8 ms·

With planes the 737 upgrading is a feature, not a bug. It is extremely costly to develop a new airplane and to train staff on it, at the price point and fuel e

With planes the 737 upgrading is a feature, not a bug. It is extremely costly to develop a new airplane and to train staff on it, at the price point and fuel efficiency for airlines to sell ever cheaper tickets. Airbus is doing the exact same with its neo models. Bombardier and Embraer were driven into the arms of the duopoly because they cannot afford to develop new aircraft. Russia, China, and Japan have all tried their hand at pumping billions of dollars into commercial aircraft manufacturing and haven’t been successful.

jessaustin 5y ago
While this is plausible for aircraft in general, in the case of the 737 Max it clearly isn't true. Boeing would have been better off not killing hundreds of passengers and losing $20B.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  The 787 cost $32B to develop. So the jury might actually be out on whether a new clean-sheet aircraft would've been more disastrous, given that its rollout was not very smooth either. I am just saying that the economic incentives are not aligned so that a decision other than the 737MAX would've been the prudent, competitive move.
selfhoster11 5y ago
Yes, but come on. 1967. We surely have made a lot of progress since then. 50 years of holding back is a bit much. Are we going to still hear "but retraining is soooooo difficult" in 2067?
- gruez 5y ago
  maybe we reached peak aircraft? After all, we don't complain that we're using a knife design from a few hundred years ago.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  retraining isn't difficult but retraining is expensive. Southwest, Ryanair and their competition are literally nickel and diming everything to offer ever cheaper seats to fliers. Until that changes, airlines will balk at new aircraft. It's why 737Max was developed instead of NMA; Airbus came out with the 320 and 330neo series, which did not require retraining.
torresmo 5y ago
You seem to be describing the low hanging fruit case mentioned in the article.

jessaustin 5y ago

While this is plausible for aircraft in general, in the case of the 737 Max it clearly isn't true. Boeing would have been better off not killing hundreds of passengers and losing $20B.

bobthepanda 5y ago
The 787 cost $32B to develop. So the jury might actually be out on whether a new clean-sheet aircraft would've been more disastrous, given that its rollout was not very smooth either. I am just saying that the economic incentives are not aligned so that a decision other than the 737MAX would've been the prudent, competitive move.

selfhoster11 5y ago

Yes, but come on. 1967. We surely have made a lot of progress since then. 50 years of holding back is a bit much. Are we going to still hear "but retraining is soooooo difficult" in 2067?

gruez 5y ago
maybe we reached peak aircraft? After all, we don't complain that we're using a knife design from a few hundred years ago.
bobthepanda 5y ago
retraining isn't difficult but retraining is expensive. Southwest, Ryanair and their competition are literally nickel and diming everything to offer ever cheaper seats to fliers. Until that changes, airlines will balk at new aircraft. It's why 737Max was developed instead of NMA; Airbus came out with the 320 and 330neo series, which did not require retraining.

torresmo 5y ago

You seem to be describing the low hanging fruit case mentioned in the article.