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

Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

euronews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 137 posts

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#81

Post by thuridas »

hgoel wrote: post #24
tokai wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is what they need the political lobbying for. Obviously not to help their pricing.

If you mean they need to lobby the US government to be less schizophrenic, I agree. Though I suspect the government would just decide to start more wars. If you mean they need to lobby the other governments, I don't think that'll work, the decreasing trust is associated with the US government's actions, not as related to the arms dealers' actions.

Can you lobby to make Trump become not Trump?

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#82

Post by wolvoleo »

maxglute wrote: post #70
wolvoleo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Economically, fuel costs, i.e. engine maturity makes any entrant that's doesn't have parity engine core tech automatically none viable because simply higher costs due to lifetime fuel costs. Neither Boeing nor Airbus make their own engines. They get them from CFM, GE, Rolls-Royce. Like everyone else. That's not the differentiator. But it just costs insanely much to get an airliner certified. Even Boeing has been he…

>That's not the differentiator. It's differentiator in sense engine manufactures are part of western aviation industrial complex and can limit access, i.e. COMAC sanctions. Unless you're western core, you do not have guaranteed access. I think Embraer is creeping on to bottom end of narrowbody, but they're far from wide body. And with respect to topic, modern strategic tanking are wide body size, i.e. Embraer E190 is…

I travelled on an E195 recently and I have to say it was much more comfortable than any 737 or 320/321 I've been on. Unlike other regionals I've travelled on in the past which were noisy, cramped and bumpy.

Their squircle fuselage works out really well. Really next-gen which makes sense because the Boeing and Airbus designs are decades old. I think they certainly have the chops to scale it up that bit to reach regular narrow body. But I imagine they just don't want to because that might mean trade sanctions from the US.

But I think the restrictions are more artificial/protectionist than actual knowledge. I'm sure sooner rather than later we'll have comacs flying in Europe. The Russian ones depend really on whether they resolve the war situation.

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#84

Post by [deleted] »

tokai wrote: post #8
Quarrel wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stop payment resulted in the US pulling from the pre payment for the F35s... Which Switzerland then reluctantly agreed was allowed under the terms. As you say, totally being taken to the cleaners, and it is unclear how they escape in the short term. The more this happens though, the more deals like Italy's make senese, irrespective of the performance comparison of the two planes. If the US is going to be an unrelia…

I don't understand why US weapons manufactures are not lobbying harder. They are losing the European market just as the largest rearmament since ww2 happens. Maybe they are and its just a lost cause with the US administration.

[deleted]

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#85

Post by badosu »

wolvoleo wrote: post #82
maxglute wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's not the differentiator. It's differentiator in sense engine manufactures are part of western aviation industrial complex and can limit access, i.e. COMAC sanctions. Unless you're western core, you do not have guaranteed access. I think Embraer is creeping on to bottom end of narrowbody, but they're far from wide body. And with respect to topic, modern strategic tanking are wide body size, i.e. Embraer E190 is…

I travelled on an E195 recently and I have to say it was much more comfortable than any 737 or 320/321 I've been on. Unlike other regionals I've travelled on in the past which were noisy, cramped and bumpy. Their squircle fuselage works out really well. Really next-gen which makes sense because the Boeing and Airbus designs are decades old. I think they certainly have the chops to scale it up that bit to reach regula…

There are indications Embraer might announce a new aircraft at the next Farnborough Airshow, fingers crossed!

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#86

Post by jmward01 »

The US stock market is a lag indicator. It is built on perception and whim but, ultimately, is forced to deal with reality. Stories like this don't shift the market, and economies, overnight but they are showing what should be decades of economic and political shift happening relatively in just a few years. In the end this isn't just a signal that Europe has lost faith in the current administration, it is pretty clear that happened a while ago, this is a sign that Europe and others have lost faith in future US administrations. Everyone is a looser here in the long run for many reasons. We really did have it all.

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#87

Post by dpark »

stouset wrote: post #32
dylan604 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having doors flying off one of your planes and engine failure causing part of the cowling to bust a window and sucking a passenger out of another is definitely not a bit of politics. Nevermind the bullshit 737Max nonsense. At this point, I'd imagine any Boeing orders left are only in place because Airbus can't keep up. Politics didn't need to come within 10 miles of this decision. It's just the free cherry on top.

The engine that failed on the Southwest flight was a CFM International CFM56, which has also been used on multiple Airbus planes including the A320. The engine itself as well as the containment mechanism that’s supposed to prevent this kind of situation were the responsibility of CFM and had nothing to do with Boeing. This could just as easily have happened on an A320. This example only serves to highlight how popula…

> The engine itself as well as the containment mechanism that’s supposed to prevent this kind of situation were the responsibility of CFM and had nothing to do with Boeing.

NTSB seems to think it’s Boeing’s responsibility to redesign the cowl to prevent this.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#89

Post by vkou »

thuridas wrote: post #81
hgoel wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you mean they need to lobby the US government to be less schizophrenic, I agree. Though I suspect the government would just decide to start more wars. If you mean they need to lobby the other governments, I don't think that'll work, the decreasing trust is associated with the US government's actions, not as related to the arms dealers' actions.

Can you lobby to make Trump become not Trump?

You can lobby congress to put him in a 6x6 cell. For any reason whatsoever, including no reason whatsoever. Their trials are ultimately a yes/no vote, the facts don't matter.

They are just as complicit in failing to exercise their power.

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#90

Post by vkou »

ericmay wrote: post #51
wolvoleo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is expressed in the House, but the Senate serves to balance that and ensure that populists don’t run roughshod over the country. Yet that is exactly what has been happening twice now.

Well, dissolving the Senate would just make that problem even worse if that's your viewpoint. "Twice now" seems to be a dig at Trump as though MAGA is the only populist movement, but ANTIFA/BLM and other, similar populist groups have taken hold of power in various forms as well, primarily in certain west coast states and cities.

Antifa and BLM have the political power of a mouse fart. Please don't compare them to the elephant in the room.
Post reply on HN