7 ms·

20 years ago nobody thought there'd be a another US automaker beyond the big three (Ford, GM, Chrysler)... yet today here we are with Tesla and a list of others

20 years ago nobody thought there'd be a another US automaker beyond the big three (Ford, GM, Chrysler)... yet today here we are with Tesla and a list of others. Are there any other US companies today that could ostensibly be viable alternatives to Boeing's spot 20 years from now? Electric-first-and-only was the differentiator for Tesla vs big three... what differentiator will it be in the aero industry?

wand3r 3y ago
Boom is taking a Tesla approach to aerospace focusing on high end first with a Concord replacement. I am sure there are others working their way up the value chain
- hef19898 3y ago
  Boom still isn't dead yet?
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Boom has all these fans on sites like this--and to be clear I wish Boom well--who also wouldn't consider spending $10K for a comfortable lie-flat seating flight from the US to Europe.
  - notatoad 3y ago
    Boom won’t die until the saudis give up on supersonic flight as a method to increase the demand for oil.
- consumer451 3y ago
  Has Boom found a new engine supplier yet?
  - buildsjets 3y ago
    Every major and minor engine manufacturer punted, so now they're making their own. https://boomsupersonic.com/symphony https://boomsupersonic.com/symphony Hired an experienced propulsion guy away from Boeing to run the show. https://boomsupersonic.com/team-members/scott-powell https://boomsupersonic.com/team-members/scott-powell They are not going to be able to do it, my opinion. There are very few people in the world who have deep experience doing 3D CFD on supersonic turbofans, I've talked to a few of them and none have been headhunted. The will need good analysis work, they are asking for a LOT out of a single stage fan. They certainly will not have the metallurgical research and manufacturing technologies of the engine manufacturers to use. But best of luck to Scott, his Porsche GT3 was getting kind of old and needs to be upgraded to the latest model.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      I wish them the best but, even if they can get the technology to more or less work, the economics and regulatory environment are pretty tough. At the end of the day, it's almost certainly going to be an expensive airline ticket and even if United was (rather inexplicably) touting Boom in their advertising, I'm not sure how many customers there are to pay out-of-pocket for supersonic flights that are likely to be a premium over current top-end seating. I'd love to zip over to Europe a lot faster from the East Coast of the US. But I'm not going to pay as much to save time as I would for the rest of my trip.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      If they hired a propulsion guy from Boeing to develop a new super-sonic engine, Boom fucked up. Boeing, same for Airbus, doesn't develop or built engines, let alone super sonic ones. But dor sure, said Boeing hire will be royaly paid for his service, good for them. And good for Boom, a prominent Boeing hire will make fundraising so much easier. But sure, as if building a new commercial airframe manufacturer isn't hard enough, becoming a new jet engine manufacturer on top of that is a winning strategy...
      - buildsjets 3y ago
        In the specific case of Mr. Powell, I would agree that his skill set is primarily in the management of procuring and integrating of new engines from engine vendors into new airframes, and in the detail design of engine accessories and externals, and he is not experienced in the design of internal turbo machinery. And that's where the high risk for Boom is. However you would be completely mistaken to think that Boeing, and Airbus, and my friends down there with Embraer, do not have people who actively pursue and develop the core technologies needed to develop, analyze, and test all types of turbine engines, even if they do not result in market products. It is a necessary tool in order to evaluate offerings from the different competitive engine vendors. And at the senior level of engineering, there is basically a revolving door between the airframe manufacturers, the engine manufacturers, and a few of the high-level engineering focused airlines. People are constantly jumping around between them, there is a lot of cross-pollination going on.
rafale 3y ago
The barrier of entry is much higher with commercial aviation. You can get started with a lousy car but a lousy plane will never be acceptable. The MAX fiasco could have killed Boeing. Maybe Boom will succeed by getting its feet wet in the supersonic flight niche. Time will tell.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 3y ago
  Well, you could make a small plane if it's not lousy. Lilium and Electra are betting on something like an air taxi niche opening up if the fuel savings are worth it: https://www.electra.aero/ https://www.electra.aero/ https://lilium.com/jet https://lilium.com/jet
  - hef19898 3y ago
    At least Lilium is at least a couple of years, and billions, away from having a product they can sell.
- jowea 3y ago
  Maybe start with a small plane instead of a lousy plane?
whimsicalism 3y ago
There's even more government protectionism/capture in plane makers than automakers. It would have to be a horizontal play by an existing company with large amounts of capital and relationships, like a Lockheed Martin or something.
dghlsakjg 3y ago
Maybe one of the private jet manufacturers? In the US we have Cessna and Gulfstream, and in Canada we have Bombardier which designed and sort of made the CSeries/A220 in Alabama in conjunction with Airbus. The whole Bombardier CSeries fiasco was basically Boeing using the US government to try to kill Bombardier because they had managed to put together a plane that was very competitive with with the 737-MAX in a number of categories. The takeaway though is that it is possible, with significant government support, for a small jet manufacturer to put up a feasible competitor to Airbus/Boeing.
- 0xffff2 3y ago
  I think you mean Textron and General Dynamics. Cessna and Gulfstream haven't been independent companies for 10 and 20 years, respectively.
  - buildsjets 3y ago
    Also, they did not "try to kill Bombardier", they did kill Bombardier, at least as far as the commercial jet industry is concerned. Bombardier does not sort of make the CSeries/A220 in Alabama in conjunction with Airbus. The CSeries does not exist any more, the A220 is now a 100% Airbus program, as of Feb. 2020, Bombardier has zero involvement in it.
    - dghlsakjg 3y ago
      Bombardier jets are not dead just their passenger airline jets, they are still making jets, just not the CSeries, and nothing for the airline industry. The Alabama A220 production started while Bombardier was still a partner which is why I used past tense "made" and "sort of"
      - buildsjets 3y ago
        That’s EXACTLY what I just said. They completely killed Bombardier at least as far as the commercial jet industry is concerned. Bombardier now makes no commercial jet aircraft. Zero. None. They still make a few general aviation jet aircraft, but that product line is also dwindling. They completely stopped production of all their Lear products in 2021.
ponector 3y ago
Imagine you've spent 20 billion USD to develop, certify and create a production line. How you're going to convince airlines to buy hundreds of new planes they have no pilots for, no maintenance facilities and no predictions of reliability?
- thehappypm 3y ago
  It'd be a business decision; it'd be hard to imagine a brand-new manufacturer of a competitor to the 737 doing well for that reason. But maybe a supersonic jet, or electric-powered with lower operating costs, or more automation to reduce pilot needs.. there are many ways to innovate.
ARandumGuy 3y ago
Probably the biggest barrier to a new creating a new commercial airline manufacturer is that there just aren't that many new planes sold each year. There aren't that many customers for commercial airplanes, and existing airplanes can last for decades when properly maintained. Combine all that with the inherently high costs of running a commercial airline manufacturer, and there just isn't enough demand to support more companies in the space. Changing that would require huge technical breakthroughs, or fundamental changes to how passenger air travel works. Neither of those seem to be likely in the near future.
akira2501 3y ago
Another differentiation for Tesla was not having the dealership model. Perhaps the things not acknowledged are more important than those that are.
- ghaff 3y ago
  I'm not sure how big a differentiation it was. There are no haggle dealerships, a lot of people still need financing, and people still need to get their cars serviced.
peterfirefly 3y ago
It might even be Tesla again. Somebody, somewhere will make an electric jet that is good enough. It will be very destructive for the old manufacturers, for old airports, and for many airliners. It won't need the long airways we are used to so we will likely get more point-to-point like travel to/from city centers (multiple sites for bigger cities). Longer-distance travel will still remain the remit of traditional jets -- but they will have a much smaller market so there won't be much R&D, except through state subsidies and military contracts.

wand3r 3y ago

Boom is taking a Tesla approach to aerospace focusing on high end first with a Concord replacement. I am sure there are others working their way up the value chain

hef19898 3y ago
Boom still isn't dead yet?
- ghaff 3y ago
  Boom has all these fans on sites like this--and to be clear I wish Boom well--who also wouldn't consider spending $10K for a comfortable lie-flat seating flight from the US to Europe.
- notatoad 3y ago
  Boom won’t die until the saudis give up on supersonic flight as a method to increase the demand for oil.
consumer451 3y ago
Has Boom found a new engine supplier yet?
- buildsjets 3y ago
  Every major and minor engine manufacturer punted, so now they're making their own. https://boomsupersonic.com/symphony https://boomsupersonic.com/symphony Hired an experienced propulsion guy away from Boeing to run the show. https://boomsupersonic.com/team-members/scott-powell https://boomsupersonic.com/team-members/scott-powell They are not going to be able to do it, my opinion. There are very few people in the world who have deep experience doing 3D CFD on supersonic turbofans, I've talked to a few of them and none have been headhunted. The will need good analysis work, they are asking for a LOT out of a single stage fan. They certainly will not have the metallurgical research and manufacturing technologies of the engine manufacturers to use. But best of luck to Scott, his Porsche GT3 was getting kind of old and needs to be upgraded to the latest model.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    I wish them the best but, even if they can get the technology to more or less work, the economics and regulatory environment are pretty tough. At the end of the day, it's almost certainly going to be an expensive airline ticket and even if United was (rather inexplicably) touting Boom in their advertising, I'm not sure how many customers there are to pay out-of-pocket for supersonic flights that are likely to be a premium over current top-end seating. I'd love to zip over to Europe a lot faster from the East Coast of the US. But I'm not going to pay as much to save time as I would for the rest of my trip.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    If they hired a propulsion guy from Boeing to develop a new super-sonic engine, Boom fucked up. Boeing, same for Airbus, doesn't develop or built engines, let alone super sonic ones. But dor sure, said Boeing hire will be royaly paid for his service, good for them. And good for Boom, a prominent Boeing hire will make fundraising so much easier. But sure, as if building a new commercial airframe manufacturer isn't hard enough, becoming a new jet engine manufacturer on top of that is a winning strategy...
    - buildsjets 3y ago
      In the specific case of Mr. Powell, I would agree that his skill set is primarily in the management of procuring and integrating of new engines from engine vendors into new airframes, and in the detail design of engine accessories and externals, and he is not experienced in the design of internal turbo machinery. And that's where the high risk for Boom is. However you would be completely mistaken to think that Boeing, and Airbus, and my friends down there with Embraer, do not have people who actively pursue and develop the core technologies needed to develop, analyze, and test all types of turbine engines, even if they do not result in market products. It is a necessary tool in order to evaluate offerings from the different competitive engine vendors. And at the senior level of engineering, there is basically a revolving door between the airframe manufacturers, the engine manufacturers, and a few of the high-level engineering focused airlines. People are constantly jumping around between them, there is a lot of cross-pollination going on.

rafale 3y ago

The barrier of entry is much higher with commercial aviation. You can get started with a lousy car but a lousy plane will never be acceptable. The MAX fiasco could have killed Boeing. Maybe Boom will succeed by getting its feet wet in the supersonic flight niche. Time will tell.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 3y ago
Well, you could make a small plane if it's not lousy. Lilium and Electra are betting on something like an air taxi niche opening up if the fuel savings are worth it: https://www.electra.aero/ https://www.electra.aero/ https://lilium.com/jet https://lilium.com/jet
- hef19898 3y ago
  At least Lilium is at least a couple of years, and billions, away from having a product they can sell.
jowea 3y ago
Maybe start with a small plane instead of a lousy plane?

whimsicalism 3y ago

There's even more government protectionism/capture in plane makers than automakers. It would have to be a horizontal play by an existing company with large amounts of capital and relationships, like a Lockheed Martin or something.

dghlsakjg 3y ago

Maybe one of the private jet manufacturers? In the US we have Cessna and Gulfstream, and in Canada we have Bombardier which designed and sort of made the CSeries/A220 in Alabama in conjunction with Airbus. The whole Bombardier CSeries fiasco was basically Boeing using the US government to try to kill Bombardier because they had managed to put together a plane that was very competitive with with the 737-MAX in a number of categories. The takeaway though is that it is possible, with significant government support, for a small jet manufacturer to put up a feasible competitor to Airbus/Boeing.

0xffff2 3y ago
I think you mean Textron and General Dynamics. Cessna and Gulfstream haven't been independent companies for 10 and 20 years, respectively.
- buildsjets 3y ago
  Also, they did not "try to kill Bombardier", they did kill Bombardier, at least as far as the commercial jet industry is concerned. Bombardier does not sort of make the CSeries/A220 in Alabama in conjunction with Airbus. The CSeries does not exist any more, the A220 is now a 100% Airbus program, as of Feb. 2020, Bombardier has zero involvement in it.
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    Bombardier jets are not dead just their passenger airline jets, they are still making jets, just not the CSeries, and nothing for the airline industry. The Alabama A220 production started while Bombardier was still a partner which is why I used past tense "made" and "sort of"
    - buildsjets 3y ago
      That’s EXACTLY what I just said. They completely killed Bombardier at least as far as the commercial jet industry is concerned. Bombardier now makes no commercial jet aircraft. Zero. None. They still make a few general aviation jet aircraft, but that product line is also dwindling. They completely stopped production of all their Lear products in 2021.

ponector 3y ago

Imagine you've spent 20 billion USD to develop, certify and create a production line. How you're going to convince airlines to buy hundreds of new planes they have no pilots for, no maintenance facilities and no predictions of reliability?

thehappypm 3y ago
It'd be a business decision; it'd be hard to imagine a brand-new manufacturer of a competitor to the 737 doing well for that reason. But maybe a supersonic jet, or electric-powered with lower operating costs, or more automation to reduce pilot needs.. there are many ways to innovate.

ARandumGuy 3y ago

Probably the biggest barrier to a new creating a new commercial airline manufacturer is that there just aren't that many new planes sold each year. There aren't that many customers for commercial airplanes, and existing airplanes can last for decades when properly maintained. Combine all that with the inherently high costs of running a commercial airline manufacturer, and there just isn't enough demand to support more companies in the space. Changing that would require huge technical breakthroughs, or fundamental changes to how passenger air travel works. Neither of those seem to be likely in the near future.

akira2501 3y ago

Another differentiation for Tesla was not having the dealership model. Perhaps the things not acknowledged are more important than those that are.

ghaff 3y ago
I'm not sure how big a differentiation it was. There are no haggle dealerships, a lot of people still need financing, and people still need to get their cars serviced.

peterfirefly 3y ago

It might even be Tesla again. Somebody, somewhere will make an electric jet that is good enough. It will be very destructive for the old manufacturers, for old airports, and for many airliners. It won't need the long airways we are used to so we will likely get more point-to-point like travel to/from city centers (multiple sites for bigger cities). Longer-distance travel will still remain the remit of traditional jets -- but they will have a much smaller market so there won't be much R&D, except through state subsidies and military contracts.