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

United Airlines CEO says the airline will consider alternatives to Boeing

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 231 posts

Re: United Airlines CEO says the airline will consider alternatives to Boeing

#91

Post by boeinggoneone »

eitally wrote: post #5

Actions have consequences. Boeing decided they wanted to focus on maximizing profits rather than allowing organic growth to follow on continued high quality engineering and services. In regulated industries, especially where safety is of utmost importance, this is exceptionally risky. They F'd around and found out, and imho the only solution is leadership and strategy changes to shrink their business and refocus on b…

Very likely everyone is dumbing down a complex issue by projecting their own biases on Boeing.

Boeing is an incredible cash cow and is likely to be a duopoly (along with Airbus) for at least around 50 years or so. I don't see why anyone burn their house down for temporary warmth.

Also, the kind of issues we are seeing do not point out to any short term profiteering.

Re: United Airlines CEO says the airline will consider alternatives to Boeing

#92

Post by oldpersonintx »

hammock wrote: post #84
lainga wrote: post #4

"Kirby wasn’t specific about what planes the airline could acquire instead of the Max 10, but he noted that there is only one other global manufacturer of such large planes — Boeing’s European rival Airbus." Is it just me or is every player in the dramatis personae dancing around this and/or burying the lede? If they were ordering regional jets, sure, you could buy Embraer or Bombardier, I guess. But as it stands it'…

What if SpaceX built a medium-haul narrow body to compete with 737 and A320?

[dead]

Re: United Airlines CEO says the airline will consider alternatives to Boeing

#93

Post by simion314 »

boeinggoneone wrote: post #91
eitally wrote: post #5

Actions have consequences. Boeing decided they wanted to focus on maximizing profits rather than allowing organic growth to follow on continued high quality engineering and services. In regulated industries, especially where safety is of utmost importance, this is exceptionally risky. They F'd around and found out, and imho the only solution is leadership and strategy changes to shrink their business and refocus on b…

Very likely everyone is dumbing down a complex issue by projecting their own biases on Boeing. Boeing is an incredible cash cow and is likely to be a duopoly (along with Airbus) for at least around 50 years or so. I don't see why anyone burn their house down for temporary warmth. Also, the kind of issues we are seeing do not point out to any short term profiteering.

>Also, the kind of issues we are seeing do not point out to any short term profiteering.

They cut 900 QA jobs, I bet this was doen for short term profits and I bet is realted with the issues we see. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/06/boeing-...

Re: United Airlines CEO says the airline will consider alternatives to Boeing

#94

Post by wnevets »

taway789aaa6 wrote: post #79
wnevets wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Boeing decided they wanted to focus on maximizing profits Except not really. The shareholders/board decided to gut the company so they can get richer with stock buybacks. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/15/bailout-c...

> Boeing decided they wanted to focus on maximizing profits > The shareholders/board decided to gut the company so they can get richer with stock buybacks Are you not saying the exact same thing, just being more explicit about the implicit "short-term" profits? The shareholders/board (e.g. Boeing...the decision makers) decided to gut the company so they can get richer (e.g. maximize [short-term] profits, since the pr…

I separate Boeing the business entity from the private capital that receives the cash.

Re: United Airlines CEO says the airline will consider alternatives to Boeing

#95

Post by rsynnott »

wrsh07 wrote: post #53
consumer451 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a major shot across the bow of Boeing management. To me, the fact that there really aren't timely alternatives doesn't take away from the gravity of a major airline CEO saying this.

Do you think this is good news for Boom? Honestly they could pivot from supersonic to just "small airplanes at scale made well" and they could grow into a new American industrial giant

There's plenty of choice for _small_ planes; it's really 737-size and up where it's a choice of two manufacturers.

Re: United Airlines CEO says the airline will consider alternatives to Boeing

#96

Post by fellin »

balozi wrote: post #77

Try as I might, I cannot see any upside for an airline chief executive to make this kind of statements publicly. Sometimes a CEO needs to know that they don't have to publicly announce their internal deliberations. Well...unless he was drunk when interviewed, or wanted to divert attention from bad financial results, or both.

1. Distancing themselves from Boeing

2. Managing fallout from obvious losses from groundings

3. Showing investors that they can continue without Boeing should it regress further.

4. Kicking off bidding war between Boeing and Airbus. Boeing will give them an insanely good deal, especially if they announce their PO soon. Airbus is obviously also very keen on getting a foot in the door with United.

5. Sending a message to Boeing that they have had enough of this shit and it will really hit the fan if they don't get their act together.

Re: United Airlines CEO says the airline will consider alternatives to Boeing

#97

Post by observer987 »

I'm really disgusted at what's happened at Boeing over the years to lead to this situation. But it's systemic in the boardrooms across the country that profits come before anything else.

In a more ideal world, the people in management responsible for this mess would be brought up on criminal charges and forced to disgorge their performance-based pay that was based on fraudulent practices that harmed passengers, the workers of the company, and the economic growth of the USA. But, I'm afraid the best we can hope for is civil lawsuits brought by shareholders that will settle for a fraction of the economic damage wrought.

Undoubtably the FAA will be increasing its scrutiny of the company. But that will probably fall by the wayside if the Republican Party regains control of the government. The decrepit management team will probably pursue a sale of the assets at fire sale prices so that they can prop up their stock price and retire to a golf courses in "anonymity".

Re: United Airlines CEO says the airline will consider alternatives to Boeing

#98

Post by rsynnott »

madaxe_again wrote: post #14
lainga wrote: post #4

"Kirby wasn’t specific about what planes the airline could acquire instead of the Max 10, but he noted that there is only one other global manufacturer of such large planes — Boeing’s European rival Airbus." Is it just me or is every player in the dramatis personae dancing around this and/or burying the lede? If they were ordering regional jets, sure, you could buy Embraer or Bombardier, I guess. But as it stands it'…

They have to be extremely careful what they say. Boeing is considered a strategically important business to the U.S. - they supply everything from airliners to bombers to spacecraft to cruise missiles. They also create jobs all over the place - taxpayer dollars are funnelled via the pork barrel to jobs programs. The government cannot allow it to fail, and if Boeing looks bad, the government looks bad. Therefore anyon…

You realise that there are already Airbus-only US airlines?

> If they outright said “we are thinking of airbus”, you get the government banning the purchase of airbus aircraft, as that would endanger Boeing

Er... if anything, the US government banning Airbus aircraft would endanger Boeing more than the alternative; this would absolutely beg for retaliation, and not just from Europe (China, remember, has its own 737-class plane, now).

Re: United Airlines CEO says the airline will consider alternatives to Boeing

#100

Post by Mordisquitos »

drstewart wrote: post #49
SirensOfTitan wrote: post #6

At this point, it’s quite pertinent how many corners Boeing has cut over and over again—the company’s culture and management is obviously poisonous. I’m probably a minority of folks, but at this point I’m flying on airlines with the fewest Boeing Max generation planes in their fleet. I also don’t really trust the FAA to properly regulate Boeing after years of a close relationship—the recent groundings are the bare mi…

So what are your thoughts on people who won't take the vaccine because they don't trust pharma companies and the FDA? Also, what are your thoughts on the EASA and why they haven't banned the Max? I find it hilarious how many people who mock people who "don't trust the experts" and "do their own research" suddenly engage in the same thing when it comes to other domains. Make no mistake: anti-Maxxers are kinfolk to ant…

If your aim is to travel there are arguably safer alternatives to flying in a 737-MAX that fulfill the same purpose, namely flying in a pre-MAX 737 model or on any Airbus model. If you have no alternatives available and you are so scared of the 737-MAX that you choose not to travel it may be irrationally overcautious, but there is arguably a minuscule increase in safety nonetheless.

If your aim is to improve your immunity to an infectious disease, the only alternative to vaccination that fulfills the same purpose is to catch the disease, which is definitely not safer. If you are so afraid of FDA corruption in favour of pharma companies (or of needles) that you choose to avoid improving your immunity altogether, you're still at risk of catching the disease anyway, which is clearly less safe than any purported risk of getting vaccinated (that is, unless you make huge changes in your lifestyle to avoid human contact).

Post reply on HN