff like this bothers me, maybe it is not as simple as it seems based on this type of analysis otherwise it would have been fixed already

---

The engineering behind airplanes usually designs them for a certain mission, long vs medium haul, etcetera. It is certainly possible that if you design for low cycle/day and shift to higher cycles per day, that it could cause issues. Question is if after the AA DC10, did the inspection cycles move enough to accommodate it. Unknown, but the Freight birds accumulate more cycles/per hour than its original international/long haul domestic schedule.

Planes are designed to various parameters laid out by the FAA. As things "happen" that were unanticipated in design, unfortunately potentially causing death/injury, the FAA will mandate any or all of what you mentioned above. Unfortunately, the FAA has 2 main mandates; Safety and promotion of the industry. Sometimes they conflict or one hampers the other.

nortex97 said:

---

Not terrible, but a bit dramatic/doomsdayish.

FWIW, this is when it would have been checked next:

Airplane Cycles : 21,043 (actual)
Clevis Support Inspection next due : 28,000
Pylon Aft Mount Lugs Inspection next due : 29,200

My point is that there are/were scheduled inspections of the lug mounts for fatigue cracks/signs of wear etc on the bearings. Aircraft accidents are generally a result of multiple complex failures, due to the depth of failure modes/service requirements. Metallurgical failures are quite common contributory causes, and as seems obvious was a main contributor here, but the basic design (and freighter conversion/application) really in and of itself was not a 'uniquely difficult to inspect part so they just don't do it.' Could inspection/replacement be ordered much more frequently as a result of this investigation? Sure. Supposedly, and I could be wrong on this, it takes a combined 100 or so man hours to do the full inspection (remove engine etc).

My unsolicited opinion is that Fedex/UPS are going to get real tired of paying their 577 or so trijet pilots (they are still getting full pay due to union contracts) sometime after Xmas toward Feb, and I don't think it's too likely anything like a full return to service happens next year for these 50-ish planes. There is a real shortage of cargo aircraft in this size category (Boeing 767F is ending production at end of 2027, as is the 77F due to environmental restrictions etc).

Incredibly, the only new-build freighters (Boeing has long had over a 90 percent market share) are going to be the A330F, and A350F for a bit (778F, and then a likely 787F version toward the 2030-ish timeframe), but don't feel too bad for UPS/Fedex, they had the option to buy more 767F (even a 767-400ER derivative was offered), and 747F as well but declined.

ETA: Fedex is a total trainwreck at this point, not really directly related. Their all-Indian ethnic executive suite really is going to destroy the company, imho.
https://fdx.alpa.org/Portals/7/Documents/communications/public/2025/12/2025-12-02-mec-chair-message.html

---

I'm intimately aware of what UPS has passed on in the last 2 decades choosing to wring everything they can from the conversions. The sticking point has not been the airplane CAPEX, but that the next generation of freighters all have greater wingspans than the ground infrastructure can handle without significant ground CAPEX expenditure to accommodate them. So they delay and could be at the back of the line for next generation freighters because of it.

None of the next generation freighters really fill the MD's space with the 777 being closest.

Both companies are currently operating as if the planes will be back sooner rather than later, scheduling those pilots to maintain currency on the plane vs displacement to other planes with the contractual training carnage that will result from it. How long that holds past the beginning of February is the magic question. UPS doesn't like paying us to sit around.

UPS, and do a lesser degree, FedEx will want to keep the jets, Boeing would rather convert them to new orders, and the FAA is likely to follow Boeing's lead on the remedy. Normally this might be suspicious, but Boeing might come up with an expensive enough alternative that the airlines scrap the planes, which Boeing would not mind. Messy.

akaggie05 said:

---

Couple of things.

- I brought this up previously in the thread, but we don't know how many of those 500+ "trijet pilots" are rated on other types. They are likely not all just sitting around with nothing to do, assuming a subset of them are rated on the 767 and other platforms too.

- Used freighters are always an option. Despite new 767 production ending, there are a ton of used 767 frames stored in the desert awaiting new life. This includes passenger models that can be converted for less than the cost of a new jet.

---

You cannot fly two different planes concurrently unless they share a common type rating. Various 737's, A318-321, 757/767, 747-400 & -8, but they cannot fly the older 747-100 to -300. How long you have been away from the former plane you flew determines how much retraining you have to have. I believe it's either 24 or 36 months and you have to take the complete 6-8 week course again.

Lots of pax feed stock out there, not much door conversion slotting available to quickly convert them.

There's reasons it's said the best way to make a small fortune in aviation is to start with a large fortune.

Valid points. Thx. Again the parked 767s and those that wind up retiring from dl and us are mostly exhausted at this point and not worth the conversion cost.

Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg announced a 15th victim from the UPS plane crash in Louisville has passed away. https://t.co/XbeoHhXkmW

— WAVE (@wave3news) December 26, 2025

evan_aggie said:

---

I was curious so I looked. The ceo is Indian and worked his way up through the ranks, similar to Kawal Preet. Looks like a balanced board to me?


https://www.fedex.com/en-us/about/leadership.html

---

There was a shift once the "activist" investor put 2 directors on the board.

Quote:

---

In addition, the company's governance will be influenced by activist investor D.E. Shaw as the hedge fund managed to secure two seats on the company's board of directors and reserved a say in the appointment of a third one later.
The involvement of a FedEx activist investor could add pressure on the leadership team to step up and improve the business's financial performance.

---

https://capital.com/en-int/analysis/fedex-activist-investor-fdx-stock-price-de-shaw

The other thing that will hurt is Fred's death. He was pushing back on some of the cost savings measures that were identified.

From the latest NTSB update.

Quote:

---

A preliminary review of data from the FDR showed nominal performance of the airplane and engines until about 1713:11, about 20 seconds before the end of recorded data, when the parameters from the No. 1 engine were no longer reliable (see figure 5). Shortly after 1713:11, the FDR showed that only the No. 1 engine fire parameter changed from "no fire" to "fire," and the throttle resolver angle (TRA) for the Nos. 2 and 3 engines increased. Subsequently, the speed values for the low-speed rotor (N1) and high-speed rotor (N2) for the No. 2 engine showed minor perturbations, while the N1 and N2 values for the No. 3 engine increased and remained steady until about 3 seconds before the end of recorded data. The airplane's ground speed was about 184 kts from 1713:11 until about 3 seconds before the end of recorded data at 1713:30.

With respect to the engine pylon the NTSB reported:

As indicated in the preliminary report for this investigation, airport surveillance videos that captured part of the airplane's takeoff roll showed that the left (No. 1) engine and pylon separated from the wing shortly after airplane rotation, and a fire ignited on the left engine and near the area of the left pylon wing attachment. The pylon aft mount bulkhead is an assembly composed of two independent fittings, bolted together, with lugs (forward lug and aft lug) that house a single spherical bearing assembly. The lugs from the left pylon aft mount bulkhead were found fractured, and the associated spherical bearing assembly for this location, consisting of a ball element and bearing race, was found still installed on the left wing clevis at the accident site and was exposed to the post crash fire. The spherical bearing race, which is normally one piece and housed within the lugs of the aft mount bulkhead, was found fractured into forward and aft portions.

The NTSB Materials Laboratory in Washington, DC, has subsequently examined this spherical bearing assembly. Investigators observed that the interior surface of the bearing's race had fracture surfaces that showed evidence of fatigue cracking originating around the entire circumference at the edge of the design recess groove (a design feature on the interior surface of the race). The fatigue cracking extended through the thickness of the bearing race toward the exterior surface, encompassing about 75% of the fracture surface, with the remaining fracture surface consistent with over stress failure (see figures 2 and 3). Remnant grease-like material was found within the spherical bearing assembly (that is, between the ball element and the bearing race).

---

https://avherald.com/h?article=52f5748f&opt=0

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Documents/DCA26MA024%20Investigative%20Update.pdf

The most important part (in my opinion) is not in your quote. That is the part about historical bearing outer race failures and the associated technical bulletin.

It surprises me that the industry settled on a 5-yr visual inspection looking for outer race failures. Rolling element bearing race defects and failures are generally detected reliably through vibration analysis.

Just looked at the design….this appears to be a bearing used for positioning and supporting the engine (or pylon?), rather than for any rotating machinery. I guess I can see how they may have landed on the visual inspection and safety-significance determination.

Rips Boeing a new one for having previously determined a bearing failure "would not result in a safety of flight condition".

Center engine kept going until the crash, investigators can't determine why aircraft couldn't climb after single engine separation.

Quote:

---

US investigators are still trying to understand why the UPS Boeing MD-11F involved in the fatal take-off crash at Louisville failed to climb away after shedding its left-hand engine.

After the powerplant separated from the wing, the inquiry says, flight-data recorder information reveals "minor perturbations" in the low-pressure and high-pressure spool speeds of the centre engine.

Its low-pressure rotor speed mainly varied from about 110-112% of N1, dipping momentarily to 100% a couple of times, while the high-pressure speed was around 105-110% of N2 during the aircraft's brief flight.
According to the recorder data, the right-hand engine's speeds were steadier, at around 110-112% of N1 and 107-110% of N2.

---

Weird, I was just about sure the center one had a compressor stall based on the video. Guess the NTSB won't be hiring me.