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

221–230 of 231 posts

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

#221

Post by detourdog »

xtracto wrote: post #213
detourdog wrote: post #207

I think that Boeing is less than half the problem. The US-FAA has sold the whole country down the river with the lack of oversight. How that happened is the problem. We expect Boeing to try to draw outside the lines. The FAA helping them do that is the problem.

This, I think this IS the real problem. In a capitalist society, there are markets that need to be heavily regulated. Health is one of them and aviation is another. Private companies are going to do what they are supposed to do: Maximize shareholder value. So they are going to cut corners, minimize spending and maximize returns by EVERY MEAN. It is the job of the regulator to establish strict regulations and ensure t…

The real tragedy is that so much of our design ideas around safety and human factors was first documented by the original aviation industry between.

Everything went to shit and Eisenhower saw it happen right before his eyes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex

They basically let Boeing do whatever they want for National Security reasons.

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

#222

Post by panick21_ »

wolverine876 wrote: post #167
emgeee wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NASA is a government organization with different incentives, and, has arguably suffers from similar problems that Boeing is experiencing.

> arguably suffers from similar problems that Boeing is experiencing. What problems are you referring to?

To airplanes failing and killing everybody inside. Excessive costs for new projects. Not upgrading their core technology.

But I dont think the comparison makes much sense.

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

#224

Post by lxgr »

SoftTalker wrote: post #218
lxgr wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think that individual pilots fly one type or the other, even if the airline operates multiple types. Flying is flying to a certain extent but the details, procedures, checklists, and emergency memory items are different particularly between Airbus and Boeing. I doubt there are many/any pilots that are hopping back and forth between 737s and A320s day to day.

Yes, that's what I mean: The downside of having to juggle multiple shift rosters, needing effectively two sets of operational guidances, engineers trained on respective models etc. is balanced out by the significant upside of having more than one supplier and being able to negotiate accordingly when ordering new airframes.

But returns are probably quickly diminishing on the latter compared to the increasing scheduling, training etc. complexity of the former, and having two effectively similar classes of plane from the same vendor completely negates the benefit of supply competition.

That probably makes it very hard for a manufacturer to sell a new type of the same class to an existing exclusive customer: Short-term, the downsides largely outweigh the benefits.

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

#225

Post by rootusrootus »

kilroy123 wrote: post #186
anderber wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What airplanes do you like flying on? Just out of curiosity.

I prefer the A320neo to any 737. The Boeing 787-800 and 777-300s. The A330 is fine as well. It's been a long time but it's a joy to fly on a 747. My dream is to fly on an A380 one day.

I had high hopes for the A380, but it turned out less comfortable than I hoped. It may be an artifact of the sheer size, or the choice of engines, or the programming for those engines, but the cruising surges aren't comfortable for me.

So far the 787 has been the nicest long distance plane I've flown in (though I never did get a chance to fly in a 747).

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

#226

Post by rootusrootus »

SauciestGNU wrote: post #201
anderber wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here, I'd love to fly on an A380. I've flow plenty 747s as a kid, and I have great memories of them. The last one I flew was an A330-neo that I thought was really nice as well. Looking forward to fly the new Embraer E190 at some point.

Last time I was on an Embraer, the emergency exit door alarm was buzzing until the plane left the ground and the fuselage flexed enough to get a seal. The fight itself was fine but that left a questionable impression.

My last flight on an Embraer was in turbulent weather and at one point the plane dropped a good bit in a downdraft and when the wings caught us there was a tremendous bang that went through the entire plane. Suddenly I wanted to be on the ground in the worst way, it wasn't a sound I like to hear an airplane make when I'm riding in it...

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

#227

Post by marcosdumay »

wolverine876 wrote: post #219
marcosdumay wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The theory goes that the regulation organization has no reason to run at its best performance. Because it's necessarily a monopoly (works best when it's the government itself), and because there's a lot of pressure into its continued survival. So, as a rule, the work of regulators aren't optimized at all. Of course, the real world is much noisier than that. But the most that free market advocates can claim is that re…

I see what you meant. > the most that free market advocates can claim is that regulators are inefficient Beware of buying into their language. Regulations are necessary to free markets; unregulated markets can turn into monopolies or similar, making them very un-free.

I hardly disagree here.

If we stop using some word just because some con-man said them, we'd run out of words much faster than we could agree on new ones.

And worse yet, we'd give the con-man the power to decide what gets discussed or not, and would legitimize the behavior of switching words like they were fashion accessories, that is one of their main strategies.

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

#228

Post by maxvt »

paxys wrote: post #18

> alternatives to Boeing So, Airbus?

Could have been the Bombardier C-Series but they have been effectively shut out by a combination of aggressive competition by both majors and "anti-dumping" action when Boeing chose to pursue regulatory relief instead of competing on price. Now the C-Series are the Airbus A220, competition successfully averted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSeries_dumping_petition_by_Bo...

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

#229

Post by NikkiA »

erikig wrote: post #159

The headline is almost redundant. In a duopoly, every substantial client is always forced to consider the alternative.

Embraer exist for many of the short hop trips United also covers.

edit: to add some elucidation, United operate 40 737-700s that they may consider replacing soon, the E195 would be an option against the A320 or 737-MAX7 options.

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

#230

Post by dotnet00 »

wolverine876 wrote: post #215
dotnet00 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the contractors, we have: * The Space Shuttle - a death trap and reusable in no practical sense. Refurbishment involved near rebuild of large components. Often used as proof about how reusable rockets were not financially viable prior to F9's reliability. * SLS (ie the rocket to nowhere) - too expensive and too slow to build to be worth using unless literally mandated by law. Is too rough of a ride, Orion's scre…

Regarding JWST and Hubble, see the link to the JPL person's comment. The rest sounds like Musk's talking points, and life is too short...

Being "Musk's talking points" doesn't make them not true... you can literally look all those up. Starliner still hasn't carried a crew to the ISS, every time a launch window approaches we find out about a new issue causing a delay. The SLS and Vulcan points are also very well documented.

I'll concede on JWST, but with Hubble there was a whole investigation that found the contractor's poor internal management was at fault.

Post reply on HN