4 ms·

+1 for pointing out that Boeing has significant revenue from military contracts. The Seattle Times analysis seems not to take that into account, but rather foc

+1 for pointing out that Boeing has significant revenue from military contracts. The Seattle Times analysis seems not to take that into account, but rather focuses on purely commercial aspects. New passenger planes are extraordinarily expensive to develop, and only 2-3 corporations in the entire world are capable of it. Boeing traditionally has introduced new models with advantageous features, then continued selling them for decades, gradually rolling out slightly modernized versions that the airlines can purchase to refresh their fleets without completely retooling to support a newer model (retraining mechanics, purchasing new parts, etc.). The article argues that Boeing will take ~5 years to break even. That actually sounds pretty good. I would give them 10-15 years. The fact that only one Boeing person seems to have been consulted for this article suggests that it's mostly speculation by outsiders and former insiders, and not a realistic analysis based on comprehensive data. If Boeing's betting on military contracts to keep it afloat while the more profitable 787-9 and -10 models come online, so what? Sounds like a reasonable thing for this kind of manufacturer.

dogma1138 11y ago
And those designs live for quite a long time, the brand new USAF tankers which will come into service in 2017 are based on the 767. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus Those tankers however will use new technologies from other projects like the cockpit displays and avionics from the 787. And these ones will slowly replace the USAF current tankers the KC-135 which are based on the Boeing 367 (which turned into the 707 for it's commercial release) which has been flying since the mid 50's. People underestimate the life span of most aircraft designs, at least of the good ones if the design is superior it's practically timeless. The US is still building new U-2's because there's nothing comparable to it still.
- rory096 11y ago
  > The US is still building new U-2's because there's nothing comparable to it still. Last built in 1989 I'm afraid, though they're still pushing off retirement because drones haven't quite taken over the game yet.
  - Phlarp 11y ago
    What can a U2 do that a drone can't do?
    - dogma1138 11y ago
      The U2 carries pretty much every airborne sensor we've built so far, when it comes to ISR roles the U2 can fly much higher and further than any drone, and give both line of sight and over the horizon coverage which most drones cant. The Global Hawk can almost match the U2 in altitude 60,000 feet vs 70,000 but it can carry only a fraction of the sensors that the U2 can, and it also is currently more expensive than the U2. If it retires I hope that the US will preserve some for private sale, I would rather fly in a U2 at this point than than on the spaceship one, there's just something about a minimalistic design from the dawn of the "atomic age" which is still relevant today that can bring you to 1/8th of the way to low earth orbit that is inspiring.
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    The last air-frame was built in 98, and they are still rebuilding older ones to the new U2-S specs, and now in 2016 it will again get upgraded with new tech.
crdoconnor 11y ago
>New passenger planes are extraordinarily expensive to develop, and only 2-3 corporations in the entire world are capable of it. There would probably be more if it weren't for the vast subsidies thrown at both boeing and airbus. That pretty much locks out all potential from competition from anywhere except maybe China.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  Europe tried that and it killed their aerospace industry which resulted in them having to pay tenfold to revive it. Aerospace companies just like space programs are force multipliers their value is several orders of magnitude greater than what they make because they propel all industries within a nation forward. While for-profit companies should not be funded on the same level as government organizations I would not advocate more for removing subsidizing from the likes of Boeing than I would for the stop to NASA funding because they are one and the same. The US government partially funded the development of the Falcon 9 launch system and the department of energy grant was critical from keeping Tesla from going under. Government funding of key technology sectors is something we should all strive to increase because it's one of the few government spending programs that later pays for its self 10 times over.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    That wasn't a suggestion or a value judgement. It was a statement of fact.

dogma1138 11y ago

And those designs live for quite a long time, the brand new USAF tankers which will come into service in 2017 are based on the 767. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus Those tankers however will use new technologies from other projects like the cockpit displays and avionics from the 787. And these ones will slowly replace the USAF current tankers the KC-135 which are based on the Boeing 367 (which turned into the 707 for it's commercial release) which has been flying since the mid 50's. People underestimate the life span of most aircraft designs, at least of the good ones if the design is superior it's practically timeless. The US is still building new U-2's because there's nothing comparable to it still.

rory096 11y ago
> The US is still building new U-2's because there's nothing comparable to it still. Last built in 1989 I'm afraid, though they're still pushing off retirement because drones haven't quite taken over the game yet.
- Phlarp 11y ago
  What can a U2 do that a drone can't do?
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    The U2 carries pretty much every airborne sensor we've built so far, when it comes to ISR roles the U2 can fly much higher and further than any drone, and give both line of sight and over the horizon coverage which most drones cant. The Global Hawk can almost match the U2 in altitude 60,000 feet vs 70,000 but it can carry only a fraction of the sensors that the U2 can, and it also is currently more expensive than the U2. If it retires I hope that the US will preserve some for private sale, I would rather fly in a U2 at this point than than on the spaceship one, there's just something about a minimalistic design from the dawn of the "atomic age" which is still relevant today that can bring you to 1/8th of the way to low earth orbit that is inspiring.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  The last air-frame was built in 98, and they are still rebuilding older ones to the new U2-S specs, and now in 2016 it will again get upgraded with new tech.

crdoconnor 11y ago

>New passenger planes are extraordinarily expensive to develop, and only 2-3 corporations in the entire world are capable of it. There would probably be more if it weren't for the vast subsidies thrown at both boeing and airbus. That pretty much locks out all potential from competition from anywhere except maybe China.

dogma1138 11y ago
Europe tried that and it killed their aerospace industry which resulted in them having to pay tenfold to revive it. Aerospace companies just like space programs are force multipliers their value is several orders of magnitude greater than what they make because they propel all industries within a nation forward. While for-profit companies should not be funded on the same level as government organizations I would not advocate more for removing subsidizing from the likes of Boeing than I would for the stop to NASA funding because they are one and the same. The US government partially funded the development of the Falcon 9 launch system and the department of energy grant was critical from keeping Tesla from going under. Government funding of key technology sectors is something we should all strive to increase because it's one of the few government spending programs that later pays for its self 10 times over.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  That wasn't a suggestion or a value judgement. It was a statement of fact.