3 ms·

Uh I mean yes Boeing is kind of a mess right now, but it's ridiculous to argue that having Boeing based in the US isn't an enormous strategic advantage. Can yo

Uh I mean yes Boeing is kind of a mess right now, but it's ridiculous to argue that having Boeing based in the US isn't an enormous strategic advantage. Can you imagine a world where US airlines had to depend on either Airbus or Sukhoi planes? Do you really think that would be better?

lettergram 4y ago
I don’t think subsidizing them has been a success. I think tariffs and awarding contracts to the best domestic manufacturers are the way forward. That’s why SpaceX took off, they won contracts. Boeing effectively lobbied to regulate others out of existence. Bought off who they could, then won grants and contracts because there was no one else.
- bushbaba 4y ago
  Government spending could require multiple vendors. Encouraging at least a duopoly.
- nyc_data_geek1 4y ago
  Maybe a combination of the approaches. I might actually be in favor of raising import costs if there were a guarantee of some sort that the resulting funds would be applied to jumpstarting domestic chipfab capabilities, specifically to overcoming the initial capital intensive investment required to get started.
- 7thaccount 4y ago
  As they say "competition is for losers". They've all figured that out lol.
  - taneq 4y ago
    Sun Tzu would say you don’t take to the battlefield unless you have already won.
- bumby 4y ago
  That’s why SpaceX took off, they won contracts. Can you elaborate? How was Boeing subsidized in this instance and SpaceX not? It's my understanding that it was closer to the other way around. Both Boeing and SpaceX won commercial crew contracts, but Boeing (at the time) had a stronger track record. It was a strategic move by NASA to not put all their eggs in one basket and it worked out well by subsidizing the early dark horse (SpaceX).
acchow 4y ago
> Can you imagine a world where US airlines had to depend on either Airbus or Sukhoi planes? Do you really think that would be better? Are we going to pretend 737MAX wasn't grounded for a year and half after 2 devastating crashes killing 346 people? I think a world without Boeing would have been clearly better?
- ApolloFortyNine 4y ago
  >Are we going to pretend 737MAX wasn't grounded for a year and half after 2 devastating crashes killing 346 people? I think a world without Boeing would have been clearly better? I seriously think you should consider reading the history of air travel, they don't say "regulations are written down in blood" for no reason. There's been many an accident due to a mechanical fault that's eventually remedied. Its a tragedy but you seriously have to take a breath and think a little. If you want to get into a pissing contest over aircraft manufacturers, the air France 447 (airbus plane) crash was largely caused by the inputs being averaged together. On a Boeing plane, the inputs are synced (one side pushes down, the other side goes down as well). Maybe we should eliminate airbus as well.
  - lazide 4y ago
    Big difference between a mechanical fault and what appears to be regulatory capture from a monopolizing entity causing a very sketchy product to be approved in a safety critical role - which then kills a lot of people.
    - themaninthedark 4y ago
      >Big difference between a mechanical fault and what appears to be regulatory capture You can't call Airbus's design decision to average the inputs a "mechanical fault", somehow that got approved by regulators. You are damning Airbus with the same attack you are aiming at Boeing. The 737-MAX crashes are absolutely horrific and how the FAA responded was terrible. The design was shit and should have had better review, same for Airbus and what caused France 447.
- 4y ago

lettergram 4y ago

I don’t think subsidizing them has been a success. I think tariffs and awarding contracts to the best domestic manufacturers are the way forward. That’s why SpaceX took off, they won contracts. Boeing effectively lobbied to regulate others out of existence. Bought off who they could, then won grants and contracts because there was no one else.

bushbaba 4y ago
Government spending could require multiple vendors. Encouraging at least a duopoly.
nyc_data_geek1 4y ago
Maybe a combination of the approaches. I might actually be in favor of raising import costs if there were a guarantee of some sort that the resulting funds would be applied to jumpstarting domestic chipfab capabilities, specifically to overcoming the initial capital intensive investment required to get started.
7thaccount 4y ago
As they say "competition is for losers". They've all figured that out lol.
- taneq 4y ago
  Sun Tzu would say you don’t take to the battlefield unless you have already won.
bumby 4y ago
That’s why SpaceX took off, they won contracts. Can you elaborate? How was Boeing subsidized in this instance and SpaceX not? It's my understanding that it was closer to the other way around. Both Boeing and SpaceX won commercial crew contracts, but Boeing (at the time) had a stronger track record. It was a strategic move by NASA to not put all their eggs in one basket and it worked out well by subsidizing the early dark horse (SpaceX).

acchow 4y ago

> Can you imagine a world where US airlines had to depend on either Airbus or Sukhoi planes? Do you really think that would be better? Are we going to pretend 737MAX wasn't grounded for a year and half after 2 devastating crashes killing 346 people? I think a world without Boeing would have been clearly better?

ApolloFortyNine 4y ago
>Are we going to pretend 737MAX wasn't grounded for a year and half after 2 devastating crashes killing 346 people? I think a world without Boeing would have been clearly better? I seriously think you should consider reading the history of air travel, they don't say "regulations are written down in blood" for no reason. There's been many an accident due to a mechanical fault that's eventually remedied. Its a tragedy but you seriously have to take a breath and think a little. If you want to get into a pissing contest over aircraft manufacturers, the air France 447 (airbus plane) crash was largely caused by the inputs being averaged together. On a Boeing plane, the inputs are synced (one side pushes down, the other side goes down as well). Maybe we should eliminate airbus as well.
- lazide 4y ago
  Big difference between a mechanical fault and what appears to be regulatory capture from a monopolizing entity causing a very sketchy product to be approved in a safety critical role - which then kills a lot of people.
  - themaninthedark 4y ago
    >Big difference between a mechanical fault and what appears to be regulatory capture You can't call Airbus's design decision to average the inputs a "mechanical fault", somehow that got approved by regulators. You are damning Airbus with the same attack you are aiming at Boeing. The 737-MAX crashes are absolutely horrific and how the FAA responded was terrible. The design was shit and should have had better review, same for Airbus and what caused France 447.
4y ago