Unfortunately they're just chasing marginal efficiency gains with these. It's much more important to make a plane that's safe enough to actually remain in the air.
> Unfortunately they're just chasing marginal efficiency gains with these
Marginal gains is the name of the game for airliners. A 2% increase in fuel efficiency is something airlines drool over.
> It's much more important to make a plane that's safe enough to actually remain in the air.
Which Boeing unequivocally does. Ya, they stumbled with the 737-MAX, but all the other perfectly good 737 variants are still the workhorse of most airlines. There's still more 737's flying around than Airbus A320 variants (including the A321). That doesn't even account for all the 767, 777 and 787's flying around the world every day... nor all the 747's and DC10/MD-11's shuttling freight too.
> Marginal gains is the name of the game for airliners. A 2% increase in fuel efficiency is something airlines drool over.
It's not if the resultant airplane isn't safe to use. 2% improvement over nothing (because you can't even fly the damn thing) is nothing.
Most of the success stories you're referring to are the old Boeing, from decades past. The 787 had lots of problems but they did eventually get it dialed in with fortunately no fatal crashes, just having lost many billions of dollars in overruns. But their most recent plane is an absolute disaster. They can't keep coasting on the successes of the past without making more successes in the future. These layoffs are prove of it. On their current trajectory, they are failing.
The history of aviation is that of chasing marginal efficiency gains.
Are you trying to make some nationalistic point, or just make yourself sound superior?
Sometimes aircraft crash due to faults in design or user interface; examples include the DC-10 cargo doors, de Havilland Comet, and arguably Airbus' own A330 in the case of AF447. Two Boeing aircraft crashed for a series of reasons, yet Boeing still has a storied history of making very safe, effective aircraft.
> The history of aviation is that of chasing marginal efficiency gains.
Yes, while crucially, making your plane safe enough to fly.
> Are you trying to make some nationalistic point
From the HN rules: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
I'll have you know, I'm Nth generation American, never lived anywhere else. My American identity, however, is emphatically not wrapped up in this one particular company. I can be honest when it's faltering and not doing well without feeling like I'm letting down my national identity. Can you?
This storied history you're referring to is the old Boeing. The new Boeing (the one taken over in a reverse merger by McDonnell Douglas business people) isn't doing so great.
