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

201–210 of 301 posts

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

#201

Post by pdx_flyer »

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.

If Boeing had wanted to play ball on an NMA aircraft, United definitely would have purchased them. Instead they abandoned their smaller 787 variant and didn't pursue NMA at all, leaving the door wide open for Airbus.

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

#202

Post by jessriedel »

Iwan-Zotow wrote: post #169
mensetmanusman wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will be blocked from purchase in the U.S. https://www.wired.com/story/us-china-cybertheft-su-bin/

So china won't buy boeings (for safety or other reasons), us won't by comacs, seems fair...

It's not fair because countries are made of individuals. The Chinese government won't let Chinese companies buy American planes and the American government won't let American companies buy Chinese planes. Both restrictions are unjustified regardless of the existence of the other.

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

#203

Post by rburhum »

xxpor wrote: post #32
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.

Do you refuse to take a car to the airport?

If it was a 1978 Ford Pinto (one of the most unsafe cars ever made), you bet I would not get in it. The MAX is basically a Pinto for me.

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

#204

Post by johngalt »

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?

1. The market correctly understands that Boeing is backstopped by the US government. Removing any large downside risk.

2. Even including the problems with the 737 max, Boeing has an exceptionally good safety record.

3. Regulatory capture of the FAA by Boeing is bad news for consumers, but not necessarily for shareholders.

4. Investing in aircraft manufacturers during a growing economy is reasonable and Boeing is one of only two airplane manufacturers positioned to take advantage of the trend.

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

#205

Post by bluGill »

Joeri wrote: post #146
ummonk wrote: post #111

Earlier 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).

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.

My understanding is in Tokyo they compete a little - that is there are a few people who are within walking distance to two different private operators. However even there most people are only really within talking distance of one line.

With land based transit competition it is really hard to compete because land within walking distance is finite. (if you don't demand walking distance you get less riders by a lot). Thus to have real competition you need to have extremely high density - 50 story apartment buildings with few parks or other open space, at that point one line cannot handle all the riders and a second line can compete.

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

#206

Post by 0xffff2 »

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.

Twin aisle planes just aren't economical for 737-class short haul. Boeing's next plane[0] will probably be a twin-aisle design, but it's targeted as a slightly larger 757 replacement. Maybe if we're lucky we'll see that evolve to include a shorter variant to replace the MAX.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_New_Midsize_Airplane

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

#207

Post by landcoctos »

yyhhsj0521 wrote: post #165
landcoctos wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly 50% of part content of Airbus planes are American made.

Do you know how is the situation in reverse?

Some Airbuses might be more American than Boeing (such as the 787)

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

#208

Post by samcheng »

yingw787 wrote: post #38

What’s the state of mechanical engineering Software tooling / infrastructure On Linux and UNIX-like operating systems? I know Solidworks and AutoCAD are primarily Windows-based software, with proprietary data formats like .SLDPRT/.SLDASM (Solidworks Assembly) and high vendor lock-in. Why haven’t we seen greater adoption of scriptable, composable utilities (like a finite element analysis simulation) that might enable…

FreeCAD is not bad and used pretty extensively by the 3D printing hobbyists. It's nicely script-able with Python.

However, from my experience, it's still nowhere near the level of polish that e.g. Solidworks has, so professional work is still primarily done with non-Free tools.

I have no direct information, but I'd imagine the big aerospace companies have significant proprietary internal tooling, specialized to their own work flows and IP.

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

#209

Post by 0xffff2 »

tus88 wrote: post #171

You think they could have predicted the need for a 757 replacement and realized the 737 isn't it. Or just kept updated 757s in production, just like the 737 has been.

Boeing's next plane will likely be a 757 replacement[0]. Part of the reason that the MAX exists is the clean-sheet replacement designs take a long time (and take longer than anticipated/desired even after accounting for the fact that they take a long time).

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_New_Midsize_Airplane

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

#210

Post by qrbLPHiKpiux »

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.

Follow the money. The lowest common denominator. The shareholders won then.
Post reply on HN