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

221–230 of 301 posts

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

#221

Post by rconti »

0xffff2 wrote: post #211
Merrill wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

People traveling for business.

And they're more profitable for reasons not relating to class of seat.

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

#222

Post by xxpor »

rburhum wrote: post #203
xxpor wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a silly comparison. The risk of death from flying in a MAX is still wildly lower than the risk of dying in the safest car on a mile by mile basis.

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

#223

Post by xxpor »

StuffedParrot wrote: post #188
xxpor wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People are allowed to have their own convictions, I'm also allowed to call them stupid given they follow no data whatsoever.

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

#224

Post by [deleted] »

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

[deleted]

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

#226

Post by iguy »

kevinqiu1 wrote: post #187
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 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.

I'd argue the problem is endemic to large stationary organizations, but some do a better job than others at keeping it at bay.

It's interesting to wonder why. I think one aspect is the degree to which politically powerful are willing to fight it. Famously Stalin actually cared that the Moscow metro worked well, and it did, in a country otherwise crippled by complacent behemoths.

Perhaps the Parisian elite likewise take more pride in having a metro which works OK, are willing to spend more political capital fighting for it. They feel some obligation to keep up with Brussels & Berlin, perhaps that substitutes for competition?

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

#227

Post by Gwypaas »

briandear wrote: post #159
whatshisface wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are putting tariffs on foreign planes purchased by airlines in America. It's mentioned in the last paragraph of the linked article.

Airbus gets EU subsidies that works as an effective tariff against Boeing.

And Boeing gets US subsidies.

"The World Trade Organization said on Thursday the United States had ignored its request to halt a subsidized tax break for Boeing Co in its main plane-making state of Washington as a 15-year-old transatlantic trade row edges towards tit-for-tat sanctions."

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

#228

Post by snickerbockers »

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.

787 doesn't fill the same role as 737 and A320, it's a much larger plane that carries more passengers. 737 and A320 seem to be much more popular for domestic flights within the US than larger planes.

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

#229

Post by pdonis »

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 don't think cronyism is any less of a problem for Airbus than it is for Boeing. Boeing happens to have had a recent bad incident that got it a lot of negative PR. But Airbus has had past incidents due to design flaws that are just as shocking.

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

#230

Post by pdonis »

larksimian wrote: post #131
trimbo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Airbus be different?

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…

> Airbus is still working with a proper adversarial regulator

I'm not sure this is true in a practical sense. For example, Airbus does the same unbelievable things with AoA sensors that Boeing did with MCAS: even if they have two or three of them on an aircraft, they don't compare them before allowing one sensor to drive automatic functions, so a single failed sensor can cause the airplane to do unexpected and dangerous things (for example, multiple uncommanded pitch down events on Quantas Flight 72). A true adversarial regulator would never have allowed such design flaws.

Post reply on HN