Live data from Hacker News

United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

reuters.com

131–140 of 301 posts

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#131
post #17

America is going to pay for the cronyism that merged every airplane manufacturer into one and eliminated internal competition. If you don't have internal competition, you'll collapse in the face of external competition. There is no way to get away from Boeing without getting away from the American aerospace industry entirely, a problem that didn't exist back when McDonnell Douglas was around.

Why would Airbus be different?

My suspicion: the whole world lets the FAA validate airplanes and then sort of rubber stamps. Boeing was able to capture the FAA, but Airbus wasn't(since it's a foreign company). As such Airbus is still working with a proper adversarial regulator, whereas Boeing can get away with more cut corners. Eventually that screwed them.

The EUs move for greater local safety review, ironically, might make Airbus less safe, since they might be able to capture the EU regulators.

[edit] to emphasize: it's not market competition or the EU being better than the USA that's different. It's just the quasi-monopoly the FAA has on global aviation safety checks and the effect it has on foreign versus local companies.

In fairness, if there were multiple US aircraft manufacturers, they might battle each other for FAA regulatory capture and prevent either of them from achieving it.

[double edit] For the reverse of this see Dieselgate: discovered by some random American(named of all things John German) and pushed into the limelight by the EPA or whatever. It's not a perfect metaphor since he worked for an NGO, but arguably even civil society faces a sort of funder capture. Would German environmental NGOs have blown the whistle on something like this? Maybe?

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#132

It will be interesting how Boeing/Airbus/traditional carriers react when China fully enters the market with Comac-built/branded planes. Commercial flights of its first plane, the C919 are slated for 2021. The whole 737 MAX fiasco really came at a bad time for the US aerospace industry, and if the other comments about Airbus being just as bad culture-wise are true (profits/jobs over serious engineering), then China co…

It will be blocked from purchase in the U.S.

https://www.wired.com/story/us-china-cybertheft-su-bin/

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#133
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Airbus A220 (formerly the Bombardier C-Series) is a clean sheet design and by most accounts, one of the best designs of its class today. It widely considered to be a next generation commercial aircraft, and will be unsurpassed by competitors for a couple of years until they catch up with newer designs. It’s enjoyed rave reviews by consumers and airplane nerds love it. Delta has already bought a bunch and I look f…

IIRC, Boeing muscled the C-Series out of the market with race-to-the-bottom tactics, which eventually led to the Airbus acquisition of the program. If Airbus manages to meet its targets with the A220 this might constitute in ironic justice.

I look forward to the day when most of my regional flights are on A220s. CRJs are a little long in the tooth. ERJs are decent but A220s are much better.

Cabin config is of course airline dependent but in one of the default configurations the A220 middle seat is actually wider than the flanking seats. In a world no one cares about customer comfort this is a nice reversal.

As a frequent flyer customer I find comfort has much more to do with aircraft than cabin service: I flew 2 United segments in the past few days on 737 equipment. United flight attendants are the highest paid among US airlines but United doesn’t spend enough money on ops. Aircrafts had so many technical issues and both segments were heavily delayed and very uncomfortable. No amount of customer service would have helped.

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#134

Looking at the bigger picture - I wonder if we are at 'peak' air travel - because: 1. Improved video conferencing quality and availability 2. potential future green initiatives - like adding tax to air fuel or frequent flyer taxes. Sure people will still want to travel, but might do less.

Maybe in the West, but with increasing incomes in China and India, we'll likely see increased travel in the East (and world-wide) for quite some time.

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#135
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airbus isn't focused on profit (cutting corners), it's focused on politics (i.e. providing jobs in different countries). Hopefully that would make (local) engineers more powerful...

> Airbus isn't focused on profit Why would you say that? > profit (cutting corners) Is profit the same as cutting corners?

Was it profitable for Boeing to cut corners?

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#136
post #2

Mostly, this proves that the 737 MAX isn't a valid alternative to the 757. This goes against Boeing's official stance. The A321 (and the 757) is a lot more flexible, can carry more cargo, and has better performance.

Well, the 737 MAX isn’t a valid alternative to anything while it’s grounded. Maybe the concept of the MAX being a replacement was valid but, based on Boeing’s blundering development of the plane, can you really fault anyone for avoiding it? Will the MAX fly again? Will it crash again? Will passengers trust it again? Too many unknown questions make it hard to plan ahead.

It just occurred to me that Boeing has been quite successful with branding ("Dreamliner", "MAX"), but maybe wishes it hadn't been... Everyone now knows that MAX is bad, but how many people can tell the difference between a 737-8 and a 737-800?

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#138
post #25
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not that. It is that regardless if the plane is "fixed" or not, many frequent travelers will refuse to fly on a 737 MAX from now on. Last year I took 73 flights. At least three of those were on a MAX. I profusely refuse to get on one of those, regardless if they are fixed or not.

I flew about the same, fortunately never on a MAX. That being said I'm in the same boat, you couldn't pay me enough money to take a ride on a plane that the pilot literally cannot fly without the MCAS system functioning perfectly. Maybe I'm just blissfully ignorant to how bad all the planes in the air are... but I feel like pilots would be screaming bloody murder if they were all as bad as the MAX.

>literally cannot fly without the MCAS system functioning perfectly.

This is not the problem. The aircraft's performance is within the bounds of "perfectly acceptable for what it is" but it is too different from the existing 737s in a particular area. If the portion of the MCAS that handles this particular area were just turned off the MAX would fly fine but it wouldn't be close enough to a 737 for anyone to say with a straight face that pilots can fly without retraining. This need for pilot compatibility lead to a faulty implementation of MCAS of which flies the plane into the ground in certain conditions.

Re: United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s

#140
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Airbus be different?

Because Europe has not legalized corruption to the same degree as the US. Massive campaign contributions is not as common in Europe, hence large European multi-nationals likely don't have the same opportunity to change regulations to serve them. Of course they can still influence politicians by talking about all the jobs they will provide etc. Also power in Europe is not centralized the same way as it is in the US. I…

"EU paid Airbus billions in illegal subsidies, WTO rules": https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44120525
Post reply on HN