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

United 777-200 fleet faces an uncertain future after Dulles engine failure

liveandletsfly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 110 posts

Re: United 777-200 fleet faces an uncertain future after Dulles engine failure

#101

Post by [deleted] »

cvoss wrote: post #95
kccqzy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a buried sentence. It’s a section heading in large font saying “ The 777-200 Problem Is Not Safety. It Is Economics.” Then there’s a whole paragraph stating “The Boeing 777-200 is not an unsafe airplane. As far as I can tell, that is not the issue even after the incident over Dulles over the weekend.” Then just in case the reader jumped to conclusions, the first sentence of the conclusion again says it’s saf…

You are explaining exactly why the headline is clickbait: The article does not support the conclusions implied by the headline. > just in case the reader jumped to conclusions The author is correcting a problem of his own creation. He has already misled the reader with his headline. He means for the reader to misunderstand... and click.

[deleted]

Re: United 777-200 fleet faces an uncertain future after Dulles engine failure

#102

Post by dawnerd »

brigade wrote: post #83
dawnerd wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What gave it away for me was the Conclusion heading. LLMs love adding those in and its just unnatural for news/blog posts. Reading back over it, everything about it just seems very machine written.

Aviation blogs have commonly been putting a conclusion section with header just like this since well before LLMs existed

Weird, I don't think I've ever seen that.

Re: United 777-200 fleet faces an uncertain future after Dulles engine failure

#103

Post by bengoodger »

schmuckonwheels wrote: post #3

Clickbait. The B777 is probably the safest, most meticulously engineered commercial wide-body aircraft ever built. They're also getting old, and airlines retire old aircraft.

United seems to like to hang onto extremely old airplanes even as the number of these disruptions mount. We can argue how statistically they're safer etc but these events are extremely unsettling and disruptive for passengers and frankly it's lucky no one's been killed yet. One of these planes dropped a wheel on a parked car at SFO last year.

It's not hard to notice there are other major airlines that generally maintain newer widebody fleets.

Re: United 777-200 fleet faces an uncertain future after Dulles engine failure

#104

Post by wkat4242 »

echelon wrote: post #37
rottencupcakes wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What has become much more degraded in Europe than America is the domestic flights. Try flying Lufthansa (or one of their half dozen subsidiaries created almost entirely to give worse service) anywhere inside of europe. Everything is a money grab and the service and boarding are terrible. United maintains a relatively consistent experience between domestic and international, minus the free alcohol.

I love how everyone is dunking on airlines (it's easy - I do too!), yet airlines are one of the least profitable business sectors to be in. It's like dunking on QSR, but worse. These things are practically on welfare. Everything is fungible, high risk, extremely expensive, extremely regulated. The margins are almost nil. They all fly the same planes. You can compete on "experience", and that's basically it. Their din…

So what. We don't force anyone to start an airline.

Re: United 777-200 fleet faces an uncertain future after Dulles engine failure

#105

Post by cr125rider »

ralph84 wrote: post #50
markus_zhang wrote: post #40

All 777-200 are less than 30 years old (June 1995 first commercial deployment according to Wikipedia). Considering we are still flying older aircraft such as MD (but as a cargo plane), can United find a buyer for this fleet?

There isn't a cargo conversion available for the 777-200 or 777-200ER. But at the right price they could probably find some buyers in the VIP and charter markets.

That is such a huge plane for a charter my god. That’s gotta be Saudi level money

Re: United 777-200 fleet faces an uncertain future after Dulles engine failure

#106

Post by QuiEgo »

bengoodger wrote: post #103
schmuckonwheels wrote: post #3

Clickbait. The B777 is probably the safest, most meticulously engineered commercial wide-body aircraft ever built. They're also getting old, and airlines retire old aircraft.

United seems to like to hang onto extremely old airplanes even as the number of these disruptions mount. We can argue how statistically they're safer etc but these events are extremely unsettling and disruptive for passengers and frankly it's lucky no one's been killed yet. One of these planes dropped a wheel on a parked car at SFO last year. It's not hard to notice there are other major airlines that generally maint…

Isn’t Delta’s whole strategy getting old airplanes for cheap and refurbishing them?

Re: United 777-200 fleet faces an uncertain future after Dulles engine failure

#107

Post by ralph84 »

cr125rider wrote: post #105
ralph84 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't a cargo conversion available for the 777-200 or 777-200ER. But at the right price they could probably find some buyers in the VIP and charter markets.

That is such a huge plane for a charter my god. That’s gotta be Saudi level money

American football teams and the military regularly charter that size aircraft to move personnel. The Arizona Cardinals own five 777s. The New England Patriots own two 767s. In addition to flying cargo, Atlas Air does passenger charter with a fleet of ten 747s and 767s.

https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Arizona-Cardinals

https://www.planespotters.net/airline/New-England-Patriots

https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Atlas-Air

Re: United 777-200 fleet faces an uncertain future after Dulles engine failure

#108

Post by jcims »

rottencupcakes wrote: post #99
jcims wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lufthansa I had to walk away from a $600 ticket that I booked at the last minute b/c in the 30 seconds between the time I paid for the ticket and the time the booking returned, the connecting flight filled up and I had to wait a day I didn't have for the next one. Couldn't get a single consideration from anyone, they said they couldn't cancel the ticket b/c the first leg was still available. Just had to walk away f…

I had paid $150 or so for a extra legroom seat (on lufthansa). They did some last minute tomfoolery and my seat changed on my phone as I boarded the plane. I was now not even in a premium economy row, but just a normal seat. I tried telling the flight attendant, who gave no shits - she just said "the plane isn't full, sit anywhere when we are in the air." Fine, I found a premium economy aisle (still no extra legroom…

It's wild. It's basically just straight up theft wrapped in layers of disclaimers and circumstances.

Re: United 777-200 fleet faces an uncertain future after Dulles engine failure

#109

Post by tekla »

wewtyflakes wrote: post #44
tekla wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, this is why I hate it when techies assume they know things because they read something from a blog. The engine did not explode. It suffered an engine failure when the fan blades failed and separated but was a contained failure.

"Shortly after takeoff, as the aircraft approached 13,000 feet, the right engine suffered an explosion." :shrug:

> techies assume they know things because they read something from a blog

Re: United 777-200 fleet faces an uncertain future after Dulles engine failure

#110

Post by wewtyflakes »

tekla wrote: post #109
wewtyflakes wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Shortly after takeoff, as the aircraft approached 13,000 feet, the right engine suffered an explosion." :shrug:

> techies assume they know things because they read something from a blog

I cited sources; you are trying to redefine the word "explode" to not mean explode. Regardless, litigating about the word "explode" is the least interesting part of what happened to this plane; at at the end of day, nobody wants to fly on a plane that has its engine exp... err, suffer catastrophic failure that is totally not an explosion.
Post reply on HN