Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 301 posts

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#31

Post by nolok »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #6
arnon wrote: post #2

Mostly, this proves that the 737 MAX isn't a valid alternative to the 757. This goes against Boeing's official stance. The A321 (and the 757) is a lot more flexible, can carry more cargo, and has better performance.

Well, the 737 MAX isn’t a valid alternative to anything while it’s grounded. Maybe the concept of the MAX being a replacement was valid but, based on Boeing’s blundering development of the plane, can you really fault anyone for avoiding it? Will the MAX fly again? Will it crash again? Will passengers trust it again? Too many unknown questions make it hard to plan ahead.

Actually, it's really not. United has already bought MAXes to replace other planes, but to replace their 757 they waited Boeing new annoncement that was supposed to be this year (except Boeing delayed it to next year a few months ago).

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#32

Post by xxpor »

rburhum wrote: post #15
arnon wrote: post #2

Mostly, this proves that the 737 MAX isn't a valid alternative to the 757. This goes against Boeing's official stance. The A321 (and the 757) is a lot more flexible, can carry more cargo, and has better performance.

It is not that. It is that regardless if the plane is "fixed" or not, many frequent travelers will refuse to fly on a 737 MAX from now on. Last year I took 73 flights. At least three of those were on a MAX. I profusely refuse to get on one of those, regardless if they are fixed or not.

Do you refuse to take a car to the airport?

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#33

Post by dbcurtis »

rburhum wrote: post #15
arnon wrote: post #2

Mostly, this proves that the 737 MAX isn't a valid alternative to the 757. This goes against Boeing's official stance. The A321 (and the 757) is a lot more flexible, can carry more cargo, and has better performance.

It is not that. It is that regardless if the plane is "fixed" or not, many frequent travelers will refuse to fly on a 737 MAX from now on. Last year I took 73 flights. At least three of those were on a MAX. I profusely refuse to get on one of those, regardless if they are fixed or not.

I have been thinking about how to implement that after the MAX starts flying again. Flight search interfaces don’t seem to filter on equipment. And of course, equipment gets changed at times, so you may book one aircraft and have a different one swapped in on the ramp. I wonder if after you have checked in, and the airline swaps in a MAX, if you can get credit for your ticket if you refuse to board a MAX? I would guess not. (Yes, I know airlines try to avoid changing equipment because it causes reseating hassle and crew scheduling hassle. But it does happen)

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#34

Post by riffraff »

wbl wrote: post #26
rsynnott wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, one option is to break up Boeing (and Airbus). They’re far too vertically integrated.

Vertical integration means fewer middlemen driving up the margin on each part.

but it may also mean far less chance to innovate production practice.

If vertical integration is always good, the ideal situation is a single producer for any kind of product and no suppliers, which doesn't seem to work too well either.

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#35

Post by rsynnott »

wbl wrote: post #26
rsynnott wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, one option is to break up Boeing (and Airbus). They’re far too vertically integrated.

Vertical integration means fewer middlemen driving up the margin on each part.

Up to a point. But when you get to the point that an industry is so vertically integrated that only one entity can viably compete, you have a monopoly.

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#36

Post by theli0nheart »

whatshisface wrote: post #29
wbl wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vertical integration means fewer middlemen driving up the margin on each part.

Efficient market theory would suggest that there is no margin in equilibrium, and what looks like margin is actually the cost of capital (which all companies, big and small, have to pay).

Economics is laughably bad at predicting real-world economic behavior.

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#37

Post by ahartmetz »

whatshisface wrote: post #27
trimbo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Airbus be different?

It's not, and it could easily have gone the other way. By not having any competition or diversification, countries expose themselves to tremendous risk: the balance of the aerospace industry rested on a coin flip and the US bet tails. Without the cronyism, we could have had many separate raffle tickets against Europe's one.

It seems like Airbus currently is different. Maybe the friction from it being very multinational prevented it from becoming like Boeing, maybe it will have its own big scandal in a month. Who knows. But currently, Airbus does look better.

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#38

Post by yingw787 »

What’s the state of mechanical engineering Software tooling / infrastructure On Linux and UNIX-like operating systems? I know Solidworks and AutoCAD are primarily Windows-based software, with proprietary data formats like .SLDPRT/.SLDASM (Solidworks Assembly) and high vendor lock-in. Why haven’t we seen greater adoption of scriptable, composable utilities (like a finite element analysis simulation) that might enable better horizontal scaling and commoditization of complements? Is it because hardware and mechengr is capital intensive already and high capex on software is justifiable? Seems to me like a first principle (software is free to copy) just waiting to be executed on.

Might make entry into otherwise moaty markets like aerospace a bit easier.

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#39

Post by Angostura »

xxpor wrote: post #32
rburhum wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not that. It is that regardless if the plane is "fixed" or not, many frequent travelers will refuse to fly on a 737 MAX from now on. Last year I took 73 flights. At least three of those were on a MAX. I profusely refuse to get on one of those, regardless if they are fixed or not.

Do you refuse to take a car to the airport?

Only the cars that are subject to mandatory recalls.

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#40

Post by magduf »

rsynnott wrote: post #35
wbl wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vertical integration means fewer middlemen driving up the margin on each part.

Up to a point. But when you get to the point that an industry is so vertically integrated that only one entity can viably compete, you have a monopoly.

There's no monopoly here, there's a duopoly. Airbus and Boeing are in fierce competition with each other. On top of that, the Chinese are entering the fray too.
Post reply on HN