Hacker News Reader

Comment by wayoutthere | Hacker News Reader

The whole passenger air travel industry (airlines, aircraft manufacturers, airports, etc) is subsidized because they’re not profitable on their own. But a robust and affordable air travel network is a capability the business world needs to operate our economy.

Boeing and Airbus are two of the most heavily subsidized companies in the world, and the airlines themselves aren’t far behind. They’re both high-risk, low-margin businesses.

View on HN

I don't have a source for that but I'd say if the airlines etc wouldn't be so subsidized there would be higher focus on developing better engines, electric planes or other technologies than in the current state where losses will just be covered by the tax payer. They wouldn't just stop operating and the "business world" would most likely not collapse.

I've talked to a bunch of people that get flown around by their company for 2h meetings at airports within Germany every day. If these wouldn't happen and would be done via video conferencing or other means that would be an improvement. Business will find a way to make it work.

This is exactly what has happened — the 787 is the result, and is hugely popular with airlines. But the operational life of a big jet is measured in decades, and there are plenty of 50-year-old airframes in regular operation today.

For some context in case anyone is curious: putting together information from various websites suggests that the following is the oldest plane in commercial service today. https://m.planespotters.net/airframe/Boeing/737/5Y-CGV-Zone-...

It is a Boeing 737-200 and it has been in service for 43.7 years.

Hardly.

There are still DC-3's in commercial operation, and production of those ended in 1942.

http://www.buffaloairways.com/ is one operator.

They have two Curtiss C-46 from 1945. Its interesting that its cheaper to continue to pay for the maintenance and fuel than lease something more modern.

Replacements don’t exist. Those old prop liners can operate off unimproved dirt strips, grass, even snow and ice - and off short runways too.

Jets don’t like that.

For back country missions the only thing maybe better than a DC-3 is a Basler... and that is a modernized DC-3 with reinforcements and turboprops for more power. They suck a lot more fuel than a plain DC3 though, which can be problematic as some of these fields they have to fly fuel in.

A C130 should be a viable modern alternative for those use cases, if economic

A fully loaded DC-3 can takeoff in just over 2000ft. A C-130 needs almost 4000ft.

There are no small planes that can replace DC-3. C-130 is massive!

It appears you are correct in this regard and the websites I used are not.

Are there any such planes used for regular scheduled (passenger) airline services? It appears to me that Buffalo Airways is charter and cargo only.

They don't seem to be a scheduled service operator. They look like a charter airline.

Common definition of a "commercial operation" for airlines is scheduled operation, not charters.

So... That boeing just may be the oldest flying airliner on scheduled routes.

As the 737 Max has shown, this isn’t exactly the industry you want to “move fast and break things” by attempting to try out every late and great technology. Then there is just an issue with the business model in general. Customers typically make their purchasing decision on the lowest cost option, things like the weather are out of your control, there’s huge capital investments needed, and there’s a high risk if anything goes wrong.

do you have any idea how many carbon emissions are created with a two hour meeting? The network, the video servers, the laptop/desktops - the monitors, the A/C to cool each of those people at the distributed locations?

While it is valid to bring this up, I'm pretty sure the emissions and energy usage of a videoconference are minuscule in comparison to the flights that are replaced. Laptops will be needed in both cases, as well as A/C (if that is necessary at all).

I'm pretty sure the parent comment was in jest.

This is funny, because the reason they are not profitable on their own is because they don't need to, since they are subsidized.

Competition makes those companies use any cost-saving they can. If the government takes an option away, they'll just all not use it anymore and settle down on a higher price.

And, ironically, the same people that want these subsidies argue for less government oversight because the "market will sort itself out."

Sorry but i have never heard a small government person think there should be airplane subsidies in my life.

Who paid the F35s 1.5 trillion?

No one because it's not a lump sum. It's a projected cost over 50 years.

That's the military, not the airplane industry.

The people of the countries the US is strong arming into buying this failure

Many Republicans are in favor of subsidies of industries like Boeing when they are in their district. I expect they would describe themselves as believers in small government.

And let's not resort to the No True Scotsman fallacy ...

Probably because it means they get federal money, not because they want to cut out the subsidies out of their own budget.

There’s an element of realpolitik here too: a predictable side effect of ending subsidies for the aerospace industry is that the business would shift to a country that does subsidize. Those companies build a lot of operational knowledge that is super useful — to the point of being a major strategic advantage — in wartime. It also makes you beholden to that country (and subsequent economic sphere of influence) strategically. Governments are responsible for more than just the economy.

Competition between governments is also a thing, and I think we’re already seeing it matter as part of a pullback on globalization with respect to China.

affordable air travel network is a capability the business world needs to operate our economy

Is it? Why? Frequent air travel is super recent.

Internet is even more recent, does it make even less necessary to operate out economy?

Not sure it's what you meant, but the internet does make air travel less necessary to operate the economy.

I was making the point that just because something is 'recent' doesn't mean it isn't necessary and we can go without because 20-50-100 years ago it wasn't needed.

The world changes. I travel all over the world for business. Contracts that I couldn't do without that travel. Just because 50 years ago I wouldn't be able to do it, doesn't mean it isn't necessary now. (Same as internet, just because 50 years ago you didn't need, or have, the internet, doesn't mean nowadays is an integral part of business)

well they need it to operate the economy in the way that it has been operated as of late. which is to say: maybe if we take that away from them, we could solve two problems at once? Pollution from air travel, and all the societal problems that a globalized economy without meaningfully global regulation brings?

If it’s the case that international air travel makes companies more competitive, all you’ll really be able to do is to further stratify the winners from the rest of the pack by sharply increasing the cost of air travel.

The modern economy is "super recent". So are computers and solar cells. Just because something is new doesn't make it easily dispensable.

> But a robust and affordable air travel network is a capability the business world needs to operate our economy.

Then the business world can pay for it through ticket prices.

This argument contradicts itself.

If air travel is essential to operate the economy itself, people will pay for it without subsidies, and cut down on non essentials, if need be.

Airliner manufacturing isn't low margin, by far. Airbus reported EBIT €5.8bn on €64bn revenues for 2018. 9% profitability is pretty good for durable goods company. Airlines aren't all exactly on paper thin margins. Southwest operates at about 15% margin

Apple, the posterchild of high margins, reported profits of $14bn on $62bn revenues for Q4 2018... that's 22%. If you want low margins, look at retailers.

Perhaps if air travel became cost-prohibitive more corporations would invest in remote workflows and cultures?

I don't know about businesses but I also think that international passengers travel is an important part of world peace. Being able to visit other countries and learn about different cultures really brings intolerance and nationalism down.

I wish it was mandatory for every student to visit two or three very different countries during their studies.

I understand the emissions are problematic and we need to cut them down. I like the idea of forbidding or de-incentivizing air travel on short trips when a rail alternative exists. I just wish we put that at the bottom of the priority list. Remove coal plants and fuel cars first.

> I wish it was mandatory for every student to visit two or three very different countries during their studies.

That was common in the 80s & 90s but we did it wearing a backpack and hopping on buses and coaches and sleeper trains; air travel was much too expensive back then.

That's in contrast to modern Ryanair-style stag-party 'tourism' where students descend on a city for a few days and then zip back home.

Buses and backpack won't expose you to different culture. Esp, in a country as big as the US. Unless you live close to the southern border, you won't even be exposed to people speaking a different language, which is an important thing to experience.

We travel to get away from the hell holes we created locally, just to then turn those destinations into carbon copies of the places we were trying to escape from.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com