4 ms·

I think Boeing should be free to jump into the airline business. But even if they could they never would actually go for it. The exposure and risk is simply too

by smabie 6y ago

I think Boeing should be free to jump into the airline business. But even if they could they never would actually go for it. The exposure and risk is simply too high.

mulmen 6y ago
You realize Boeing was in the airline business and was specifically forced to break up because it was anticompetitive? > After the Air Mail scandal of 1934, the U.S. government concluded that such large holding companies as United Aircraft and Transport were anti-competitive, and new antitrust laws were passed forbidding airframe or engine manufacturers from having interests in airlines.
- smabie 6y ago
  Yes, I am aware, but there's no reason why Boeing would be interested in the airline business today.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - nwienert 6y ago
    Because there’s more than 2 airlines competing so the margins are low.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    Because they were broken up to create a competitive marketplace which would not otherwise have existed. Also if Boeing were allowed to create an airline they could, say, not sell airliners to any other airline, or charge them much more. Or just pass on the airliner sales margins to consumers as lower fares... until the other airlines went out of business. But I guess the airlines could just make their own airplanes right?
    - thethethethe 6y ago
      What competitive market? There are basically two airline manufacturers and all American Airlines have merged into the star alliance and their service is horrible. Maybe it would better if there was a vertically integrated airline company, why wouldn’t it?
      - mulmen 6y ago
        This is completely false. Yes, there are "basically" two manufacturers of airliners if you define airliner as "planes made by Boeing and Airbus" and ignore... all the other airliners. Without CRJs, E-Jets and Q400s the US airline industry doesn't exist as it does today. There are three airline alliances operating in the United States [1]. Of the top 10 airlines operating in the United States [2] only three are currently members of an airline alliance. When Alaska joins Oneworld it will be four. > Maybe it would better if there was a vertically integrated airline company Do you have a more compelling reason than "maybe" to suggest why changing these regulations back to a model that was already shown to be anti competitive would provide better service? [3] > why wouldn’t it? Because we tried it and it was found to be anti competitive. [3] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_alliance [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_airlines_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_airlines_of_the_United_S... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Aircraft_and_Transport_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Aircraft_and_Transport_...
        thethethethe 6y ago
        > “ Yes, there are "basically" two manufacturers of airliners if you define airliner as "planes made by Boeing and Airbus" and ignore... all the other airliners. Without CRJs, E-Jets and Q400s the US airline industry doesn't exist as it does today.” I think it is safe to say that Airbus and Boeing hold a strong duopoly in their market segment—similar to Apple and Google in mobile actually. [0] Yes you are right about the airline alliances. > Do you have a more compelling reason than "maybe" to suggest why changing these regulations back to a model that was already shown to be anti competitive would provide better service? Maybe there would be benefits to consumers if a manufacturers focused more on user experience? Maybe service would be cheaper. Maybe more planes like the 787 would be built. I’m not necessarily advocating for this, I’m just not convinced an anti-trust case from 100 years ago over mail delivery, before modern airlines existed, is a solid reason to keep the law in place [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and...

by smabie 6y ago

I think Boeing should be free to jump into the airline business. But even if they could they never would actually go for it. The exposure and risk is simply too high.

mulmen 6y ago

You realize Boeing was in the airline business and was specifically forced to break up because it was anticompetitive? > After the Air Mail scandal of 1934, the U.S. government concluded that such large holding companies as United Aircraft and Transport were anti-competitive, and new antitrust laws were passed forbidding airframe or engine manufacturers from having interests in airlines.

smabie 6y ago
Yes, I am aware, but there's no reason why Boeing would be interested in the airline business today.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nwienert 6y ago
  Because there’s more than 2 airlines competing so the margins are low.
- mulmen 6y ago
  Because they were broken up to create a competitive marketplace which would not otherwise have existed. Also if Boeing were allowed to create an airline they could, say, not sell airliners to any other airline, or charge them much more. Or just pass on the airliner sales margins to consumers as lower fares... until the other airlines went out of business. But I guess the airlines could just make their own airplanes right?
  - thethethethe 6y ago
    What competitive market? There are basically two airline manufacturers and all American Airlines have merged into the star alliance and their service is horrible. Maybe it would better if there was a vertically integrated airline company, why wouldn’t it?
    - mulmen 6y ago
      This is completely false. Yes, there are "basically" two manufacturers of airliners if you define airliner as "planes made by Boeing and Airbus" and ignore... all the other airliners. Without CRJs, E-Jets and Q400s the US airline industry doesn't exist as it does today. There are three airline alliances operating in the United States [1]. Of the top 10 airlines operating in the United States [2] only three are currently members of an airline alliance. When Alaska joins Oneworld it will be four. > Maybe it would better if there was a vertically integrated airline company Do you have a more compelling reason than "maybe" to suggest why changing these regulations back to a model that was already shown to be anti competitive would provide better service? [3] > why wouldn’t it? Because we tried it and it was found to be anti competitive. [3] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_alliance [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_airlines_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_airlines_of_the_United_S... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Aircraft_and_Transport_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Aircraft_and_Transport_...
      - thethethethe 6y ago
        > “ Yes, there are "basically" two manufacturers of airliners if you define airliner as "planes made by Boeing and Airbus" and ignore... all the other airliners. Without CRJs, E-Jets and Q400s the US airline industry doesn't exist as it does today.” I think it is safe to say that Airbus and Boeing hold a strong duopoly in their market segment—similar to Apple and Google in mobile actually. [0] Yes you are right about the airline alliances. > Do you have a more compelling reason than "maybe" to suggest why changing these regulations back to a model that was already shown to be anti competitive would provide better service? Maybe there would be benefits to consumers if a manufacturers focused more on user experience? Maybe service would be cheaper. Maybe more planes like the 787 would be built. I’m not necessarily advocating for this, I’m just not convinced an anti-trust case from 100 years ago over mail delivery, before modern airlines existed, is a solid reason to keep the law in place [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and...