6 ms·

It would be great to see a new airplane company ascend as Boeing self destructs. We won't be that lucky I'm sure.

by mark-r 7y ago

starpilot 7y ago
I'm sure Google or other mega tech company with enough money will do so within 20 years. Big Aero has left too many promising radical ideas on the table, they always publish some half-hearted studies (blended-wing body, various once-off supersonic platforms) while sticking with the standard subsonic tube+wings configuration that is 50 years old. The main barrier to entry is massive initial capital, for the army of lawyers to handle lawsuits and the FAA redtape, and the huge number of engineers and manufacturing staff that you need from the start for rigorous engineering. Stakes are much higher when people can die, even Icon Aircraft has had two fatalities and they have a really solid team of mostly Scaled alums.
- themagician 7y ago
  There's no big conspiracy here. Passenger planes have actually gotten SLOWER over the last 20 years because it's more cost efficient. Supersonic flight is fun, but borderline nonsensical. The cost is outrageous, it's incredibly inefficient, and the damage to the environment and local ecosystems is terrible. Supersonic flight is the future for the 1% who can afford it and don't care about the costs they don't have to bear. Honestly, I'd rather see Zeppelins come back before supersonic planes.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    The costs and efficiency can probably be improved. But I still agree it would be for the <1%. Probably a more rarified offering for those who buy whatever the highest class seats are in a plane today. Say $5-10K for a NY to London flight in all probability.
    - schoen 7y ago
      Wikipedia says about Concorde: > For example, in 1997, the round-trip ticket price from New York to London was $7,995 ($12.5 thousand in 2018 dollars), more than 30 times the cost of the cheapest option to fly this route. I just did a search for this route in January in first class for comparison and saw various options mostly starting around $6000 (round trip), which is similar to your estimate. I'm sure there are reasons people would often pay more to fly that route in first class.
      - osivertsson 7y ago
        There is always going to be a market of people wanting the very best and fastest stuff since it conveys status no matter how little sense it makes. And as an engineer I bet it can be a very satisfying environmemt to work in with less compromises for legacy and economic reasons. But the problem with long flights today is not the time on the flight which would make supersonic travel worth it. The real work should be put into optimizing the slowest step of my journey instead. Like being stuck in traffic to and from airport, the time it takes at the airport for security and to get passengers onboard, taxing to runway for 20 minutes, and waiting in queue of airplanes for take-off slot. Also even in business class or first class there is horrible noise that makes me super-tired and I am expected to mostly just sit around and feel that free booze will make up for the lousy environment. Give me an onboard gym, showers, less noise, proper air onboard, proper sleep compartments suitable for people being 2m tall and where I can shut myself in and not be disturbed by other pax or crew.
        ghaff 7y ago
        I guess opinions vary. Give me the best lie-flat seating that gives me undisturbed (and undisturbing) access to the restroom and I'm pretty good. Some 1st class configs also give a greater level of privacy. An 18 hour flight is long and boring and I suppose an old-fashioned 747 lounge would be nice but I really have no interest in a gym/shower. (And honestly gym options on a plane seem pretty problematic.) If I had that space to play with personally, it would definitely be a nice cocktail lounge/dining area rather than a gym. Maybe if this were something I was doing all the time but as a sometimes event, comfortable sleeping and entertainment options (which I can mostly handle by myself at this point) work pretty well.
- ummonk 7y ago
  >even Icon Aircraft has had two fatalities and they have a really solid team of mostly Scaled alums. Well, Scaled / Virgin Galactic has had its own fatalities, so...
- deepnotderp 7y ago
  Eh, it's a bit more nuanced than that to be honest. Blended-wing body is good, but the total gain after structural reinforcement, increased materials, friction drag etc. is probably not quite as high as you might think.
themagician 7y ago
A 100-year old company with 150,000 direct employees, responsible for the safe transportation of countless millions every day, all day long, year after year—as well as being one of the largest military contractors responsible for everything from ICBMs to space flight—and a single questionable design decision for a single passenger aircraft has people calling for their ultimate demise. Nice.
- emptybottle 7y ago
  They weren't calling for Boeings demise specifically. One could argue that it is indeed self-destructive behavior for an aerospace company to speed commercial flight products to market, minimize documentation and training regarding safety critical differences in new models, while lobbying for reduced safety driven government oversights. There have been many questionable design decisions coming to light in the past decade. Battery fires, cracking pickle forks, and the max8 disasters to name a few. And these issues really can have a significant negative impact and ripple effect, regardless of past track record.
- mark-r 7y ago
  Not "calling for their ultimate demise", just projecting based on recent knowledge of how they do business. The "questionable design decision" is a symptom, not a cause.
- bronson 7y ago
  Calling for? No. Don't shoot the messenger. In the first year of flying their most important new airplane, they managed to kill 350 passengers. This is unprecedented in modern air travel, worse than all others combined (including DC-9, Tu-154, and A320). Boeing had information on MCAS's twitchiness in 2015, so why did they allow a second plane to crash? And now they've bungled the grounding, originally suggesting to airlines they might be flying again in May: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/business/boeing-737-software.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/business/boeing-737-softw... You must admit, their ineptitude through this whole ordeal is just incomprehensible. I'm sure you're right, and Boeing probably better people in charge of their other divisions ... but, if so, then they need to put them on the MAX!
costcopizza 7y ago
I'm not going to wish for Boeing's demise, just that they (or anyone else) buys Boom once their XB-1 is feasible. Need that competition. :)
catalogia 7y ago
I have serious doubts that the American federal government would ever allow Boeing to roll up. They're too important to the DoD, not to mention there are way too many people in the government with personal stakes in the survival of Boeing.
- piadodjanho 7y ago
  If you think about it, in the future, the SpaceX/Blue Origin might get the ICBM part of Boeing Business.
  - frank2 7y ago
    Space X and Blue Origin have no expertise in rocket motors with solid fuels, which are the only kind of motors used by the advanced militaries since about 1970 because it takes tens of minutes to fuel a liquid-fueled motor and then once it is fueled you have at most a few days to fire it or undergo an expensive process of removing the fuel. I think you probably end up throwing the unused fuel away (and maybe also cleaning everything of fuel residue).
    - tim333 7y ago
      The old IBCMs of mutually assured destruction fame were liquid fuelled and could be launched straight away but had other issues eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Damascus_Titan_missile_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Damascus_Titan_missile_ex...
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > The old IBCMs of mutually assured destruction fame were liquid fuelled and could be launched straight away but had other issues True of Soviet ICBMs (including some still operational in Russian service) and early US ICBMs, but the Minuteman I, introduced in 1962, and all later US ICBMs (Minuteman II & III, Midgetman, Peacekeeper) were solid fueled. > and could be launched straight away but had other issues Those “other issues” directly impact the probability of successful launch “straight away”, and did involve having to replace the fuel. (They also involved missiles exploding in their silos, which is bad enough when it's a ground based ICBM, but pretty catastrophic when it's a sub-launched ballistic missile, which cost the Soviets a number of subs apparently.)
osivertsson 7y ago
That new airplane company is spelled Comac. I expect they will eventually take a large marketshare starting with China, rest of Asia, and Africa. This will really hurt the economies of scale for both Boeing and Airbus. They probably have a lot of smart engineers at Comac and very strong government backing. Within 10 years I expect them to produce planes that makes a lot of economical sense for operators and are really liked by passengers for comfort. Maybe the FAA will find reasons to keep these planes from US skies, but Boeing will suffer as their market share declines.
- hamhand 7y ago
  It's not that hard to assemble a working passenger plane especially when you don't have to make money, selling it is the hard part. In this case, selling it to foreign buyers that aren't beholden to China.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

It would be great to see a new airplane company ascend as Boeing self destructs. We won't be that lucky I'm sure.

by mark-r 7y ago

It would be great to see a new airplane company ascend as Boeing self destructs. We won't be that lucky I'm sure.

I'm sure Google or other mega tech company with enough money will do so within 20 years. Big Aero has left too many promising radical ideas on the table, they always publish some half-hearted studies (blended-wing body, various once-off supersonic platforms) while sticking with the standard subsonic tube+wings configuration that is 50 years old. The main barrier to entry is massive initial capital, for the army of lawyers to handle lawsuits and the FAA redtape, and the huge number of engineers and manufacturing staff that you need from the start for rigorous engineering. Stakes are much higher when people can die, even Icon Aircraft has had two fatalities and they have a really solid team of mostly Scaled alums.

themagician 7y ago
There's no big conspiracy here. Passenger planes have actually gotten SLOWER over the last 20 years because it's more cost efficient. Supersonic flight is fun, but borderline nonsensical. The cost is outrageous, it's incredibly inefficient, and the damage to the environment and local ecosystems is terrible. Supersonic flight is the future for the 1% who can afford it and don't care about the costs they don't have to bear. Honestly, I'd rather see Zeppelins come back before supersonic planes.
- ghaff 7y ago
  The costs and efficiency can probably be improved. But I still agree it would be for the <1%. Probably a more rarified offering for those who buy whatever the highest class seats are in a plane today. Say $5-10K for a NY to London flight in all probability.
  - schoen 7y ago
    Wikipedia says about Concorde: > For example, in 1997, the round-trip ticket price from New York to London was $7,995 ($12.5 thousand in 2018 dollars), more than 30 times the cost of the cheapest option to fly this route. I just did a search for this route in January in first class for comparison and saw various options mostly starting around $6000 (round trip), which is similar to your estimate. I'm sure there are reasons people would often pay more to fly that route in first class.
    - osivertsson 7y ago
      There is always going to be a market of people wanting the very best and fastest stuff since it conveys status no matter how little sense it makes. And as an engineer I bet it can be a very satisfying environmemt to work in with less compromises for legacy and economic reasons. But the problem with long flights today is not the time on the flight which would make supersonic travel worth it. The real work should be put into optimizing the slowest step of my journey instead. Like being stuck in traffic to and from airport, the time it takes at the airport for security and to get passengers onboard, taxing to runway for 20 minutes, and waiting in queue of airplanes for take-off slot. Also even in business class or first class there is horrible noise that makes me super-tired and I am expected to mostly just sit around and feel that free booze will make up for the lousy environment. Give me an onboard gym, showers, less noise, proper air onboard, proper sleep compartments suitable for people being 2m tall and where I can shut myself in and not be disturbed by other pax or crew.
      - ghaff 7y ago
        I guess opinions vary. Give me the best lie-flat seating that gives me undisturbed (and undisturbing) access to the restroom and I'm pretty good. Some 1st class configs also give a greater level of privacy. An 18 hour flight is long and boring and I suppose an old-fashioned 747 lounge would be nice but I really have no interest in a gym/shower. (And honestly gym options on a plane seem pretty problematic.) If I had that space to play with personally, it would definitely be a nice cocktail lounge/dining area rather than a gym. Maybe if this were something I was doing all the time but as a sometimes event, comfortable sleeping and entertainment options (which I can mostly handle by myself at this point) work pretty well.
ummonk 7y ago
>even Icon Aircraft has had two fatalities and they have a really solid team of mostly Scaled alums. Well, Scaled / Virgin Galactic has had its own fatalities, so...
deepnotderp 7y ago
Eh, it's a bit more nuanced than that to be honest. Blended-wing body is good, but the total gain after structural reinforcement, increased materials, friction drag etc. is probably not quite as high as you might think.

themagician 7y ago

A 100-year old company with 150,000 direct employees, responsible for the safe transportation of countless millions every day, all day long, year after year—as well as being one of the largest military contractors responsible for everything from ICBMs to space flight—and a single questionable design decision for a single passenger aircraft has people calling for their ultimate demise. Nice.

emptybottle 7y ago
They weren't calling for Boeings demise specifically. One could argue that it is indeed self-destructive behavior for an aerospace company to speed commercial flight products to market, minimize documentation and training regarding safety critical differences in new models, while lobbying for reduced safety driven government oversights. There have been many questionable design decisions coming to light in the past decade. Battery fires, cracking pickle forks, and the max8 disasters to name a few. And these issues really can have a significant negative impact and ripple effect, regardless of past track record.
mark-r 7y ago
Not "calling for their ultimate demise", just projecting based on recent knowledge of how they do business. The "questionable design decision" is a symptom, not a cause.
bronson 7y ago
Calling for? No. Don't shoot the messenger. In the first year of flying their most important new airplane, they managed to kill 350 passengers. This is unprecedented in modern air travel, worse than all others combined (including DC-9, Tu-154, and A320). Boeing had information on MCAS's twitchiness in 2015, so why did they allow a second plane to crash? And now they've bungled the grounding, originally suggesting to airlines they might be flying again in May: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/business/boeing-737-software.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/business/boeing-737-softw... You must admit, their ineptitude through this whole ordeal is just incomprehensible. I'm sure you're right, and Boeing probably better people in charge of their other divisions ... but, if so, then they need to put them on the MAX!

costcopizza 7y ago

I'm not going to wish for Boeing's demise, just that they (or anyone else) buys Boom once their XB-1 is feasible. Need that competition. :)

catalogia 7y ago

I have serious doubts that the American federal government would ever allow Boeing to roll up. They're too important to the DoD, not to mention there are way too many people in the government with personal stakes in the survival of Boeing.

piadodjanho 7y ago
If you think about it, in the future, the SpaceX/Blue Origin might get the ICBM part of Boeing Business.
- frank2 7y ago
  Space X and Blue Origin have no expertise in rocket motors with solid fuels, which are the only kind of motors used by the advanced militaries since about 1970 because it takes tens of minutes to fuel a liquid-fueled motor and then once it is fueled you have at most a few days to fire it or undergo an expensive process of removing the fuel. I think you probably end up throwing the unused fuel away (and maybe also cleaning everything of fuel residue).
  - tim333 7y ago
    The old IBCMs of mutually assured destruction fame were liquid fuelled and could be launched straight away but had other issues eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Damascus_Titan_missile_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Damascus_Titan_missile_ex...
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > The old IBCMs of mutually assured destruction fame were liquid fuelled and could be launched straight away but had other issues True of Soviet ICBMs (including some still operational in Russian service) and early US ICBMs, but the Minuteman I, introduced in 1962, and all later US ICBMs (Minuteman II & III, Midgetman, Peacekeeper) were solid fueled. > and could be launched straight away but had other issues Those “other issues” directly impact the probability of successful launch “straight away”, and did involve having to replace the fuel. (They also involved missiles exploding in their silos, which is bad enough when it's a ground based ICBM, but pretty catastrophic when it's a sub-launched ballistic missile, which cost the Soviets a number of subs apparently.)

osivertsson 7y ago

That new airplane company is spelled Comac. I expect they will eventually take a large marketshare starting with China, rest of Asia, and Africa. This will really hurt the economies of scale for both Boeing and Airbus. They probably have a lot of smart engineers at Comac and very strong government backing. Within 10 years I expect them to produce planes that makes a lot of economical sense for operators and are really liked by passengers for comfort. Maybe the FAA will find reasons to keep these planes from US skies, but Boeing will suffer as their market share declines.

hamhand 7y ago
It's not that hard to assemble a working passenger plane especially when you don't have to make money, selling it is the hard part. In this case, selling it to foreign buyers that aren't beholden to China.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]