4 ms·

Yeah, that’s why airline have plane crashing all the time, it’s cheaper than maintaining them. /s

by debian3 7y ago

turbinerneiter 7y ago
We literally had planes crash because Boeing was refusing to put the money down to do a proper development.
- debian3 7y ago
  Yes, and look at their shares price.
  - admax88q 7y ago
    A falling share price doesn't un-crash the planes.
    - debian3 7y ago
      No but it gives a strong incentive to behave differently. If it doesn’t, an other player take it’s place.
  - llampx 7y ago
    The stock did not move as much during the time of the Max news as it did recently due to the Coronavirus situation.
- mc32 7y ago
  That’s way too simplistic. Antonovs when they were ‘public’ Also had problems. Being public doesn’t immunize them against cost-benefit decisions.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  That doesn’t necessarily mean a plane designed entirely be civil servants would be better.
  - oneplane 7y ago
    That is correct, you get some sort of mix or grey area. I think there was an interview with some of the engineers with an airplane manufacturer that described the changes after a merger where both companies were general commercial companies with profit in mind (and shareholders etc) but one had a company culture of doing it right and the other wanted to lower that down to 'right enough' hoping to make a bit more money that they didn't actually need on top of the billions of profit. But that's what minmaxing with do...
hoseja 7y ago
Have you seen early aviation, before the government put all the regulations in?
- debian3 7y ago
  There is more to it. Usually people don’t like to take plane from airline if they have a lot of accident. If i build a bridge and it collapse, how I’m making money now? If I have other bridges, people might stop using them if they are known to collapse and kill people.
  - hoseja 7y ago
    Unless of course they need to get from point A to point B and you have a mono(duo,oligo)poly on bridges on river C flowing between them.

Yeah, that’s why airline have plane crashing all the time, it’s cheaper than maintaining them. /s

turbinerneiter 7y ago

We literally had planes crash because Boeing was refusing to put the money down to do a proper development.

debian3 7y ago
Yes, and look at their shares price.
- admax88q 7y ago
  A falling share price doesn't un-crash the planes.
  - debian3 7y ago
    No but it gives a strong incentive to behave differently. If it doesn’t, an other player take it’s place.
- llampx 7y ago
  The stock did not move as much during the time of the Max news as it did recently due to the Coronavirus situation.
mc32 7y ago
That’s way too simplistic. Antonovs when they were ‘public’ Also had problems. Being public doesn’t immunize them against cost-benefit decisions.
s1artibartfast 7y ago
That doesn’t necessarily mean a plane designed entirely be civil servants would be better.
- oneplane 7y ago
  That is correct, you get some sort of mix or grey area. I think there was an interview with some of the engineers with an airplane manufacturer that described the changes after a merger where both companies were general commercial companies with profit in mind (and shareholders etc) but one had a company culture of doing it right and the other wanted to lower that down to 'right enough' hoping to make a bit more money that they didn't actually need on top of the billions of profit. But that's what minmaxing with do...

hoseja 7y ago

Have you seen early aviation, before the government put all the regulations in?

debian3 7y ago
There is more to it. Usually people don’t like to take plane from airline if they have a lot of accident. If i build a bridge and it collapse, how I’m making money now? If I have other bridges, people might stop using them if they are known to collapse and kill people.
- hoseja 7y ago
  Unless of course they need to get from point A to point B and you have a mono(duo,oligo)poly on bridges on river C flowing between them.