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

Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 494 posts

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#431

Post by wpm »

djmips wrote: post #326
lisper wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with large organizations where once their markets mature, everybody who can build a product end-to-end leaves or gets forced out, leaving only people with highly specialized maintenance skillsets It's not just building a product end-to-end. Tim Cook is a supply-chain guy. He knows how to build a product. What he doesn't know how is how to design a new one. This is the reason that all of the "new" stuff that has com…

I feel like moving in the direction of their own silicon and getting M1 out and to massive success was under Tim Cook's watch. You might not consider this 'designing a new product' but I do.

PASemi was acquired in 2008.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#432

Post by Romario77 »

sgjohnson wrote: post #140
Night_Thastus wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They need both . They want the high-margin business and first-class passengers, but with those alone the volume would be too low and overall prices too high to make operating feasible. The high-volume low-margin economy customers keep seats filled to prevent wasted potential space. On most commercial planes, flight is only profitable if nearly every seat is filled.

> They need both. No. If they could fill the entire plane with business/first class seats and sell out >70% (maybe even less) of it, you bet they would. The only reason why economy class exists is because they can’t. But the demand for more premium travel is steadily increasing, which will lead to shrinking economy cabins. So yes, they do need to fill the space. But I wouldn’t say that they need the economy passenger…

How would you explain discount airlines that don't have business class at all?

You also contradict yourself saying they only profit from business class but at the same time they can't profit from business class because there is no enough demand for it.

Your statement doesn't make sense and what the poster above you said is right - they need both and that's the reason there are both.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#433

Post by bee_rider »

sfn42 wrote: post #370
cgio wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A phrase does not mean anything by itself. People mean something when they use it. You could argue that expressions carry some meaning, by virtue of shared use. But your definition does not align with the meaning most people make of this specific expression as you can witness above.

People misuse expressions. A common one is the customer is always right. The actual wording is the customer is always right in matters of taste but people cut off the ending which changes it from a sensible and useful proverb to a bunch of nonsense. Of course the customer isn't always right. They're always right in terms of what they want to buy, not in all other terms. Similarly an exception like a lawyer being a go…

On top of what j5r5myk mentioned, there is a fairly good record of the origin on “the customer is always right,” (described on Wikipedia) because it was something like a moderately well known person’s catchphrase, in an era when newspapers and marketing existed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_customer_is_always_right

There’s some quibbling to be had about the meaning, but it puts it closer to “assume good faith” or something like that, rather than reducing it to just preferences.

> The earliest known printed mention of the phrase is a September 1905 article in the Boston Globe about Field, which describes him as "broadly speaking" adhering to the theory that "the customer is always right".

> However, John William Tebbel was of the opinion that Field never himself actually said such a thing, because he was "no master of idiom". Tebbel rather believed it probable that what Field would have actually said was "Assume the customer is right until it is plain beyond all question that he is not."

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#434

Post by KineticLensman »

arethuza wrote: post #423
HPsquared wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same considerations apply to Mars.

Hence the "Reds" vs. "Greens" in the KSR Mars trilogy.

I always found it amusing that KSR's Greens were the side that would have in effect have destroyed the natural environment of Mars (by terraforming it), unlike our Greens who in general want to preserve the environment.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#435

Post by bee_rider »

amelius wrote: post #419
parineum wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what "the exception proves the rule" means. It means, when you see a sign that says an exception, "no parking Wednesdays between 8 and 12", it proves the rule that parking is allowed otherwise.

That's a logical fallacy.

But parking signs are not proofs.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#436

Post by arethuza »

KineticLensman wrote: post #434
arethuza wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence the "Reds" vs. "Greens" in the KSR Mars trilogy.

I always found it amusing that KSR's Greens were the side that would have in effect have destroyed the natural environment of Mars (by terraforming it), unlike our Greens who in general want to preserve the environment.

I think that's the point? :-)

The Reds want to preserve the environment and the Greens want to completely change it...

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#437

Post by hydrogen7800 »

0xTJ wrote: post #429

It'll be interesting to see if they can turn around their reputation. For my own travel decisions, a flight scheduled on a Boeing plane has a genuine impact on considering other options, especially if I have flexibility. Not because I'm worried about an incident (I know that flying is incredibly safe, and feel very comfortable with it), but out of pure spite.

You're not alone, but I find it interesting that not too long ago[0] there was a common sentiment of "if it's not Boeing, I'm not going". I heard that often after the Air France 447 crash [1]

[0]OK, I guess 2009 is not as recent as I remember...

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#438

Post by iamleppert »

lisper wrote: post #367
tw04 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, Johnny Ive had the MacBook on a trajectory to disaster trying to make it thinner for the sake of being thin. Under Cook’s leadership they actually listened to users and redesigned it to be something people actually wanted. Beyond that, I’m not sure what you think is going to be the visionary product. AR/VR still feels like 3D tv to me - a solution looking for a problem. The best use case I’ve seen was HoloLe…

> AR/VR still feels like 3D tv to me - a solution looking for a problem. Have you tried the Vision Pro? It was a life-changing experience for me. I actually forgot that I was looking at a screen and thought that I was looking through a transparent visor. It was that good. If they could get the weight down I'd buy it in a heartbeat. The problem it solves (for me, or at least would solve if it didn't weigh so damned mu…

What people fail to realize is that 2D works. It's the optimal configuration of information for the human brain. Adding a third dimension, although possible and supported natively by human brain hardware, adds little to no value to almost everything people do with computers.

Where does it add value? Entertainment, but not nearly as much as 2D entertainment. It also takes a lot more processing power to decode the 3D experience. It's why people get fatigued after spending any reasonable amount of time in VR. Some of that is due to the synthetic nature of the experience, but even a theoretical perfect device would require more energy consumption for the brain to decode than an equivalent 2D interface. The experience in 3D might be more intuitive because it borrows from already learned spatial relationships and behaviors from the real world, but long term it's going to take more energy to accomplish the same task in a 3D environment than a 2D one.

For the vast majority of people, what we have now is optimal. It's like trying to train a model when its already converged.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#439

Post by NegativeK »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #283
bigiain wrote: post #271

Boeing today is so obviously a different organisation to the one that built their rapidly dwindling reputation. The 747 was an amazing engineering marvel. They started designing it in '65, the first one rolled off the production line in '68, and they were still making and selling them right up to 2023. I have a book here somewhere that talks about how so many of the design decisions were based on cold hard physics fa…

> Cessna 172s flying into international airports have to fly their landing approach way faster than usual for that type of plane because _everybody_ flies approaches at 747 speeds. This isn't even close to true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_approach_category . Cessnas approach at less than half the speed of 747s. The safe maximum cruising speed is 20-30 kts short of a 747 approach speed. You would have to b…

To your point, the large airport I worked at was annoyed at small, slow aircraft landing because it jacked up the spacing and slowed down the customers who paid the vast majority of the bills. But the feds required the airport to allow it for a low (relatively) fee, so the airport could only be annoyed.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#440

Post by jt2190 »

alkonaut wrote: post #427
mjg59 wrote: post #158

Boeing currently has an awkward gap between the 737 and the widebodies that was previously filled by the 757 - the 737 Max 10 (which still isn't certified!) only has about two thirds of the range of the A321XLR, and a slightly lower passenger capacity. Airlines that currently have 757 fleets and who need that range are going for Airbus instead, and Boeing just doesn't have an answer for it. So while, yes, any new Boe…

So given that both the basic recipe for the 737 and A320 are pretty old by now, how much "better" could a new clean sheet narrowbody realistically be, given recent in aircraft design? And how much better would it _need_ to be, in order for large 737 operators to be convinced to place their next order for the new 7007? (yes, like nVidia, I trust they'll just add a number and start over when they run out of numbers).

This comment talks about next-gen engines as the driver for new airframe designs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45431849

Those engines will be a major driver of whether “better” is achieved, in particular maintenance costs and fuel economy will need to move the needle.

Post reply on HN