12 ms·

Probably the surprising thing is how _few_ orders they have lost. My understanding is that this is because it is very very difficult for an airline to change fr

Probably the surprising thing is how _few_ orders they have lost. My understanding is that this is because it is very very difficult for an airline to change from Boeing/Airbus to Airbus/Boeing. They need to retool their whole supply chain and retrain all their ground staff and pilots. ...but several airlines are talking about it. Notably American https://airlinerwatch.com/american-airlines-eyes-airbus-a321xlr-to-retire-its-boeing-757-200-fleet/ https://airlinerwatch.com/american-airlines-eyes-airbus-a321... and United in the US https://airlinerwatch.com/united-airlines-considers-airbus-a321-xlr-for-replacement-of-its-aging-boeing-757s/ https://airlinerwatch.com/united-airlines-considers-airbus-a... are both considering replacing old Boeing planes with Airbus.

tyingq 7y ago
If you look at the orders by customer[1], you will see quite a few that exclusively or mostly fly 737's. It would be costly for an airline to have to retrain almost all their pilots, mechanics, etc on a new aircraft...and to purchase all the associated supporting equipment. And, the Max has significantly better fuel efficiency, seating capacity, etc than other 737 models. Falling back to an earlier model isn't easy either. They are banking on the general public forgetting about it over time. Which has happened in the past. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_and_deliveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_...
- sametmax 7y ago
  > They are banking on the general public forgetting about it over time. Which has happened in the past. Which almost always happen. Good strategy. Works for politicians, abusive spouses, big companies. What incentive would they have to do otherwise since society most often offers short outburst of rage, then focuses on something else ?
  - TomMckenny 7y ago
    Regulatory agencies that actually work for the public interest would be a good start.
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    What would be gained by destroying Boeing? And what would be lost?
    - sametmax 7y ago
      That's also how people defended slavery.
      - dang 7y ago
        "Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - rossdavidh 7y ago
      You don't need to destroy Boeing, but we do need to tell them to suck it up and design a new plane. The sooner, the better.
      - WalterBright 7y ago
        There's nothing wrong with the 737MAX airframe. It's a software problem with the MCAS system.
        tyingq 7y ago
        Some might argue the engine placement is very awkward to accomodate the low slung wings. With predictable outcomes, like MCAS.
        WalterBright 7y ago
        Swept wings are also unstable, requiring a yaw damper, and crashes have resulted from inoperative yaw dampers. Of course, we could demand a return to straight wings, but then air travel would be a lot slower.
- et2o 7y ago
  I'd guess 99% of people don't even notice what plane are flying on.
- JKCalhoun 7y ago
  > They are banking on the general public forgetting about it over time. Which has happened in the past. And banking of course on no more crashes. They're on a tightrope for sure.
  - tyingq 7y ago
    Im reasonably sure that they now have the right eyes on this type of issue. I'll concede they hadn't previously.
klingonopera 7y ago
As I have understood, there are waiting lists at both manufacturers, and they're not short, so short-term changes are probably bad for all parties in that business. A Saudi company changing could be more notable, because if anyone has enough money to buy themselves a better spot in those lists, I don't doubt it wouldn't be them... I have absolutely zero affiliation with the airplane industry, so everything I said might only be coincidentally true.
- secfirstmd 7y ago
  Yes I think this would be a major point. Airlines are worried about what happened straight after 9/11 were many cut orders, then places like Ryanair option loads of aircraft at discount prices, then airlines struggled to get back into the booking list. There is a waiting list of many years at the moment. They would be a bit crazy to ditch their spots right now.
_ph_ 7y ago
Of course this will shift some orders towards Airbus. But besides that Airbus won't be able to deliver additional orders on short notice, the airlines certainly don't want to give Airbus too much power by dropping Boeing completely.
assblaster 7y ago
The whole design behind the max was to minimize pilot training and retraining. The airlines have as much to gain from retooling an existing design as Boeing has.
ethbro 7y ago
The irony is that, as near as I can retrace the public timeline, American was actually the carrier that bludgeoned Boeing into producing an up-engined 737 in the first place. http://news.aa.com/news/news-details/2011/AMR-Corporation-Announces-Largest-Aircraft-Order-In-History-With-Boeing-And-Airbus-07202011/default.aspx http://news.aa.com/news/news-details/2011/AMR-Corporation-An... In retrospect, a lesson in not letting your biggest customers drive your development pipeline.
- WalterBright 7y ago
  > In retrospect, a lesson in not letting your biggest customers drive your development pipeline. A new airplane program is not, and pretty much cannot be, started without having major commitments from airline customers. They are developed very much based on conversations with airlines and what they need and will pay for.
  - rossdavidh 7y ago
    Still, the decision by Boeing to try to shoehorn the new, bigger engines onto a 737 body, was a mistake. Whose job was it to know that this was not a good idea, because it would make the plane difficult to fly, and thus difficult to train for? Hint: the one that employs a lot of aeronautical engineers, and whose CEO should have been listening to them.
    - WalterBright 7y ago
      > was a mistake No, it wasn't. The design of the MCAS system was faulty. Jet airliners have used augmentation to compensate for stability problems since the 707, and airliners not being flyable without the help of computers has been the norm for decades.
      - mjevans 7y ago
        They are implying that the fundamental design of the 737 MAX was a mistake due to the engines. MCAS is a like applying a poorly designed bandaid to a deep vein cut.
the_duke 7y ago
American already operates about ~400 Airbus 320s vs ~350 B737. [1] United also has ~200 A320s vs ~340 B737 [2]. They both have mixed fleets. Of course the story for carriers with a homogeneous fleet is very different. Part of it is surely PR posturing though. Both to look good with customers and to improve the negotiating position with Boeing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_fleet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_fleet [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_fleet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_fleet
tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20376062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20376062 explains why: Airbus is "sold out", can't deliver more planes in the timeframes that are required. The airlines don't have much of a choice.
fred_is_fred 7y ago
Unsure about American, but I am sure that United flies A320/321 and 737s both, so I don't see how switching would be that hard for them. Maybe just due to pilots?

tyingq 7y ago

If you look at the orders by customer[1], you will see quite a few that exclusively or mostly fly 737's. It would be costly for an airline to have to retrain almost all their pilots, mechanics, etc on a new aircraft...and to purchase all the associated supporting equipment. And, the Max has significantly better fuel efficiency, seating capacity, etc than other 737 models. Falling back to an earlier model isn't easy either. They are banking on the general public forgetting about it over time. Which has happened in the past. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_and_deliveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_...

sametmax 7y ago
> They are banking on the general public forgetting about it over time. Which has happened in the past. Which almost always happen. Good strategy. Works for politicians, abusive spouses, big companies. What incentive would they have to do otherwise since society most often offers short outburst of rage, then focuses on something else ?
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  Regulatory agencies that actually work for the public interest would be a good start.
- WalterBright 7y ago
  What would be gained by destroying Boeing? And what would be lost?
  - sametmax 7y ago
    That's also how people defended slavery.
    - dang 7y ago
      "Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - rossdavidh 7y ago
    You don't need to destroy Boeing, but we do need to tell them to suck it up and design a new plane. The sooner, the better.
    - WalterBright 7y ago
      There's nothing wrong with the 737MAX airframe. It's a software problem with the MCAS system.
      - tyingq 7y ago
        Some might argue the engine placement is very awkward to accomodate the low slung wings. With predictable outcomes, like MCAS.
        WalterBright 7y ago
        Swept wings are also unstable, requiring a yaw damper, and crashes have resulted from inoperative yaw dampers. Of course, we could demand a return to straight wings, but then air travel would be a lot slower.
et2o 7y ago
I'd guess 99% of people don't even notice what plane are flying on.
JKCalhoun 7y ago
> They are banking on the general public forgetting about it over time. Which has happened in the past. And banking of course on no more crashes. They're on a tightrope for sure.
- tyingq 7y ago
  Im reasonably sure that they now have the right eyes on this type of issue. I'll concede they hadn't previously.

klingonopera 7y ago

As I have understood, there are waiting lists at both manufacturers, and they're not short, so short-term changes are probably bad for all parties in that business. A Saudi company changing could be more notable, because if anyone has enough money to buy themselves a better spot in those lists, I don't doubt it wouldn't be them... I have absolutely zero affiliation with the airplane industry, so everything I said might only be coincidentally true.

secfirstmd 7y ago
Yes I think this would be a major point. Airlines are worried about what happened straight after 9/11 were many cut orders, then places like Ryanair option loads of aircraft at discount prices, then airlines struggled to get back into the booking list. There is a waiting list of many years at the moment. They would be a bit crazy to ditch their spots right now.

_ph_ 7y ago

Of course this will shift some orders towards Airbus. But besides that Airbus won't be able to deliver additional orders on short notice, the airlines certainly don't want to give Airbus too much power by dropping Boeing completely.

assblaster 7y ago

The whole design behind the max was to minimize pilot training and retraining. The airlines have as much to gain from retooling an existing design as Boeing has.

ethbro 7y ago

The irony is that, as near as I can retrace the public timeline, American was actually the carrier that bludgeoned Boeing into producing an up-engined 737 in the first place. http://news.aa.com/news/news-details/2011/AMR-Corporation-Announces-Largest-Aircraft-Order-In-History-With-Boeing-And-Airbus-07202011/default.aspx http://news.aa.com/news/news-details/2011/AMR-Corporation-An... In retrospect, a lesson in not letting your biggest customers drive your development pipeline.

WalterBright 7y ago
> In retrospect, a lesson in not letting your biggest customers drive your development pipeline. A new airplane program is not, and pretty much cannot be, started without having major commitments from airline customers. They are developed very much based on conversations with airlines and what they need and will pay for.
- rossdavidh 7y ago
  Still, the decision by Boeing to try to shoehorn the new, bigger engines onto a 737 body, was a mistake. Whose job was it to know that this was not a good idea, because it would make the plane difficult to fly, and thus difficult to train for? Hint: the one that employs a lot of aeronautical engineers, and whose CEO should have been listening to them.
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    > was a mistake No, it wasn't. The design of the MCAS system was faulty. Jet airliners have used augmentation to compensate for stability problems since the 707, and airliners not being flyable without the help of computers has been the norm for decades.
    - mjevans 7y ago
      They are implying that the fundamental design of the 737 MAX was a mistake due to the engines. MCAS is a like applying a poorly designed bandaid to a deep vein cut.

the_duke 7y ago

American already operates about ~400 Airbus 320s vs ~350 B737. [1] United also has ~200 A320s vs ~340 B737 [2]. They both have mixed fleets. Of course the story for carriers with a homogeneous fleet is very different. Part of it is surely PR posturing though. Both to look good with customers and to improve the negotiating position with Boeing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_fleet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_fleet [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_fleet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_fleet

tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20376062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20376062 explains why: Airbus is "sold out", can't deliver more planes in the timeframes that are required. The airlines don't have much of a choice.

fred_is_fred 7y ago

Unsure about American, but I am sure that United flies A320/321 and 737s both, so I don't see how switching would be that hard for them. Maybe just due to pilots?