Hacker News Reader

Comment by rob74 | Hacker News Reader

This page already goes a long way to fulfill your requirements: https://www.planespotters.net/special/boeing-737-max-groundi...

...however, if you don't want Boeing to "get away with it", you should boycott all their planes. Not saying we should do that though, because if Boeing goes out of business, we would be left with just one major manufacturer of passenger jets, and that's never a good thing. Already the Max issues are at least in part a result of the existing duopoly and US authorities being too lenient with Boeing because they don't want to disadvantage it against Airbus.

View on HN

> if Boeing goes out of business, we would be left with just one major manufacturer of passenger jets

The former US president certainly helped with that, as his misguided tariffs on aluminium killed Bombardier's C-Series plane. Bombardier had to _give_ it to Airbus so it had a chance to see the light of day. It's now known as the A220.

I was under the impression that had more to do with this episode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSeries_dumping_petition_by_Bo... - basically Boeing complained that Bombardier was selling the CSeries at dumping prices, the US International Trade Commission agreed and threatened additional duties on the imported planes, so Bombardier partnered up with Airbus to be able to (partly) build the planes in the USA and thus avoid paying the additional tariffs.

Yeah, Boeing was complaining that Bombardier was receiving subsidies (which it did, at great expense to Québec taxpayers), while it was receiving many times that amount in subsidies as well from the US gov.

> US International Trade Commission agreed

If you think that wasn't from political pressure, I have a bridge to sell you.

The ruling didn't hold up in court.

What's interesting is how Trudeau immediately bowed down to Trump. All he did was to basically threaten to not buy Boeing fighter jets and instead get f35 from Lockheed (which he was contractually obligated to anyways).

I still don't understand why he reacted so submissively to Trump. Having the CSeries sold to Airbus at a huge discount was foolish: The plane already had a profitable amount of orders. Now Europeans are reaping the benefits.

Why didn't he step up?

The tariffs really struck me as contradictory to their intent. They said the tariffs would bring factory jobs back to America, but they seemed specifically designed to make most manufacturing more expensive.

Most finished products weren't taxed but raw materials were. So if someone wanted to setup a TV factory it would cost more to import the necessary parts.

>The tariffs really struck me as contradictory to their intent.

Welcome to the post-1980 Republican party.

> Most finished products weren't taxed but raw materials were.

This is kind of a simplistic summary. The tariffs were targeted to ensure certain industries remain solvent in the US so we're not dependent on foreign imports. In some cases, that meant products farther down the manufacturing chain, and in others, closer to the source.

For example, steel was one of "raw materials" we targeted. We might not be so concerned about finished products using steel at the moment (e.g. cars), but we want to ensure we can create tanks and fighter jets in wartime. So you'd expect we would tariff imported steel, but not cars, because the cost of the steel in a modern car (which is more than half its weight) is not that significant compared to the other components.

Bombardier has a long history of incompetence. Just google "Bombardier delays" or "Bombardier defects". They have been bleeding money for years and sucking up billions in corporate welfare to stay afloat.

Oh, no need to google here; I have some friends that worked there that have confirmed this on multiple occasions. It's just frustrating as a Québec taxpayer to see this plane program bailed out from Bombardier's incompetence with my tax money, only for the US & Boeing to force it to be given to Airbus. I feel like we really got shafted in that saga.

Québec taxpayers actually made money with the deal, strangely enough.

Bombardier basically split the CSeries program from it's main division and placed all assets (factories, IP for the plane) in a separate company. The government then invested in that company and got shares in return. So it's really more like VC.

These shares also get a part of the profits from the CSeries and the government can sell them if it wishes.

Rail or airplanes? The two companies have been distinct for many years now.

Rail projects are a political nightmare, as every buyer is a government (municipal, state, national) and wants their rail equipment to be manufactured in their jurisdiction. So they can make a big announcement that the X millions they just paid is actually creating good jobs. Then a few years later the job dries up for a designated site (project completed) so the local government keeps bailing it out else they'll get voted out for getting rid of all these jobs!

Plus, of course, every project is custom hardware. And is long enough that it will span at least two municipal, state or national administrations so expect a feature creep/change of requirements in the middle.

> if Boeing goes out of business, we would be left with just one major manufacturer of passenger jets, and that's never a good thing.

Comac is getting to a point where it can give serious competition. This is corroborated by the fact that US has already established sanctions against them [1].

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-comac-military-...

Comac C919 is not even in service yet. Sanctions are probably because of alleged IP theft:

https://www.economist.com/gulliver/2018/11/05/america-accuse...

They are slated to deliver in late 2021. And you and I both know their competitive edge is not coming from being good, its coming from being Chinese. China is a pretty big market and they will definitely favor Comac.

I will reserve my comments about IP theft.

C919 use CFM engine why they try to steal something they buy?

> why they try to steal something they buy?

Because they can’t manufacture it yet but are trying to learn to.

Because China wants to be able to manufacture everything so that they are beholden to no one. Seize the means of production as it were.

Most of China's innovations in aircraft stem from the fact that they lack the advanced metallurgy and engine manufacturing chops to make powerful engines. Their equivalent to the Blackhawk helicopter uses an advanced fly-by-wire system instead of heavy hydraulics systems because they can't produce an engine powerful enough to meet operational requirements and have hydraulic controls.

Comac was worth mentioning, I think. I hadn't heard of it and I appreciate being informed.

However, currently the "third largest producer of civil aircraft, after Boeing and Airbus" (Wikipedia) is Embraer. British Airways uses the Embraer 170 for some European flights: only 76 passengers, but Embraer also sells some larger planes, up to 146 passengers.

> "third largest producer of civil aircraft, after Boeing and Airbus" (Wikipedia)

Is that By number of planes?

JetBlue flys Embraer 190s in the USA for shorter haul trips as well. Single aisle 2x2 type configuration.

I doubt Comac airplanes will be allowed to land in any european or american airports.

Why do you say that? I understand America has sanctions since a week or so ago, do you expect Europe to comply to them?

> Not saying we should do that though, because if Boeing goes out of business, we would be left with just one major manufacturer of passenger jets, and that's never a good thing.

This is a strong argument to work with Boeing to correct both the engineering and company cultural issues that produced an aircraft that kills their customers' customers. What's happening now seems like the time elapsed in the penalty box for bad behavior and now they are back on the ice. As you've stated, Boeing is too important to go out of business. Should a crash happen in the western world they'll long for the difficulties and corrective opportunities they face now.

> Boeing is too important to go out of business.

I hear this a lot and I get it, but I'm not so sure it's true. If Boeing dies, their assets don't just evaporate with them. There are half a dozen companies in the US who could take over where they left off - hopefully with better leadership this time around.

> There are half a dozen companies in the US who could take over where they left off

Like who? Lockheed maybe? I'm not sure they'd be willing or able to take over without the US government stepping in with some serious incentives though.

Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, General Electric, Northrop Grumman, and Honeywell all spring to mind. Most of those companies do not presently manufacture entire aircraft, but they're all in a position to do so if they acquired only a fraction of Boeing's assets. Raytheon Technologies in particular already makes engines, avionics, and interior systems. All they'd need is a manufacturing plant to assemble everything onto a fuselage.

Boeing and Lockheed Martin get a lot of name recognition for handling the high-level design and manufacturing of aircraft. But in reality, their planes are an amalgamation of engines, avionics, and interior systems which are often contracted out to other companies like those I listed. Many of them could step up and fill Boeing's shoes if a good deal presents itself - especially if there was extra incentive seeing as it would be a matter of national interest.

That's a pretty odd take when Boeing airplanes have superior safety ratings than their Airbus counterpars for the most part if we exclude the 737-Max variant. I need to find sources, I am writing from memory.

I understand the situation with 737-Max safety, Boeing entirely deserves it. But, I think we should also look at the data as well and hold off on knee-jerk reactions.

Edit: http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

Airbus seems safer from your link?

They never had a crash on any of their newer models, A380, A350 and neo variants. The vast majority of flights are performed in 737s and A320 variants and the crash rate is 0.09 for Airbus vs 0.24 for Boeing.

[edit]: actually excluding planes produced before the 737NG in 1984 and the 737 max, the 737 crash rate is 0.11 which is still slightly higher than Airbus.

Your link disagrees with your conclusion?

Do you mean the 0.07 "fatality rate" for Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 vs. the 0.09 for the A320 family? I would say they are both very safe aircraft, but I wouldn't read too much into the 0.02 difference, because that includes accidents like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 (where the copilot intentionally crashed the plane) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522 (which was 100% due to human error)

> which was 100% due to human error

Not sure how familiar you are with the airplane industry but nothing is ever "100% due to human error" in these events. We know humans are controlling these planes and the equipment can always gets better. Usually it comes down to UX, checklists and more to have multiple stopgaps to prevent issues. Just a quick scan of the Flight 522 page shows there were in fact many UX issues like why can you take off when the pressure system is turned to manual? Forcing a manual override if so would have helped. Same alert sound was also used for "take-off configuration warning" and "cabin altitude warning", leading to the pilots making the wrong decision. Attributing Flight 522 to only human error is not what the courts did (check the "Lawsuits and criminal proceedings" section in the page you linked) so not sure why you would.

Ok, if you want to get into the details of this particular accident... it can be argued that UX issues made it easier for the pilots to make the fatal mistake they made (and the lawyers representing the victims' families of course made that argument, because going after Boeing is far more promising than going after a small airline which declared bankruptcy soon after the accident), but in the end it was still human error. Aircraft are complex systems which can't be made 100% foolproof, that's why they are flown by qualified and trained pilots who have checklists for things that have to be done before take-off, and one of them was checking the pressurization system ("the flight crew overlooked the pressurization system state on three occasions: during the pre-flight procedure, the after-start check, and the after take-off check").

...and the courts ultimately had nothing to do with it, because the suit against Boeing was settled out of court. Which is not an "admission of guilt" on the part of Boeing, just "give them some money to make this unpleasant thing go away".

I appreciate your point about nothing ever being "100% due to human error", especially in regards to air travel. I recently read "The Design of Everyday Things", a book that devotes a lot of its time to discussing this same principle. We should blame the UX wherever possible before assigning any blame to the individual.

> because that includes accidents like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525

> He had set the autopilot to descend to 100 ft (30 m) and accelerated the speed of the descending aircraft several times thereafter.

That could have been avoided if the autopilot refused to crash the air plane. To be fair, I bet Boeing's autopilot also accepts commands to crash the plane. However this accident could have been avoided if the autopilot had refused to comply with an obviously deadly commands.

I'm skeptical that an AI for airplanes exists that can distinguish between "obviously deadly commands" and "trying to rescue the plane during a mechanical emergency".

A hypothetical system would actually function almost exactly the same as the much derided MCAS. If angle of attack sensors indicate an inappropriate angle of ascent/descent, overcompensate for or override the pilot inputs.

As we've learned at great cost, angle of attack sensors are wrong more often than pilots are homicidal though, which is part of the reason why the form of intelligence used to deter and attempt to prevent obviously deadly pilot actions is a lump of meat called a copilot.

> a lump of meat called a copilot.

Looks like that's how they fixed the issue.

> aviation authorities in some countries implemented new regulations that require two authorized personnel to be present in the cockpit of large passenger aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525#Regula...

An A320 already does much more crash-prevention than a 737 because of its FBW system. It’s impossible to stop someone who’s determined to crash the plane unless you make it fully autonomous.

You're onto something, keep on thinking about it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_2904

Please excuse the snark, but there is more to flight safety than a Hacker's "AI's the best"-mentality. We actually have a lot of experience gathered from accidents and non-accidents how these systems should behave in a general sense, and "overriding pilot-input" has proven not to be a good idea.

The discussion above was about details and UX.

I'm much more concerned by the operator than the aircraft on proven planes. Air France for example -- landing in Syria in a civil war due to a backup plan that prioritised money over safety [0], pilots ignoring stall warning for nearly a minute [1].

The Max does concern me about Boeing planes goign forward, but existing airbus and boeing planes are fine.

[0] https://www.independent.ie/life/travel/travel-news/air-franc...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

If you'd read the website you linked more carefully, you'd see the reason:

>Also excluded are aircraft models have no fatal events involving airline passengers:

>Airbus: A220, A319neo, A320neo, A321neo, A340, A350, A380

A300 and A310 are old planes, not in service in reasonable airlines.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com