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

151–160 of 231 posts

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

#151

Post by rockemsockem »

graphe wrote: post #89
drstewart wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Medicine isn't science, it's a discipline. Flying is science. There is no "this will fly in my opinion". As ridiculous as saying I trust one organization so all are fine.

I don't agree with who you're replying to, but this is a terrible comparison.

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

#152

Post by wnevets »

okanat wrote: post #145
wnevets wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if a company goes bankrupt you believe the board & shareholders are now on the hook for that debt?

We would probably live in a better world, if it did.

Perhaps but there would probably be a lot less people starting companies if that was the case. LLCs were created for a reason and are effectively what this commenter [1] described.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39108118

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

#153

Post by a-priori »

anuptalwalkar wrote: post #138
JCM9 wrote: post #60

This whole fiasco represents a leadership f$&* up of existential scale. A lot of this started when Boeing moved its HQ away from a core production hub. Leaders tucked way in offices make a lot worse decisions than leaders close to the literal nuts and bolts of a company. Boeing’s reputation was on the quality of its engineering and production. “If it ain’t Boeing I ain’t going” was a real phrase. The current Boeing l…

> leaders tucked away in offices make a lot worse decisions than leaders close to nuts and bolts… Does this the argument applies to this current ‘Return to office’ movement?

It's not about physical distance but social distance, i.e who talks to whom, and how many degrees of separation there is there between who's making the decisions and who's doing the company's core work (for Boeing that's building & designing planes).

In a company with offices, social networks will mirror the physical layout because people will tend to talk to people nearby them in the building and not people in different buildings. By moving management further away physically, they also moved them further away socially.

But in a fully remote company it's not so clear, and more about the org chart and who's in the same Slack/Teams rooms or meetings.

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

#154

Post by lxgr »

SoftTalker wrote: post #148
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…

Airlines are contributary to this though. Boeing was working on a "clean redesign" new airliner to replace the 737. They shopped it around and nobody wanted it. They did not want to train mechanics and pilots on a new type. They wanted a "better 737." Then Airbus came out with the A320neo and that also pushed Boeing towards another incremental rework of the 737 since a brand new airliner takes 10 years to get designe…

The A220 seems fairly popular though, and that's a completely new type, although it's admittedly in a different class than the A320/737.

Many airlines use both A320 and 737s in their fleets too, so they already have pilots rated for two different types. Trading one of these entirely for a 737 successor doesn't seem completely infeasible.

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

#155

Post by drstewart »

margalabargala wrote: post #108
drstewart wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I don't fly on a plane, the worst thing that happens is the company doesn't get my money. There are people that state they'd rather drive than fly on a Max. The worst that can happen is a statistically much higher likelihood of dying. On the other hand, if you don't take the vaccine, the worst that happens is Pfizer doesn't get your money.

> On the other hand, if you don't take the vaccine, the worst that happens is Pfizer doesn't get your money. Also, y'know, the whole increased risk of serious illness due to a lack of immune protection that would be granted by the vaccine.

[flagged]

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

#156

Post by drstewart »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #105
drstewart wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, in one situation you have people rejecting a product with years of research vetted by regulators around the world because they don't like the business practices and politics of the organizations behind it. On the other, you have... the same exact thing. Whoops. They are the same.

Assuming you're not being intentionally obtuse: the FDA makes some decisions purely out of politics (e.g. many schedule 1 drugs) and they make other decisions based on higher tolerance of risk in certain situations. Perhaps the FAA should slap a black box warning on the 737 to regain credibility.

You're arguing my point. Both anti-vaxxers and anti-Maxers believe the regulatory agencies are corrupt and politicking, therefore they substitute their own scientific opinions where they feel like it.

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

#157

Post by wolverine876 »

There's a dogma that regulation is de facto inefficient and bad generally, and I think it's almost universally accepted that that's the case for the self-interest of businesses. But like any dogma, any prejudice, it's wrong:

Businesses have self-interest; it's overwhelming and they can't escape it and its biases (though they can and should moderate it, and some businesses do that much better than others). Regulation provides an independent, expert power structure with great value where self-interest, or multiple self-interests, fail. It allows competitors to coordinate; to act with enlightened self-interest and (gasp) in the public interest - lawlessness is bad for business.

For example, in financial markets, unregulated self-interest leads to mountains of fraud, and a place where nobody wants to invest - that hurts everyone. A safe, fair marketplace attracts everyone.

For airplane manufacturers, self-interest drives manufacturers to cut corners. If you've ever advocated against cutting corners because of an over-the-horizon, non-specific risk (meaning, the consequences won't be tomorrow, and we can't say exactly what and when they will be), you know that you are violating social norms and can be very unpopular. But if you can say, 'this violates FAA regulations', then it's a clear and specific risk.

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

#158

Post by mrcwinn »

okanat wrote: post #145
wnevets wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if a company goes bankrupt you believe the board & shareholders are now on the hook for that debt?

We would probably live in a better world, if it did.

I can connect to the sentiment of that, but it's a ridiculous thought in practice. The board, which can come and go, is not a personal guarantor. They have a fiduciary duty, of course, but they're not individually bringing in the billions of dollars of public investment in the public company they serve. And so why should they be personally liable for its debt? And even if they should, how could they be?

If a company goes bankrupt and it owes creditors, say, $10 billion, but together the board members have, say, $5 million in their accounts, creditors are still short $9.99+ billion. What value is there in that, apart from the moralizing?

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

#160

Post by wolverine876 »

wnevets wrote: post #152
okanat wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We would probably live in a better world, if it did.

Perhaps but there would probably be a lot less people starting companies if that was the case. LLCs were created for a reason and are effectively what this commenter [1] described. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39108118

Doesn't that describe many forms of incorporation, not just LLCs?
Post reply on HN