Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

finshots.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 354 posts

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#51

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

mcv wrote: post #34

Here's what I don't understand: the 737 MAX was introduced in 2017. In 2018, two of them dropped out of the sky, the grounded for a while, it turned out Boeing had lost its engineering culture and its priority for safety, and it became clear that the 737 MAX had some serious design problems that they had tried to fix in software. And according to this article, the 737 MAX is Boeing's best selling plane ever. Why? Why…

None of the airlines are run by engineers who have a culture of safety either. That's why.

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#52

Post by dylan604 »

sneak wrote: post #4

This is the “everybody knows” narrative that seems to get trotted out whenever modern Boeing has problems. I’m curious - how much of it is true? Is it really systemic, or has it manifested only with one specific model plane? It seems to fit very well with the “financialization is bad” narrative, too, but is there any other data to support the claims? It’s possible that engineer-driven Boeing could have fucked up the…

You're only looking at this airplane. What about the space capsule that cannot be built correctly for a test launch? What about the planes to replace the ones the secret service uses to ferry around POTUS? What about the stories from employees saying they are punished from bring up issues they see? So much more than just this one plane (and its variants)

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#53

Post by SpecialistK »

mcv wrote: post #48
jltsiren wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While there is a growing demand for passenger aircraft, the fixed costs of getting into the business are so high that the market cannot support that many manufacturers. Not on a commercial basis, anyway. Airbus and Boeing are commercially viable, and they have customers all around the world. Comac is more of a political project, as China tries to reduce their dependence on Western technology. There are 1000+ orders f…

But why are they not also getting into the 737-size market, if that's such a huge market? If even the questionable 737 MAX is sold out for decades, that sounds like a pretty lucrative market to be in. It sounds to me like if you build something that works, you will sell as many as you can build.

One chilling effect was what Boeing and the US gov't did when Bombardier in Canada developed their own 100-130 seat brand new ("clean sheet") aircraft. They levied so many tariffs that the project was economically unviable.

So Bombardier sold it all to Airbus. Now Airbus has two series of single-aisle aircraft that are more competitive than Boeing's 737 (the A220 and A320.)

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#54

Post by digging »

moose_man wrote: post #22
skyyler wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What can reasonably be done to combat it? Leadership at all the biggest firms is on board with shareholder capitalism. To them, Welch style management just means line goes up...

It's going to take a long time, but first is to destroy the myth that corporations have one purpose they need to fulfill: Generate revenue and ensure things are profitable for shareholders. This myth artificially took root in the 1970s. Business schools have to stop teaching this.

The problem with this assertion is that focusing on profit for the shareholders no longer has any downsides because the public is numb to it. So it's the winning play. We need regulations that sufficiently disincentive such behavior in order to approach equilibrium (that being a state where businesses exist to serve customers).

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#55

Post by o11c »

skyyler wrote: post #21
moose_man wrote: post #2

Jack Welch style management and shareholder capitalism are some of the most destructive forces in the US economy.

What can reasonably be done to combat it? Leadership at all the biggest firms is on board with shareholder capitalism. To them, Welch style management just means line goes up...

We can't ignore the fact that everybody's retirement is now stockmarket-based ...

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#56

Post by largepeepee »

dylan604 wrote: post #50
mcv wrote: post #34

Here's what I don't understand: the 737 MAX was introduced in 2017. In 2018, two of them dropped out of the sky, the grounded for a while, it turned out Boeing had lost its engineering culture and its priority for safety, and it became clear that the 737 MAX had some serious design problems that they had tried to fix in software. And according to this article, the 737 MAX is Boeing's best selling plane ever. Why? Why…

I'm guessing a lot of the purchase orders were placed well before the MCAS incidents occurred. These purchases tend to be contract based, and not something you can just leave with the cashier when you suddenly decide not to purchase them. So you're contractually obligated to spend the money, so might as well get a plane out of it and hope for the best

Exactly, the 737 was the highest-selling commercial aircraft before the incident, and the MAX was promised to be a simple but efficient upgrade to that popular series that many already had.

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#57

Post by breadwinner »

mcv wrote: post #34

Here's what I don't understand: the 737 MAX was introduced in 2017. In 2018, two of them dropped out of the sky, the grounded for a while, it turned out Boeing had lost its engineering culture and its priority for safety, and it became clear that the 737 MAX had some serious design problems that they had tried to fix in software. And according to this article, the 737 MAX is Boeing's best selling plane ever. Why? Why…

> Is it really that cheap?

737 MAX uses 20% less fuel.

Incidentally, this fuel-efficient design is what lead to the design defect. The fuel efficiency is thanks to larger engine (larger engines burn hotter and use less fuel). To make the larger engine fit under the wing without raising the fuselage, they had to reposition the engine forward. This forward-positioning of the engine causes the nose to pitch up when accelerating quickly (and this can cause stall) and they fixed this defect using software to push the nose down.

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#58

Post by linkjuice4all »

mcv wrote: post #34

Here's what I don't understand: the 737 MAX was introduced in 2017. In 2018, two of them dropped out of the sky, the grounded for a while, it turned out Boeing had lost its engineering culture and its priority for safety, and it became clear that the 737 MAX had some serious design problems that they had tried to fix in software. And according to this article, the 737 MAX is Boeing's best selling plane ever. Why? Why…

Haven't seen it mentioned yet - but there are several reasons why airlines continue to buy from Boeing - specifically the 737 variants.

- The pilots are already trained (this is a big one and is part of the reason behind the MCAS debacle - new features mean retraining which costs money and limits which crews can fly which aircraft) [0]

- The 737 generally fits easily at a lot of airports since it's been around for a while - no need to reconfigure your gates/jet ways/etc to accommodate another aircraft at your gates)

- Airlines more recently prefer twin engine jets for better fuel economy and some changes in regulations [1]

- The MAX upgrade to the 737 platform was mostly to jam larger, more fuel-efficient engines into an existing airframe to save on manufacturing, certification, and training costs (see first point)

- In the US many airlines have shifted to single-aisle "mid-sized" planes for domestic routes due to deregulation around direct service - instead airlines can use a hub-and-spoke model with several connecting flights as opposed to only providing direct routes with enough demand to fill a plane [2]

[0] https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/2/18518176/boeing-737-max-cr...

[1] https://simpleflying.com/two-engines-vs-four-engines/

[2] https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/ai...

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#59

Post by soperj »

breadwinner wrote: post #57
mcv wrote: post #34

Here's what I don't understand: the 737 MAX was introduced in 2017. In 2018, two of them dropped out of the sky, the grounded for a while, it turned out Boeing had lost its engineering culture and its priority for safety, and it became clear that the 737 MAX had some serious design problems that they had tried to fix in software. And according to this article, the 737 MAX is Boeing's best selling plane ever. Why? Why…

> Is it really that cheap? 737 MAX uses 20% less fuel. Incidentally, this fuel-efficient design is what lead to the design defect. The fuel efficiency is thanks to larger engine (larger engines burn hotter and use less fuel). To make the larger engine fit under the wing without raising the fuselage, they had to reposition the engine forward. This forward-positioning of the engine causes the nose to pitch up when acce…

The reason they didn't want to raise the fuselage was to pretend it was actually a 737 and not a completely different plane, so that they could avoid all the testing required. If they'd just built it properly in the first place...

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#60

Post by shakow »

breadwinner wrote: post #57
mcv wrote: post #34

Here's what I don't understand: the 737 MAX was introduced in 2017. In 2018, two of them dropped out of the sky, the grounded for a while, it turned out Boeing had lost its engineering culture and its priority for safety, and it became clear that the 737 MAX had some serious design problems that they had tried to fix in software. And according to this article, the 737 MAX is Boeing's best selling plane ever. Why? Why…

> Is it really that cheap? 737 MAX uses 20% less fuel. Incidentally, this fuel-efficient design is what lead to the design defect. The fuel efficiency is thanks to larger engine (larger engines burn hotter and use less fuel). To make the larger engine fit under the wing without raising the fuselage, they had to reposition the engine forward. This forward-positioning of the engine causes the nose to pitch up when acce…

> larger engines burn hotter and use less fuel

I thought it was mostly due to the much higher bypass-ratio than burning temp?

Post reply on HN