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

91–100 of 301 posts

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

#91

Post by PedroBatista »

rsynnott wrote: post #54
ahartmetz wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean, it wasn’t a safety scandal, but the A380 was a huge disaster for the company. I’d be more comfortable getting on a notional A360 than a notional 797, but both companies have self-harmed recently.

The A380 was a bet that didn't payoff, it's a bit different than Boeing's complete rotten culture of the past 20/30 years.

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

#92

Post by throw0101a »

joking wrote: post #82
CydeWeys wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It lost them money but it didn't hurt their brand. Those are great planes to fly in as a passenger, they're just not profitable in the end for Airbus. Boeing can't even keep its newest plane in the skies, and may have killed off the 737 line for good. Think another revision after the MAX is ever going to be approved?

the a400m plane has been a brand failure, it's military and on a different league than civilian planes however.

And how has the KC-46 done compared to the A330 MRTT?

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

#94

Post by isostatic »

socialdemocrat wrote: post #59
trimbo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Airbus be different?

Because Europe has not legalized corruption to the same degree as the US. Massive campaign contributions is not as common in Europe, hence large European multi-nationals likely don't have the same opportunity to change regulations to serve them. Of course they can still influence politicians by talking about all the jobs they will provide etc. Also power in Europe is not centralized the same way as it is in the US. I…

> Massive campaign contributions is not as common in Europe

Also far more complex - the political groupings in europe (EPP, ALDE, etc) are far looser organizations than the US parties, and power is spread in lots of different levels. Most Euro countries are coalitions of smaller parties too, defence in depth.

The US and UK suffer from having just two parties that from time to time get all the power. Infiltrate one party and your time will come. Infiltrate both and you're safe.

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

#95

Post by snarf21 »

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.

We pay for this all over the place and not just in planes. Look at it in communications, entertainment, social media. Stock price is valued as more important than choice for the consumer.

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

#96

Post by bhtru »

ailideex wrote: post #86
tomp wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airbus isn't focused on profit (cutting corners), it's focused on politics (i.e. providing jobs in different countries). Hopefully that would make (local) engineers more powerful...

> Airbus isn't focused on profit Why would you say that? > profit (cutting corners) Is profit the same as cutting corners?

The context of the reply is why Airbus would not encounter the same organizational faults as Boeing. The general consensus is that Boeing pursued profit over safety with respect to the MAX. & they did so by cutting corners.

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

#97

Post by divbyzer0 »

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?

$20 billion in Share buybacks. They effectively support their own share price, but this cannot go on for ever.

They increased their dividend which will also support a higher share prices, but again this can only continue for a finte period.

And as another poster mentioned: Military contracts.

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

#98

Post by DanCarvajal »

gok wrote: post #28
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.

Basically a 767-200

Got on a Delta 767-200 flight the other week and I loved it. Coach had so much room it was like sitting in first class on narrow-body. I had one of aisle seats on the side with only one row neighbor.

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

#99

Post by hnarn »

socialdemocrat wrote: post #59
trimbo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Airbus be different?

Because Europe has not legalized corruption to the same degree as the US. Massive campaign contributions is not as common in Europe, hence large European multi-nationals likely don't have the same opportunity to change regulations to serve them. Of course they can still influence politicians by talking about all the jobs they will provide etc. Also power in Europe is not centralized the same way as it is in the US. I…

> Brüssels

Please stop that. Brussels is the English name for the city and clearly that letter does not exist in English. Alternatives are "Brussel" (Dutch) and "Bruxelles" (French). The closest to what you wrote is the German "Brüssel" (no S).

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

#100

Post by whatshisface »

theli0nheart wrote: post #68
whatshisface wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can't think of a single broad economic axiom or theory that doesn't depend—wholly or in-part—on the principle of ceteris paribus, which excludes their practical application to essentially everything in real life. In a few cases, economic theories do a passable job of roughly mirroring real-world behavior, but that's the exception and not the rule.

>on the principle of ceteris paribus, which excludes their practical application to essentially everything in real life.

When a principle is violated marginally, conclusions made based on the principle are themselves violated marginally. You can't write off chemistry because relativistic effects violate the conservation of mass any more than you can write off economics because no two soup cans are identical.

Post reply on HN