5 ms·

> “This is exactly what happens when billion-dollar companies refuse to modernize,” one aviation analyst tweeted. “You wouldn’t trust a 30-year-old car to drive

> “This is exactly what happens when billion-dollar companies refuse to modernize,” one aviation analyst tweeted. “You wouldn’t trust a 30-year-old car to drive cross-country. Why are we trusting it to fly planes?” While i sympathize, the world does rely on high quality 30+ year old software. I think it's time, as an industry, to stop seeing software as disposable and start designing for longevity.

troyvit 1y ago
Also I would totally trust a 1995 Toyota to drive cross-country.
- mxuribe 1y ago
  Not only do i agree with you...i betcha that if/when the circa 1995 Toyota needs fixing, it would likely be easier and lower cost for someone to fix. ;-) EDIT: My comment was specific to the 1995 toyota being a far simpler vehicle than current models, hence likely to be easier to fix....but, of course, the flipside is that potentially the older the vehicle, the likely less availability of certain parts.
  - ryandrake 1y ago
    I could fix pretty much any problem in that 1995 Toyota with tools that I have in my workshop. Unlike my 2009 car which requires a computer interface to do basic diagnostics and needs to be reprogrammed after many repairs. Let alone a 2020+ car (I've never had anything that new) that probably come with the hood welded closed.
    - mxuribe 1y ago
      Sadly, you're 100% correct!
- jcgrillo 1y ago
  I'd drive my 1995 Toyota anywhere.
- Mistletoe 1y ago
  This was my first thought as well. Making software like a 1995 Toyota would be an admirable and useful thought process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Toyota_Way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Toyota_Way
- Barbing 1y ago
  Indeed. And if I had enough disposable income to upgrade to something with side airbags, it’d compensate for my lack of trust in others on that drive too! (little tongue in cheek here, just voting for letting some money leave a bank account for reasonably modern safety features—even some ultra-high net worth folks seem not to care at all about those)
lesuorac 1y ago
I don't sympathize. A well maintained 30-year-old car can drive cross country. There's a big difference between car thats old with a ton of known defects that the driver works around and a car thats old that had it's defects fixed when they came up.
- ryandrake 1y ago
  Yea, the car analogy is pretty good, actually. You have to maintain things, not just milk them until they catastrophically fail.
imzadi 1y ago
I wouldn't trust any car to fly a plane, tbh.
packetlost 1y ago
I'll second this. If the hardware it runs on isn't literally dying, and it doesn't have glaring security vulnerabilities (ex. especially air gapped systems), and it's still doing its job well, it's fine to let it do its thing. That being said, the reality is that requirements change. Load changes. The world around the software changes. Systems need to be resilient, yet flexible enough to be maintained but not replaced over decades.
- fartfeatures 1y ago
  The skills required to maintain old codebases atrophy and we are barely training new people to do it so the skills pool shrinks. That means it doesn't get regular maintenance and it means disaster response in situations like this is slow and expensive. Whilst it would be a major upheaval to switch to a clean room engineered implementation using 2025 best practices it would at least increase the talent pool that can work on it effectively. There does likely come a point where it is cost effective to rebuild it both in reduced unplanned downtime and reduced maintenance costs.
  - packetlost 1y ago
    Eventually, yes. But considering I worked at a place as recently as 2018 that had COBOL systems (and I know it's not unique in this regard, I'm confident those systems are still there too) from the 80s still running in production, I think that time horizon can be long.
    - fartfeatures 1y ago
      If someone was on the original team writing this software when they were in their mid 20s then they are now in their 70s. If we don't start rebuilding some of this software soon there won't be anyone alive that understands it intimately in the way only an original author could.
      - Jtsummers 1y ago
        Welcome to the world of large legacy systems developed for and used by organizations that don't understand IT, and don't know that they don't understand IT. The good news is there's always a contractor willing to promise the world and deliver something that doesn't work in 5-10 years. Your internal team, who could have finished the original job in a couple years if they'd been funded, will be the ones that end up making that delivered system actually work. But you'll tell everyone that it was the contractor's high quality output that did the trick, because saying they failed would hurt your career. In 15-30 years the system will get replaced and your successor will hear about how great <contractor> did the first time, and they'll get another shot at failure.
silvestrov 1y ago
This is like having software (and sometimes hardware) that is so old that most of the mechanics who know how to maintain the software has retired.
nycerrrrrrrrrr 1y ago
Also slightly ironic considering United has several planes that are themselves 30+ years old.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- throw0101a 1y ago
  See Boeing 767-300: * https://www.planespotters.net/airline/United-Airlines https://www.planespotters.net/airline/United-Airlines * https://simpleflying.com/united-airlines-oldest-aircraft-2025/ https://simpleflying.com/united-airlines-oldest-aircraft-202...
pjmlp 1y ago
This only works with proper liability in place though, as unfortunely not everything is high quality, and cutting corners with offshoring and low skill devs is relatively common.
freeopinion 1y ago
I would trust a 30-year-old plane to fly cross-country. That is, if the plane had been in constant use by a reputable carrier that properly maintained its aircraft.
- bluGill 1y ago
  Constant use is a negative for airplanes where metal fatigue builds up over use. eventualy it is cheaper to scrap an old plane than to replace every part that might be nearing end of life.
  - mlhpdx 1y ago
    One of the fun facts about airplanes is that they are made almost entirely aluminum. And, if you go, look it up or talk to a mechanical engineer, you will understand that aluminum has no “fatigue limit“. That sounds like a good thing, but it’s not. Aluminum will always fail eventually no matter how small the load. It’s just intrinsic in the material.
harg 1y ago
Some of United's own aircraft are over 30 years old [1]. If you can rely on a well-maintained 30+ year-old aircraft to fly you halfway accross the world I think you can rely on a similar-aged car to drive across the country. [1]: https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/boeing-767-300-n641ua-united-airlines/enjn83 https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/boeing-767-300-n641ua...
lenerdenator 1y ago
Unfortunately, you can only do so much of that. The hardware it runs on will become more capable and your customer will want to exploit it; the threat landscape will change and some guy in a basement outside Moscow will eventually find a way in.
antonf 1y ago
> You wouldn’t trust a 30-year-old car to drive cross-country. The main difference between software and physical objects like cars is that they degrade with the passage of time (due to wear, corrosion, etc...). If we would magically be able to get a brand new 30-year-old car, it would make absolute sense to use one for a trip where reliability is paramount, as the failure modes of such a car are better understood compared to a brand new design, and can be mitigated.
federiconafria 1y ago
I bet the problem is not the 30+ year old software, but the less than 30 year old crap they've dumped on top of it. Also, how old are the planes?
xyst 1y ago
How do you design for longevity when the idiots in the C-level executives don’t give a shit and only care about quarterly numbers? Stop trying to put blame on labor.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
jillesvangurp 1y ago
It's not a given that you can't run an airline without legacy software. There are other airline companies that have modernized. Or newer ones that don't have to. And also companies selling software. The issue here is United penny pinching for decades and now they are stuck with their in house created mess. The right move for them could be to buy one of the smaller upstarts with less issues and then just roll out whatever the small company is using and retire the creaking old mess that just failed them. Any project to slowly modernize or update that is doomed to fail. You see the same in the fintech world where small relatively new banks are running circles around their older competitors. In the energy world, a British company called Octopus is actually licensing their platform (Kraken) to lots of energy companies around the world. One of the interesting things about companies that move to that platform is that they become a much more attractive target for M&A as well; because the job of migrating all the old customers is easier if both companies that are merging use the same, modern platform. That's the hard risky part of any merger. Apparently, in some cases the decision to move to Kraken was motivated as a preparation for this. I'm mentioning this because that's something that could work in the airline industry. Or United can just zombie on for a few more years and then end up getting absorbed into some other, more successful company. This stuff must be costing them at all levels in the company. I can't imagine it's very efficient. And the airline industry is pretty cut-throat at this point.
- 1659447091 1y ago
  > The issue here is United penny pinching for decades United* was one of the first major airlines to embrace modern tech. Their phone app was lightyears ahead of anyone else (I haven't revisited others in the past couple years, maybe other airlines caught up, I dunno) When I use to spend way too much time on frequent flyer boards it seemed United was the only one spending money and embracing their tech center to innovate and update old systems, both software and hardware. It takes time to modernize, some changes also have to happen in all the many airports they do business in, not to mention all of the other fragmented systems they were working to better integrate. Since they are not a tech company I don't expect -- or want -- them to "move fast and break things". Singling them out as penny pinching on tech is simply disingenuous. *United & the *A group are my preferred airlines; bias is likely as well as a keen interest in what they are doing.
voxleone 1y ago
In aviation, reliability and known failure modes often beat bleeding-edge innovation, which can introduce new, untested risks. That said, if billion-dollar companies are refusing to update critical systems due to cost-cutting or complacency, that’s a serious problem. But the framing shouldn't be “old = bad”; it should be “unmaintained or unadapted = dangerous.” Let’s hold companies accountable for safety practices, not just the calendar age of their fleets.
csomar 1y ago
Lots have changed in the last 30 years; ie: processors are much different now. There are better ways to do stuff now. Just because some people messes things in front-end development doesn't translate in one becoming a Luddite. The issue is that these upgrades usually end up in a catastrophe of some sort. But that's not an unavoidable fate.
mey 1y ago
I don't disagree with the point, but I question if that person is an aviation analyst, considering commercial airframes will go up to 30 years. As others in this thread have mentioned, it's about maintenance. Except maintenance of software looks more like continuous architectural review and operation of an electrical grid. Calling it maintenance is a little narrow.

troyvit 1y ago

Also I would totally trust a 1995 Toyota to drive cross-country.

mxuribe 1y ago
Not only do i agree with you...i betcha that if/when the circa 1995 Toyota needs fixing, it would likely be easier and lower cost for someone to fix. ;-) EDIT: My comment was specific to the 1995 toyota being a far simpler vehicle than current models, hence likely to be easier to fix....but, of course, the flipside is that potentially the older the vehicle, the likely less availability of certain parts.
- ryandrake 1y ago
  I could fix pretty much any problem in that 1995 Toyota with tools that I have in my workshop. Unlike my 2009 car which requires a computer interface to do basic diagnostics and needs to be reprogrammed after many repairs. Let alone a 2020+ car (I've never had anything that new) that probably come with the hood welded closed.
  - mxuribe 1y ago
    Sadly, you're 100% correct!
jcgrillo 1y ago
I'd drive my 1995 Toyota anywhere.
Mistletoe 1y ago
This was my first thought as well. Making software like a 1995 Toyota would be an admirable and useful thought process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Toyota_Way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Toyota_Way
Barbing 1y ago
Indeed. And if I had enough disposable income to upgrade to something with side airbags, it’d compensate for my lack of trust in others on that drive too! (little tongue in cheek here, just voting for letting some money leave a bank account for reasonably modern safety features—even some ultra-high net worth folks seem not to care at all about those)

lesuorac 1y ago

I don't sympathize. A well maintained 30-year-old car can drive cross country. There's a big difference between car thats old with a ton of known defects that the driver works around and a car thats old that had it's defects fixed when they came up.

ryandrake 1y ago
Yea, the car analogy is pretty good, actually. You have to maintain things, not just milk them until they catastrophically fail.

imzadi 1y ago

I wouldn't trust any car to fly a plane, tbh.

packetlost 1y ago

I'll second this. If the hardware it runs on isn't literally dying, and it doesn't have glaring security vulnerabilities (ex. especially air gapped systems), and it's still doing its job well, it's fine to let it do its thing. That being said, the reality is that requirements change. Load changes. The world around the software changes. Systems need to be resilient, yet flexible enough to be maintained but not replaced over decades.

fartfeatures 1y ago
The skills required to maintain old codebases atrophy and we are barely training new people to do it so the skills pool shrinks. That means it doesn't get regular maintenance and it means disaster response in situations like this is slow and expensive. Whilst it would be a major upheaval to switch to a clean room engineered implementation using 2025 best practices it would at least increase the talent pool that can work on it effectively. There does likely come a point where it is cost effective to rebuild it both in reduced unplanned downtime and reduced maintenance costs.
- packetlost 1y ago
  Eventually, yes. But considering I worked at a place as recently as 2018 that had COBOL systems (and I know it's not unique in this regard, I'm confident those systems are still there too) from the 80s still running in production, I think that time horizon can be long.
  - fartfeatures 1y ago
    If someone was on the original team writing this software when they were in their mid 20s then they are now in their 70s. If we don't start rebuilding some of this software soon there won't be anyone alive that understands it intimately in the way only an original author could.
    - Jtsummers 1y ago
      Welcome to the world of large legacy systems developed for and used by organizations that don't understand IT, and don't know that they don't understand IT. The good news is there's always a contractor willing to promise the world and deliver something that doesn't work in 5-10 years. Your internal team, who could have finished the original job in a couple years if they'd been funded, will be the ones that end up making that delivered system actually work. But you'll tell everyone that it was the contractor's high quality output that did the trick, because saying they failed would hurt your career. In 15-30 years the system will get replaced and your successor will hear about how great <contractor> did the first time, and they'll get another shot at failure.

silvestrov 1y ago

This is like having software (and sometimes hardware) that is so old that most of the mechanics who know how to maintain the software has retired.

nycerrrrrrrrrr 1y ago

Also slightly ironic considering United has several planes that are themselves 30+ years old.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
throw0101a 1y ago
See Boeing 767-300: * https://www.planespotters.net/airline/United-Airlines https://www.planespotters.net/airline/United-Airlines * https://simpleflying.com/united-airlines-oldest-aircraft-2025/ https://simpleflying.com/united-airlines-oldest-aircraft-202...

pjmlp 1y ago

This only works with proper liability in place though, as unfortunely not everything is high quality, and cutting corners with offshoring and low skill devs is relatively common.

freeopinion 1y ago

I would trust a 30-year-old plane to fly cross-country. That is, if the plane had been in constant use by a reputable carrier that properly maintained its aircraft.

bluGill 1y ago
Constant use is a negative for airplanes where metal fatigue builds up over use. eventualy it is cheaper to scrap an old plane than to replace every part that might be nearing end of life.
- mlhpdx 1y ago
  One of the fun facts about airplanes is that they are made almost entirely aluminum. And, if you go, look it up or talk to a mechanical engineer, you will understand that aluminum has no “fatigue limit“. That sounds like a good thing, but it’s not. Aluminum will always fail eventually no matter how small the load. It’s just intrinsic in the material.

harg 1y ago

Some of United's own aircraft are over 30 years old [1]. If you can rely on a well-maintained 30+ year-old aircraft to fly you halfway accross the world I think you can rely on a similar-aged car to drive across the country. [1]: https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/boeing-767-300-n641ua-united-airlines/enjn83 https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/boeing-767-300-n641ua...

lenerdenator 1y ago

Unfortunately, you can only do so much of that. The hardware it runs on will become more capable and your customer will want to exploit it; the threat landscape will change and some guy in a basement outside Moscow will eventually find a way in.

antonf 1y ago

> You wouldn’t trust a 30-year-old car to drive cross-country. The main difference between software and physical objects like cars is that they degrade with the passage of time (due to wear, corrosion, etc...). If we would magically be able to get a brand new 30-year-old car, it would make absolute sense to use one for a trip where reliability is paramount, as the failure modes of such a car are better understood compared to a brand new design, and can be mitigated.

federiconafria 1y ago

I bet the problem is not the 30+ year old software, but the less than 30 year old crap they've dumped on top of it. Also, how old are the planes?

xyst 1y ago

How do you design for longevity when the idiots in the C-level executives don’t give a shit and only care about quarterly numbers? Stop trying to put blame on labor.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

jillesvangurp 1y ago

It's not a given that you can't run an airline without legacy software. There are other airline companies that have modernized. Or newer ones that don't have to. And also companies selling software. The issue here is United penny pinching for decades and now they are stuck with their in house created mess. The right move for them could be to buy one of the smaller upstarts with less issues and then just roll out whatever the small company is using and retire the creaking old mess that just failed them. Any project to slowly modernize or update that is doomed to fail. You see the same in the fintech world where small relatively new banks are running circles around their older competitors. In the energy world, a British company called Octopus is actually licensing their platform (Kraken) to lots of energy companies around the world. One of the interesting things about companies that move to that platform is that they become a much more attractive target for M&A as well; because the job of migrating all the old customers is easier if both companies that are merging use the same, modern platform. That's the hard risky part of any merger. Apparently, in some cases the decision to move to Kraken was motivated as a preparation for this. I'm mentioning this because that's something that could work in the airline industry. Or United can just zombie on for a few more years and then end up getting absorbed into some other, more successful company. This stuff must be costing them at all levels in the company. I can't imagine it's very efficient. And the airline industry is pretty cut-throat at this point.

1659447091 1y ago
> The issue here is United penny pinching for decades United* was one of the first major airlines to embrace modern tech. Their phone app was lightyears ahead of anyone else (I haven't revisited others in the past couple years, maybe other airlines caught up, I dunno) When I use to spend way too much time on frequent flyer boards it seemed United was the only one spending money and embracing their tech center to innovate and update old systems, both software and hardware. It takes time to modernize, some changes also have to happen in all the many airports they do business in, not to mention all of the other fragmented systems they were working to better integrate. Since they are not a tech company I don't expect -- or want -- them to "move fast and break things". Singling them out as penny pinching on tech is simply disingenuous. *United & the *A group are my preferred airlines; bias is likely as well as a keen interest in what they are doing.

voxleone 1y ago

In aviation, reliability and known failure modes often beat bleeding-edge innovation, which can introduce new, untested risks. That said, if billion-dollar companies are refusing to update critical systems due to cost-cutting or complacency, that’s a serious problem. But the framing shouldn't be “old = bad”; it should be “unmaintained or unadapted = dangerous.” Let’s hold companies accountable for safety practices, not just the calendar age of their fleets.

csomar 1y ago

Lots have changed in the last 30 years; ie: processors are much different now. There are better ways to do stuff now. Just because some people messes things in front-end development doesn't translate in one becoming a Luddite. The issue is that these upgrades usually end up in a catastrophe of some sort. But that's not an unavoidable fate.

mey 1y ago

I don't disagree with the point, but I question if that person is an aviation analyst, considering commercial airframes will go up to 30 years. As others in this thread have mentioned, it's about maintenance. Except maintenance of software looks more like continuous architectural review and operation of an electrical grid. Calling it maintenance is a little narrow.