5 ms·

I'd like to see more innovation/players as an outcome of Boeing's and Airbus' problems :)

ChuckNorris89 6y ago
You probably won't. The aerospace industry has one of the highest barriers of entry in cost, know-how, regulations and political connections. Both Boeing and Airbus received a lot of government funding to get started and grow and still do to this day. What will happen most likely is that the US and France/EU will just bail them out since they're not only vital for jobs but for defense and national security as well as their execs having strong ties to politicians in their respective regions who can push for a bailout package.
- eru 6y ago
  > Both Boeing and Airbus received a lot of government funding to get started and grow and still do to this day. If they went bankrupt, and there was less/no government funding, we'd see more innovation, I'd guess. There's still money to be made building planes, even if fewer. I agree with your assessment though: they are national champions, they will get bailed out.
- zpeti 6y ago
  I think you would be surprised. Somehow we've ended up with privately owned and founded rocket companies, which are higher entry in cost than airplanes. Just because in the current situation we can't imagine it being different doesn't mean there wouldn't be possibilities if it wasn't so government focused. I think a much bigger risk is that fact that I doubt many people will confidently fly like they did before for the next 10 years. I think airline travel will dramatically decline.
  - badpun 6y ago
    > I think you would be surprised. Somehow we've ended up with privately owned and founded rocket companies, which are higher entry in cost than airplanes. Are they? How much regulation there is for cargo-carrying rockets vs passenger airplanes?
  - cranekam 6y ago
    > Somehow we've ended up with privately owned and founded rocket companies, which are higher entry in cost than airplanes. Are you sure? There's a big difference between building single-purpose, unmanned rockets and commercial jets that carry hundreds of people, fly for 20 hours a day, and last two decades. According to Wikipedia Falcon development 9 cost $300-390 million [0]. The 787 program cost $32 billion [1]. Even the A320 neo, which is a refresh of the original A320, cost $1.3 billion [2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_v1.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_v1.0 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner#Market,_costs,_and_production_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner#Market,_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320neo_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320neo_family
  - kanox 6y ago
    > Somehow we've ended up with privately owned and founded rocket companies, which are higher entry in cost than airplanes. Quick browsing for airliner unit costs shows a B737 max starting from ~$100M which is more expensive than a Falcon 9. > I think a much bigger risk is that fact that I doubt many people will confidently fly like they did before for the next 10 years. I think airline travel will dramatically decline. This is the real problem, airline travel won't recover for many years.
yardie 6y ago
Unlikely. There are no other players making planes at this scales. Even China, who is dipping its toe into commercial planes, is still at the commuter/regional size jet. They aren’t anywhere near ready to announcing plans for an ETOPS, widebody plane.
owenmarshall 6y ago
More innovation and players strikes me as unlikely and unreasonable. Aircraft for commercial travel are heavily regulated and a very niche product. I suspect we’d see the opposite: consolidation in the industry.

You probably won't. The aerospace industry has one of the highest barriers of entry in cost, know-how, regulations and political connections. Both Boeing and Airbus received a lot of government funding to get started and grow and still do to this day. What will happen most likely is that the US and France/EU will just bail them out since they're not only vital for jobs but for defense and national security as well as their execs having strong ties to politicians in their respective regions who can push for a bailout package.

eru 6y ago
> Both Boeing and Airbus received a lot of government funding to get started and grow and still do to this day. If they went bankrupt, and there was less/no government funding, we'd see more innovation, I'd guess. There's still money to be made building planes, even if fewer. I agree with your assessment though: they are national champions, they will get bailed out.
zpeti 6y ago
I think you would be surprised. Somehow we've ended up with privately owned and founded rocket companies, which are higher entry in cost than airplanes. Just because in the current situation we can't imagine it being different doesn't mean there wouldn't be possibilities if it wasn't so government focused. I think a much bigger risk is that fact that I doubt many people will confidently fly like they did before for the next 10 years. I think airline travel will dramatically decline.
- badpun 6y ago
  > I think you would be surprised. Somehow we've ended up with privately owned and founded rocket companies, which are higher entry in cost than airplanes. Are they? How much regulation there is for cargo-carrying rockets vs passenger airplanes?
- cranekam 6y ago
  > Somehow we've ended up with privately owned and founded rocket companies, which are higher entry in cost than airplanes. Are you sure? There's a big difference between building single-purpose, unmanned rockets and commercial jets that carry hundreds of people, fly for 20 hours a day, and last two decades. According to Wikipedia Falcon development 9 cost $300-390 million [0]. The 787 program cost $32 billion [1]. Even the A320 neo, which is a refresh of the original A320, cost $1.3 billion [2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_v1.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_v1.0 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner#Market,_costs,_and_production_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner#Market,_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320neo_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320neo_family
- kanox 6y ago
  > Somehow we've ended up with privately owned and founded rocket companies, which are higher entry in cost than airplanes. Quick browsing for airliner unit costs shows a B737 max starting from ~$100M which is more expensive than a Falcon 9. > I think a much bigger risk is that fact that I doubt many people will confidently fly like they did before for the next 10 years. I think airline travel will dramatically decline. This is the real problem, airline travel won't recover for many years.

yardie 6y ago

Unlikely. There are no other players making planes at this scales. Even China, who is dipping its toe into commercial planes, is still at the commuter/regional size jet. They aren’t anywhere near ready to announcing plans for an ETOPS, widebody plane.

owenmarshall 6y ago

More innovation and players strikes me as unlikely and unreasonable. Aircraft for commercial travel are heavily regulated and a very niche product. I suspect we’d see the opposite: consolidation in the industry.