Hacker News Reader

Comment by hajola | Hacker News Reader

> They are technologically quite substantially in arrears to Airbus

Could you expand on that?

For starters, their highest selling plane, the 737 series, is a six decade old obsolete fly-by-mechanical-cable design that sits too low to the ground to fit large modern high efficiency jet engines.

Airbus and Embraer both make substantially better planes in the same/similar segment.

The 737 Max is definitely a rehash if old tech with engines that are in an odd spot. However, the main problem with the Max is not stability issues without MCAS. It's that the took a perfectly reasonable airplane that could fly just fine with proper pilot training. But they decided to be cheap and make it handle like a regular 737 using the flawed MCAS system.

No it could not just fly fine, it is to comply with regulations regarding stick forces when approaching stalls. Putting it on a new type certificate would have meant that all the old designs and solutions that today are grandfathered in by being used for decades safely would have to be updated to modern standards while also losing all advantages of the large amount of certified pilots.

MCAS is a longitudinal stability enhancement. It is not for stall prevention (although indirectly it helps) or to make the MAX handle like the NG (although it does); it was introduced to counteract the non-linear lift generated by the LEAP-1B engine nacelles at high AoA and give a steady increase in stick force as the stall is approached as required by regulation

http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm

What does Embraer make that competes with the 737? The 195 has a max capacity well under the 737.

The 195 has 112 seats vs the 737 MAX 7 with 138 seats. That's pretty similar. And the Embraer is cheaper and has a nicer/more spacious/more appealing cockpit and interior. This is the 737's age showing through here; despite the 737 being larger, it's more cramped inside than the 195.

Granted, most 737 MAX orders were for larger variants, and also the 737 flies farther (the Embraer is very much more of a regional jet). But there's a lot of routes that could be done using either, and the Embraer wins many of those, even before you consider the fact that the 737 MAX flat-out can't fly them at all since it's grounded indefinitely.

So overall they've got superior competition from Airbus throughout the entire segment, and superior competition from Embraer at the bottom of the segment as well. Boeing is in a rough spot. They should have built a clean sheet redesign of the 737 awhile ago to handle the same segment, but they did not, and now they're really suffering for it.

Airlines like southwest need to be convinced to adopt the new plane. Their major claim to fame is cutting costs by only having one airplane that saves training costs and pilots can fly anything they have. (less spare parts for maintenance, but they have already lost that with the max and other variantes)

Boeing deserves the overwhelming majority of the blame here, not one of their many, many customers. Southwest did not want a plane so unsafe that it cannot fly. If their wish list desires were not all reasonable, then it's Boeing's responsibility to let them know it.

That is a different point. Southwest (they are not alone, though they are the obvious example) is not going to buy any plane from someone else because the 737 is so embedded in their company. They can take something else, and reserve the right if Boeing cannot deliver. However it is unlikely anything other than the 737 will be bought in the foreseeable future.

Now if someone built a plane with the same type certificate required with capacity from 25 to 300 (exact bound are of course negotiable) passengers and can deliver in quantity that would catch South west's attention and probably change their entire fleet. I suspect that isn't possible but...

From a consumer's perspective (primarily Alaskan and Delta), I've only flown on Embraer aircraft domestically (not by choice, by consequence), and 50% Embraer for short international hops. From my perspective, your comment rings very true.

Yes, Embraer's offerings are more comparable to Bombardier's C-series (now Airbus' 220 series).

I fly the 220 regularly on routes within Europe and it is rapidly becoming my favorite plane for short hops (< 2500 km). It doesn't seem to be as easily perturbed as older planes, nice cabin, very quick turnarounds so rarely issues with delayed flights due to slow turnaround. This matters a lot because once you miss your departure slot on many airports in Europe it tends to get a lot worse right away, not just a few minutes.

Well, Boeing now owns Embraer. So they have that going for them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer#Boeing-Embraer_joint_v...

That acquisition was cancelled in April. It's the last sentence in your link.

Read to the end, they cancelled the acquisition. I believe Embraer is suing over it.

I think the better way to describe this would be that Airbus has more of their plane models be on a modern base. All of Airbus models are fly by wire and almost all share the same type rating.

Specifically the 737 and 757 are based on very old designs.

The 757 has been out of production for 16 years, it's just common because it's cost-effective to own and operate for a variety of services.

With respect to type ratings, Airbus shares type ratings between the 330, 340, and 350, but the 340 is basically gone (few operators), and the 320 (their most numerous airframe) is a different type. Boeing has common type ratings for the 777 and 787, as well as for the 757 and 767.

I don't think the type rating matches between the 330 and 350, there's a 330Neo that might match (and yes it matches between the 330/340)

They do. A330/A340/A350 are all on the same type rating. A319/320/321 are on the other Airbus type rating. Boeing has the 737, 747, 757/767 and 777/787 types. Boeing has more type ratings because there is less computerization, all airbus planes fly the same under normal law.

Actually we're both wrong, according to the FAA (source: https://registry.faa.gov/TypeRatings/ )

It's A330/A330Neo together, but A340 and A350 separately, 3 separate types

757/767 but 777 and 787 separately

(And 747 and 747-4/8 are separate as well)

Could have fooled Airbus.

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en/2014/10/the-common-t...

Well, that was weird. A quick Google search doesn't answer it directly but it might be something like:

FAA (and maybe EASA) takes it as 2 types but it only requires a difference training from the 330->350.

From the link: The new regulatory approval means that pilots who are qualified and current on the A330 can already commence their preparations to take the A350 XWB’s controls by undergoing “differences training” only

Based on https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/609896-sff-a330-a350.html

Boeing is looking at restarting 757 production as an interim product until a new aircraft can be brought online.

From what I read the "757-Plus" comments have been widely miss-understood: Boeing is looking at developing a new plane in roughly the same market segment as where the 757 was sitting. They are not looking at restarting the 757 production.

The interim airliner would be an enhanced 767, that is still in production (although not as a passenger aircraft).

Do you have a source for this? I hear this every year and it never happens.

It’s unclear if it happens but it has been mentioned more than once over the last two years.

https://www.reuters.com/article/aircraft-projects-idUSL5N2CF...

Is the new aircraft supposed to emerge from the Yellowstone project (Y1)?

The 757 is just 5 years older (by first flight) than the A320.

Airbus has the A320 line, which is a quantum leap ahead of the 737, and the A220 line, which is another leap ahead of that. The latter, which for my money is the best commercial jet in the world right now, also benefits from not being subject to import duty in the US, which was previously the main reason besides patriotism for US airlines to buy Boeing narrowbodies. In addition, although Boeing's widebodies are not obsolete in the same way as the 737 is, the A350 is probably the best long-haul jet in the world right now. In the past, Boeing used to make massive profits on 747s because no-one else was selling super-high capacity planes, but the A380 squeezed their margins to the extent that they had to pursue the sticking-plaster MAX instead of a clean-sheet replacement.

The only effect the A380 had was to trick Boeing into developing the 747-8, a major failure as a passenger plane, but doing fairly decently as a freighter.

Boeing didn't have the cash to develop a clean ship 737 successor because of the issues with 787 production. Although the 787 has become (pre-COVID) quite a cash cow, in 2011 when Boeing decided to do the 737MAX instead of the NSA it was in a very poor shape: 20~30 billions USD hole, 3 years delayed, and no positive cash flow expected for years to come.

The house was on fire, it was not the right time to commit to a new clean-sheet design, although it would probably have been the right decision (hindsight...).

The 737 was not replaced because of development costs but because airlines that are heavily invested in 737s already just want more of them. Boeing is really squeezed in that situation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com