
United orders 50 new Airbus long-range jets to replace Boeing 757s - nolok
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-united-arlns-fleet-airbus/united-orders-50-new-airbus-long-range-jets-to-replace-boeing-757s-idUSKBN1Y800N
======
whatshisface
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.

~~~
rsynnott
I mean, one option is to break up Boeing (and Airbus). They’re far too
vertically integrated.

~~~
wbl
Vertical integration means fewer middlemen driving up the margin on each part.

~~~
whatshisface
Efficient market theory would suggest that there is no margin in equilibrium,
and what looks like margin is actually the cost of capital (which all
companies, big and small, have to pay).

~~~
theli0nheart
Economics is laughably bad at predicting real-world economic behavior.

~~~
whatshisface
That's too broad a statement. There are some theories in economics that work
very well, like supply and demand, or arbitrage theory. The idea of the cost
of capital is also a fairly well-trodden one, it is taught in business
courses, used on wallstreet, and seems to work in practice.

~~~
theli0nheart
I can't think of a single broad economic axiom or theory that doesn't
depend—wholly or in-part—on the principle of ceteris paribus, which excludes
their practical application to essentially everything in real life.

In a few cases, economic theories do a passable job of roughly mirroring real-
world behavior, but that's the exception and not the rule.

~~~
whatshisface
> _on the principle of ceteris paribus, which excludes their practical
> application to essentially everything in real life._

When a principle is violated marginally, conclusions made based on the
principle are themselves violated marginally. You can't write off chemistry
because relativistic effects violate the conservation of mass any more than
you can write off economics because no two soup cans are identical.

~~~
theli0nheart
Economics waves off secondary effects at an entirely different level than
Chemistry.

------
roymurdock
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 could really be set up to take a lot of
commercial aircraft market share over the coming decades.

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

[https://www.wired.com/story/us-china-cybertheft-su-
bin/](https://www.wired.com/story/us-china-cybertheft-su-bin/)

~~~
nine_zeros
But the rest of the world (larger than the US) might just want a cheap deal
with companies from business friendly countries?

~~~
mensetmanusman
Yes, China has found it is incredibly effective to just pay individual leaders
in Africa to get their business and win bids.

I don’t see how the west wins this one

------
davidhyde
What is keeping Boeing's share price so stable in the wake of such
catastrophic news for the company this year?

~~~
snowwrestler
I'm sure Boeing would have loved to have those orders, but 50 planes is not
catastrophic.

In terms of the aircraft group, Boeing has steadily growing 787 orders and
deliveries, with about 500 orders yet to deliver.

In terms of their space program, they are close to testing their manned
capsule and just got a light touch program review, while SpaceX got put
through the ringer.

And there are other aspects to Boeing that I'm not familiar with, but I'm sure
don't relate directly to the 737 MAX.

As for Airbus, they have had to kill their A380 program, seemingly
prematurely, in the face of declining interesting and cancelled orders. So,
it's not all roses on the other side of the pond either.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
> In terms of their space program, they are close to testing their manned
> capsule and just got a light touch program review, while SpaceX got put
> through the ringer.

I'm sure this will end well for them...

~~~
dnautics
Oh no kidding. I'm putting puts on BA ahead of their upcoming capsule failure
in two weeks.

~~~
CamperBob2
Except the whole point of this subthread is that Boeing's stock price never
faces any actual consequences, regardless of how badly the company screws up.

Boeing will not be allowed to fail, even if it personally bankrupts every
taxpayer in the United States. And they know it.

~~~
dnautics
Puts are short term, not long term. I agree that boeing will not be allowed to
fail. Let's assume that it gets that bad. At what valuation will the company
in the immediate wake of a bailout? 125% of current value? Or 75% of its
current value?

------
rootusrootus
My takeaway is that Airbus and Boeing both need to make progress on their
clean-sheet midsize designs. The A321XLR sounds great but it's kinda what
Boeing has been doing to the 737, milking it for decades. The A320 is a newer
design, for sure, but it's not young.

I won't miss the 737. What I'd love to see is a twin-aisle-but-small short
range aircraft. Yeah, that won't happen, but it would be comfy.

~~~
wenc
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 forward to these planes becoming
more and more common.

Obligatory Wendover Productions video on the A220 and the fight with Boeing

[https://youtu.be/V1YMPk3XhCc](https://youtu.be/V1YMPk3XhCc)

~~~
disintegore
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.

~~~
wenc
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.

------
arnon
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.

~~~
rburhum
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.

~~~
dbcurtis
I have been thinking about how to implement that after the MAX starts flying
again. Flight search interfaces don’t seem to filter on equipment. And of
course, equipment gets changed at times, so you may book one aircraft and have
a different one swapped in on the ramp. I wonder if after you have checked in,
and the airline swaps in a MAX, if you can get credit for your ticket if you
refuse to board a MAX? I would guess not. (Yes, I know airlines try to avoid
changing equipment because it causes reseating hassle and crew scheduling
hassle. But it _does_ happen)

~~~
mumblemumble
Seems like you could either target routes that don't fly 737s at all, just
much bigger or much smaller planes. Or you could stick to carriers that don't
own any 737 MAX 8's such as Amtrak and SNCF.

~~~
bronco21016
Delta Air Lines, Spirit, JetBlue, Allegiant... you’re not stuck to just rail.

~~~
mumblemumble
It's too bad that the site where I have the greatest need for emoji is also
the only one that doesn't support them.

------
rsynnott
> United’s 757 planes will reach the end of their lifespan in about a decade

About a decade?! I was on one of their 757s returning to Dublin a while ago;
it felt like they were already pushing the end of its lifespan. I suppose the
repair of the interior doesn’t say much about the airframe...

~~~
pcr0
Airplane lifespans are determined by pressurization/depressurization cycles
(i.e. number of flight trips), not distance flown or interior wear and tear.

~~~
rsynnott
Yep, I mean I know it’s nothing to do with the interior. But this didn’t seem
like a plane that was being taken care of; it felt like one they intended to
scrap the next week, so there was no point putting the work in any more. I was
honestly kind of shocked; hadn’t been on a plane like it since Ryanair
modernised their fleet.

------
DrScientist
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.

~~~
Merrill
>Airlines receive only about 60% of their revenue from passengers directly
(the other 40% comes from selling frequent-flier miles to credit card
companies). But of that 60% of passenger consumer revenue, the big money comes
from business travelers – as opposed to those flying for leisure or personal
reasons – in percentages that far outweigh their numbers. Business travelers
account for 12% percent of airlines' passengers, but they are typically twice
as profitable. In fact, on some flights, business passengers represent 75% of
an airline's profits.

[https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/041315/how-much-
rev...](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/041315/how-much-revenue-
airline-industry-comes-business-travelers-compared-leisure-travelers.asp)

I think that video conferencing and collaboration technologies have already
curtailed business travel, the most profitable part of the airline business.

The high volume in terms of passenger numbers is dominated by leisure travel.
Video conferencing is unlikely to affect this (although the family did a
Hangout at Thanksgiving), but it might be affected by stronger environmental
campaigns or by a significant economic downturn. In fact, I think an economic
downturn could cause a fairly steep drop in leisure air travel.

~~~
0xffff2
When they say "business travelers", do they mean people traveling for
business, or people traveling in business class? I am fairly certain that
those are almost entirely disparate groups at this point.

~~~
rconti
People traveling for business.

And they're more profitable for reasons not relating to class of seat.

~~~
ggm
Premium economy is profitable and robbing economy and business. We might see a
return to a happy medium

~~~
rconti
I would so love this. It seems like it shouldn't be too much to ask to spend
50% more and actually get an armrest and a seat that doesn't make my tailbone
numb after a few hours. In percentage terms, it's not a lot of space. If a
couple inches for an armrest is to wide to fit in an existing plane in a 3+3
config, maybe they should plan better for the next generation of planes.

~~~
ggm
Some writers say the bombardier C has widened the middle seat in 3 abreast,
which would be a significant thing if true.

My personal view, (from the luxury of Business, now moving back south as I
cease work travel) is that seat pitch, seat size, and seat density should be
regulated. That removes competitive tension around "who suffers more for
price" but at a socialized cost of travel costs more than bucket seat prices.
I know thats anti-democratising in the specifics of who now will be able to
afford routine travel, but the cram-them-in approach has got beyond
acceptable.

~~~
DrScientist
Regulated for what size person? The average ( then still too small for a good
proportion ), or 60%, 70 or 80& of average?

Also people are different proportions - length v body, top versus bottom part
of leg etc.

You might also deprive diminutive people one of their few perks - cheap _and_
comfortable air travel :-)

~~~
rconti
Presumably, anything better than what we have today would be... better.

------
crb
Fun fact: United used to be part of Boeing. The two were split in 1934 when a
scandal around air mail pricing led to laws saying you couldn't both make
planes and operate them commercially.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_Airlines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_Airlines)

~~~
igravious
"you couldn't both make planes and operate them commercially."

We need a _way_ more laws like this :)

I'll start with 3 off the top of my head.

1) You can't both make content and distribute content commercially

2) (More abstractly) You can't both make a platform and compete with sellers
and resellers on that platform

3) You can't both make a mass or social media product and allow advertisers'
concerns to dictate content

They're a bit sketchy but you get where I'm coming from I hope?

~~~
wvenable
Sometimes this has unintended consequences. For example, not being able to
make cars and sell them directly as created a system that doesn't necessarily
benefit consumers.

------
just_steve_h
I can't believe no one has linked L. J. Hart-Smith's classic 2001 paper "Out-
Sourced Profits" yet!

[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2011/02/04/2014130646...](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2011/02/04/2014130646.pdf)

It offers a detailed look at Douglas Aircraft and their doomed attempt to
boost profits via outsourcing.

Those familiar with the commercial aviation business know that Boeing's
"purchase" of McDonnell-Douglas resulted in wholesale importation of Douglas's
accounting wizardry to what had been a largely engineering- and safety-driven
corporate culture.

Relevance to the MAX fiasco and the tardiness of Boeing's NMA designs is left
as an exercise to the reader…

------
yingw787
What’s the state of mechanical engineering Software tooling / infrastructure
On Linux and UNIX-like operating systems? I know Solidworks and AutoCAD are
primarily Windows-based software, with proprietary data formats like
.SLDPRT/.SLDASM (Solidworks Assembly) and high vendor lock-in. Why haven’t we
seen greater adoption of scriptable, composable utilities (like a finite
element analysis simulation) that might enable better horizontal scaling and
commoditization of complements? Is it because hardware and mechengr is capital
intensive already and high capex on software is justifiable? Seems to me like
a first principle (software is free to copy) just waiting to be executed on.

Might make entry into otherwise moaty markets like aerospace a bit easier.

~~~
samcheng
FreeCAD is not bad and used pretty extensively by the 3D printing hobbyists.
It's nicely script-able with Python.

However, from my experience, it's still nowhere near the level of polish that
e.g. Solidworks has, so professional work is still primarily done with non-
Free tools.

I have no direct information, but I'd imagine the big aerospace companies have
significant proprietary internal tooling, specialized to their own work flows
and IP.

~~~
benhurmarcel
> but I'd imagine the big aerospace companies have significant proprietary
> internal tooling

Right, but for mechanical CAD it's heavily based on Catia. The customization
is more on the PLM side.

------
bfrog
It's surprising airbus hasn't eaten more of Boeing's lunch. The A32x series
planes fit the roles of the 737/757/767 seemingly, and likely don't require
new certifications to fly each in the series. I think boeing has not only lost
customers from the 737 max but confidence from people actually flying boeing
jets as a whole. I for one look at the plane I'm flying on when buying
tickets, I pay more for planes that have good to great safety records. I can't
be alone in that.

~~~
Leherenn
They're production constrained. The backlog for A32x is like 10 year long. At
some point, better a slightly inferior plane now (well, in the next few years)
than in 20 years.

I assume they don't increase production (or at least not enough to massively
reduce this backlog) because they don't expect this to keep up, and it's a
massive investment.

~~~
nutjob2
Airbus say that they would like to increase production of the A320 series but
are constrained by their suppliers's ability to expand their production.

------
tus88
You think they could have predicted the need for a 757 replacement and
realized the 737 isn't it. Or just kept updated 757s in production, just like
the 737 has been.

~~~
0xffff2
Boeing's next plane will likely be a 757 replacement[0]. Part of the reason
that the MAX exists is the clean-sheet replacement designs take a long time
(and take longer than anticipated/desired even after accounting for the fact
that they take a long time).

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_New_Midsize_Airplane](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_New_Midsize_Airplane)

------
rakefire
Fuel-efficiency and increased range are enticing airlines to opt for smaller
planes on longer routes as they seek to control their operating costs.

------
mrandish
The A321XRs are super long single-aisle planes and they're planning to use
them on trans-atlantic routes. 6 hour+ flight times on single-aisle
configurations will make a poor user experience even worse.

~~~
sithadmin
Single-aisle airliners are already super common on 6+ hours transcontinental
flights in the US, and relatively common on shorter transatlantic flights from
the US east coast to Europe (where the single-aisle 757 these jets are
replacing are already used). Consumers seem to tolerate this just fine.

------
caseyf7
I hope the 30% lower fuel burn per seat compared to previous generation
aircraft is not due to packing the seats even tighter.

------
briandear
Too bad they couldn’t just order new 757s. A great airplane.

------
rado
If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going down

------
ausjke
From a different perspective that's what you got when company are obsessed to
save money everywhere no matter what it takes, to the point to outsource
airplane control system software to India at $9 per hour, we had airplane-
battery-problem a few years back at Boeing due to the same reason, now it
starts to kill people, where is the end?

People buy airplane for safety first, nobody dares to buy them no matter how
cheap they are if they will end up killing people on board.

