Comment by arcticbull | Hacker News Reader

Comment by arcticbull | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The duties were also overturned in the end, but not before Bombardier gifted 50.01% of the C-Series program to Airbus so it had a chance of survival. The net result was Airbus rebranded the program the A220, committed to building US-destination A220 jets within the US to avoid tariffs anyways and while they significantly weakened one [small] competitor (Bombardier and by extension Investissement Québec) they massively empowered their real competitor (Airbus).

Ultimately, their plan backfired and forced them to acquire a large stake in Embraer to remain nominally competitive (I say that because the C-Series planes are much better than similar Embarer aircraft, both longer range and more comfortable) -- all while simultaneously empowering Airbus. They also significantly soured their relationship with the Canadian government jeopardizing both current and future military procurement opportunities.

This was an unmitigated failure on their part.

(EDIT) To be clear, Bombardier wasn't sold to Airbus, they gifted majority control of the C-Series program to Airbus. The new equity split is 50.01% Airbus, 31% Bombardier and 19% Invesissment Québec.

>the C-Series planes are much better than similar Embarer aircraft, both longer range and more comfortable

Also quite more expensive and less fuel efficient. The comparison is more complex than that.

Both the 2nd generation E-Jets and the A220 beat the pants of the 737 with the caveat that they are smaller planes that carry fewer passengers.

They also are smaller planes that have better comfort than the 737 in most respects; it is like the Japanese cars of the 1970s which were big on the inside and small on the outside compared to American cars of the time. You have to fly it to believe it.

I could see these eating into the 737/A320 market from the small side the same way that the 777/787 classes ate into the 747 market. The A220/E2 Jets would have been even more appealing had the airliners known that 737 MAX pilots will require simulator training. (And they will... Boeing will probably delay the 737 MAX return to service by trying to insist that they won't, but the FAA has one way to get credibility back, and that is requiring simulator training of an MCAS failure, just as A320 pilots need training on what to do if the fly-by-wire system gets in a degraded state)

The crazy thing is that Boeing hasn't designed a new clean-sheet small jet since 1967, when the 737 came out. Prior to that they were iterating on a pretty rapid cadence, with the 707, 717, 720, and 727, and then they just got stuck in an absolute rut and have been increasingly paying the consequences as the 737 no longer stacks up favorably against the much newer clean-sheet designs put out by their competitors. To give an idea of how antiquated the 737 is, one of its primary design considerations was that it could land at primitive airports -- its low ground clearance is caused by the need to be able to fit a folding staircase inside the aircraft itself. It didn't even require a stair car, let alone the ubiquitous jetways that we see everywhere nowadays. And this design consideration is the main cause of the 737 MAX problem.

I wonder, if the merger hadn't happened and Boeing hadn't been taken over by penny-pinchers, what would Boeing's small jet offering look like now? Would they still be iterating on the same obsolete design? Was there some new replacement small jet already in the early design stages that got canned?

> its low ground clearance is caused by the need to be able to fit a folding staircase inside the aircraft itself.

Which incidentally is the major reason why it is the Ryanair main aircraft.

Are you sure? Does Ryanair actually use the integrated stairs, or do they use staircars? I thought they stopped making 737s with the integrated stairs some time ago? Is Ryanair using old planes?

I'm not 100% sure if my memory is playing tricks on me, but I believe Ryanair indeed uses the integrated stairs often. There do also seem to be plenty of images of Ryanair planes with the integrated stairs down or in use.

I was on a Ryanair flight earlier this year and the integrated stairs were used.

I believe the fleet is mostly 737-800s, and having the option to avoid staircars and skybdridges saves money.

ryanair's website says their whole fleet is 737-800 and they definitely have airstairs (for eg: https://sjc1.discourse-cdn.com/infiniteflight/uploads/defaul...)

Using air bridges or ramp stairs costs money and takes an extra bit of time (and another level of interaction with ground crews which may delay the slow turnover of Ryanair planes during the day).

All Ryanair flights I have witnessed have used the airstairs.

It’s worth noting that even though the 717 was first released in the late 90’s it isn’t a case of Boeing innovating since it’s just a rebadged MD-95 which was developed by McDonnell-Douglas

Thanks for the correction, I got my timing on the 717 wrong. It only ever saw 156 built though so it's pretty much a rounding error in the grand scheme of things (contrasted with the A320 family, closing in on 10k built, or the 737 family, with over 10k built).

It's also worth noting that there were two 717s, the first was indeed part of the 720 & 707 family. (it was the 'commercial' designation of the C-135 when sold to france for use as a tanker)

Good point. Completely forgot about that one.

It always strikes me as strange that the USAF is still regularly running such old planes as the C-135 (the most recent of which was produced over five decades ago). I guess they don't care about fuel efficiency like the airlines do? Maybe that's the real reason? I get that the mid-air refueling planes have a lot of specialized hardware on them, but most of them are just used for moving people and equipment around. Why not buy an off-the-shelf modern cargo airplane? You'll increase safety and fuel efficiency dramatically. A 767F is better than a C-135 in a multitude of ways, including better fuel efficiency, higher cargo capacity, shorter runways, etc.

> Why not buy an off-the-shelf modern cargo airplane?

Because the procurement procedure would take 10-20 years, have to go through congress several times, and get pork barreled everywhere, and the 'modern freighter' would still likely be old as dirt once it's all done.

Look at the fuss over the KC-X/KC-30/KC-45/KC-46 for an example of how it would pan out. (The KC-X procurement started in 2002, settled on the KC-30 from airbus, modified to include pork barrelled 'Northrop Grumman' changes to be the KC-45, boeing objected to a non-US company winning the contract, and thus the KC-46 (a modified KC-767) was the only option left)

It's a strange one.

When the 737 was built, the aircraft industry thought that the supersonic transport (SST) was going to be the big thing. In particular, being so much faster, it could get more flights in per day and have a much lower cost per seat mile.

That didn't happen, and the 747 turned out to be the future instead. Through the 1970s and 1980s there was intense competition for widebody planes, but the 737 slowly gained in capability and gained market share.

The 777 was developed just as the Boeing-Airbus duopoly was settling into place; in some ways it is an answer to the A300 (make a huge 2-engine airliner and make it so reliable you can fly over sea), but a greatly improved answer. 777 found product-market fit, but Airbus blazed the way with the A330/340 which you could get with 2 or 4 engines respectively.

The 787 not so much. When it was originally conceived, fuel prices were low and Boeing wanted to make a "sonic cruiser" that traveled at just below the speed of sound but a little faster than current jets.

(Here is the business jet version of that)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_G650

Then fuel prices spiked and they made a plane for balls-to-the-walls fuel efficiency, then fuel prices dropped. So it wasn't really the airplane that airlines wanted.

The A380 is the canonical advantage of a good plane at the wrong time. It came in as a 747 competitor just as the 777 and 787 started to eat the 747's lunch.

Given that the lifespan of a plane can be so long I can't blame plane makers for being apprehensive that they're going to invest a lot of money in a clean sheet design that the market may or not be interested in by the time it is ready.

The A320 is similar to the 737 in terms of materials, but it has a fly-by-wire system that Airbus has perfected and proven -- it's flight-envelope protection capabilities is as far ahead of MCAS as Chess is to Checkers.

Airbus has made the A321XLR which is a scaled-up A320 to a much larger airplane than Boeing can deliver with the MAX-ed out 737 platform.

> Here is the business jet version of that

Just to clarify to casual readers: The G650 is _not_ a business jet version of the Boeing 787.

Parent poster meant that the G650 was, like the initial 787, designed to cruise at speeds above Mach 0.9. Note that the production 787 cruises at Mach 0.85 like most other large jet airliners.

"To be clear, Bombardier wasn't sold to Airbus"

To be more clear. Bombardier WAS indeed sold to airbus. 50.1% for 1 Dollar.

Not Bombardier, the C-series program. Bombardier makes trains / rolling stock too, and I guarantee you Airbus didn't want a piece of that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com