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

211–220 of 301 posts

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

#211

Post by 0xffff2 »

Merrill wrote: post #158
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.

>Airlines receive only about 60% of their revenue from passengers directly (the other 40% comes from selling frequent-flier miles to credit card companies). But of that 60% of passenger consumer revenue, the big money comes from business travelers – as opposed to those flying for leisure or personal reasons – in percentages that far outweigh their numbers. Business travelers account for 12% percent of airlines' passe…

When they say "business travelers", do they mean people traveling for business, or people traveling in business class? I am fairly certain that those are almost entirely disparate groups at this point.

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

#212

Post by bluGill »

StuffedParrot wrote: post #192
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?

I would kill for second avenue subway in 99% of America. It only sucks in Manhattan. MTA is the worst, except it’s also the best mass transit in the country.

If we could build subways for about of half the current low price by world standards (Spain or Turkey) cost most cities would have subways. However since New York "insists" on paying about 7x what Spain would for the same amount of subway it is just barely worth it to build the SAS, and anything with even slightly less ridership potential is a waste of money.

I have seen a lot of explanations of why the US pays so much more - they tend to not hold up. Note that last time congress asked the question the bill did not allow examining non-US construction for the report - something to write your congressman about.

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

#213

Post by jesusthatsgreat »

bfrog wrote: post #193

It's surprising airbus hasn't eaten more of Boeing's lunch. The A32x series planes fit the roles of the 737/757/767 seemingly, and likely don't require new certifications to fly each in the series. I think boeing has not only lost customers from the 737 max but confidence from people actually flying boeing jets as a whole. I for one look at the plane I'm flying on when buying tickets, I pay more for planes that have…

You're not alone but you're probably in the less than 1% of people who care about anything other than price when it comes to flying.

Low cost airlines dominate because people people want to pay as little as possible for flights.

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

#214

Post by jersey »

jessriedel wrote: post #202
Iwan-Zotow wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[dead]

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

#215

Post by stallmanite »

formercoder wrote: post #135
ailideex wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Was it profitable for Boeing to cut corners?

It was ‘til it wasn’t.

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

#216

Post by larksimian »

gamblor956 wrote: post #172
larksimian wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My suspicion: the whole world lets the FAA validate airplanes and then sort of rubber stamps. Boeing was able to capture the FAA, but Airbus wasn't(since it's a foreign company). As such Airbus is still working with a proper adversarial regulator, whereas Boeing can get away with more cut corners. Eventually that screwed them. The EUs move for greater local safety review, ironically, might make Airbus less safe, sinc…

Let's not forget that until the two MAX crashes, Boeing had an overall safer record for its 7x7 line than Airbus did with its equivalent passenger jets. So the EU's "vaunted" adversarial regulator actually was doing a much worse job than the FAA.

My point was that the adversarial regulator for Airbus is the American FAA, not whatever EU institution is their equivalent.

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

#217

Post by inferiorhuman »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #123
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?

>Boeing can't even keep its newest plane in the skies The 787 is the newest airframe and it's fine. The 737 is the Windows XP of the sky and there's only so much you can fix with service packs.

The 787 is the newest airframe and it's fine. The 737 is the Windows XP of the sky and there's only so much you can fix with service packs.

How about the KC-46 and 777X?

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

#218

Post by gumby »

muro wrote: post #173
gumby wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Eastern EU countries would disagree.

Sadly, that's a fair point.

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

#219

Post by elygre »

jimbobimbo wrote: post #140
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…

"EU paid Airbus billions in illegal subsidies, WTO rules": https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44120525

“ WTO says U.S. failed to halt state tax subsidy for Boeing”: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-usa-aircraft-wto/wto-s...

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

#220

Post by stallmanite »

rrss wrote: post #79
snowwrestler wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure Boeing would have loved to have those orders, but 50 planes is not catastrophic. In terms of the aircraft group, Boeing has steadily growing 787 orders and deliveries, with about 500 orders yet to deliver. In terms of their space program, they are close to testing their manned capsule and just got a light touch program review, while SpaceX got put through the ringer. And there are other aspects to Boeing tha…

> just got a light touch program review, while SpaceX got put through the ringer. Is this a reference to the Organizational Safety Assessments NASA announced in response to Elon Musk smoking pot on a livestream online? I don't think that's a program review - more of a "are spacex employees smoking pot at work review." If not, could you link to some info on the reviews you are referencing?

Got any further reading on SpaceX getting a tougher review due to the pot thing? It seems kind of silly, if a CEO is seen having a glass of wine outside of work is there generally a presumption that the company / it’s employees are drunk during business hours?
Post reply on HN