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

281–290 of 301 posts

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

#281

Post by StuffedParrot »

bluGill wrote: post #212
StuffedParrot wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mu…

> 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.

Literally any amount spent on the subway will be returned in rent to landlords. You're just looking from the wrong perspective.

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

#282

Post by StuffedParrot »

xxpor wrote: post #223
StuffedParrot wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You didn't call anyone stupid, you asked a passive aggressive question designed to demean without advancing any worldviews or assertions of your own. That's fucking stupid.

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

#283

Post by ggm »

rconti wrote: post #248
ggm wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Premium economy is profitable and robbing economy and business. We might see a return to a happy medium

I would so love this. It seems like it shouldn't be too much to ask to spend 50% more and actually get an armrest and a seat that doesn't make my tailbone numb after a few hours. In percentage terms, it's not a lot of space. If a couple inches for an armrest is to wide to fit in an existing plane in a 3+3 config, maybe they should plan better for the next generation of planes.

Some writers say the bombardier C has widened the middle seat in 3 abreast, which would be a significant thing if true.

My personal view, (from the luxury of Business, now moving back south as I cease work travel) is that seat pitch, seat size, and seat density should be regulated. That removes competitive tension around "who suffers more for price" but at a socialized cost of travel costs more than bucket seat prices. I know thats anti-democratising in the specifics of who now will be able to afford routine travel, but the cram-them-in approach has got beyond acceptable.

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

#284

Post by inferiorhuman »

pdx_flyer wrote: post #201
Aloha wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Instead they abandoned their smaller 787 variant

They tried with the 787-3 and that simply didn't sell.

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

#285

Post by dredmorbius »

ummonk wrote: post #263
dredmorbius wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>The results aren't pretty, for MUNI. But that's all but a given under the environment they're operating in. Not necessarily. They could exclusively run fast 4 car trains along the length of the subway, with transfers to street lines. That would prevent a single street-level train from backing up the whole system. http://newmunimetro.com/m-market/

That's a possibility, though there's a long history of transit users prefering through routes rather than transfers. If Muni could maintain 4 minute headways (or shorter), consistently, in the subway, that might be an option. It would reduce the wait times inbound on the subway to an average of 2 minutes, which is tolerable.

You still end up with the service irregularities on the surface sections, unless those rights of way are dedicated. Something which really should have happened long ago on Geary and Irving/Judah, 3rd St., etc. Maybe with the dedicated transit route on Market the idea will spread.

Extending the subway further out is another option, though expensive and fairly unlikely.

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

#286

Post by pinkfoot »

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.

By the same logic, surely Airbus should also be collapsing in the absence of European competition?

Something is missing from your argument.

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

#287

Post by pinkfoot »

jimbobimbo wrote: post #278
elygre wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I did not argue the opposite.

Positions on HN should be "comprehensive" w.r.t data, no?

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

#288

Post by pinkfoot »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #132
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…

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

You are assuming China cares.

Boeing themselves values the Chinese commercial aircraft market at $3T and 8,000 aircraft over over 20 years.

Of that 6,000 are single-aisle (737, A320, C919).

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/17/boeing-says-china-needs-to-s...

Once its certified, they will instruct their companies to buy the C919 in the thousands.

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

#289

Post by pinkfoot »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #170
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…

China is still heavily dependent on Western jet engines and avionics. But they are getting experience building airframes, and they could potentially catch up in a generation or two on that given how slowly that part evolves. They won’t be able to build a 787/350 or even a 777 style carbon fiber airframe overnight, however. There is no reason for the USA to block out Comac if they are flying with Pratt&Whitney or GE/C…

Yip, and Western sales targets are getting heavily dependent on Chinese purchases.

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

#290

Post by ksec »

mbesto wrote: post #74
rsynnott wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, one option is to break up Boeing (and Airbus). They’re far too vertically integrated.

> They’re far too vertically integrated. In what sense? I work with a lot of Aerospace, Transportion and Logistics companies and I've personally seen tens of hundreds of companies that are suppliers for Boeing/Airbus. What do you think GE, United Technologies, Rolls Royce Aerospace, etc. all do?

Yes, there are hundreds of other manufacturers and many moving parts, which reminded me of SpaceX.

One of the reason SpaceX has been abled to save so much cost was that they made / design all the parts themselves, truly vertically integrated. And this has led to better design, lower cost, higher level of knowledge in every part of the system, and more innovation.

I remember there were so regulation that forbid AirCraft manufactures to do that, what was the rationale behind it?

Post reply on HN