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

Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

finshots.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 354 posts

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#211

Post by quink »

AniseAbyss wrote: post #167
stg22 wrote: post #140

The role of McDonnell-Douglas is exaggerated. Boeing had achieved pretty close to a monopoly in the mid-1970s, but things had changed by the mid-1990s. 1. Domestic airlines protected by regulation had been effective monopolies and Boeing's engineer-led culture thrived in an environment where airlines didn't care about costs. But that environment died with airline deregulation in 1978 and an engineer-led culture made…

What's happening to Boeing isn't really remarkable lots of dinosaur conglomerates rise and fall. I'm just a casual follower but it seems their glory days are from the 60s and 70s and they've been coasting along since then.

> glory days

1971: Will the Last Person Leaving SEATTLE — Turn Out the Lights

I’d argue the 757, 767 and 737 Classic (i.e. -300 to -500), all of which much more 80s than 70s were much more glorious.

And the 90s brought us the 737NG and 777 which continue to carry more than everything else today and for that matter anything else ever, other than maybe the A320ceo.

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#212

Post by ploxiln »

mcv wrote: post #34

Here's what I don't understand: the 737 MAX was introduced in 2017. In 2018, two of them dropped out of the sky, the grounded for a while, it turned out Boeing had lost its engineering culture and its priority for safety, and it became clear that the 737 MAX had some serious design problems that they had tried to fix in software. And according to this article, the 737 MAX is Boeing's best selling plane ever. Why? Why…

It's like enterprise software - the product and sales managers are just giving the high-paying customers what they demand. And it works for sales. It does not result in a good design though.

(Of course, I'm an engineer ... I don't know how to sell a good design to big pockets, I just know why the technical design sucks ...)

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#213

Post by WalterBright »

Swenrekcah wrote: post #94
fsckboy wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the 737 MAX is Boeing's best selling plane ever... WHY? in most industries, the fat part of the market is the lower end, so your smallest cheapest product is your biggest seller. McDonalds sells more regular hamburgers than they do Big Macs. BMW sells more 3 series than they do 7 series. There are many other factors that go into selecting the brand of the next plane you buy than simply "zomg they made a mistake". B…

The door plug falling out is a mistake. The MCAS crashes were caused by criminal negligence and outright fraud driven by money concerns. The plane may be OK after the fixes and now when the pilots are no longer (?) being actively misled by Boeing, so perhaps no need to scrap the whole fleet. But MCAS was not a “software problem”.

> But MCAS was not a “software problem”.

Yeah, it was. And so was the fix.

There was also a pilot training issue, in that of the 3 crews that experience MCAS failure, only one of them thought to turn off the trim system (and landed safely).

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#214

Post by kelnos »

linkjuice4all wrote: post #58
mcv wrote: post #34

Here's what I don't understand: the 737 MAX was introduced in 2017. In 2018, two of them dropped out of the sky, the grounded for a while, it turned out Boeing had lost its engineering culture and its priority for safety, and it became clear that the 737 MAX had some serious design problems that they had tried to fix in software. And according to this article, the 737 MAX is Boeing's best selling plane ever. Why? Why…

Haven't seen it mentioned yet - but there are several reasons why airlines continue to buy from Boeing - specifically the 737 variants. - The pilots are already trained (this is a big one and is part of the reason behind the MCAS debacle - new features mean retraining which costs money and limits which crews can fly which aircraft) [0] - The 737 generally fits easily at a lot of airports since it's been around for a…

> In the US many airlines have shifted to single-aisle "mid-sized" planes for domestic routes due to deregulation around direct service - instead airlines can use a hub-and-spoke model with several connecting flights as opposed to only providing direct routes with enough demand to fill a plane

I think this is no longer strictly true. In the early days of deregulation, yes, absolutely, airlines went to a hub-and-spoke model and eliminated a bunch of their direct routes.

But it turns out that customers don't actually like this, and they'll leave for a different airline that has the direct (or at least more-direct) routes they want.

So I believe it's sorta in the middle now: sure, airlines have hubs, and they don't do quite as many direct routes as they used to. But it's also common for there to be direct flights between airports that aren't what you might call hubs.

(Note that the article you linked to in support of this point is from 2001; a lot has changed over the past 23 years.)

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#216

Post by WalterBright »

cratermoon wrote: post #126
mcv wrote: post #34

Here's what I don't understand: the 737 MAX was introduced in 2017. In 2018, two of them dropped out of the sky, the grounded for a while, it turned out Boeing had lost its engineering culture and its priority for safety, and it became clear that the 737 MAX had some serious design problems that they had tried to fix in software. And according to this article, the 737 MAX is Boeing's best selling plane ever. Why? Why…

> Is it really that cheap? The fuel economy is driving the switch. The 737MAX was created to compete with the a320neo. For airlines, especially with rising fuel prices, even a small % improvement in fuel efficiency gives huge returns.

40% of the cost of your ticket is for fuel.

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#218

Post by kelnos »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #112
bluGill wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What choice do they have? Airplanes wear out from metal fatigue over time, so airlines must replace their airplanes regularly. It isn't safe to keep operating the same airplanes for decades. (this very much depends on what the plane is made of - so some airplanes from the 1950s are still safe while others from 2000 are not). Sometimes airplanes are scraped by selling to some "third world" airline that keeps operating…

> It isn't safe to keep operating the same airplanes for decades. Me, crying while flying a 50 year old Cessna 172. Oh, luckily you are wrong this time: most planes at top airlines are replaced with more competitive ones, not because they depleted the airframe. The rest is replaceable - airplanes replace engines more often than some people change their socks and everything else is either regularly checked or replaced…

Airframe life is rated in hours of flight, not in years. So your 50 year old Cessna might still have plenty of hours left in it; I bet planes like that aren't in the air as much as commercial airliners.

Also note that the GP pointed out that it depends on what the plane is made out of, so older construction from 50 years ago can have more longevity in a way that more recently-built planes will not.

Re: Did a 1997 merger ruin Boeing?

#220

Post by joe_the_user »

iisan7 wrote: post #181
joe_the_user wrote: post #79

The article seems really thin. I'd be curious what decision-making process went into the situation where "McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing’s money". Was the MD management team just savy about mergers? Were consultants pushing for "value creation" involved? Or what? Anyone have a better link?

I remember some good stories after the last MAX scandal, like https://qz.com/1776080/how-the-mcdonnell-douglas-boeing-merg... . It's not clear whether Stonecipher simply outmaneuvered Condit, or perhaps McDonnell Douglas execs were knowingly elevated because Condit didn't trust others, who might also have resented his decisons.

Interesting article: "An ambitious program of cost-cutting, outsourcing, and digitalization had already begun (before the merger)". It seems like Boeing may wanted MD executives "expertise" at cost-cutting based management.
Post reply on HN