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

61–70 of 354 posts

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#61

Post by boppo1 »

bluGill wrote: post #44
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…

What choice do they have? Airplanes wear out from metal fatigue over time, so airlines must replace their airplanes regularly. It isn't safe to keep operating the same airplanes for decades. (this very much depends on what the plane is made of - so some airplanes from the 1950s are still safe while others from 2000 are not). Sometimes airplanes are scraped by selling to some "third world" airline that keeps operating…

>eventually the wings will fall off an old plane in the air.

Has this ever happened for an airliner?

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#62

Post by solarkraft »

jltsiren wrote: post #47
stcredzero wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world is very small, and it can't support that many companies making passenger aircraft. If you want aircraft of that size, you have to buy Boeing or Airbus. Both are sold out until the 2030s. There's an apparent contradiction here. China spent ~15 years developing the C919, and it's finally entering mass production. But it also appears to be sold out until the 2030s. And here.

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…

> Airbus and Boeing are commercially viable, and they have customers all around the world. Comac is more of a political project

I thought Airbus was heavily subsidized

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#63

Post by daedrdev »

One of the big signs of Boeings decline is that they don't make much of their planes directly, instead relying on large subcontractors to assemble most pieces of a plane and install the pieces.

This was all done to reduce costs by squeezing suppliers, yet when the suppliers only work for Boeing, my theory is that eventually the cost cutting started to hit engineering and quality control.

Additionally, it hilarious that the MAX was made to save money and avoid a new airframe, yet this decision is probably one of the most costly moves they have ever made.

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#64

Post by themadturk »

linkjuice4all wrote: post #58
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…

In addition, some airlines, such as Southwest, fly only 737s, taking consistency in training and maintenance to the max.

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#65

Post by mastercheif »

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…

> 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.

MCAS was not intended to be an anti-stall system.

The only purpose of MCAS was to have the 737 MAX exactly mimick the 737 NG's (previous gen) pitch dynamics so that airlines wouldn't have to retrain their pilots on the 737 MAX.

Commercial pilots are generally pretty good at not stalling planes and understanding flight dynamics, they don't need MCAS to avoid stalling even when the plane pitches up during thrust.

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#66

Post by dpe82 »

boppo1 wrote: post #61
bluGill wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What choice do they have? Airplanes wear out from metal fatigue over time, so airlines must replace their airplanes regularly. It isn't safe to keep operating the same airplanes for decades. (this very much depends on what the plane is made of - so some airplanes from the 1950s are still safe while others from 2000 are not). Sometimes airplanes are scraped by selling to some "third world" airline that keeps operating…

>eventually the wings will fall off an old plane in the air. Has this ever happened for an airliner?

Not the wings and not recently, but there has been major failure due to metal fatigue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#67

Post by themadturk »

jewayne wrote: post #43
moose_man wrote: post #2

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

Wow, a whole lot of people in this thread don't know about Jack Welch and his outsized influence on the current state of US business. No, US businesses did not always focus exclusively on current quarter's earnings, nor did they lay people off every year to juice the share price. In fact, before Jack Welch, many US corporations openly said that their mission was to "build/provide X", and that dividends to shareholder…

And look where G.E. is now...

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#68

Post by joe_the_user »

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…

Basically, the MAX has sold well for the reason that Microsoft Office has sold well. It had a set of features that airlines needed even if it was kind of junk overall; it was "backward compatible" with earlier 737 models and it saved a lot of gas compared to them. The backward compatibility was key since it save a lot of further money that would otherwise be needed for retraining and retesting (Airbus had a gas saving plane that would require retrain and this was the "killer app" versus that).

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#69

Post by pwthornton »

daedrdev wrote: post #63

One of the big signs of Boeings decline is that they don't make much of their planes directly, instead relying on large subcontractors to assemble most pieces of a plane and install the pieces. This was all done to reduce costs by squeezing suppliers, yet when the suppliers only work for Boeing, my theory is that eventually the cost cutting started to hit engineering and quality control. Additionally, it hilarious th…

It's cost-cutting turtles all the way down. Any subcontractor without multiple clients is going to do the same kind of cost-cutting that the main company does.

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#70

Post by jamesdhutton »

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.

It's not a myth. It's a fact. The whole point of any for-profit company is to generate a return for the company's owners. Companies which fail to do so go out of business. It has always been thus.

As for the notion that Boeing has prioritized shareholder value over safety: just look at their share price over the last few days. It tanked by 10% since this accident occurred. Clearly, making safe planes is a prerequisite for generating shareholder value. There is no conflict there.

Post reply on HN