7 ms·

It's important to keep a good competition between Airbus and Boeing. I hope Boeing can get up and fix their crap. (And I'm European)

magduf 7y ago
I'd rather see Boeing go out of business at this point; they've proven they can't be trusted. What we need is more competition from other manufacturers, such as Mitsubishi in Japan. If Boeing goes under, some other, more trustworthy company could buy up their assets and start building better-engineered planes.
- adventured 7y ago
  I disagree. Besides, it's not very realistic as an outcome. I think the HN revenge fantasy thing going on about Boeing right now has taken a turn for the comical. Post after post on the front page with comments about the desire for Boeing to die. It's a bit much at this point. HN's record on such predictions is notorious anyway. Facebook didn't fail, despite all the HN predictions and bad outcome fantasy posts. Quite the opposite. Its user base keeps expanding, its sales keep climbing, its power keeps growing. Users did not abandon it en masse. None of what was commonly predicted on HN occurred. Intel - another common target of bad outcome fantasies - isn't failing, their profits are at all-time highs. That's despite the constant HN posts for years about that being inevitable. AMD is due to crush them any minute now, Intel is toast. Boeing is a $200 billion valuation company - which earned $10b in profit last year - that is strategically critical to the world's largest economy and sole superpower (the one that also happens to have a $750 billion military that depends on Boeing). It's a company with one of the grandest, longest and most positive histories in all of aviation. The notion that two crashes should end that is absurd. Boeing isn't going anywhere, not under any circumstances most likely. As things actually are, over many decades it has earned its place. If any company deserves an opportunity to re-earn trust, Boeing would qualify.
  - mullingitover 7y ago
    > that is strategically critical to the world's largest economy and sole superpower (the one that also happens to have a $750 billion military that depends on Boeing) This part is really all that matters. Boeing isn't a company as much as it's an organ of the state. Regardless of how inferior their engineering is, they won't be allowed to fail.
    - magduf 7y ago
      The US government can prop up the military side of Boeing, but they can't force foreign airlines to keep buying their planes, especially when the flying public doesn't want to risk their lives on them.
      - JAlexoid 7y ago
        Flying public will forget fast enough. Besides 777 is the safest airliner in history.
        magduf 7y ago
        The 777 is a rather old plane at this point, and was made before the current management era at Boeing. The 787 is the one to worry about; there's been lots of reports of production issues with it.
- NikolaeVarius 7y ago
  Completely unrealistic.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  That's like trying to send Jeffery Epstein to prison, when you are that well connected you are untouchable.
- JAlexoid 7y ago
  That would make Airbus a monopolist. So please NO! What I would prefer, is that Boeing's stock got hit harder for this screwup. It's been down a very small amount. A stop in share price would hit the management hard enough to get their safety inspections up to the task.
  - magduf 7y ago
    I'd rather fly in a plane made by an Airbus monopoly than a Boeing run by its current management. Modern American management has proven itself completely untrustworthy for doing anything where human lives are at stake. Airbus is an European company, so they're inherently more trustworthy. They've also proven themselves far more competent at modern aircraft design (they're not sticking with a circa-1967 design) and electronics (they've been doing fly-by-wire for a long time now, and haven't done anything as blatantly stupid as using a single sensor for controlling flight surfaces).
StreamBright 7y ago
There are other vendors. Also China just started to produce planes that directly compete with Boeing, Airbus and the rest.
- apta 7y ago
  Do you trust the Chinese manufacturers to put out anything with a remotely similar quality and safety as Airbus and Boeing?
  - stirfrykitty 7y ago
    Wouldn't fly on anything Chinese, but I adore flying on Bombardier Dash 8/Q series planes. Something magic about turboprops. Always loved flying on C-130s (20+ flights) when I was in the military, too. My other favorite was the venerable old C-141.
  - StreamBright 7y ago
    Yes, I do. Otherwise they - go bankrupt faster than anything - EU won't let them operate within the EU - The USA won't let them operate within the USA
dzhiurgis 7y ago
IDK perhaps one can serve long distance (787 is absolute winner) and another short distance flights (a320). Perhaps even collaborate and not compete...

magduf 7y ago

I'd rather see Boeing go out of business at this point; they've proven they can't be trusted. What we need is more competition from other manufacturers, such as Mitsubishi in Japan. If Boeing goes under, some other, more trustworthy company could buy up their assets and start building better-engineered planes.

adventured 7y ago
I disagree. Besides, it's not very realistic as an outcome. I think the HN revenge fantasy thing going on about Boeing right now has taken a turn for the comical. Post after post on the front page with comments about the desire for Boeing to die. It's a bit much at this point. HN's record on such predictions is notorious anyway. Facebook didn't fail, despite all the HN predictions and bad outcome fantasy posts. Quite the opposite. Its user base keeps expanding, its sales keep climbing, its power keeps growing. Users did not abandon it en masse. None of what was commonly predicted on HN occurred. Intel - another common target of bad outcome fantasies - isn't failing, their profits are at all-time highs. That's despite the constant HN posts for years about that being inevitable. AMD is due to crush them any minute now, Intel is toast. Boeing is a $200 billion valuation company - which earned $10b in profit last year - that is strategically critical to the world's largest economy and sole superpower (the one that also happens to have a $750 billion military that depends on Boeing). It's a company with one of the grandest, longest and most positive histories in all of aviation. The notion that two crashes should end that is absurd. Boeing isn't going anywhere, not under any circumstances most likely. As things actually are, over many decades it has earned its place. If any company deserves an opportunity to re-earn trust, Boeing would qualify.
- mullingitover 7y ago
  > that is strategically critical to the world's largest economy and sole superpower (the one that also happens to have a $750 billion military that depends on Boeing) This part is really all that matters. Boeing isn't a company as much as it's an organ of the state. Regardless of how inferior their engineering is, they won't be allowed to fail.
  - magduf 7y ago
    The US government can prop up the military side of Boeing, but they can't force foreign airlines to keep buying their planes, especially when the flying public doesn't want to risk their lives on them.
    - JAlexoid 7y ago
      Flying public will forget fast enough. Besides 777 is the safest airliner in history.
      - magduf 7y ago
        The 777 is a rather old plane at this point, and was made before the current management era at Boeing. The 787 is the one to worry about; there's been lots of reports of production issues with it.
NikolaeVarius 7y ago
Completely unrealistic.
fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
That's like trying to send Jeffery Epstein to prison, when you are that well connected you are untouchable.
JAlexoid 7y ago
That would make Airbus a monopolist. So please NO! What I would prefer, is that Boeing's stock got hit harder for this screwup. It's been down a very small amount. A stop in share price would hit the management hard enough to get their safety inspections up to the task.
- magduf 7y ago
  I'd rather fly in a plane made by an Airbus monopoly than a Boeing run by its current management. Modern American management has proven itself completely untrustworthy for doing anything where human lives are at stake. Airbus is an European company, so they're inherently more trustworthy. They've also proven themselves far more competent at modern aircraft design (they're not sticking with a circa-1967 design) and electronics (they've been doing fly-by-wire for a long time now, and haven't done anything as blatantly stupid as using a single sensor for controlling flight surfaces).

StreamBright 7y ago

There are other vendors. Also China just started to produce planes that directly compete with Boeing, Airbus and the rest.

apta 7y ago
Do you trust the Chinese manufacturers to put out anything with a remotely similar quality and safety as Airbus and Boeing?
- stirfrykitty 7y ago
  Wouldn't fly on anything Chinese, but I adore flying on Bombardier Dash 8/Q series planes. Something magic about turboprops. Always loved flying on C-130s (20+ flights) when I was in the military, too. My other favorite was the venerable old C-141.
- StreamBright 7y ago
  Yes, I do. Otherwise they - go bankrupt faster than anything - EU won't let them operate within the EU - The USA won't let them operate within the USA

dzhiurgis 7y ago

IDK perhaps one can serve long distance (787 is absolute winner) and another short distance flights (a320). Perhaps even collaborate and not compete...