The A321XRs are super long single-aisle planes and they're planning to use them on trans-atlantic routes. 6 hour+ flight times on single-aisle configurations will make a poor user experience even worse.
United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s
181–190 of 301 posts
Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s
#182America 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 Boeing 787 battery issues shows exactly that they're vertically dis-integrated to the maximum extent possible. So what you're saying is the completely opposite of the truth.
Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
BART and MUNI have fundamentally different orientations, despite overlapping service along the Market Street subway.
BART's service is long-train (up to 10 cars) through service on fully dedicated trackways following a single through route within San Francisco. If you happen to be transiting any points between Colma and Embarcadero strickly along that route, BART is your best bet.
MUNI Metro serves multiple endpoints throughout San Francisco, several lines of which transit the upper level of the Market Street subway. Outside that route, the metro shares rights of way with street traffic, resulting in drastically less predictable schedules. The requirement to manage tight-radius curves and street traffic also limits the length of metro trainsets to a maximum of two coupled trolleys.
The results aren't pretty, for MUNI. But that's all but a given under the environment they're operating in.
Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s
#184The A321XRs are super long single-aisle planes and they're planning to use them on trans-atlantic routes. 6 hour+ flight times on single-aisle configurations will make a poor user experience even worse.
Single-aisle airliners are already super common on 6+ hours transcontinental flights in the US, and relatively common on shorter transatlantic flights from the US east coast to Europe (where the single-aisle 757 these jets are replacing are already used). Consumers seem to tolerate this just fine.
Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s
#185It 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…
A Chinese airliner? I’d feel safer on a 737 Max flown by a powered parachute pilot.
Please don't post unsubstantive comments and/or flamebait to HN.
Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s
#186America 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.
> America is going to pay for the cronyism that merged every airplane manufacturer into one and eliminated internal competition.
This is true, but the counterpoint is: America isn't going to pay very much for accidentally killing its last airliner manufacturer.
Airliners are a very mature market, with little incentive to innovate and minimal gains when you do. It's literally cheaper to operate 20 year old vehicles than replace them with the best available new ones! In how many other industries is that true?
And airliners are small: Airbus revenue is like $60B, Boeing (which also sees a lot of defense spending to pad the number) is $100B. No one else is even on the map. This is a tiny market, in a global sense. We're just stuck on the idea of it being important because of history: Airliners "feel like" a high tech growth industry of the future. They aren't. They're trains, basically.
The core devil's advocate position here is: so what? Boeing failed. Let them die (or rather, shrivel into the defense-only core of the company). Let the rest of the world fight over this tiny market with its shrinking margins. Nations that truly want to invent new things and grow in new ways[1] have better things to do and more important problems to worry about.
[1] Whether the USA still qualifies is sort of an open question, but for a different thread.
Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s
#187Earlier 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?
I think the MTAs woes are unique to the MTA/management of the MTA and not lack of competition. Paris and Madrid have no problem building and operating trains at reasonable costs even though they also operate with no competition.
Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s
#188Earlier 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?
This is stupid; let people have their own values and convictions.
Also there is a train to most airports to avoid taking a car.
Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s
#189Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s
#190America 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.
> America is going to pay for the cronyism that merged every airplane manufacturer into one and eliminated internal competition. This is true, but the counterpoint is: America isn't going to pay very much for accidentally killing its last airliner manufacturer. Airliners are a very mature market, with little incentive to innovate and minimal gains when you do. It's literally cheaper to operate 20 year old vehicles th…
Their defense side is also seriously suffering. They've lost the vast majority of contracts in recent history and their main combat jet, the Super Hornet, was inherited in the McDonnell Douglas merger and continues to suffer under their management.