6 ms·
IMHO, two things keep Boeing running afloat: 1) the Airbus production queue is already full for upcoming years, and 2) their military connections and strong lob
by dig1 3y ago
IMHO, two things keep Boeing running afloat: 1) the Airbus production queue is already full for upcoming years, and 2) their military connections and strong lobbying within US airline companies. If there were more competitors in the US, Boeing would have been out of business years ago.
- andix 3y agoAs long as there is no other US plane manufacturer like Boeing, the government will keep them alive somehow.
- speedgoose 3y agoIs it a good time to pitch an aircraft manufacturing startup at Y Combinator?
- flamedoge 3y agoprobably easier to ask Elon to start building airplanes
- nativeit 3y agoYeah, because he’s the beginning and end of prudent reliability.
- andix 3y agoThat was one of my first ideas, because it could actually work out. But it has the potential to become even more problematic than Boeing.
- avgDev 3y agoGreat idea! After all Musk himself he knows more about manufacturing than anyone else.
- randmeerkat 3y ago> probably easier to ask Elon to start building airplanes I’m not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but I had the same thought. I can’t imagine that building an airplane is more complicated than self-landing rockets. He could integrate them with Starlink too so customers on the flight had actual wifi that works.
- MichaelNolan 3y agoThe reusable, self landing rocket is certainly more complicated in some ways. But airplanes, and their engines are probably more complicated in other ways. SpaceX’s rocket engines are an engineering marvel. But they only need to run for minutes at a time. Aircraft engines can run for hours at a time, and for 10s of thousands of hours before a major overhaul is needed. It’s a different kind of complexity. On the starlink side, customers will get that anyways. The existing plane operators will start using it for their internet.
- neuronexmachina 3y agoApparently at the Monaco Grand Prix he was overheard mentioning to Tony Stark his idea for an electric jet.
- speedgoose 3y agoSome years to catch: https://www.airbus.com/en/innovation/low-carbon-aviation/hybrid-and-electric-flight https://www.airbus.com/en/innovation/low-carbon-aviation/hyb...
- wlesieutre 3y agoThey've got at least one already https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/boom-yc-w16-is-building-an-affordable-supersonic-aircraft https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/boom-yc-w16-is-building-an-...
- dgfitz 3y agoI was intriuged so I looked them up. Looks like they're going to start building. This is pretty neat. https://boomsupersonic.com/press-release/boom-supersonic-first-supersonic-airliner-manufacturing-facility https://boomsupersonic.com/press-release/boom-supersonic-fir...
- andix 3y agoThis is actually how Airbus got started. It's a spin off from the Concorde manufacturer.
- javawizard 3y agoOr more accurately, it's a merger of the Concorde manufacturer with two other aerospace companies. Or even more accurately: it's complicated :)
- jemmyw 3y agoSure but also with the backing of two European governments who wanted to save their aerospace industry.
- andix 3y agoExactly what the US will be doing, if Boeing fails.
- TremendousJudge 3y agoI've been reading about them for years. Rolls-Royce was going to make the engine (the most important and innovative part of the plane), they dropped out in 2022, and then they said they are going to make their own engine. That update you posted is from 2022. Latest update they've posted is from June 2023[0], and they only mention some contractors and that the engine doesn't exist yet. I think the whole thing is vaporware, they'll never make a single flight. [0] https://boomsupersonic.com/press-release/boom-supersonic-announces-significant-overture-program-advances https://boomsupersonic.com/press-release/boom-supersonic-ann...
- belter 3y agoMove fast and break things?
- ramesh31 3y ago>Is it a good time to pitch an aircraft manufacturing startup at Y Combinator? The exit plan for all aviation startups in the US is to sell out to Boeing or Lockheed (preferably with an acquihire), or be folded into their supply chain. Zero exceptions.
- neither_color 3y agoCOMAC is already eyeing 10% of Boeing/Airbus' lunch and they've been working on it for years with state-level "help" that resulted in espionage arrests/convictions. Airplanes are extremely complicated.
- addicted 3y agoThe U.S. needs a lot more rail. The government should go the EU way. Build the tracks but lease out the actual operations to private companies that can bid for track and station time. For example, I suspect if Amtrak was forced to compete with private firms for track time in the NorthEast corridor you’d see an explosion of service and a dramatic drop in prices. I suspect flights like Boston-NYC and DC-NYC would reduce dramatically. And maybe even more importantly there would be greater lobbying efforts from private firms to upgrade the tracks and improve the routes. Currently it’s very difficult for Amtrak to push for that because it’s quasi public nature means there is limited profit incentive and no opportunity to raise capital from the private sector. That would change if at least a couple of private firms could get going in the NorthEast corridor.
- t0mas88 3y agoIn most of Europe flying is still nearly always cheaper than taking the train, even with good high speed rail connections. And short EU flights with low cost carriers are a lot cheaper than US domestic flights. The US doesn't have these ultra low cost carriers.
- panick21_ 3y agoNo. The only way Europe is doing it that way is because all the national train companies exist and are simply not going away politically. So now they make it somewhat easier to operate train in the other countries. For the US, it makes sense to have a single main carrier for much of the core system. > For example, I suspect if Amtrak was forced to compete with private firms for track time in the NorthEast corridor you’d see an explosion of service and a dramatic drop in prices. That is most probably wrong. Train operations cost once all the infrastructure is paid for is really not that different government vs private. There is simply not that much to compete on. In fact some of the things that can be improved most, like ticketing and scheduling can be improve more for the costumer if there are less options. Europe has seen very little actual private companies that compete very well and make a significant difference. There are a few things you can differentiate on. Some budget trains just use shit old rolling stock for example. Just finding creative ways of paying people less. The reality is, most of the cost is in setting up infrastructure including signaling, maintaining that, then buying nice trains and training good people. Some private train companies have gotten some investment to buy some nice train sets, but nothing about that is all that amazing. If the government operator had the funds, they could do the same and run the same route. The reality is that competition on fixed rail infrastructure might be worth doing but its not some magical cost cutting tool. Politicians who want to offer their constituents good train service should the the ones lobbying. The reality is, if you have private rail companies, they will mostly lobby for ways to reduce work pay because that where they can compete against Amtrak.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> the government will keep them alive somehow That doesn’t rule out bankruptcy.
- andix 3y agoIf you throw money at a bankrupt company, it's not bankrupt anymore ;) Edit: for example by buying overpriced military equipment, tax benefits, or ...
- bryanlarsen 3y agoThe government will never let Boeing go through Chapter 7. However, Chapter 11 is quite possible. For example, GM went through Chapter 11 in 2009.
- konschubert 3y agoyes but the owners change
- MilStdJunkie 3y agoGovernment will keep BDS alive, in any case, and probably some part of BGS. I would not be surprised to see a Boeing breakup, a la GE. Keep a very watchful eye on whoever might scoop up BCA in such an event. I suspect Comac might try for it, but with a third party so as to not rouse the natives - maybe Embraer but with Chinese money. More likely private capital, though, or some Hyperillionaire from Seatopia. While running through the Spreewald, my troops also enjoy oral readings of such classics as "Libertarian Aryan Rocketmen will Save the West from the Red Horde".
- bryanlarsen 3y ago3) Relations with China are degrading. This will make it more difficult for Western airlines to switch to the Comac C919.
- rob74 3y agoFrom what I gather, the C919 in its current form is not a real threat to Airbus and Boeing - its fuel economy is in line with the previous generation of 737 and A320, and it's not really cheaper to buy either. If you look at the orders for the C919, they're mostly from China or from companies with strong ties to China ("GallopAir is a start-up airline in Brunei owned by Chinese businessman Yang Qiang")...
- chaostheory 3y agoBesides Boeing, that’s the last plane people would want to fly in.
- MilStdJunkie 3y agoUnless Comac floats BCA, then they can move Comac product over here to get rubber stamped by BCA and their FAA muppets. IMAGINE THE MONEY. And death, of course. Hot fiery death.
- t0mas88 3y agoUnited is openly fishing for a discount from Airbus by saying they will switch if they receive an offer where the economics work. But for Airbus there isn't really an incentive to hurt Boeing by offering a large discount. They are better off maximising their own revenue and letting Boeing be Boeing.
- salex89 3y agoAllegedly (from just random messages across different message boards) Airbus is likely nearing their backlogs to a point in time when they plan an A320 successor. Of course, they can still build the current A320 family but their production capacity for it will be decreasing steadily in the future. So they might not need a hell of a lot more orders. But they do want more companies in their team when the successor comes.
- panick21_ 3y agoI for one would question if a company will stop making a incredibly successful product. Their dreams of a A320/A321 successor will likely not be ready as soon as they think. They are increasing production and will continue to try. At the same time they will stretch A220, then they can hopefully move production from A320 to A321.
- bfeynman 3y agobingo, boeing is needed for national sovereignty concerns. Same reasons all other countries have flagship carriers.
- jMyles 3y ago> boeing is needed for national sovereignty concerns. Same reasons all other countries have flagship carriers. Is there a connection between flag carrier airlines and aircraft manufacturing? That never occurred to me, since most flag carriers fly Boeing and Airbus like everybody else. But I guess for larger states, like Aeroflot / Air China, they probably subsidize the local manufacturers? In any case, I'm inclined to push back against your assertion that this is the "same reasons [sic] all other countires" have them - I don't think very many flag carriers are supported because of manufacturing concerns, or that the relationship is similar to the US State's relationship to Boeing. That seems like a stretch to me.
- ramesh31 3y ago>IMHO, two things keep Boeing running afloat Boeing's not going anywhere as long as the US exists. It is the state monopoly on civil aviation. However, allowing these rogue MBAs to run amok with it over the last 20 years has been an absolute disgrace. Any sane, democratic, society that had not been beaten into the dust by regulatory capture and corporate lobbying would have cleaned house on them and sent people to jail after they killed hundreds of people through pure greed. It's a pathetic state we're in now to realize that it's probably going to take another 200+ dead Americans on a domestic scheduled flight before anything even remotely material happens about it.
- idontwantthis 3y agoSerious question: Is it remotely possible for Lockheed Martin to start making passenger jets? They’ve won every 5th gen fighter and bomber contract over Boeing.
- aaronbrethorst 3y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar
- whalesalad 3y agoAt its time the L-1011 was the most advanced passenger jet in the skies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar
- idontwantthis 3y agoYep I know they used to as Lockheed. I have no idea if they’ve thought about it since then.
- whalesalad 3y agoVery hard to break into the boeing/airbus duopoly. All the supporting infrastructure: maintenance engineers, parts, pilot training, etc... is all heavily invested in those two. An airline would have to make a substantial investment to transition off, and their margins are already pretty thin. Not to mention most of them have large backlogs of orders for planes that haven't even been built yet. As a manufacturer would need to heavily subsidize the transition in order to make it work. Would take a tremendous amount of capital and many years to pull it off. The juice is not worth the squeeze.
- dangus 3y agoThis is really a stretch of the situation. Boeing models are commercially competitive and they share a marketshare that is just about equal to Airbus.