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

41–50 of 301 posts

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

#41

Post by ceejayoz »

chrisseaton wrote: post #9
rootusrootus wrote: post #5

My takeaway is that Airbus and Boeing both need to make progress on their clean-sheet midsize designs. The A321XLR sounds great but it's kinda what Boeing has been doing to the 737, milking it for decades. The A320 is a newer design, for sure, but it's not young. I won't miss the 737. What I'd love to see is a twin-aisle-but-small short range aircraft. Yeah, that won't happen, but it would be comfy.

Why does the number of aisles matter to you?

It can be difficult/impossible to get to the bathroom during portions of the meal/drink service in a single aisle aircraft.

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

#42

Post by fernandotakai »

rsynnott wrote: post #11

> United’s 757 planes will reach the end of their lifespan in about a decade About a decade?! I was on one of their 757s returning to Dublin a while ago; it felt like they were already pushing the end of its lifespan. I suppose the repair of the interior doesn’t say much about the airframe...

i've used united twice this year for international (and internal us) flights and holy damn their planes are dated compared to other companies.

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

#43

Post by magduf »

rsynnott wrote: post #18
whatshisface wrote: post #7

America is going to pay for the cronyism that merged every airplane manufacturer into one and eliminated internal competition. If you don't have internal competition, you'll collapse in the face of external competition. There is no way to get away from Boeing without getting away from the American aerospace industry entirely, a problem that didn't exist back when McDonnell Douglas was around.

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

If you break both of them up too much, they may be unable to compete against a major Chinese manufacturer when it scales up.

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

#44

Post by snowwrestler »

davidhyde wrote: post #8

What is keeping Boeing's share price so stable in the wake of such catastrophic news for the company this year?

I'm sure Boeing would have loved to have those orders, but 50 planes is not catastrophic.

In terms of the aircraft group, Boeing has steadily growing 787 orders and deliveries, with about 500 orders yet to deliver.

In terms of their space program, they are close to testing their manned capsule and just got a light touch program review, while SpaceX got put through the ringer.

And there are other aspects to Boeing that I'm not familiar with, but I'm sure don't relate directly to the 737 MAX.

As for Airbus, they have had to kill their A380 program, seemingly prematurely, in the face of declining interesting and cancelled orders. So, it's not all roses on the other side of the pond either.

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

#45

Post by nawgszy »

rootusrootus wrote: post #5

My takeaway is that Airbus and Boeing both need to make progress on their clean-sheet midsize designs. The A321XLR sounds great but it's kinda what Boeing has been doing to the 737, milking it for decades. The A320 is a newer design, for sure, but it's not young. I won't miss the 737. What I'd love to see is a twin-aisle-but-small short range aircraft. Yeah, that won't happen, but it would be comfy.

I know people that don't think a new airframe will be designed in our lifetimes, and it's hard to disagree. Why is it taking so long?

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

#46

Post by magduf »

whatshisface wrote: post #24
jandrese wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That and the implicit guarantee from the government that Boeing is too big to fail.

The USG is already putting tariffs on foreign planes. We have all the downsides of nationalization without any of the benefits of collective ownership (except for the fact that Boeing is in people's retirement accounts, which is a little collective ownership). Capitalism and socialism on their own both have provisions for taking care of the elite and taking care of the average person. What we have now with these pseu…

>The USG is already putting tariffs on foreign planes.

How so? They can't put tariffs on foreign planes purchased by foreign airlines, and most of the airlines in the world are not American.

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

#47

Post by lm28469 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #41
chrisseaton wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the number of aisles matter to you?

It can be difficult/impossible to get to the bathroom during portions of the meal/drink service in a single aisle aircraft.

That's probably the least of their concerns when they design a plane though.

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

#48

Post by whatshisface »

theli0nheart wrote: post #36
whatshisface wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's too broad a statement. There are some theories in economics that work very well, like supply and demand, or arbitrage theory. The idea of the cost of capital is also a fairly well-trodden one, it is taught in business courses, used on wallstreet, and seems to work in practice.

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

#49

Post by whatshisface »

magduf wrote: post #46
whatshisface wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USG is already putting tariffs on foreign planes. We have all the downsides of nationalization without any of the benefits of collective ownership (except for the fact that Boeing is in people's retirement accounts, which is a little collective ownership). Capitalism and socialism on their own both have provisions for taking care of the elite and taking care of the average person. What we have now with these pseu…

>The USG is already putting tariffs on foreign planes. How so? They can't put tariffs on foreign planes purchased by foreign airlines, and most of the airlines in the world are not American.

They are putting tariffs on foreign planes purchased by airlines in America. It's mentioned in the last paragraph of the linked article.

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

#50

Post by mumblemumble »

dbcurtis wrote: post #33
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.

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 gue…

Seems like you could either target routes that don't fly 737s at all, just much bigger or much smaller planes. Or you could stick to carriers that don't own any 737 MAX 8's such as Amtrak and SNCF.
Post reply on HN