4 ms·

Its good that a company is hurt because of its negligence. Its bad when an industry dominated by two players has one of those players hurt and the market can't

by soared 7y ago

Its good that a company is hurt because of its negligence. Its bad when an industry dominated by two players has one of those players hurt and the market can't replace them. You can't start a competitor to Boeing because it would cost over $100Bn, so the larger outcome is bad for aviation.

pastor_elm 7y ago
look to fly the Sukhoi Superjet
wahern 7y ago
$100 billion doesn't seem like much of an impediment in a world with $300 trillion of investable assets. It's only an impediment if you can't recoup the investment, which is much more difficult if revenues are split 3 ways rather than 2.
trhway 7y ago
>Its bad when an industry dominated by two players has one of those players hurt and the market can't replace them. it is the best opportunity for a new maker to emerge and shake, if not break, the duopoly. Boeing for the years ahead wouldn't have a plane to replace 737 MAX while the market will be squeezed by Airbus.
- selectodude 7y ago
  Ask Lockheed Martin how that went :)
  - trhway 7y ago
    I'm not that familiar with the story here, and simple googling brings that https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar and it doesn't sound that bad.
    - Litmus2336 7y ago
      It went great, expect where they totally missed sales targets and shuttered the program. The TriStar was a great plane. It should've done better.
indymike 7y ago
Here's the $100bn question: why does it have to cost $100bn? Is it natural, i.e. the actual complexity of the product, or is it artificial (regulatory overhead, procurement process, etc...). It so much seems like this may be some of both...
- selectodude 7y ago
  Mostly the cost of complexity. For $20+ billion Comac can barely get a decent aircraft off the ground, and that's a state-owned enterprise with what amounts to an unlimited budget and likely more than a small percentage of industrial espionage.
  - christophilus 7y ago
    > and that's a state-owned enterprise with what amounts to an unlimited budget I don't think that helps your case. I would expect a state-owned enterprise to be over-budget, especially if managers knew they had "what amounts to an unlimited budget".
    - Gibbon1 7y ago
      Depends on the state. In the US most such programs are just Military Industrial Keynesian Stimulus. Which why why they are full of fail if you think functional results are the goal rather than 'white people welfare'
disordinary 7y ago
There's quite a few competitors in the narrow body space like the 737: Airbus, Bombadier, Embraer, Irkut, COMAC, etc. The lack of competition is in wide body aircraft (With Airbus and Boeing being the only players although there will be the Craic at some point in the next couple of years).
- DuskStar 7y ago
  > although there will be the Craic at some point in the next couple of years The CR929? That thing? [0] I think that if people are still complaining about Boeing's safety record and obfuscation when that goes into service, the'll start to relearn what real obfuscation looks like... (Russian airliners do not have the best safety reputation, to say the least) 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRAIC_CR929 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRAIC_CR929
- CaptainZapp 7y ago
  > Bombadier If you're refering to the C series, that's now essentially a product provided by Airbus (under the A220 monikker). > COMAC Not viable. Not for the next couple decades. The reason is not that the Chinese are not able to build an airworthy plane in a few years time. The main problem will be the service offerings to an international clientele. Let's just say that China's pencheant for cutting corners is not conductive to trust into their service offerings, including the provision of critical spare parts.

by soared 7y ago

pastor_elm 7y ago

look to fly the Sukhoi Superjet

wahern 7y ago

$100 billion doesn't seem like much of an impediment in a world with $300 trillion of investable assets. It's only an impediment if you can't recoup the investment, which is much more difficult if revenues are split 3 ways rather than 2.

trhway 7y ago

>Its bad when an industry dominated by two players has one of those players hurt and the market can't replace them. it is the best opportunity for a new maker to emerge and shake, if not break, the duopoly. Boeing for the years ahead wouldn't have a plane to replace 737 MAX while the market will be squeezed by Airbus.

selectodude 7y ago
Ask Lockheed Martin how that went :)
- trhway 7y ago
  I'm not that familiar with the story here, and simple googling brings that https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar and it doesn't sound that bad.
  - Litmus2336 7y ago
    It went great, expect where they totally missed sales targets and shuttered the program. The TriStar was a great plane. It should've done better.

indymike 7y ago

Here's the $100bn question: why does it have to cost $100bn? Is it natural, i.e. the actual complexity of the product, or is it artificial (regulatory overhead, procurement process, etc...). It so much seems like this may be some of both...

selectodude 7y ago
Mostly the cost of complexity. For $20+ billion Comac can barely get a decent aircraft off the ground, and that's a state-owned enterprise with what amounts to an unlimited budget and likely more than a small percentage of industrial espionage.
- christophilus 7y ago
  > and that's a state-owned enterprise with what amounts to an unlimited budget I don't think that helps your case. I would expect a state-owned enterprise to be over-budget, especially if managers knew they had "what amounts to an unlimited budget".
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    Depends on the state. In the US most such programs are just Military Industrial Keynesian Stimulus. Which why why they are full of fail if you think functional results are the goal rather than 'white people welfare'

disordinary 7y ago

There's quite a few competitors in the narrow body space like the 737: Airbus, Bombadier, Embraer, Irkut, COMAC, etc. The lack of competition is in wide body aircraft (With Airbus and Boeing being the only players although there will be the Craic at some point in the next couple of years).

DuskStar 7y ago
> although there will be the Craic at some point in the next couple of years The CR929? That thing? [0] I think that if people are still complaining about Boeing's safety record and obfuscation when that goes into service, the'll start to relearn what real obfuscation looks like... (Russian airliners do not have the best safety reputation, to say the least) 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRAIC_CR929 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRAIC_CR929
CaptainZapp 7y ago
> Bombadier If you're refering to the C series, that's now essentially a product provided by Airbus (under the A220 monikker). > COMAC Not viable. Not for the next couple decades. The reason is not that the Chinese are not able to build an airworthy plane in a few years time. The main problem will be the service offerings to an international clientele. Let's just say that China's pencheant for cutting corners is not conductive to trust into their service offerings, including the provision of critical spare parts.