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

141–150 of 301 posts

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

#141

Post by ves »

ummonk wrote: post #111
iguy wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

None of them compete, effectively, since they’re in different coverage areas.

Except for bart, basically. And I certainly treat bart and MUNI as competitive products for commuting to work, although it doesn’t feel like MUNI does...

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

#142

Post by ChaosDegenerate »

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…

It is funny how you think there is no corruption in Brussels. Of course it is there! The rules of the game are though that we don't touch our own Corporations. So Brussels will look the other way when VW cheats their customers in the US and Washington won't care when let's say Google has its way in EU. The real difference is that corruption is somehow legalized in the USA (a.k.a "lobbying") while it's not in the EU, so you will just not know about VW CEO hadling bags of money to Brussels unelected environnmental commissar.

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

#143

Post by igravious »

adventured wrote: post #128
roymurdock wrote: post #118

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 co…

What happens in that case is simple and obvious: the existing global trade barriers and protectionism will get worse. The US will move to lock Airbus and China out of its massive, wildly profitable domestic airline market through protectionism. Which is exactly what China is guaranteed to do, either directly or indirectly, as it pushes its own airplane manufacturing efforts to the forefront in the pursuit of its econ…

The world was divided into two economic spheres during the Cold War.

The difference now with that China is that though some would say that China is capitalist in name only (and they wouldn't be completely inaccurate) it is part of the WTO and thus part of the global capitalist system to some extent. Consider for a moment that exports account for a greater % of its GDP than does the US.

Arguably China is much more like Japan of the 80s and Korea of the 90s than the soviets of the 50s.

Now, if you look at the parts going into the Comac C919, a huge proportion of the parts are non-Chinese: https://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/2092656/chin...

Basically the tail, wings, radar cover, fuselage, interior, and assembly is Chinese – everything else is US and EU. (The C929 being co-developed with Russia has a greater percentage of parts home-made – this is exactly how China is ramping up its aircraft carrier development, methodically and incrementally bringing more and more expertise onshore).

Buying the C919 when it hits mass production will be like buying a very familiar but cheaper Airbus or Boeing equivalent. Neither Japan nor Korea nor Russia have ever managed to pull this off.

Who knows what will happen. Time will tell. Looking to the Soviet past is not a good indicator of what is coming down the pike imho.

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

#144

Post by gumby »

adventured wrote: post #128
roymurdock wrote: post #118

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 co…

What happens in that case is simple and obvious: the existing global trade barriers and protectionism will get worse. The US will move to lock Airbus and China out of its massive, wildly profitable domestic airline market through protectionism. Which is exactly what China is guaranteed to do, either directly or indirectly, as it pushes its own airplane manufacturing efforts to the forefront in the pursuit of its econ…

Well TBF the soviet planes always looked scary even on the ground and my experiences as a passenger on them were not reassuring either. I don't expect the same of 21st century Chinese aircraft.*

In addition the US and EU may short-sightedly try to protect their aircraft manufacturers but US+EU are less than 45% of world GDP. Plenty of people will be perfectly satisfied with a Chinese plane when their only choices are all foreign manufacturers.

* This isn't to say I want to be first -- I typically wait a few years before flying with a new model, though it's hardly a perfect heuristic: I had no idea the 737-Max wasn't really just another 737.

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

#145

Post by starfallg »

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.

A large part of the problem with Boeing is McDonnell Douglas. After the merger, the corporate culture of McDonnell Douglas was transplanted into Boeing. Their HQ was moved from Seattle to Chicago and money was spent on buying back stock instead of long-term R&D.

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

#146

Post by Joeri »

ummonk wrote: post #111
iguy wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

But do they actually compete? Whenever I see privatized public transport it seems the systems cover different areas and in practice you either have only one real option or you have to pay for all options, neither of which leads to actual competition.

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

#147

Post by gumby »

Aloha wrote: post #125
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.

This has very little to do with that. McDonnel Douglass had no equivalent to the 757 really either. (The MD-11 was a suitable replacement for the 767, if you wanted a 3-hole aircraft) I'm absolutely certain that if Boeing was making a 757NG like aircraft, United would have bought those. When it comes down to it, Boeing has no direct replacement for the 757. Airbus does, so United bought airbus.

But I feel the consolidation, and the overweight in the result of military purchases, led to Boeing permitting such a hole in their commercial lineup.

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

#148

Post by mrpippy »

FabHK wrote: post #136
MichaelApproved wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It just occurred to me that Boeing has been quite successful with branding ("Dreamliner", "MAX"), but maybe wishes it hadn't been... Everyone now knows that MAX is bad, but how many people can tell the difference between a 737-8 and a 737-800?

Boeing still may rebrand the plane and stop calling it the MAX, as you say it was only ever a marketing name. The plane is certified as the “737-8”, “737-9”, etc.

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

#150

Post by gumby »

ChaosDegenerate wrote: post #142
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…

It is funny how you think there is no corruption in Brussels. Of course it is there! The rules of the game are though that we don't touch our own Corporations. So Brussels will look the other way when VW cheats their customers in the US and Washington won't care when let's say Google has its way in EU. The real difference is that corruption is somehow legalized in the USA (a.k.a "lobbying") while it's not in the EU,…

socialdemocrat didn't claim no corruption, simply not the same degree.

Corruption in Europe is different, and often more subtle, than in the US (have lived and worked in both) but I do feel that over the 30 years the US has really gotten a lot worse compared to the EU countries.

Post reply on HN