4 ms·

Can't you just stop buying airplanes from them? Edit: Do the downvoters also want to throw the executives in jail for life?

fixermark 8y ago
Not really. Aerospace is a very tight-knit oligarchy where the devil you know is entirely too often (historically shown to be) leagues better than the devil you don't. A company ceasing to be a Boeing customer over an issue like this runs the risk that the next company they work with is just as bad in different ways, but now they're ways the company's ground technicians are wholly unfamiliar with.
- benj111 8y ago
  It may be an oligopoly, but it is in the airlines interests to keep them on their toes. If you're an airline of any size it would make sense to have relationships with multiple manufacturers, for the reasons you describe. They can decrease their Boeing orders and increase competitors orders, to maintain relationships and punish Boeing. If you single source your your fleet, you increase the odds of something like this grounding your entire fleet, and you don't even have any leverage to negotiate better terms from Boeing.
  - fixermark 8y ago
    I agree with your reasoning and I'm surprised that companies like Southwest seem to aim for monoculture. ... unless the risk and cost model they're looking at is that having multiple planes in the fleet increases the risk that spare parts are depleted for a particular model, ground crews aren't sufficiently cross-trained and errors on their part make flights less safe on average than in a monoculture, etc.
    - notahacker 8y ago
      It's less an operational risk calculation and more an operational cost calculation. It's entirely possible (and for airlines operating a wide variety of different length routes, entirely necessary) to safely operate a wide variety of airframes, but it does entail paying for a lot more redundancy.
JustSomeNobody 8y ago
And. And just stop buying airplanes from them.
diarmuidc 8y ago
Ah yes, the magical invisible hand of the market will solve this. Now when going on holidays, I need to be factor in the safety standards of the planes that will be servicing my route. Or you know, get a government regulator to regulate airplane manufactures like normal countries.
- benj111 8y ago
  I believe the parent is suggesting airlines buy their planes from a different manufacturer, not that consumers shop around based on manufacturer. Ps if you're flying in a developed nation you probably can rely on regulators to regulate airlines, if you're flying in less developed nations, probably not so much.
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 8y ago
  This (Boeing == evil && government == savior) presupposition is bonkers.
- macspoofing 8y ago
  > Or you know, get a government regulator to regulate airplane manufactures like normal countries. You're assuming that the FAA does not regulate Boeing properly. Do you have any basis for this? The safety record of modern air travel is a huge success story for how public regulations and private innovation can work for the benefit of all.
x0x0 8y ago
It seems to be a duopoly: Boeing and Airbus. There was Embraer, but Boeing is acquiring (acquired?). There's also Bombardier, but Airbus has some partnership deal with them.
- kenneth 8y ago
  There are 4[1] manufacturers of commercial jets today: Boeing (American), Airbus (European), Embraer (Brazilian), and Bombardier (Canadian). Embraer's Boeing deal is being termed a "joint venture" rather than an acquisition, with Boeing getting 80% of most of Embraer's business. Important to note it has been rejected by regulators and shareholders on multiple occasions, and still hasn't gone through. Bombardier recently was pushed to make a deal to sell its popular new CSeries jet to a JV majority owned by Airbus to get around some anti-competitive trade maneuvering by Boeing to add unfair tariffs on it in the US. That said, important to note they are still an independent company with their own jets in other series. Bombardier CRJs are frequently used as regional jets in the US. [1]: Technically there are also Russian and Chinese manufacturers but nobody would willingly buy from them today. On the tiny turboprop end of the spectrum there are a few more European manufacturers that make plans like the popular ATR72.
  - notahacker 8y ago
    Embraer and Bombardier only compete with the very bottom end of Boeing/Airbus' product range anyway. In that respect, even the Russian and Chinese manufacturers that rarely sell outside their home country's sphere of influence are more credible competitors.
FearNotDaniel 8y ago
As consumers, we do at least have the choice on some routes of whether to buy a ticket on a Boeing or not. While you can't guarantee 100% that the airline will use the equipment claimed at the time of purchasing the ticket, I've found at least for short haul within Europe and on one recent long haul holiday, I was able to make a reasonable choice between Airbus and Boeing machines without having to make significant tradeoffs around price, flight time, choice of airport etc. For instance, wherever Ryanair and Eurowings serve the same route, I have my pick of Boeing or Airbus respectively. For the record, when I have a choice, I tend to fly Airbus anyway.
sn41 8y ago
No, this is not the right way to look at it. How will you feel when a purported safe drug ends up killing or maiming many? Oh, they could've stopped buying thalidomide? Shouldn't the management of a burger joint that caused deaths due to food poisoning be punished, just because there's a McDonald's nearby? There is a breach of trust involved in these cases, where the potential fallout is death. That is very serious.

fixermark 8y ago

Not really. Aerospace is a very tight-knit oligarchy where the devil you know is entirely too often (historically shown to be) leagues better than the devil you don't. A company ceasing to be a Boeing customer over an issue like this runs the risk that the next company they work with is just as bad in different ways, but now they're ways the company's ground technicians are wholly unfamiliar with.

benj111 8y ago
It may be an oligopoly, but it is in the airlines interests to keep them on their toes. If you're an airline of any size it would make sense to have relationships with multiple manufacturers, for the reasons you describe. They can decrease their Boeing orders and increase competitors orders, to maintain relationships and punish Boeing. If you single source your your fleet, you increase the odds of something like this grounding your entire fleet, and you don't even have any leverage to negotiate better terms from Boeing.
- fixermark 8y ago
  I agree with your reasoning and I'm surprised that companies like Southwest seem to aim for monoculture. ... unless the risk and cost model they're looking at is that having multiple planes in the fleet increases the risk that spare parts are depleted for a particular model, ground crews aren't sufficiently cross-trained and errors on their part make flights less safe on average than in a monoculture, etc.
  - notahacker 8y ago
    It's less an operational risk calculation and more an operational cost calculation. It's entirely possible (and for airlines operating a wide variety of different length routes, entirely necessary) to safely operate a wide variety of airframes, but it does entail paying for a lot more redundancy.

JustSomeNobody 8y ago

And. And just stop buying airplanes from them.

diarmuidc 8y ago

Ah yes, the magical invisible hand of the market will solve this. Now when going on holidays, I need to be factor in the safety standards of the planes that will be servicing my route. Or you know, get a government regulator to regulate airplane manufactures like normal countries.

benj111 8y ago
I believe the parent is suggesting airlines buy their planes from a different manufacturer, not that consumers shop around based on manufacturer. Ps if you're flying in a developed nation you probably can rely on regulators to regulate airlines, if you're flying in less developed nations, probably not so much.
0xdeadbeefbabe 8y ago
This (Boeing == evil && government == savior) presupposition is bonkers.
macspoofing 8y ago
> Or you know, get a government regulator to regulate airplane manufactures like normal countries. You're assuming that the FAA does not regulate Boeing properly. Do you have any basis for this? The safety record of modern air travel is a huge success story for how public regulations and private innovation can work for the benefit of all.

x0x0 8y ago

It seems to be a duopoly: Boeing and Airbus. There was Embraer, but Boeing is acquiring (acquired?). There's also Bombardier, but Airbus has some partnership deal with them.

kenneth 8y ago
There are 4[1] manufacturers of commercial jets today: Boeing (American), Airbus (European), Embraer (Brazilian), and Bombardier (Canadian). Embraer's Boeing deal is being termed a "joint venture" rather than an acquisition, with Boeing getting 80% of most of Embraer's business. Important to note it has been rejected by regulators and shareholders on multiple occasions, and still hasn't gone through. Bombardier recently was pushed to make a deal to sell its popular new CSeries jet to a JV majority owned by Airbus to get around some anti-competitive trade maneuvering by Boeing to add unfair tariffs on it in the US. That said, important to note they are still an independent company with their own jets in other series. Bombardier CRJs are frequently used as regional jets in the US. [1]: Technically there are also Russian and Chinese manufacturers but nobody would willingly buy from them today. On the tiny turboprop end of the spectrum there are a few more European manufacturers that make plans like the popular ATR72.
- notahacker 8y ago
  Embraer and Bombardier only compete with the very bottom end of Boeing/Airbus' product range anyway. In that respect, even the Russian and Chinese manufacturers that rarely sell outside their home country's sphere of influence are more credible competitors.

FearNotDaniel 8y ago

As consumers, we do at least have the choice on some routes of whether to buy a ticket on a Boeing or not. While you can't guarantee 100% that the airline will use the equipment claimed at the time of purchasing the ticket, I've found at least for short haul within Europe and on one recent long haul holiday, I was able to make a reasonable choice between Airbus and Boeing machines without having to make significant tradeoffs around price, flight time, choice of airport etc. For instance, wherever Ryanair and Eurowings serve the same route, I have my pick of Boeing or Airbus respectively. For the record, when I have a choice, I tend to fly Airbus anyway.

sn41 8y ago

No, this is not the right way to look at it. How will you feel when a purported safe drug ends up killing or maiming many? Oh, they could've stopped buying thalidomide? Shouldn't the management of a burger joint that caused deaths due to food poisoning be punished, just because there's a McDonald's nearby? There is a breach of trust involved in these cases, where the potential fallout is death. That is very serious.