Lufthansa Boeing 787-9 Suffers Nose Landing Gear Collapse at Frankfurt Airport

Lufthansa issued a statement confirming the incident and saying the injured employees were receiving medical attention. The company added that it and relevant authorities were investigating the cause . As of now, the exact number and severity of injuries have not been publicly detailed, though multiple reports describe them as several staff members being injured .

The Aircraft: A Nearly New Allegris Dreamliner

The jet involved, D-ABPQ, is part of Lufthansa’s small but growing fleet of Boeing 787-9s fitted with the new Allegris cabin interior, a premium product that features upgraded seats and suites across all classes . According to public tracking and aviation reporting, D-ABPQ entered long-haul commercial service with Lufthansa on February 13, 2026, meaning it had been flying for just under four months at the time of the collapse .

The Allegris cabin rollout has been a major focus for Lufthansa, though it has also been plagued by certification delays for the new business-class seats. The first Allegris-equipped 787-9, D-ABPF, was delivered in late August 2025, and only a limited number of business-class seats were initially certified . By early 2026, the airline had nine of these jets in operation, with more on the way .

The 2021 British Airways Precedent

The Frankfurt collapse is not the first time a Boeing 787 has experienced an inadvertent nose-gear retraction while parked. The most closely studied precedent occurred on June 18, 2021, when a British Airways 787-8 (G-ZBJB) suffered an almost identical event at London Heathrow Airport .

That aircraft was parked on a stand and being loaded for a cargo flight to Frankfurt. During maintenance actions to clear system messages, the nose landing gear retracted and the nose struck the ground, causing significant damage to the lower front of the fuselage. The co-pilot and a member of the cargo loading crew received minor injuries .

The UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) determined that the accident was caused by a misinserted nose landing gear downlock pin. A shorter mechanic had asked a taller colleague to insert the pin into a hole he could not reach, but the second mechanic placed it in the wrong location. When the landing gear lever was moved to the UP position during a test, the nose gear retracted because the pin was not in the correct downlock hole .

The AAIB issued a Special Bulletin warning 787 operators to review and reinforce ground-maintenance procedures to prevent a recurrence .

Manufacturing Directives and Wider Context

While the Heathrow incident was a maintenance-procedure failure, the broader 787 program has also faced manufacturing-quality issues involving landing gear components.

In 2024, the FAA adopted Airworthiness Directive 2024-18-02 for all Boeing 787 models after Boeing reported that a required fluorescent penetrant inspection had been missed during production of four main landing gear drag brace lower lock-link assemblies. The directive required operators to check records or inspect the parts and take corrective actions if affected assemblies were installed . Boeing described the oversight as a “quality escape” attributed to human error by a single technician .

It is important to note that this directive relates to the main landing gear, not the nose gear, and there is no evidence at this stage linking it to the Frankfurt event. Investigators have not indicated whether a manufacturing defect, a maintenance error, or another mechanism caused the D-ABPQ collapse.

What Comes Next

German aviation authorities, alongside Lufthansa and Boeing, will now lead the investigation. Given the damage visible in images and video of the aircraft on its nose, the repair scope is likely to be extensive. The 2021 British Airways jet suffered damage to its lower nose, nose gear doors, and engine cowlings, requiring a prolonged grounding . A similar inspection and repair timeline for D-ABPQ is plausible, though no official estimate has been provided.

For now, the cause remains unconfirmed. Until investigators release their preliminary findings, any explanation—whether related to a downlock pin, hydraulic failure, or structural fault—should be treated as speculation. What is clear is that the incident follows a pattern that has drawn regulatory attention before, and the results of this investigation will be closely watched across the industry.