Hacker News Reader

Comment by ianhawes | Hacker News Reader

The 737-MAX is the plane equivalent of Windows XP Service Pack 8.

> JetBlue is among airlines planning to use the [AirBus A321LR] on routes across the pond, serving Western Europe from New York and Boston.

This has to be a gut punch for Southwest, who has famously relied only on the 737. They're close to hitting their ceiling on domestic expansion with the 737 and can't compete on US-EU routes because of their fleet.

I like that the author points out the realities of modern 737 performance - just because it _can_ reach coast to coast destinations doesn't mean it _should_.

Thats not to say that the 757 is perfect. From what I've heard, maintenance is significantly more complex than the 737. And as the article pointed out, it takes way too long to board/deplane for the short hops that the 737 dominates now.

View on HN

Southwest as far as I'm aware had shown no interest in transatlantic routes, nor do I think they've hit their domestic growth limits - there are still lots of places they don't fly.

They fly to Hawaii now, as well as Central America and the Carib with their AirTran acquisition. As you said, lots of places to fly still.

Once Southwest gets over the hurdle of flying something other than 737s, it'll have transatlantic ambitions.

But flying a single kind of plane has a lot of advantages, doesn't it?

It seems that switching to a new plane would mean a drastic economic change.

So the transatlantic ambitions should be a cause to go past that, rather than a side effect.

Having a single source for planes also has disadvantages, as the recent fiasco demonstrates.

The CEO is on record saying that they will be evaluating having a second source of planes next year:

https://theaircurrent.com/airlines/southwest-wants-a-small-a...

Their service to SEA is terrible. Competition here would be nice to CA/AZ but Delta is very reliable and inexpensive (plus it flies the superior Airbus equipment) to Phoenix, so that's a tough route to win.

Delta flies pretty much everything including the 737.

And given as choice, out of Seattle, I'm more likely to fly Alaska, as their equipment is considerably newer than Delta.

Depends on the route. The last time I flew Alaska to SEA was on a 737-400 a couple years ago. They've since been retired, but their current interiors are rather sterile and have those awful slimline seats. Meanwhile I think Delta will be bringing the A220 to Seattle.

Delta also flies a lot of regional carriers to SEA (and both Compass and SkyWest are pretty mediocre out of SEA). I'll take the 2x2 seating of a CRJ/ERJ over a 737 (or the Dash-8s) any day, especially Delta's newer low density layout. The Dash 8 isn't bad for a turboprop, but it's still a turboprop.

> Meanwhile I think Delta will be bringing the A220 to Seattle

They‘re on the SEA-SJC route now, at the least. Great planes.

I'd rather fly Alaska most of the time too, but lock-in to Delta frequent flier miles being what they are...

I agree - meant to say that most of the SEA-PHX legs have been route changed to Airbus lately, which has been nice.

I agree - meant to say that most of the SEA-PHX legs have been route changed to Airbus lately, which has been nice.

If you think they're nice, you should've seen them with the Virgin America interior.

As someone flying out of the Bay Area, Alaska just isn't that compelling. Their route network is smaller than the big 3 and their product isn't well differentiated from the rest. I've heard good things about their customer service, but so far Delta has done right by me when either I or they have screwed up.

More like Windows 95 Service Pack 15 :)

> The 737-MAX is the plane equivalent of Windows XP Service Pack 8.

If I have an important device that I'm not attaching to a network, that sounds like a good thing. It may not have every feature but it's very stable and efficient.

Except that’s the opposite of how the 737-Max actually is. It’s more like they kept bolting on bigger and bigger engines until it had totally different aerodynamics.

Yeah, that doesn't sound like an XP service pack at all.

It's amusing that I got downvotes for someone else's analogy being bad.

It’s a bad analogy but maybe responding to the analogy in a way that doesn’t apply to the airplane problem came across as confusing and irrelevant.

Personally I don't think it's irrelevant to try to cut off an unhelpful analogy, those things sometimes act like black holes. But point taken.

Nah I get that, it was just ambiguous whether you were cutting it off or falling into the black hole, but maybe that’s just me :)

The black hole would be trying to elaborate a whole lot on top of a completely broken foundation, or trying to fix the analogy in intense detail when you should start from scratch, etc.

I just said one line about how that analogy didn't fit.

Theire should be after accident reclassifications to new planes.

What makes you think there isn’t a review process?

There is a process for “special certification review”, some of those end with changes (typically airworthiness directives); others validate the airplane as meeting certification and safe.

Lear 60, MU-2, DC-10, MD-11, ATR-72, R22/R44 helicopters, Piper Malibu, CE-441, and Bonanza have all undergone the SCR process and continue to fly having been validated as safe/conforming (some with changes to airframe or procedures)

To my knowledge, only the DC-6 and Constellation had their type certification revoked after in-service accidents.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com