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

111–120 of 301 posts

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

#111

Post by ummonk »

iguy wrote: post #108
snarf21 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And in things without a stock price, like the MTA. Isn't the second avenue subway exactly what you get when there's exactly one player in the game?

Eh, in the Bay Area we have plenty of public transportation agencies / systems (which all coordinate really poorly with each other), and none of them are great (though some are more cost-efficient than others, e.g. Caltrain vs. Bart).

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

#112

Post by thrillgore »

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.

The other is to force investment (either from them or through government) to a third vendor. Bombardier and Honda seem really interested in entering the space, and maybe Dassault can be dragged into it, but its capital intensive.

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

#113

Post by qaq »

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…

Looking at how Gazprom is buying EU politicians wholesale ...

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

#114

Post by azepoi »

DrScientist wrote: post #81

Looking at the bigger picture - I wonder if we are at 'peak' air travel - because: 1. Improved video conferencing quality and availability 2. potential future green initiatives - like adding tax to air fuel or frequent flyer taxes. Sure people will still want to travel, but might do less.

There will not be a ceiling anytime soon. Cheaper flights mean people relocate farther from family and companies take contracts for jobs in remote areas etc. People want to travel extensively. If people could teleport they would. There is a huge latent demand from developing countries too.

That is unless we get a steep carbon tax. Hopefully we will.

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

#115

Post by davidw »

hnarn wrote: post #99
socialdemocrat wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_umlaut

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

#116

Post by alexis_fr »

ahartmetz wrote: post #37
whatshisface wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Airbus scandal won’t come “in a month”: Boeing’s problems became public in 2013 and it is the same problem over and over.

- The Ducommon airframes in 2013, problem is FAA delegated certification to Boeing,

- The batteries, albeit smaller,

- The MAX, 2 crashes due to oversight and to the FAA delegating certification to Boeing.

Boeing’s problem didn’t come in a day, but in 20 years since the merge with MD, who had the same lose and fast culture. Airbus is safe for the time being, even if risks always exist, political instability for example. Not the case for the moment.

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

#117

Post by alexhutcheson »

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).

That's incorrect - you would only expect no "margin" in a perfectly competitive market, which obviously isn't the case in the market for airliners.

In markets where firms have market power, there is an explicit and well-studied phenomenon known as "double marginalization"[1][2], which is what the parent comment is describing. Vertical integration is one possible solution to this problem, although there are other approaches as well.

Double marginalization also occurs elsewhere in the air travel industry. Imagine I flew on American Airlines from Charlotte to London, and then continued on British Airways from London to Lyon. If both airlines set their prices independently, then they would both add a markup, and the combined price of the itinerary would be higher than the profit-maximizing price that a single airline would set. In this situation, antitrust authorities will often allow the airlines to form a joint venture and coordinate on price-setting. This reduces horizontal competition (because e.g. AA and BA are no longer competing with one another for passengers on JFK-LHR), but can provide consumer benefits if eliminating double marginalization allows airlines to set their prices lower on multi-airline itineraries.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_marginalization

[2] https://mru.org/courses/development-economics/double-margina...

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

#118

Post by roymurdock »

It will be interesting how Boeing/Airbus/traditional carriers react when China fully enters the market with Comac-built/branded planes. Commercial flights of its first plane, the C919 are slated for 2021. The whole 737 MAX fiasco really came at a bad time for the US aerospace industry, and if the other comments about Airbus being just as bad culture-wise are true (profits/jobs over serious engineering), then China could really be set up to take a lot of commercial aircraft market share over the coming decades.

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

#119

Post by NeedMoreTea »

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.

Hmm, not so sure, it a global habit and for each country that does it, then it goes international. Lots of other countries merge their major manufacturers, or allow them to, then - being 5x larger - find themselves powerless to avoid being bought out by their American cousins.

Has happened to countless engineering, manufacturing, chemical and tech here in Europe. I suspect it would already have happened with most of the last remaining defence players were they not defence players.

We're starting to see similar now China has risen as far as they have. Real competition is really, really unpopular in today's world.

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

#120

Post by gniv »

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.

Wouldn't the 787 also be a valid alternative (the smaller variants)?
Post reply on HN