5 ms·

IIRC Boeing's defense and airliner business units are separate. So they really aren't too big to fail: the defense side is insulated from the commercial airline

IIRC Boeing's defense and airliner business units are separate. So they really aren't too big to fail: the defense side is insulated from the commercial airliner side.

tsunamifury 3y ago
Commercial airline manufacture is also in our global strategic interest.
- adolph 3y ago
  Why is that? Could it be that reduced commercial aircraft lead to better outcomes for high speed rail and future suborbital passenger rockets? Is seeing a strategic interest in commercial aircraft a local minima that prevents further improvement?
  - tsunamifury 3y ago
    This is some paranoid nonsense. It’s that keeping capacity for one of the leading forms of global travel is a strategic interest. Don’t let your conspiracies get in the way of the obvious. Also I feel like the rail circle jerk is so unearned. Last time I was in London it cost 100 pounds to fly to paris from London downtown airport and 600 to take the Chunnel. How “superior”.
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      I don’t see the paranoia or conspiracy in their comment. Plane based infrastructure could be a local minima that we’ve bungled our way into without any need for coordination.
    - adolph 3y ago
      Hey, no paranoid conspiracy intended. Simply thinking out the counterfactuals. Is tying a particular activity to "national interest" itself a form of paranoia? What about passenger aircraft is a strategic interest? For example, the US seems to do ok with little large-scale shipbuilding outside military concerns. People seem to take cruises from the US in ever-larger cruise ships without a domestic capacity for building them. Additionally, no disagreement on my part regarding the high regard people have for hypothetical rail. On the other hand, I'm open to the idea that high capacity terrestrial transportation similar to rail would have cause to improve if airplanes weren't in an optimization sweet spot.
lenerdenator 3y ago
They are to a point. The military side typically uses Boeing's airliner offering as a basis for things like transport, AWACS, and logistics aircraft.
- CobaltFire 3y ago
  I’m unsure what you mean by transport and logistics; we use civilian airframes with any amount of modifications for only one in production aircraft that I’m aware of (P-8 Poseidon is based on the 737). The TACAMO and AWACS are both based on the 707, which is long since out of production. None of our strategic lift capability (logistics in your comment?) is based on civilian airframes.
  - lenerdenator 3y ago
    KC-767, C-40, KC-46, E-4, VC-25.
    - CobaltFire 3y ago
      Thanks! I was in aviation, but primarily tactical and expeditionary. I always forget about the C-40 despite having ridden in one multiple times. The E-4 and VC-25 aren’t really a fair one; you don’t need the divisions to be the same company for their integration (though I suppose it would make it vastly cheaper). We also don’t fly many at all (meaning cost per unit is relatively inconsequential). I also somehow always forget the tankers. Thanks for that. I’ll still maintain the links aren’t necessary. I honestly think a dedicated military platform for all of those would have been a smarter investment and that the current way of modifying airliners is suboptimal.
      - lenerdenator 3y ago
        It's agree it's probably suboptimal, but I don't think anyone's going to be willing to front the cash for development of a new airframe specifically for military/government use. The advantage of the airliner route is you have at least some revenue stream to fall back on if the military decides it doesn't want the new shiny or a court/congressional committee decides the military went about choosing the new shiny the wrong way, which happens often. It's just a ton of financial risk. I guess the new supersonic startups like Boom think they bring enough novelty to the market to justify that risk.

IIRC Boeing's defense and airliner business units are separate. So they really aren't too big to fail: the defense side is insulated from the commercial airliner side.

tsunamifury 3y ago

Commercial airline manufacture is also in our global strategic interest.

adolph 3y ago
Why is that? Could it be that reduced commercial aircraft lead to better outcomes for high speed rail and future suborbital passenger rockets? Is seeing a strategic interest in commercial aircraft a local minima that prevents further improvement?
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  This is some paranoid nonsense. It’s that keeping capacity for one of the leading forms of global travel is a strategic interest. Don’t let your conspiracies get in the way of the obvious. Also I feel like the rail circle jerk is so unearned. Last time I was in London it cost 100 pounds to fly to paris from London downtown airport and 600 to take the Chunnel. How “superior”.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    I don’t see the paranoia or conspiracy in their comment. Plane based infrastructure could be a local minima that we’ve bungled our way into without any need for coordination.
  - adolph 3y ago
    Hey, no paranoid conspiracy intended. Simply thinking out the counterfactuals. Is tying a particular activity to "national interest" itself a form of paranoia? What about passenger aircraft is a strategic interest? For example, the US seems to do ok with little large-scale shipbuilding outside military concerns. People seem to take cruises from the US in ever-larger cruise ships without a domestic capacity for building them. Additionally, no disagreement on my part regarding the high regard people have for hypothetical rail. On the other hand, I'm open to the idea that high capacity terrestrial transportation similar to rail would have cause to improve if airplanes weren't in an optimization sweet spot.

lenerdenator 3y ago

They are to a point. The military side typically uses Boeing's airliner offering as a basis for things like transport, AWACS, and logistics aircraft.

CobaltFire 3y ago
I’m unsure what you mean by transport and logistics; we use civilian airframes with any amount of modifications for only one in production aircraft that I’m aware of (P-8 Poseidon is based on the 737). The TACAMO and AWACS are both based on the 707, which is long since out of production. None of our strategic lift capability (logistics in your comment?) is based on civilian airframes.
- lenerdenator 3y ago
  KC-767, C-40, KC-46, E-4, VC-25.
  - CobaltFire 3y ago
    Thanks! I was in aviation, but primarily tactical and expeditionary. I always forget about the C-40 despite having ridden in one multiple times. The E-4 and VC-25 aren’t really a fair one; you don’t need the divisions to be the same company for their integration (though I suppose it would make it vastly cheaper). We also don’t fly many at all (meaning cost per unit is relatively inconsequential). I also somehow always forget the tankers. Thanks for that. I’ll still maintain the links aren’t necessary. I honestly think a dedicated military platform for all of those would have been a smarter investment and that the current way of modifying airliners is suboptimal.
    - lenerdenator 3y ago
      It's agree it's probably suboptimal, but I don't think anyone's going to be willing to front the cash for development of a new airframe specifically for military/government use. The advantage of the airliner route is you have at least some revenue stream to fall back on if the military decides it doesn't want the new shiny or a court/congressional committee decides the military went about choosing the new shiny the wrong way, which happens often. It's just a ton of financial risk. I guess the new supersonic startups like Boom think they bring enough novelty to the market to justify that risk.